The Ancient DOCTRINE OF THE Church of England Maintained in its Primitive Purity.  
CONTAINING A Justification of the XXXIX. ARTICLES of the Church of ENGLAND, against Papists and Schismatics.  
The Similitude and Harmony betwixt the Roman Catholic, and the Heretic, with a Discovery of their Abuses of the Fathers, in the First XVI. Ages, and the many Heresies introduced by the Roman Church.  
Together with a Vindication of the Antiquity and Universality of the Ancient Protestant Faith.  
Written long since by that Eminent and Learned Divine DANIEL FEATLY D. D.  
Seasonable for these Times.  Leo Mag. Ser. 1. de Epiph. 
Insanis veritas scandalum est & caecis Doctoribus fit Caligo quod lumen est.  
LONDON, Printed for Austin Rice, and are to be sold at the Crown in Saint Paul's Churchyard. 1660.   

TO THE RIGHT Reverend Father in God, THOMAS, By Divine Providence, Lord B. of DURESME, etc.  
May it please your good Lordship;  
AFTER I had taken a resolution to apologise for my departed friend, and make a kind of hedge to his Via tuta, I seriously bethought myself, who would maimtaine the fence, by one so made; and patronise this patronage of that his worthy work. For though the cause in hand, be the truth of God; and the person whom I undertake to defend against the Calumniations of his Adversary, be now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, out of the eye of 
(a) Horat. Od. 14. l. 3. Sublatum ex oculis quaerimus invidi. Ovid. l. 3. De Pont Pascitur in vivis livor post fata quiescit. Et juvenal. Sat. 1. Nulli gravus est percussus Achilles, aut multum quaesitus Hylas.  envy, and the reach of malice; yet I well know, that neither the consideration of the one, nor regard to the other, will prove any Amulet against the poison of the 
(b) Aristoph. in Plut. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, id est, annulis medicinalis aut antidotus.  Sycophants tooth, or venom of the Detractors tongue. Death I grant, which sets a period to all suits in Courts, should grant a Supersedeas of Course, against all Arrests and molestations of them who have taken Sanctuary in the grave; and therefore 
(c) Brusonius' facet et exemp. l. 1. Solon legem condidit, quâ prohibuit in defunctos maledicta consicere. Et Theodorus Chius censuit Pompeium in egypt, admittendum addens Mortuos non mordere. Erosm. Apoph. p. 374.  Selon enacted a Law, whereby, under a great penalty, he prohibited any to cast any foul aspersion on the dead. And 
(d) Bruson. ibid., Asinius Pollio cum orationes condidisset in Plancum quas post mortem ejus legendas ser●abat audlit à Planco, cum mortuus non nisi larvas puguare.  Plancus sharply reproved the folly of Asinius Pollio (who threatened to stigmatize him after his death, by publishing his declamations against him) saying, None but Hobgoblins fight with ghosts. Notwithstanding this privilege granted to the dead, even by the Law of Nature; I cannot remember without horror, nor express without grief, what the Acts and Monuments of the Church, present to the view of all men, concerning Popish malice surviving life itself, and committing inhuman (not only unchristian) outrages on the corpses, and not less upon the works of Orthodox Professors now with God. The blessed Martyr, Saint 
(e) Cypr. de lap. & Ep. l. 2. Saevitum est in plagas, saevitum est in vulnera: & in servis Dei non jam membra torquebantur sed vulnera: manabat pro fletibus sanguis & pro lachrymis cruor e semiustulatis visceribus defluebat.  Cyprian, setting the cruelty of the heathen, as it were, upon the Rack, could strain no higher after he had said, These Savage Persecutors wreak their fury on the bruised, and battered servants of Christ; and torture not so much their members as their wounds. Yet there is a Plus ultra in the enraged malice of our Romish Adversaries, Saevitum est in cadavera, saevitum est in ossa, saevitum est in cineres. For they 
(f) Vide hist. de mort. Spalatensis. M. S.  Arraign the dead, they sue against them an Ejection out of their long homes, and inter them in 
(g) Acts and Monuments, volume 3. pag. 778. The body of Peter Martyr's wife, at Oxford, was taken up by Doctor Martial out of her grave, in the Church of Saint Frideswids, and buried in a dunghill.  Lestals; nay they burn their 
(h) Acts and Monuments, vol. 1. p. 606. The body, and bones of john Wickliff, by the Decree of the Synod of Constance, were taken up & burned, 41. years after he was buried, in his own Parish at Lutterworth, and his ashes taken & thrown into the river; and so was he resolved into three elements, Earth, Fire, and Water: thinking thereby, utterly to extinguish and abolish both his name and Doctrine for ever. Acts & Monuments, volume 3. pag. 771. The Vice chancellor taking with him a public Notary, bound the Parishioners with an oath, to dig up Paulus Fargius his bones: and received the like oath of Roger Davis, and William hazel, for doing the like with Martin Bucer, when they came to the place of execution, the Chests were set up an end, with the dead bodies in them, and fastened on both sides with stakes, and bound to the post with a long ●on chain, fire being forthwith put to, as soon as it began to flame round about, a great sort of books that were condemned with them, were cast into the same.  bones, and strew their ashes on the rivers.  Tantene animis coelestibus irae? 
Lo the bowels of them who most boast of works of Mercy, 
(i) Edmund Camp. rat. 10. Clavinum & has principes unum coelum capere non potest. Et Fishers resp. to Doctor White, and Doctor Featley. c. 2. p. 152. Out of the unity of the Romish Church, no salvation. Et Coster resp. ad refut. Osiander proposit. 8. wisheth himself damned with Lucifer, if ever any Lutheran were saved.  towards the bodies of true Professors, whilom, Temples of the holy Ghost: yet their charity to their souls, exceeds this; for these they peremptorily exclude out of heaven, and send them pellmell, without Bail, or Mainprize, to the dungeon of hell; and there sentence them to more exquisite 
(k) Coccleus hist. Hussit. l. 2. Multo graviora esse crediderim Wicklefi tormenta quam sint apud inferos, vel scelera tissimorum hominum judae proditoris Christi, & Neronis Christianorum persecutoris.  torments, than either Nero the monster of men, or judas the betrayer of Christ himself, endure. Of this strain is the Knights 
(l) Flood, Spect. c. 17. per tot. Papists dying in their Reliligion saved, Protestants damned.  Alastor, with whom I am to deal; whose perfect character your Lordship may see in Sozimus, drawn to the life by Isidorus Pelusiota, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as your Lordship may find likewise, an exact Emblem of his book in Pliny his description of the 
(m) Plin. nat. hist. l. 9 c. 36.  Bear's whelp, Jnformis caro sine oculis, sine pilis, ungues tantum prominent? In which consideration, 
(n) Ben. Syr. Apoph. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Sa●t●ns nutu stultus fuste Drus. in Alph. v●t. sap. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  I thought it most needful to make choice of a Patron of eminent quality, who with his Authority, might stop the mouth of such railing Rabshakahs; and if need be, lend them a smart blow with his Crozure, as 
(o) Hom. Is. s. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Ulysses did Thersites with his golden Sceptre. Now, although the Knight wanted not many Noble and worthy friends, and some of your Lordship's Sacred order, who honoured him living, and would willingly have afforded him their protection being dead. Yet two reasons were prevalent with me, to dedicate this Apology to your Lordship. First, because none of your Lordship's rank now living, to my knowledge hath so often entered into Lists with the Romish Adversaries, nor served so long in this sacred Leguer as your Lordship; in so much, that at my abode in France, now 25. years ago: where I saw the 
(p) Fitzg: Hector Romulidum cecidit sub Achille juello. Rhemensi Hannibali Scipio Fulcu● erat. Tum cor papicolis Rainoldus fregit in Hatto. Alba Stapletonum jugera deinde premunt: Ac ●edes nostris prerium Deringe pa●yris. Net gemmae Renues Annulus ire comes. Abfuit Elysiis tantum sua Laurea lucis. Te Deus in lu●os tranflulit ergo suos.  Arms of other Champions of the truth blazoned in a Latin Epigram, I descried your Lordships among them in an apposite Anagram, made by a renowned Pastor of the French Church.  THOMAS MORTONIUS 
 homo Martis notus. 
With this, or the like Euloge.  Quassanda est istâ Pelias hasta manu. 
The other reason was, your Lordship in your last, no less unimitable, then unanswerable 
(q) Mort. institut. sacram. l. 3. c. 3. p. 158. Of Rom. Transub. This sentence I have seen lately canvased by a jesuit against a judicious and religious Knight, falsely imputing unto him divers falsities, etc. And l. 7. c. 7. pag. 545. Your jesuit in his book of Spectacles made in confutation of a judicious and religious Knight, among many other of his Paradoxes and Absurdities etc.  masterpiece, held up your buckler over the Knight then living, more than once, and ward off the jesuits blows; and therefore I doubt not but that your Lordship will now bestride him being dead, and save him from all further injury. For myself, as nothing induced me to make this supplement to his Apology, but the love of God's truth, and the truth of my friends love: so I hope that all who love the truth in sincerity, upon the impartial perusal hereof, will do the Knight honour, and me right. For envy itself cannot deny that he hath much advantaged the common cause, both by convincing the Adversaries, in all the main points of difference between us, out of their own mouths, and discovering more at large then any the mystery of their Indices expurgatorij●; wherein though they profess to correct only their own writers, and that but from the year 1518. yet the Knight hath traced them upwards, and detected their corruption of all sorts of Writers in all former ages: whereby the judicious Reader may observe such indirect dealing in our Adversaries towards us, as 
(r) Melancth. orat. Tom. 1. de Odd Sophist. Cum triginta Tyranni, legem tulissent, ne quis è suo Catalogo in dict â causà necaretur Critias tamen Therammenem collegam suum, cujus nomen in Catalogo scriptum erat, in dict â causâ interfici jussit cumque Therammenes legis occilium peteret, respondet, legem scriptam esse de iis quorum nomina sunt in Catalogo, se vero jam Therammenes nomen in Catalogo delevisse.  Critias in the Athenian State practised against Therammenes: there being a law enacted in the time of the 30. Tyrants at Athens, that none of them should be put to death without a legal trial, whose names were written in a certain Catalogue, Critias bearing a spleen to Therammenes, first blots his name out of the Catalogue, and then proceeds to sentence him to death; and when Therammenes pleaded the privilege of the law, as being one of the thirty Governors, whose name was set down in the Catalogue; Critias answered, that the benefit of the law was restrained to those whose names were in the Catalogue; but that he had newly struck out the name of Therammenes. Let any that hath a single eye, judge whether the proceed of our Romish Adversaries against us, are not altogether as injurious as this of Critias towards his Colleague Therammenes. First, they raze out our Records, and burn our writings, and then nonsuit us for want of Evidence. Secondly, they blot and cut out by their Indices Expurgatorij, the most pregnant testimonies of Antiquity for us, and then charge us with false Allegations, because, forsooth, they agree not with their castrated Copies. I freely confess that if any man shall search all the Knights quotations, especially out of the Romish Writers, in the latter corrected, or rather corrupted Editions of them, or look upon him through the jesuits Spectacles unrubbed, he will think him very foul in some Allegations at least: but let him inquire into the more Ancient and uncorrupted Copies, or look upon the Knight's writings without the jesuits false glasses, and glosses, or even through those Spectacles he hath fitted for him in this last Pamphlet; as they are now wiped and cleansed by me, he will find him a most fair and ingenuous Writer.  
There is no text of Scripture among many scores, no Allegation of Antiquity among many hundreths, vellicated by the jesuit, which is not here vindicated: no argument seeming to be blunted, which is not sharpened, and a new edge set on it; no paint, colour, or varnish laid by the jesuit on the rotten Pillars of Popery, which is not here scraped out, or washed away. And thus at the length the Case for the Spectacles begun by the Knight is finished: on which I crave leave to imprint your Lordship's Name and Arms; entreating your Lordship to accept this Dedication as an indication of my sincere love to my deceased friend, and withal an acknowledgement of that great debt of thanks I own your Lordship for your Lordships many undeserved favours, which I am able no other ways to discharge, then by underwriting myself,  
Your Lordship's most humbly and affectionately Devoted, DA. FEATLEY.   

The CONTENTS of the first Part.  

In the Epistle to I. R.  
FAlsifications objected by the jesuit, answered and retorted. pag. 2.  
Personal succession of visible Professors is no certain note of a true Church. pag. 3.  
The second Commandment is moral, and the jesuits leaving it out of the Decalogue, is unexcusable. pag. 8.   

In the Answer to the Preface.  
The jesuits answer is full of railing, slanders, sophisms, and tergiversations. pag. 16.  
CHAP. I. The Articles of the Roman Creed, published by Pope Pius the fourth, were never anciently received. pag 25.  
The 39 Articles of the Church of England justified. pag. 30.  
Papists teach, that the Pope hath power to create new Articles of Faith. pag. 33.  
Many Doctrines of Popery are new, by the confession of Papists themselves. pag. 38.  
Protestants have a certain rule of Faith, Papists have not. pag. 45  
The Roman translation of the Bible, is most corrupt. pag. 51.  
Three sorts of corruptions, and abuses of ancient Fathers. 1. By foisting bastard Treatises, & entitling them to the Fathers. 2. By falsifying their undoubted Treatises by additions, detractions, or mutations. 3. By alleging passages and places out of them, which are not extant in their Works: and of all these three kinds, Romanists are proved guilty. pag 64.  
Corruptions, and falsifications of ancient Writers, by Papists: 

In the first Age. pag. 65.  
In the 2. Age. pag. 67.  
In the 3. pag. 68  
In the 4. pag. 73.  
In the 5. pag. 77.  
In the 6. pag. 89.  
In the 7. pag. 90.  
In the 8. pag. 92.  
In the 9 pag. 105.  
In the 10. pag. 109.  
In the 11. pag. 110.  
In the 12. pag. 111.  
In the 13. pag. 112.  
In the 14. pag. 114.  
In the 15. pag. 115.  
In the 16. pag. 122.    
Of implicit Faith, and blind Obedience, maintained by Papists. pag. 143.  
CHAP. II. Papists their bitterness against reformed Churches is causeless. pag. 148.  
The definition of Heretics agreeth to Papists, but no way to Protestants. pag. 151.  
Rome confessed to be Babylon, by learned Romanists. pag. 157.  
CHAP. III. Cassander and Caesenus are justified. pag 164.  
Corruption in Faith as well as manners, are confessed to have been in the Roman Church by the learned of that party. pag. 165.  
The Council of Trent intended a reformation of Faith as well as manners. pag. 173.  
CHAP. IU. The Catholic Faith is not so indivisible, but that a man may renounce it in part, though not in all, as many learned Romanists have renounced the Trent Faith in part. pag. 178.  
Priest's marriage is lawful. pag. 181.  
CHAP. V Romanists prefer their own interpretations of Scriptures, before the ancient Fathers. pag. 188.  
CHAP. VI Many errors have crept into the Church, whose first Authors cannot be named. pag. 191.  
The difference between Heresy and Apostasy. pag 196.  
CHAP. VII. The petty degree of the Romish Faith is drawn from the ancient Heretics, namely; the Osseni Helcheseite, the Capernaites, the Manichees, the A●gelici, the Collyridians', the Tacians, and the Cathorists. pag. 219.  
CHAP. VIII. The Antiquity, and Universality of the Protestant Faith in general is proved by the testimonies of our learned Adversaries. pag. 253.  
There are but 22 Canonical books of the old Testament, as is proved by the testimonies of the ancient Fathers, both of the Greek and Latin Church. pag 276.    

Errata in the first Part.  
PAge 42. line 8. read his. lin. 17. r. authority, in marg. l. 2 r. ad Dard. p. 57 lin. 11. r. their foreseen. p. 66. l. 4. r. the deep. p. 75. l. 20. r. Angles. p 92 in mar. l. 8. r. alius, in text, l. 29. r. rejected. p. 93. l. 16. r. serve. p. 109. l. 23. r. making him speak. p. 131. in mar. l. 12. r. veniali. p. 138. l. 25. r. very corruptly. p. 139. l. 25. in marg. 1. repurgata: p. 153. l. 22. r. homoousians. p. 164 in marg. l. 25. r. vicesimi terrii. p. 173. l. 23. r. operierunt. p. 189. in mar. l. 17 sequuntur. p. 218. l. 2. r. Vitalian. p. 219. l. 18. in marg. r. regnum. p 224. in marg. l. 10. r. minus. p. 248. in marg. l. 12. r. curvat. & l. 14. r. pronus. & l. 18. r. iudico. p. 251. l. 6. r. argument. p. 255. l. 3. r. ingenuously. p 257. l. 12. r. true body. & l. 21. r. is. & l. 22. deal and. p. 270. l. 4. r. look. p. 271. l. 29. r. of the. p. 273. l. 3. deal to the p. 279. l. 22. r. when.   


To J. R. AUTHOR OF THE BOOK CALLED A pair of Spectacles.  
I Received a Treatise from you, (Mr. J. R.) not long since published against me by the title of A pair of Spectacles, or, An Answer to a book called Via tuta, The safe way: wherein you say the book is showed to be a Labyrinth of Errors, and the Author a blind Guide.  
To what end your Spectacles were made for a blind man I cannot tell; for sure I am, if I were blind, a pair of your Spectacles could not make me see: howsoever if the indifferent Reader will look but upon the Frontispiece of your own book, he shall easily discern that your glasses are deceitful, and do justly occasion a Writ of Error to be brought against yourself, for making that to seem in S. Austin, your first Author, which is not. Your words are these: 
Qui autem praetergreditur regulam fidei, non accedit in viâ, sed recedit de viâ. Aug. in Joh. Tract. 98. Tom. 9 p. 487.  He that goeth besides the rule of faith (which is the Catholic Church) doth not come in the way, but goeth out of the way: wherein you have added these words of your own (viz.) which is the Catholic Church, in the same character with S. Austin: and in lieu of Scripture you pretend the Church to be the rule of Faith; whereas that ancient Father assures us, 
Civitas Dei credit Scriptures— Undè fides ipsa concepta est, ex quâ justus vivit. Aug. de Civit. Dei, l. 19 c. 18. Tom. 5. Sancta Scriptura nostrae doctrinae regulam figit. Idem de bono Viduitatis. Tom. 4. c. 1.  that from the holy and canonical Scriptures, that faith is form and bred by which the just do live. Nay more, he expressly professeth with us, that the holy Scripture doth fix or settle the rule of our doctrine. And thus in your first citation you falsify S. Austin, and go besides the rule of faith and good manners also, and by stumbling at the threshold, you show yourself to be the blind guide you speak of in the first page, and the first place.  
I proceed to your Dedicatory Epistle; first, you begin to descant upon my name, in paralleling the words Lyend and Lie, howsoever (say you) The title of Sir will be left for you.  
These be the first flowers of your eloquence, and they savour sweetly. Now if I should repay you in your own language, and show you what men are branded with the letter (R) which stands for your name; if I should shoot bacl (I say) your arrows, even bitter words, into your own bosom, would it not show rather want of matter than proof of doctrine? If you delight to sit in the seat of the scornful, it shall be my comfort to tread in the steps of my Saviour, who when he was reviled, reviled not again. To let pass your bitter reproaches of my learning and breeding, I will come to the matter.  
You have not stated the question (say you) fully and truly, for you were to show the visibility of the Church by persons in all ages. Then you demand of me where the Church was, which S. Paul called the house of God, and pillar of truth; and thus you prescribe me my weapons, and teach me how to fight.  
Touching the visibility of the Church, it is not to be confined within the narrow compass of an Epistle; and therefore I will answer you and your Jesuits challenge at large in place convenient: and as touching your demand where the Church was, which is called the pillar of truth, I answer in brief, not in Rome, but in Ephesus; for otherwise it might seem incongruous, that the Apostle should exhort Timothy to walk circumspectly in the Church of God, because the Church of Rome was the pillar and firmament of truth. And therefore the Turk may better allege this place to prove Mah mets religion, being now subject to his power, than you to justify the Romish religion, because Ephesus was the pillar of truth.  
You proceed, and by way of prevention you tell me the controversy is not so much of the doctrine as of the persons: and then you conclude simply in the very same page, The question is not of the doctrine, but of the persons. Oportet esse memorem: I will but let you see your contradiction, I quarrel it not, only I pray you tell me in the words of soberness and truth, did ever any wise man (except yourself) undertake to prove the true Church by the visibility of the persons? May not Jew's and Heretics by the same reason claim a true Church, because they had visible persons in all ages?  
But say you this hath been the way which the holy Fathers have taken, either in proving the Catholic faith, or disproving of heresies; and for your Assertion, you cite Tertullian, Irenaeus, Cyprian, Optatus and Augustine: give me leave to examine your Authors, for as yet you have produced but one ancient Father, and him you have falsified in the Frontispiece of your book.  
Touching your first Author, 
Tertull. prescript. c. 32. & lib. 3. Car. advers. Martion.  Tertullian, (in the first place cited by you) he demonstrates two ways how to discern the Church: first, by showing some Apostle or Apostolical person to have founded it; next, by the conformity of the doctrine to the Apostles: and in his third book against Martion (which is your second citation) he hath nothing at all for your purpose.  
Touching your second Author, 
Iren. l. 3. c. 1, 2, 3. & l. 4. c. 43, 45, 46.  Irenaeus, he is expressly against you; for in the first chapter and third book (cited by you) he saith, By the will of God they have delivered the Gospel to be the pillar and foundation of truth. In the second he saith, that when Heretics are convinced by the Scriptures, they fall to accuse them, as if they were not right, or of authority, and that they are ambiguous and doubtful. In the third he proveth the truth of the Church by the conformity of doctrine to the Apostles, not by the visibility, as you pretend. In his fourth book cited by you, he shows that bare succession is no note of the Church; and in his 45. chapter, which you quote, there is nothing that maketh for your question. And lastly, in the 46. chapter he proveth that the New Testament is as severe against fornication as the Old, or rather more: and this may touch the freehold of that Church which dispenseth with Stews; but of the point in question he speaks nothing at all.  
Touching your third Author, S. Cyprian, 
Cypr. Ep. 52. & 76.  in the 52. Epistle cited by you, he persuades Antonianus rather to adhere to Cornelius than Novatianus: and in his 76. Epistle alleged by you, he shows that Novatianus succeeding none in that See, was ordained by himself, and therefore could be no true Bishop; but as touching the controversy in question, Ne gry quidem.  
Touching your fourth Author, Optatus, 
Optat. advers. Parmen. lib. 2.  he handleth not the question, neither maketh any thing at all for you.  
Lastly, 
August. Psal. 2. part. Don. & Ep. 165. & de Utilit. credendi. c. 7.  touching S. Austin you cite the second Psalm, and there is nothing handled of the question: you cite likewise his 165. Epistle, wherein he declares a succession of Bishops from the Apostles time to Anastasius: 
Si ordo Episcoporum succedentium considerandus est. Ep. 165. p. 751. Preculdubio ab Ecclesiâ Catholicâ sumendum exordium. De Utilit. credendi. c. 7. Idem contr. Cresc. l. 1. c. 33.  If (saith he) an orderly succession of Bishops is to be considered.  
Yea but S. Austin (say you) particularly proves the question, where he tells his friend Honoratus, he must begin his enquiry from the Catholic Church.  
He that told the Manichees, we must take our Exordium from the Church, told the Donatists likewise, we must resort to that Church for the resolution of our faith, which the sacred Scriptures undoubtedly demonstrate to be the true Church: for in them (saith he) we have known Christ, 
Idem Ep. 166.  in them we have known the Church. If you can derive your succession in person and doctrine, from Christ and his Apostles, we will answer you as sometimes S. Austin answered Petilian the Donatist: 
Idem contr. l. Petil. l. 2. c. 85.  Whether of us be Schismatics we or you? ask you not me, I will not ask you, let Christ be asked, that he may show us his own Church.  
After these several passages you return again to your first Author Tertullian, 
Tertull. prescript. c. 19  and with him you conclude; where it shall appear that there is the truth of Christian discipline and faith, there shall be the truth of Scriptures and Expositions. And from hence you infer, that we are first to seek the persons that profess the faith, that is, the Church. Whereas in truth his testimony doth rather prove the persons by the doctrine, than the doctrine by the persons, and this is most agreeable to his own Assertion in the third chapter, 
Idem c. 3.  Ex personis probamus fidem, an ex fide personas? As if he should say, we plainly prove the persons by the doctrine, not the doctrine by the persons.  
Now put on your Spectacles, and take a review of your Authors. The first maketh nothing for you, the second is expressly against you, the third speaks not to the point in question, the fourth and fifth handle the question, but not at all to your advantage, or our prejudice: and thus you have produced fourteen several places out of the ancient Fathers in one page, and all either impertinently, or falsely, or directly against yourself: by which the Reader may conjecture what is like to be the issue of your whole work, who have so grossly falsified so many authorities in your Epistle, and before the entrance into the body of your book.  
From your lame proofs of the Church's authority, you proceed to the justification of your maimed commandments, viz. in leaving out the second, and altering the fourth in your Breviaries and Psalters. You say you print them in your Bibles, and therefore they are not absolutely left out, as long as they are elsewhere: Mute quod scimus. It is true the words are contained in your Bibles. But Dic quod rogamus, why do you not publish God's commandments as he wrote them? Admit that in your Catechisms you should set down this form of Baptism, I baptise thee in the name of the Father, and leave out the Son, and the Holy Ghost, would it be sufficient to say it is not absolutely left out, because it is contained in the Bible? Show me the man amongst your Papalins that dare alter a King's command or a Popes Breve, and will your Church attempt more against the Precepts of God, than against a Pope's Bull or a King's Proclamation? But the truth is, and you know it too well, if the second precept were expressly set down in your Psalters, the common people would be too busy in expostulating the cause why Image-worship should be commanded by the Church, and yet condemned by God's word.  
Yea, but it is part of the first commandment (say you) or otherwise it is ceremonial.  
Let it be one or other, since God thought it needful to be added, how dare you leave it out? 
Deut. 4.2.  It was the voice of God himself, You shall not add unto the word which I command, neither shall you diminish aught from it, that you may keep the commandment of the Lord your God. Again, how is it a part of the first if it be ceremonial, when the first is agreed on all hands to be natural & moral? The truth is, it is not ceremonial, but moral, and plainly distinct from the former; for the first forbids the true worship of any false god, the second forbids any false worship of the true God; and howsoever Peresius and Catharinus, and you for company, would have gladly the Law against Images to be positive and ceremonial, and so to cease at the coming of Christ; yet your own Bellarmine disavows it with a Non probatur: 
Bellarm. de Imag. l. 2. c. 7.  This opinion is not allowed of us, both for the reasons made against the Jews, and for that Irenaeus, Tertullian, S. Cyprian, and S. Austin, do all teach that the commandments, excepting the Sabbath, are a Law wholly natural and moral.  
After your Apology for your maimed commandments, you grow so virulent, as if the poison of Asps were under your lips, you cry out, I notoriously falsify some Authors, and impertinently allege others; you charge me with execrable perjury, you say, I am a framer of lies, and I offend in all kind of falsehood: and lastly, you conclude the book to be none of mine, but some Ministers, because you hear it from some, that I scarce skill of ordinary Latin.  
I profess for my learning I cannot boast of it; I do willingly assume that saying of Origen, 
Gratias ago Deo, quod ignorantiam meam non ignoro. Orig. 1 Cor. 1.27. Psal. 82.  I am not ignorant of my ignorance: but let me tell you, as in God's cause I seek no praise, so I fear no reproach; for God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; nay more, out of the mouth of babes & sucklings he hath ordained strength, to still the enemy and the avenger. And howsoever seemingly you condemn me for ignorance, yet I am verily persuaded that if I were more ignorant than you make me, you would love me the more: for your Church commends Ignorance for the mother of Devotion: and the rather, because your own Clemangis tells us, 
Nich. Clemang. c. 6.  before the days of reformation, Many Priests who had cure of souls, were sent to their flocks, not from their studies, or from the school, but from the plough, and they understood as much Latin as Arabic; nay, they could not read, and that which was shameful, they could not distinguish an Alpha from a Beta. Neither can it be denied, that many Popes have dispensed with ignorant men, who per saltum, without any learning, have leapt into a Bishopric. Pope Paul the third created Robertus Venantius Archbishop of Armach, for two special qualities; 
Tum quod Missam bellè canere, tum quia cursu Veredario in equo vehi peritè diceretur. Gentil. Exam. Concil. Trid. l. 2. sess. 1. p. 33.  the one, because he could sing Mass sweetly; the other, because he could ride a Post horse skilfully. And in the latter ages it was so usual to admit any Ignoramus's into a Bishopric, that when our King Edward the third solicited Pope Clement the sixth, to create Thomas Hartfield Bishop of Durham, notwithstanding the Cardinals cried out he was a Layman, and an Idiot, the Pope replied, If the King of England had entreated for his Ass, 
Si Rex Angliae pro asino suo supplicâsset, votum suum hac vice obtinuisset. Walsing. citat. apud Antig. Brit. in vita foh. Uffordi. And Godwin in his Catal. of Bishops, p. 526. Eras. Encom. Mor. Heb. 7.3.  he should have obtained it at that time. To come nearer to the times; Julius the third made the keeper of his monkey a Mass-priest, and I presume he had small store of Latin. The Friar who would prove from the words of Christ, An non decem facti sunt mundi? that God made ten worlds, had scrace skill of ordinary Latin. And lastly, he was Sr. John Lack-Latine, who would prove that Melchisedeck offered salt with bread and wine, because he read in the text, Rex Salem, which is, the King of peace.  
I speak not this by way of recrimination, but to let you know, how well you and your fellows are read in the two titles of the Law, De maledicis, & De Clerico promoto per saltum.  
Take therefore from me what learning you will, distrain it, and impound it at your pleasure, I will never trouble you with Replevin: only I say with S. Austin, Seek others of more learning, but beware of them that presume of learning.  
And whereas you conceive a Minister made my book, and I bear the name only for to countenance the work: If I had received help from some in this kind, you need not blame me for it, for it is ordinary with your men, to have whole Colleges join their helping hand in defence of your cause. But in answer to your supposal, and to vindicate our Ministers from those great aspersions of ignorance, of corruption, of obstinacy, of perjury, laid unto their charge (as Authors of the work) I witness a true confession before God, who knows I lie not, a Minister was so fare from making my book, 
Via Tuta. Via Devia.  that I neither had help from Clergyman nor Layman, for composing or making either of my books.  
Let it suffice for me to have said the truth, which although it appear never so simple, yet it is able to remove a mountain of learning: if there be in me, I say not any talon, but only a mite of a talon, my prayer unto God is, & ever was, it may be bestowed wholly to the honour of his truth, and the benefit of his Church. And whereas you charge me with obstinacy and malice (which, say you, is the true cause of all my errors) let me tell you, if I were in an error, you have not the patience to show it me, but by bitterness and railing. Your learning haply may work miracles in the ears of the unlearned that cannot judge; but it cannot turn darkness into light, nor error into truth. And although your bitterness might justly occasion that malice, of which you accuse me; yet it is so fare from my thoughts, that I pity you, and in requital of your pains, I pray for you: and that which S. Paul said of the Israelites, 
Rom. 10.1.  I wish to the Romanists and members of your Church, Brethren, my hearts desire and prayer to God is that they may be saved.  
But (say you) these were not your first fruits, for you translated and published Bertram, an obscure Author, with a preface of your own, and thereby gave sufficient trial of your ignorance and corruption, whereof you were convinced by (O.E.) but never cleared yourself of so foul a tax.  
It is true that some ten years since I caused Bertram to be reprinted, and published with a preface before it; and it is as true, that he being a Romish Priest taught our doctrine of the Eucharist above eight hundred years since, and therefore by way of prevention, you term him an obscure Author, though he were famous in his time.  
As touching the foul tax of ignorance and corruption, in false translating it (wherewith you charge me) you are much mistaken; for I never translated it, but only reprinted the old translation: this both he and you might have seen in the Frontispiece of the book, in these words: Translated and imprinted in the English tongue, Anno Dom. 1549. and now the third time published: so that the Translation into English was made before I was borne. Again, in the end of my preface you shall find these words, Pity it were but this lamp should receive a new light by reprinting him, which the iniquity of the time had almost extinguished. Now I pray, Sir, what cause was there of any answer to your nameless Author, or rather what cause was there of his and your bitterness, in charging me with false translating, with ignorance and corruption? I profess I am not ignorant that your men are guilty of many such false accusations (ad faciendum populum) to make your Proselytes believe, that all our books are full of lies; of whom I may truly say, as S. Austin sometimes spoke of the Donatists, When they cannot by sly and wily cozenage creep like Asps, with open professed violence they rage like Lions.  
Lastly (you say) that an Answer to my book hath hitherto been deferred, because no man of learning would think it worth his pains to make any.  
Let me tell you, I have received three printed answers to Via tuta, besides two written copies from nameless Authors: the first was from a Merchant, and that is called Via verè tuta: the second from a Priest, and that is called A pair of Spectacles to see the way: the third is from a Clerk, and that is termed A Whetstone of Reproof. The first printed Author is termed Mr. John Heigham, whose Treatise savours too much of blasphemy and ribaldry: the second is Mr. John Floyd, whose work is full of bitterness and subtlety: the third is Tom Tell troth (for so he terms himself) whose pamphlet is fraught with all childishness and impertinency. Now if none of these were men of learning, as you confess (because no learned man would take the pains to answer it) what may I think of your wisdom, which hath returned an answer full of railing accusations (such as the Angel of God would not have brought against the Devil himself)? I say, in regard your bitter lines are rather a libel without a name, than a Christian and moderate confutation, I might well have declined a replication to it, and have told you with S. Jerome, Your bitterness deserves rather an answer with scorn, 
Magis indignationem scribentis quam studium. Hieron. advers. Vigil.  than a refutation in earnest. But when I considered it was the fruit of your religion, and common practice of your Church, that for want of matter you commonly fall upon the person, I resolved with myself to call you to a sober reckoning, that the truth of God might appear, and that by your own bitterness, you might better discern the character of a bad cause, and an evil spirit.  
For a conclusion take but a short view of your bitter reproaches: you term me a blind Guide, & a Ministerial Knight; you say my book is a Labyrinth of errors; you cry out my surname hath the two first letters of a lie; you say the title of Sir will be left for me; you condemn me of execrable perjury; you affirm I am a framer of lies, and abound in all kind of falsehood; you tell me, I scarce understand Latin, and it is conceived a Minister made my book; you charge me with obstinacy, with malice, with corruption, with ignorance, with false translating; you proclaim the fearful judgements of God upon me for perverting souls, and as if I were passed all grace, you say I am not capable of any good advice; yet at last (as if you would make me some amends for all your accusation) you conclude: I forbear to say any more, resting howsoever your well-wishing friend.  
Surely you have said enough, and you do well to forbear to say more; for I think the words of your Epistle are so sufficiently dipped in lie and gall, that they will serve for your whole work: but I pardon you, and shall return you no other answer than the Archangel gave to Satan, 
Judas vers. 9  The Lord rebuke you: only let me tell you, I cannot think you a well-wishing friend, whose heart and tongue is full of cursing and bitterness; for I may truly say of you as Cato sometimes said of Lentulus, 
Dicam falli eos qui negant os habere. Seneca.  They are much deceived that deny you to have a mouth (and a foul one too.) In the mean time you must remember that for your idle and vain words you must give account to God; and for your fifteen several falsifications you must give an account to your Reader. And thus by way of Traverse and denial to all other things impertinently alleged, I answer No: to your railing I answer nothing.   

AN ANSWER TO HIS PREFACE to the Reader.  
Good Christian Reader,  
FIrst thou shalt observe, that the author of the Spectacles chief aim is either by shifts and cavils to outface the truth, or by Sophistry and bitter words to darken it: one while he cries down my book, and slights it in such a scornful manner, as if it were not worth the answering; 
Pag. 20●.  another while he complains that there is no place in the whole book, which is not either falsely or impertinently alleged: one while he proclaims, that my endeavours are poor indeed, and fare short of what is requisite in writing books; another while he professeth, It hath somewhat in it which may draw away an honest-minded man, and that his Catholic friend was stumbled at it. Now what is the reason of these impertinent excursions and contradictions? It was the observation of ancient Maxentius: Heretics when they find themselves not able to yield a reason of their wilfulness, than they fall into plain railing. And certainly such is the bitterness of this Author, that were I persuaded Pythagoras' transmigration of souls into other men's bodies, had been true; I should believe that the soul of Rabshekah had been transported into his body: for otherwise if he had but a grain of charity, he would never spurn a blind man (for so he terms me) when Christian charity teaches him another lesson. If he were well versed in Antiquities, he would never have cited so many places of ancient Fathers falsely and impertinently in one page, and yet condemn others of ignorance (and falsification) in the Fathers. If he were well read in the Book of Wisdom (I mean, in the sacred Scriptures) he would never have replied with such scorn and disdain; for without doubt the Apostle spoke to Mr. Lloyd the Romanist, as well as to the rest of the Romans: 
Rom. 11.3.  Not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.  
He that accuseth another man of ignorance, of lying, of malice, of execrable perjury, and the like, had need be a man himself without all exception; yet if we may believe the Doctors of his own Church, he is guilty of these and much more: witness the sorbonical censure at Paris, wherein Hallier and Aurelius accuse him of lying, 
Aurelius in libri sui titulo. Hallier in Admonit. ad Lect. p. 8, 9  of ignorance, of heresy, of profane scurrility, of blasphemy and impiety, of furious, filthy, and devilish railing, of unsufferable arrogancy, and the like: and as touching his bitter accusations, it seems it is his accustomed manner of writing, witness his Spongia written against the Sorbonists, 
Aurelius in Vindiciis. p. 385.  under the title of Hermannus Laemilius, otherwise discovered to be John Floyd: I say he hath drenched his sponge in that gall of bitterness (such charity and unity is there amongst themselves) that I may truly say of him, as the Spartans' sometimes said of the Theban Orator; If he think as he writes, his ignorance is desperate; if otherwise, his conscience is seared.  
To give you a taste of the manner of his writing: when I cite authorities that are pregnant, and beyond his just exception, he spares my person, and condemns the Authors themselves, and complains they are branded with the note of heresy and singularity: when as in truth they are branded only by their Inquisitors, for speaking against the errors of their Trent Doctrine, being otherwise, known members of the Roman Church.  
When I cite an Author of our own, as namely, B. Usher, for translating Aelfricks' Homily out of the Saxon tongue, one while he cries out, Ushers corruptions are laid open to the world: another while he tells me, I took the words from Usher, because I understood not Latin, or perhaps because I would be loath not to follow any errors or corruptions that come in my way: and thus he spends about ten pages, sometimes inveighing against our reverend and renowned Bishop, sometimes against me, for false translating Aelfrick out of Latin, when as the Latin cited by B. Usher in the margin, 
See B. Ushers answer to the Jesuits challenge, chap. of the Real presence.  which he takes to be Aelfricks', is the Latin of Bertram, and not Aelfricks', whose was translated out of the Saxon tongue, and not out of the Latin.  
Again, when I cite an Author of his side, as namely, Petrus Crinitus, for taking down of Images in Churches, he stretches his throat, & makes this hideous exclamation: 
Pag. 303.  For your authorities of the Common Law, there are so many foul faults committed by you, that I know not where to begin: then he taxeth me with leaving out two principal words (Humi & solo) whereas the Author, which I cite, hath no such words: I render the place truly as I find it, I put not to him, I take not from him, I altar not one letter of his words or meaning, and yet he cries out, the faults are so many, that I know not where to begin.  
Again, when I cite ten or twelve Authors for our Communion in both kinds, for our prayer in a known tongue, and the like: for most of them he sends me to Bellarmine for an answer, & for the rest (saith he) I'll question you. Then he complains of falsifications, when as in fine, the Exception is against the translation of some poor word (This) for (That): and when he is destitute of any colour of answer, his last refuge is this, The book is prohibited.  
As touching my Englishing of Latin Authors, I confess I have not translated whole sentences ad literam; for I intended not a volume, but a manuel: yet I ever faithfully render the true sense and meaning of the Author. Well, what exception could he take to this? 
Pag. 52.  One while he confesseth I set down the Latin truly, but I do not translate it literally: another while he cries out: It will not serve your turn, 
Pag. 224.  to say you place it in the English as you place it in the Latin, for intranslation the sense is chief to be regarded.  
Lastly, 
Pag. 459.  he protesteth for himself, that he hath declined no Author, either modern or ancient; when as it will appear, he sends many of them to Bellarmine for an answer; others he rejects, as condemned by the Index Expurgatorius; others he declines, as unworthy of his answer, by slighting them, or otherwise passeth by them, as children use to do; when they cannot read, they think it best to skip over.  
To say nothing of his Elenches, his Sophisms, his Sophistry, his Fallacies, which are many, I will trace him in his steps (God willing) laying aside all bitterness and railing accusations. In the mean time I will say with the Prophet David: Plead thou my cause, 
Psal. 35.1.  oh Lord, with them that strive with me: for the floods are risen, the floods lift up their voice, 
Psal. 93.4, 5.  the floods lift up their waves, the waves of the sea are mighty, and rage horribly; but yet the Lord that dwelleth on high is mightier.   

An Answer to J. R. his book called A pair of Spectacles.  

CHAP. I. The Sum of his Answer to my first Chapter.  IN this his first Chapter, he endevoureth principally to prove, that the Articles of the Roman Creed, published by Pope Pius the fourth, were anciently received, though newly defined by the Council of Trent: for proof, he instanceth in the first Council of Nice, and compareth that Council and their Creed with this of Trent: he proceeds by way of recrimination to question the 39 Articles of our Church; he accuseth us for corrupting and misinterpreting the Scriptures, for declining Traditions, Fathers, and Counsels: he excuseth their Index Expurgatorius, and accuseth us for falsifying the Fathers: and lastly, he concludeth with the doctrine of implicit faith: and this is the substance and contents of his answer to my first Chapter. All which, and whatsoever else is materially contained therein, and the rest of his sections following, I will take into several parts distinctly, and return him a moderate answer. 
The Reply to Mr. Lloyd. FIrst, touching your Trent Creed, you complain that according to the common fashion of our Ministers, by way of derision, I divide it into twelve points, as it were into twelve Articles, which (say you) he and they might with as much reason divide it into four and twenty.  
Here you begin to quarrel at your first entrance, but I hope you will gladly forgive us this wrong; for if we accuse your Trent Fathers, for coining twelve Articles in stead of four and twenty, they and you are more beholding to us, for laying the lesser number to your charge: and yet if you please to review them, you shall find they fall most naturally within the number of twelve.  
But you would know what difference there is betwixt the Council of Nice, and the Council of Trent, and their two Creeds.  
Let me tell you, if ever the proverb held true (Comparisons are odious) it holds betwixt the two Counsels, and their two Creeds: the Council of Trent is not worthy to be named the day wherein the Council of Nice is mentioned. That famous Council of Nice was the first, and best general Assembly, after the Apostles time, that was summoned in the Christian world: it had in it 318. Bishops, Totius orbis terrarum lumina, (saith Victorinus) amongst whom were the four Patriarches of the Eastern and Western Churches. It was called by the first and best Christian Emperor, 
Quasi servator & medicus animarum. Euseb. in vita Conslant. orat. 3. c. 10.  Constantine the Great, who was Vocalissimus Dei praeco, and (as it were) the Preserver and Physician of our souls, (saith Eusebius.) This Emperor exhorted the Fathers and Bishops of that Council, 
Omni igitur seditios â contentione depulsâ, literarum divinitùs inspiratarum testimoniis res in quaestionem adduct as dissolvamus. Theod. Hist. Eccl. l. 1. c. 7. p. 208.  to lay aside seditious contention, and resolve all doubts and questions by the testimonies of divine Scriptures: and accordingly they framed their Creed out of the doctrine of the Apostles, and all who were not of the Arrian faction did assent and agree to it (saith Theodoret.)  
Now take a view of your Trent Council, and compare them together. Your Council of Trent, like Demetrius' Assembly, was summoned by Pope Paul the third, without a lawful calling; the three Patriarches of Constantinople, of Antioch, of Alexandria, refused to be present; the Legates of the Kingdom of Denmark, of Suetia, and the Dukedom of Prusia, were all absent, and returned their answer, that the 
a Gravamina opposita, Concil. Trid. Causa. 1. pag. 21.  Pope had no right to call a Council. Our Queen 
b Epit. rerum in orbe gest. sub Ferd. 1. ann. 1561. apud Scard. tom. 3. p. 2171. E Belgio in Insulam trajicere prohibuit. ibid.  Elizabeth of blessed memory, disavowed the Council, in so much that when the Pope sent Hieronymus Martinengus, as Legate into England, to summon our Bishops, she would not suffer him to land, or set his foot on her Dominions. The French King signifieth by his Legate James Amiot, that he for his part, neither held it for a general, not yet for a lawful Council; but for a private Conventicle: and accordingly he wrote, Conventui Tridentino. The Emperor, 
Innoc Gentil. sess. 12. and Hist. of Trent, l. 4. p. 319. Illyric. in Protest. contr. Concil. Trid.  Charles the fifth, declared by his Ambassador, Hurtado Mendoza, in the name of the whole Empire, that the Bishops wholly hanging at the Pope's beck, had no authority to make laws, in causes of reformation of religion and manners. Andrea's Dudithius, 
Dudith. in Ep. ad Maximil. 2. de Calais, & Sacerdotum conjugio.  the Bishop of five Churches, told the Emperor's Maximilian and Ferdinand, that the Trent Fathers were like a pair of country Bagpipes; which unless they were still blown into, could make no music. The Holy Ghost had nothing to do with that Council, and therefore they could create no new Articles of faith. Your history of Trent tells us, 
The history of Trent.  the Spirit was sent in a Carrier's cloak-bag from Rome to Trent; but when there fell store of rain, the Holy Ghost could not come before the floods were abated, and so it fell out, that the Spirit was not carried upon the waters (as we read in Genesis) but besides them. Look upon your Bishops, they were but forty and two at the first meeting, and two of them titular; the rest, for the most part (saith Dudithius) were but hirelings, 
Andr. Dudith. ut suprà.  young men, and beardless, hired and procured by the Pope, to speak as he would have them. To say nothing of those Emperors (who called the first and best Counsels) and were present in person, when as the Popes send but their Legates: 
Euseb. in vitâ Constant. orat. 3. c. 16.  Ego intereram Concilio (saith Constantine) I was present at the Council amongst you, as one of you. Touching his Imperial seat in the Council, 
Ibid. c. 10.  his throne was very great and passed all the rest (saith Eusebius:) whereas there is no greater distance in the time, 
Advertendum, quod locus ubi sedet Imperator, 〈…〉 tenet 〈◊〉 Pontifex. Liber. Ceremon. l. 2. c. 2.  than there is now difference in the places; for the Emperor is allowed but to sit at the Pope's footstool; and it is (specially) to be noted (saith your book of ceremonies) that the place whereupon the Emperor sitteth, may be no higher than the place where the Pope setteth his feet. Your Council of Trent hath made many decrees for reformation of manners, but did they ever reform this abuse, and restore the ancient custom?  
You then that are so confident in equalling those two Counsels, do you think there is no difference betwixt a conventicle and a general Council? betwixt a Council lawfully called, and one summoned by usurpation? betwixt a late Council, held in a corner of the world, in the worst age, and an ancient Council, in a most famous city, held in the most flourishing age? betwixt a Council that lays her sole foundation in the Scriptures, and one that builds her first Article of faith upon Traditions? 
Bulla Pii 4. Art. 1.  betwixt a Council approved by the whole Christian world, and one that is disclaimed by most Christian Kings and Bishops, and the major part of Christendom?  
But you would further know a difference betwixt their two Creeds.  
Let me tell you in brief. When a Romanist, like yourself, would needs know of a Protestant, the difference betwixt his religion and ours, 
Subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus & pronunciamus omninò esse de necessitate salutis. Bonifac. 8. in Extr. de Major. & Obed. cap. Unam sanctam.  because both believed the Catholic Church in the Creed; the Protestant made answer, that we believe the Catholic faith contained in the Creed, but do not believe the thirteenth Article which the Pope put to it: when the Romanist was desirous to see that Article, the Extravagant of Pope Boniface was brought, wherein it was declared to be altogether of necessity of salvation, for every humane creature to be subject to the Bishop of Rome. This thirteenth Article in your Trent Creed (besides the newness of the rest) makes a great difference (Mr. Lloyd) betwixt the two Creeds; and the rather, because it is flat contrary to the decree of the Nicene Council, besides many other differences, as shall appear hereafter.  
But (say you) they agree in this, that as the Arrians of those times cried out against that Creed, as being new, and having words not found in Scripture; for example, Consubstantiation: so our Protestants cry out against the Trent profession of faith, for the same reasons of novelty, and words not found in Scripture; as for example, Transubstantiation.  
It is true, the Arrians at the time of the Council cried out against the Nicene Creed, for defining the word Consubstantial, or Coessential, as being new: but it is as true they complained without a cause; for long before that time the word was used by Origen, 
Doctos quosdam ex veteribus & illustres Episcopos Homousii dictione usos esse cognovimus, Socrat. l. 1. c. 8.  and other ancient Fathers, as appears by Socrates: We know (saith he) that of the old writers, certain learned men, and famous Bishops have used the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and accordingly it was resolved by S. Austin, that the name was not invented, but confirmed and established in the Council of Nice.  
The word therefore Consubstantial was not new, 
August. contr. Maxim. l. 3. c. 14.  which they complained of, but the word Transubstantiation is so new, that it was altogether unknown till the Council of Lateran, 
Concil. Lateranense, Anno 1215. Bellarm.  1200. years after Christ; & therefore your comparison holds not in the first place. But ad nit the Council had first devised the word, 
Quomodo dicis in Scriptures divinis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, non inveniri? quasi aliud sit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quàm quod dicit, Ego de Deo patre exivi, &, Ego & Pater unum sumus. Ambros. de fide contra Arrian. Tom. 2. c. 5. p. 223. in initio. August. Ep. 174. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Athanas. Ep. quod decret. Synod. Nic. Congruis verbis sunt exposita. Nihil refert hanc vocem non esse in Scripturâ, si vox id significat quod Scriptura docet. Vasq. in 1. Thom. Tom. 2. Disp. 110. c. 1. sect. 4.  yet it is agreed on all hands, that the meaning of the word is contained in Scripture. S. Ambrose writing against the Arrians, puts to them this very question: How do you say the word Consubstantial is not in divine Scriptures, as if Consubstantial were any thing else, but I went out from the Father, and, the Father and I are one: the word therefore was a pregnant word, agreeable to the sacred word of God. And albeit (saith S. Austin) the word perhaps be not found there, yet the thing itself is found: and what more frivolous quarrel is it, than to contend about the word, when there is certainty of the thing itself? In like manner Athanasius answered the Arrians in those days, as I must answer you: Touching the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, albeit it be not found in Scriptures, yet it hath the same meaning that the Scriptures intent, and imports the same with them whose ears are entirely affected towards religion.  
We cry not out against you simply, because your word Transubstantiation is not found in the Scriptures, but because the true sense and meaning of the word is not contained in them; for the words Unbegotten, Increate, the word Sacrament, the word Trinity, and the like, are not found in Scripture; yet we teach them, we believe them, because their true sense and meaning may be deduced from the Scripture: and we profess with your Jesuit Vasques, Nihil refert, etc. It mattereth not whether the word be in Scripture or no, so as that which it signifieth be in the Scripture.  
To come nearer to you: do you but prove that the words, This is my body, imply Transubstantiation, and let me be branded for an Arrian, if I refuse to subscribe to it: but that the world may know we condemn you justly, both for the newness of the word, and your doctrine also; harken to the learned Doctors of your own Church.  
Your Schoolman Scotus tells us, that before the Council of Lateran, 
Bellarm. l. 3. de Eucbar. c. 23.  Transubstantiation was not believed as a point of faith. It is true, your fellow Jesuits are ashamed of this confession, and thereupon Bellarmine answers: 
Ibid.  This opinion of his is no way to be allowed: 
Suarez in 3. Tom. in Euch. disp. 70. sect. 2.  and Suarez, not content with such a sober reckoning, proclaims that for his loud speaking he ought to be corrected: and as touching the words of consecration, from whence you would infer both the name & nature of Transubstantiation, 
Mont. in Luk. 22.  your Arias Montanus saith, This is my body, that is, my body is sacramentally contained in the Sacrament of bread: and (he adds withal) the secret and most mystical manner hereof, God will once vouchsafe more clearly to unfold to his Christian Church. The doctrine therefore of your carnal and corporal presence is not so clearly derived from the Scriptures: nay on the contrary he protesteth, that the body of our Saviour is but sacramentally contained in the Sacrament (as the Protestants hold) and therefore not bodyily.  
It is more than evident, that the word Consubstantiation (used by the Fathers) was derived from the Scriptures, but you have not that infallible assurance for your word Transubstantiation, witness your Cardinal Cajetan, 
Cajet. in Thom. part. 3. q. 75. art. 1.  he assures us that there appeareth nothing out of the Gospel, that may enforce us to understand Christ's words properly: yea nothing in the text hindereth, but that these words [This is my body] may as well be taken in a metaphorical sense, as those words of the Apostle, The Rock was Christ: that the words of either proposition may well be true, though the things there spoken be not understood in a proper sense, but in a metaphorical sense only. Nay more, your Jesuit Suare, 
Suarez Tom. 3. disp. 46.  confesseth, that this Cardinal (in his Commentary upon this Article) doth affirm, that those words of Christ [This is my body] do not of themselves sufficiently prove Transubstantiation, without the authority of the Church: and therefore by the command of Pope Pius the fifth, that part of his Commentary is sponged out of the Romish Edition. Thus one while you correct your Authors, another while you purge them for delivering the truth in our behalf.  
Look upon your Cardinal Bellarmine; although he will not allow that sense which the Lutherans give, 
Bell. de Euch. l. 2. c. 19  yet he granteth that those words [This is my body] may imply either such a real change of the bread, as the Catholics hold; or such a figurative change, as the Calvinists hold. And although he would seem to prove that the words of Scripture are so plain, that they may compel a refractory man to believe them, yet having well weighed the reasons and allegations of other Schoolmen, 
Bell. de Euch. l. 3. c. 23.  at last concludes: It may justly be doubted, whether the text be clear enough to enforce it, seeing men sharp and learned (such as Scotus was) have thought the contrary. How therefore your Church should ground a point of faith upon a doubtful opinion, or on such words as by the testimonies of your best learned Divines may receive a double construction, I leave it to be judged.  
But farther in proof of Pope Pius Creed, I could urge Sr. Humphrey (say you) with the 39 Articles appointed by the authority of the Church of England, to be uniformly taught by all Ministers, which they are to swear unto; which Articles, though they be indeed new coined, as the foundation of a new Church, yet Sr. Humphrey being his mother's Champion, will not (I suppose) yield her, or her doctrine to be new. Thus you.  
It is true as you say, there are 39 Articles appointed by our Church, to be uniformly taught by all Ministers: and it is as true that they are published and received with unity and consent (which your men acknowledge for a proper mark of the true Church.) And withal, let me add this one thing for your observation (and indeed it is a thing remarkable) whereas all your Trent Articles have been questioned, and confuted by Chemnitius, Chamierus, Gentilletus, and other Protestant writers, yet there was never any Papist could go farther, than to tell us, as you do, I could urge you with the novelty of the 39 Articles. I say, never as yet did any Romanist attempt, much less was able to confute and overthrow our Articles, which stand like a house built upon a rock, , and cannot be shaken.  
Let me tell you further, your comparisons betwixt our Articles and yours do not hold; for all your Articles are fundamental points to your Trent believers, and the denial of any of them makes them heretics, and damned persons, as your Pope's Bull expressly declareth. 
Bulla Pii quarti.  On the other side, some of our Articles concern the discipline of the Church, and are not essential to salvation; others concern the ancient and latter heresies, wherein we teach the negative, and those are not properly Articles of faith which we believe, but points of doctrine which we condemn, and believe not. And that you may know our Articles are not new, nor newly coined by our men; if you will put on your spectacles, you shall find that most of our prime Articles are taught and received by your own Church, as well as ours; and therefore I hope you will confess they are not coined, and built upon the foundation of a new Church.  
Briefly touching our 39 Articles. The first sort are in the Affirmative, both ours and yours; and all those are uniformly received by both Churches. The second sort are ours only, which we affirm, and you deny: and those are very few in number, and are evidently deduced from the Scripture. The third sort are yours, which we deny, and you affirm; and for that cause you term our religion negative; and those remain for you to make good. Join therefore those negative Articles, which are wholly yours, to those positive Articles which you hold with us, and you shall easily discern (if the denomination followeth the greater part) those Articles may most properly be termed Articles of your faith; for I dare confidently avow that of the 39 Articles, there are above 35. yours, that is, either such which you hold with us, which are at least twenty, or such wherein the affirmative is yours, and not ours, which are at least fifteen: take therefore your own liberty, either confute ours, or make good your own, & herbam porrigemus, and I will give you the bucklers.  
You proceed, and upon a false supposal, that our Church hath created new Articles, you proclaim in the name of your own Church these words: We teach that for Articles of faith, the Church can make none, as she cannot write a Canonical book of Scripture. Thus you.  
When Diogenes saw a supposed Bastard casting stones in a press of much people, he gave the boy this caveat: Take heed lest thou hit thy father. This is like to be your case; for by this Tenet you will wound the Church your Mother, and amongst others you will surely hit your holy Father the Pope.  
It appears first, that you endeavoured to show, that your Church hath created no new Articles of faith, but for want of solid proofs you begin to faint, and think it the safest way to turn Protestant in this point, and say, the Church can create none: but I wonder how you dare pronounce in the name of the Church (we teach) whereas in truth your Church teacheth it not. This is therefore but a cunning device of yours, to dazzle the eyes of the ignorant with your false glasses, and to make them believe it is the general Tenet of your Church; and than you think they will conclude according to your Assertion: Ergo, The Church hath created none; when as your saying makes more strongly against you, if either your Articles prove new, or the Pope and his Agents profess the contrary.  
Mr. Heigham, who first answered my Book, 
Mr. Heigham in his answer called Via verè tuta, pag. 199. & 200.  was a member of your Church, and he cries aluod, that the Church hath power to decree, and promulgate new articles of faith: But your third Replyer, Tom Telltruth, in his Whetstone of Reproof, thought it the wisest way to decline the question; for he knew well when you were both at odds, and taught flat contrary doctrine each to other, the Whetstone of necessity would belong to one of his fellow writers. But to let pass such differences amongst yourselves; be it spoken to your comfort, Friar Walden, about two hundred years ago, affirmed the same that you do, 
Waldens doct. Fidei. Tom. 1. l. 2. Art. 2. c. 22. p. 203.  viz. that the Church could not create a new article of faith: How can any such article (saith he) framed after many years, be catholic and universal, when as it was unknown to our forefathers for fourteen hundred years before? It was not believed, because not heard of, when the Apostle tells us, faith cometh by hearing. Such an article therefore, although it be of faith, yet it cannot be catholic: and this he proves directly from Fathers and Counsels. And whereas you affirm, that your Church can no more make an article of faith, than she can make a Canonical Book of Scripture; 
Canus loc. Theol. l. 2. c. 7. p. 38.  Canus, your Bishop of Canaries, will join with you, That the Church of the faithful now living cannot write a Canonical Book of Scripture: and he gives the reason for it; There are not now any new revelations to be expected, ither from the Pope, or from a Council, or from the universal Church: and from hence it will follow of consequence by your own Logic; Therefore the Church can create no new article of faith.  
Thus fare I have waded in your behalf, that you may the better justify your own Assertion; for you will find your Church is like a house divided against itself (and therefore cannot stand long). I say that Quere which was made in walden's days, was resolved above two hundred years before by your profound Schoolman Thomas Aquinas, in your Church's behalf, that the Pope had power Condere articulos fidei, to create new articles of faith; to remove therefore these fig-leaves with which you would cover the naked truth: This learned Doctor well understood that there were many new articles of religion crept into the Church in his days; he knew well, that (albeit he were the prime School man of his time) yet with all his sophistry he could not make them comply with the ancient Catholic faith: and thereupon he thought it the surest way, to give the Pope an absolute and independent power over faith and religion, and accordingly resolved, 
Ad solam authoritatem summi Pontificis pertinet nova Editio Symboli, sicut & alia omnia quae pertinent ad totam Ecclesiam. Thom. 2.2. q. 1. Art. 10.  It belongs only to the authority of the Sovereign Pope, to make a new Edition of the Creed, and all things else that concern the universal Church: Then he concludes the question, and gives this reason for it; The publishing of a new Creed belongs to his power who hath authority finally to determine matters of faith: and this (saith he) belongs unto the Pope. Upon which passages Andradius, a chief pillar of your Trent Council, confesseth, that the Bishops of Rome, 
Romanos Pontifices, multa definiendo quae anteà latitabant, Symbolum Fidei augere consuevisse. Andrad. Def. Concil. Trid. lib. 2.  in defining many things which had been formerly hidden, have been accustomed to increase their Creed. Now what think you of your Aquinas position, and your Andradius confession? I hope you perceive that your learned Schoolmen are of another opinion: And that you may know that your Church doth not approve your pretended Tenet for Catholic doctrine; harken and consider, what your holy Father the Pope declareth, touching this question, and then consider in what case you stand. Pope Leo the tenth sent out his Bull against Luther, and amongst other articles, 
Certum est in manu Ecclesiae aut Papae prorsus non esse statuere articulos fidei. Tom. 4. Conc. Par. 2. in Bulla Leon. 10. in fine Lateran. Conc. novissimi. p. 135.  he chargeth him in particular with this, that Luther should say, It is certain that it is no way in the power of the Church or Pope to ordain articles of faith. This you see is Luther's Tenet, and this is yours. Now what exception (think you) might the Pope take at this your Assertion? Behold, for this and the like Tenets, he thundereth Anathema against him; he declareth this with the rest of his Articles to be a pestiferous, pernicious, scandalous, and seducing error to well-minded men; he protesteth, it was contrary to all charity, contrary to the reverence of the holy Church, and mysteries of faith, and in conclusion condemns all his Articles as heretical, 
Inhibentes in virtute sanctae obedientiae, ac sub majoris excommunicationis latae sententiae. Ibid. p. 136.  forbids them to be received by virtue of holy obedience, and under pain of the grand Excommunication.  
You have heard the sentence of your Lord Paramount, and by it you may know your own doom. If you hold with Luther, you are in danger of Excommunication, and stand as a condemned heretic by his Holiness with the Lutherans: If you forsake your hold, you have lost your faith: And thus you have a wolf by the ears, you stand in danger whether you hold him, or let him go. I wonder that you, having taken so long a time to answer so poor a Work, and having many Assistants for the composing of it, they and you could be all ignorant of the Pope's infallible Bull. Your Cardinal Bellarmine, 
Quasi Ecclesia posterioris temporis aut deserit esse Ecclesia, aut facultatem non habeat explicandi, & declarandi, constituendi etiam & jubendi quae ad fidem & mores Christianos pertinent. Bell. in Barcl.  who in these latter times hath laboured more than any other, to uphold your new Articles of faith; yet in obedience to the Pope, and saving all advantages to his cause, when (in the question of deposing Kings) he failed of antiquity and proof out of Scriptures and Fathers, at last returns this peremptory answer; As if the Church of these latter times had ceased to be a Church, or had not power to explain and declare, yea to ordain and command those things, which appertain to faith and Christian manners: and that you may know that you and your Co-adjutors stand single in opinion against the Pope and his Cardinals, your Jesuit Salmeron will show you, 
Doctrina fidei admittit additionem in essentialibus. Salm. Tom. 13. Disp 6. Par. 3. §. Est ergo. Idem Disp. 8.  that it stands with great reason to make additions in essential points of faith: and he gives this answer for it: Because nature is not capable of all truths at one time: and from this and the like reasons he concludes, therefore there may be new traditions concerning faith and manners, though they were never created, or declared by the Apostles.  
Thus you see the unity amongst yourselves: and howsoever these positions may seem strange to you and others of your opinions, yet your Schoolmen and Lawyers have played the Pope's Midwives: yea, Pope Leo the tenth hath put to his helping hand, to deliver your Pope Pius the fourth of that issue, I mean, those new borne Articles, of which your Church hath so long time before travailed. Briefly let me tell you, your Articles are detected by your own men to be grandement suspicious of new coinage; and if for no other cause, yet for this alone, they give a just occasion and jealousy, when such poor shifts and evasions are devised by your Pope and his adherent, to make them good: for it is a true saying of a renowned Bishop, and it is the faith of all reformed Catholics: 
B. Morton, Grand Impost. cap. 2. sect. 2.  He can only make an article of faith who can create a soul, and after make a Gospel to save that soul, and then give unto that soul the gift of faith to believe that Gospel.  
I proceed to your doctrine: That is only to be called a new faith (say you) which is clean of another kind, that is differing or disagreeing from that was taught before. Thus you.  
I will not take advantage of your first Assertion, that your faith is grounded upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles (which you can never prove;) but will join issue with you upon your last Assumpsit, That is only to be called a new faith, which is clean of another kind, and is different & disagreeing from what was taught before: but such are many of the Articles of Pope Pius the fourth, extracted from the Council of Trent, as shall appear by proofs at large in their proper places. In the mean time let me tell you, your Church teacheth not only Nouê, but Nova, not only Praeter, but Contra, even besides, and contrary to that which she first received from the ancient Church: so that howsoever you seek to darken truth by fair and specious pretences, yet in truth your Trent Additions are foreign to the faith, as neither principles nor conclusions of it. And that you may know and acknowledge with us, that your Trent faith is differing and disagreeing from what was taught before; I pray call to mind your own confessions touching these particular Articles of your Roman Church.  
Your doctrine touching Lay-peoples' communicating under one kind (namely in bread only) is an Article of the Roman faith, and now generally taught and practised in the Roman Church: but this practice, by your own confession, is different and disagreeing from what was taught before: for you say, pag. 253. touching the Authors which you bring for proof, That it was the common practice of the Church, for the Laiety to communicate in both kinds. I allow of their authority.  
Your Prayer and Service in an unknown tongue, as it is now used in the Roman Church, by your own confession is different and disagreeing from what was taught before; for, say you pag. 270. It is true, that Prayer and Service in the vulgar tongue was used in the first and best ages, according to the precept of the Apostles, and practice of the Fathers. In the beginning it was so.  
Your doctrine of Transubstantiation, which at this day is generally received, de substantia fidei, for an Article of Faith, yet by your own confession is different and disagreeing from what was taught before; for, say you pag. 167. Transubstantiation might well be said not to have been, de substantia fidei, in the Primitive Church, (as Yribarne speaketh) because it had not been so plainly delivered nor determined in any Council, till Gregory the seventh his time: and this was above a thousand years after Christ.  
Your private or solitary Mass, wherein the Priests do daily communicate without the people, is by your own confession different and disagreeing from what was taught before and practised; for, say you pag. 191. They say (speaking of divers Authors) it was the practice of the Primitive Church to communicate every day with the Priest. I grant it.  
These points of controversy, which are so eagerly pursued by your men against the members of our Church, the strength and force of truth hath extorted from you, and therefore I may truly conclude Exore tuo, from your own confession, that your Trent faith is new, because it is different and disagreeing from what was taught before.  
You that have taken an oath to maintain the Papacy, and are so ready to teach others, you (I say) have either violated your oath, or at leastwise have forgot your old lesson, Oportet esse memorem, etc. for verily it behoves him that speaks lies and contradictions to have a good memory. But it seems you did conceive the Reader might easily pass by many such contradictions, being in several passages, and fare distant pages. For otherwise it would seem strange, that you, which so bitterly inveigh against our reformed religion, should confess the antiquity of our Articles, and the novelty of your own, with flat contradictions to your own Assertions. I will say to you therefore, as sometimes St. Hierome spoke in his Epistle to Pamachius and Oceanus; 
Hieronym. ad Pamach. & Oceanum, Tom. 2.  Thou who art a maintainer of new doctrine, whatsoever thou he, I pray thee spare the Roman ears, spare the faith that is commanded by the Apostles mouth, why goest thou about now after four hundred years (I may say fourteen hundred years) to teach us that faith which we before never knew? why bringest thou forth that thing that Peter and Paul never uttered? Evermore until this day the Christiam world hath been without this doctrine.  
To pursue the rest of your Allegations: The Church of England (say you) admitteth of divers Books of the New Testament for Canonical, whereof there was doubt of three or four hundred years to gether in the Church of God, as the Epistle to the Hebrews, the second Epistle of St. Peter, the Epistle of St. Judas, the Apocalypse of St. John, and some others, which were after admitted for Canonical; 
〈◊〉  I would know of him whether upon the admittance of them, there were any change of faith in the Church, or whether ever those books have received any change in themselves. Thus you.  
It seems you begin to fear that your Trent faith would be discovered to be different and disagreeing from what was taught before, and thereupon you would seemingly illustrate the antiquity of your new Articles by the authority of the ancient Books of Canonical Scripture. But, I pray, where do you find that the Books of the New Testament, as namely, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of St. Peter, and St. Judas, and the Apocalypse, were not received (for three or four hundred years) for Canonical? It is true there was some doubt who were the right Authors of those Books, but their divine authority was ever generally approved by all Christian Churches, and allowed for Canonical. The Epistle to the Hebrews was therefore doubted of by some, because the difference & diversity of the stile made them think it not to be St. Paul's; and by others, because the Author of it seemed to them to favour the error of the Novatian heretics, in denying the reconciliation of such as fall after Baptism: The second Epistle of St. Peter (which you speak of) some doubted of, because of the diversity of the style: The Epistle of St. Judas was doubted, because the Author of it hath borrowed both the matter and manner of writing from St. Peter, and therefore he was thought some scholar of theirs, but no Apostle. Others said he brought in a profane Author, concerning the strife of the Archangel and the Devil about the body of Moses, which cannot be found in Canonical Scripture. Lastly, the Revelation of St. John was likewise doubted of; first, because of the novelty of the title of John the Divine: secondly, because of the difficulty and obscurity of his Prophecies. These and the like reasons were motives to some in the Church, to question the Authors of those Books: but it was never generally impeached. For further proof of this Assertion, let antiquity be heard, and it will appear, that all those Books were cited for doctrine of faith, by the writers of the first ages, and consequently were approved from, and after the days of the Apostles. 
Hieronym. ad Dardan●, de terra repromissionis, Ep. 129. p. 1105.  Look upon St. Hierome, he proclaims it to the Church, Illud nostris dicendum est. Be it known to our men, that the Epistle to the Hebrews is not only received by all the Churches of the East, that now presently are, but by all Ecclesiastical writers of the Greek Churches, that have been heretofore; as the Epistle of Paul, (though many think it rather to be written by Barnabas, or Clemens,) and that it skilleth not who wrote it, seeing it was writby an Author approved in the Church of God, and is daily read in the same. This ancient Father shows plainly, that howsoever some doubt was made of the Author of that Epistle, yet it was received both by the Eastern & Western Churches. And howsoever some of the Ancients did attribute it to St. Luke; others (as namely Tertullian) did attribute it to Barnabas: yet all agreed in this, that it had an Apostolic spirit; and accordingly Cardinal Bellarmine tells you in your ear, 
Ineptè dici vetustatem de hac Epistola dubitâsse. Bell. de verbo Dei, lib. 1. cap. 17.  It is foolishly spoken, in saying Antiquity did doubt of this Epistle, when there is but one Caius a Grecian, and two or three Romanists, in respect of all the rest, that speak against it: and if we respect not the multitude, but the antiquity of the cause, the Roman Clemens is more ancient than Caius; and Clemens Alexandrinus than Tertullian; and Dionysius Areopagita than both, who citys this Epistle of Paul by name.  
Touching the second Epistle of St. Peter, it was cited by Higinus Bishop of Rome, within an hundred and fifty years after Christ, and that by the name of Peter. The Epistle of St. Judas was cited by Dionysius Areopagita by the name of Judas the Apostle, within seventy years after Christ; 
Dionys. de divinis nominibus, cap. 4. Tertuil. de habitu muliebri. Orig. l. 5. in c. 5. ad Romanos. Cypr. in lib. ad Novatianum.  by Tertullian within two hundred years after Christ; by Origen and Cyprian within two hundred and fifty years after Christ.  
Lastly, touching the Revelation of St. John, it was received for Canonical in the first and best ages: Dionysius Areopagita calls the Revelation, The secret and mystical vision of Christ's beloved Disciple; 
Arcanam & mysticam visionem dile cti discipuli. Dionys. Eccles. Hier. cap. 3. In Dial. cum Tryphone. Iren. lib. 1. cap. ult.  and this was seventy years after Christ. Justin Martyr doth attribute this Book to St. John, and doth account it for a divine Revelation; and this was an hundred and sixty years after Christ. Irenaeus saith, this Revelation was manifested unto St. John, and seen of him but a little before his time; and this was an hundred and eighty years after Christ. 
Tertull. de prescript. l. 4.  Tertullian, amongst other things, accuseth Cerdon and Martion of heresies, for rejecting the Revelation; and this was two hundred years after Christ. Origen, in his Preface before the Gospel of St. John, saith, that John the son of Zebedee saw in the Revelation an Angel flying thorough the midst of Heaven, having the eternal Gospel; and he flourished two hundred and thirty years after Christ.  
Thus you see the Catholic Christians, and most ancient Fathers in the first ages received both the Epistle to the Hebrews, the second Epistle of St. Peter, the Epistle of St. Judas, and the Revelation of St. John, with one consent, accounting them no better than Heretics, which either doubted of them, or denied them: and yet you, to outface the truth, would make the world believe, that it was three or four hundred years before they were received into the Church, and made canonical; and upon this vain supposal you would know of me, Whether there were any change of faith in the Church when they were admitted, or whether those Books received any change in themselves.  
To answer you in a word, your proposition is foolish, and your question is frivolous; for those Books were always received, even from the first times: and no more could that word of God be changed, than God himself, who is immutable; and yet we see your faith is daily altered, for want of that foundation, and thereupon it behoves you to get more, and better proofs, for the confirmation of your new Creed.  
From your justification of your Trent faith, you begin to look asquint thorough your Spectacles at the reformed Churches, and after your wont manner you cry out, They have no certain rule of faith wherewith we may urge them; authority of Church they have none: Scripture they have indeed, but so mangled, corrupted, perverted by translation, and misinterpreted according to their own fancies, that as they have it it is as good as nothing. Thus you.  
Have we no certain rule of faith? What think you of the Scriptures? Do not we make them the sole rule of our faith? and is not that rule by your own Cardinal's confession, 
Bell. de verbo Deo. l. 1. c. 2.  Regula credendi certissima, tutissimaque, the most certain and safest rule of faith? And as touching the authority of the Church, it is an Article of our Religion, 
Art. 20.  That the Church hath power to decree rites, or ceremonies, & authority in controversies of faith; and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another: This Article shows our obedience to the Scriptures, it declares the authority of our Church, and it vindicates our Ministers from perverting and misinterpreting of the Scriptures, wherewith you charge us in the next place.  
It is true (say you) Scripture you have indeed, but mangled, corrupted, perverted by translation. Here your charge is general, and your accusation capital; therefore you must give me leave, for the better discovery of the truth, to send out a Melius inquirendum, that your Translation and ours being compared in particulars, the truth may better appear.  
First than it cannot be denied, that the Protestants in all their Translations have a recourse still to the Original of Hebrew and Greek, which was inspired by the Holy Ghost; and these they prefer before all Latin and Vulgar Translations whatsoever: 
Bibl. Complut. in Proefat.  on the other side, your Translation (as your Interpreters fancy) hangeth between the Greek and Hebrew, as Christ hung between two thiefs. Nay more, your men esteem the Vulgar Latin before the Original: 
Bell. de verbo Dei, lib. 2. c. 11.  Not (saith Bellarmine) that the rivers of Translations should be preferred before the fountains of Hebrew and Greek of the Prophets and Apostles, but because the fountain is muddy in many places, which otherwise should run clear; for without doubt, as the Latin Church hath been more constant in keeping the faith than the Greek, so likewise it hath been more vigilant in preserving her books from corruption.  
These Paradoxes do open a gap to Atheism; for if the original Scripture be corrupted, what assurance, what certainty can we have of true faith and religion? (and if we doubt, we are condemned already.) Neither can it enter into my thoughts, that profane Writers should be preserved in their simple pureness from their first ages, and that their Translations should remain in subjection to their copies, from whence they are derived, to be examined by them; and yet the Watchman of Israel, who neither slumbers nor sleeps, for want of providence, should suffer his sacred Word become a Tributary to a Translation. But by this the world may see the guiltiness of a bad cause; you will rather charge the word of God itself with corruption, than fail to make good the corruptions of your own Church.  
Your learned Andradius condemns them that preferred the Latin before the Hebrew of the Old Testament, (as pretending it was corrupted by the Jews.) 
Andrad. def. fidei Trident. l. 4.  It was very inconsiderately conceived (saith he) by some, that there was more credit to be given to the Latin Edition than to the Hebrew, because the Latin ever remained entire & uncorrupt in the Catholic Church, and the Hebrew was falsified & depraved by the perfidiousness of the Jews. And your own Sixtus Senensis doth witness of the Greek Text likewise, 
Sixt. Senens. Biblioth. l. 7.  that it is the same which was used in the days of S. Hierome, and long before him in the Apostles times, and is free from heretical corruptions, as by the continual writings of the Greek Fathers (as namely) Dionysius, Justinus, Irenaeus, Melito, Origen, Affricanus, Apolinarius, Athanasius, Eusebius, Basil, chrysostom, Theophylact, doth most plainly appear; and yet your Gregory Martin, and the Rhemists, are not ashamed to profess that the Translation which they follow, is not only better than all other Latin, but even than the Greek Text itself, 
Preface to the Rhem. Testam.  in those places where they disagree.  
To examine your Translation in general, and so descend into the particulars of yours and ours. First, it is decreed by the Council of Trent, that amongst divers Translations then in use, 
Concil. Trid. Sess. 4. Decretam de editione librorum.  the old and vulgar Translation should be declared to be authentical in all public Lectures, Disputations, Sermons, and Expositions, and that no man should dare or presume to reject it upon any pretext whatsoever. What Translation was understood by the old vulgar, was not expressed in the Council: It is pretended to be, and is called at this day St. Hieromes Translation, and, which is remarkable, the Translation was decreed but by 42. Bishops at the first beginning of the Council.  
From hence ariseth the first Quere, which of St. Hieromes Translations your Church doth follow (for St. Hierome confesseth that the first was corrupt, and accordingly he did correct many things in his first Translation.) To this Objection your Cardinal makes this fair and free confession; 
Bell. de verbo Dei, l. 2. c. 9  Although Hierome did perceive some things fit to be changed, and afterwards did change them, yet the Church did adjudge the first translation for true, and chose rather to keep that for the vulgar Edition. And then he concludes: Although the greatest part of the vulgar Translation be Hieromes, yet it is not that pure Edition which he translated out of the Hebrew, but in a manner mixed.  
Habemus confitentem reum. Now hear your own Sixtus Senensis: Albeit he pretends that the different readings in the Bible be no prejudice to the Faith, 
Sixt. Senens. Bibl. l. 8. p. 664.  yet (saith he) we ing enuously confess that many errors were corrected by Hierome in the old Translation, and likewise there are found in our new Editions some falsifications, solecisms, barbarismes, and many things ambiguous, not well expressed in the Latin; some things changed, other things omitted; and the like. Here both confess that Hieromes first Translation was erroneous, (and the one saith that your Church hath chosen that which is not pure nor agreeable to the Hebrew, the other confesseth it hath Barbarismes and untruths.) To speak ingeniously, the Sun never saw any thing more defective and maimed than the vulgar Latin. Your Bishop Lyndan cries aloud, 
Lynd. de oped. genere Interpret. l. 3. c. 1, 2, 4.6.  and protesteth it hath monstrous corruptions of all sorts, scarce one copy can be found that hath one book of Scripture undefiled, many points are translated so intricately and darkly, some impertinently and abusively, some not so fully nor so well and truly, sundry places thrust out of their plain and natural sense: the Translator possibly was no Latinist, but a smattering Grecian.  
I proceed to the examination of more witnesses. About forty years after Pope Paul the third had decreed the vulgar Latin in your Council of Trent, Sixtus Quintus by his Breve prefixed to his Bible, gives us to understand, that certain Roman Catholics were of such an humour of translating the Scripture into Latin, 
Breve Sixti 5.  that Satan, taking occasion by them (though they thought no such matter) did strive what he could out of uncertain and great variety of Translation, so to mingle all things, that nothing might seem to be left certain and firm in them: and thereupon he takes occasion to publish a Latin Translation of his own perusal, and withal makes his Declaration of it in this manner: We of our certain knowledge and fullness of Apostolical power, 
Sixt. 5. in Bulla praefix. Bibliis, An. 1588.  do ordain and declare that the Edition of the vulgar Bible of the Old and New Testament, which was received by the Council of Trent as authentical without any doubt or Controversy, is to be reputed or taken for this only Edition; which being as well as was possible reform and printed in our Vatican, our will and pleasure is, and we do decree it to be read throughout the whole Christian World in all Churches; with this our determination and satisfaction for all men, That first it was allowed by a general and joint consent of the whole Catholic Church and Holy Fathers; secondly, by a Decree made in the late Council holden at Trent; and now lastly by that Apostolical Authority and Power which God hath given us: and therefore is to be received and accounted for a true, lawful, authentical and undoubted Copy, to be read, and no other, in all public and private Disputations, Lectures, Sermons, or Expositions.  
This Translation was published by Sixtus with great care and pains, professing that he printed it in the Vatican at Rome, 
Nostra nos ipsi manu correximus, siqua prelo vitia obrepserunt. Idem in Praefat.  and corrected the Errors of it with his own hands: he professeth it was approved by the general consent of the whole Catholic Church: he professeth it was received for the best and most vulgar Latin Edition, excluding all other Translations private or public whatsoever; and thereupon concludes, 
Ibid.  Let no man attempt to violate this our Decree, our will and declaration herein, or by rash boldness contradict it: for if any shall presume so to do, let him know that he shall incur the indignation of Almighty God, and his blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.  
From hence will arise a second Quere, whether this Translation of Sixtus were that Hieromes Translation formerly confirmed, and ratified by the Trent Council. If it were his, and confirmed by a General Council, how came it to be corrected by Sixtus? If it were not the same, how could Sixtus Bible be allowed by a Decree made in the Council of Trent, (for so are the words of his Bull) whereas the Council was called Anno 1545. and Sixtus published his Bible Anno 1592. which was above 40. years after the Council was called? But observe the sequel; The Decree of Sixtus was kept inviolable for a short time, and approved by Urban the 7th, Gregory the 14th, and Innocent the 9th his immediate Successors: But Pope Clement the eight, about seven years after the death of Sixtus, called in question that Translation, and published another of his own, Ad perpetuam rei memoriam, 
Clem. in praef. Sixti Bibl.  and corrects Sixtus Bible, under this pretence; that his Predecessor perceived not a few things to have crept into the Bible through default of the Press, and that it needed a second care, and that certainly he himself had intended to bring the whole work to the Press again, had he not been prevented by death.  
These two Editions were published by two several Popes, and both commanded to be read and followed in their several Breves: Pope Sixtus disclaims all Bibles whatsoever, both Manuscripts and printed, of the vulgar Edition, which did not agree with his Edition Ad literam, to a letter. Pope Clement professeth that his Translation, although it be not absolutely perfect in all points, yet without doubt it is more pure, and better corrected than any other that was published before it. In conclusion, 
Ne minima quidem particula mutata. Sixt. in Praef.  both agree that the Form of each must be inviolably observed without the least particle of the Text added, changed, or detracted.  
Now take your choice of which Translation you please; if you allow Sixtus, it was corrected in many places by Pope Clement; if Clements, you must incur the curse of his Predecessor Pope Sixtus: if you will receive the vulgar Translation, which you term St. Hieromes, your Cardinal tells you it is not of his purest Edition. Lastly, if you approve the vulgar Edition, decreed by the Council of Trent, I say neither you, nor all the Papists living, can resolve which is that vulgar Edition.  
For a Conclusion, either your vulgar Translation before Clement's time was corrupt, or in vain did Clement command a Correctorium to pass upon it, and to be read according to that correction. The work of Lucas Brugensis, who was living at that time, hath sufficiently discovered your corruptions in the Bible of Sixtus, which in his time was reputed for that only Edition confirmed by the Trent Council, commanded to be read throughout all Churches, and allowed by the consent of the whole Catholic Church: this Bible (I say) which for many ages was reputed the only authentical Edition in your Church, is purged and corrected (I speak within compass) in above 3000 several places. And as it hath been observed by a painful labourer in that Vineyard, 
Dr. james in his Bellum Papale.  your Translations in many places are flat contradictory each to other, (and he that believes contradictions, believes nothing at all.)  
From the charge in general, I will descend into particulars. And first, I will give you an Instance in the Old Testament.  
We read in the 34. of Exodus and the last verse, The Children of Israel saw the face, that the skin of Moses face shone: 
Videbant faciem egredientis Moisi esse Cornutan. Sixt. Bibl. Ibid. v. 29, and 35.  your Sixtus Bible in the vulgar Translation twice renders it, They saw his face horned; but your Sixtus Senensis complains of Hierome, that contrary to the Original he so translated it. Thus one while you leave Hieromes Translation when it savours not to your Palate, another while you excuse your own by condemning of St. Hierome: (Now whether it were a part of that corrupt Translation which your men use, and Hierome himself corrected, 
Rident ita que nos, & execrantur Judaei quoties Mosen in noflris Templis cornutâ facie depictum espiciunt, quasi nos eum Diabolum quendam, ut ipsi stuliè interpretantur, esse putemus. Sixt. Senens. l. 5. Annot. 116. p. 368. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  I dispute not) but (saith he) therefore the Jews do scoff and hate us Christians, whensoever they happen to see the picture of Moses painted with horns, as though, according to their Imagination, we though him to have been a Devil.  
Look upon the particulars in the new Testament. In the third of Matthew for Repentance you translate Penance, and by Penance you understand satisfaction for sins. So that when the Evangelist saith, according to the Greek Original (Repent) you follow the Latin Translation, which hath an ambiguous construction, and say, Paenitentiam agite, which your Rhemists translate, Do Penance. And in the 9th of St. Matthew, 
Math. 9.13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  where he saith, I am not come to call the Righteous, but sinners to repentance, you translate, I am not come to call the Just, but sinners, and leave out the word Repentance (which is in the Original.) And lastly, as if you were guilty of a false Translation in both, in the first of St. Mark, 
Mark. 1.15.  you translate the words according to the Original, and in stead of Do Penance, you rightly interpret, Be penitent, and believe the Gospel.  
In the 11 of St. Luke you have maimed and falsified the Lords Prayer: you say in this manner; Father sanctified be thy name, thy Kingdom come, our daily bread give us this day, and forgive us our sins, for because ourselves also do forgive every one that is in debt to us: And lead us not into temptation. In this absolute form of Prayer, you have omitted all these words; Our— which art in heaven, thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven, but deliver us from evil. Thus Christ taught his Disciples to pray in one manner, and you in that place teach your Disciples in another; and this is agreeable to your vulgar Translation, but not to the Original.  
In the 11 to the Romans we read, according to the Original; 
Rom. 11.6.  If it be of grace, than it is not now of works, for then grace is no more grace: but if it be of works, than it is now no grace, for then work is no more work: your Rhemists according to their vulgar Edition render it; And if by grace, not now of works, otherwise grace now is not grace: and leave out all the latter part of the verse, in these words, But if it be of works than it is now no grace, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Graec. Orig.  for then work is no more works; for what end let the Reader judge.  
In the first Epistle to the Corinthians we read according to the Original, Let a man so account of us, as of the Ministers of Christ, and Stewards of the Mysteries of God; 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 1 Cor. 4.1.  your Rhemists following the Latin Translation read, Dispenser's of the Mysteries of God: and howsoever these words might be dispensed withal in some sense, yet by no means as you force it. For when your Proselytes do question your Priests why they take away the Cup from the Lay people, with these words so translated you answer them, We are the Ministers of Christ, and Dispenser's of the mysteries of God: and so by consequence we may dispense with the Sacramental Cup, by the authority of Scripture. Witness your Council of Trent touching the Church's power of dispensing with the Sacrament, 
Id autem Apestolus non obscurè visus est innuisse, etc. Concil. Trid. Sess. 21. c. 2.  which professeth that the Apostle doth plainly intimate unto us a dispensation with the Sacrament in those words mentioned.  
In the 15. of the Corinthians we translate according to the Original, 
1 Cor. 15.51.  Behold I show you a mystery, we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed: your Rhemists translate it according to the vulgar Latin, 
Rhem. Test. ib.  flat contrary to the Original, and the meaning of the Holy Ghost; Behold I tell you a mystery, we shall all indeed rise again, but we shall not be changed.  
In the second Epistle to the Corinthians we read according to the Original, Wherefore henceforth know we no more after the flesh, yea though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet henceforth know we him no more: 
Rhem. Test. printed at Antwerp An. 1621. in 2 Cor. 5.16.  your Rhemists, doubting these words may trench too fare upon your natural and carnal presence, have quite perverted the sense by their last Edition in these words, Therefore we from henceforth know no man according to the flesh, and if we have known according to the flesh, but now know him no more. Here is no mention at all of Christ, but the chief words (yea) and (Christ) which are emphatically delivered by the Apostle, are quite left out; and I cannot conceive but it is done wittingly, because you have carefully observed the Errata upon the Annotations, but none upon the Text itself.  
In the second of the Ephesians we read according to the Original, 
Ephes. 2.10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  We are his workmanship created in Christ Jesus unto good works: your Rhemists following the Latin Translation deprave the Text, saying; 
Non satis commodè vertit vulg. Interpret. etc. Vega opusc. de Mer. & Justif. q. 6.  We are created in Christ Jesus in good works: Which is no fit interpretation (saith your own Vega) because we must beware lest that some take occasion from the Latin, to attribute the cause of their creation in Christ, unto his foreseen good works; than which nothing can be more contrary to St. Paul's doctrine.  
In the fift to the Ephesians according to the Original we read, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Eph. 5, 32.  This is a great mystery (speaking of Christ's marriage to his Church) your Rhemists, to prove Matrimony one of their seven Sacraments, follow the Latin Translation, and say, This is a great Sacrament; 
Cajet. Coment. in hunclocum.  whereas your Cardinal Cajetan tells us, The learned cannot infer from hence that Marriage is a Sacrament, for St. Paul said not, It is a Sacrament, but a Mystery.  
Lastly, to maintain your Image-worship, whereas we read in the Hebrews according to the Greek, Jacob blessed both the Sons of Joseph, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hebr. 11.21.  and worshipped leaning upon the top of his staff: your Rhemists according to the vulgar Latin read it, Jacob dying, blessed every one of the sons of Joseph, and adored the top of his rod.  
Thus I have given you a taste of the differences betwixt our Translations, and your vulgar Latin; now let the Reader judge which of those readings are most agreeable to the Original. If we inquire of your Rhemists, they tell us that we have no cause to complain of their Translation, unless we complain of the Greek also. Nay more, they have not only proclaimed it to the Reader, but they have outfaced the world in their Preface, that their Translation is so exact and precise, according to the Greek, 
Preface to the Rhem. Testam.  both the phrase and the word, that delicate Heretics (for so they term us) therefore reprehend us of rudeness, and that it followeth the Greek fare more exactly than the Protestants Translations.  
It is true indeed, that sometimes you would seem to affect the Greek, sometimes the Latin tongue in your Translation; but withal you have cunningly devised uncouth words and phrases, and for this purpose only, that the Scripture may seem hard and obscure to the common people, that they might either take no pleasure in the reading them, or reap no benefit for want of understanding them: 
Rom. 13.13. Galat. 1.14.24 Galat. 4.17. 1 Pet. 2.5. Phil. 4.10. Ephes. 6.12. 1 Cor. 10.11. Hebr. 2.17. John 6.54. John 19.14.  as for instance; Not in chambering and Impudicities. I expugned the faith. They emulate you not well, that you might emulate them. Be also yourselves superedified. Once at length you have reflourished to care for me. Against the spirituals of wickedness in the celestials. But they are written to our correption. That he might repropitiate the sins of the people. All shall be docible of God. It was the Parasceve of Pasche. These and such like are the exact and precise Translations which you so brag of, and for which we condemn you.  
Now do you join to these English phrases, your falsifying and corrupting the genuine sense of the Holy Ghost by your Latin Translations, and tell me if I may not truly retort your Assertion into your own bosom: Scripture you have indeed, but so mang led, corrupted, perverted by Translation, that as (you) have it, it is as good as nothing.  
But you have misinterpreted the Scriptures (say you) according to your own fancies.  
Your bolt is soon shot, and if all your words were Oracles, and that Ipse dixit were sufficient, your bare word (for other proofs you have none) would easily conclude us; but I will show you so plainly, that without Spectacles you may see that these Aspersions likewise reflect upon yourselves.  
It was a question amongst your fellow Jesuits, whether Jacob Clemens the Dominican might by Authority of the Scripture kill Henry the third, 
B. Barloes defence of the Articles, in his Preface, p. 7.  King of France; and one of your Jesuits reasoned thus with himself: Ehud killed Eglon, and therefore I may kill Henry; for Eglon was a King, and so is Henry; Eglon signifies a Calf, and Henry is a Calvinist; and therefore assuredly I may murder him by Scripture. I hope you will confess that this Jesuit, although he were of your Society, did interpret the Scripture according to his own fancy. In like manner, your Patriarch of Venice concludes seven Sacraments from the words of Scripture, and I conceive, it is according to his own fancy: That (saith he) which Andrew spoke, 
Inn. Gentil. exam. Concil. Trid. l. 4. n. 26. Sess.  There is a Boy which hath five loaves and two fishes, must be understood of the rank of St. Peter's successors; and that which is added, Make the people sit down; signifieth, that salvation must be offered them, by teaching them the seven Sacraments. And whereas the Prophet David saith; Thou hast put all things under his feet: Antoninus your Archbishop of Florence, 
Anton. in Sum. part. 3. tit. 22. c. 5.  about two hundred years since, expounded those words in this manner: Thou hast made all things subject to the Pope; the Cattle of the field, that is to say, men living in the Earth: the fishes of the sea, that is to say, the souls in Purgatory: the fowls of the Air, that is to say, the souls of the Blessed in heaven: whether this Exposition be according to the sense which the Catholic Church holdeth, or according to his own fancy, let the Reader judge.  
To come nearer to you: 
Whitak. & Camp. Rat. 9  Moses saith, God made man after his Image: Pope Adrian inferreth, Therefore Images must be set up in Churches. St. Peter saith, Behold here are two swords: Pope Boniface concludes, 
Extra. de Major. & Obed.  Therefore the Pope hath power over the spiritual and the temporal. St. Matthew saith, Give not that which is holy unto dogs: Mr. Harding expounds it, 
Juels Def. p. 52.  Therefore it is not lawful for the vulgar people to read the Scriptures. It was said to St. Peter in a vision, Arise, kill, and eat: your Cardinal Baronius hence infers, 
In voto Baronii contra venetos.  The Pope is Peter, and the Venetians are the meat which must be killed and devoured. To let pass those fare fetched and extravagant senses of Scriptures, which your learned men wire-draw for your Romish Doctrine. It is the word of God, Go to my servant Job, and he will pray for thee: therefore there is an Invocation of Saints in Scripture. Give us this day our daily bread: 
Bellar. de Sāct. Beat. l. 1. c. 10.  therefore the bread must be given to the Common people, and not the Cup. 
Roffens. adver. Luther. Art. 16.  Our Saviour opened the Book of the Prophet Esay, and afterwards closed it: 
Ledis. de divinis Script. Quâvis linguâ non legendâ. cap. 22.  therefore Prayer and Service in an unknown tongue is commanded by the Scripture. These and such like false glasses you temper for your Spectacles, to deceive your poor ignorant Proselytes with the name of Scripture; and for fear they should make any doubt of the right interpretation of them, 
Si quis habet interpretationem Ecclesiae Romanae, de loco aliquo Scripturae, etiamsi— tamen habet ipsissimun verbum Dei. Hosius de expresso verbo Dei.  your Cardinal Hosius protesteth to all Romanists, If a man have the Interpretation of the Church of Rome of any place of Scripture, he hath the very words of God; though he neither know, nor understand, whether, nor how it agreeth with the words of Scripture. This puts me in mind of that excellent passage of St. Hilary, who speaking of the errors and Heresies crept into the Church in the days of Constantius, makes this general complaint, which in these days is truly verified in the Roman Church; 
Hilard. 3. ad Constant. & l. 1. ad Const. defunctum.  Faith is now come to depend rather on time, than on the Gospel; your state is dangerous and miserable: you have as many faiths as wills; and as many doctrines as manners; whilst faiths are either so written as you list, or so understood as you will.  
I come now to your forbidden Books, wherein the mystery of iniquity will manifestly appear: and first touching the sacred Bible which is forbidden in the first place.  
The Bible (say you) is not so forbidden, but that it is in the Bishop's power to grant leave, if upon Conference with the Parish Priest or Confessor of the party that desireth leave, he find him to be such a one as may not incur danger of faith, etc. which with any reasonable man may be counted sufficient liberty.  
It is true that by the fourth Rule of Pope Pius the fourth, the Bible may be licenced by the Bishop, but the party must have the licence in writing: and withal it is decreed, 
Regula 4. in indice libr. prohibit. p. 16.  If any presume without such licence either to read or have it, unless he come in first and give up his Bible to his Ordinary, let him not have the pardon of his sins. It is not lawful then to read the Bible without a dispensation, but with a licence any man may read it: and this (say you) is sufficient liberty for any reasonable man. If I should grant you that which you say, yet you are never able to make good that licence: for Pope Clement the eight about thirty years after, upon this dispensation so granted, gives us to understand, That upon the Rule of Pius the fourth, 
Observatio circa 4. Regulam Ibid. p. 22. in fine Concil. Trident.  no new power was granted to the Bishops, or Inquisitors, or Superiors, to licence the buying, reading, or keeping the Bible in the vulgar tongue; seeing hitherto by the command and practise of the holy Inquisition, the power of granting such licenses, to read or keep Bibles in the vulgar Language, or any part of Scripture, as well of the New as the Old Testament, or any sums or Historical Abridgement of the same in any vulgar Language hath been taken from them: Quod quidem inviolatè servandum est; and this is inviolably to be observed. You see then, that howsoever your Pius Pope gave a dispensation for the reading of the Scriptures: yet Pope Clement his Successor, declared that licence to be void and of none effect; and that which concludes your Assertion for an untruth, it was by him decreed, to be kept without any dispensation or violation. 
Inviolatè servandum.   
Thus touching the sacred Bible you have several Translations, upon several pains to be received, and both different each from other in many hundred places: you have ranked the sacred Bible amongst the Books prohibited; and lastly, you seemingly grant a licence for the Ignorant to read the Scripture: and by another decree you abridge that licence so granted. I proceed from the forbidding of Scriptures, to your purging and falsifying of the ancient Fathers.  
As for Fathers (say you) it is most grossly false which the Knight after the ordinary Ministerial tune, stands canting, that we blot out and raze them at our pleasures. What is it then that these men would have? What is it they can carp at? Nothing but that they themselves are stung, in that hereby they are kept either from publishing their own wicked works, or corrupting the Fathers at their pleasure; and to wipe away this blemish from themselves, would lay it upon us. Thus you.  
It seems you have been well acquainted with Rogues and sturdy Beggars, who have taught you the Term of (Canting) a word proper for such kind of people: but whereas you say it is grossly false that you blot and raze the Fathers, and that therein we seek to wipe away the blemish from ourselves, and lay it upon you; for the better manifestation of the truth, first, look I pray upon the place where the corrupted Fathers were printed, & see by whom they were licenced; then hear your own men witnessing their own confession, of purging them; and lastly, peruse the places which I shall produce razed and corrupted, and then tell me if the Mystery of Iniquity doth not closely work in your Roman Church, and that the ancient Fathers are grossly falsified, and notoriously corrupted by your own men, even in the principal points of Doctrine controverted betwixt us.  
First then we must observe, that corruptions and abuse of ancient Fathers may be of three sorts; either by foisting into the Editions bastard Treatises, and intitling them to the Fathers; or by falsifying their undoubted Treatises by additions, detractions, or mutations; or lastly, by alleging passages, and places out of them, which are not extant in their works: and of all these three kinds your men are guilty, 
Expurgari & emaculari curâsti omnium Catholicorū scriptorum, praecipuè veterum Patrum scripta. Sixt. Senens. in Ep. Pio 5.  as it shall appear by instances in their several Ages, for the first 800. years.  
First, concerning the purging of Fathers; your Sixtus Senensis, in his Epistle dedicated to Pope Pius the fifth, amongst his many and famous deeds, recounts this for one of the greatest, That he caused the writings of all Catholic Authors, but especially those of the ancient Fathers, to be purged. And Gre●zerus your Jesuit proclaims it by way of justification; 
Gretz. l. 2. c. 10  If it be lawful to suppress or inhibit whole Books, as namely Tertullian and Origen, than it is lawful likewise to suppress a greater or lesser part of one, by cutting out, razing, blotting out, or by omitting the same simply for the benefit of the Reader. And Possevine your Jesuit tells us, 
Adistos enim quoque purgatio pertinet. Possev. l. 1. Bib. lioth. select. c. 12.  that Manuscript Books are also to be purged, as well as printed; which shows your good intention to the ancient Writers. I may add to these, that you do not only purge, and corrupt the Fathers (as shall appear in matter of fact in several Ages) but you forge Bastard Epistles in the names of ancient Bishops, and you thrust counterfeits into the Chair of the true and Catholic Doctors. Peter Warbeck is taken for Richard Duke of York, and obscure Authors, as namely Dorotheus, Hormisda, Hermes, Hippolytus, Martialis, and other counterfeits, for famous Writers, and all to supply your defects of doctrine in the Orthodox Fathers. Severinus Binius hath published certain decretal Epistles in the names of Clemens, Anacletus, Evaristus, Sixtus, and many others, to the number of thirty one, all Bishops of Rome: Insomuch, as their Epistles are cited by Bellarmine, by Peresius, by Coccius, by Baronius, by your Rhemists, for several proofs of your Trent Doctrine. Gratian saith, 
Grat. Dist. 20. Decretales.  they are of equal Authority with Counsels: nay more, he labours to prove out of St. Austin, 
Distinct. 19 in Canonicis.  that those decretal Epistles were reckoned by him amongst the Canonical Scriptures; and yet by the several Confessions of your learned Writers, are adjudged to be all counterfeit: and without doubt, their leaden-stile, their deep silence of Antiquity concerning them, the Scriptures alleged by them after St. Hieroms Translation (being long before his time) do easily convince them of falsehood. Antoninus Contius, the King's Professor of Law in the University of Bruges, tells us that he brought many reasons in his Preface, 
An. 1570.  and notes upon your Canon Law, which was printed at Antwerp, by which he proved, and shown manifestly, that the Epistles of the Popes, 
Silvester An. 314.  who were before Silvester, were all false and counterfeit. The Preface, with the reasons alleged against it, is now razed and purged; and Plantin the Printer gives this answer for it, 
Raynold. & Hart. Cap. 8. Divis. 3. p. 451.  The Censor who was to oversee the printed Books, would not suffer it to pass, and what became of it he remembered not, nor knew how to procure it. Thus your men are not only ashamed to publish their Bastard Epistles, and equal them to the Word of God, in behalf of your new doctrine, but you censure also and purge your own men for condemning such lying inventions.  
Whether to forge a false deed, or to raze a true one, be the greater fault, it is not greatly material: for your own men are guilty of both. And lastly, when neither purging, nor falsifying will serve the turn (which you have practised in Books set out the first 800. years) you bring a Prohibition against all Authors, Priests, and Professors in the bosom of your own Church, which testify the truth of our doctrine, and enjoin them silence by your Index Expurgatorius, by cutting out their tongues, and refining them with a new impression; and this hath been your ordinary practice, for the last 800. years. I will give you instances in both, and so I come to the second Age.  
In the second Age, Ignatius Bishop of Antioch witnesseth the antiquity of our Doctrine: he shows that our Communion in both kinds was practised in his days: There is one Bread (saith he) broken for all, and one Cup distributed to all. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ignat Ep. ad Philadelph.  In your Edition printed at Colein, you have quite altered the sense by a corrupt Translation, saying: One Cup is distributed for all: and in the Margin, 
Unus Calix, qui pro omninibus nobis distributus est. Bibl. Pp. Tom. 1. Colon Agripp. An. 1618. p. 85. Bell. de Euch. l. 4. c. 26.  Una Eucharistia utendum. And that your corruption may not want an Advocate, your Cardinal Bellarmine tells us; There is not much credit to be given to the Greek Copies, for the Latin reads it otherwise: by which reason, a man may appeal from the Original to a Translation; which is a thing unheard of.  
Again, whereas he saith in the same Epistle, 
Ignat. ibid. ut suprà.  Oh ye Virgins in your prayers set Christ (only) before your eyes, and his Father, being enlightened by his spirit: hereby teaching, that we ought to director prayers to the Trinity only, and not to Saints & Angels: your men in their late Edition printed at Lions, by their corrupt translation have left out the word Precibus, 
Ignat. Lugdun. impres. An. 1572.  and thrustin Animabus, souls for prayers; by which change of words, the sense & meaning of the Father is clean perverted. It followeth further in the same Page, in speaking of Peter and Paul, and other Apostles, who betook themselves to a married life; Severinus Binius, in his Annotations upon this place, tells us that those words (viz. Peter and Paul, and other Apostles, betook themselves to a married life) ought to be razed out; 
The third age, An. 200. to 300.  because (saith he) it is probable the Grecians in honour of Marriage, corrupted the Text: A fair warning for us to take notice, that in after Editions that passage may also be clean left out.  
In the third Age, Tertullian paraphrasing upon the words of Christ, 
a Caro nihil prodest, ad vivificandum scilicet. Tert. de Resurrect. carnis, c. 37. Caro nihil prodest sed ad vivificandum. Tertul. Parisiis apud Michaelem Julianum. An. 1580. p. (Mihi) 47.  The flesh profiteth nothing: (saith) It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing, (namely) to quicken: your Tertullian printed at Paris, hath quite perverted the meaning of the Father, and causeth him to speak flat contrary both to himself, and to the sense of Christ, in these words: The flesh profueth nothing (but) to quicken.  
St. Cyprian Bishop of Carthage is falsified and corrupted, for the circumgestation of your Sacrament, and the Pope's Supremacy. In his Tract of patience he tells us, 
b Nec post gustatam Eucharistiam, manus gladio & cruore maculentur. Sic Cypr. Parisiis apud Petrun Drovart. in vico Jacobaeo An. 1541. fol. 89. Nec post gestatam Eucharistiam, etc. Cypr. de bono Patientiae. Impress. Partsiis apud Claudium Chapelet Via Jacobaet An. 1616. p. (Mihi) 316  Post gustatam Eucharistiam, etc. After the eating of the Eucharist, the hands are not, or ought not to be defiled with blood: In your Cyprian printed at Paris and Colein, your men have wittingly altered the words, saying, Post gestatam Eucha ristiam; and so by transmutation of one letter, do cite this place for the circumgestation of the Sacrament: whereas the Ceremony of carrying about the Eucharist, was not known in many hundred years after Cyprians time. But Pamelius, a Canon of the Church of Bruges, and Licentiate in Divinity, returns this answer in defence of it: 
Cum manu non gustetur Eucharistia, sed olim gestari consueta sit, prorsus illud ex Cambrensi Codice substituendum duxi, pro eo quod erat gustatam. Annot. in lib. de bono Patient. pag. (Mihi) 321  Forasmuch as the Eucharist cannot be tasted with the hand, but was wont anciently to be carried with the hand, I thought it best to change the word Tasting, into Carrying; which I borrowed from an ancient Copy in Cambron Abbey. The word than we see was changed by his own Confession, and the Cambron Copy is brought for the defence of this forgery: which differing from all other Copies may be justly suspected. For his reason, that we taste not with our hand, it is frivolous: For St. Cyprian saith not, gustatam manu, but simply gustatam; which taste yet was not without taking the Sacrament into the hand.  
You have heard Pamelius confession: Now let us hear what Manutius hath done in publishing of St. Cyprian; for Pamelius tells us, that St. Cyprian printed at Rome by Paulus Manutius, 
Indiculus. Codicum in Cypriano.  in the year 1563. is a much more bettered and corrected Edition, than any other: and accordingly your learned Priest Mr. Hart assures us, that Pope Pius the 4th, 
Hart & Raynolds, c. 5. Divis. 2. p. 167.  being desirous that the Fathers should be set forth and corrected perfectly, sent to Venice for Manutius a famous Printer, that he should come to Rome to do it; and to furnish them the better with all things necessary, he put four Cardinals, wise and virtuous, in trust with the work; and for the correcting of Cyprian especially above the rest, singular care was taken; by Cardinal Baromaeus, a Copy was gotten of great antiquity from Verona, and the exquisite diligence of learned men was used in it.  
These Testimonies make a fair show of sincere and plain dealing: and no doubt if there were not double diligence used by them, the Roman Cyprian doth exceed all the rest, and is freest from corruption: That the truth thereof may appear, let us look into St. Cyprian in his book touching the Unity of the Church. 
De Veritate Ecclesiae.  Whereas the ancient and true Cyprian saith, The rest of the Apostles were equal unto Peter both in honour and power; the Roman Cyprian, printed by Manutius, and your late Paris Cyprian, 
Cypr. Parisiis apud Claudium Chapelet. An. 1616.  hath added these words, The Primacy is given to Peter. And whereas the ancient Cyprian saith, Christ did dispose the Original of unity beginning from one; the Roman and Paris have added, 
Unam Cathedram constituit. p. 254  He appointed one Chair. And whereas the ancient Cyprian saith, The Church of Christ may be showed to be one; the Roman and Paris have added, 
Cathedra una constituitur. ib.  and the Chair to be one. And because the Chair may be as well applied to the Bishop of Carthage, 
Cathedram Petri. Ibid.  as to the Bishop of Rome, the Paris Cyprian hath added Peter's chair. And whereas it was in Cyprian, even in the Roman print too, He who withstandeth and resisteth the Church, doth he trust himself to be in the Church? the Paris Cyprian addeth; 
Qui C●thedram Petri, supra quam fundata est Ecclesia, deserit, in Ecclesia se esse confidit? ibid.  He who forsaketh Peter's chair, in which the Church was founded, doth he trust himself to be in the Church?  
Now as you have heard that Manutius hath added, and forged much in his Roman Edition, for the Pope's Supremacy, so likewise you shall observe, that he hath razed and purged an ancient Record and special Evidence, against the universality and supremacy of the Bishops of Rome; It is an Epistle written by Firmilianus Bishop of Caesarea to St. Cyprian (which St. Cyprian translated into Latin, as your Pamelius doth confess) wherein he professeth, that he is justly moved with indignation, at the manifest folly of Stephanus (than Bishop of Rome) that boasting so much of his Bishopric, 
At que ego hâc in parte justè indignor, ad hanc tam apertam & manifestam Stephani stultitiam. Firmilian. Cyp. S. Ep. 75. p. 203 Noli te fallere, siquidem ille est verè schismaticus etc. p. 204. Insuper & Cyprianum Pseudo-Christum, & Pseudo-Apostolum, & dolosum operarium dicere, qui omnia inse conscius praevenit, etc. p. 205.  and that he hath the succession of Peter, upon whom the foundation of the Church was set; brings in many other Rocks, etc. He bids him not deceive himself, he hath made himself a Schismatic by separating himself from the Communion of the Ecclesiastical unity; for while he thinks he can separate all from his Communion, he hath separated himself only from all. He taxeth him for calling St. Cyprian a false Christ, a false Apostle, and a deceitful workman; which he himself being guilty of, and privy to himself, that those terms of right belong to himself; by way of prevention, he objected them to another.  
Touching these several Additions and Extractions, Pamelius (by whom the Antwerp and Paris Cyprian were set forth) first excuseth Manutius for adding the words in his Roman print; and tells us, they were found in a written Copy of the Cambron Abbey in Hannonia, which was the best of all the Copies he had; and therefore, saith he, we were not afraid to insert that Reading into the Text. 
Nonsumus veriti in textum inserere.  Yet Manutius himself professeth, he perused five and twenty printed and Manuscript Copies, which had none of those Additions; and as touching the Epistle to, or from Firmilianns (which proves a resistance anciently made against the usurped power of the Pope) Pamelius thinks it was left out purposely by Manutius; 
Argumentum Ep. 75. p. 198.  and, saith he, Perhaps it had been more wisdom it had never been set out at all: (but withal he addeth) because Morelius did publish it before me, I thought it not fit to let it pass, but print it.  
Now let us look bacl, and examine the reason of these several Editions and falsifications. Mr. Hart saith, that the Additions were taken from a very ancient Copy gotten from Verona; Pamelius saith, they were borrowed from a Manuscript in the Cambron Ahbey in Hannonia: but in 25. Copies the Additions were not to be found. Mr. Hart saith, the true Copy was printed at Rome, by the Pope's command, and with the advice of virtuous and wise men, to be perfectly corrected, and free from all spots. Pamelius saith, it was better than any other; but withal, it was not so exact, but that the old Proverb might take place, the latter is commonly the better. Lastly, touching the razing out the Epistle of Firmilianus, Pamelius concludeth that his Copy (which doth cite it) is so perfect, 
Indiculus Codicum in initio Cypriani.  that, be it spoken without envy, there will need no further recognition; yet happily (saith he) it had been better it had never come forth.  
Thus you may discern, what forgeries are used by your men, to support the circumgestation of your Sacrament, and the Pope's Supremacy; which is a main Pillar of your Faith: And this may serve to show your falsifications and forgeries in the third Age.  
In the fourth Age. 
The fourth age. An. 300. to 400.  The first General Council of Nice is forged by Zozimus Bishop of Rome, in behalf of his own supremacy. The pretended Canon is this; 
In Concil. Carthag. c. 1. Binius  Those who in the Nicene Synod gave their sentence concerning Appeals of Bishops, said in this manner: If a Bishop shall be accused, and the Bishops of his own Province shall thereupon condemn and degrade him, if he think fit to appeal, and thereupon fly to the most holy Bishop of Rome, if he be pleased to have the hearing of it, the Bishop is to write to the Bishops adjoining, and let it be at his pleasure to do what he will, and as he in his judgement shall think fittest to be done. This Canon is not to be found either in the Greek or Latin Copies of the Nicene Council; and those Canons in all were but 20. It is true that you pretend, that there were in all 60. Canons, where of 40. were burned by the Arabians, (amongst which this Canon was one:) But if they were extant, how were they burned? And if they were burned, how came you to the knowledge of them? The truth is, their Bastardy (saith Contius your Lawyer) is proved even by this, that no man, no not Gratian himself, 
Raynold. chap. 9 Divis. 2. pag. 575.  durst allege them.  
Eusebius Caesariensis Bishop of Caesarea is corrupted, to prove the Pope's supremacy: In the Basil print translated by Ruffinus, he saith, Peter, James, 
Euseb, impr. Basiliae ex Officinâ Henr. Petrina, Ruffino Aquiliensi Interpret. Sed Jacobum, qui dicebatur Justus, Apostolorum Episcopum statuerat. Eus. l. 2. Eccl. Hist. c. 1. p. 677. Petrum, Jacobum, & Johannem, non de gloriâ & honore contendisse interse, sed uno consensu Jacobum Justum Hierosoly monum Episcopum designâsse. Coloniae Allobrogum, excudebat Petrus dela Roviere. An. 1612.  and John, after the Assumption of our Saviour, although they were preferred by him before all the rest of the Apostles, yet did they not challenge the honour of Primacy to themselves, but appointed James, which is called Justus, to be Bishop of the Apostles: In your Coleine Edition, you have altered the sense, in this manner: Peter, James, and John, when they had obtained of our Lord a high degree of dignity, they did not contend about glory and honour amongst themselves, but with one consent made James Bishop of Jerusalem: Thus the true and ancient Eusebius saith Peter and the rest did not challenge the honour of primacy; the latter saith, they did not strive about glory and honour: the ancient saith, they appointed James, which is called Justus, to be Bishop of the Apostles; the other saith they nominated Justus Bishop of Jerusalem.  
This Authority is so pregnant against the Pope's Jurisdiction, claimed from Peter, that Bellarmine hath nothing to answer, but this: Although those words be found in the Basil print, translated by Ruffinus, yet in a Colein print, translated and published by a Roman Catholic, 
Bellar. de Rom. Pont. l. 1. c. 26.  the word Primacy is not to be found; and in stead of the words [Bishop of the Apostles] are inserted, Bishop of Jerusalem. The Cardinal doth not complain, that Ruffinus Translation was false and corrupt (for they are the words in the Original of the ancient Eusebius) neither could he say truly, that the Colein was translated by a Catholic, for indeed it is the property of an Heretic to falsify and corrupt the Text. And thus you have done in your Colein Edition, where you have altered the sense in that manner.  
Eusebius Emissenus Bishop of Emesa in Syria is forged by Gratian for the doctrine of Transubstantiation: 
Grat. Dist. 2. de Consecrat. Quia corpus, fol. (Mihi) 432.  his words are these; Christ the invisible Priest, turned the visible creature into the substance of his body and blood, with his word and secret power, saying; Take, eat, this is my Body: whereas there are no such words to be found in all his Works.  
The Council of Laodicea is falsified in favour of your Invocation of Angels. The words of the Original are these: 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. etc. Conc. Laod. Can. 35. Bin. Tom. 1. p. 245.  Christians ought not to forsake the Church of God, and departed aside and invocate Angels, and make meetings, which are things forbidden: If any man therefore be found to give himself to this privy Idolatry, let him be accursed. Now in the same Council published by James Merlin, and Friar Crab, by transmutation of a letter, you are taught a lesson contrary to sense and reason, saying, 
b Quod non oporteat Ecclesiam Dei relinquere, & abire, at que angelos nominare, & congregationes facere. Merlin Tom. 1. Concil. edit. Col. An. 1530. f. 68 Crab. edit. An. 1538. Colon. fol. 226. Verit as non quaerit Angulos.  It is not lawful for Christians to forsake the Church of God, and go and nominate or invocate Angels, or corners, and make meetings; and thus Angeli are become Anguli, Angels are become Angles, or Corners, as if truth did seek Corners, when so fair an Evidence is brought against Invocation of Angels.  
St. Basil, the great Archbishop of Caesarea, was forged by Pope Adrian the first, at the second Council of Nice, for the worship of Images; his words are these: 
c Pro quo & siguras Imaginū eorum honoro, & adoro, & veneror specialitèr, hoc enim traditum est à Sanctis Apostolis, necest prohibendum: acideò in om●ibus Ecclesiis nostris eorum designamus Historias. Citat. ab Adriano in Synod. Nic. 2. Act. 2. p. (Mihi) 504.  For which cause I honour and openly adore the figures of the Images (speaking of the Apostles, Prophets, and Martyrs) and this being delivered us by the Apostles, is not prohibited; but in all Churches we set forth their Histories. This Authority was cited by Pope Adrian, in the name of Basil the Great in his Epistles; when as in all his Epistles, of which are extant 180. there are no such words to be found.  
St. Hierome is likewise forged for the same doctrine, and by the same Pope: the words in the Epistle are these; 
Sicut permisit Deus ador are omnem gentem manufacta, etc. Citatur ibid. Ep. Adr. p. (Mihi) 506.  As God gave leave to the Gentiles, to worship things made with hands, and to the Jews to worship the carved works, and two golden Cherubins which Moses made; so hath he given to us Christians the cross, and permitted us to paint and reverence the Images of God's works, and so to procure him to like of our labour. These words (you fee) are cited by your own Pope, at a general Council, as you pretend, for a point of your Romish faith; and yet there are no such words, nor the meaning of of them, to be found in either of those Fathers; and without doubt there was great scarcity of true ancient Fathers to be found at that time, to prove your adoration of Images, when your Pope was driven to shifts and forgeries: especially, when your own Polydore tells you, 
Polyd. de Rerun Invent.  that the worship of Images, not only Basil, but almost all the ancient holy Fathers condemned, for fear of Idolatry; as S. Hierome himself witnesseth. This puts me in mind of Erasmus complaint, that the same measure was afforded to Basil, 
Eras. in Praefat. lib. de Spirit. Sanct. Bas.  which he had otherwise observed in Athanasius, chrysostom, Hierome, that in the middle of Treatises, many things were stuffed and forced in by others, in the name of the Fathers.  
St. Ambrose Bishop of Milan is falsified and corrupted. Franciscus Junius as an eye witness, 
Junius Praefat. in Ind. Expurg. Belg.  tells us, that at Leyden in the year 1559. being familiarly acquainted with Ludovicus Saurius Corrector of the Printing house, and going to visit him, he found him revising of St. Ambrose works which then Frelonius was printing: after some conference had betwixt them, Ludovicus shown him some printed leaves, partly canceled and partly razed; saying, this is the first Impression, which we printed most faithfully, according to the best Copies; but two Franciscan Friars by command have blotted out those passages, and caused this alteration, to my great loss and astonishment.  
It may be the discovery of it by Junius might stay their further printing of it, or else might be an occasion to call it in after the printing; for otherwise if that Impression may be had, it were worthy the examination. 
Bolseus dicit se in manibus Secretarii h●c testimonium vidisse, &. inspexisse. In disp. de Antichristo in Apend. Nu. 49. & 53. Laurent. River. Rom. Eccl. p. 190. Non habent Petri haereditatem qui Petri sedem non habent. Grat de Paenit. Dist. 1. c. Potest fieri.  But for a proof of this falsified Ambrose, Lessius the Jesuit tells us, that Bolseck doth confess he saw the Copy in the hands of a Secretary: howsoever their later Editions are sufficient proof of your manifold falsifications. But I will speak of Impressions (only) that have been within my view. First, to prove your succession in doctrine in your own Church, Gratian tells us from St. Ambrose, They have not the succession of Peter, who have not the Chair of Peter; and thus he hath changed Fidem into Sedem, Faith into Chair. This forgery in time may creep into the Body of Ambrose; but as yet the words of Ambrose are agreeable to our doctrine; that is, 
a Non habent Petri haereditatem qui Petri fidem non habent. Ambr. de Paenit. c. 6. Tom. 1. p. 156. Basil. apud Joh. Frob. An. 1527. Ambr. de Sacr. l. 4. c. 5. Tom. 4. p. 393. Basil●ut supra.  they have not the succession of Peter, which want the faith of Peter. These be the words of true and ancient Ambrose, hereby declaring unto us, and them, that they may have the See of Peter, and yet want the faith of Peter.  
Again, in his Book of the Sacrament St. Ambrose saith, 
b Fac nobis hanc oblationem ascriptam, etc. quod fit in figuram corports & sanguinis Jesu Christi. Amb. Colon. Agripp. An. 1616 Tom. 4. p. 173.  Make this Oblation to be a reasonable & acceptable one (quod est figura) which is a figure of the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ: Your Ambrose printed at Colein, doth mince those words, and saith, (quod sit in figuram) as if it might stand for a figure, but were no figure; and more particularly in the Canon of your Mass, you cite all those former words of Ambrose to prove the Antiquity of your Mass, but you leave out the latter (which is a figure of the Body) and say; 
c Ut nobis corp. & sanguis fiat dilectissimi fi●ii tui Domini nostri Jesu Christi. Missale Paru. An. 1626. p. (Mihi) 82.  Grant that it may be to us the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ And lastly, that Ambrose might seemingly appear to be yours, in the point of Transubstantiation, whereas he showeth the power and wonders of God in creating all things of nothing by his word only, and from thence concludeth, 
d Si●ergo tanta vis est in sermone Domini Jesus, ut inciperent esse quae non erant; quant ò magis operatorius est, ut sint quae erant & in aliud commutentur? Idem de sacr. l. 4. c. 4. Basil ut suprà, p. 392.  If therefore there be so great force in the speech of our Lord Jesus, that the things which were not begun to be (namely, at the first creation of all things) how much more is the same powerful, to make that those things may still be the same they were, and yet be changed into another thing? Here St. Ambrose showeth plainly, that the Elements of Bread and Wine are the same in substance as they were before, although they are changed into another nature. Your Inquisitours knowing well that such Doctrine is flat contrary to their Tenet, which teach that the Elements are not the things in substance they were before Consecration, have wisely left out in their late Edition two poor words, (Sint) and (et) and accordingly the sense runneth after this manner; How much more is the speech of our Lord powerful to make that those things which were, 
Ut quae erant in aliud commutentur. Paris. An. 1603 & Colon. Agripp. An. 1616. Tom. 4. p. 173.  should be changed into another thing. And by this means St. Ambrose a Protestant, is become a Mass Priest; and with a clipped tongue lispeth Transubstantiation. Friar Walden in writing against Wickliff, citys this place by the halves (ut sint et in aliud commutentur) he would have the Elements one thing, 
Wald. de sacr. Euch. Tom. 2. c. 82 p. (Mihi) 138. b.  and changed into another, but excludes the principal words (quae erant) showing that they should be the same, which they were before; and Lanfranck long before him stormed at Berengarius, for citing this place out of St. Ambrose in behalf of our Doctrine, and cries out against him, O mentem amentem! etc. O mad mind! O impudent liar! now truly there is no such words to be found in all St. Ambrose his works, 
Ed. Parisiis 1632. Ex editione Romanâ: In quâ quae vel vitio vel incuriâ erant adjecta, sunt rejecta; quae sublata, restituta; quae transposita, reposita; quae depravata, emendata, etc. In the fift age. An. 400. to 500  etc. But there is an Ambrose lately printed at Paris, which makes a great promise of integrity and purity, and yet the words are corruptly printed, according to your other of Paris and Colein print.  
In the fift age, St. chrysostom Archbishop of Constantinople is razed and purged, touching the doctrine of the Sacrament: his words be these; If therefore it be so dangerous a matter to transfer unto private uses those holy Vessels (in which the true Body of Christ is not, but the mystery of his body is contained.) These latter words comprehended in the Parenthesis, 
Chrys. Antwerpiae apud fohannem Steelsium, An. 1537. Paris. apud Johannem Roigny. An. 1543. & Paris. apud Audoenum Parvii. Anno 1557.  in the Editions of Antwerp and Paris are wholly left out, there is not a syllable of them to be seen: for indeed the Author of that work saith negatively, that (the irue body of Christ is not) there, which overthrows the very ground of your Popish presence: and although your men make great brags of Antiquity, to prove your real Sacrifice of the Altar out of St. chrysostom; yet in the 19 Homily upon St. Matthew, where he terms it the Sacrifice of bread and wine, 
Sacrificium panis & vini.  they being also privy to this evidence, as against their own doctrine, 
Sacrificium corporis & sand. guinis Christi. Paris. apud Audoenum P●rvū. An. 1557. in. c. 7. Matt. Hon. 19  in their Edition at Paris have taught him to speak the Trent language, in these words; It is the Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ.  
Touching the Testimony of divine Scriptures, St. chrysostom is purged; he tells us in his 49. Homily, That from the time that Heresies invaded the Church, 
Nunc autem nullo modo cognoscitur volentibus cognoscere quae sit Ecclesia Christi, nisi (tantummodò) per scripturas. Idem Homil. 49 Tom. 2 p. mihi. 858.  there can be no trial of Christianity, nor refuge for Christians, who are willing to know the true faith, but to the divine Scriptures; for at that time there is no way to know which is the true Church, but by the Scriptures only: This authority is wholly agreeable to our doctrine, and thereupon these times of Controversies and Heresies, that have overspread the face of the Church, we say with St. chrysostom, those that be in Judaea, let them fly to the Mountains of the Scriptures. But what answer can be made, think you, to the razing of so fair an Evidence? Behold 
a Totus hic locus, tanquam ab Arrianis insertus, è quibusdam Codicibus nuper emendatis sublatus est. Bell de verbo Dei l. 4. c. 11.  Bellarmine tells us, that this whole passage (as if it had been inserted into St. chrysostom by the Arrians) is blotted out of the late corrected Editions: and, as our learned Doctor Crakenthorpe in his answer to Spalatto observed, there is above 70. lines in the Antwerp Edition, 
Crakenth. in Spalat. p. (mihi) 59  published 1537. purged in this Homily. It seems then it is heretical doctrine, to have recourse to the Scriptures only for finding of the truth; But sure I am, it is the part of Heretics to raze ancient Records, and to avoid the trial of their cause by the sacred Scriptures.  
The fourth Council of Carthage (where St. Austin was present) is in part forged, in part razed: In the 100 Canon it was thus decreed: 
Mulier baptizare non praesumat. Concil. Carthag. c. 100  Let no woman presume to baptise. What answer therefore may we expect to this Canon? Binius the publisher of the Counsels, expounds the meaning of it thus; The Council (saith he) doth decree that a woman should not presume to baptise, that is, when the Priest is present: 
Binius ibid. in his Annot.  on the other side, Peter Lombard and Gratian, 
Pet. Lomb. l. 4. Sent. Dist. 6. Grat. Can. Mulier de Consecr. Dist. 4.  they have put in their exception, (nisi necessitate cogente) except it be in case of necessity: so that in the absence of the Priest, and in case of necessity, women may baptise by the authority of your Church, notwithstanding the Counsels decree. And this is according to Bellarmine's confession: Although (saith he) those words of exception (nisi necessitate cogente) be not found in the Tomes of Counsels, 
Bell. de Baptis. l. 1. c. 7.  yet Peter Lombard and Gratian cite the Canon in that manner. And thus by your own Cardinal's profession, your Priests have added that exception to the Canon, to dispense with women for Administration of the Sacrament, which is not found in the Council.  
Again, the same Council is razed both by the compiler of the decrees, and publisher of the Counsels: for the Council saith in the 44. Canon, 
a Clericus nec comam nutriat, nec barbam radat, Concil. Carth. Can 44.  Let no Clerk wear long hair, nor shave his Beard: The decretals, and your late Counsels published by Binius, have left out the word (Radat) and have quite altered the sense of the decree, and so your Church hath gone directly against the meaning of the Council in shaving of Priests.  
S. Austin Bishop of Hippo is both purged, and falsified in favour of your doctrine. First, for the purging of him your own men make this declaration: 
b Augustinus nuper Venetiis excusus, in quo, praeter multorum locorum restitutionem secundum collationem veterum exemplarium, curavimus removeri illa omnia quae fidelium mentes haeretic â pravitate possent inficere, aut a Catholica orthodoxa fide deviare. Praefat. Ind. lib. prohibit. ad Lectorem, Genevae impress. an. 1629.  St. Austin was lately printed at Venice, in which Edition, as we have restored many places accerding to the ancient Copies; so likewise we have taken care to remove all those things, which might either infect the minds of the faithful with Heresies, or cause them to wander from the Catholic faith. This public profession your men have made, and accordingly the 
c In hunc modum est repurgatus, ut in libri inscripsione testantur qui editioni praefuerunt. Ibid. p. 6.  Book was purged, as those who were present at that Edition do witness in the Inscription of the Book: but let us return to the corrupted Editions in our view.  
St. 
d De Civitate Dci lib. 22. c. 24.  Austin in his 22. book of the City of God and 24. Chapter, is cited by 
e Bell. de Purg. l. 1. c. 4.  Bellarmine for the proof of Purgatory: yet in that Chapter (saith 
f Lud. Vives in lib de Civit. Dei. c. 8.  Vives) in the ancient Manuscript Copies, which are at Bruges and Colein, those ten or twelve printed lines are not to be found: And in the 22. book and 8. Chapter he tells us, there are many additions in that Chapter, without question, foisted in by such as make practice of depraving Authors of great Authority.  
Touching forgeries and falsifications in particular: The humane nature of Christ is destroyed, if there be not given it, after the manner of other bodies, a certain space wherein it may be contained. In your Edition of Paris, printed by Sebastian Nivelle, 
An. 1571.  this passage is wholly left out: This is observed by Dr. Moulin, but the Author so printed I have not seen. But when neither adding nor detracting could make good your Transubstantiation, Friar Walden thought it the surest way to forge a whole passage in the name of St. Austin, which indeed strongly proves the very name and nature of it: The words are these; 
Wald. Tom. 2. de Sacram. c. 83. p. (mihi) 141.  No man ought to doubt when Bread and Wine are consecrated into the substance of Christ, so as the sabstance of bread and wine do not remain, whereas we see many things in the works of God no less marvellous. A woman God changeth substantially into a stone, as Lot's wife; and in the small workmanship of man, hay and fern into glass. Neither must we believe that the substance of bread and wine remaineth, but the bread is turned into the Body of Christ, and the wine into his blood, the qualities or accidents of bread and wine only remaining. This foe gery was judicially allowed by Pope Martin the fist, and his Cardinals, in their Consistory, and yet it savours rather of a Glasse-maker, than an ancient Father: but what answer maketh Walden to this invention? 
* Egoenimreperi & transcripsi de vetustissimo exemplari scripto antiquam valdè manu formatâ. Idem Ibid.  I found it (faith he) and transcribed it out of a very ancient Copy written with a set hand. Thus one while you add, another while you detract, another while you falsify the ancient Fathers, if either they make for us or against you; and yet you tell us, that we are guilty of corrupting the Fathers. But above all, Gratian hath most shamefully and lewdly falsified St. Austin, whom he hath made to say; 
Inter Canonicas Scripture as decretales Epistolae connumerantur. Dist. 29. In Canonicis. fol. 19 A.  The decretal Epistles of the Popes are accounted in the number of Canonical Scriptures.  
The truth is, St. Austin in his book of Christian doctrine, informs a Christian what Scripture he should hold for Canonical; and thereupon bids him follow the greater part of the Catholic Church: Amongst which those Churches are, which had the happiness to enjoy the seats of the Apostles, and to receive Epistles from them. Gratian in the Canon Law altereth the words thus: Amongst which Canonical Scriptures, those Epistles are which the Apostolic See of Rome hath, and which others have deserved to receive from her; and accordingly the title of the Canon is, Imer Canonicas Scripturas, etc. The decretal Epistles of Popes are counted by St. Austin for Canonical Scriptures. Now judge you what greater forgery, nay what greater blasphemy can be devised, or uttered against Christ and his Spirit, than that the Pope's Epistles should be termed canonical Scriptures, and held of equal authority with the Word of God; especially since by your own men they are censured as Apocryphal and counterfeit Epistles. Your own Bellarmine, as a man ashamed of such gross forgeries, would seem to excuse it; 
Bell. de Concil. Author. l. 2. c. 12. Primo.  That Gratian was deceived by a corrupt copy of St. Austin, which he had besides him, and that the true and corrected copies have not the words, as himself reporteth. Thus Walden excuseth his forgery by an ancient Manuscript, the Cardinal by a corrupt copy; and yet, by your Cardinal's leave, this and many other such like forgeries stand printed in the Canon Law, no Index Expurgatorius lays hold on them, 
Idem de script Eccles. An. 1100 de Gratiano. Aiph. advers. haereses, l. 1. c. 2. in fine. Ad transmarina qui putaverint appellandum, a nullo infra Africam in Communione suscipiatur. Bin. in Concil. Milevit. Cancrone. 22 & Codex Can. Eccl. Afric. Can. 28. v. Nisi forte ad Apostolican sedem appellaverint. Grat. causa 2. quest. 6. Placuit. fol. (Mibi) 153. Haec exceptio non videtur quadrare. Bell. de Pont. l. 2. c. 24.  notwithstanding he professeth the work was purged and restored to his integrity, by most learned men, by the command of Gregory the 13. in the year 1580. Your Alphonsus à Castro tells us, that this shameful error ought to be made known to all men, lest others by this abuse, take occasion to err in like manner; as namely, Johannes de Turrecremata, and Cardinal Cajetan, who both cited this place out of Gratian for the Romish faith, and the Pope's Supremacy, and yet no such thing is to be found in St. Austin.  
The Council of Milevis, alias, the African Council, is falsified by Gratian for the Pope's Supremacy: The words of the Council are these, Those that offer to appeal beyond the Seas, let none within Africa receive them to Communion: Gratian observing that this was a strong evidence and bar to the Pope's Supremacy, according to his custom, hath thrust in these words into the Canon (Except it be to the Apostolic See of Rome.) Now what saith Bellarmine to this falsification? He confesseth that some say, This exception doth not seem to square with the Council: I know not how the squares go with your men at Rome, but I find that amongst your party there is no rule without an exception; especially if it make against your doctrine.  
St. cyril Bishop of Alexandria is purged in the Text itself, and is forged by Aquinas, for two principal points of faith; viz. Transubstantiation, and the Pope's Supremacy: Touching the first he saith, That we might not feel horror, 
Aquin. in Catena in illud Luc. 22, Accepto pane, etc.  seeing flesh and blood on the sacred Altar, the Son of God condescending to our infirmities, doth penetrate with the power of life into the things offered (to wit, Bread and Wine) converting them into the verity of his owneflesh, that the body of life, as it were a quickening seed, might be found in us. Here is a fair Evidence, or rather a foul falsification for your carnal presence. But what saith your own Vasques the Jesuit? 
Citatur Cyrillus Alex. in Epistola ad Casyrium, quae inter ejus opera non habetur, illius tamen testimonium citat S. Thomas in Catena.  Cyrils' testimony is eyted by Thomas, but there is no such Tract to be found in all his works.  
Again, touching the Pope's Supremacy, he brings in St. Cyrill saying, As Christ received power of his Father, over every power, a power most full and ample, that all things should bow to him; so he did commit it most fully and amply, 
Aquinas in opusculo contra errores Graecorum, ad Urbanum quartum Pontificem maximum.  both to Peter and his Successors, and Christ gave his own to none else save to Peter fully, but to him be gave it. And the Apostles in the Gospels and Epistles have affirmed in every doctrine, Peter and his Church to be instead of God. And to him, even to Peter, all do bow their head by the law of God, and the Princes of the world are obedient to him, even as to the Lord Jesus. And we, as being members, must cleave unto our head the Pope, and the Apostolic See: That it is our duty to seek and inquire what is to be believed, what to be thought, what to be held, because it is the right of the Pope alone to reprove, to correct, to rebuke, to confirm, to dispose, to lose, and bind. Here is a large and ample testimony cited in the name of an ancient Father for the honour and power of the universal Bishop. This passage is alleged out of Cyrils work entitled The Treasury against Heretics; 
Thesaurus adversus haeticos. Tom. 2. p. 1.  but whereas there are 14. Books written by him of that Title, there are no such words to be found in the whole Tract. But observe the proceed of your good Saint; he conceived the authority of one Father (though rightly cited) was not a sufficient proof for an Article of faith, and thereupon, to make good his former Assertion, he summons 630. Bishops, who (saith he) with one voice and consent made this general acclamation in the Council of Chalcedon; 
Aquinas in opusculo, ut supra.  God grant long life to Leo, the most holy, Apostolic, and universal Patriarch of the whole World. He tells us further, it was decreed by the same Council, If any Bishop be accused, let him appeal to the Pope of Rome, because we have Peter for a rock of refuge, and he alone hath right, with freedom of power, in stead of God, to judge and try the cause of a Bishop accused, according to the keys which the Lord did give him. Without doubt this decree was a good inducement for the Church of England to subscribe to the Pope's Supremacy (if you could make good this proof out of the Council of Chalcedon) for it is one of the first four general Counsels, which we subscribe unto by our Acts of Parliament. 
An. 1. Elizab.  But where are those words to be found in that Council? Your Pope Zozimus falsified a Canon in the first Council of Nice (as I have showed) and your Pope's Champion St. Thomas hath falsified another, and both for the universality of the Pope; by which you may easily discern, that you wanted antiquity to prove your faith, when your men are driven to forge and feign a consent of many hundred Bishops, in an ancient and general Council, 
See Concil. Chalced. Can. 28. Act. 15.  for the supporting of your Lord Paramount; when as in truth it decreed the flat contrary doctrine.  
Gelasius Bishop of Rome is corrupted, 
Grat. de Consecr. dist. 2. c. Comperimus. Gelasius Pap● Majorico & Johanni Episcopis. Ibid.  where he condemneth half Communion as sacrilegious: his words are these; We find that some receiving a portion of Christ's holy Body, abstain from the Cup of his sacred Blood, which because they do out of I know not what superstition, we command therefore that either they receive the entire Sacraments, or that they be entirely withheld from them; because the division of one and the selfsame Mystery cannot be without grand Sacrilege.  
Gratian, the compiler of the Pope's Decrees, borrowed his chapter out of that Epistle of Gelasius (saith Bellarmine) & withal prefixed this Title before it, 
Bell. de sacr. Euch. l. 4. c. 26.  The Priest ought not to receive the Body of Christ without the Blood; 
Ea Epistola Gelasii, quae modò fortasse non extat. Ibid.  that is to say, without the consecrated Cup; and yet by Bellarmine's confession, That Epistle peradventure is not now extant: and which is more, your Non conficient Priests do generally commit that Sacrilege, by receiving the consecrated Bread without the Cup, flat contrary to the decrees of the ancient Bishop of Rome.  
In the sixth age, the second Council of Orange is falsified in the behalf of your merits; the words of the Council are these: 
Hoc etiam salubriter profitemur & credimus, quod in omni opere bono non nos incipimus, & posted per Dei misericordiam adjuvamur; sed ipse nobis, etc. Concil. Arausicanum, Can. 25. Bin. Tom. 2. p. 639.  We solemnly profess and believe, that in every good work we ourselves do not first begin, and are helped afterwards by the mercy of God; but he, Nullis praecedentibus bonis meritis, no good merits of ours going before, doth first of all inspire us with faith, and love towards him. This Council condemned the Pelagians for their doctrine of Merits and Freewill; and accordingly declared that we have neither free will of ourselves to do good, neither any foregoing works to merit any thing of ourselves; and this is a safe and humble confession both of our weakness, and Gods good grace and mercy towards us. But observe your Churchmen, for the defence of their merits, they have falsified the Canon, and quite perverted the sense and meaning of the Council; and in the place of nullis meritis, no merits, have inserted the word multis, many merits; so that the Fathers of the Council are taught to read a new lesson, flat contrary to the ancient Doctrine of the Church, viz. We solemnly profess that we first begin (many) of our own merits going before, etc. than which assertion what can be more arrogant, in assuming power to ourselves, and derogating from the goodness of our God.  
In the seventh age, Gregory the great Bishop of Rome is falsified: his words be these; The King of Pride is near, 
Greg. Ep. lib. 4. Indict. 13. Ep. 38. p. (mihi) 146. b. Edit. Antwerp. 1515. & Paris. An. 1521. fol. 384. in Aedibus Francisci Regnault.  and, which is a heinous thing to name, Exercitus Sacerdotum, a whole army of Priests is provided to attend his coming. In your Edition of Antwerp and Paris, for the word (exercitus) you thrust in (exitus Sacerdotum) so that whereas Antichrist coming it is observed that an host of Priests shall belong unto him; now on the contrary it is read, that at Antichrists coming there shall be an end of Priesthood.  
Now as you have detracted from Pope Gregory's doctrine in one place, so likewise you have added to him in another, for honour of his See, and the Canons of your Church: the words are these, Let not the reverence due to the Apostolic See be trouhled by any man's presumption; 
Greg. l. 11. Indict. 6. Ep. 42. Citatur à Bel. in Ep. ad Blackwell. contra jus regium. Vide Jacob. Regis  a. p. 262. & 279.  for then the state of the members doth remain sound, when the head of the faith is not bruised by any injury, and the authority of the Canons always remain safe and sound. This was urged to Blackwell the Priest, by your Cardinal Bellarmine, as a principal testimony Contra jus regium; and yet, as it is observed by a learned Divine, 
M. Stephanus.  these and many such particular passages are inserted into the printed Gregory, which are not to be found in the ancient Manuscripts.  
Again, in the former Epistle St. Gregory is likewise falsified by Stapleton, in behalf of the Pope's Supremacy: the words of St. Gregory are these, 
Greg. Regist. l. 4. Indict. 13. Ep. 38.  Certainly Peter is the first member of the universal Church; Paul, Andrew, and John, what are they but heads of particular people? and notwithstanding they are all members of the Church under one head. And lest any should apply the name of head to Peter, in his 36. Epistle, being the second Epistle before this, he saith, 
Omnia soli uni capiti coherent, viz. Christo. Ep. 36. Stapl. de princip. doctrine. l. 6. c. 7.  All the members are joined to one head, Christ. Now observe the addition and falsification of your learned Stapleton; Andrew, James, and John (saith he) were heads of several Congregations, and all members of the Church under one head, Peter. And thus your Pope's creature hath left out Peter in the first place, where he was made a member, and added the name of Peter in the last place, to make him a head.  
Again, Gratian, who was ever ready to supply all defects for the Pope's title, hath given us an inexcusable forgery, in the name of Gregory, for the Papal power: the truth of it was this; When Anatolius Deacon of Constantinople, had written to Pope St. Gregory, that the Emperor commanded another Bishop to be chosen in the place of the Bishop of Justiniana, by reason of his head-ache; St. Greory made this answer, 
Greg l. 9 Ep. 41. Indict. 4. p. 370.  You wrote unto me, that our most religious Lord the Emperor commanded another to be chosen in the place of our reverend Brother John Bishop of Justiniana, because of the pain of his head: by which tenor St. Gregory shows that the Popes obeyed the Prince's laws (so they were not against their Canons.) Now observe Gratian he leaves out first the words, 
Grat. causa 7. quest. 1. fol. (Mihi) 186.  our most religions Lord, and in stead of the Emperor's name, he assumes the Pope's person, saying, Your lovingness wrote to me, that I should command another to be chosen, whereas in those days, by the confession of Pope Gregory, the Emperors made Election of the Bishops, and not the Popes.  
The sixth Council of Constantinople is falsified & corrupted by Gratian; in the 36. Canon of the said Council it was thus decreed: We determine that the See of Constantinople shall have equal privileges and honour with the seat of elder Rome, and in Ecclesiastical matters be advanced as far forth as it, being next unto it: Gratian citys the former, non tamen in Ecclesiasticis (saith he) but not in matters Ecclesiastical; which is flat contrary to the meaning of the Council.  
In the eight age venerable Bede was living, 
The eight age. An. 700. to 800.  and taught our doctrine touching the Sacrament, but was afterwards forged by Friar Walden, to prove the doctrine of Transubstantiation against Wickliff; 
Ibi forma panis videtur, ubi substantia panis non est, nec est ibi, inquit, panis alius quam panis qui de coelo descendit. Wald. Tom. 2. de sacr. c. 82. fol. (mihi) 138. b.  his words are these: There the form of Bread is seen, where the substance of Bread is not, neither is any other Bread there, but that which descends from heaven: This is alleged out of the Book de mysteriis Missae, in the name of Bede, when as in all his 8. Tomes, he never wrote or mentioned any such work.  
The Council of Frankford is likewise corrupted and falsified, for the honour of your Images; for whereas Regino faith, 
Concil. Frankford. An. 794. Bin. p. (mihi) 141. Bin. Not. in Concil. Fran c. p. (mihi) 164. b.  The false Synod of the Grecians, which they made for the defence of their worshipping of Images, was erected by the Bishops assembled at Frankford, under Charles the Great: Binius the publisher of the Counsels, declareth that the Acts of the second Council of Nice in the cause of Images was confirmed by it; which is so fare from truth, that he is enforced to confess that therein he doth descent, though unwillingly, from Baronius and Bellarmine: 
Quam sententiam optarem esse veram, sed suspicor esse falsam. Bel. de Imag. l. 2. c. 14. §. Multi.  and indeed Bellarmine professeth; I could wish this opinion were true, but I suspect it to be false. Again, to make the world believe that the Synod of Frankford condemned not the second Council of Nice (the chief upholder of Images) your men have razed out Nice, and thrust in Constantinople, which altogether condemned Images: Now therefore take a short view of all these your forgeries and corruptions.  
In the first Age you have depraved the Scriptures by your false translations and corruptions; and when all could not save your turn, you place the Bible amongst the Books prohibited.  
In the second Age you have forged Epistles in the names of 31. Bishops of Rome, which were none of theirs; and to suppress our Doctrine touching the Communion in both kinds, and to uphold your invocation of Saints and Angels, you have corrupted Ignatius by a false Translation; and you would have the Record razed touching the marriage of Priests.  
In the third age you corrupt Tertullian for your Transubstantiation; you falsify Saint Cyprian for your circumgestation of the Sacrament, and your Pope's supremacy.  
In the fourth Age you corrupt Eusebius Caesariensis for the Pope's supremacy; you forge Eusebius Emissenus for your corporal presence; you falsify the Council of Laodicea for your invocation of Saints and Angels; you forge Saint Hierome and Saint Basill the Great, for your worship of Images; you falsify Saint Ambrose for the Pope's succession in the Roman See, and most corruptly for the Doctrine of the Sacrament.  
In the fift Age you have razed two evidences in Saint chrysostom, both which confirm our Doctrine, the one concerning the Lords Supper, the other concerning our trial by the Scriptures: you have falsified the Council of Carthage for the baptising of women, and for the shaving of Priests: you have falsified Saint Austin for your Purgatory, and for your Doctrine of Transubstantiation, and your Pope's decretal Epistles: you have forged the Council of Africa for the honour of your Apostolic See: you have forged Saint Cyrill for your Transubstantiation, and your Pope's Supremacy.  
In the sixth Age you have corrupted the Council of Orange for your Doctrine of merits, and for the honour of your Priesthood over secular powers.  
In the seventh Age you have razed Gregory the Great touching the coming of Antichrist; you have purged him in an Epistle which maketh against the Pope's Supremacy: you have falsified the Council of Constantinople in your Pope's behalf.  
Lastly, in the eighth Age you have forged venerable Bede in behalf of your Transubstantiation; and you have falsified the Council of Frankford in behalf of your Image-worship; and yet for all this you are not ashamed to profess, that for ancient Authors you note only what is amiss, but you neither raze nor blot out any thing; that corner-correcting (say you) we leave for such corner-companions as shun the light, p. 144. What credit can be given to you or your Church, let the Reader judge, when as by your own confession, the Trent Council hath decreed it as a thing unlawful to change any thing in the Books of ancient Catholics, 
Concil. Trid. in Ind. lib. prohib. de correct. 4. p. (mihi) 32.  except a manifest error appear to have crept in by the fraud of Heretics or negligence of the Printer. Sure I am you will confess that all these mentioned corruptions are not Errata, slips of the Printer; And as touching the fraud of Heretics which did corrupt them, your Trent Council (which made the Decree) could not mean the Protestants: for in those days they had printed no Fathers, neither had they any Manuscripts, but such as were kept prisoners in your Church: The name of Heretics therefore doth properly reflect upon your Pope Adrian, upon Gratian, upon Stapleton, upon Thomas Aquinas, upon Cardinal Bellarmine, who appear to be Authors of your falsifications; and in general upon your Roman inquisitors, who are the known Authors of your corrupting and altering the true Fathers. And this must needs seem very probable to all, because they are corrupted chiefly in those main Articles of Faith which make against your Church. The ancient Records and Evidences which you have had many hundred years in your possession, do all witness these forgeries and corruptions in the printed Fathers, and will you claim the Fathers for your Rule of Faith, when you make them speak more like children than fathers? Shall a Guardian to an infant, having possession of his Lands, and keeping his Deeds and Evidences during his minority, raze and falsify them, and thereby entitle himself to the Wards Lands, because he was some time possessed of them, and can produce forged Evidences for them? This is our very case: The Church of Rome in her infancy was a faithful Guardian of her children's right, she kept the Manuscripts and the ancient Records of the Fathers, in that purity as she first received them; after the Pope had made an universal Title and claim to all Catholic Churches, he intruded into other men's Rights by forgery and corruptions, he made the Fathers speak according to the Trent decrees, in an unknown tongue, and now by forged cavillation detains the possession against the right owners. But let me tell you, as the King's Subject, you are liable to punishment in such cases in temporal affairs. 
See the title of Forger of false deeds fol. (mihi) 180. b.  For if any person shall by false conspiracy, subtlety and falsity, forge any Deed, Charter, or Writing, or shall pronounce, publish and show forth in Evidence any such false or forged Deed or Writing as true, knowing the same to be false and forged, and shall be thereof convicted, he shall be set upon the Pillory in some open Market Town, and there to have both his Ears cut off, and also his Nostrils to be slit and cut, and seared with an hot iron, so as they may remain for a perpetual note or mark of his falsehood.  
Compare now this humane law with those forgeries of divine Evidences, and tell me what you and your fellows can say for yourselves, why the same judgement should not be pronounced against you. For if the laws of Kings are so strict in behalf of temporal records and assurances betwixt men, what may we think the Lawgiver himself will require at their hands, who do not only raze and falsify Evidences touching the greatest mysteries of Salvation, who I say not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them?  
Thus much touching the razing and corrupting of the Fathers for the first 800. years. Now I proceed to your Index Expurgatorius, your purging and blotting out the modern Authors for the last 800. years.  
Forasmuch (say you) as concerneth the late Catholic Authors of this last age, for this our Index (of which is all the difficulty) beginneth but from the year 1515. whatsoever needeth correction, is to be amended or blotted out; yet for others going before that time, it is expressly said, that nothing may be changed, unless some manifest errors, through the fraud of Heretics, or carelessness of the Printer, be crept in: Thus you.  
From your corrupting the ancient Counsels and Fathers (which I have shown) we are at last come to the correcting of modern Authors; and as I have led you through an Hospital of maimed Soldiers, so now I will send you to the house of correction, where I will leave you without Bail or Mainprize, till you have cleared yourself and your associates, for wounding and cutting out the tongues, of your own Authors, in speaking truth against the corruptions of the Church.  
But your correcting Index (say you) began but from the year 1515. 
P. 24. & 144.  and nothing is changed of Catholic Authors before that time.  
I assure you, I have not heard as yet one sentence, nay scarce one word of truth fall from your pen, wherein you descent from us; and this your assertion will prove as true as the rest. Yea, but (faith you) it is expressly declared by the Church, that nothing may be changed; and if this be true (as true it is indeed) the less credit is to be given you or your Churchmen, who make decrees, and break them at their pleasure; for it shall appear that your Index doth extend itself to the time of the Apostles: and howsoever you pretend to purge the Father's only in the Index and Table of their Books; yet I say some you have purged in the Text itself, others you have corrected in the Index, in the express words delivered in the body of those Books. And as touching your Assertion, that you purge the latter writers only from the year 1515. and not beyond that time, this is most false, and you had said more truly, if you had confessed that for 1515. years together, your Church spared no Authors, ancient or modern, if they speak not Placentia, agreeable to your Pope's faith and doctrine.  
For the better manifestation of this truth, look first upon your Correctorium (for so Lucas Brugensis terms it) your work of correction upon the Bible; and tell me if you have not altered, by your Pope's command, above three thousand several places in the Scripture, even in your vulgar Translation, which you call St. Hieromes; and although you dare not lay a Deleatur upon the sacred word of God, yet upon the Commandments, upon the Lord's Prayer, upon several places of Scripture (as I have showed) there is a Deletur, a leaving out, and a detracting from it.  
Look upon your Index Expurgatorius, printed at Madrid, by Cardinal Quiroga, and tell me if you have not purged certain places in the Index of the Bible, which are ipsissima verba, the very words to a letter, in the Textit self: as for instance; 
a Justificamur fide in Christum, Galat. 2.16.  We are justified by faith in Christ: 
b Justitia nostra Christus, 1. Cor. 1.30.  Christ is our Righteousness: 
c Fide purificantur corda, Act. 15.9.  By faith our hearts are purified: 
d Justus coram Deo nemo, Psal. 143.2.  No man is righteous before God: 
e Uxorem habeat unusquisque. 1 Cor. 7.2.  Let every man have his wife, etc. All these passages I say are the very word of God, in the Body of the Scriptures, and yet they are commanded 
f Ind. Hisp. Madr. f. (mihi) 15. B.  tanquam propositiones suspectae (for so are the words of your Index) as if they were things questionable, to be blotted out. Again, when your glosses or marginal notes agree not to your doctrine, you cause your Index Expurgatorius to lay hold on them: as for instance; in the 26. of Leviticus, we read in your own Translation, You shall not make to yourselves an Idol or thing graven; 
Deleatur illud, Sculptilia prohibet fieri. Idem fol. 7.  when the gloss in the Margin saith, God forbiddeth graven Images, Let that passage (say you) be strucken out. And whereas Samuel saith: Prepare your hearts unto the Lord, and serve him only: 
Ibid. fol. 8. b.  the gloss upon the Text, which is the same in substance, viz. we must serve God only, you command to be blotted out. These and the like places relating to the Scriptures, being contrary to your Trent doctrine, you have excluded from your late printed Bibles in the places aforesaid, as being too obvious to the eye of every Reader. 
Ind. Hisp. Madrid. p. 6. 7. & f. 138. (Mihi) 62. Crakenthorp. adv. Spal. p. 66. Bell. de verbo Dei, l. 4. c. 11. etc. Ind. Madrid. fol. 62. a. Deleantur ex Textu illa verba: Sed ubi non habuerit Dei timorem in seipsis, nec Jesum per fidem incolam, etc. Ibid. Eam verò solummodò naturam, quae increata est, colere & venerari didicimus. Ant. Meliss serm. 1. Bell. descript. Eccl. p. (mihi) 184.   
Look upon the Fathers, and tell me if your Index Expurgatorius doth not correct both St. chrysostom, and Austin, and Hilary, and Hierome, in their Index, touching the prime points of controversy betwixt us: Nay more, St. Austin (saith Vives) is purged ten or twelve lines in the body of his works; St. chrysostom in his 49. Homily is purged 70. lines; & by Bellarmine's confession, other places are razed out of him and other Fathers, as I have showed before. Look upon St. Cyrill Bishop of Alexandria, who was living above 1200. years ago, and tell me if your Inquisitors have not commanded a Deleatur upon his words, in the very Text itself. Look before his time upon Gregory Nyssen, and tell me if through the sides of Antonius Abbas (who was living, by Bellarmine's account, near 900. years ago) you do not wound that ancient Father in the body of his works, in commanding this golden sentence to be blotted out: 
Ind. Belg. p. 270. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Greg. Nissen. in Orat. 4. Tom. 2. Edit. Graecolat. p. 146.  We have learned to worship and adore that nature (only) which is uncreated: 
* Parson's warn-word to Sir Fran. Hastings wast-word. Enc. 2. c. 9 p. 69.  your F. Parsons takes great pains to little purpose to excuse it; one while he tells us, that the sentence is not to be found in Gregory Nissen (which is most false:) another while he confesseth, that they cannot stand to give a particular reason of every censure or expurgation that is made (which is most foolish.)  
But tell me in good sooth, if those places of Scriptures and Fathers did make for your Religion, would you purge them? Or must we believe, that your Inquisitors would take such infinite care and pains to review all Authors for 1600. years, and sponge them only in the Index? Without doubt that man who doth willingly deface the King's picture, stamped in his coin, would, if he durst; attempt it upon his person: the Tables of Authors, and Glosses, were especially intended for the benefit of the Reader, both for his better understanding, and his more speedy searching of the truth.  
They resemble the Phylacteries of the Jews, which had a Ribbon of Blue upon the borders of their garments, that by them they might the better remember the Commandments of God: he that would have cut the fringes of those garments in those days, to prevent the remembrance of God's law, would (no doubt) have offered violence to the Tables, on which God himself had written, if he durst attempt it. The truth is, the words imprinted in the skirts and tables of your Bibles and Fathers, are thorns in your eyes, and goads in your sides: and from hence we may easily discern, why you leave out the second Commandment, and alter the fourth in your Psalters and Breviaries, which you dare not alter in your Bibles. And that your Assertion may more particularly appear to be most untrue, viz. that you purge no Authors before the year 1515. I will begin from the ninth age, where I last left, and show your own Authors purged, and forbidden in all the succeeding ages for this last 800. years.  
First therefore the Reader shall understand, that your Roman Inquisitors have published an Index of prohibited Books, and in that Index they have divided the Authors into three several Classes, or orders. 
Classis. 1.  In the first they rank all those Books which are adjudged by your men for Heretics; as namely, Berengarius, Wickliff, Luther, Cassander, Erasmus, Raynolds, and divers others; whose Books not only now written, but whatsoever shall be published in their names hereafter, are prohibited as Heretical. 
Classis. 2.  In the second Classis they have ranked all those whose doctrine is not very sound, but suspected, and offensive, although the Authors themselves never forsook the Church, and therefore not personally to be noted: and of this sort are Charles the great, Agobardus, Bertram, Huldericus, Cajetan, and divers others, whose Books are now purged; and some of them lived 800. years since. 
Classis. 3.  The third is of nameless Authors, which (say they) deliver pernicious doctrine, and are condemned by the Roman Church; and those only which have been published without a name since the year 1584.  
These three ranks of Classical Authors, according to our Adversaries doom, may be destinated to these three several places. The first sort to Hell, which contains the Heretics and damned persons, never to be redeemed. The second sort to Purgatory, which are suspended and restrained upon suspicion of false doctrine, or venial sin, and must not be freed till they be purged, and have paid the utmost farthing to the Pope. The third, to Limbus Infantum, and those are Anonymoi, such as were unbaptised, and have been published without a name, from the year 1584. Of these three sorts, I will produce only the Authors of the second Classis, which lived and died members of your Church, such as were never condemned for heresy, but (touse you own words) have Suspectam Doctrinam, that is to say in plain English, Protestant Doctrine: whereof some you have purged in your new Editions, others you have forbidden to be read till they be purged: 
The ninth age. An. 800. to. 900 See Crakenthorp, p. 56. Carolo magno falsò adscriptum, de Imaginibus, cujus Titulus est, Opus illustrissimi, etc. Ind. l. prohib. p. (Mihi) 18.  and this (as shall appear) was many ages before the time prefixed, 1515.  
I proceed: In the ninth age Charles the Great wrote four Books concerning Images; he professeth that he began the work in his own Kingdom; and your own Ecchius, and Luzenburgus, both witness that this Emperor wrote all those Books: yet your Index Expurgatorius lays hold on him, and forbids the work; pretending that it is falsely ascribed to him, when as the true reason is, because he condemned Image-worship, and forbids the 7th. Council to be called either agenerall, or lawful Council: for otherwise your own Hincmarus Archbishop of Rheims, 
Hinckm. Rhen. contr. Hinchm. Jandun. Episc. c. 20.  who was living when these things were fresh in memory, professeth, that a general Synod was kept in Germany by the convocation of the Emperor Charles, and there, by the Rules of Scripture and doctrine of the Fathers, the false Council of the Grecians, was confuted and utterly rejected; of whose confutation there was a good big Book sent to Rome by certain Bishops from Charles the Great, which in my younger years I read in the Palace.  
Now admit that Charles were not the Author of those Books (although your own men witness he was) yet the Author you see was ancient, and living in that age; he condemned your Image-worship, he confuted the reasons of the Nicene Council, and by this it appears that your Church hath transgressed her limits above 700. years; and therefore your Trent decree was made suitable to your Spectacles, which makes that seem to be, which is not.  
Agobardus Bishop of Lions (An. 840.) is purged, propter non sanam & suspectam doctrinam; because he delivers our Protestant's doctrine, which you account non sanam, in these words; If the works of God's hands be not to be adored and worshipped, 
Sioperd manuum Dei, etc. Bibl. Pp. Tom. 9 p. (mihi) 590.  no not in honour of God, how much more the works of men's hands are not to be adored and worshipped, in honour of those whom they represent? 
Titulo de Imaginibus expurgantur omnia quae sub hoc titulo continentur, usque ad titulum. 2. Classis Ind. lib. prohib. pag. (mihi) 711.  This passage is yet extant in your late Bibliotheque of Fathers, under the title of Images: but your Spanish Inquisitors have commanded all the things which are contained under that Title to be blotted out, usque ad Titulum, to the very title.  
Papirius Massonus, the publisher of Agobardus works, delivered the argument touching Images and Pictures in this manner; Detecting most manifestly the errors of the Grecians (that is, the Fathers of the second Nicene Council) touching Images and Pictures, he denyeth that they ought to be worshipped; which opinion all we Catholics do allow, and follow the testimony of Gregory the Great concerning them. This passage, together with more ample authorities are already purged according to command, by the Divines of Cullen, in their late corrupt Edition of the great Bibliotheque of the ancient Fathers: 
Bibl. P P. Tom. 9 par. 1. edit. Colon. Anno 1618. p. 548. & p. 551.  but Gretzer your fellow Jesuit extremely wondereth that this judgement of the Book of Agobardus should proceed from a Catholic; for Agobardus in that whole Book doth nothing else but endeavour to demonstrate, although with vain labour, that Images are not to be worshipped: 
Usher p. 463.  and yet I say it is more to be wondered that your men should purge such Authors of Antiquity contrary to your Trent Decree; and when by purging them they have made our Faith and Doctrine invisible in them to the Reader, you call upon us to show where our Church and Religion was visible before Luther.  
Johannes Bertram, a Priest of the Monastery of Corbey in France, wrote a Book of the Body and Blood of Christ: This Book is forbidden to be read by command of your inquisitors, and condemned by the Council of Trent. But the Divines of Douai, perceiving that the forbidding of this Book gave an occasion to many to seek more earnestly after it, thought it better policy to allow it, and accordingly they publish it with this Declaration, 
Ind. Expurg. Belg. p. 5. edit. Antwer. Anno 1571.  Although we care not greatly whether this Book of bertram's be extant or no; yet seeing we bear with many errors in others of the old Catholic Writers, and extenuate them, and by inventing some devise, oftentimes deny them, and feign some commodious sense for them when they are objected in disputations or conflicts with our Adversaries; we do not see why Bertram may not deserve the same equity and diligent revisal, lest the Heretics cry out, that we burn and forbid such antiquity as maketh for them. This is a free and fair confession of your men in our behalf, that the Fathers are but pretended for your Doctrine, when as oftentimes they make against you; and indeed accordingly you have framed a commodious sense for the better understanding of this Author: as for Instance, where he saith the substance of the Bread was to be seen visibly, we must read it (say they) invisibly: and where he saith, the substance of the creature which was before consecration, remaineth after consecration; by substance, say they, you must understand accidents: These devises, howsoever at first they seemingly made some show of answer to the vulgar people, yet they proved harsh & untunable to the ears of your learned Proselytes, and thereupon your Romanists wisely by way of prevention at length gave up this verdict; It were not amiss, nor unadvisedly done, 
Ind. Belg. p. 421 & Quiroga p. (mihi) 140. B.  that all these things should be left out. But it seems these small pills did not sufficiently purge the Author; and thereupon, after more mature deliberation, it was at last concluded, Totus liber penitùs auferatur; 
Ind. Belg. p. 17.  let the whole Book be suppressed. Now what answer do you think can be made in justification of this proceeding? Your Jesuit Gretzerus briefly resolves it: Dum prohibetur Bertramus, 
Gretz. de jure prohib. libr. l. 2. c. 10.  while Bertram is forbidden, I deny that a Father is forbidden; for the Father is no natural Father, but a Stepfather, who nourisheth not the Church with wholesome food, but with darnel and pernicious grain together with the Wheat: wherefore as the Popes have dealt with some writings in Origen and Tertullian, by the same right may they now, according to their wisdom, abolish any writing of others, either in whole or in part by cutting or blotting them out. Thus first they dispensed with this ancient Author and our Doctrine; then they correct him in some passages, by speaking flat contrary to his own meaning; and when all would not serve the turn, they absolutely forbidden him to be read, or rather command him to be utterly blotted out, and totally suppressed.  
In the tenth Age (975.) Aelfricus Abbot of Malmesbury wrote an Homily touching the Sacrament of the Eucharist, 
The tenth Age Ann. 900. to 1000 Aelfrichs Sermon on Easter day.  which was thenread throughout all our Churches on Easter day, and consonant to the Doctrine of our Articles. This Book is extant in the Saxon tongue in many Libraries: but what is the reason he is not numbered amongst your Books prohibited? Why surely you have foisted in a Parenthesis, which by a miracle infers your corporal presence, which makes some show for your Religion; and yet because it is contrary to the whole scope of his Book, you confess that Harpsfield in his History shows, That the Berengarian Heresy began somewhat to be taught and maintained out of certain writings falsely attributed to Aelfricke: and thus for one reason you will not prohibit him, or lay a deleatur upon his works; but for the other reason there is a deletur upon him, and he is a man clean out of your Books.  
In the eleventh Age, 
The eleventh Age, An. 1000 to 1100. Ind. lib. prohib. pag. 47 & p. 93.  Huldericus Bishop of Auspurg wrote an Epistle touching the single life of the Clergy, wherein he taxeth Pope Nicholas for restraining Priests from marriage, and therefore is rejected by your Inquisitours; his words be these: Assuredly you are not a little out of the way, 
Hulder. Episc. ep. de caelibatu Cleri.  when you do compel Clerks by force to keep themselves from marriage, which you should admonish to forbear; for it is violence when any man is constrained to keep a particular decree against the institution of the Gospel and the Doctrine of the Holy Ghost; wherefore we counsel you, by the fidelity of our subjection, that with all diligence you will remove such a scandal, and by your discipline root out that Pharisaical Doctrine from the flock of Christ. And whereas it was objected, that Gregory the Great long before that time had made a Decree for the restraint of Priest's marriage, in his first Epistle to Pope Nicholas, 
Ibid. p. (mihi) 482. Orthodoxagraphia Patrum, Tom. 1. p. (mihi) 481. Piusquam sex millia infantum capita viderit, p. (mihi) 1482.  he tells him, There be some which take Gregory for a maintainer of their Sect, whose ignorance I lament; for they do not know this perilous Decree was afterwards purged by him, when as upon a day out of his ponds were drawn above 6000. children's heads; which after he beheld, he utterly condemned his Decree, and praised the counsel of Saint Paul, It is better to marry than to burn; adding this also of his own, It is better marry than be an occasion of death. Here you see our Doctrine was taught, touching the marriage of Priests; and because it is a plain evidence for our Church, your Inquisitours have ranked this Epistle amongst the Books prohibited.  
Anselme Archbishop of Canterbury taught our Doctrine in the most substantial point, touching faith and good works. The form of preparing men for their death, was delivered to the sick man in this manner: 
a Credis non propriis meritis, sed passionis Domini nostri Jesu Christi virtute & merito, ad gloriam pervenire? etc. Ind. lib. prohib. p. 696.  Dost thou believe to come to glory, not by thine own merits, but by the virtue and merit of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ? Dost thou believe that our Lord Jesus Christ did die for our salvation, and that none can be saved by his own merits, or by any other means, but by the merits of his Passion? then for a conclusion it follows (fol. 35.) 
b Non erit desperandum vel dubitandum de salute illius, etc. Ordo baptizandicum modo visitandi. Imp. Venet. Ind. Belg. p. 419. 1575. Ind. Madrid. p. 149. Ind. lib prohib. p. ut supra.  We ought not to doubt or despair of the salvation of that man, who believeth with his heart, and confesseth with his mouth the forenamed propositions. These several passages are commanded by three several Indices to be blotted out: Nay more, the Book which contains this Doctrine, you thrust it into the third Classis, amongst those nameless Authors, which deliver Doctrine (say you) in some sort pernicious to the Catholic faith; as if the foundation of all comfort in Christ were pernicious to the Christian faith: But let me tell you, your Inquisitors have much forgot themselves; for they forbidden that Book, which, say they, was printed at Venice (1575.) when as by their own rules they profess openly, that they never meant to condemn any nameless Authors, but such only as have been published since the year (1584.) nor any Author whatsoever (by their Trent Decree) but from the year (1515.) Howsoever this nameless Author was both printed at 
a See Bishop Ushers answer to the Jesuits Challenge, cap. Of Merits, p. 513.  Venice, at Antwerp, at Coleine, at Paris, juxta ritum S. Romanae Ecclesiae (for so be the words) according to the rites of the Roman Church. 
b Cassan. in Append. ad opusc. Jo. Roff. de fiducia & misericordia D●i.  Cassander tells us the Book was to be had in all Libraries, and particularly was found inserted among the Epistles of Anselme, who was commonly accounted to be the Author of it: and the like is confessed by Cardinal 
c Hosius in confession Petri, cap. 73.  Hosius himself. But this was the time wherein the D●vill was let lose, and wherein your Pope Hildebrand did not only 
d Non solum fabulas comminiscitur, annals corrumpit, res gestas invertit, sed etiam coelestia oracula adulterate. Aven. Annal. l. 4. pag. 455.  invent Fables, corrupt Chronicles, and inverted things that were done, but did also adulterate the Scriptures themselves; and therefore Cardinal Beno, who wrote of the life of Hildebrand, and was living in that age, is 
e Ind. lib. prohib. p. 11. vide Illyric. de vita Hildebrand. p. 1322.  forbidden also to be read, because he toucheth to the quick your Caput fidei, the head of your Church.  
In the twelfth age 
a Sigeberti liber contra Papam Gregorium, & contra Epist. Paschalis Papae. Ind. lib. prohib. p. 85.  Sigebertus Monachus Gemblacensis wrote a Book against Pope Gregory, 
The twelfth Age, An. 1100. to 1200.  and against the Epistle of Pope Paschalis; he lived and died a member of the Roman Church, yet his Book is prohibited, because it complaineth of the state of your declining Church; 
b Sigebertus Ab. ep. p. 188. in lib. Goldasli Replio. Hactenus interpretatur, ideo docuisse Petrū per Babylonem siguare Romam, quia tunc temporis Roma confusa erat Idololatriâ & omni spurtitie At nunc dolor meus mihi interpretatur, quòd Petrus prophetico spiritu dicens Ecclesiam in babylon collectam, praevidit confusionem dissentionis quâ hodie scinditur Ecclesia. Ibid.  For what greater confusion (saith he) was there in times passed in Babylon than there is now in the Church? In Babylon there was a confusion of languages among the Gentiles, in the Church of Rome the tongues are divided, and the minds of the faithful. Saint Peter saith, the Church which is Babylon salutes you; hitherto he did interpret that Peter by Babylon did signify Rome, because Rome at that time was confounded with Idolatry and all uncleanness: But my grief doth now interpret unto me, that Peter by a prophetic spirit, by the Church at Babylon, foresaw the confusion of dissension, which doth now rend the Church of Rome.  
If this testimony had made for our Church, (as it doth against yours) certainly you would never forbid the Record to be read nor to be blotted out; but this shows that there was a revolt, a defection from the faith (after the losing of Satan) which were proper for your men to permit to be read and seen in after ages, that the truth might appear in all and every age of the alteration of the Church.  

c Arnol de villa. Novaopera nisi repurg●ntur. Ind. lib prohib. p. 5 & 36. & 37  Arnoldus Carnotensis (Abbas bonae vallis) his works are forbidden till they be purged, and for no other reason, as I can conceive, but because he discovers the errors of your Church. He tells us, that Cloister Monks are damned, because they falsify the doctrine of Christ, and lead souls to Hell. He tells us, that your Clergymen did most perfidiously mingle Philosophical dreams with the sacred Scriptures. He tells us, that Masses did neither profit the living, nor the dead; and for these and the like Protestations against the abuses of his time, he is now condemned by your expurgatory Indices.  
In the thirteenth Age, 
Anno 1215. Urspergensis in Anno 793.  Urspergensis Abbas is both corrupted and purged by the Inquisitours. The Synod (saith he) which not long before was assembled under Irene and Constantine his son at Constantinople, called by them the seventh general Council, was there in the Council of Frankford rejected by them all, as void and not to be named the seventh, nor any Council at all. This Council was assembled at Nice and not at Constantinople; but the word Constantinople is forged in stead of Nice, that the honour of that Council for Images might not seem to be impeached or condemned, when as the Synod at Constantinople banished Images. Now what answer I pray is made in defence of this forgery? 
August. Stench. de Donat. Constant. l. 2. numero 60.  Behold your Augustine Stenchius, Keeper of the Pope's Library, tells us that we have forged those Books, and conveyed them into the Pope's Library, where they lie written in ancient hands. How probable this answer may seem, that we should forge Authors in defence of your cause, and convey them into the Vatican at Rome, I leave it to be judged; sure I am it stands corrupted in your Copy, printed by command of your Inquisitours and Superiors.  
Again, there be certain additions to the History of Urspergensis, which treat of divers memorable things, from the time of Frederick the second, 
Ind. lib. prohib. p. 94.  unto the time of the Emperor Charles the fifth; that is, from the year 1230. to the year 1537. all which are forbidden to be read; wherein are contained the proceed of the Council of Constance against Hierome of Prague, and John hus; where the decree is mentioned for the 19 Session of the Council of Constance, viz. 
a Sess. 19 decernitur, Haereticis non esse servandam fidem, quam vocant Salvum conductum. Paralip. p. 378.  That faith is not to be kept with Heretics, which is wholly omitted and purged in your printed Counsels.  
Honorius Bishop of Anthem in France, 
Anno 1220. Honorio Angustodunensi (falso ut creditur) adscriptus liber de praedestinatione & libero arbitrio. Ind. lib. prohib. p. 47.  wrote a Book of Predestination and , but so different from your doctrine, that your Inquisitors forbidden him to be read until he be purged. What good soever the Elect do, it is God that works it in them, (as it is written) God doth work in us both the will and the deed, according to his good pleasure; if therefore God do work in us, what reward is imputed to man? God doth work, and the Elect do work; God doth work his Elect by his preventing Grace to be willing, and by his subsequent Grace to be able, and both cooperate by , by consenting with a good will, this good will is rewarded in them, as it is written, We have received Grace for Grace; we have received Grace when God prevented us to be willing, and followed us to make us able.  
Look into his forbidden Dialogues: Turn thee (saith he) to the Citizens of Babylon, consider the principal persons there, and thou shalt find the See of the Beast; for they neglect the service of God, pollute his Priesthood, seduce his people, and reject all Scriptures which belong unto salvation. 
Vide Illyr. p. 1426 in Dialog. d. Praedestin. & lib. arbitrio.  For these and the like discoveries of the corruptions in your Church, he is forbidden, and under this pretence also, that the Book of Dialogues is falsely ascribed to him.  
In the fourteenth age flourished William Ocham a Friar Minorite and a learned man, saith Bellarmine; 
An. 1320. Bell. de script. Eccl. p. 269. de Gulielmo Ocham.  but being too earnest a favourer of Ludovike the Emperor, by that means he fell into some errors, and therefore deserved to have his name registered amongst the Books prohibited. Now observe those errors; 
Ocham. Compend. Error. Joh. 22.  He complained that many in his days perverted the holy Scriptures, denied the say of the holy Fathers, and rejected the Canons of the Church, and civil Constitutions of the Emperors; He professed, according to St. Hieromes and the doctrine of Gregory the Great, that the Books of Judith, 
Idem. Dial. par. 3. Tract. 1. l. 3. c. 16.  Tobit, the Maccabees, Ecclesiasticus, and the Book of Wisdom, were not to be received for confirmation of any matter of faith; He professed that the Pope and Cardinals were no rule of faith; 
Idem Tract. 2. part. 2. c. 10. Dial. part. 1. l. 5. c. 25. p. (Mihi) 494.  He professed that a General Council, although it be a part of the militant universal Church, yet is not the universal Church: and consequently (saith he) It is rashness to say that a General Council cannot err against the faith; 
Idem Dial. l. 3. prim. Tract. 3. part. c. 8.  He professeth that it cannot be proved manifestly by Scripture, that Peter was Bishop of Rome, or that he removed his seat from Antioch to Rome, or that the Rishop of Rome succeeded St. Peter, 
Idem. Dial. part. 1. l. 2. c. 3. p. 413.  or that the Church of Rome hath the Primacy, or that he governed the Church of Rome, or any thing touching the Papacy thereof; He professeth with us, 
Idem Dial. l. 2. c. 1. part. 3. p. 788.  that though it be expedient there should be one Bishop over some part of the Church and People of God; yet there is not the same reason there should be one over the whole Christian world: And lastly, touching Pope John the 22. he reports from the mouths of them that heard it, that in the year 1333. on Monday being the third of January, 
Idem 2. part. proem. p. 740. Guliel. Ocham. opus 90. dierum. Item Dialogi & script. omnia contra Johannem 22. Ind. l. prohib, p. 4.  Pope John held a public Consistory, wherein by word of mouth, with great earnestness he endeavoured to prove that the souls of Saints being purged, see not God face to face till after the day of judgement. These are the supposed errors which caused his Dialogues and other of his works to be prohibited.  
In the fifteenth age, 
Anno 1420. Nicholai Clemangis opera quamdiu expurgata non prodierint. Ind. lib. proh. p. 71. Clemangis de corrupto statu Ecclesiae.  Nicholas Clemangis Doctor of Paris, Archdeacon of Bayeux, so long as his works remain unpurged (saith your Index) are forbidden. Now observe the reasons why he is put to silence. The truth is, he wrote a Book Of the Corrupt estate of the Church; he declared that the Pope was the cause of all the calamities and disorders of the Church; he shows that he was not contented with the fruits and profits of the Bishopric of Rome and St. Peter's Patrimony, 
Idem. c. 4.  though very great and Royal; he laid his greedy hands on other men's flocks, replenished with milk and wool: 
Cap. 5. & 7.  and usurped the right of bestowing Bishoprickes and live Ecclesiastical throughout all Christendom: 
Cap. 5.  and disannulled the lawful elections of Pastors, by his reservations, provisions and advowsons, 
Cap. 6. Cap. 7. Cap. 8.  and oppressed Churches with first fruits of one year, of two years, of three years, yea sometimes of four years; with tithes, with exactions, with procurations, with spoils of Prelates, and infinite other burdens, 
Cap. 9  and ordained Collectors to seize upon these taxes and tributes throughout all Provinces, with horrible abusing of suspensions, interdictments and excommunications, if any man refused to pay them: 
Cap. 10. Cap. 11. Cap. 12.  and used such merchandise with suits in his Court, and rules of his Chancery, that the house of God was a den of Thiefs, 
Cap. 13.  and raised his Cardinals as complices of his pomp from Clergy men of low estate, 
Cap. 14.  to be the Peers of Princes, and enriched them with his dispensations to have and to hold Offices and Benefices, not two or three, or ten or twenty, but a hundred or two hundred, yea sometimes four hundred or five hundred, or more, and those not small or lean ones, but even the best and fattest: To be short, in that he filled the Sanctuary of the Lord with dumb dogs, 
Cap. 19 & 20. Cap. 7. & 14. Cap. 29. Cap. 42. Cap. 18. Cap. 3.4.5.9.  and evil beasts, even from the highest Prelates to the basest hedge-Priests, through usurpations, exemptions, compositions, simony, prostitution and fornication committed with Princes of the earth, and all to maintain the pride, and lust, and riot of his worldly state, which he hath lifted up above Kings and Emperors. Lastly, he complains that the Study of Divinity is made a mocking stock, and that which was most monstrous for the Popes themselves, they preferred their own traditions before the Commandments of God. These be the pretended errors (Mr. Floyd) which causeth your Index expurgatorius to spare no Author for his age; and yet you tell us, such corner-correcting you leave for such corner-companions as shun the light, p. 144.  
Aeneas Silvius (who was afterwards Pope Pius the second) is forbidden by your Index: and the reason is given for it; Aeneas wrote in behalf of the Council of Basil, when he was a young man (saith 
a Bell. de script. Eccles. de Aenea Sylvio. p. 289. An. 1450.  Bellarmine) but when he was an old man, and Pope, he retracted it, and so his Books are deservedly forbidden. But what say you then to his Retractations? are you pleased with them? No, 
b Cautè legenda opera Aeneae Sylvii; ipse enim in Bulla Retractationis nonnulla quae scripserat, damnavit, etc. Ind. lib. prohib. Class. 2. a. p. 3.  you must yet warily read the Works of Aeneas Silvius, for in his Bull of Retractations he hath condemned something himself which he had written; and therefore when a new Edition shall come out, let that Bull also be purged in the beginning of his Works. It seems then, neither that which he wrote as a private man in his younger days, nor that which he retracted as Pope in his latter days, are well pleasing to your Church: Let us therefore compare the difference of his Doctrine with the difference of his degrees, and then you shall observe, whether according to the ancient saying, Honours have changed manners. Aeneas Silvius as a private man, protested that 
c Antè Nicenā Synodum unusquisque sibi vixit, & parvus respectus ad Ecclesiam Romanam habebatur. Aene. Sylu. in Epist. 288.  before the Council of Nice each Bishop lived severally to himself, and little regard was there then had to the Church of Rome: Pope Pius the second (being the same man, but only that he was now become a Pope) doth exhort and 
d Suadete omnibus, ut id solium prae caeteris venerentur, in quo salvator Dominus suos vicarios collocavit, etc. Bulla Retract. Pii, 2. Tom. Concil. 4. post Council Floren. p. 739.  persuade all, that they would reverence the See of Rome, or that Throne of Majesty above all. Aeneas Silvius saith, They think themselves well armed with authority, that say, no Council may be kept without the consent of the Pope: 
Ex hisce authoritatibus mirum in modum se putant armatos, qui Concilia n●gant fieri posse sine consensu Papae: Quorum sententia, si ut ipst volunt inviolata persistat, ruinam secum Ecclesiae trahet. Quid enim remedli erit, si criminosus Papa perturbet Ecclesiam, si animas perdat, si pervertat malo exemplo populos, si denique contraria fidei praedicet, haereticisque dogmatibus inbuat subditos? sinemusque cum ipso cuncta ruere? At ego dum veteres lego historias, dumastus perspicio Apostolorum, hunc equidem morem non invenio, ut soli Papae Concilia convocaverint, nec post; tempore Constantini magni, & aliorum Augustorū adcongreganda Concilia quaesitus est magnopere Romani consensus Papae. Idem de Council Basil. l. 1.  Whose judgement, if it should stand as they would have it, would draw with it the decay and ruin of the Church. For what remedy were there then, if the Pope himself were vicious, destroyed souls, overthrew the people with evil example, taught Doctrine contrary to the faith, and filled his subjects full of Heresies? should we suffer all to go to the Devil? Verily when I read the old Stories, and consider the acts of the Apostles, I find no such order in those days, that only the Pope should summon Counsels: And afterward the time of Constantine the Great, and of other Emperors, when Counsels should be called, there was no great account made of the Pope's consent. On the contrary, Pope 
a Bulla Pii 2. Retractat. p. (mihi) 739.  Pius saith, Order requireth that inferiors should be governed by their superiors, and all should appertain to one, as the Prince and Governor of all things which are below him: As Geese follow one for a leader; and amongst the Bees there is but one King; even so in the Church militant, as also in the Church triumphant, there is one Governor and Judge of all, which is the Vicar of Christ Jesus; from whence, as from a head, all power and authority is derived into the subordinate members. Thus when he was young, and had read the old Stories, and considered the acts of the Apostles, he found no such Authority and respect given to the Pope: but when he was Pope, and old, it seems he forgot the Apostles and ancient Writers; then he attributes all power and reverence to the Pope of Rome. Briefly, Aeneas Silvius saith, 
a De Rom●nis Pontificibus liceret exempla admodum multa adferre, si tempus sineret, quoniam aut haeretici, aut aliis imbuti vitiis sunt reperti. Idem de Concil. Basil. lib. 1.  Of the Popes of Rome we might show forth very many examples (if time would permit) that they have been found either Heretics, or else defiled with other vices. But Pope Pius saith (speaking of these and the like assertions) 
b Pudet erroris, poenitet malè fecisse, & male dictorum, scriptorumque vehementer poenitet, etc. Bull. Retract. ut supra.  I am ashamed of my error, I earnestly repent both of my words and deeds, and I say, Lord remember not the faults and ignorance of my youth: And thus being Pope (saving all advantages to his See) he hath condemned himself and his Writings, as published by him when he was a private man; and yet notwithstanding, the Inquisitors profess he hath retracted that, as Pope, which afterwards he condemned; and therefore by their doom he must have a new purgation, and from thenceforth, Tum Pius Aeneas. But tell me I pray, was he Pius Aeneas, when he complained that at Rome the 
c Name & ipsae manus impositiones, & Spiritus sancti dona venduntur. Aene. Sylu. Ep. 66.  imposition of hands, and the gifts of the Holy Ghost were sold for money? Was he Pius Aeneas when he complained that the Court of 
d Quid est Romana curia his qui summam tenent, nisi turpissimum pelagus ventis undique durissimis, & rempestatibus agitatum. Idem. Ep. 188.  Rome, in the chief amongst them, was but a most filthy Sea tossed on every side with winds and strong tempests? Was he Pius Aeneas when he protested with grief, that 
e Jacet spreta religio, justitiae nullus honos, fides penè incognita. Ep. 398.  religion was despised, righteousness dishonoured, faith in a manner unknown? Or was he Pius Aeneas when he retracted, as Pope, that which he had written, or when he condemned that which he had retracted? No surely, he was Pius in nothing (in the opinion of your Church) but in his Bull of Retractations; and he was Aeneas in nothing more than in condemning that which he retracted. And accordingly he himself begs of your Church, 
Bulla Retractat. Pii 2. Illud Gentile nomen, parents indidere nascenti; hoc Christianum, in Apostolatu suscepimus. Ibid.  Pium recipite, Aeneam rejicite, Receive you Pius, but reject Aeneas; and he gives his reason for it; Aeneas is a heathenish Name, which our Parents gave us at our Birth; but Pius is a Christian name, which we assumed in our Apostolic calling.  
You may add to this, Aeneas was a private man, and subject unto error, but Pius was a Pope, and therefore in his determinations infallible; or rather you may truly say with him, 
Nihil mentiti sumus, nihil ad gratiam, nihil ad odium retulimus. Bulla Retractat.  that Aeneas before he was Pope, delivered the truth neither for fear nor hatred, and yet he was forced to retract it: but Pius 
* Cum doctrinam non sanam, & suspectam, & quae offensionem parere potest, contineant, etc. Class. 2. in Ind. lib. prohibit.  when he was Pope, delivered false and suspected doctrine, and such as was offensive to your Church, and for that cause is commanded to be purged.  Quid Pius Aeneas, in te committere tantùm? 
What ill hap had good Aeneas, or rather what ill fortune had Pope Pius, that he could neither satisfy your Church, either as he was Aeneas, or as he was Pius? neither as a private Doctor, nor as an infallible Pope? 
Rivet. Criticum Sacr. Specimen. c. 7. p. 49.  or rather I may say with your own Canus, What doth it avail men who desire to know the truth, to raze Records out of their Books, when they cannot blot it out of their minds?  
Petrus Crinitus was a Romish Priest, 
Anno 1450.  and is commanded to be purged; and if we shall examine the reason, we shall find it for no other cause, but that he speaks the truth against your Pope, and Popish Doctrine. To instance in particulars: Let both the Title and the Chapter be razed (say your Inquisitors, touching Pope Boniface the 8.) 
Petr. Crinit. l. 7. c. 13. de dom. Disciplinâ.  and the reason is pregnant: that Chapter shows the insosolencie and pride of the Pope in particular, in matter of fact; and it further declares, that under pretence of Religion, the Popes in general think they may do what they list. Again, when he speaks of ancient Laws, 
Idem. l. 14. c. 5.  made in general for Marriage and propagation of Children, they command that page to be strucken out; and there can be no other reason, but because on the contrary it is a positive law of your Church to forbid Marriage. Lastly, whereas he shows that Leo the Emperor made an Edict, 
Idem l. 9 c. 9  that all Images in Churches and houses of the Christians should be razed; and he declares in his opinion, that it doth not appertain to Religion to adore any man's Image; and that Valens and Theodosius made Proclamation to all Christians, that they would suffer no man to fashion, to grave, or paint the Image of our Saviour, either in colours, or in stone, or in any other kind of metal or matter; and that wheresoever any such Image should be found, they commanded it to be taken down: 
Index Belgic. p. 421. Index Madrid. p. 150. Ind. lib. prohibit. p. 79. & 718. Bulla Pii 4. Art. 9 Art. 22.  These and the like passages, your Inquisitors in three several Indices command to be razed out; and what cause can you pretend, but that it makes against a special Article of your faith, viz. that Images should be set up in Churches, and worshipped? and by this means you strike likewise at the Articles of our Church, and when you have made such Doctrines and Evidences invisible, by razing the records, than you bid us show where the Church was visible before Luther.  
Now what credit shall the Reader give unto you and to your Trent Council, that would assure us that your Church intended the purging of no Authors, but from the year 1515. when as it appears plainly that you have spared neither the writings of the Apostles nor the Fathers, in razing and falsifying their own very words and sentences? And as touching other Authors in the latter ages, you have gone beyond your Commission, hundreds of years, in falsifying, corrupting, forbidding, and purging them; and this was long before your prefixed year of 1515.  
In the sixteenth age Luther began his Heresy (saith Bellarmine) Anno 1517. 
Anno 1517. Bell. Chronol. p. 3. pag. 117.  and your Church, to make some show that your Index Expurgatorius had a relation only to Luther and his followers, took her rise from the year 1515. (which was but two years before his coming) as if all the members of your Church before his coming had lived in the unity of one faith and doctrine. This deceivableness of your unrighteousness, I have in part discovered. Now I come to your Authors of this last age (for I will cite none but your own Authors) and therein lieth another mystery not inferior to the first; and that is this: your Index Expurgatorius was first proclaimed generally against all Heretics (meaning the Protestants) but when it comes to examination, it points especially at the particular members of your own Church; and that which is most remarkable, after that your Trent Council had distinguished with anathemas her Roman faith from the faith of Protestants, after she had forbidden and condemned by her Index divers of your own Authors, as savouring of suspected, and false, and scandalous doctrine; nay more, after she had declared all to be Heretics, and their Doctrine Heretical, who would dare to teach or publish any contrary belief to that which was once established by a General Council; yet I say, the members of your own Church, and those not of the meanest rank, both Bishops and Cardinals, have delivered in print many points of Doctrine agreeable to the Articles of our Church; and yet you say they never left the Church, they are not personally to be noted nor ranked amongst Heretics; when for the very same Tenets we are accused, accursed, forbidden, and utterly condemned as Heretics and Reprobates: and thus the head of your Church being divided from the members, in points of saving faith, may say unto the tongue, I have no need of thee, and consequently may cut it out. Howsoever, this use we may safely make of your Index, that if in after ages by new Impressions the true doctrine of Protestants shall be razed and utterly abolished in your Roman Authors, yet your very Index will appear as a strong Evidence, to show that such doctrines were taught in former Ages: and howsoever the faction in the Papacy formerly prevailed, yet it is more than evident by the Testimonies and Records of your own men, that we had not two Churches before Luther, but that we had always Testes Veritatis, witnesses of God's truth and our own Religion in all Ages, in the bosom of the Roman Church.  
I proceed to particulars in this last age. 
Anno 1500.   
Cardinal Cajetan is purged in several and main points of doctrine, being different from your own Church: Touching the ground of Transubstantiation, he denies that the words of Scripture (This is my body) are available to prove it of themselves, and thereupon your Jesuit Suarez complaineth, Ex Catholicis, etc. 
a Ex Catholicis solus Cajetanus, in Commentario hujus Articuli, qui jussu Pii 5. in Romana editione expunctus est, docuit, seclusâ Ecclesiae authoritateverba illa (Hoc est corpus meum) ad veritatem hanc confirmandam nonsufficere Suarez. Tom 3. Disp. 46. Sect. 3. quaest. 75. Art. 1. p. 515. Impress. Mog. An. 1509.  Amongst the Catholics, Cajetan only teacheth that the words, This is my Body, be not sufficient, without the authority of the Church, to confirm the truth of it: And therefore by the command of Pope Pius the 5. this passage is blotted out in the Roman Edition. Touching justification by faith (only) whereas he saith, 
b Absque exceptione aliqua conditionis, sexus, qualiatis, etc. dicitur omni credenti, sola fides exigitur ad salutem. Cajet. Ep. Paulï etc. Parisus 1571. fol. 4. Ind. lib. prohibit p. 876.  without any exception of person, of any Sex, or quality, or condition, It is said of every Believer, faith alone is required to salvation: your Index commands those latter words to be blotted out. Lastly, in speaking of the Cross and the like, he saith; These are altogether unlawful, and not to be embraced, because they are part of an ill worship: you cause these words to be strucken out, and in lieu of them, you subjoin these words following (which are flat contrary:) 
c Idem. p. 805.  These are altogether lawful, and are to be embraced, because they are part of the divine worship: and the better to colour these miserable shifts and falsifications, you give this Caveat to the Reader: 
Idem ibid. p. 805.  Be wary if you find any such Doctrine, for it is to be feared the Heretics have suggested it.  
Alphonsus à Castro wrote a large Book against Heresies, 
Anno 1500.  and in particular he charged Luther with many. Yet in his first Book and fourth Chapter he attributeth the same title of Heretic to the Pope, and shows the Pope as Pope is subject to Heresy; but behold the record stands published against Luther, but is wholly razed touching the Pope. 
Quod autem alii dicunt eum quierraverit in fide obstinatè jam non esse Papam, ac per hoc affirmant Papam non posse esse haereticum, & in reseria verbis velle jocari. Ad hunc enim modum quis posset citra impudentiam asserere, nullum fidelem posse in fide errare? nam cum haereticus fuerit, jam desinit esse fidelis. Non enim dubitamus an haereticum esse & Papam esse coire in unum possint; sed id quaerimus, an hominem qui alias in fide errare potuisset, dignitas Pontificalis efficiat à fide indeviabilem. Non enim credo aliquem esse adeo impudentem Papae assentatorem, ut ei tribuere hoc velit, ut nec errare, aut in interpretatione sacrarum literarum hallucinari possit. Nam cùm constet plures eorum adeo illiteratos esse, ut Grammaticam penitus ignorent, quî fit ut sacras literas interpretari possent? Alph. à Cast. advers. haer. l. 1. c. 4. p. (mihi) 6. b. Coloniae excudebat Melchior Novesianus, Anno 1543.  The words in my Edition are these; Whereas some say that he which erreth wilfully in the faith, is now no longer Pope, and thereupon concludes the Pope cannot be an Heretic, they seem in a sad matter to dally with words: For (saith he) we make no doubt whether the Pope and an Heretic may agree in one person; but this is our question, whether a man that otherwise might have erred in the Faith, by virtue of the Papal dignity, be made such as he cannot err. For I do not believe that there is any so impudent a flatterer of the Pope, that will give him this pre-eminence, to say, that he can neither be deceived nor miss in the expounding of the Scriptures; for seeing it is well known that many Popes be so utterly void of learning, that they know not the Principles of their Grammar, how may it be that they should be able to expound the Scriptures? These words I have cited at large out of my Edition 1543. for if you look into Alphonsus, printed within these last threescore years, I believe you will find them razed in this particular without an Index Expurgatorius; which plainly shows that as the Pope was and may be an Heretic, so likewise falsifying of Records is a proper mark of Heretics.  
Johannes Ferus a Friar Minorite, 
An. 1500. Usher p. 162.  and prime Preacher at Mentz in Germany, is purged and falsified in many points of controversy which he held with us. Touching the power of Priesthood in remitting of sins, it was the doctrine of Ferus: 
a Non quòd homo propriè remittat peccatum, sed quòd ostendat ac certificet à Deo remissum. Neque enim aliud est absolutio quam ab homine accipit quàm, si dicat, En fili, certifico te tibiremissa esse peccata, annuncio tibi te habere propitium Deum, & quaecunque Christus in Baptismo & Evangelio nobis promisir, tibi nunc per me annunciat & promittir. Fer. Comment. in Matth. l. 2. c. 9 Mogunt. An 1559. Lugdun. apud Johannem à S. Paulo. An. 1609. Contr.  Man did not properly remit sin, but did declare and certify that it was remitted by God: so that the absolution received from man is nothing else, than if he should say, Behold my son, I certify thee that thy sins are forgiven thee, I pronounce unto thee that thou hast God favourable unto thee, and whatsoever Christ in Baptism, and in his Gospel hath promised unto us, he doth now declare and promise unto thee by me. Of this thou shalt have me to be a witness; go in peace and in quiet of conscience. This declarative power of remitting sins was Ferus doctrine; this is ours. But behold the case is altered; for in Ferus printed at Lions 1609. all those words are razed out, and on the contrary saith, that 
b Sacerdos enim Dei minister verè remittit peccata, ac certificat à Deo remissa. fol. (mihi) 160. b. In Matth. l. 2. c. 9  the Priest doth truly remit sins, and, as the Minister of God, doth also certify that they are remitted of God.  
Touching our justification by faith only: the true Ferus saith, 
Nempe quòd solâ fide in Christum, & nullis meritis nostris, justificamur. In Ep. Pauli ad Rom. c. 16. In verba illa deleatur. Ind. lib. prohibit. p. (mihi) 629. & Ind. Madrid. fol. 133 & Ind. Belg. p. (mihi) 393.  That we are justified by faith alone in Christ, and by none of our merits; That our own works, whatsoever they be, are not of that value that they should merit a reward of condignity or congruity, but so fare forth as God in his mercy doth accept them. These and the like passages are commanded to be blotted out.  
And whereas he saith, 
a Sic verè nullum hominum genus est quod minimè movetur verbo Dei, quàm hi qui in sua justitia confidunt. Idem. in Joh. c. 1.  There is no kind of men that are less moved with the word of God, than those which trust in their own righteousness; your men, as being guilty of their trust in their merits of works, command this and the like passages to be stricken out.  
Your Index of prohibited Books, published by the 
b Opera tamdiu prohibentur quādiù expurgatio non prodierit. Ind. l. prohibit. p. 56.  Cardinal of Sandonall and Roxas, tells us, that the works of Ferus are forbidden to be read till such time as they shall be purged; and sure I am when they are purged they are none of his. For I appeal to you and your fellow Jesuits (Mr. Floyd) whether these passages following be his or yours; I mean, either the Protestant doctrine, which he published before Luther's days, or the Popish tenets which are since altered by the Inquisitors, and taught by the Trent Fathers.  
In the third of St. Matthew, the true Ferus saith, 
c Quòd si aliquando mercedem audis pollioeri, scias non ob aliud esse debitam quàm ex promissione divina. Ferus in Math. 3.  If at any time thou hear of a reward promised, know that it is not due for any thing else, but for the divine promise sake. Your Inquisitors command it to be altered thus; 
Quòd si aliquando mercedem audis polliceri, scias non sine promissione esse debitam Ind. Madrid. fol. (mihi) 125.  If thou hear of a reward promised, know that it is not due without the promise. The one saith, it is not due for any respect, but for the divine promise, ex promissione divina; the other saith, it is not due without the promise: when the true Ferus adds Gratis promisit, gratis reddidit, He promised freely, and he hath given freely; you command these words to be stricken out. And whereas Ferus commenting upon the words of Christ, 
Ind. Belg. p. (mihi) 372. Ind. lib. prohib. p. 627. Qui hanc fidem nescit, ad Ecclesiam non pertinet, etiamsi videtur primus esse in Ecclesia. Idem in Mat. l. 3. c. 16. p. (mihi) 25. Ind. Madrid. p. 125. Ind. Belg. p. 370.  Tues Petrus, etc. Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church, she wing that this Rock was meant of Christ by the confession of Peter's faith; And (saith he) whosoever is ignorant of this Faith, belongs not to the Church, although he seem to be the chief in the Church. These words are otherwise read in your general Indices, and are commanded to be stricken out. And upon the words, Si quis natus fuerit, etc. he saith, 
a In Joh. c. 3. p. (mihi) 69. Ind. lib. proh. p. 625.  The Preachers of God's Word ought first to teach faith by which a man is justified, and afterwards good works; there the words (by which a man is justified) are commanded to be stricken out.  
Now as you have purged many places, so likewise you have forged and falsified others by addition or retraction: Look upon his Commentary on the first Epistle of Saint John, and you shall behold strange additions, and the true Protestant Doctrine wrested to flat Poperty; as for instance, 
b Scriptura sacra data est nobis seu certa quaedam regula Christianae doctrinae. Idem in 1 Ep. Joh. c. 2. edit. Antwerp. An. 1556.  The holy Scriptures (saith the true Ferus) are given us as a certain sure rule of Christian Doctrine. In Ferus printed at Rome, he is taught to say, The holy Scriptures (and 
a Romana edit. An. 1577.  traditions) are given us as a certain sure rule of Christian Doctrine. The true Ferus saith, 
b Justus lic èt in Christo manet, tamen sine peccato nec esse potest; septies enim in die etiam justus cadit. Idem in cap. 3.  Though the just man remaineth in Christ, yet he is not, neither can be without sin; for even the just do fall seven times a day: your Roman Ferus addeth, 
c Sine peccato originali.  not without venial sins. The true Ferus saith, 
d Fi●ē & charitatem conjungit Apostolus, ita tamen ut fidem praeponat. Ibid.  The Apostle conjoineth faith and charity, yet so as he preferreth faith: your Roman Ferus addeth, he preferreth faith 
e Additur, ordine, non perfectione.  in order, not in perfection. The true Ferus saith, 
f Charitas timoremexpellit, quia fidem quâ Christum, vitam, propitiationem & salvatorem nostrum apprehendimus, probat & confirmat, certámque reddit. Ib. c. 4. Aliter.  Charity driveth out fear, because it trieth, confirms, and makes assured our faith, whereby we apprehend Christ, our life, propitiation and salvation: your Roman Ferus saith, 
g Charitas timorem expellit, quia peccata remittit, & Spirit us sanctus eam consolatur testimonium perhibens quòd filii Dei sumus. Ibid.  Charity drives out fear, because it forgiveth our sins, and the Holy Ghost doth comfort it, giving testimony that we are Gods children. The true Ferus saith, 
h Ibid. cap. 5.  There be some, who after faith do earnestly urge good works, but because they teach not withal, to what end they are to be directed, and how much is to be ascribed unto them, they give cause that almost all the common people do trust in their own works, and so they build upon the sand: the Roman Ferus saith, There were some, who after faith, and with faith, did earnestly urge good works; but because they cast away their necessity, and others ascribed too much to them, they all did build upon the sand. Lastly, in the true Ferus, sometimes by changing of a word, or by taking away of a word, you pervert the sense and meaning of the Author: As for instance: whereas the true Ferus saith, Saint John condemned all glorying in our works (omnem gloriam;) your Roman Edition hath turned omnem into inanem, and saith, Saint John condemned (inanem gloriam) vain glory, 
Ridiculum est quod quidam bîc volunt, Cephas idem esse quod caput. Idem. in Joh. c 1. p. mihi (43)  etc. And whereas the true Ferus saith, It is ridiculous that some will have Cephas for the head: your Roman Ferus hath left out the word (ridiculum est) and saith, That some will have Cephas taken for the head, which is most ridiculous.  
Claudius' Espencaeus Bishop of Paris, lived and died a member of the Roman Church; yet is purged, because he speaks not Placentia, suitable to your Trent Doctrine. In his Commentary on the Epistle to Titus, in his first digression, he is commanded to be purged (per quinque paginas) five leaves together; in which he complains of the abuses and corruptions grown into the Roman Church and See; he shows that their greediness of gain, and love of money caused them to dispense with all kinds of wickedness; as namely, with unlawful and forbidden marriages, with Priests keeping of Concubines, with incests, murders, rapes, witchcraft, killing of Fathers, of Mothers, of Brothers, and things not to be named; and under the name and title of the Taxes of the Apostolic Chamber (for so they term them) in which Book (saith he) being publicly and daily printed, 
Taxae Camerae Apostolicae.  you may learn more wickedness than in all the sums and catalogues of vices. Then he shows that the Council of Trent was a third time assembled by the command of Pius the fourth; 
Adeo tamen Romanam curiam repurgare non permisit.  yet by no means would he permit that the Court of Rome should be reform. And thus in several pages, 
Ind. Madrid. f. 60. & Belg. p. 74. Delean tur illa verba in Ep. ad Tit. c. 1. p. 74 p. 76, 77, 78. & 82, 83, 84.  where he complains of the like abuses in the See and Court of Rome, the Inquisitors command to be blotted out.  
Lastly, he proves out of Gregory the Great, and Saint Bernard, 
a Ibid. p. 526. In Tit. c. 3.  That every soul is subject to the higher power; that is, the Priesthood to the secular power, the Bishops and Archbishops to Emperors and Kings: and in conclusion, when it is questioned (saith he) touching the reformation of the Clergy, and orders of Monks, for sending the Shepherds to their own folds, and compelling them to feed their own flocks, they say it is a thing that belongs to a Synod, 
Res est synodica & pontificia Ibid. p. (mihi) 526.  and the Bishop of Rome: But was there any Reformation at the Council of Trent? Did the Pope and Council cause them to be more diligent in their calling? etc. This and much more to the like purpose they command to be blotted out.  
Polydore Virgil, a member of your Church, is purged in many points of Doctrine which make against you. 
Possev. Appar. p. (mihi) 294. Tom. 2.  Possevine tells us, that his Book De inventionibus rerum is permitted to be read, if it be such as Pope Gregory the thirteenth commanded to be purged at Rome (1576.) Now if any man list to compare that and Polydore printed at Paris 1528. 
Parisiis ex Officinâ Roberti Stephani, Anno 1528.  he shall find that the true Doctrine of Polydore is not allowed, which protesteth against many points of Popery; 
Polyd. de Invent. Rerum l. 2. c. 23. in initio p. (mihi) 41.  but by the Inquisitors command he is enforced contrary to himself to speak the Trent language. As for instance; whereas the true Polydore saith, When God is every where present, certainly there is nothing more foolish than to counterfeit his image: in your later Editions you have added these words, In the beginning after the first creation there was nothing more foolish; as if it were wisdom to represent God the Father in these days, which in the beginning of the world was foolishness.  
In his fifth Book and fourth Chapter, 
Ibid. l. 5. c. 4. p. 84. usque adp. 87.  your Inquisitors command seven whole pages to be stricken out; and the reason is pregnant: The marriage of Priests, which is prohibited by a positive Law of your Church, is proved to be lawful, yea and in some case commanded by the Apostles Doctrine, and justified by the examples of Saint Paul, of Peter, of Philip, and other Apostles, that had wives; and he addeth, that according to Saint Paul's Doctrine, the Bishops and Deacons, and consequently all orders of Priesthood, had them; and this custom (saith he) continued long in the Church: 
Porro, dum sacerdotes generabant legitimos filios, Ecclesia faelici prole virüm vigebat; tum sanctissimi erant Pontifices, Episcopi innocentissimi, Presbyteri Diaconíque inregerrimi castissimíque. Ib. p. 86, 87. Ibid. c. 9  and withal concludes; Furthermore, whilst the Priests did beget lawful sons, the Church flourished with a happy offspring of men; then your Popes were most holy, your Bishop's most innocent, your Priests and Deacons most honest and chaste. Then he proves from Pope Pius the second, that as Marriage upon good cause was taken from the Priests, so it ought to be restored upon better. This and much more concerning the marriage of Priests, is commanded to be stricken out.  
In his ninth Chapter, he saith, Worship thou one true and eternal God; but worship thou no Image of any living creature, 
Ind. Belg. p. 175  deleatur (say your Inquisitors) let it be strucken out.  
In his sixth Book, 
Idem l. 6. c. 13.  and beginning of his thirteenth Chapter, he testifies from St. Hierome, That almost all the holy ancient Fathers did condemn the worship of Images, for fear of Idolatry. He proves from the Law of Moses, that nothing made with hands should be worshipped; and from the Prophet David, Confounded be all they that worship graven Images. He shows further, that Gregory the Great, albeit he reprehended Serenus Bishop of Marsilia for breaking down of Images, yet he commends him for forbidding the worshipping of them. These and the like passages are commanded to be strucken out, per octodecem lineas, 
Ind. Belg p. 177. Ind. lib. expurg. p. (mihi) 725.  for eighteen lines together.  
Ludovicus Vives a Priest of your second Classis is purged, and namely by the Divines of Lovan, 
Plantins' print at Antwerp, 1576.  in their Edition of St. Augustine's works at Antwerp, Anno 1576.  
In his Epistle to King Henry the 8th, where he saith, that Princes are supreme Governors on earth next under God, this is commanded to be blotted out: And where he saith, The Saints are worshipped and esteemed by many, as were the Gods among the Gentiles; this passage without a command, in the aforesaid Edition is razed out.  
Again, in his Comment on the 8th. Book of the City of God, he tells us how your Romish Priests upon good Friday do celebrate Christ's passion upon the stage. There Judas (saith he) playeth the most ridiculous Mimic, 
Lud. Viu. in August. de Civit. Dei, l. 8. c. 27.  even then when he betrays Christ; there the Apostles run away, and the Soldiers follow, and all resounds with laughter; then comes Peter and cuts off Malchus ear, and then all rings with applause, as if the betraying of Christ were now revenged; and by and by this great Fisher Peter for fear of a Girl, denies his Master, all the people laughing at her question, and hissing at his denial; and in all these revels and ridiculous stirs, Christ only is serious and severe; but seeking to move passion and sorrow in the audience, he is so fare from that, that he is cold even in the divinest matters, to the great guilt, shame, and sin both of the Priests that present it, and the people that behold it. These words and blasphemous actions, 
Ind. l. expurgat. p (mihi) 41.  as being ashamed of them, you do well to command them to be blotted out; but yet they are reprinted, and your men are not a shamed to continue the practice of it in your own Religion.  
And lastly, where he says, That those who prefer the Latin Translation before the Greek and Hebrew fountains, 
Idem in Aug. l. 15. c. 13. p. 83.  are men of evil minds and corrupt judgements; that passage is left out in the Antwerp print. And whereas he saith, that the story of Susanna, 
Idem. l. 18. c. 31  of Bell and the Dragon, are Apocryphal Scriptures, and not received of the Jews, nor translated by the Septuagint: 
Ind. l. expurg p. (mihi) 41.  all those words are commanded to be stricken out.  
Jacobus Faber Stapulensis, a member of the Roman Church, taught the Protestant doctrine in many points, and therefore he is purged by your several Indices.  
Whereas the Rhemists translate the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Penance, he defined it Repentance, 
Jac. Fab. in Evang. Matth. c. 3. fol. (mihi) 13. b. Ibid. c. 5. fol. 24. in initio.  and makes a distinction betwixt Repentance and Penance, such as the Protestants do; and therefore it is commanded to be stricken out.  
Again, speaking of the Scribes and Pharisees, who did attribute righteousness to themselves and their own works; 
Ibid. c. 6. f. 30. a. Ind. Madr. fol. 112.  The faithful (saith he) which are of the Law of grace, do work most diligently, but do attribute nothing to themselves, or their own works; but all of them do impute their righteousness to the grace of God; All consisteth with the one in the merit of works, with the other in grace: the one respect themselves and their works, and are delighted therein; the other regard not themselves, but the grace of God; they admire his goodness, and therein is their chief delight. Again, if any man shall do good in this world, he must not do it because it is his will, but because God commandeth it; For he which is perfect hath not a will peculiar to himself, but his will must be the will of God; and this is the third Petition of the Lords Prayer.  
In the sixteenth Chapter of St. Matthew, upon the words, Thou art Peter, etc. he shows, that according to St. Paul's doctrine, 
Ibid. fol. c. 16. (mihi) 74. b.  the Rock was Christ; He shows that Peter was so fare from being a firm rock, that Christ himself did intimate the contrary, when he said, Get thee behind me Satan, for thou savourest not the things of God, but of men: He shows us further, that our Lord Christ promised to Peter the Keys of binding and losing, but withal testifies, that those Keys were not Peter, but Christ's, whereby Peter doth not bind or lose by his power, but by the will of Christ. He addeth moreover, that not only Peter received those Keys, but also all the rest of the Apostles: But (saith he) there be some which understand by the Keys of binding and losing, the Pope's power, as Christ spoke of that faith, witnessing that he was the Son of the living God, which is one of the Keys of the heavenly Doctrine, upon which the Church is founded, and Peter's faith, as upon the true Rock Christ, was builded. 
a Deleatur ab illis verbis, Ne quis putet Petrum, etc. usque ad, Aeterni Patris infusio. Ind. Madr. fol. (mihi) 113. & Ind. Belg. p. 51.  This and much more to the same purpose, for thirty lines together, is commanded to be strucken out.  
In his 20. Chapter he saith, 
b Verum qui operibus suis aliquo modo fidunt, minus Deo fidunt, minusque amant Deum: qui autem nullo modo, sed pacto, sed promissioni imo omnia Deo tribuunt plus Deo fidunt, cujus ineffabili bonitate qui novissimi suerunt operando, factisunt primi gratiam recipiendo; & qui primi operando, novissimi gratiam recipiendo: Quare bonum, etc. deleatur usque ad Dei autem omnia. Ind. ut supra.  Those which any ways trust in their works, have the least affiance in God, and love him the less; but those which give all to his promise, and to God himself, they trust most in God; by whose ineffable bounty, those which are last in working, are made first by receiving grace; and those that are first in working, are become last in receiving: Whatsoever therefore a man doth, it is good for him to trust wholly to God his goodness, for it is the will of God, and of his special grace, that we are saved, and not of our will or works: These words, and much more to the same purpose in the same chapter, are commanded to be blotted out.  
Touching his Commentaries upon Saint John, your Inquisitors have pronounced this definitive sentence, 
c Ind. Madr. fol. (mihi) 115.  Because they cannot be handsomely purged, let them all be spunged and blotted out.  
Touching his Commentaries upon Timothy, 
In Tim. c. 3. fol. (mihi) 205.  he shows, that it was lawful for Priests to marry a Virgin till the time of Gregory the seventh, (which was nine hundred years after Christ:) he shows likewise that the Grecians kept the Apostolical Tradition in marrying of Wives, and could not change them, and that other Churches which vowed single life, by their incontinency fell into the snares of the Devil: And lastly, in his Commentary upon the Galathians, at large he proves, 
a Per solam fidem Christi infunditur justificatio. In Gal. c. 2. fol. 154.  That by the Faith of Christ alone we are justified, and that he which 
b Idem c. 3. fol. 156. Qui autem confidit in operibus, in seipso confidit, & baculo innititur arundineo, qui frangitur in seipso, & supernum lumen non videt, unde descendit Justificatio.  trusteth in his works, trusteth in himself, and leans upon a staff of Reed, which is broken in itself; whereby he doth not discern the heavenly light, from whence our justification doth descend: These and many other like passages in several places of his Works, which are consonant to our Protestant Doctrine, are commanded by the 
c Ind. Madr. f. (mihi) 118, 119.  Inquisitors to be strucken out.  

d Friderici Furii Cenolani Valentini Bononia; sieve, De libris sacris in vernaculam linguam convertendis.  Fridericus Furius writes a whole Book of translating the Bible into the vulgar tongue, for the benefit of the Lay people; he dedicates his Book to Cardinal Bovadillius, and he tells him that we esteem it an excellent thing to read the works of Greek and Latin Philosophers; and therefore much more ought we to search and know the will of God out of his sacred Scriptures: for the one is a matter of pleasure, and the other is a matter of necessity; the not knowing of the one may hurt little or nothing at all, but to be ignorant of the other brings a grievous mischief, besides eternal destruction of the soul. Again, what is it (saith he) to forbid the Scriptures to be read in the vulgar tongue, than to forbid God his own purpose, and as it were to command God, which doth declare himself to all by his Word, that he should not be manifested unto us? This is the whole scope of the Author, and for this cause, lest the reading of the Scripture in a known tongue should discover Antichristian Doctrine by frequent reading, 
a Ind. lib. proh. p. (mihi) 36.  the Book itself is forbidden, till it be purged in this and the like places witnessing against your Roman Doctrine.  
Johannes Langus is numbered amongst your Heretics in the first Classis, pag. 51. Yet his Annotations upon 
b Permittuntur verò ejusdem in D Justinum annotationes, item in Nicephorum scholia, si expurgentur. Ind. l. proh. p. mihi 51.  Justin Martyr, and his Commentaries upon Nicephorus, are allowed if they be purged. Now let the Reader observe for what cause you would have him purged: First touching his Annotations upon Justin Martyr; 
c Multa continet parum Catholicae Religioni consona, inter ea autem illud est praecipuum, quòd transubstantiationem non agnoscit, sed opertè contendat, cum corpore & sanguine Christi remanere veram panis & vini substantiam.  They contain many things disagreeing to the Catholic Religion; but among those, that is chief, that he doth not acknowledge Transubstantiation, but doth openly maintain, that the true substance of bread and wine doth remain with the body and blood of Christ Again, 
d Perversè admodum interpretatur illud Malachiae, In omni loco offertur sacrificium nomini meo, de doxologia, benedictione, laudibus, & hymnis. Sic Ind. ut upra.  He doth very maliciously interpret that place of Malachy, In every place a sacrifice shall be offered to my name, that is (saith he) in giving of glory, blessing, laud, and praise to the Name of God.  

e Gerardi Lorichii Adamarii collectio trium librorum, etc. de missa publicaproroganda. Ind. l. proh. p. 11.  Gerardus Lorichius is prohibited till he be purged for the reproving and condemning your private Mass, and Communion in one kind; his words be these, There be false Catholics, that are not ashamed by all means to hinder the Reformation of the Church; they, to the intent that the other kind of the 
a D● Missa pub. Racemationum, lib. 2. Canonis pars 7. p. (mihi) 177.  Sacrament may not be restored to the Lay people, spare no kind of blasphemy. 
b Excusum an. 1536.  For they say, Christ said only to his Apostles, Drink ye all of this; but the words of the Canon of the Mass, are, Take and eat you all of this: Here I beseech them let them tell me, whether they will have this word (All) to pertain only to the Apostles? Then must the Lay people abstain from the other kind, of the bread also; which thing to say is an Heresy, and a pestilent and detestable blasphemy.  
Ambrose Catharinus Archbishop of Compsa wrote against Cajetan; and (saith 
* Bellar. de Ec. Scrip. p (mihi) 312.  Bellarmine) he wrote likewise against Luther: 
e Opuscula verò similiter prohibentur, nisi corrigantur, Ind. l. prohib. p. 4.  Yet something he wrote is disallowed of the Church, as namely, touching the words of consecration: other things are commonly refuted by the Doctors of the Church, viz. the certainty of Grace, of Predestination, etc. therefore his Works are warily to be read. Thus you have Cajetan against Luther, and Catherinus against Cajetan, and Luther & both against the Tenets of their own Church; insomuch as the Inquisitors have commanded a deleatur upon Cajetan and Catharinus in the second Classis, and against 
f Commentaria in Lucam, nisifuerint ex repurga●● & impress●● ab an. 1581. vel nisi anteà edita, expurgentur. Ind. l. prohib. p 26. & p. 318. Ind-Belg. p. 317. Ind. Hisp. p. 63.  Luther's whole Works in the first Classis.  
Didacus Stella is prohibited to be printed before he be purged. The places which are purged are such wherein he teacheth Protestant Doctrine, as may be seen in 
g See Appendix to the Romish Fisher caught in his own net.  Mr. Crashaw, and Dr. James, and D. F. Observations.  
Andrea's Masius in his Commentary upon Josuah is purged for this Protestant doctrine; 
Ad solam vitae benè actae imitationem, non etiam ad religiosum cultum, quem adorationem vocant Theologi, Divorun monumen ta conservare fas est. In Comment. Jos. hist. c. ult. Ind. l. expurg. p. 31.  We ought to preserve the Monuments of Saints only for the imitation of their godly life, not for Religious worship, which Divines call Adoration. Again, he saith, 
a Idem in Jos. c. 22.  The Church sets before our eyes the figure of Christ's Cross, (not that we should worship it;) which latter words are commanded to be razed out.  
Lastly, Cardinal Bellarmine, who was the first and best that ever handled all controversies indifference betwixt us, 
b Ind. Belg. p. 269.  was in danger of a prohibition, or rather of an absolute suppression of all his works. Your own Barclay witnesseth of him, 
Barclay of the authority of the Pope. c. 13. p. 66. Engl.  That there is not one of the Pope's party, who hath either gathered more diligently, or propounded more sharply, or concluded more briefly or subtly, than the worthy Divine Bellarmine; who although he gave as much to the Pope's authority in temporalties, as honestly he might, and more than he ought, yet could he not satisfy the ambition of the most imperious man Sixtus the 5th. (who affirmed that he had supreme power over Kings and Prince of the whole Earth, and all People, Countries, and Nations committed unto him, not by humane, but by divine Ordinance:) and therefore he was very near by his Pontificial censure (to the great hurt of the Church) to have abolished all the writings of that Doctor (which do oppugn Heresies with great success at this day) as the Fathers of that order (whereof Bellarmine was then) did seriously report unto me. How probable this may seem, his work of Recognitions doth witness to the world; wherein he was enforced to recant that doctrine, which he had both sincerely taught and published according to the truth. As for instance; whereas he professed that the Pope was subject to the Emperor in temporal affairs; on the contrary he recants it, saying, 
a Bel. Recognit. de summo Pont. p. 16.  I allow not that which I said (with Albertus Pighius) that Paul appealed to Caesar to be his lawful Judge. Again, whereas it was said the Popes used to be chosen by Emperors, the word Emperor (potest, & fortè debet deleri) 
b Idem de Cler. p. (mihi) 52.  it must, and peradventure aught to be blotted out. And when I said that Paul was subject to Caesar, as to his temporal Lord, I meant it was so 
c De facto, non de jure. Ib. p. 17. Sapendo M. Paolo chasotto Sisto Quinto usci un Indice de libri prohibiti, il quale se ben subito si occulto, non fu pero cio cosi presto fatto che non ne restassero gli essemplari. Et in questo erano compress le opere del Bellarmino. In lib. Confirmatione del considerationi del M. Paulo di Venetia, di M. Fulgentio Brestiano servita. In Venetia appresso Ruber. to Mejetti 1606. Con licentia de superiori. in 4 to.  in fact, but not of right.  
And in truth it seems, that neither the Pope, nor his Inquisitors were well pleased with this Catholic doctrine: For Friar Paul of Venice acknowledged Cardinal Ballarmine and Baronius for learned men; and further saith, that he hath known the one and the other in Rome; but he could wish withal, that they had written that which they sincerely thought, without being forced to recant any thing that they had spoken. For Friar Paul knew well that under Sixtus Quintus there came out an Index of prohibited Books, which though it were suddenly stayed and called in, yet it was not so closely acted, but that there remained Copies of it; and in that Index the works of Bellarmine were comprehended. If this learned Cardinal's Book had been forbidden, you and your fellows would have been to seek of an answer for many objections made against you; for it is usual with you to refer me for an answer to Bellarmine. But as it is observed, they recanted many things in their writings: 
Dum plurima Annalibus digerendis pervolutanda fuere, agnovit ingenuè quae primis editionibus autmanca, aut non omnino ad plenam veritatem abs se fuerant scripta, id quod in Annalibus non semel testatus est.  For Baronius confesseth, that in his first Editions many things were imperfect, and not altogether true, which were corrected in the other impressions. And I am persuaded, ere long we shall have an Index 
a Defensio Johānis Marsilii in favorem responsi 8. propositiones continentis, adversus quod scripsit illustrissimus Cardinalis Bellarminus. Venetiis. 1606.  Expurgatorius lay hold on him; For (saith Johannes Marsilius) I have heard that as he hath taken a liberty to mend the Fathers, Canons, and Historians, so he will correct the Counsels after his manner, and for his own purpose, and so assume unto himself a licence hereunto; which God forbidden. Again (saith he) 
b Marsil. p. 357. See B. Mortons' encounter against M. Parson's reckoning, l. 1. c. 1. p. 10, 11  the Answers of Cardinal Baronius are not unlike the answers of Cardinal Bellarmine, who whilst he cannot find an objected argument to be assoiled by History, he saith, that those words have been inserted into the Books: much like to Mr. Floyd, when there is no answer to be made to some particular objections out of the Authors, you reject them all as condemned by your Inquisitors: And this answer I am sure may serve for all objections that can be made from most Classical Authors.  
The last thing which I here mean to speak of, is a certain distinction of explicit and implicit faith, which the Knight and his Ministers cry out against, and are pleased sometimes to make themselves merry withal, as if they would laugh out; but it is too well and solidly grounded to be blown away with the breath of any such ministerial Knight, as he is. Thus you.  
You professed formerly to teach me for my learning; now it seems you would instruct me for my manners: you tell me I make myself merry with your doctrine, as if I would laugh out: truly I am sorry to think you teach such ridiculous doctrine, as should deservedly cause laughter. Shall I make you my Confessor? I cannot choose but smile when I consider what great pains you have taken in this whole Chapter, to uphold the Articles of your Faith with six pretended rules, and all infallible, as namely, Scripture in the plain and literal sense; Tradition or common belief and practice of the whole Church; Counsels either general or particular, confirmed by the See Apostolic; the authority of that whole See itself defining Ex Cathedra, though without either general or particular Council; the common and uniform consent of ancient Fathers or modern Doctors and Schoolmen, delivering any thing unto us as matter of Faith: All these six rules (say you) we acknowledge, and are ready to make good whatsoever is taught any of these ways.  
When I say you assume confidently, that all these are infallible rules to lead men to the knowledge of your Faith, and at last you conclude, and as it were shut up all those rules of knowledge, with the doctrine of an implicit faith. This I confess is such a mystery of foolishness, as deserveth rather laughter than an answer. For, as Cato said, He marvelled that a Soothsayer did not laugh when he saw a Soothsayer: So I am verily persuaded that yourselves do smile when you meet each other, to think how you cousin the poor ignorant people with a blind obedience, and an implicit Faith. To let pass your Golden Legends and leaden miracles, (which occasion sufficient mirth in long winter nights for all sorts of people) what I pray is that implicit Faith, that you condemn me and our Ministers for laughing at? Mistake us not, I know no Protestant doth laugh at an implicit Faith, which is directed to the proper object, the holy Scripture; we laugh not at an implicit Faith, which cannot be well unfolded or comprehended by reason, as namely, the unsearchable mystery of the Trinity, of Christ's conception by the holy Ghost, and the like; but we disclaim and condemn your Catholic Colliers Faith, which is canonised for your Popish Creed; that is, to pin our Faith upon the Church's sleeve, and to assent to every thing the Church propoundeth to be believed, without examination whether it be agreeable to the Scripture, or besides it. We laugh, or rather we pity that Merchant of Placentia, who chose rather to be a Papist than a Protestant, 
Laurent. Discept. Theolog. p. 5.  because (saith he) I can briefly learn the Roman faith; For if I say what the Pope saith, and deny what the Pope denies, and if he speak and I hearken unto him, this is alone sufficient for me. And we cannot choose but smile at the judgement pronounced by your Gregory de Valentia, upon this poor ignorant Merchant; God (saith he) will have nothing to lay to this man's charge at the dreadful day of Judgement: His meaning, it may be is, God can charge him with nothing, because this man knew nothing.  
This doctrine of Obedience doth well agree with Cardinal Bellarmine's exposition upon that place of Job, 
Bell. de Justif. l. 1. c. 7.  The Oxen did blow and labour, and the Asses fed by them. By the Oxen (saith he) are meant the learned Doctors of the Church, by the Asses are meant the ignorant people, which out of simple belief rest satisfied with the understanding of their Superiors. And accordingly your Cardinal Casanus persuades his Proselytes to rely upon the Church, without further inquiry of the truth; 
Cusan. exercit. l. 2. & l. 6.  For (saith he) Obedience without reason is a full and perfect obedience, that is, when thou obeyest, without enquiring of reason, as a horse is obedient to his Master. He that shall make a question in your Church, whether the Pope can err, must resign up his understanding with this belief, 
Bellar. de Pont. l. 4. c. 5.  If the Pope should so fare forth err, as to command vices, and forbidden virtues, the Church were bound to believe that vices are good, and virtues are evil, unless she will sinne against her own conscience.  
This is Bellarmine's lesson, and that must be your Faith. Nay more, Cardinal Tollet will assure you, that if one believe his Bishop, 
Toll. de Instruct. sacerd. l. 4. c. 3.  although it be contrary to the faith, yet in believing that falsehood, he shall perform an act meritorious.  
I understand you are a Jesuit, and therefore I do not much wonder, that you so much insist upon the justification of an implicit faith; for you had it from your founder, and are enjoined to make it good by your own Order. There is a little Pamphlet entitled Regulae Societatis Jesus, which yourselves have caused to be printed at Lions, in which Ignatius Loyala, the Spanish Soldier, and Patron of your Sect, 
Anticotton, or a refutation of Cottons letter to the Queen Regent, p. 24. printed at Lions by Jaques Roussin. Anno. 1607.  hath laid down these rules to your Society: Entertain the command of your Superior in the same sort, as if it were the voice of Christ. Again, Hold this undoubtedly, that all which a Superior commands, is no other than the commandment of God himself; and as in believing those things which the Catholic faith proposeth, you are presently carried with all the strength of your consent; so for the performance of all those things which your Superior commands, you must be carried with a certain blind impetuosity of will, desirous to obey without further enquiring why or wherefore. And lest that such command might seem sometimes unjust and absurd, he commands your Jesuits so to captivate their understanding, that they sift not the commands of their Superiors; but that they may follow the example of Abraham, who prepared even to sacrifice his son at the commandment of God: and of Abbot John, who watered a dry log of wood a whole year together, to none other purpose, but to exercise his obedience; and another time put himself to thrusting down of a great Rock, which many men together were not able to move, not that he held them things either usual or possible, but only that he would not disobey the command of his Superior.  
This is that blind obedience and implicit faith which we laugh at, and this is the ridiculous Doctrine which your Rhemists teach. He saith enough, 
Rbem. Annot. in Luc. 12.11.  and defendeth himself sufficiently, who answereth he is a Catholic man, and that his Church can give a reason of all the things which they demand of him. But we have not so learned Christ; we are ready always, according to the Apostles instruction, 
1 Pet. 3.15.  to give an answer to every man that asketh us a reason of the hope that is in us. And for the better fulfilling of the Law and the Prophets, we testify with Moses, Secret things belong to the Lord our God, 
Deut. 29.29.  but the things revealed belong to us and our children, that we may do all the words of the Law. We say therefore particular knowledge is to be joined with the assent of faith; for no man can assent to that which he never heard, and therefore I think no man of understanding, with a blind obedience and implicit faith, will resign up his eyesight, and look through such spectacles as you have tempered for them. For without doubt it was the constant and uniform Doctrine of the ancient Church, that howsoever faith apprehends mysteries not to be inquired into, yet the proposition and doctrine of all the Articles of Faith were distinctly taught and conceived by all: and thereupon Theodoret, who was then living, gives us to understand, that in his days You might see every where the points of our Faith to be held and known, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Theod. Graec. Serm. 5.  not only to them who are Masters in the Church and Teachers of the people, but even of Cobblers, Smiths, and Weavers, and all kind of Artificers, of all sorts of women; and all these you may find (saith he) discoursing of the Trinity, and the creation of all things.   

CHAP. II. The sum of his Answer to my first Section.  THe Church of Rome, not without cause, bitter against the Reformed Churches, because they are Heretics: Theodoret is impertinently alleged: Bellarmine is falsified: The Catholic Church cannot be depraved because of her promises. And this (setting aside your reproaches and impertinencies) is the substance of your second Chapter, in answer to my first Section. 
The Reply. First you say in your Title, The Church of Rome not bitter against Heretics.  
It is true, the Church of Rome is not bitter against Heretics (as you understand them for Protestants) for they are no Heretics: but if the terms of Luther's whelps, Hellhounds of Zwinglius, damned persons, and worse than Infidels; if such terms (I say) be Catholic compliments (which your fellow Jesuits have given us) I shall freely confess your Charity is mistaken.  
But (say you) the word Heretic, which is the worst of all, hath ever gone with such as have held new particular doctrines, 
1 John 2.  and such St. John calleth Antichrists.  
Surely you have my assent and wishes with you, that is, that the name of Heretic may always go as it hath gone, with such as teach new and Antichristian doctrine. But let me tell you, this description of yours is a perfect Character of the Roman Church; and I verily believe that if all the pictures and patterns of a Papist were lost in the world, they might all again be recovered, and a Papist painted to the life in the description of such an Heretic as you here define.  
Look upon the particular doctrines of private Mass, your half Communion, your Prayer in an unknown Tongue, and tell me if these be not new: why else do you and your associates confess that the contrary Tenets were taught and revived by the Ancients? And as touching the name of Antichrist, if that be appropriate to Heretics, it cannot touch the members of our Church; for we make Christ and his Apostles the sole rule of our Faith. On the other side, if you consider the Pope, either as he sits in the place of Christ, as his Vicar General, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is ag●●●● Christ, & in the place of Christ as his Vicar.  or as he and his adherents teach and uphold a doctrine against Christ (for the word Antichrist imports both) without doubt they bear the marks of Antichrist, and consequently the word (Heretic) reflects upon yourselves.  
Cassander tells us, there be some who make the Pope of Rome Almost a God, 
Cassand. de officio Pii viri.  preferring his authority not only above the whole Church, but above the sacred Scriptures, holding his judgement equal to the divine Oracles, and for an infallible rule of Faith. I see no reason (saith he) but that these men should be called Pseudo-Catholikes or Papists. Indeed I must confess I much wonder, that any Protestant should give you that honourable title of Catholic, especially when you term them by the name of Heretics.  
Those that have the mark of the Beast imprinted in their foreheads, have borrowed both the Name and Nature from him; and therefore your Cardinal tells us, 
Bell. de Not. Eccles. c. 4.  The word Papist is derived from the Pope, such as was Peter. And more particularly your Gregory Martin and the Rhemists give you to understand, 
Rhem. Annot. in Acts. 11.26.  that to be a Papist, is to be a Christian man, a child of the Church, and subject to Christ's Vicar. You that are so inquisitive after other men's pedigrees, see if with all your Heraldry you can make good your nominal descent from Christ, and, as you style him, Pope Peter.  
Your Father Bristol, 
Bristol. Demand. 8.  as a known Antiquary in this point, gives your Father Bellarmine the lie; for he avows it for certain, that your name (Papist) was never heard of till the days of Pope Leo the Tenth, and this was 1500. years after Christ; and this opinion I am sure is most probable, and more suitable to the Novelty of your Religion.  
But (say you) we Catholics style the Knight and the Reformers, by the common name of Heretics.  
You told me formerly the title of (Sir) would be left for me: now you have added to the title the name of Heretic, and you profess it is the worst word of all. It seems the worst word you have is good enough for me: But I pardon you, and I must let you know that the name of Catholic is as comely with the Professors of your new doctrine, as a golden ring in a swine's snout. And as touching the name of Heretic wherewith you charge me, you rightly resemble Athalia, 
4 Kings 11.  who when she understood that Joas the right inheritor of the Crown of Judah, was proclaimed King, ran in her fury to the Temple, and cried out, Treason, Treason, when the treason was not in King Joas, but in herself that wrought it. Your Alphonsus à Castro hath written a Book against the Heretics in all ages; and in his Index haereticorum, I have searched diligently, and I find the names of certain Popes among them, but mine own name I do not find: For I profess with St. Austin, Errare possum, haereticus esse nolo, I may err, but I will not be an Heretic. Shall I make my confession unto you? I believe all things which are contained in the Scriptures, and nothing contrary or besides them as matter of faith necessary to salvation: 
Cum hoc credimus, priuscred●mus, nihil amplius credendum esse. Tertul. Ibid.  I believe the holy Catholic Church. This is an Article of my Faith, and this I first received from the Apostles Creed. Next, I undoubtedly believe the Nicene Creed; and this was called Catholic by those holy Fathers, to distinguish the Heretics from the Orthodox Christians in the Primitive Church; or, according to your own words, 
Chap. 1. p. 2.  appointed to be publicly professed by all such as meant to be counted Catholics; 
Concil. Trid. Sess. 3.  and for the same cause your Council of Trent decreed it to be received (as a Shield against Heresies) and therefore by your own confession, the Counsels decree, and your Creed itself, I am free from the name of Heretic. Lastly, I profess and believe Athanasius Creed, and that Holy and ancient Father witnesseth of that confession, Haec est fides Catholica, This is the Catholic Faith.  
If therefore I believe the Scriptures, and Catholic Church, which teacheth the true Faith; If I believe the Articles of the Nicene Creed, which distinguisheth the right Believers from the Heretics; If I receive Athanasius Creed, which contains the sum and substance of all Catholic Faith and doctrine, what remains then why I should not be exempted from the name of Heretic, unless I shall acknowledge with you the fourth Creed published by Pope Pius the fourth, and consequently subscribe to new particular doctrines, which (as you confess) doth ever accompany the nature of Heresy?  

But the Reformers are Heretics.  
He that shall hear but the word (Reformers) in all probability will conceive that they were men which opposed some errors or heresies crept into the Church, and for that cause desired a Reformation. In the Churches of Corinth, Galatia, Pergamus and Thyatira there were some of the Sadduces opinion, who denied the Resurrection, others that joined Circumcision and the works of the Law with Christ, and the work of salvation. The Apostles you know did reprove those errors in their days, and no doubt many accordingly did reform themselves: Now will you condemn those reformed persons for Heretics, because they differed from the rest with an utter dislike of those errors which the seduced party retained? Surely this is the true state and condition of our Church; and accordingly your Trent Fathers made a decree for Reformation in the Council, and pretended that it was summoned to redress Heresies which were crept into the Church; and will you say, if they had redressed them, the Reformers had been Heretics?  
The Rogatian Heretics would have made the world believe that they were the only Catholics; and the Arrian Heretics called the true Christians, sometimes Ambrosians, sometimes Athanasians, sometimes Homo●sians. And in this manner St. Paul himself was called before the Judges to make answer to matter of Heresy, and according to this way which you call Heresy, 
Acts 24.  so worship we the God of our Fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and the Prophets.  
They that so rashly pronounce and call every thing Heresy, are often stricken with their own dart, 
Alph. de Heres. l. 1. c. 7.  (saith your own Alphonsus) and fall into the same pit which themselves have digged for others: He shows therefore by way of conclusion what he would have called Heresy. 
Ibid.  This would I rather call Heresy (saith he) to account men's writings among the Scriptures of God; and so do they that think it a wicked matter to descent from the writings of man, no less than it were the judgements of God. Now that your men are guilty of such Heresies in the highest degree, appears by his own confession; 
Ibid. l. 1. c. 2. p. 14.  for he complains of Gratian, who did insert the Pope's decretal Epistles amongst the holy Scriptures, as if they were of equal authority with them: and he speaks as an ear witness of others, who in their public Sermons have declared, that whosoever shall descent from the opinion of St. Thomas, is to be censured for an Heretic. O fortes verbi Dei Praecones! O powerful Preachers of the word of God (saith he;) or rather I may truly say of St. Thomas doctrine, 
l. 1. c. 7.  for by this means it will come to pass, that blessed Bonaventure must be censured of heresy, 
Ibid. p. (mihi) 31.  for he crosseth St. Thomas; and blessed Anselme must be suspected of Heresy, because contrary to Thomas opinion, he thinketh him not a lover of our blessed Virgin who refuseth to celebrate the Feast of her Conception.  
As this Author wrote a tract against Heretics, so likewise he professeth that the head of the Roman Church, as well as the members are subject to that capital accusation whereof you accuse the Reformers, and particularly he doth instance from Platina in Pope Liberius for an Arrian Heretic, and Pope Anastasius for a favourer of the Nestorian Heretics, and withal he resolves the question (which without all question is so to be resolved) that the Pope (which you make one of the infallible Rules of your Faith) may become an Heretic.  
You shall do well therefore to forbear your name [Catholic] till you can free your Pope and his adherents from the marks of Heretics. In the mean time I might more justly retort your own words, cum faenore, into your own bosom, and say, We Reformed Catholics, not only style, but prove J. R. and the Romanists to be rightly styled by the common name of Heretics.  
I proceed to the rest of your accusations; Theodoret (say you) is wholly impertinent. Bellarmine his meaning is abused, and his words corrupted. First touching Theodoret: his proof (notwithstanding your exception) stands good; for if the agreement of both parties in the Nicene Council, in his judgement, aught to have allayed the heat of contention in the Church of Antioch, I might well conclude much more, that the three Creeds, and the first four General Counsels (wherein both sides agree) ought to have abated the edge of your sharp and bitter Invectives against our Church. And as for abusing of Bellarmine, I assure you it was fare from my thoughts; and you cannot be ignorant that the inference, according to true meaning, standeth thus. If Protestants believe and hold all things necessary for all Christians, then are they not to be accounted damned persons, and worse than Infidels: But they believe the Apostles Creed, they teach the ten Commandments, and administer some few Sacraments, which in your Cardinal's opinion are those things which are simply necessary for all to know and believe; and to this argument you answer nothing, but you quarrel about words. When I translate [nonnulla] a few Sacraments, you say I falsify Bellarmine, for the word (few) is not there; and yet you know well, that by nonnulla he doth not mean omnia, 
Nonnulla is a diminutive term signifying not none, that is, some, be they never so few.  and therefore those which he meaneth are but few. The word utilia is in the same place of Bellarmine; and as for other words added or left out, they altar not the sense, nor are we bound precisely to the words, but to the sense, in translating a passage out of any Author.  
But (say you) what man ever took Babylon for a true Church?  
If by Babylon you understand literally the ancient City of Chaldea, or that famous City in Egypt, once called by the name of Memphis, and now of Cair, you know well that it is not my meaning so to take it; (for you confess that I otherwise express myself:) but that a particular Church (as namely your Church of Rome, which was sometimes a sound, that is, a right-beleeving Church) may afterwards fall into Heresy, and become spiritual and mystical Babylon, this is not only my assertion, but your Romanists and fellow Jesuits in the Church of Rome.  
Ribera your fellow Jesuit of Salamanca in Spain, tells us by way of prevention; If Rome shall commit the same things hereafter which she committed in the time of John, she shall be called Babylon again; as it was in the case of Jerusalem, which of a faithful City once, became afterwards a Harlot. And according to the Prophecy of St. John, he protesteth in this manner; We know this truth so perspicuously by the words of the Revelation, Ut ne stultissimus quidem negare possit, that the veriest fool cannot deny the same. Then he concludes, 
Riberae Comment. in Apoc. 14. v. 8. in c. 14. num. 31. n. 32.  Since Babylon shall be the shop of all Idolatry, and of all impieties, therefore it cannot be doubted, but that this shall be the condition of Rome hereafter.  
I will come nearer to you: Your Monk Sigebert about 500 years ago interpreting the words of St. Peter (The Church at Babylon salutes you) delivereth this doctrine: 
Sigeb. Ep. p. (mihi) 188. in. l. Goldasti Replic.  Hitherto Peter by Babylon did signify Rome, because Rome at that time was confounded with Idolatry and all uncleanness; but my grief doth now interpret unto me, that Peter by a Prophetic spirit, by the Church of Babylon, foresaw the confusion of dissension with which the Church of Rome at this day is rend in pieces.  
Honorius Bishop of Anthun in France, speaking of the fall of the Church of Rome, not long after the same time, cries out to the members of his Church, 
Honor. Angust. in Dial. de Praedest. & l. arbit.  Turn to the Citizens of Babylon, and see what they are; behold the buildings of that damned City, consider the principal persons there, and thou shalt find the See of the Beast. Thus you see the first Babylonian tells what he feared would come to pass in the Church of Rome hereafter; but these two later proclaimed openly that Rome was become Babylon many hundred years since, and for their loud cries their tongues are now cut out by the command of your Inquisitors.  
How undeservedly were these men punished and forbidden to speak the truth, let the Reader judge; but that which is observable, you raze the Records which testify for us; you forbidden them to speak, if it make against your Church, and then you demand of us, What man ever took Babylon for Rome?  
I will give you one witness more, who is ancient and beyond exception, who spoke (as it were prophetically) of the Church of Rome in her most flourishing state. St. Hierome writing to Marcelia, a noble Lady, exhorteth her to departed from Rome, which he compares to Babylon. 
Hier. ad Marcel. Ep. 17. Tun. 1. p. (mihi) 156.  Read (saith he) the Revelation of St. John, and consider that which is there said of the woman clothed in purple, of the blasphemy written in her forehead, of the seven Mountains, of the great waters, of the fall of Babylon: Go out from thence my people, Babylon is fall'n, and is become the habitation of Devils, and the hold and cage of every foul spirit.  
Now that we might understand this was not spoken by him of heathen Rome, he adjoineth these words following: Est quidem ibi sancta Ecclesia: There is a true or holy Church, there are the Trophies of the Saints and Martyrs, there is the true confession of Christ published by the Apostle. Ludovicus Vives your very friend, in commenting upon this place, tells us, that St. Hierome thinketh there is no other Babylon described by St. John in the Revelation than the City of Rome; But now (saith he) it hath put off the name of Babylon, 
Lud. Vives in August. de Civ. Dei, l. 18. c. 22.  there is no confusion now; you cannot buy any thing now in matter of Religion, without a fair pretence of holy Law for selling it, yet may you buy or sell almost any kind of cause holy or hellish for money. 
In D. August. Annot. Ludou. Vives prohibentur nisi corrigantur. Ind. l. prohibit. Class. 2.  For this and the like passages, your Vives is forbidden till he be purged.  
I must confess I do not think that the Rhemists would have interpreted Babylon for Rome, if it had not been to prove Peter's being at Rome: It is happy therefore for you that Peter wrote his Epistle from Babylon, for otherwise your succession from Peter had been questioned; and it is as well for us that you are contented to allow Babylon for Rome, for by this means your Antichristian Doctrine is discovered, and your succession of Peter's faith is quite abolished.  
But (say you) if you mean as you express yourself, that a true Church may be depraved, I know not what to say, but to stop my ears against that mouth of blasphemy: And is it blasphemy to say, a true Church may be depraved? Sure I am it is not blasphemy against the holy Ghost; for the mouth of St. Paul hath spoken it in parricular to the Roman Church, even at that time when she was a most incorrupt Church; Towards thee goodness, 
Rom. 11.22.  if thou continue in his goodness, otherwise thou also shalt be cut off: And may not a Church (think you) be depraved, that is in possibility of being cut off? What think you of the Church of Jerusalem? 
Psalm. 48.19.  Did not the Prophet David term it the City of God? and was it not afterwards termed a Harlot by the Prophet Esay? What say you to the Temple of Solomon? was it not termed by him, 
1 Kings. 8.20.  the house of Prayer? and in Christ's time was not that house of Prayer become a den of Thiefs? 
Mat. 21.14.  He that says Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of God, doth plainly intimate, that the true Church may be depraved, and that before his coming there was a true Church. 
In his answer to Card. Peron. p. 9 Eng.  What Babylon is (saith learned Casaubon) thus much the matter itself doth plainly show, that whether some private Church be understood in that place by the name of Babylon, or the greater part of the whole, it was before this a true Church, with which the religious might religiously communicate; but after it was more depraved, the religious are commanded to go out, and to break off communion with her. And as touching the authority you cite, that he would be with them to the world's end, that the Church is built upon a Rock, that the gates of Hell should not prevail against it; these promises (I say) concern no more the particular Roman Church, than the seven Churches of Asia that are fall'n away. The blasphemy than you lay to my charge (if any such be) is but against your Roman Church, and of such blasphemy many of your best learned are guilty, in acknowledging a depravation of their faith, (notwithstanding all the promises of Christ to the Catholic and universal Church.)  
Your Bishop of Bitonto by way of prevention cries aloud in your Council of Trent, 
Cornel. in Concil. Trident.  Would to God they were not wholly with general consent gone from religion to superstition, from faith to infidelity, from Christ to Antichrist. I could bring you a world of complaints against the falling away and depravation of your Roman Faith, but that your ears will not endure such blasphemy. Howsoever, since your best learned have acknowledged Babylon to be meant by Rome, and that Rome is fall'n from her first faith, 
Jerem. 51.6.9.  I say with the Prophet Jeremy, Fly out of the midst of Babylon, and deliver every man his soul; we would have healed Babylon, but she is not healed; forsake her, and let us go every one into his own Country, for her judgement reacheth unto Heaven, and is lifted up even unto the skies.    

CHAP. III. The sum of his Answer to my second and third Sections.  IN the second Section he saith I labour to prove the contention betwixt the Churches to proceed originally from them. The third Section is to prove the corruption both in faith and manners: Both which are easily answered; First by ask, what is this to the purpose for the visible Church? Secondly, with the contradiction of a former lie, he telleth a new one; for the Reformation was sought for manners only, and not for doctrine. This is the substance of your third Chapter, in answer to my second and third Sections. 
The Reply. You have answered two Sections almost in two words; the first, in denying it to be to the purpose; the latter, in giving me the lie: And thus like another Caesar you have briefly expressed the expedition of your victory in few words, 
Veni, vidi, vici.  I came, I saw, I overcame.  
First, you demand, what is this to the purpose of a visible Church? But I rather wonder to what purpose you make such a demand; For my Book is entitled The Safe Way, not the visibility of the Church. Yet let me tell you, the Authors which I cite are for the most part members of your Church, and their authorities tend much to the proof of a visible Church, if your Index Expurgatorius did not sponge them, and cause their testimonies to be often invisible. For instance; in our behalf I cite Cassander: To Cassander you answer, he is like yourself, an Heretic, or next door to them: and yet elsewhere you say, with much ado he may pass for a Catholic. 
Pag. 21. Oportet esse memorem.  I cite Cecenas General of the order of Franciscans, as witnessing the visibility of our Church above 300. years ago; you answer, he was condemned for disobedience and rebellion; for he said Pope John the 22. was an Apostata and an Heretic, and therefore not true Pope: And in this manner you can easily resolve all doubts, and reject all Authors that speak not Placentia, according to your palate; only (say you) St. Bede is a Catholic. Now if you please, take a review of these Authors. Cassander (you know) was a learned man, he was highly favoured for his wisdom by two Emperors, Maximilian and Ferdinand; he was moderate in all his writings, he sought to extenuate the palpable errors and heresies of your Church, he endeavoured to accord, and (if it had been possible) to reconcile the differences on both sides; and lastly, he lived and died in the communion of the Roman Church. Cecenas was a Friar, and General of the Order of Franciscans, he was condemned de facto by the Pope; but it doth not appear quo jure, by what right, for if the accusation were true, the Pope deserved the punishment, and not the innocent Friar: listen therefore to the rebellion and disobedience for which he was accused. Cecenas shows in particular that Pope John was a schismatic and an heretic, in his peremptory opposition against the Word of God and the Catholic Church; 
Mich. de Cecena tractat. contra errores Papae p. (mihi) 1314. & 1336 in Tom. 2. Gul. Occam. de Jurisdictione Imperiali. Naucler. Gener. 45. Anno 1324.  he charged him with twelve several errors, which you may read at large in the place cited; and for those and the like accusations he was excommunicated and deposed by the Pope. I confess the accusation was capital, but it was no other than was justly laid to his charge. For Nauclerus saith, Many great and famous Divines of great learning and good life proclaimed Pope John (by the name of Pope) to be an Heretic for certain errors; 
Tepidè.  which errors notwithstanding it is said that he (coldly) revoked at the time of his death; and he adds withal, that Pope Benedict his immediate successor openly condemned the same errors. You see then it was not the Franciscan Friar only, but many Divines both good and learned did condemn him of Heresy; and not they alone, but the Pope himself who succeeded him, publicly condemned him for an Heretic. And thus much touching Pope John the 21. called by some the 22. There was another Pope John, by the name of 22. otherwise called 23. who was living one hundred years after; he was chosen Pope at 
a Plat. in Joh. 24.  Bononia, by the consent of all the Cardinals. Against this John, it was specially objected at the Council of Constance, 
b Quinimo dixit, & pertinacitèr credidit, animam hominis cum corpore humano mori, & extingui ad instar animalium brutorum. Concil. Constant.  That he obstinately held that the soul of man dieth together with the body, and is consumed to nothing, as the soul of brute beasts: Neither did he hold this Tenet as a private man (which is your general Answer) for Antoninus saith plainly, Pope John held this error in the time of his Popedom, 
c Johannes sermonen faciens in publico consistorio, dixit quaedam haeresin sapientia. Anton. part. 3. tit. 21. c. 6.  and pronounced words savouring of heresy openly in the Consistory. Neither was this accusation of these men accounted rebellion and disobedience in them, as it was in Ceaenas; for (saith Gerson) 
d Falsitas doctrinae Papae Jobānis vicessimi, quae damnata fuit cum sono buccinarum vel tubarum coram Rege Philippo per Theologos Parisienses. Gers. serm. in Festo Paschae Tom. 4. pag. (mihi) 491.  his false doctrine was condemned by the Divines of Paris, and proclaimed with sound of trumpets in the presence of King Philip; and withal the Council itself deprived him of his Popedom (which shows plainly, the authority of a Council is above the Pope.) And to his deposition subscribed 4. Patriarches, 29. Cardinals, 47. Archbishops, 270. Bishops, 564. Abbots and Doctors, in all above 900. deposed both Benedict the 12. and John the 23. and yet these men are reputed by you for an infallible Rule of the Roman Faith. And thus not only Ceaenas was deposed for his disobedience towards an Heretic, and is now thrust into your first Classis of damned Authors, but the whole Council of Constance touching that Session (where they decred the Council to be above the Pope) is rejected, and disavowed by your Church.  
It is no difficult thing then to prove your infallible Pope may be an Heretic; but if any man of your own Church shall say so, and manifestly prove it, yea although it be a general Council, it must therefore be censured and condemned by your Church: And this may briefly serve in answer to what you say against my second Section.  
The third Section (say you) is of corruption both in Faith and manners, 
Pag. 50.  which the Knight proveth out of the Council of Pisa, and out of the Council of Trent; To which I answer: For matter of manners we willingly acknowledge a reformation to be needful, but for doctrine with the contradiction of his own former lie, he telleth a new one.  
It is a true saying of chrysostom, A liar thinks no man speaks the truth; 
Qui mendax est neminen● verum putat dicere. Chrys. in Matth. Hom. 19  But that the truth of my assertion may appear, look upon the Letters of summons; they declare that the Council was called to reform errors that concerned Faith; they show there was a due and wholesome reformation to be made, aswell of the Church doctrine, as of the manners of men, for quieting the consciences of the faithful: And accordingly Pope Alexander did assemble the most learned of all Nations; 
Idem dixit, quod ipse volebat vacare circa Reformationem Ecclesiae, etc. Acta Concil. Pis Sess. 20. Bin. Tom. 3. Pars 2. p (mihi) 837.  the Cardinals did bind themselves with an Assumpsit, that they would not proceed to the election of a new Pope (when his predecessors Gregory the 12. and Benedict the 13. were deposed) unless the Pope would agree to a reformation in the Head and Members; and will you say the Pope did assemble the most learned of all Nations to teach good manners only? Cardinal de Aliaco was living in his days; 
De squallor. Rom. Eccles. p. 34. in Biblioth. Westmonasteriensi. Gers. declaratio defect. virorum.  he complains that Pagan abuses, and diabolical superstitions were so many in the Church, that they could not be imagined.  
Gerson (Chancellor of Paris) complained of particular errors, that Images in Churches occasioned Idolatry; Apocryphal Scriptures were brought into the Church, to the great damage of Christian Faith. 
Occam compendium contr. errores Papae p. 957. Incipit Prologus.  Look into the age before him; Occam (a Friar Minorite) cries out, Alas the time of which the blessed Apostle prophesied (when men will not suffer wholesome doctrine) is altogether fulfilled in our ears; For behold there are many that pervert the holy Scriptures, deny the say of the holy Fathers, reject the Canons of the Church, and civil Constitutions of the Emperors. Look into the age before him; 
Matth. Paris. p. 843.  Grosthead (Bishop of Lincoln) complains that there was a defection, a revolt, an Apostasy from the true Faith. Look into Bernard's time, and there you shall find by his own confession, 
Bernard. in Cant. Serm. 33. p. (mihi) 673.  The wound of the Church was inward, and past recovery. These former complaints and grievances in the Church did sound aloud in the ears of the later ages, and she made great mourning and lamentation for her children, because they were not such as she first bred them; and accordingly no doubt they wished for a reformation of errors in doctrine, as well as Discipline in the Church.  
Look after Pope Alexander's time, and before the Council of Trent, and your Bishop of Bitonto will show you the state and miserable condition of your Church, as it were in a Glass. 
In Ep. ad Roman. c. 6.  Alas (saith he) how were the Scriptures neglected in the later Ages, to the detriment of all people! 
Rivet. Sum. Controu. p. (mihi) 98.  There was then in request a tedious and crabbed Divinity about Relations, about quiddities and formalities; and all those things were handled and wrested with Syllogisms and humane Sophistry, which (without doubt) by the same authority as they were received, might be refelled. The whole Age was spent about the decrees of men, which were contradictory amongst themselves, and irreconcilable, and nourished perpetual contention. He was accounted the best Divine, that knew best how to devise the greatest wonders for his Traditions. It was a part of their honour and vain glory to speak big words with great looks among women, not to be understood when they disputed of the Scriptures. The Preachers of the word were all sworn to the word of their Masters: and from hence sprung six hundred Sects; as namely, Thomists, Scotists, Occhamists, Alexandrians, etc. O heinous wickedness! The Gosspels and Epistles of the Apostles were laid aside, true Divinity lay hid, and was handled of very few; but coldly, I will not say, unfaithfully.  
In what state the Church remained in those days, when Papal Traditions and cunning Sophistry prevailed against the sacred Scriptures, let the Reader judge: 
Onus Ecclesiae c. 16. p. (mihi) 79  Your own St. Francis foretold that the times were at hand, wherein many differences should arise in the Church, when charity should wax cold, iniquity should abound, and the Devil should be let lose, and that the purity of his Roman Religion should be depraved; and accordingly (saith my Author) the Image of the Cross in the Church of St. Damian spoke unto him; 
Vade, repara domum meam, quae ut cernis, tota labitur.  Go and repair my house which you see is altogether decayed. Thus Bishops, and Friars, and Images, stocks and stones cried out of the falling away of your Church (if we may credit your own Authors) and yet by no means you will assent to a reformation of doctrine or manners.  
At Luther's first rising, which was almost 30. years before the Council of Trent, your Guicciardine tells us, 
Guicciard. Hist. lib. 13.  that there were that year many meetings at Rome, to consult what was best to be done. The more wise and moderate sort wished the Pope to reform things apparently amiss, and not to persecute Luther. Hieronymus Savanarola told the French King, Charles the 8. he should have great prosperity in his voyage into Italy, to the end he should reform the state of the Church, which if he did not reform, he should return with dishonour; and so (saith he) it fell out.  
I come to the Council of Trent itself, where you may read many decrees for reformation, and yet neither doctrine nor manners reform. But let us hear your own confession. It is true, the Council indeed complaineth with great reason of the avarice of such whom the Knight calleth the Pope's Collectors, though the Council speaketh not of the Pope: but false it is which he saith, that the Council complaineth of Indulgences, an Article of faith (as his words are.) The Council likewise complaineth of many things crept into the celebration of the Mass, and the words of the Council are right cited by him in Latin in the Margin, but in the English he foully corrupteth them: For in stead of many things, he translated many errors, which is a gross error and corruption in the Knight.  
These be your grand exceptions to the gross corruptions laid unto my charge; but all this while you do not discharge the accusations laid justly to your Church. And in this I must needs say, you play the Hypocrite, who can discern a mote in your Brother's eye, and cannot see a beam in your own: First therefore cast the beam out of your own eye, and then you shall easily disccrne without Spectacles, that the Collectors of Indulgences are the Pope's Collectors, although the Pope is not mentioned in that place; and Indulgences are an Article of Faith created by that Council, although the Council proclaim it not an Article of Faith: so that (multa) many things, might well stand for many errors and corruptions, since they were errors in practice. Neither would I have set the Latin in the Margin if I had meant to corrupt them in English; and withal, if you had taken the last edition (as you ought to have done) you should have found them in another Character, and then all your waste words of foul corruptions, had been needless. But in this you resemble Palladius a lewd fellow, who in like manner charged St. Hierome with falsifications and false translations: He preacheth and publisheth abroad (saith Hierome) that I am a falsary, 
Hieron. ad Pāmach. de optimo genere interpret. Tom. 2.  that I have not precisely translated word for word, that I, in stead of the word Honourable, have written these words, Dear beloved: These things and such trifles (saith he) are laid unto my charge. Now hear what Answer St. Hierome makes; Whereas the Epistle itself declareth, that there is no alteration made in the sense, and that there is neither matter of substance added, nor any doctrine devised by me, verily by their great cunning they prove themselves fools, and seeking to reprove other men's unskilfulness, they betray their own. Let us hear therefore the rest of your Things (for so you will have me term them) which are crept into your Church, and need a Reformation.  
The Council (say you) seemeth to acknowledge the avarice of Priests in saying Mass for money, was not fare from Simony. It speaketh of the use of Music, wherewith some wantonness was mixed, as also of certain Masses or Candles used in certain number, proceeding rather from superstition than true Religion. This you confess is true in your Council, but to these you answer nothing. 
Concil. Trid. Sess. 22. Can. 9  You might have added to these abuses both Superstition and Idolatry in the Mass, for your Council confesseth them both: and I think it toucheth your errors in Doctrine. But have you reform all or any of these things? Is your superstitious number of Masses and lights in the Church abated? Are your lascivious and wanton songs, set to the Organs, and mingled with other Church music, redressed? Is your covetousness in Priests, with their Superstition and Idolatry in the Mass, abolished? 
Mirae mirae entis Res. Juvenal.  These corruptions are things and things (as you call them) and such as I wonder your Council was not ashamed to confess, much more to tolerate, or rather to practise in the daily sacrifice of your Mass. I hasten to the Reformation in doctrine: but you tell me it is a Lie, the Council never intended it; I instance in private Mass, Latin Service, etc. You answer it is most false, for the doctrine is the same still, and ever was.  
I perceive your passion makes you much forget yourself: for your doctrine (I confess) which is commonly received, is the same now, that was decreed in the Council of Trent; but that it was ever the same, as now it is, all the College of Cardinals and Jesuits cannot prove. Look upon your own confession in those two particular instances: Your private Mass, where the Priest communicates alone, is not the same now, as it was heretofore; For (say you) it was the practice of the Primitive Church for the people to communicate every day with the Priest. 
Spectacl. pag. 191.  Your Prayer in an unknown tongue is not the same now as it was heretofore, for (say you) Prayer and Service in the vulgar Tongue was used in the first and best Ages; 
Pag. 271.  and now the vulgar is become the Latin unknown tongue. Take heed therefore of these confessions, for by such palpable contradictions you may lose your Proselytes, and bring the Lie upon yourself.  
Again, you confess that the Council wisheth that the standers by did communicate, not only spiritually, 
Pag. 53.  but also sacramentally: and doth not your Church in this wish a reformation in doctrine? Doth it not in this prefer the practice of the reformed Churches before their own, and in a manner confess an error in the allowed practice of the Roman Church? Your Council commands Pastors that have care of souls, to expound that to the people, which is delivered in the Mass in an unknown tongue; and do not those that require the Priests to expound it to the people, show likewise that without such exposition the people are little better for the Mass, and that the Church intended the people should understand it? What is this else, but to join hands with the Protestants, and to acknowledge a reformation needful in your Church, for requiring Service to be celebrated in a known tongue, that the people may understand it? But that I may make good my assertion, and that the Reader may know I have said nothing but the truth, in affirming the Council of Trent did make decrees for Reformation for doctrine as well as manners, look upon the second Session, and tell me if they did not profess a real intention in both. 
Concil. Trid. Sess. 2.  the words of the Session are these; Whereas it is the special care and intention of the Council, that (the darkenesle of Heresy being expelled, which so many years hath covered the earth) the light and parity of the Catholic truth may shine, through the help of Christ which is the true light; and that those things which need reformation may be reform; the Synod exhorteth all Catholics assembled, or to be assembled, and especially those who are skilful in the sacred Scriptures, that with continual meditation they may diligently consider with themselves how these things may be effected; that they may condemn those things which are to be condemned, and approve those things which are to be approved, that the whole world with one mouth, and confession of one and the same faith, may glorify God the Faiher, and our Lord Jesus Christ. Take a review of the words of your Council; First, Praecipua cura & intentio, ut propulsatis errorum tenebris, quae per tot annos operiarunt terram; the chief care to dispel the darkness of error which covered the earth: which words cannot be meant of the Protestant doctrine. For our light is pretended by you to be lately come in, and but in a part or corner of the world. Secondly, peritiam habeant sacrarum literarum, ut sedulâ meditatione secum ipsi cogitent, etc. ut probare probanda, & damnare damnanda queant. There needed not this diligence and skill in Scriptures for Luther's Religion, for they were condemned before by the Pope. Thirdly, Nullus debeat etc. obstinatis disceptationibus contendere, which should not be about Lutheran points, but about doctrines of their own. Fourthly, in the third Section, de extirpandis haeresibus, etc. which (say they) is adversus spirituales nequitias in caelestibus, which heavenly places are meant by their own Church, not by Luther's, as is most evident. For they would never acknowledge our Churches heavenly places.  
Now I pray, what think you of your Counsels Decrees? Will not they extend to a Reformation in doctrine? or will you say that Heresies in manners crept into the Church, and the most learned in the Scriptures were chief to be employed for reforming them, that thereby there might be one Faith of Papists and Protestants through the Christian world? 
De extirpandis haeresibus, & moribus reformandis, quorum causa praecipue est congregata. Sess. 3.  Look upon the third Session, and there likewise you shall find a Decree for rooting out of Heresies in doctrine, aswell as rectifying of manners and the discipline of the Church; and for both those causes (saith your Decree) the Council was principally called. It is a most evident truth then (howsoever you redouble the lie upon me) that the Council did intent a Reformation in doctrine; for otherwise, to what end should the Pope summon all Christian Bishops out of all Nations, even at that time when the Protestants were in number infinite, and had discovered and proclaimed the errors of the Roman Church? Besides, to what purpose were those disputes and oppositions in the Council against particular points of Doctrine, if they had not been adjudged erroneous, and needed a reformation? But herein the Reader shall easily discern the policy of your Church. At the first calling of the Council (when these first Sessions were made) the number of Bishops were but few, (about 40.) but after the faction of the Pope's creatures in multitude prevailed, all hope of reformation was abandoned; And thereupon the Bishops of Apulia publicly declared, that the Trent Fathers were nothing else but the Pope's creatures, and his bondslaves; 
See Crakenthorpe.  and accordingly there was an oath proposed severally to be taken in this manner;  
I vow and swear true obedience to the Bishop of Rome, 
Bulla Pii 4.  etc. And all other things likewise do I undoubtedly receive and confess, which are delivered, defined, and declared by the sacred Canons, and general Counsels, and especially the holy Council of Trent; and withal, I condemn, reject, and accurse all things that are contrary hereunto, and all Heresies whatsoever, condemned, rejected, and accursed by the Church; and that I will be careful this true Catholic faith (out of the which no man can be saved, which at this time I willingly profess and truly hold) be constantly (with God's help) retained and confessed whole and inviolate to the last gasp; and by those that are under me, or such as I shall have charge over in my calling, holden, taught and preached, to the uttermost of my power: I the said N. promise, vow, and swear, So God me help, and his holy Gospels.  
Now what good (saith Dudithius) could be done in that Council, 
Andr. Dudithius in Ep. ad Maximil. 2.  which only numbered, but never weighed suffrages? Though our cause was never so good, we could not come off with victory; for to every one of us, the Pope was able to oppose an hundred of his own. This Author was sent as Ambassador to the Council from the state and Clergy of Hungary, and he consirmes what I have testified of their proceed. But observe the mystery of iniquity displayed in your Council, after it had continued eighteen years, 
Sess. 25. c. 1. Decre●. de Refor. p. 312.  and during the lives of eight Popes, in conclusion they declared in their last Session, contrary to their former decree of Reformation, that the Synod was (chief) called for restoring of Ecclesiastical discipline; and hereby is plainly discovered their deceivableness of unrighteousness; insomuch as I may truly say with that learned Gentleman and Translator of the Trent History, The Bishops of Rome, 
Sir Nathaniel Brent in Ep. to the History of Trent.  in stead of being Christ's holy Vicars, as they pretend, have been the greatest, and most pernicious quacksalving Jugglers that ever the earth did bear. Those Bishops therefore that boast of the Law of God, and make as it were a covenant with him, to renew the ancient Faith, and restore it to her first integrity (as your Trent Bishops professed) let them consider with themselves how near that Prophecy of David doth concern them, who deny a Reformation; For unto the ungodly (said God) why dost thou preach my Laws, 
Psal. 50.16, 17.  and takest my Covenant in thy mouth, whereas thou hatest to be reform, and hast cast my words behind thee.   

CHAP. IU. The sum of his Answer to my Fourth Section.  TO this Section, the title whereof is, That many learned Romanists have fall'n from the Catholic Faith to be Protestants, he saith, the Catholic Faith is indivisible, and they that renounce it in part, renounce it in all: He affirmeth that in Priests, who cannot contain, to marry, it is a greater sin than to keep a concubine. This is the substance of his fourth Chapter, in answer to my fourth Section. 
The Reply. I shown in my fourth Section, that many learned Romanists, convicted by evidence of truth, either in part, or in whole, renounced Popery before their death. 
Pag. 58.  That some have renounced the same inpart (say you) is foolishly said, for no man can renounce the Catholic Faith in part, it being indivisible.  
If I shall prove your assertion to be a strange Paradox, the foolishness will return into your own bosom. For the better illustration therefore of your Tenet, 
Oratio in laudem Athanasii.  hear what division Gregory Nazianzen makes upon that ground: When one taketh up water in his hand (saith he) not only that which he taketh not up, but that also which runneth forth, and findeth passage between his fingers, is divided and separated from that which he holdeth and encloseth in his hand: so not only the open and professed enemies of the Catholic Faith, but they also that seem to be her best and greatest friends, are sometimes divided one from another. What think you of this ancient Father? Is your Faith indivisible by his Doctrine? or will you say it is foolishly spoken of him? But (say you) he that ceaseth to believe one point, ceaseth to believe any one as he should: And is this wisely spoken think you? Is not this your latter error greater than the first? For proof therefore of your assertion, show me that man, who before the Council of Trent held all the points of your Faith, as they are now taught and received in your Church; I say, give me but one since the Apostles time, who within the compass of fifteen hundred years believed all your doctrines of Faith, entirely in all points, and for that one man's sake, I will confess your Faith is indivisible, and submit my obedience to your Church.  
Your Index Expurgatorius discovers the weakness of your opinion: I speak not of Authors which were condemned in your first and third Classis for Heretics, 
Propter suspectam doctrinam Ind. lib prohibit.  but of those Romanists who in the second Classis are purged for their suspected doctrine (as you term it) and yet never forsook your Church; I dare confidently avow, that there are above four hundred of those Classical Authors, all members of the Roman Church, never excommunicated, never condemned for heresy in your Church, and yet are commanded by your Inquisitors to be blotted out in some particular points of doctrine, which make against your Trent Faith. If these men therefore have renounced your Faith in part, how is your Faith indivisible? Or if they cease to believe one point, why doth your Church cite their testimonies, and allow their opinions in other doctrines consonant to your Church, when as (by your Tenet) he that ceaseth to believe one point, ceaseth to believe any one as he should? If you should forsake all Authors that forsake your doctrine in part (or in some particular points) you will generally suffer a Recovery against your own Church. I will give you but one instance. It is the common Tenet of the Roman Church at this day, that the blessed Virgin was conceived without original sin: yet the contrary Tenet is likewise maintained by the members of your own Church. Ludovicus Vives tells us, that two orders of Friars, 
Ludov Vives in lib. 20. de Civit. Dei. cap. 26. p. 828.  both fierce, and both led with undaunted Generals, set this question a foot; the Dominicans by Thomas Aquinas, and the Franciscans by Duns Scotus: the Council of Basill decreed, that she was wholly pure without all touch of sin, but the Dominicans objected that it was no lawful Council, and the Minorites of the other side avowed that it was true and holy, and called the Dominicans Heretics for slandering the power of the Church; so that the matter had come to a shrewd pass, but that Pope Sixtus forbade this Theme to be any more disputed.  
To proceed to the rest of your observations. I produced for a witness Paulus Vergerius, who renounced Popery, being a Romish Bishop, by the testimonies of Sleidan, and Osiander; I cited the Council of Basil, for dispensing with the cup to the Lay people; Aeneas Silvius for Marriage of Priests; Mr. Harding against your private Mass; Mr. Casaubon for your translating of the Scriptures; Lord Cook for the Papists frequenting our Churches, till the 11th. of Qu. Elisabeth: Now let the Reader judge of your moderate and learned confutation: First, 
Pag. 59  Sleidan and Osiander (say you) are notorious fellows both for lying and heresy; Paulus Vergerius, when he died, cast forth a horrible stench, and roared most fearfully like an Ox; The Council of Basile (you know) is of little or no authority with Catholics, as being reproved by the Sea Apostolic; Aeneas Silvius, what he wrote in the time of that Council, is revoked by him in his Bull of Retractations; Touching Casaubon, you say there is shame enough in store for us both; Touching the Lord Cook, he was sound answered by a Catholic Divine, and so exposed to the scorn of the world for his notorious falsehoods.  
These be your several answers, and this is a confutation of their authorities: but I say to you, if these men have spoken untruth, bear witness of their falsehood, if otherwise they delivered the truth, why do you reproach them? Either let their proofs be plainly and moderately confuted, or let the lying lips (saith David) be put to silence, 
Psalm. 31.20.  which cruelly, disdainfully, and despitefully speak against the righteous.  
Such as is your charity, such is your chastity: for when I cite your Jesuit Costerus for a witness, 
Coster. Enchir. cap. 17. propo. 9 Pag. 64.  that a Priest doth sin more grievously in marrying a wife, than keeping a concubine, you scoffingly return me this answer: You seem to take this for a great error, but in Priests who cannot marry, it is a greater sin to marry, for it is not marriage. Thus you.  
And is the marriage of Priests no marriage? Was there no marriage in all the Tribe of Levi? What will become of all the sons of Aaron? were they all bastards? 
Ignatius ad Philadelph.  I wish (saith Ignatius) that I may be found meet before God to follow their steps which reign in his Kingdom; as namely, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Esay, and other Prophets; of Peter and Paul, and other Apostles, who lived in matrimony, and used conjugal rites. And in conclusion he answers your assertion in these words; If any man call lawful copulation and procreation of children, 
Idem, ibid.  corruption and uncleanness, that man hath a serpent, the Devil (that fell from God) dwelling in him. 
Grat. Par. 1. dist. 56. fol. 67. Osius Palea.   
Again, your own Gratian tells us from Pope Damasus, that many Bishops of Rome were Priests sons, as namely Pope Hosius, Bonifacius, Agapetus, Theodorus, Silverius, Deusdedit, Faelix, Gelasius, all these were Popes, and Priests sons: and then he concludes; 
a Complures etiam alii inveniantur, qui de sacerdotibus nati, Apostolicae sedi praesuerunt. Ibid.  There were many others also to be found, who were begotten of Priests, and governed in the Apostolic See. 
Athanas. ad Dracontium. p. (mihi) 518.  And Athanasius writing to Bishop Dracontius, tells him, that in his days many Monks were Parents of children, and Bishops likewise were Fathers of Sons; and this was 340. years after Christ.  
But I presume you will not say, that the marriage of those Priests was no marriage, and their brood was spurious and illegitimate. Those who account it a Capital offence for a Priest to marry, and a venial sin to keep a concubine, do rightly resemble the old Heretic Aërius, who used to say, 
Epiph. haeres. 76.  To have the company of a woman out of marriage, is no more sin, 
De bono Matrim. dist. 27. Quoniam.  than for a man to claw his ear. St. Austin puts the question, and resolves it in this manner; Some say they be adulterous that marry after they have made a vow; but I tell you (saith he) they sin grievously that put such asunder. And elsewhere more particularly he concludes against your Tenet; 
Augustinus de bono viduitatis cap. 10.  They that say the marriage of such men or women as have vowed continency, is no marriage, but rather adultery, seem unto me not to consider discreetly and advisedly what they say. And in his Tract of holy virginity he plainly shows the Antiquity of your error, 
August. de sancta Virgin. c. 34.  and refutes it, where speaking of vowed persons, he tells us; that many of them are kept from marriage, not for love of their godly purpose of Virginity, but for fear of open shame; which shame proceedeth of Pride, for that they are more afraid to displease men than God: they will not marry, because they cannot without rebuke, yet better were it for them to marry, than to burn, that is to say, with the flame of their concupiscence to be wasted; they are sorry for their profession, and yet it grieveth them to confess it. 
Chrys. contra Judaios Gentil. & haeret. serm. de nuptiis Cana in Galil.  In like manner chrysostom in the same age doth elegantly illustrate the honour of marriage in Spiritual persons. Our Lord honoured Marriage with his presence, and sayest thou that Marriage is a hindrance unto godliness? I tell thee Marriage is no hindrance. Had not Moses a wife and children? Helias, was not he a virgin? Moses brought down Manna from Heaven, so did Helias fire: Moses caused Quails to fly in the heaven, and Helias shut it with a word. What hurt did virginity to the one? what impediment was wife and children to the other? See Helias coached in the air, and Moses travelling through the Sea. Behold Peter a Pillar of the Church, he had a wife, therefore find no fault with Marriage.  
Look into the Ages following; your Angelical Doctor Thomas Aquinas resolves the question flatly against you & your fellow Jesuits. 
The Acolothytes were those that lighted the Tapers at the reading of the Gospel in the Mass.  If an Acolothyte (saith he) do confess to a discreet Priest, that by no means he can contain, the Priest doth not much offend in giving him this counsel, that he should marry privately, and closely blind the eyes of the Bishop. And if afterwards he be willing to take Orders, we hold it less sin for him to use his wife, than to commit fornication; for it is a less offence to accompany with his wife, than to commit fornication against the Divine Precept. They who pretend chastity, and make a vow to keep it, when they enter into holy Orders, do break it even in this, when they allow a concubine. Aeneas Silvius was conscious to himself of the danger of that sin, and therefore he wished that marriage were restored to Priests; yea, whilst he was a Cardinal he had his concubine, to whom at last he gave threescore Florins for her Dowry: and it seems when he was well in years, in or about the time of his Popedom, he confessed; I cannot boast of any merit in my chastity, 
Magis me Venus Jugitat, quam ego illam horreo. Ep. 92.  for to tell the truth, venery doth rather fly from me, than I from it. Neither was it his particular case alone; for the Book called Taxae Camerae Apostolicae, which your Bishop Espencaeus complained of, doth sufficiently witness the damnable effects of such devilish doctrine. The gravest Cardinals in Rome, who were appointed by special Commission, and presented their information to Pope Paul the third, do sufficiently witness the forbidden fruits of such an evil tree: The words are these; In this City of Rome the Courtesans pass through the streets, 
Wolph. Lect. Memor. Anno 1535 p. 403.  or ride on their mules, like honest Matrons, and in the midst of the day, Noblemen and Cardinals dear friends attend upon them. We never saw such corruption, but only in this City, which is the example and pattern of all other: moreover, they dwell in fair and goodly houses.  
On the other side, you would make us believe, that your Courtesans go altogether on foot; that they have a special badge of dishonesty, whereby they may be known; that they are despised and reviled of the people, but especially by Cardinals and the Nobles; that they dwelled in outhouses and back lanes: but to ride on horseback, to be attired as honest Matrons and Noble Ladies, to be attended by Priests and Cardinals friends, and to dwell in fair and beautiful houses, this shows that your dispensation for stews is occasioned chief by the forbidding of marriage; and by this means marriage, which is honourable in all, 
Heb. 13.4.  and the bed undesiled, by the Apostles doctrine, is now become a sin, and your Apostolic See the Mother of Fornications. This occasioned your own Agrippa to complain of your casting up of the Bawds rents with the revenue of your Church. 
Agrip. de vanit. scient. c. 64. de Lenonia.  I have heard (saith he) the accounts cast up in this sort; he hath two Benefices, one cure of twenty Ducats, a Priory of forty Ducats, and three whores in a brothel house.  
I list not any longer to stir this filthy puddle, 
Camerinam movere. Eras. Adag.  which stinks in the nostrils of God and good men; the counsel of your Canonist is safe and good in this particular. 
Panor. dè Cler. Conjug. Cap. Cum Olim.  The Church (saith he) should discharge the part of a good Physician, who when by experience he finds one medicine rather hurt than help, he removeth it, and applieth another: and there he gives the reason, Because we find by experience, that the Law of single life hath brought forth contrary effects: and the rather, because it is resolved by your learned Cardinal: 
Cajet. in quodlibet contra Lutherum.  It cannot be proved either by reason, nor yet by authority, to speak absolutely, that a Priest doth sin in marrying a wife; for neither the Order of Priesthood, in that it is Order, nor the same Order, in that it is holy, is any hindrance to matrimony; for Priesthood doth not dissolve matrimony, whether it be contracted before Priesthood or afterwards, if we (setting apart all other Ecclesiastical Laws) stand only to those things which we have received of Christ and his Apostles.  
Again, 
Panorm. l. extr. de Elect. C. Licet. de Vit. Ab.  your own Panormitan tells us, that the Priests of Grecia, being within Orders, do marry wives; and we see they do it (saith he) sine peccato, without sin, or breach of Law, either of God or man: And thus by your own Tenet you stand with the positive law of man against the law of God; you stand in opposition against the Greek Church, which ever used it; and lastly, you are at difference among yourselves, 
Espencaeus de Continentia. l. 1. c. 11. p. 116.  when many prime members of your own Church utterly condemn it. The doctrine of St. Paul is evident and plain, It is better marry than burn. This Law is clean perverted by your Jesuits doctrine; 
Utrumque est malum, nubere & uri, imo pejus est nubere, quicquid exclamant adver (arii: praesertim ei qui habet votum solemn. Bell. de Monach. l. 2. c. 30. Hist. of Trent. l. 5. fol. 400. & 680.  for (saith Bellarmine) Let our adversaries say what they will, it is worse to marry than burn, especially for him that hath made a solemn vow: So that the Law of God must give way to the Law of man, and chief for reason of state and policy. For (saith Cardinal Rodolpho) if the marriage of Priests were tolerated, this inconvenience would follow, the Priests having house, wife, and children, would not depend upon the Pope but on the Prince, and their love to their children would make them yield to any prejudice of the Church: they will seek also to make their Benefice hereditary, and in a short space the authority of the Apostolic See will be confined within the walls of Rome. And to these reasons you may truly add this, as appendent to the rest; the dispensation of Stews would be neglected, and consequently the great Revenue of the Roman See would be utterly lost; and therefore the Index Expurgatorius will not lay hold of any such doctrine.  
For a conclusion of this point. If you say marriage of Priests be malum in se, evil in itself, you comply with the Devilish doctrine of Tatianus; If it be evil quia prohibetur, because it is forbidden only, than fornication, which is evil of itself, and in itself, must needs be the greater sin.   

CHAP. V The sum of his Answer to my Fifth Section.  OF this Section (saith he) there is not much to be said, for there is nothing in it, but a little of the Knights own raving. Maldonat approveth and commendeth St. Augustine's explicacation, but addeth another of his own. After this, the Knight hath a great deal of foolish stuff, which needs no answer. 
The Reply. Your answer is short, but your words be somewhat sharp: and you can find nothing in that Section but raving and foolishness? If it be raving to cite Texts of Scripture against your maimed Commandments, your Invocation of Saints, your Prayer in an unknown tongue, your worship of Images, and the like: If it be raving to say Purgatory is created a point of Faith, & that Faith is confirmed by Counsels, merely for the benefit of the Pope and Clergy; that you do not exercise the power of your Priesthood in binding as well as losing, by reason no man will give money to be bound, but to be loosed in Purgatory: If it be raving to say your Jesuit Maldonat prefers his own explication of Scripture before St. Augustine's, only because it more crosseth the sense of the Calvinists; and withal confesseth that St. Augustine's opinion is more probable; If this I say may be deemed raving, then will I confess your railing is a good answer. But he despairs (say you) of his cause, who seethe Maldonats saying practised by the Church of Rome against his Church and doctrine.  
I confess with the blessed Apostle, 
Acts 5.38, 39  If our counsel or work be of men, it will come to nought, and then I might despair of it, but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it, lest happily ye be found even to fight against God. We have no cause (blessed be God) to despair of our Religion, which in one Age hath spread over the better part of Christendom. But I conceive there is little hope of you or your cause, who have sold yourselves either with Ahab to work wickedness, and maintain Idolatrous worship for your own advantage; or like Maldonat, 
See Maldonat. Col. 1536. Unum è duobus intelligatur necesse est, aut tunc non scandaliz abimini, cùm videritis filium hominis ascendentem ubi erat prius: aut (contra) tunc magis scandaliz abimini: prioremsensum plerique sequantur, Chrysost. Augustin. etc. Yet Maldonat followeth the latter.  openly to profess greater hatred to Protestants, than love to the truth itself. For it is apparent, ex professo, he preferreth his own opinion without any authority, before St. Austin, nay contrary to St. Austin, and he gives this reason for it; Because this sense of mine doth more cross the sense of the Calvinists. But I may say to you, as sometimes 
a Ludou. Viu. de Civ. Dei. l. 13. c. 24.  Ludovicus Vives spoke upon the like occasion: St. Austin is now safe, because of his age, but if he were alive again, he should be shaken off as a bad rhetorician, or a poor Grammarian. And yet this good Saint was so fare from defending any opinion against the known truth, that on the contrary, he preferreth the interpretation of 
b August. contr. Cresc. Grammat. l. 1. c. 32. & l. 2. c. 32. p. (mihi) 218. & 241.  Cresconius a Grammarian, before St. Cyprian the Martyr, because it seemed to him more probable and agreeable to the truth.   

CHAP. VI The sum of his Answer to my Sixth Section.  THe Knight (saith he) seems to acknowledge that he cannot assign the time and persons when and by whom the errors of the Roman Church came in. Good Physicians use to inquire of the causes, effects, and other circumstances, and upon the circumstance dependeth the knowledge of the disease. We plead prescription for our doctrine from the beginning. The difference betwixt Heresy and Apostasy. The Church cannot fall away, without some special note and observation. 
The Reply. I● is to be wondered what art and policy your Church doth use to put off the trial of her cause, when it should come to hearing. If we speak of a depravation of your Faith, you cry out it is blasphemy; If we show your own men's complaints for a reformation of your doctrine, you say they meant a reformation only of Discipline; If we plainly prove the novelty of your Trent Articles, by comparing them with the Tenets of ancient Religion, you threaten to bring an action of the Case against us for slandering and defaming of your Church, except we can assign the precise time and person when those errors came in. Let us use the words of your fellow Campian; Can I imagine any to be stuffed in the nose, 
Camp. Rat. 2.  that being forewarned cannot quickly smell out this subtle juggling? Why do you not rather complain of the Novelty of our doctrine, and bid us show the time when, and the Authors who first broached our two Sacraments, our Communion in both kinds, our Prayer in a known tongue, our spiritual presence, and the like; if I fail in these, then say, The Knight seemeth to acknowledge he cannot do it.  
The errors in your Church which we complain of, are negative Articles amongst us, and the proof lies on your side: If you cannot show Apostolical Authors for your own doctrine, must we be therefore condemned, because we do not prove the Negative? Or otherwise it must needs follow by your Logic, that it is the same doctrine which was once delivered to the Saints, because we cannot show the first Author of it.  
You cannot deny that there are many particular errors in the Church, whose first Authors cannot be named by you nor us, and therefore will you conclude they are no errors? The custom of communicating little children in the Sacrament of the Lords body and blood was an error, and continued long in the ancient Church, yet the first Author of it was not known. There were many did hold there was a mitigation and suspension of the punishment of the damned in hell, by the suffrages of the living; this error was anciently received, yet the first author was not known. The opinion that all Catholic Christians, how wicked soever, shall in the end be saved, as by fire, was an ancient error, but the Author is not known. Again, 
Alph. contr. haeres. verbo Indulgentia. p. (mihi) 354.  there are many things (saith your Alphonsus) known to later writers, which the Ancients were altogether ignorant of. There is seldom any mention of Transubstantiation amongst the Ancients; almost none of Purgatory; what marvel if it so fall out with Indulg ences, that there should be no mention of them by the Ancients? If therefore such errors crept into the Church in the first and best Ages, which are now condemned by yourselves and us, without enquiring after the time, and Authors that first broached them. Nay more, if your points of Faith, as namely, Transubstantiation, Purgatory, and Indulgences, were altogether unknown to the Ancients (as your men confess) why should you require us to show the first Authors of your doctrines, which were utterly unknown to the ancient Fathers? Or rather, why do you not condemn them with us, as you do the errors which were received for true doctrines amongst the Ancients? If St. Peter were at Rome, no doubt the Church received & believed his Prophecies; There shall be false Teachers among you, 
2 Pet. 2.1.  who (privily) shall bring in damnable heresy. If the Apostle both forewarned you and us, that errors and heresies must steal in privily, sensim sine sensu, secretly and by degrees into the true Church, and yet would not reveal the Authors of the heresies, what madness were it in you or us to pass by those damnable Heresies, or rather to plead for them, because we cannot learn the name of the false Teachers?  
Vincentius Lyrinensis, 
Vincent. Lyr. de haeres. c. 15.  who was living 400. years after the Apostles time, complains that certain in his days did bring in errors secretly, which a man (saith he) cannot soon find out, nor easily condemn. The Serpent hides himself as much as he can (saith Tertullian) and showeth his chief skill in wreathing himself into folds, 
Tertull. advers. Valent. c. 3.  and in thrusting himself into dark and blind holes: Such is the nature of false teachers, they seek nothing more (saith the same Author) than to hid that which they preach, 
Idem c. 1.  if yet they may be said to preach that they hid.  
But good Physicians (say you) use to inquire of the causes, effects, and circumstances; 
Pag. 73.  for upon these circumstances dependeth the knowledge whether it be a disease or no. It is most true that Physicians will inquire of the causes of the disease, but will they deny the Patient to be sick, or refuse to minister Physic to him, unless he tell them precisely how or when he first took his disease or infection? For this is our case, and the point in question touching a reformation. Neither doth the knowledge of the disease of the body depend upon the circumstances of time, place, and person. I think you never read such Aphorisms either in Galen or Hippocrates; neither doth your knowledge of errors and heresy in your Church depend on the circumstances of time, place, and persons: For some Authors, at the same time, and in the same place, might have broached truth, when another set his heresy abroach; as namely, Saint Austin precisely in the time and place, delivered the Orthodox Doctrine of grace, when and where Pelagius spread his heresy.  
From your Rules of Physic you return to the Rules of Divinity, and tell us from Saint Austin, that 
* Quod universa tenet Ecclesia, nec Conciliis institutum, sed semper retentum est, non nisi authoritate Apostolicâ traditum rectissimè creditur. De Baptis. contr. Donat. l. 5. c 24. in initio. Tom. 7. p. mihi 433.  whatsoever the Catholic Church doth generally believe or practise, so as there can be no time assigned when it began, it is to be taken for an Apostolical tradition. This place of Austin you neither quoted in your Answer, neither have you recited his words faithfully, for he speaks not of assigning the time when the Doctrine gins, but whatsoever the universal Church doth hold, not being ordained by Counsels, but hath been ever held, that is most rightly believed for an Apostolical tradition. This is his Tenet, and this is ours: but you have put in the word (Catholic) in your sense for universal, you have added (general belief and practice) you have thrust in these words (so as no time can be assigned when it began) and you have omitted the principal verb [that hath been ever held] which makes me suspect you omitted the citing of this place, lest your fraud should be descried: But I pardon you; let us hear the rest; 
P. 73.  But such (say you) are all those things which you are pleased to call errors. If this were as easily proved as spoken, you should not need to put us to the search of times and Authors for the first Founder of your Faith; For if your Popish Doctrines were always held by the universal Church, and not ordained by Counsels, we should not need to look into your Council of Lateran for your Doctrine of Transubstantiation, nor into your Council of Constance for Communion in both kinds, nor into your Council of Florence for your seven Sacraments, nor into your second Council of Nice for your worship of Images: for these and many such traditions were first ordained by Counsels, and were not the general belief and practice of the Church. Again, if the universal Church had always held your Doctrines from the Apostles times, why do you yourself confess, that your prayer in an unknown tongue, 
Pag. praecedenti.  your private Mass, your half Communion, were taught otherwise in the primitive Churches? Nay, if they be Apostolical, how comes it that they are flat contrary to the Doctrine of the Apostles? And thus much of your two rules of Physic and Divinity; let us he are the rest of your authorities.  
Tertullian (say you) hath this Rule for discerning heresy from truth, 
Tertul. praescrip. 31. p. mihi 78.  That which goeth before is truth, and that which cometh after is error. This Rule is most true, but these words you cite by the halves; for he saith expressly, 
Id autem extraneum & falsum quod sit posterius immissum.  Id Dominicum & verum quod sit prius traditum: That was first delivered, which was true, and came from the God of truth; and this was the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles; for that which cometh after (saith he) is far different: where he shows likewise in these words following, that after Christ's time, and in the days of the Apostles, there might be heresies, 
Ut aliquem ex Apostolicis viris (qui tamen cum illis persever averint) habent authorem. Ibid.  for the mystery of iniquity began then to work; and therefore he will not have it enough to derive a Doctrine from a man which lived with the Apostles, unless it can be proved that he continued with them: and the reason (as I conceive) was given by Nicephorus; After the sacred company of the Apostles was come to an end; 
Niceph. l. 3. c. 16.  and that their generation was wholly spent, which had heard with their ears the heavenly wisdom of the Son of God, than that conspiracy of detestable error, through the deceit of such as delivered strange Doctrine, took rooting; and because that none of the Apostles survived, they published boldly with all might possible the doctrine of falsehood, and impugned the manifest and known truth.  
But we plead (say you) prescription from the beginning.] It is not sufficient to plead it, you must prove it. The Mahometists at this day assume the name of Saracens (as your men do the name of Catholics) as if they came from Sara the free woman, Abraham's true and lawful wife, when in truth they took their first beginning from Agar the bondwoman; neither can there be any prescription against the ancient Records and Evidences of the Word written by Christ and his Apostles. Indeed you have found a right and easy way to claim a prescription from the time of the Apostles; for you have razed many prime Evidences of the Fathers for the first 800. years, which make for our Doctrine, and you have proscribed many learned Authors and their Records (as I have showed before) for the last 800. years, which testified against your errors: And now I come to your Church's apostasy or falling from the truth, which occasioned these errors.  
Apostasy (say you) is a defection, or forsaking of the Name of Christ, and profession of Christianity, as all men understand it.  
I shown in this Section, that in the primitive Church, when any heresy did arise that endangered the foundation (such as was the heresy of the Arrians, of the Pelagians, and the like) the Authors were observed, the times were known, the place was pointed at, and forthwith letters of Premonition were sent to all the sound members of the Catholic Church; by which public advertisement the steale-truth was discovered, and herein the Author, the time, and place was observed and known to all: but in the Church of Rome it was otherwise; there was first an Apostasy, a falling away from the truth, which was first caused by an error secretly stolen into the Church; and therefore it is sometimes called a mystery of iniquity, because mystically, covertly, secretly he shall wind his abominations into the Church of God: and accordingly the Apostle gives Timothy to understand, that in the last times some shall departed from the faith, 
1 Tim. 4.1.  giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of Devils, and such as speak falsehood in Hypocrisy: which place plainly shows (saith a learned Divine) that Antichrist himself shall not professedly renounce Christ, 
Mr. Bedel against Wadsworth. p. 40.  and his Baptism; that his kingdom is a revolt, not from the outward profession, but inward sincerity and power of the Gospel. And therefore all do not understand Apostasy, a forsaking of Christ and Christianity: Not all, no not the same Apostle, where he useth the same word Apostasy to the Thessalonians: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 2 Thess. 2.3.  Let no man deceive you by any means, for that day shall not come, except there come (an Apostasy) a falling away first: He speaks of the departing from the orthodox Faith, not from Christianity. Not all, no not your Rhemists in their Annotations upon this place: 
Rhem. Annot. in 2 Thess. 2.3.  For it is very like (say they) be it spoken under correction, that God's Church, and all learned Catholics, that this great defection and revolt shall not be only from the Roman Emperor, but especially from the Roman Church, and withal from most points of Christian Religion, or (as they interpret in their Margin) from most Articles of the Christian faith. Not all, no not Campian your fellow Jesuit, who terms Luther an Apostata, for falling from your Church, not from Christianity. Not all, no not your Decretals, who term a Monk, for leaving his Order, or a Clerk forsaking his habit, an Apostata. Not all, no not Gregory the Great, 
Greg. l. 6. Ep. 24.  who called John Bishop of Constantinople, an Apostata, for assuming the title of universal Bishop. Lastly, Not all, no not your Council of Basil, where 900. condemned and deposed your Pope Eugenius for a Symonist, 
Concil. Basil. sess. 34.  a forsworn man, a man incorrigible, a Schismatic (an Apostata) a man fallen from the faith, and a wilful Heretic. I say therefore, not all, nor any of these did understand an Apostasy to be a forsaking of the name of Christ and Christianity; and therefore I hope you will confess, that your assertion is neither Catholic nor universal.  
When therefore we lay Apostasy to your Church, we do not charge you with a total falling from Christian Religion, like that of Julian the Apostata, with an obstinate pertinacy, in denying the principles of the faith necessary to salvation, or a renouncing your Baptism, and consequently the name of Christianity: We charge you not with Apostasy in such a fearful and horrible sense, unless you will assume it to yourselves; 
Lyra in 2. Thess. 2.  but we think with Lyra, that as there was an Apostasy or revolt of many Kingdoms from the Roman Empire, and of many Churches from the Communion of the Roman Church; so there hath been an Apostasy from the Catholic saith in the midst of the Church, not for that all at any time did forsake the true Faith, but for that many fell from the sincerity of the Faith.  
After your definition of Apostasy, you proceed in this manner; How then can we be Apostatas? in no wise certainly: but if we err, we err as heretics, and if we be heretics, you confess you must assign the persons, time and place.  
I have cleared you from the heinous title of Apostata in your own sense, but not in ours; 
D. Potter p. 19 & 60.  yet let me tell you (with grief and pity be it spoken) your profane and wicked application of the Apostles Creed, as you pretend, in jests, is a fearful sign of falling from Christ and Christianity itself: and therefore, although I may free your Church in general of that name, and in that sense, yet it behoves you to acquit yourself in that particular. But this by way of friendly admonition.  
If we err (say you) we err as heretics] I shall easily condescend unto you in that: For the errors in the Roman Church caused an Apostasy at first, and was mystical and secret; now after long practice and usage in the Church, is become an heresy; and so we may truly assent unto you, that you err as heretics: And although I am not bound upon this acknowledgement, forthwith to assign you the Authors of your heresies, because they came in by degrees, and at several times, privily, and insensibly; yet because you are so inquisitive after you predecessors, 
Ecclefia sua definitione non facit talem assertionem esse haeresin, cum etiamsi ipsa non desnivisset, esset haeresis; sed id efficit Ecclesia, ut nobis persuam censuram pateat illud esse heresin. Alph. à Castr. l. 1. c. 8. D. Potter sect. 4. p. 101. & 97.  if you will have but patience, I will draw your pedigree in the next Section. In the mean time let me tell you, it is another error in you to say, They come to have the name of heresy, only by the condemnation of the Church. For the Church condemns them, because they are heresies; contrariwise, they are not heresies, because the Church condemns them. The Doctrines of Arrius, Macedonius, Nestorius, Eutyches, Eunomius, and Dioscurus, were themselves heretical, even before they were solemnly condemned in the four general Counsels: but woe to us and all the reformed Churches, if this Tenet were true and Catholic, for then are we condemned already. But I pray, what if your Pope (whom you Jesuits now make the only Church) admit, I say, your Pope were an Heretic, such as was your Pope Eugenius, or your John the 23. or Pope Vigilius, or Pope Honorius, were they able to judge of heresies in others, that were tainted with them themselves? or must their definitive sentence in Cathedra stand for a Law, 
Si autem Papa erraret praecipien ●o vitia vel prohibendo virtutes, etc. Bell. de Pont. l. 4. c. 5. Sand. de visibili Monarch. l. 7. An. 1541. p. mihi 595.  and make that heresy which is no heresy? Indeed your Cardinal says, The Pope hath power to make that no sin which is sin, and accordingly he hath placed that Tenet amongst the Heretics, and by the same Law he makes that to be heresy, which is no heresy. Your learned  tells us, it is heresy to translate the Scriptures into the vulgar Tongue, and accordingly he hath placed that Tenet amongst the Heretics. Your Chancellor of Paris and Director of the Council of Constance tells us, it is heresy to communicate in both kinds; and accordingly he hath wrote a Tract, De haeresi communicandi sub utrâque specie. And to pass by all the Trent Articles (the denial of all or any of which makes a man an Heretic) your infallible Pope Nicholas proclaimeth, 
Qui Romanae Ecclesiae privilegium auferre conatur, hicproculdubio labitur in haeresin.  that whosoever goeth about to abrogate the privileges of the Church of Rome, he is no doubt an Heretic.  
If the denial of all or any of these make an Heretic, there is no doubt, all the Reformed Churches stand guilty of that capital crime, by the law of your Church, and your Pope's doom. Yet let me tell you; the Scriptures were translated into all Languages in the Primitive times, and Christ and his Apostles did communicate in both kinds; and your first four general Counsels did bound and limit those privile dges of the Church of Rome, which are now extended into all parts of the Christian world; and were all these Heretics? If you call this Heresy, go on, and fill up the measure of your wrath, until the time come that Christ and his Saints acquit us, or condemn us of that imputation. In the mean time you shall do well to reflect upon yourself, and consider rather the case at this day betwixt the Sorbonists and the Jesuits, which merely toucheth your own particular. 
Aurcl. in vindiciis, pag. 383. Idem in libro sine titulo.  Hermannus Laemelius, that is to say, John Floyd, terms the propositions of the Parisians, destructive to the Church, and heretical; on the other side, they accuse him of heresy, 
Hadier in ad m●ait. ad Lect. p. 8. 9 16. 24.  blasphemy, and impiety, and the like. Are you all members of one Church, under one head the Pope, and are your propositions different and heretical on both sides, and must I say, that you and the rest have the name of heresy only by the condemnation of the Church? But you are sure the Pope will not condemn his own members, and without his judgement they are but words of course, or at best but course phrases delivered in heat against an adversary: For (say you) The Fathers did forbear absolutely to condemn things for heresies, till they had acquainted the Bishop of Rome, and had his judgement, as is clear by St. Cyrill of Alexandria, in the case of Nestorius. Neither do we deny, that in this and the like case the Bishop of Rome ought to be acquainted; For Nestorius was Patriarch of Constantinople, and therefore good reason the Bishop of Rome, as another Patriarch, should be acquainted with it, that he might be judged by his Peers; but in other cases they sent Letters without acquainting the Bishop of Rome: neither ought you to require or expect that we should produce any such letters of premonition against the points of Trent doctrine, for which we now condemn you, because those errors which then began to spring in the Church, by custom and pertinacies became heresies in many ages after. About that time, and in that very Age St. Austin condemned the superstition of some in worshipping Sepulchers and Images (which at this day is an Article of your Faith:) but you answer that he condemned the heathenish and superstitious worship of dead, perhaps wicked men's tombs and pictures: and for a solution of this place you refer me to Bellarmine. It seems you could give me no satisfactory answer of your own, and therefore you return me to your Cardinal; but I wonder why you do not recite his answer to this place. I conceived that you were ashamed of it, or there was some misprision that made you conceal it; & thereupon I have perused it, and find that he hath falsified both the place and meaning of it. As for instance: whereas Austin saith, 
Aug. de moribus Eccles. ●a thot. l. 1.6.34. p. (mihi) 774. Tun. 1. Bell. de Reliquiis Sanct. l. 2. c. 4.  I know many worshippers of tombs and pictures, your Cardinal leaves out the word pistures, and saith, I know many worshippers of tombs; and for his full solution he subjoineth, Austin wrote this in the beginning of his first conversion. Again, he citys another place of S. Austan, as it were to illustrate the former, without any respect or mention of the worshippers of pictures, and tells us, 
Ibid.  that the Emperor did pray at the Sepulchre of St. Peter, yet proves not the point in question, that he did worship the Sepulchre itself; for who doubts but that we also may worship God at St. Peter's shrine, and yet not woe ship the shrine itself. Nay, he goeth on further, and shewes that Austin did not reprehend chrysostom, and Hierome, but the ignorant sort of people: for chrysostom saith, Let us adore the Tombs of Martyrs; when as there are no such words in chrysostom, but rather, Let us adorn them. 
Ut Tumulos Martyrum de centre cur ari. Chrys.  And whereas he saith further, that Hierome wisheth Marcelia, a Lady, to worship the ashes of the Prophets in Bethlem; so likewise I say, he doth wish her in the same place to lick their dust; and therefore it was not to be understood as a thing spoken properly, but figuratively. For elsewhere he saith expressly against Vigilantius, I say not, we worship not nor adore thereliques of Martyrs, but neither the Sun, nor the Moon, nor Angels, nor Archangels, nor Cherubin, nor Seraphin. Neither did S. Austin speak as you say of the heathenish and superstitious worshipping of wicked men's Tombs, 
Andr. resp. ad Card. Bell. pag. (mihi) 49.  but of them which in ipsa vera Religione, in true Religion were worshippers of pictures and shrines. For he shows, that his own mother Monica did usually bring to the shrines of Saints certain Bread and Wine, 
August. Confess. l. 6. c. 2.  and other provision; but because the celebrating after the manner of the memory of the dead, did very much resemble the superstition of the heathen, she was forbidden it by St. Ambrose; which forbidding (saith he) she did so piously and obediently embrace, as that myself did wonder to see her made (with such ease) rather a condemner of her own ancient custom, than a questioner of the present prohibition. For a conclusion; whereas you would excuse it, that St. Austin did condemn only the superstitious worship of wicked men's Tombs, your men are likewise guilty of the same worship: For your own Cardinal will tell you, 
Bell. de Sanct. Beat. l. 1. c. 7.  that the people (of the Roman Church) did for a long time celebrate Sulpitius for a Martyr, who afterwards did appear and told them, that he had heene a thief and was damned; 
Idem, ibid.  And that Alexander the third reprehended certain men for worshipping one as a Martyr, that was killed in his drunkenness: and thus (to use your own words) for these, I send you bacl again to Bellarmine for an answer.  
I come to the rest of your answers. First I cited out of Ferus, that Masses, Monasteries, Ceremonies, Feasts, Images, are otherwise now used than they were in the beginning: I produced likewise Polydore Virgil, Erasmus, Scotus, Agrippa, Cassander, Gregory de Valentia, in several points against your new doctrine; now let us hear your several answers to them. Touching Ferus, he is a Friar (say you) in your Books, but not in ours, save only in the Roman Index of forbidden Books. Touching Polydore, he saith as the Knight telleth us, and as much as any Heretic can say, but it booteth not, for his Book is forbidden. Touching Erasmus, he is no Author for us to answer, he is branded in the Roman Index. Touching Scotus, you neither condemn him, nor answer him: he tells you plainly, that Transubstantiation was not received for a point of Faith till the Council of Lateran, above 1200. years after Christ; but of this passage Ne gry quidem: And yet you might have answered with Bellarmine, this opinion of his is no way to be allowed; or with Gregory de Valentia, for this saying he ought to be corrected. As touching Agrippa and Cassander, you will not vouchsafe them an answer, but reject them inter damnatos authores, as men to be cast out of your Synagogue. Lastly, touching Gregory de Valentia, you sav his authority doth make against the Knight, why else should he corrupt and mangle it? But whether I or you have corrupted it, let the Reader judge; my words were these, The Communion in one kind, when it got first footing in the Church, minimè constat, it doth not appear (saith Greg de Valentia:) Youto prove my corruption, cite the words in this manner; When that custom began in some Churches, it appeareth not; but that there hath been some use of one kind ever from the beginning. I shown before; so Valentia; and thus you.  
But in truth, this is none of Valentia's own period, but one of your own making, who cunningly join the latter words which follow in Valentia, 4. or 5. lines after, to the former, with a But, which is none of Valentia's; & the former part of the period is notably mangled by you: For thus it stands, When that custom began in some Churches, 
Augustana Confessio.  it appears not, as is acknowledged by the Augustane Confession. Now in that Confession, the words are these, The custom of both kinds remained long in the Church, neither doth it appear when, or by what Author it was changed; so that he plainly speaketh of the Church in general, & showeth the corruption here pretended by M. Floyd to be but a cavil, viz. That Valentia saith this, not of the Church in general, but of some particular Churches. Thus either you blot & prohibit all Authors that make forus, although they be members of your own Church, or else you vouch safethem no answer, or else you quarrel without any just occasion offered; and this will prove an easy way for the weakest scholar in your Church to answer all that can be produced against your faith and doctrine.  
Now as the Reader hath heard your answer in the general, so let him see your exceptions to the particulars: For whereas I said with St. Paul, Forbidding of marriage is a doctrine of Devils, you answer as if you were angry with St. Paul, that he hath been answered more often than the Knight hath fingers and toes; and it seems, for that reason you will vouch safe him no answer at all. This puts me in mind of the saying of Ludovicus Vives, amember of your own Church, who assures us, 
Lud. Vives de Civ. Dei. l. 13. c. 24.  If St. Paul were living in these days, he would be held either a mad man, or an heretic. And since you will not resolve me of St. Paul's meaning in that place, I will appeal to St. Bernard, an Abbot who was restrained from marriage by the law of your Church; who speaking of that restraint, gives us the true sense and exposition of St. Paul in these words: All heresies have an heretic for their founder; the Manichees had Manes, 
Bernard. in Cant. Serm. 66.  the Sabellians had Sabellicus, the Arrians had Arrius, etc. so that we know the Authors of those plagues; but by what name will you term the Author of those that forbidden marriage? Surely it is not of man, or by man, and far be it from the spirit-of God, but it is foretold (by the Apostle St. Paul) to be the fraud & doctrine of devils.  
But marriage (faith you) is not a thing evil in itself, but because it less agreeth with the holiness which is required for the exercise of Priestly function. I pray then what think you of a concubine? Doth company with her better agree for exercise of your function, than with a wife? Sure I am, this is the doctrine of your Church: nay more, your Pope Siricius would infer by authority of Scripture, that martiage is unholy in itself, for he citys the Text for it, They that live in the flesh cannot please God. 
Qui in carne sunt Deoplacere non possunt.  Now I pray you what difference is there betwixt the ancient heretics, and the members of your Church? The Montanists, the Tatiani, the Eucratitae, did not prohibit marriage to all, no more than you do, but only to their perfecti, as being a disparagement to their perfect estate; or as you interpret, not agreeing to the holiness of Priesthood. Again, whereas I proved out of Polydore, that the marriage of Priests was not altogether forbidden till the time of Gregory the 7. that is to say, above a thousand years after Christ; you answer, that which Polydore citys is most evidently false, as appeareth particularly by a Canon of the first Council of Nice, and the second Council of Carthage. Now if Polydore were mistaken, it concerns not me, for I cited him truly, and he is a member of your Church; but the truth is, you are much mistaken touching those two Counsels. 
Sozom. l. 1. c. 22.  For the Council of Nice (saith Sozomen) commended Paphnutius judgement, and touching this matter of marriage, made to decree an all, but left it to each man's own will, without any force of necessity; And the Council of Carthage forbiddeth not marriage in Priests, but commandeth abstinence from marriage rites for a certain time, as St. Paul doth, that they may more freely give themselves to prayer, and the offices of their sacred function. Which plainly shows, that both Priests were married in those days, and consequently, that those two Counsels make flatly against you. But Marius (say you) cannot find the beginning of this prohibition; Polydore findeth it, and yet both make for the Knight's purpose. And without doubt they do, for they contradict not one the other: Polydore speaketh of public, absolute, and real prohibition; Marius of the first condemning it in any Priest; and these confessions may well stand together.   

CHAP. VII. The sum of his Answer to Sect. 7.  

1. That the imputations of ancient Heresies are false.  
2. That Succession besides Antiquity importeth continuance, and perpetuity without intermission.  
3. That Protestants have no shadow of succession in person or doctrine.  
4. That Papists have a most clear personal succession, being able to show 200. and odd Popes succeeding the other in place and office.  
5. That personal succession is a firm argument of succession in faith.   
IT is my promise in my seventh Section, to show a descent of both Religions (as namely) that the Romish faith was derived from ancient Haeretiks, and the Protestant faith was drawn down from Christ and his Apostles. But (say you) It is one thing to prove a thing to have been anciently taught, another to have been successively taught: It is true, Antiquity and Succession differ; neither did I undertake to prove that those Haeretikes, or your Church had a perpetual succession in person and doctrine; but for the truth's sake I have acknowledged the antiquity of your Trent faith, although descended from ancient Haeretikes, and I made the first instance in Latin Service, and prayer in a strange tongue brought in by Pope Vitolian (as is witnessed by Wolphius:) but you cry out, It is a most strange absurdity to aver fuch a known falsehood upon no other authority, 
pag. 87.  than a professed Haeretike.  
And is he an Haeretike that speaketh the truth of your Religion? What say you to your prime Champion Mr. Harding? He saith expressly, About nine hundred years past, it is certain the people in some Countries had their service in an unknown tongue, 
jewel in his 3. Article, Divis. 1.  as it shall be proved of our own Country of England. Now observe the difference, Wolphius said, the Latin Service came in after Christ about the year (666. Mr. Harding (who wrote these (67.) years since) as appears by Bishop Iuels Epistle, tells us it came in (900.) year's passed: compute Wolphius (666.) with Mr. Hardings time of (967.) and you shall find that they agree about one and the same time, and therefore it was neither absurd, nor false, which Wolphius uttered.  
Neither do you disprove the reason of Wolphius, but you make a qu●ere upon his assertion; During his (600.) and odd years) what other Liturgies were there in the Latin Church, but Latin? And I may aswell say, what were there in the Greek Church but Greek? But this demand maketh against your Service in an unknown tongue, not against Wolphius, who affirmeth not that the Latin Service was not in the Latin Church before the year (666.) but that the Pope obtruded it upon all Churches, even there where the Latin was not understood, as (in England saith Mr. Harding) and elsewhere. For Origen tells us before that time, 
Orig contrd Celsum. lib. 8.  the Greeks' call upon God in the Greek tongue, and the Latins in the Latin tongue, and all several Nations pray unto God, and praise him in their own nature all and mother tongues, for he that is the Lord of all tongues, heareth men praying in all tongues, none otherwise then if it were one voice pronounced by divers tongues; for God that ruleth the whole world, is not as some one man, that hath gotten the Greek or Latin, and knoweth none-other. The ancient Primitive Churches therefore taught the Doctrine in a known tongue, agreeable to the profession at this day. But the truth is, 
A. 30.666 A. 1.666 T. 300.666 E. 5.666 I. 10.666 N. 50.666 O. 70.666 M. 200.666 Sed & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nomen sexcentinum sexagiata sex, numerum habens valde verisimile est quonlam verissimum nomen hobet vocabulum. Latini enim sunt qui nunc regnant, sed non in hoc nos gloriabimur.] Irenae. l 5. cap 25. p mihi. 355.  the Latin Service, and the name of the Latin Church is one of the most essential marks of the Roman Hierarchy. And I know not whether it were by conjecture, or by inspiration, that Irenaeus above fourteen hundred years ago, in the word Lateinos, found out the name of Antichrist, and the number of (666.) The name Lateinos (saith he) containing the number of six hundred sixty six is very likely, because the truest kingdom hath that name; for they are the Latins that now reign, but (saith he) we will not glory in this.  
You proceed to the Haeretikes Ossem, and you say first, I am notably mistaken in placing them towards the Apostles time, and withal, you have read the Chapter there twice over, and the second time more attentively than the first, and yet you find not any such word so cited by me.  
First, 
Trajan, Anno 100 Bel. de script Eccles. pag. mihi.  this Sect continued till Trajan's time, not an hundred years after the Apostles; and therefore it was no error in me to place them towards the Apostles time: and if you please to peruse the place a third time with your Spectacles, you shall find these words, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiph heres. 19  Nemo quaerat interpretationem, sed solum in oratione haec dicat; and there he repeats a Prayer, which (if you peruse the Greek text) is more express. Let no man inquire after the meaning, only in his Prayer, Let him say such words, (viz.) such Hebrew words which Epiphanius there setteth down. Are not these Heretics (think you) near kin to them who say, Hear Latin Mass, and say after the Priest, it mattereth not whether you understand what he saith, or not.  
From Epiphanius you fly to Saint Ambrose, and there you make a great complaint, that I put in words of my own in the same Character with Saint Ambrose, which are none of his (as namely) There were certain jews amongst the Grecians, 
Ambr. in 1 Cor. 14.  as namely, the Corinthians, who did celebrate the Divine Service, and Sacraments, which the common people understood not.  
I confess ingenuously, it is an error in the print, and I shall willingly alter the letter, but not the words, at the next impression. But I confidently profess, it is agreeable to the true sense and meaning of the Author; and the strength of the argument is not in the words, but in the sense: and therefore I may truly answer you with S. Austin, What folly is it to contend about words, 
Aug. Ep. 174.  when there is the certainty of the thing itself?  
It cannot be denied, that Ambrose taxeth the Hebrews, who amongst the Corinthians, in Tractatibus & oblationibus, used sometimes the Syriack, and sometimes the Hebrew tongue, which without doubt, the Greeks understood not. And therefore, in his Commentary on this place, he gives the Hebrew to understand; If you meet together to edify the Church, 
Ambr. in 1 Cor. 14.  those things must be delivered which the hearers understand: for to what purpose, or profit is it, that any one speak a tongue which he himself only understands, and whereof he that heareth can reap no fruit? And a little after; The Apostle saith, I had rather speak five words in the Church, according to the Law, that I may edify others, than any long and large discourse in obscurity. Again, by [Oblationibus] (which you interpret, Offerings) Saint Ambrose cannot mean, the people's gifts or offerings; (for there was no need of any speech, much less a long speech at these offerings.) It must therefore follow, that either he means the celebration of the Sacrament, or some spiritual sacrifices of Praise and Thanksgiving.  
You proceed from one heresy to another, (viz) from your unknown Service, to your Transubstantiation. This Doctrine I shown, had his descent from the Heretics, Helcesaitae, from Marcus, from the Capernaites. Touching the Helcesaitae, (you say) It is an heretical fable: for those Heretics make two Christ's, 
pag. 92.  we acknowledge but one, and the same both in heaven, and in the consecrated Host.  
It is true, this particular Instance is cited amongst the Tables of Theodoret; but yet you have affinity with their Tenets, as near as cozen Germans once removed. For as you acknowledge but one Christ in the heavens, and in the Host, no more did those Heretics in words; for they rehearsed the Apostles Creed, Et in jesum Christum, and not in Christos: and as they made a twofold Christ, one in heaven, another in earth; so likewise you teach, that Christ in the Sacrament (here on earth) is invisible and indivisible, but in heaven at the same time visible, and with dimensions of quantity, and distinctions of Organs. And what is this, but consequently to make two Christ's, or at least, to make contradictories true at the same time, of one and the same Christ, in respect of his humane nature to be visible and invisible?  
Touching Marcus the Heretic, (you say) He changed the colour; but you teach, that the colour and accidents remain, and the substance is changed.  
It is true; and your opinion in this, is more absurd than that of Marcus: for he changed the Colour, to make the people believe it was true blood; and you make them believe it is blood, when there is neither taste, nor colour of blood.  
Lastly, touching the Capernaites; you deny there is any likeness of Doctrine. For (say you) the Capernaites thought they should eat Christ's body piecemeal, but we receive Christ whole and entire, not in the form and shape of flesh, but of bread, etc.  
But I pray, which of the Evangelists ever charged them with any such conceit? The truth is, they understood the words of Christ as you do, in a gross and carnal manner: and therefore Christ in reproving them, saith not, Flesh eaten piecemeal, profiteth nothing; but absolutely, The flesh profiteth nothing. As touching your eating of Christ, whole and entire; it is all one with their eating of him by piecemeal: for there may be many differences in eating, but all eating the flesh of Christ with teeth and jaws, is Caperniticall. But you neither see, nor taste the flesh of Christ, which they dreamed they should; for you receive it, Not (say you) in the form of flesh, but of bread. I will return you an Answer from a learned Divine on our side: 
B. Bilson, in the difference between Christ subject, and unchristian Rebellion. pag. 748.  You chaw the flesh of Christ actually with your teeth, and swallow the same down your throats, and these be proper actions, and right instruments of external and Caperniticall eating; your eyes and your taste be not; else blind men, and such as by reason of Sickness can taste nothing, by your Divinity can eat nothing. Since than you concur with the Capernaites (in eating and swallowing) notwithstanding you vary from them in sight and taste, yet your opinion establisheth a corporal eating of Christ's flesh, and a perverting of the meaning of Christ's words, no less than theirs did.  
Let me parallel them together with the most  construction I can, yet your Church must have her Antiquity and descent from those Capernaites. For, suppose the Capernaites did believe that Christ would kill himself, and give his body to be eaten; yet the Church of Rome teacheth, that Christ did eat his own flesh, a thing no less barbarous (being meant literally) than to kill himself. Admit the Capernaites did believe that Christ would give his flesh to be mangled by pieces, or by halves; yet your Church's opinion is no less cruel, to believe that in the Sacrament, Christ's flesh is swallowed up whole at one morsel. Lastly, let it be granted that the Capernaites did believe, that Christ's flesh should be eaten when he was dead; yet the opinion of the Romanists is more brutish, to imagine his flesh to be eaten when he was alive (being a higher degree of cruelty to devour men alive, 
Apertissimi loq●imur, corpus Christi veri à nobis attrectari, manducan, circumgestari, dentibus atteri, sensibiliter sacrificari, non min●●● quàm ante consecrationem panis. Alanus, lib. 3. de. Euchar. cap. 37.  than when they are dead.) Sure I am, they both agree in this, that according to the letter they should eat the flesh of Christ, Orally, Corporally, and Substantially: they both agree in the sensible handling of his body, in devouring him with the mouth, and in grinding him with the teeth. Alanus the Romanist professeth openly in the name of the Church, Apertissimi loquimur, We affirm plainly, the body of Christ is truly handled of us, carried about, ground with the teeth, and sensibly sacrificed. Long before him Pope Nicholas confirmed this doctrine in a Council at Rome, and taught it for a lesson to Berengarius, 
Verum Corpus Domini nostii jesu Christi sensuclitèr non solum in Sacramento, said in veritate manibus Sacerdotum tractari, frangi, ac fideliùm dentibus atteri. Grat. de con. secr. d. 2. c. 4.2. Ego Berengarius.  to let him know the great difference betwixt Papist and Protestant in the same Church, I believe that the body of our Lord josus is sensibly and in very deed touched with the hands of the Priest, and broken, and rend, and ground with the teeth of the faithful. This confession stands a Record in the Roman Decrees, and unless you mince the words strangely, you must needs acknowledge that you eat the flesh of Christ peice-meale, and then you sympathise in all things with your first Parents the Capernaites.  
From Transubstantiation you proceed to the Pope's Supiemacy, wherein you say, 
pag. 93.  I am mistaken in saying that Phocas gave that authority to the Bishop of Constantinople. It is true this is a mistake of the Printer, but no corruption, 
Rogatu Bonifacij phocas constituit sedem Romanae & Apostolicae Ecclesie caput esse omnium Ecclesiarum, nam anteà Constantinopolitana Ecclesia se scribebat primam omnium. Vsperg. in Phoc. fol. mihi.  and in the last Impression (which you should have taken you shall find (Rome) for Constantinople: and this you might well understand to be an error in the print, because my purpose was to show a descent of the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy, not of the Bishop of Constantinople: And this authority stands good against you (notwithstanding all your exceptions) viz. that the Pope of Rome, and that the See of Rome should be the head of all Churches; for before that time (saith Vspergensis) the Church of Constantinople did write herself chief of all Churches; so that (anteà) before that time, the Bishop of Rome had no Supremacy: and this agrees to Pope Gregory's own confession, None of my Praedecessors did ever use that profane Title. 
Nullus unquam praedecessorum meorum hoc tam prophano vocabulo uti consuevit. Greg. ep. 36. l. 4.  Nay more, you had two Bishops of Constantinople, (viz.) john and Cyriacus, who both successively assumed the title of Universal Bishops, before ever the Bishop of Rome had any: and those Bishops were suborned by Mauritius, a bloody Emperor, like unto Phocas, who at that time made Constantinople the chief place of his abode, and by means of advancing the Bishop's dignity, sought to win the greater credit to the City. Gregory the Great, writes unto them both severally, as they lived in their Sees, and doth accuse them of Pride, of Singularity, of error, of vanity, and blasphemy in that new title; neither doth he make claim to it himself, being then Bishop of Rome, For mine own part (saith he) I seek to increase in virtues, and not in vanity of titles; 
Greg. lib. 1. ep. 30.  for if you call me universal Bishop, you deny yourselves to be that which indeed you are. And when Mauritius the Emperor did countenance the Supremacy in the Bishop of Constantinople, Gregory greets him in this manner: 
Idem. l. 4. Indict. 13. ep. 32. p. mihi.  I have received letters from my virtuous Lord, that I should be at peace with my brother and fellow Bishop, john; indeed it well beseemeth a Religious Prince to command Bishops in such things, but this was heavy to me, that my Sovereign Lord did not rebuke him for his Pride. After the death of john the first Ecumenical cumenicall Bishop, Cyriacus succeeded in the See of Constantinople and continued that title of Ecumenical Bishop by the power of the Emperor; and accordingly Pope Gregory writes again to Mauritius, not to take part with Cyriacus, and withal writes to Cyriacus at his first entrance into his Bishopric, 
Idem. l. 6. ep. 28.  that he would abolish the word of Pride, by which there was so great scandal given to the Church.  
After the death of Mauritius, Phocas (who was a soldier and fought under the banner of Mauritius) was proclaimed Emperor by the mutineirs, who having committed many murders and cruelties, (which Cyriacus could not approve) (for otherwise it is probable he might have continued the title of Ecumenical) he called a Synod at Rome, consisting of (62.) Bishops, and by virtue of his power, granted his Letters Patents to Boniface then Bishop of Rome, whereby your Popes had the first authority of (Volumus & jubemus) we will and command. And thus Phocas procured his Imperial authority by treachery and blood; Boniface obtained his power and Supremacy by policy, and flattery of a bloody Emperor; and this (saith Platina) was magnâ cum contentione, with great contention. Neither did Boniface enjoy this Title many months, nor Phoeaeescape the heavy hand of God; for he was afterwards slain by Heraclius, 
Quo quis peccat, eo punitur.  as Mauritius was by him.  
From Phocas you ascend to your first Progenitors, the Kings of the Gentiles, wherein I shown the original of your Papal Supremacy, not that your Popes did lineally succeed them, but that they did exceed them fare in Tyranny. But the Pope useth to style himself servum servorum Dei, the servant of the servants of God, 
pag. 95.  and will you have it (say you) that by reason of his humility, there must not be any Superiority? Surely, no; for he that said, learn of me, for I am lowly and meek, made likewise this promise to him that would follow his lesson, 
Matth. 20.25.  He that humbleth himself shall be exalted. Howsoever, it is not the title of servus servorum, that makes him Christ's disciple, or a universal Bishop; for in that he succeedeth rather Canaan then Boniface: but he must follow Christ's precept, and his example: his precept was, 
Luke 22.27.  That none of his Apostles should reign as Lord over his Brethren: his example was, I am among you, as he that serveth. Neither is it the title which he assumes unto himself, that makes him humble; neither do his Proselytes & followers so much undervalue him as a servant: For saith Gerson, 
Gers. de potest. Eccles. consider. 12.  Fawning, deceitful flattery, whispereth into the ears of ecclesiastical persons, especially of the Pope, in a shameless manner, saying; as there is no power but of God, so there is none, either Temporal or Ecclesiastical, Imperial, or Regal, but from the Pope, in whose thigh Christ hath written, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, of whose power to dispute is sacrilegious boldness, to whom no man may say, sir, why do you so? though he altar, overturn, waste, and confound all States, rules, and possessions of men: let me be judged a liar (saith he) if these things be not found written by them that seem wise in their owno eyes, and if some Topes have not given credit to such lying and flattering words. You see then, the Popes own creatures and servants would make all other to be servants unto him. But it is strange to see how many of your men would palliate, and extenuate the Pope's power, and Tyrannical usurpation, sometimes under the veil and title of a servant, and sometimes by a ceremony used at the time of his creation: your Mr. Harding witnesseth both, and seconds his humility in the title of a servant, with his (privy) reason, that is (saith he) lest the Sovereignty of honour exhibited unto him, 
jewel and Harding.  should in his own conceit lift him higher, than the degree of humane condition; to that purpose (saith he) seemeth the stool of easement at his creation, to be set before him to temper the highness of that vocation, with the base consideration of humane infirmities and necessities. That is to say, that he may remember himself in the midst of all his glory to be but a man; when as in truth, it is recorded, that the Porphirie stool serveth to put the Pope in remembrance of his virility, 
 sedentis genitalia abvitimo diacono attrectentur ●sa bellicas.  that the world may know he is no woman. Howsoever it seems the title of servant is not sufficient to teach him humility, without the stool of easement; (and a stool of easement is no sweet badge of his humility.) But this is as common to others as to himself; and therefore by that way of Hamilitie, he will not merit a Superiority.  
But (say you) because he must carry himself like a Servant, must he not therefore feed the lambs, and sheep of Christ?] God forbidden. But Saint Bernard, who otherwise maintained the Pope's Supremacy, told us about 500 years since, that the Bishops of Rome, as well as other Bishops, who had the charge of God's Church, were not Teachers, 
Bernard ad Eug. lib. 2. de Confiderat.  but Deceivers; they were not Feeders, but Beguilers; they were not Pralates, but pilate's. And certainly, if his whole Prerogative hang upon feeding the flock, his Superiority will quickly come to nought: for most of them feed not, many are utterly ignorant, and cannot feed; others, especially the later Popes, feed their flocks for their own ends. 
August. in john, Tract. 123.  And (saith Saint Austin) Whosoever they be that feed the sheep, to the end to make them theirs, and not Christ's, they love themselves and not Christ; for desire either of glory, or of rule, or of gain.  
For a Conclusion, the Pope's humility is no other, 
2 Thes. 2.  then that which Antichrist professeth, Advancing himself above all that is worshipped, or called God: no other then Dioclesian the persecuting Emperor used, commanding by Proclamation, 
Alexander ab Alexandro.  That all should fall down and kiss his feet. And as for his feeding of Christ's sheep, Nicholaus Clemang is a Doctor of Paris, about 200 years since, 
Clemang. de corrupt. Ecclesiae statu. cap. 5 & 7.  complained that the Pope, Not contented with the fruits and profits of the Bishopric of Rome, and Saints Peter's Patrimony, though very great and royal, laid his greedy hands on other men's flocks, replenished with milk and wool, and usurped the right of bestowing Bishoprics, and live Ecclesiastical throughout all Christendom: 
Cap. 13.  he raised his Cardinals, as complices of his Pomp, from Clergymen of low estate to the Peers of Princes, and enriched them with the dispensations, to have and to hold offices and benefices, not two, or three, or ten, 
Cap. 14.  or twenty, but a hundred, or two hundred, yea sometimes four hundred, or five hundred, or more, and those not small or lean ones, but even the best and fattest. Nay more, instead of feeding the lambs and sheep of Christ, 
Cap. 19, 20.  He filled the house of God with dumb dogs, and evil beasts, even from the highest Prelates to the basest hedge-Priests, 
Cap. 3, 4, 5, 9  and all to maintain the pride and riot of his worldly state, which he hath lifted up above Kings and Emperors; and yet this man is Servus Servorum. If this man therefore must carry himself a Servant, (as you pretend) why doth he take upon him to be Lord Paramount? If he be a servant, who shall be his master that shall teach him obedience? Your book of Ceremonies tells us, 
Liber Cerem. 3. cap. 2.  that The Pope himself giveth no manner of reverence to any man alive, neither openly by standing up, or by bowing down, or by uncovering his head. Neither is he a servant to the Emperor; for as soon as he seethe the Pope, he worshippeth him with bare head, 
Idem, l. 1. Sect. 5. c. 3.  touching the ground with his knee. Again, when he cometh to the foot of the Pope's Throne, he kneeleth down. Last of all, when he cometh to the Pope's feet, he kisseth them (devoutly) in the reverence of our Saviour. This is a part o● the Emperor's duty, and the greatest Grandee upon earth must yield to this humble Servant of Servants. This is that Servant of Servants, that set the Imperial crown upon the Emperor's head, Henry the sixth, (not with his hand, but with his foot) and casting it off again with the same foot, said, I have power to make Emperors, 
Celestinus 3 us.  and to unmake them again at my pleasure. 
Paschalis 2us.  This is that Servant of Servants, that set up the Son of the Emperor, Henry the fourth against his Father, and dispossessed him of his Kingdom. 
Adrian 2us.  this is that Servant of Servants, that did correct the Emperor Frederick, for holding the left stirrup of his horse, when he should have held the right. 
Clemens 5us. luel, pag. 379.  This is that Servant of Servants, that caused Franciscus Dandalus the Ambassador of Venice, to come before him tied in iron chains, and to wallow under his Table with dogs, whilst his Holiness sat at supper. This is that Servant of Servants, 
Innocentius 3us.  who caused King john to kneel down at his Legates feet, and offer up his crown into his hand. 
Matth Paris, pag. 844.  This is that Servant of Servants, that termed King Henry the third, the eldest Son of King john, the Pope's vassal, and England his jade. To conclude, by this Servant, Rex superbiae, the King of Pride, 
Rex superbiae in foribus est. Greg. l. 4 Ep. 38.  (which S. Gregory foretold in his days to be nigh at hand) is now manifested to the world.  
From the Pope's Supremacy, you proceed to the worship of Images; and than you cry out, 
Pag. 96.  Here again the Knight giveth more ample testimony of his notorious naughty dealing. Well, what is this grievous accusation? Why, when he said the Heretics had the picture of Christ made, as they said, by Pilate; why I say, could not he have gone on with Irenaeus? Thus you.  
Let me tell you, I have omitted nothing material of your exceptions, nor nothing in the Authors; but if I should recite at large, all the words of my Authors, which either make for us, or against you, I should have wearied both myself and the Reader with impertinencies. Let us go on with Irenaeus; they crown them, and propose them with the Images of the Philosophers of the world, to wit, Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, and the rest; and use such other observation towards them, as the Gentiles do. Then you triumph before the conquest, in a vaunting fashion, Doth not this answer you, Sir Humphrey? Do you not here find a difference between their worship and ours? between Idolatry and Religion? etc. This is too too gross for such a subtle Knight as you are.  
To pass by your idle words, I must tell you plainly, this doth not answer me. For the Carpocratrans (I confess) that as they worshipped the Images of Philosophers, they were heathenish; but as they worshipped the Images of Christ and his Apostles, I say, in that point of Idolatry, they are your Predecessors. But (say you) the Heretics crowned the Philosopher's Images.] It is true; and so was Marcellina reckoned, and detested as an Heretic by Irenaeus, Epiphanius, and Saint Austin, for having the Images of Christ and Saint Paul, in her Closet, and setting Garlands on their heads, and burning Incense to them. Nay more, She herself, 
Aug. de Heres. heres. 7.  saith Saint Austin, was of Carpocrates Sect, and worshipped the Images of Jesus, Paul, Homer, and Pythagoras, with bowing herself, 
Epiph in 80 heres. anaceph.] Idem, lib. 1. heres. 27.  and burning Incense. Epiphanius likewise chargeth the whole Sect of Carpocrates, with the same fault. The Heretics called Gnostici, besides all this, have Images painted with colours, and some of gold and silver, which they say, are the Images of Jesus; and made in the time of Pontius Pilate, when Christ was conversant amongst them. 
Iren. lib. 1. cap. 24.  And so doth Irenaeus also witness, they all restraining, and adjudging it to be Heresy and Idolatry, to cense, and bow to the Image, even of Paul, or Christ's. But do you not find a difference (say you) between their adoring the creature of wood and colour, in place of the creature, and our adoring the Creator represented by the creature?  
If there be any difference in the manner of the Pagan worship and yours, it is in this: That the Christians who know God, and set up an Image unto him, offend rather than the Gentiles, who know him not: and if to worship a creature, which is the work of God's hands, be flat Idolatry, how inexcusable is it to worship the work of men's hands, and the shadows of Creatures represented by art, and applied by man's vain conceit to resemble the Creator? And in this respect, Saint Austin preferred the Pagans and Heathens before the Manichees, which were Christians: For the Pagans worship things that be, 
Pagani colunt ca quae sunt, etc. Aug. contià Faust. l. 20. c. 5.  though they be not to be worshipped; but you (saith he) worship those things that be not at all, but are feigned by the vanity of your deceitful fables and tales.  
It is true, (as you say) the Heathen did worship the Creatures of wood, in place of the Creator: 
Gentes Ugnum adorant, quia Dei Imagmem putant. Ambr. in Psal. 118. Serm. 10.  but the reason is given by Saint Ambrose, because they think it to be the Image of God. And do not you the like, when you worship the picture of Christ in wood, or any other metal, 
I most firmly avouch, that the Images of Christ, and the Mother of God, and other Saints are to be worshipped. Bulla Pij (4) Act. 9  because it is the picture of Christ? Those that worshipped the golden Calf, knew whereof it was made: neither could there be such a Calf amongst them, to think it was a true God. Tertullian up braideth the Pagans, That in their own consciences they knew well enough, that the Gods which they worshipped were but men, that it was to be proved in what places they were borne, where they had lived, 
Tert. Apolog. cap. 10. Provocamus ad conscientiam vestram, etc.  and left a remembrance of their works, where they were buried: and may not the like be proved by many of your Saints which you worship in your Church?  
If the Pagans had adored their Images for God, there had been some difference betwixt you; but they could answer the Christians, as Celsus the Philosopher did Origen: 
Orig. contrà Celsum, l. 7.  If the Christians deny things made of wood, stone, brass, or gold, to be God, we grant it; for otherwise it were a ridiculous opinion; for who but a stark fool did ever account them for gods? But in conclusion, they join hands with you. These (say you) are the services unto the gods, or else certain resemblances of the gods. I will come nearer unto you. It is the voice of the Heathen man in Clemens, 
Clem. Recognit. ad jacob. lib. 5.  We worship the Images which we may see, in the honour of that God which cannot be seen. You may read the like excuse of a Heathen man in Saint Austin: I worship neither the Image, nor the devil, but by a Corporal figure, 
Aug. in Psal. 113. Contion. 2.  I behold the sign of that which I ought to worship. Now change but the name of Pagan into Papist, and these say will fully agree with your men: and therefore, if it be flat Idolatry in them that know not God, the greater sin lieth at your Church's door, who join with Pagans and Idolaters, which otherwise profess to know him, and worship him as he ought to be worshipped, in spirit and truth. The difference only betwixt you and them, is this: They worshipped the Images of the heathen Philosophers, aswelas of jesus; and you say that you worship Images of Christ, and not of the Gentiles. And herein, your later error is greater than the first; for if you had told a Carpocratian, Thou shalt not covet thy Neighbour's wife, (because God hath forbidden it) Clemens saith, he would have replied (as you do) By thy Neighbour is understood, the Neighbour of the Gentiles. 
Clem. Strom. l. 3.  And thus they excuse their disordered Lust; and you to decline your Idolatrous worship, savour of one and the same spirit, and therefore (to use part of your own words) This doctrine is too gross for so subtle a jesuit as you are.  
To conclude, you would know how our Doctrine against Images, doth succeed the second Commandment? Here you quarrel about the word Succeed, when I say no such thing, but that it is derived; and thus you fight with a Paper-man of your own making. And lastly, you say the word Image is not in the Scripture, when as your vulgar Translation in Exodus is Sculptile; and yours in Deuteronomie, Sculpta similitudo; both which signify, A graven Image, or the likeness of any thing. Take for a Conclusion, that friendly admonition which Origen sometimes gave to Celsus the Pagan, 
Communis sensus cogitare nos cogit, etc. Orig contra Celsum, l. 3.  Common sense doth will men to think that God is not delighted with honour of Images made by men, to represent his likeness, or any signification of him: yea, who (saith he) that hath his right wits, will not laugh at him, who after those excellent and Philosophical disputations concerning God, or the gods, doth look to Images, 
Ibid. l. 7.  and either offereth prayers unto them, or by the contemplation thereof, as of some visible sign, goeth about to lift up his mind to the cogitation of God, thereby to be understood. And thus much may serve touching your Patrons, and first founders of Images.  
From your Images, you proceed to your Communion in one kind, which I shown was derived from the Manichees, etc. You to excuse the matter, say, That before there were Manichees in the world, the blessed Sacrament was administered sometimes in one kind, sometimes in both. You say so, but you say nothing to prove it; and your ipse dixit will hardly carry it against a cloud of witnesses. For confirmation of what I said, that in this point of Doctrine you succeed the Heretics, harken to Leo Bishop of Rome; 
Leo, Serm. 4. de Quadrages.  The Manichees, to cover their infidelity, venture to be present at our mysteries, and so carry themselves in receiving of the Sacraments for their more safety, that they take the body of Christ with an unworthy mouth: but in any wise, they shun to drink the blood of our Redemption, which I would have your devoutness (speaking to the people) learn; for by this sacrilegious simulation, they may be noted by the Godly, that they may be chased away by the Priestly power. Leo (you see) speaketh of the Manichees by name, and those Laymen also; and calleth the forbearing the Lords blood, a Sacrilegious sleight. Against these Heretics also, wrote another Bishop of Rome in the same age, 
Grat. de Consecrat. Dist. 2. Comperimus.  namely, Pope Gelasius: We have intelligence (saith he) that certain men, receiving only a portion of the sanctified Body, abstain from the Cup of the sacred blood, who, for that it appeareth they be entangled with I know not what superstition, let them either receive the whole Sacraments, or be driven from the whole; because the dividing and parting of one and the same mystery, cannot be without grievous Sacrilege.  
What think you of your half Communion, you that brag so much of the antiquity of your Church? The Manichees, without doubt, were the first Authors of your Doctrine; and by the suffrages of two infallible Popes, your Sacrament is sacrilegious. But (say you) as at that time the Church forbade the use of one kind, so now it forbiddeth the use of both, and may again give way when it shall seem convenient for the use of both kinds. Thus you.  
It seems you make no scruple to thwart the Institution of Christ, nor the Custom of the Ancient Church: but because in this point your Church is branded with Sacrilege, I think indeed you could be content to join with the Protestants, and restore the Cup to the Lay-people; but I would gladly know how it can be done? Is not your Communion in one kind, published and decreed by your Pope and Council, for an Article of Faith? And is it in your Church's power to alter, and dispense with Articles of Faith at her pleasure? 
Bulla Pij (4) Act. 6. & Concil. Tried Sess. 13  Surely this Confession proves, that your Church can create new Articles of Belief, which elsewhere you deny; or else this is no Article of Faith, being contrary to the practice of the first and best ages; and by consequent, your infallible Pope and Council, are guilty of Error and Sacrilege in a high degree.  
For a conclusion of this point, you say the words, Drink ye all of this, (from whence we draw our succession in Doctrine) were spoken to the Apostles, and in them to Priests, not to the Laity.  
By this reason who seethe not, but you may aswell take the Bread from the Lay people as the Cup, for that also was given only to the Apostles? but if the Cup were proper for the Priests only, why do you deny it to your Non-conficient Priests? do they stand in the place of Lay people? Nay more, were not all Non-conficients at the time of Christ's Institution? what strange shifts and evasions hath your Church, to uphold the Novelty of your faith? I will give you but one testimony of Antiquity: There is (saith St. chrysostom) where the Priests differ nothing from the people, 
Chrys. 18. in 2. Corinth.  as when we must receive the dreadful mysteries; for it is not here, as it was in the old Law, where the Priest eats one part, and the people another, neither was it lawful for the people to be partaker of those things of which the Priest was; but now it is not so, but rather one Body is proposed to all, and one Cup (to all.)  
To pass by innumerable authorities of the Ancients, which you know are full in our behalf, I will shut up this haereticall point of doctrine (for such is the foundation of it) with a testimony of your own side. 
Gerard. Lorichius de Missa publica proroganda. p. mihi.  There are some false Catholics that fear not to stop the Reformation of the Church, what they can; these spare no blasphemy, lest that other part of the Sacrament should be restored to the Lay people: for (say they) Christ spoke, drink ye all of this, only to the Apostles; but the words of the Mass be these, Take and eat ye all of this: Here I would know of them whether this were spoken only to the Apostles: then must lay men abstain likewise from the Element of bread; which to say, is an heresy, yea, a pestilent and detestable blasphemy. It is therefore consequent that both these words. (Eat ye, Drink ye) were spoken to the whole Church.  
Thus your Ancient Bishop of Rome termed your half Communion a Sacrilege, and this latter Author of your own, terms it an heresy, and a pestilent Blasphemy; and this may serve to prove your descent from the Haeretikes the Manichees in this point.  
From your half Communion, you proceed to your Invocation of Angels, which I derived from the Haeretikes Angelici; and for answer to them, you say, they were Haeretikes swarving from the rule of the Catholic faith by excess, that is, honouring Angels more than their due.  
And this is your very case, for you do not only honour them, but religiously worship them, and call upon them. I will compare your worship with theirs, and let the Reader judge, if you be not the children of those haereticall Authors called Angelici. St. Austin saith, 
Angelici in Angelorum cultu inclinati. Aug. de haeres. c. 35. Angelici vocati quia Angelos colunt. Isid. Orig. in l. 8. c. 5. Rhem. Annot. in Apoc. 19 Sect. 4.  that those haeretikes were inclined to the worship of Angels; or as Isidore noteth, they were called Angelici, because they did worship Angels. The one saith, they were but inclined to worship, the other saith, they did worship. On the other side you teach, that there is a religious reverence, honour, and adoration, which is not to be denied to Angels, nay more, you make it a point of Faith, and have decreed that the Saints and Angels reigning with Christ are to be worshipped and prayed unto. 
Art. 8. in Bulla Pij. 4.  Thus whereas the ancient Haeretikes were but inclined to adoration, your men have made it a doctrinal determination flatly to adore them; and whereas they did worship them with a religious honour, (as a custom learned from the Heathen Philosophers) you receive it as a Dogmatic resolution of your Faith, delivered by your Trent Fathers; and surely in this if there be any excess in the worship, it is in yourselves.  
Again, those Haeretikes learned their lesson from the Gentiles; For Celsus the Philosopher had said of the Angels, 
Orig. lib. 8. contrà Celsum.  that they belong to God, and in that respect we are to put our trust in them, and make Oblations to them according to the Laws, and pray unto them that they may be favourable untous: And is not this your very doctrine? and yet these men (say you) swerve from the rule of the Catholic faith. Observe then what was the Catholic doctrine of those times; Origen returns his answer in the name of all true believers, 
Idem Ibid.  Away with Celsus council, saying, that we must pray to Angels, and let us not so much as afford any little audience to it. Again, St. chrysostom was living in the fourth age, when Apostrophes began to be used to Saints and Angels, yet he telleth us, it was the Devil's doing to draw men unto the calling upon Angels; These (saith he) be the enchantments of the Devils, though he be an Angel, 
Chrys. in 1. Cor. Homil. 1.  though an Archangel, though they be Cherubins, endure it not; For, neither will those powers themselves admit it, but reject it, when they see their Lord dishonoured; I have favoured thee, saith he, and have said, call upon me; and dost thou dishonour him with calling upon others? This agrees with the doctrine of Theodoret, showing, 
Theod. in Coloss. 3.  that the Synod of Laodicea following that rule, made a Law, that they should not pray unto Angels, nor forsake our Lord jesus Christ: and accordingly, they decreed it with a curse, Christians ought not to forsake the Church of God, and departed aside, 
Concil. Lao. dic. Can. 35. Anno 364.  and invocate Angels, and make meetings, which are things forbidden. If any man therefore be found to give himself to this privy Idolatry, let him be accursed. 
Merlin Edit. 1530. fol. 68 Crab Edit. 1538. fol. 216.  This Canon makes so plainly against your Church doctrine, that both Merlin and Crabbe (as I have showed) have turned the word Angelos into Angulos, and so by transposition of a letter, say, we must not leave the Church of God, and have recourse to (Angles) or corners. 
Heiron. Epist. ad Riparium.  And St. Heirom at the same time opposed Vigilantius, and professeth of himself and the Catholic Christians of his time, We do not adore or worship the Relics of Martyrs, no nor the Sun, nor Moon, nor Angels, nor Archangels, nor Cherubins, nor See raphins, nor any name that is named in this world, or in the world to come, lest we should serve the creature, rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever, You see then, by these few observations, that you are righth descended from the Haeretikes in this point, and accordingly you have swerved (with them) from the Catholic faith by excess; Wherefore I will conclude this Invocation, with that memorable passage of St. Austin, 
August. lib. Confess. 10. c. 42.  Whom should I find that might reconcile me unto thee? should I have gone unto the Angels, with what prayer? with what Sacraments? Many endeavouring to return unto thee, and not being able to do it by themselves, as I hear, have tried these things, and have fallen into the desire of curious visions, and were accounted worthy of illusions.  
From your Angel-like or Angelical predecessors, you proceed to the Cathari or Puritan. These were Novations (say you) who out of pride and self conceits, as if they were more clean and holy, did condemn Catholics. And do not your Cloister Monks so conceive of themselves, who believe they do more than God commanded, and that they can supererrogate; and do they not condemn the Reformed Catholics as the Novatians did? To come nearer to you, is not the proud generation of Merit-mongers derived from the Catharists? 
Epiph. haeres. 59  But (saith Epiphanius) whilst these men call themselves Puritan, by this very ground they prove themselves to be impure; for whosoever pronounceth himself to be pure, doth therein absolutely condemn himself to be impure.  
Again, touching your Predecessors, who for bad Marriage, I cited (out of Epiphanius, and St. Austin) the Haeretikes Tatiani, and the Manichees; But say you, That they did disallow it, especially in Priests, I do not find it in Epiphanius. It is true, neither did I cite him for it, but I cited Saint Austin in the Margin, which you wittingly omitted. 
Aug. ep. 74.  Yet both Authors declare the Haeretikes to be founders of your doctrine. 
Continentiam viro hic praedicat, nuptias autem scortationem & corruptionem putat. Epiph. haeres. 46. & 47. p. mihi 93.95. Auditores eorum ex carnibus vescuntur, & si voluerint uxores habent, quorum nihil faciunt qui vocantur electi. Aug. ep. 74. Qui cum uxore exercent carnale commercium in carne sunt & Deo placere non pessunt, sancti esse non possunt. Dist. 82. cap. Proposuisti.  Epiphanius shows that the Tatiani had two proper marks of your Church; for their first Leader, Tatianus accounted of Marriage, as whoredom and corruption, and forbade the eating of meats. St. Austin likewise tells us that the Manichees did permit their hearers to eat flesh, to use husbandry, and to marry wives, but those which were called Elect, did use none of those things. Now if those Elect were not the hearers, they must needs be their Teachers, and consequently their Priests; And thus you have two forts of Haeretikes to defend your Monastic life, the one (viz.) the Tatiani, who agree with Pope Innocent, saying, They which live in the flesh cannot please God, neither can they be holy. The other (viz.) the Manichees who permit Marriage to all, but to their Priests.  
Lastly, touching the Collyridian Haeretikes, so called from the Collyrides or cakes which certain women used to offer to the blessed Virgin; I say again, they were your first Leaders, and particularly for this reason, which you allege to excuse yourselves, Because they did exceed the measure of honour due to our blessed Lady. 
Pag. 99  And as touching the Antidicomarianitae (with which heresy you charge us) they were such who out of malice to the blessed Virgin, being puffed up with pride or envy (saith Epiphanius) would possess men, 
Epiph. haeres. 78 p. mihi. 244.  that after the birth of our Saviour, joseph knew Marie, which never Protestant to my knowledge, ever taught, or thought. Therefore by way of prevention, you put this as a scandal upon our Church, to excuse your own; But the truth is, we ascribe honour of pre-eminence unto that glorious person, before all other vessels of blessedness; we proclaim it with the Angel Gabriel that she was highly favoured, and blessed among women; 
Luke 1.28.  but withal we testify with Epiphanius, Christ said unto her, woman, what have I to do with thee? my hour is not yet come; lest any man should think our Lady was of greater excellency, 
Epiph. l. 3. haeres. 79. contr. Collyridianos.  he called her woman, as it were prophesying of the kinds and sects of heresies that were to come into the world; lest any man having too great an opinion of that Holy Saint, should fall into this heresy and into the dotage of the same. And as touching her perpetual virginity, that golden saying of St. Hierome against Helvidius we unfeignedly profess and testify with heart and voice, 
Hleron. contrà Helvidium.  That God was borne of a Virgin, we believe because we read it; That Mary had Matrimonial company with her husband after her delivery, we do not believe, because we read it not. And to make good my assertion, that you tread in the steps of those haeretikes, which did exceed the measure of honour due unto our Lady, first look upon Epiphanius, who opposeth this heresy, he tells us, Although Mary be beautiful, 
Epiph. l. 3. haeres. 79.  and holy, and honourable, yet is she not to be adored; For these women worshipping St. Marry, renew again the Sacrifice of Wine mingled in the honour of the Goddess Fortune, and prepare a Table for the Devil, and not for God, as it is written in the Scriptures, Their women boult flower, and their children gather sticks to make fine Cakes, in the honour of the Queen of Heaven. Therefore let such women be rebuked by the Prophet jeremy, and let them no more trouble the world, and let them not say, we worship the Queen of Heaven.  
Here we see, the words which were spoken of the Heathenish Idols, were applied by Epiphanius unto the Mother of Christ, not to deface the blessed Virgin, but to declare the fond errors of the Haeretikes. Now let us compare this doctrine with yours. Bernardinus de Busto, 
Adornamentum regni terreni est, quod habeat Regem & Reginam &c. Bernard. de Busto part 9 Serm 2. Bb. Ushers answer to a shalling. p. mihi. (437.)  who was living almost 200. years since, tells us, That it is for an ornament of an earthly Kingdom, that it should have both a King and a Queen, and therefore when any King hath not a wife, his subjects often request him to take one. Hereupon the eternal King and Omnipotent Emperor minding to adorn the Kingdom of Heaven above, did frame the Blessed Virgin, to the end that he might make her the Lady and Empress of his Kingdom and Empire, that the Prophecy of David may be verified, saying unto her in the Psalm, upon thy right hand did sit the Queen in clothing of Gold. He tells us further, that your Pope Sixtus the fourth, granted an Indulgence of twelve thousand years for every time, that a man in the state of grace should repeat this short Salutation of the Virgin, Hail most holy Mary, the Mother of God (the Queen of Heaven) the Gate of Paradise, the Lady of the world; thou art a singular and p●re Virgin, thou didst receive Christ without sin, thou didst bear the Creator and Saviour of the world: Deliver me from all evil, and pray for my sins. Amen.  
Look upon Gregory the Great, printed at Antwerp, 
Apud johannem Keerbergium. 1615. Tom. 1. p. mihi 490.  Anno 1615. and there you shall find the Mitre of Pope Sylvester the first, who was living Anno 314. with the picture of the blessed Virgin, and Christ in her arms, figured with this Motto, Ave Regina Coeli; Hail Queen of Heaven. And this was in the same age, wherein Epiphanius complains of the women's custom in his days, We worship the Queen of Heaven.  
Lastly, 
Bellar. in Praef. de Eccles. Militante.  Bellarmine himself doth term her (Regina Coeli) the Queen of Heaven: which attribute is rebuked, and forbidden by Hieremie, saith that ancient Father, and in his days condemned for a Heresy. 
Constituta quippe est super omnem creaturam, et quicueque jesu curuat genu, matriquoque primus supplicat, & filij gloriam cum matre non tam communem i●di●o quam eandem. Arnold. Carnotens. tract. de laudibus Virgins.  And as touching the excessive honour (which you complain of) that the Heretics gave unto our Lady, I verily believe, if your Church's Magnificats be compared with theirs, they will be found to exceed them fare. For first, the same Author testifies, That she is constituted over every Creature; and whosoever boweth his knee unto JESUS, doth fall down also, and supplicate unto his Mother, so that the glory of the Son may be judged not so much, to be common with the Mother, as to be the very same.  
Neither are your men contented to make her the Queen of Heaven, and to make her equal to him, whom she herself termed her Saviour and Redeemer; but your Schooleman Bonaventure goes in a high strain, and in one of his Orisons prescribed to her, he saith, O Empress, 
jure Matris impera tuo dilectiss●mo filio, nostro jesu Christo. Bonav. Corona. B. Mariae Virginis Operum. Tom. 6. edit. Rom. An. 1588.  and our most kind Lady, by the authority of a Mother, command thy most beloved Son, our Lord jesus Christ, (or as we may read in the 15th Psalm of your Lady's Psalter) Incline the countenance of thy Son upon us, compel him by thy prayers, to have mercy upon us sinners. But that which is most remarkable, the Psalms of David, which were wholly framed and dedicated to the honour of our Lord, E tranverso, are all applied to the name and honour of our Lady: as for Instance; 
Psalter Bonav. edit. Partsiis. An. 1596. Psal. 15.31.56.71.94.  Preserve me o Lady, for in thee have I put my trust. Blessed are they whose hearts do love thee, o Virgin Mary, their sins by thee shall mercifully be washed away. Have mercy upon me, o Lady, have mercy upon me, because my heart is prepared to search out thy will, and in the shadow of thy wings will I rest. Give the King thy judgements, o Lord, and thy mercy to the Queen his Mother. O come let us sing unto our Lady, let us make a joyful noise to Marry our Queen, that brings salvation. And for a conclusion, Let every spirit, 
Psal. 150.  or every thing that hath breath, praise our Lady.  
After all these, and many such like passages of excessive honour, attributed to our Lady, your Bernardinus at last concludes: Truly, if it be lawful to speak it, thou in some respect didst greater things to God, than God himself did to thee and to all mankind. 
Volo ergo ego dicere quod tu ex humilitate reticuisti. Tu enim folus cecinisti. Quia fecit mihi magna qui potens est, ego verò cano & dico. Quia tu fecisti majora ci qui potens est. Bernardin. de Bust. Martial. part. 6. Serm. 2. memb. 3.  I will therefore speak that, which out of thy humility thou hast passed in silence. For thou only didst sing, He that is mighty hath done to me great things; but I do sing and say, That thou hast done greater things to him that is mighty.  
Now I appeal to yourself, and to all your fellow-Jesuites, whether your Hyperdulia to the blessed Virgin be not transcendent, or (to use your own words) doth not exceed the measure of honour due unto our Lady? And consequently, whether in this particular, upon your own confession, you are not descended from the Collyridian Heretics, your first parents?  
This is so apparently true, that you know no way to free yourselves from the guilt of Heresy, but by waving the question, telling us, The line should be drawn along by a continued succession, from the beginning to the end: whereas I told you at first, I did not undertake to prove that those Heretics, or your Church, had a perpetual succession in person and doctrine; but to show, How near affinity you have with their adulterate issue. (For those were my very words;) and thereupon I concluded, that you had no succession in person and doctrine: but let us hear your answer? This is so false, and so apparently false, as that it is not to be doubted, but he that shall aver it, will make no soruple of any lie, how lewd soever. Thus you.  
Good words, and found proofs would better become men of your profession. If you affirm that you have a Lineal Succession, the proof lies on your side: and when I shall see it as plainly proved, as spoken, I shall readily confess my error, till then, let me tell you, it is not your Catalogue of Popes, which you say are sold, and printed at London, that can make a firm agreement of succession in Faith. For by that reason, our Queen Elizabeth of blessed memory, succeeded Queen Mary in Faith; and consequently, our Faith must be good by your own confession. By that reason, Ahaz and Manasses, that shut up the door of the Temple, succeeded David in the Faith. By that reason, Pope Liberius the Arrian, succeeded julius a Catholic Bishop, in the Faith. By that reason, your Cardinal Poole succeeded Bishop Cranmer our Protestant Martyr, in the Faith. This (most firm Argument) therefore (as you call it) is but weak and infirm; and accordingly it was resolved by Saint Ambrose, and the ancient Fathers, 
Ambr. de Poenit. cap.  They have not the succession of Peter, that want the faith of Peter.  
In fine, if for no other cause, yet for this alone, your succession in Faith is interrupted, because you yourself confess, that some Articles which are received as points of Faith in your Church, are different from those which were received in the Primitive Churches; and therefore want succession in the true doctrine. And that you may yet farther know there was an interruption of the true Faith in succeeding Ages, 
Genebr. Chrone. lib. 4.  your own Genebrard confesseth, that there were fifty Popes succeeding one another, rather Apostatical, than Apostolical. Cardinal Bellarmine in his Chronologie, tells us of six and twenty Schisms in the Papacy, wherein it was questionable betwixt the Popes and Antipopes, who were the true successors of Peter. Your Cardinal Baronius tells us, that base Harlots bear all the sway at Rome, 
Baron. An. 912.  and gave Bishoprics at their pleasures, and intruded their Paramours into Peter's chair, false Popes, whose names are written in the Catalogue of Popes, only to note and design the times. It is not then your Catalogue of Popes (which you so much brag of) that can free you from Heresy, or make good your succession in the Faith: and therefore I will conclude as I first began; The pedigree of the Romish Faith is drawn down from the ancient Heretics, and the Protestant Faith from Christ and his Apostles.   

CHAP. VIII. The sum of his Answer to Sect. 8.  

1. That I allege but three Authors, Adrian, Coster, and Harding; and them falsely, or impertinently, for three several points of the Protestant Faith, none for the universality of it in general, as the title promiseth.  
2. That it is not sufficient to name some in the Roman Church, who held some of our opinions, but that I must show a distinct company from the Roman, making a Church.  
3. That it is not to purpose, to show the Antiquity and Universality of those points wherein we agree with you, but in those other points wherein we disagree.  
4. That if it were granted, the Protestant Church in former ages lay hid in the bosom of the Roman Church, that proveth it to have been invisible, rather than visible.   
The Reply. IN the eighth Section, I assumed to prove the Antiquity, and Universality of our Religion, by and with the consenting testimonies of the Roman Church: you tell me, It is a bold and unlikely adventure, and it is shameless and impudent.  
These words be like a house full of smoke without fire: but what is the occasion of all this heinous complaint? Forsooth, the Knight bringeth not one Author, I say, not one for the Universality and Antiquity of his Church. And is this so grievous an accusation? Surely, I thought there was none so ignorant or impudent, as to deny both the Universality and Antiquity of three Creeds; two Sacraments instituted by Christ; the two and twenty books of Canonical Scriptures; of the first four General Counsels; of the Apostolic Traditions; of the Ancient Liturgies; of the Ordination of Priests and Deacons. These are our Tenets, and these were the particular Instances which I made: and to bring Authors for the proof of these, as if we made a doubt of that which all true Christians did generally receive and believe, I say with St. Austin, 
Insolentissimae dementiae. Aug.  It were a sign of most insolent madness.  
But admit I should produce some Authors for proof of this general belief, would their Authority free me from your terms of Shameless, and impudent adventure? Certainly not: for (say you) If he should have one, two, or three, or ten men, it would not be sufficient for him, unless he have the Authority of the Catholic Church, or Church of Rome.  
To cite many Authors, or to bring none, then is all alike to you; for in your doom, nothing will free me from the name, and punishment due to Heresy, but the authority of the Church: and yet in this, you have granted me more than I could expect; for you have given me liberty to take my authority from the Church, so it be from the Catholic, or the Roman. And hereby you have made your Roman Church distinct from the Catholic, which is most true; which, both you yourself, and most of your fellow Jesuits have made all one, and confirmed by the title of (Roman Catholic) in all your writings.  
This being granted, I proceed to the rest of your exceptions. In this Section (say you) he bringeth only three Catholic Authors, Adrian, Costerus, and Harding, but no word for Antiquity, or universality. Thus you.  
He that shall read my Section in Via tuta, with this your Answer, must needs confess that you deal not fairly, nor ingeniously with me: for sometimes you leap from the beginning of a Chapter to the end, than you return again to the beginning, being willing to conceal or confound the truth of my Assertions. You so mingle my words with your own in the same Character, that a prudent Reader can hardly discern mine from yours: but most usual it is with you to cry down my words with bitter passages, and decline the question in all. As for Instance, in this Section, whereas I said, the Church of Rome doth confess the Antiquity, and Universality of our Religion long before Luther, I instanced in our three Creeds, and the rest before named. One while you cry out of my impudency, that I cite no Authors; another while, that if I did cite them, they would not serve my turn: but you never mention either the Creeds, or Scriptures, or Counsels, or any of the points which you well knew had Antiquity, and Universality in the name and opinion of all Christians. After that, you fly to the later end of my Section, and there you tell me, I cite but three Authors, and yet none prove the Antiquity or Universality of our Faith. Then you go bacl again, and you tell the Reader, I say nothing here of the man's notable cunning and falsehood, in making him believe, as if we did excuse ourselves in those things whereof they accuse us.  
If such extravagant excursions and reproaches you call a Reply, or a Catholic Answer, I will lay my finger on my mouth, and say with your Cardinal, Qui decipi vult, decipiatur.  
Briefly, the substance of my Assertion was this: The three Creeds, the Canonical Scriptures, the Apostolic Traditions, the four first general Counsels, and the rest were so generally received in the bosom of the Roman Church, that for that reason it might seem a senseless question, to demand where our Church was before Luther.  
Next I shown that the positive Doctrines of our Church (mentioned in our (39) Articles) were contained in a very few points, and those also had Antiquity and Universality; then I shown that those doctrines which they obtruded upon us, were but Additions and Negative Tenets in our Articles, and that many of those additions were condemned, or at least excused, by their own men: And I instanced in three Authors before mentioned, for three several points of their Doctrine; and this is the substance and true meaning of that Section; and thus much by way of advertisement to the moderate Reader. Now to answer you distinctly to that you have produced confusedly.  
Your first exception is touching Pope Adrian the sixth: you say, It is not as Sr. Humphrey putteth it, to wit if the consecrated Bread be Christ, but if it be rightly consecrated.  
And do not you still by Adrian's confession excuse your adoration, by implying a condition? and is it not all one according to your doctrine? For if it be rightly consecrated, it is Christ, if not, it is a Crust, and no man amongst your Communicants knoweth what it is, because he knoweth not the Priest's intention. Take it therefore which way you will, yet my assertion stands true; we condemn you for adoring the Elements, for ought you know, of bread and wine, because it doth depend upon the intention of the Priest, whether Christ be there or no; but yet you cannot condemn us for adoring Christ's, rend body in the Heavens: and however the Priests do consecrate, yet (saith Gerson) when the host is adored, that condition is ever at lest to be supposed (if it be rightly consecrated) that is, 
Gers. compend. Theol. Tit. de tribus virtut. p. 111.  if it be truly the body of Christ; And this is that Pope Adrian hath delivered by your own confession, and therefore they are not to be cleared from Idolatry, because they intended to worship one God, (as indeed there was but one God) but because they adored him there where he was not, and in that manner as they supposed him to be. The case (saith Catharinus) is like in the host not consecrated: 
Catarrh. Annot. in Caiet. p. mihi 134.  For God and Christ is not adored simply, but as he is existing under the forms of bread and wine. If therefore he be not there, but it be found that Divine worship is given to a creature instead of Christ, there is Idolatry also: For even in this regard they were Idolaters who adored Heaven, or any other thing, supposing with themselves that they adored in it the Divinity, whom they called the soul of the world. Compare then the certainty of your faith, with ours (which is the point in question) and tell me if in this we are not more certain and safe than you can be. First, your own Bellarmine tells us, 
Bell. de justific. l. 3. c. 8.  that none can be certain by the certainity of faith that he doth receive a true Sacrament. No man (saith Andrea's Vega) can believe assuredly, that he receiveth the least part of the Sacrament, 
Vega l. 9 de justific. c. 17.  and this is so surely to be credited, as it is apparent that we live; And both give one and the same reason for it: For there is no way, except it be by Revelation, that we can know the intention of the Minister, either by outward appearance, or by certainty of faith. From this dangerous consequence, we condemn your adoration, and resolve to let you know from your own men, 
Th. Salistar. de arte Praedicandi. c. 25.  that No man, be he never so simple, or never so wise, ought precisely to believe that this is the body of our Lord that the Priest hath consecrated, but only under this condition, if all things concerning the consecration be done as appertaineth; for otherwise he shall avouch a creature to be the Creator, which were Idolatry.  
Now as this way in the general is uncertain and dangerous; so likewise there are many other ways, which may easily occasion this Idolatry; and therefore you cannot deny us to be in the more certain and safe way. As for instance johannes de Burgo, who was Chancellor of Cambridge about (200.) years since, gives us to understand that a Priest may fail in his intention many ways. As for example, 
Pupilla Oculi c. 3. & 5. etc.  If the Bread be made of any other then wheaten flower, which may possibly happen, or if there be too much water in quantity, that it overcomes and altars the nature of wine; if the wine be changed into vinegar, and therefore cannot serve for consecration; If there be thirteen cakes upon the Table, and the Priest for his consecration determine only upon twelve, in that case not one of them all is Consecrated: Lastly, if the Priest dissemble, or leave out the words of Consecration, or if he forget it, or mind it not, in all and every of these ways, there is nothing Consecrated, and consequently the people giving divine honour to the Sacrament all Bread or Cup, commit flat Idolatry.  
When I hear the Apostle proclaim to all Christians, that he which doubteth is condemned already; I cannot choose but pity the state and condition of that miserable man, who hath a doubtful, perplexed, and uncertain faith, who taketh all upon trust, and upon the report, sometimes of an Hypocrite, sometimes of a malicious Priest, who hath no intention at all to administer the true Sacrament. 
History of Trent.  For (saith your Trent history) if a Priest having charge of four or five hundred souls were an Infidel, but a formal Hypocrite, and in absolving the Penitent, baptising of children, and Consecrating the Eucharist, had an intention not to do that which the Church doth, it must be said that the children are damned, the penitent not absolved, and that all remain without the fruit of the Communion.  
Now let the Reader judge which doctrine is most certain and safe, either that of your Church which may occasion flat Idolatry in the worshipper, or our sursum corda, with hearts and eyes lifted up to Heaven, where we adore our Saviour Christ in his bodily presence according to the Article of your Faith and ours; and this is agreed on both sides to be without fear or peril of Idolatry.  
Lastly, as if you were guilty of false accusations, you say, suppose Adrian hath erred in this, or in any other point, doth it follow that he agreeth with you in all other? Then you tell a story of the Pope's Bull against Luther.  
You quarrel with your own shadow, for I had no relation at all to your Pope, nor made any instance of him more than in a Marginal Note; but since you stand so much upon the justification of his Doctrine, harken I pray wherein he maketh for you, and wherein he is wholly against you. 
Agrippa de vanit. scient. c. 64. p. mihi. cap. de Lenonia.  Your Agrippa tells us, that in these latter times Pope Adrian erected a most famous Stews at Rome. I confess in this particular you may challenge him wholly for your own; But whereas you say he detested Luther's doctrine as most wicked and damnable, you might have added likewise, he wished a reformation of his own, and withal taught that doctrine for which you condemn both Luther and all his adherents for Haeretikes. 
History of Trent. l. 1. pag. 25. 26. & 30.  First, witness his Nurse tio Francisco Chiericato, who had Commission from his Holiness, To acknowledge that the confusion of the Church, was caused especially by the sins of Priests and Prelates, confessing that some abominations, some years since, were committed even in the Holy See, that there were many abuses in spiritual things, so that it may be said, that the infirmity is passed from the head, to the members, from the Popes, to the inferior Pelates; And lastly, he resolves himself that he would use all diligence that the Church of Rome should be first reform; and the rather, because he saw all the world did earnestly desire it. And that you may know the Church of Rome, as well as the Court of Rome was fallen into errors and heresies, he himself publisheth, that he heard it related of his Predecessor, Pope john the 22th. That he would have induced the University of Paris to believe, that the souls of the righteous do not see God face to face; and that no man should take his degree in Divinity, unless he should first swear to maintain that perstiferous. Heresy, and perpetually to cleave unto it. And that you may be assured he was not wholly yours, he affirmeth for certain, one Position which would confound all Popery, 
Adrian in 4. de Sacram. Confir. sub finem.  (viz.) That the Pope may err, even in things touching the Faith, and avouch that which is Heresy y his determination, or decree. And thus your Pope Adrian complains of many abominable things in his own Church: he tells us, his Predecessor was reputed a Heretic: he confesseth, that both himself, and all his Successors after him, were in possibility of erring, even in matters of Faith: and it is very probable in his erring opinion, he began to erect that most noble Brothell-house in his own See. And thus much touching the Marginal note of Pope Adrian.  
Your second exception is touching Costerus, occasioned by these words, We accuse them for taking away the Cup from the Lay-people; they excuse it, that it was not taken up by the commandment of the Bishops, but is crept in, the Bishops winking thereat (saith Costerus.) In answer to this, say you, I would know what excuse you can find for such a notorious lie.  
Let the Reader judge, whether this modesty of yours deserve an Anser, or whether this saying of Costerus may not be termed, an Excuse. Howbeit (say you) this custom came in, not so much by the commandment of the Bishop, as by the people's use and practise.] Well, take it as you would have it; yet, I say, his meaning must be understood not at all by the Commandment of the Bishops, for that which is done by Command cannot be said to have crept in. But the truth is, under colour of quarrelling with words, and giving me the lie, you seek to dazzle the eyes of your Reader, and when you omit the weightier things of your Church, than you question, Where is Costerus testimony for Antiquity, Universality, Certainty, and Safety, when as you know well this testimony was not cited for that end; And thus you strain at a Gnat, and swallow a Camel. Let us hear the rest of your verbal discourse.  
Since you are so shameless as to say, That we do not condemn you for receiving in both kinds, Look into the Council of Trent, and see whether you do not find a heavy curse, etc. Thus you.  
And are you sure that your Council hath sufficiently cursed us, For following Christ's example, and receiving in both kinds; for those were my very words, Following Christ's example: (which you altogether omitted.) If therefore we have altered any part of Christ's Institution, I say again, Curse on in God's name, and let your curses take effect: but if the celebration of our Mysteries be answerable to his will and word, that first ordained them, you curse not us whom you would hurt, but him that your cursed tongues cannot hurt, which is, God to be blessed for ever. But let us hear your Counsels? The Council of Trent (say you) lays a heavy curse against any that shall say, that all and every of the Faithful aught, by the precept of God, or necessity of salvation, to receive both kinds.  
This cursing Council toucheth not my Assertion: for this Canon speaketh of the Precept of Christ, whereas I spoke of his Example only. 
Bell. de Euch, 〈◊〉. cap. 7.  and for proof of this, we have Bellarmine's testimony as well as ours: It is not to be doubted, but that is best, and sittest to be practised, which Christ himself hath done. And therefore my Assertion still stands good, (viz) You do not condemn us for following Christ's example.  
Touching the Council of Constance, it condemns not our receiving in both kinds, but prevents the condemnation of her own. They decreed their half Communion with this Caution, 
Concil. Constant. Sess. 13.  that If any should obstinately maintain that it was unlawful, or erroneous, to receive in one kind, he ought to be punished, and driven out as an Heretic. And howsoever you would seem to condemn our Assertion, yet you condemn not our practice as unlawful; for the Council of Basil, not twenty years after your Decree in the Council of Constance, granted the use of the Cup to the Bohemians.  
Your third exception is touching Mr. Harding, who in the question betwixt him and Bishop jewel, of Private Mass, stands not to justify his solitary, or private Mass, but rather excuseth it in this manner; 
Iuels Articles of Private Mass. pag.  That it is through their own default and negligence, whereof the godly and faithful people, have since the time of the Primitive Church much complained. This (say you) hath no sense, for here is a Relative (Their) without an Antecedent. And let me tell you, this is a poor Pedantical observation; for to spend many lines about such toys and trifling words, and to pass by the main sinew & strength of the Citation; this is to confess in plain terms, that you cannot justify your doctrine: and the rather it appears in this particular point, wherein Master Harding doth not only condemn the people for their neglect, but excuseth hereby your Church's ordinance in general, as being not guilty of the coldness of the people. Nay more, he plainly intimates the Antiquity, and Universality of our Doctrine in these words; 
jewel. Divis. 7. p. mihi, 11.  In case the people might be stirred to such devotion; as to dispose themselves worthily to receive their Howsel every day with the Priest, as they did in the Primitive Church; what would these men have to say? And as touching Safety, and Certainty of our Doctrine, he freely expresseth his thoughts, and liking of our Communion of Priest and People, saying; It were to be wished, 
jewel in Art. 1. Divis. 9 p. 17.  as oftentimes as the Priest doth celebrate the high Sacrifice, that there were some, who worthily disposed, might receive their Rites with him, and be partakers Sacramentally, of the Body and Blood of Christ with him: and he gives a reason for it, 
Idem, Divis. 25. p. mihi, 45.  Because it would be more commendable, and more godly on the Church's part. And thus much touching your three Authors, whom (say you) I have so egregiously belied.  
Touching your worshipping of Images, I refer it to his proper Section. And whereas we charge you with flat Idolatry in the adoration of the Sacrament, of Relics, of Images, and the like; howsoever, I say, you excuse yourselves with the manner of your adoration, yet (to our endless comfort be it spoken) you cannot charge us in the Positive Doctrine of our Church; no, not with the least suspicion of Idolatry. This I told you before, and (blessed be God) you have not wherewith to charge us in your Reply. But you say, It is far greater evil for you to be truly charged with Heresy, than for us to be charged with Idolatry: yet neither you, nor all your fellow-Jesuits could ever prove us guilty of either. But what may we think of your Church, which is justly charged, and highly guilty of both? Your Popes (which the Jesuits resolve to be the Church) are condemned for Heretics by your Counsels, acknowledged Heretics by the Popes themselves, and condemned of Heresy by your best learned Divines. Your worship of Images and Saints, concludes in flat Idolatry; and in particular (by the Doctrine of your own Church) the adoration of the Sacramental Bread and Cup, (for want of a right intention) becomes an Idol in the Temple. These things I have in part proved, which in place convenient, shall be more fully handled hereafter.  
But it is observable, after I had ended my Section with this point of Idolatry, I say, after this conclusion, you fly bacl to the middle of the chapter, and now question me where our Church was before Luther: but when I answered that from your addition, and Articles of Faith, The question doth truly result upon yourselves; Where was your Church? that is, where was your Trent Doctrine, and Articles of the Roman Creed, received de fide before Luther? You are so fare from showing it, that you cunningly suppressed these words, and not so much as mentioned them: and thus, one while suppressing the point in question; other while, by declining the true state of the question, you show your wit is better than your cause, and declare your Sophistry to be better than your Divinity.  
But to follow you bacl again, you say, We must show you a company of men in former times distinct from yours.  
It were no difficult matter, to show you many that did separate both from you, and the errors of your Church in former Ages. The Waldenses were a distinct company of Believers, and separate from your Church above 500 years since: Reinerius the Inquisitor confesseth upon their examination, that he found they had in one Diocese, one and forty Schools, in another, ten; 
B. pp. Tom. 13. Reiner. contrà Wald. cap. 3. p. mihi, 299.  and withal, reckons up forty Churches by name in Lombardy, in Province in France, and other Kingdoms; he protesteth that amongst all Sects, There was none more pernicious to the Church of Rome, than it, and that for three causes: First, 
Ibid.  because it is of longer continuance; for some say it hath continued from the time of Sylvester, (which is three hundred years after Christ) others say, from the time of the Apostles. Secondly, because it is more Universal, for there is scarce any Country, wherein this Sect hath not crept. Thirdly, whereas all other sorts blaspheme God, this Sect hath a great show of godliness: for they live justly before men, they believe all rightly concerning God, and the Articles of the Creed; only they speak evil of the Church of Rome, and hate it; and by this means draw multitudes to their belief after them. Thus if you require Antiquity for their Doctrine, they derive it either from Christ, or from Sylvester, 300. years after Christ; if Universality, all Countries were filled with their Doctrine; if good life, they lived well before men, and believed all rightly concerning God, and the Articles of their Faith; and this the force of truth hath extorted from your grand Inquisitor.  
Augustus Thuanus Presicent of the Parliament of Paris, 
Thuan. hist. Tom 1. 1550. p. 457. & 465.  tells us, that these who are commonly called Waldenses, Picards, Albigenses, Cathari, Lollards, though by their difference of place they had divers names, yet they held the same faith, which Wicliffe held in England, and hus in Bohemia, and gathered strength at the coming of Luther, especially in the Caparienses, who professed a Religion agreeing almost in all things with Martin Luther: But withal he ingeniously professeth that Cardinal Sadolet did examine them, and found many things maliciously feigned against them.  
Poplinerius saith, that about the year 1100. these men did publish their doctrine differing but a little from the Protestants, 
Poplin. Hist. Franc. l. 1. Bb. Usher de statu. Eccl. c. 8. p. 209.  not only through France, but also through all the coasts of Europe: For both French, Spaniards, English, Scots, Italians, Germans, Bohemians, Saxons, Polonians, Lituanians, and other nations do peremptorily defend it to this very day; And by reason they separated from the doctrines of the Roman Church, Pope Innocent the third, about the year 1198. authorised certain Monks, who had the full power of the Inquisition in their hands, to deliver the people by thousands into the Magistrates hands, and the Magistrates to the Executioners. 
Histor. of the Wald. c. 3.  St. Dominick who instituted the order of the begging Monks, called Dominicans was a great persecutor of them and their doctrine. The Mother of this Monk saith your martyrologue, 
martyrologue in the life of St. Dominick P. (mihi) 556.  before he was yet borne, dreamt that she was delivered of a whelp, with a firebrand in his mouth, with which he set the whole world on fire; and your learned Doctors have interpreted this dream, that Dominick should be that dog that should vomit out the fire which should consume the Haeretikes. your infallible Pope likewise tells us, that he saw in his sleep the Church of St. John Lateran, to totter and ready to fall, 
Ibid. p. 562.  and that St. Dominick supported it, and held it up with his shoulders, signifying thereby, that he, and those of his order should do great good to the Catholic faith. And howsoever these reports may pass for dreams, yet this dog behaved himself so worthily in the persecution of those Christians, that from that time forward, the Monks of his Orders have been always employed in the Inquisition. 
Histor. Wald. c. 2.  But herein we may admire the great mercy and goodness of God unto this separate Church, that notwithstanding this grievous persecution, it was recorded by George morel, at that time a Pastor amongst the Waldenses, that there were then remaining according to common report, above eight hundred thousand persons that made profession of the same faith. And thus briefly I have given you one company of men in former times distinct from yours. If we look beyond those times; the Greek Church was likewise separate from yours above eight hundred years ago, and differed in the points of Transubstantiation, of Purgatory, of private Mass, of Prayer in an unknown tongue, of Marriage of Priests, of the Communion in both kinds, and the Pope's Supremacy, I say in all these they separated from your Church; and this Church, if you require Antiquity, is before Rome in time; if Universality, she hath larger bounds, and multitudes of people, most of the Patriarches, seven universal Counsels, the Greek tongue wherein the New Testament was written, inso much as your Bishop of Bitonto was not ashamed publicly to profess, It is our Mother Graecia, 
Concil. Trid. Episc. Bitont.  unto whom the Latin Church is beholding for all that ever she hath. And as touching the procession of the Holy Ghost, which your men say they deny (and therefore charge their Church with a known heresy) it may seem rather that this is an aspersion laid upon them then any just exception; 
Concil. Florent. Sess. 35.  For at the Council of Florence, about 200. years since, your Pope Eugenius answered the Graeoians, that he was well satisfied by them touching the procession of the Holy Ghost; and that you may know they agreed with us in the principal points of our doctrine, the Greek Patriarch congratulates with the reformed Churches in this manner. We give thanks to God, the Author of all grace, 
Patr. resp. 2. in init, & resp. 1. pag 148.  and we rejoice with many others, but especially in this, that in many things your doctrine is agreeable to our Church. For a conclusion, the Muscovites, Armenians, Egyptians, Aethiopians, and divers other countries and Nations (all members of the Greek Church) taught our doctrine from the Apostles time to ours. This is so true an evidence in our behalf, that Bellarmine, 
Bellarm. de ver. Dei. l. 2.6. ult. in fine.  as it were in disdain of the Churches, makes this answer; We are no more moved with the examples of Muscovites, Armenians, Egyptians, and Aethiopians, then with the examples of Lutherans, or Anabaptists, and Calvinists, for they are either Haeretikes or Schismatics. So that all Churches (be they never so Catholic and Ancient) if they subscribe not to the now Roman faith, are either Schismatical or Haereticall.  
Thus I have briefly shown you two sorts of Christians, who were distinct from you, and yet lived in the Communion of the Catholic Church. I shown you others also which lived and died in the bosom of the Roman Church, but as fare different in opinion from your now professed Faith, as those that went out from you. The first sort separated themselves from your Church and Doctrine, the latter continued in communion with you, but separated themselves from the errors of prevailing faction in your Church: the one sort you persecuted unto death, for the other you cut out their tongues for speaking truth.  
But you are not of it (say you) since the time you have begun to be against it. And this you would infer from Tertullian, That us out of the mild, fat, and profitable Olive, 
Tertull. de praescrip. c. 36.  the sour bastard Olive groweth; so have errors fructified out of the true Church, but became wild by untruth and lying, degenerating from the grain of truth, and so not yours; and this doth fully answer the matter (say you.) Surely if you compare the true and fruitful Olive to yourselves, and us unto the bastard, and wild Olive, the matter (as you say) will be easily answered: but this is to beg the point in question, neither indeed can it be granted to you, without a sin against the Holy Ghost. For the Spirit of God hath spoken it in particular to the Roman Church, that, Thou wert cut out of the Olive tree, which is wild by nature, 
Rom. 11.24.  and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good Olive tree. Now if the heresies and errors (which are compared to the wild Olive) have sprung out of that good Olive tree, into which you were first grafted, or if the wild Olive is now returned to its own nature, I will say to you, as sometimes Diogenes said to the Philosopher, A me incipias, & erit verus sillogismus, let the wild Olive be applied to your Church (as it ought to be) and the comparison will redound upon yourselves, and return into your own bosom.  
From the Communion with your Church, you question the Antiquity and Universality of those points wherein you differ from us; and you would have me show the denial of them to have been anciently and universally taught. 
Pag. 121.   
Your demand to the first is unreasonable; For it is sufficient for us, that we profess that Faith which was once given to the Saints; besides, those new Articles which you thrust upon the Church, are wholly yours, and the proof lies on your part to make good, as being properly your own: on the other side, to show the denial of them to have been anciently taught is unsensible; for the explicit denial of them could not be taught till such Articles were offered and obtruded to us, but the implicit denial we prove by the positive doctrines of the Ancient Fathers, which is incompatible with your new additions and corruptions.  
From the Doctrine in general, you descend into the particulars; and you say, one of our Sacraments is an empty piece of Bread, and a sup of wine. 
Pag. 123.  Hannibal of Carthage, 
Cicero de Oratore lib. 2.  when he heard Phormio the Orator talk pleasantly a long while together, being afterwards demanded what he thought of his Eloquence, made answer in this homely sort; Multos se vidisse deliros senes, sed qui magis quàm Phormio deliraret, vidisse neminem. I will leave the application to yourself, and the interpretation to the Reader, because you say I cannot translate Latin.  
Some truth or modesty I should gladly hear from you; but this is such an impudent Calumny, as Bellarmine himself would have been ashamed to have heard it fall from the Pen of any learned Papalin; hear therefore what your own men confess of Calvin and others, and what we profess in the name of our Church. Your F. Kellison saith of Calvin, 
Kellis. Surney. lib. 4. cap. 5. p. mihi, 229.  That if he did mean as he speaketh, he would not dispute with him, but would shake hands with him, as with a Catholic. And then he repeats Calvins words; I say that in the Mystery of the Supper, by the sign of Bread and Wine, is Christ truly delivered, yea, and his Body and his Blood. And a little before those words, he giveth the reason; Because, saith he, Christ's words, [This is my Body] are so plain, that unless a man will call God a deceiver, he can never be so bold as to say, that he setteth before us an empty Sign. This is likewise Bellarmine's confession of him; 
Bell, de Euch. lib. 1. cap. 1.  Non ergo vacuum & inane signum, It is no vain and empty sign. Thus you see your fellows and you agree like Harp and Harrow; you say it is an empty piece of Bread, they answer in calvin's behalf and ours, that it is not an empty sign: 
Idem ibid. c. 8.  Nay, saith Bellarmine, both Calvin and Oecolampadius, and Peter Martyr, do teach the Bread is called Christ's Body figuratively, as being a sign or figure of his body, but they add withal, it is no bare (and empty) figure, but such as doth truly convey unto them the things signified thereby; 
Bilson in the difference betwixt Subjection, and Christistian Rebellion. Part. 4. p. mihi, 779.  for which truths sake, Christ said not this Bread is a figure of my body, but it is my body.  
To give you an instance in some of our Church; God forbidden (saith our learned Bilson) we should deny that the flesh and blood of Christ are truly present, and truly received of the Faithful, at the Lords Table. It is the Doctrine that we teach others, and wherewith we comfort ourselves. We never doubted but the Truth was present with the Sign, and the Spirit with the Sacrament, (as Cyprian saith) We knew there could not follow an operation, if there were not a presence before.  
Neither do I think you are ignorant of this, but that you have enured yourself to falsities and reproaches. For it is apparently true, that the question in these days, is not of the truth of the presence, but of the manner: that is, whether it be to the Teeth and the Belly, or Soul and Faith of the Receiver. And thereupon our learned and Reverend B. Andrews returned his Answer to Bellarmine; We believe the presence, We believe, 
B. Andrew. ad Bell. Apol. Resp. c. 1. p. mihi. 11.  I say, the presence as well as you: concerning the manner of the presence, we do not unadvisedly define; nay more, we do not scrupulously inquire, no more than we do in Baptism, how the blood of Christ cleanseth us.  
From the Sacraments; you procceed to our two and twenty Books of Canonical Scripture, and indeed we allow but two and twenty. But will any Catholic (say you) allow this to have been Catholic Doctrine?  
Yes, without doubt, 
(Scil.) Orig. in Exposit. Psal. 1.  many good Catholics did follow the Hebrew Canon of the jews, which (saith Origen) compriseth but two and twenty books of the old Testament, according to the number of the letters among them.  
Melito, 
Bellar. de verbo Dei. l. 1. c. 20.  Bishop of Sardis, was a Catholic, and (saith Bellarmine) he did follow the Hebrew Canon of the jews.  
Hilary, 
Hilar. in Prologue. in Psal. explanat.  Bishop of Poitiers, was a Catholic, and he told us, The old Testament was contained in two and twenty books, according to the number of the Hebrew letters.  
St. Cyril, 
Cyril. Catechis. 4.  Bishop of Jerusalem, was a Catholic, and he gave us the like Lesson; Peruse the two and twenty books of the old Testament, but meddle not with the Apochryphas.  
Athanasius, 
Anthanas. in Synops.  Bishop of Alexandria, was a Catholic, and affirms, that the Christians had a definite number of books comprehended in the Canon, which were two and twenty, equal to the number of the Hebrew letters.  
Ruffinus was a Catholic, 
Bellar. de verbo Dei. l. 1. c. 20.  and Bellarmine confesseth he did follow the Hebrew Canon, which contained our two and twenty books.  
Gregory Nazianzen was a Catholic, 
Naz. Carm. Iamb. ad Seleucum. Iamb. 3.  and he shown to Seleucus, a Catalogue of the Canonical books, and he citys the books in order from Genesis to Malachi, the last of the Prophets; and leaveth out all the Apochryphas.  
The Fathers of the Council of Laodicea were Catholics: 
Concil. Laod. cap. 59  and in the 59th Canon, they allow only those two and twenty books for Canonical, which we receive.  
There are others whom you term Catholics; as namely, Damascene, Hugo de Sancto Victore, Lyranus, Hugo Cardinalis, Tostatus, Waldensis, Driedo, and Cajetan: all which differ from your Tenet of the Apocryphal books which are canonised by your Trent Council (such agreement is there amongst your best learned, touching the greatest point of your Belief) and yet forsooth your Church cannot be depraved.  
But here is one thing (say you) which giveth me much cause of wonder; which is, that you talk of Traditions, as distinct from Scripture. I ever took you to be so fallen out with them, that you made the denial of them a fundament all point of your Religion, that you would not endure the word Tradition; but always translated, or rather falsified it into Ordinances. Thus you.  
It is a true saying of the Heathen Orator; 
Cicero.  He who once goeth beyond the bounds of Modesty, had need to be lustily impudent. I protest, I only termed your Additions, Traditions; and you question our Church, for false translating of the word. And cannot we endure the word Traditions? Do not we allow of all the Apostolical Traditions, which agree unto the Scriptures? Nay more, do we not translate the word Traditions in the Scripture, when the Text will bear it according to the Greek original? Look upon the fifteenth of Matthew, 
Matth. 15. v. 2, 3, 6.  and in three several verses, 2, 3, 6. we use the word Tradition. Look upon the seventh of Mark, 
Mark 7. v. 3, 8, 9, 13.  and in four several places of that chapter, you shall find likewise, we translate Traditions. Look upon Saint Paul to the Colossians, Galatians, and upon Saint Peter; 
Colos. 2.8. Galat. 1.14. 1. pet. 1.18.  and in all these, in the Translation joined with your Rhemish Testament, you shall find the word Traditions. How may your Proselytes believe you another time, when you say, We always translate it, or rather falsify it into Ordinances?  
For a conclusion of this Section; you say, that the three Creeds, the two Sacraments, the four General Counsels, the two and twenty books of Canonical Scripture, We had them from you. Let it be your comfort then, that you had something in your Church which was worth the gleaning, after the devil had sowed the Tares amongst the good Corne. But I would not have you overmuch confident of that neither; for originally we had them from the Church Catholic, before there was a Roman. For, the Gospel was preached in England before it was in Rome; and we had in England, a Christian Church and King, before Rome had a Christian Emperor, yea long before Popery, or the name of Pope was heard of in the Christian world; (in the sense you now take it.) And in after Ages, when the Gospel of Christ was rooted out by Heathen persecutors (where it was first planted) it was afterwards replanted by Preachers, partly sent from Rome, partly by the Greek Church, but by neither was the Faith preached and restored; which your present Church now teacheth, and maintaineth at this day.  
And lastly, if we had the three Creeds, the two Sacraments, the 22. books of Canonical Scripture, and the first four General Counsels from you, than you cannot deny that we teach the Ancient Faith, first given to the Saints; and that we had a Church visible long before Luther's days, (for those Tenants were sufficient of themselves to make a glorious, and a visible Church in the first and best ages) they were received by succeeding Christians in all the later Ages, and are now become the Positive, and Affirmative Articles of our Belief, which for the greater part, were ever taught and received in the bosom of your own Church. To shut up all your bitter Aspersions, of Corrupting, of Falsifying, of Lying, of Lynding, and I know not what reproaches, cast upon me in these first (8) Sections; I will shut up all, I say, which hitherto hath been delivered by you, with that answer of Socrates to his accusers, before the Judges: 
Plato in Apologia Socratis.  My Lords (saith he) in what sort your affections have been stirred with mine accuser's eloquence which you heard them speak, I cannot tell. But well I wots, for mine own part, I myself, whom it toucheth most, was almost persuaded to believe, that what they said was true, yea although it were against myself; so handsomely they can tell their tale, and so likely, and so smoothly they convey their matters: every word they spoke, had appearance of Truth, and yet in good sooth, they have scarcely uttered one word of Truth.     


The Titles of the several Chapters, and Sections in the ensuing Treatise.  

Chap. 9 Alphab. 1. 

Sect. 1. Of justification by Faith only. Pag. 2. d:  
Sect. 2. Of Transubstantiation. Pag. 12.  
Sect. 3. Of Private Masses. pag. 42.  
Sect. 4. Of the seven Sacraments. pa. 69  
Sect. 5. Of Communion in both kinds. pa. 127  
Sect. 6. Of Prayer in an unknown tongue. pa. 145  
Sect. 7. Of the Worship of Images. pa. 176  
Sect. 8. Of Indulgences. Alphab. 2. pag. 8.    
Chap. 10. Of the certainty of the Protestant, and uncertainty of the Romish Faith. pag. 44  
Chap. 11. Of the greater safety and comfort in the Protestant Faith, then in the Romish. pa. 68  
Chap. 12. Of respect due to the Ancient Fathers. pa. 84  
Chap. 13. Of razing Records, and clipping Authors tongues, by the Roman Indices Expurgatory. pa. 92  
Chap. 14. Of the perfection and perspicuity of Scripture, and our Adversaries blasphemous Exceptions against it. pa. 104  
Chap 15. Concerning Bellarmine his subscription to Protestant Doctr: in the main point of justification. pa. 122  
Chap. 16. Of Martyrs, and particularly, that the primitive Martyrs were not Papists. pa. 128  
Chap. 17. Concerning the Protestants charitable opinion of Papists, pag. 137. And in what sense some affirm the Roman a true Church. pag. 148  
Chap. 18. Concerning the Confession on all sides for the Safety of the Protestant Religion. pa. 154  
A Sermon preached at the Funeral of the Right Worshipful Sir Humphrey Lind, at Cobham in Surrey. p. 171    

Errata in the second Part.  
PAge 5. lin. 7. read authors. in marg. l. 15. read gloriamur, p. 17 l 8. r. eat ye, p. 22. l. 8. in mar. r. fieri, p. 40 l. 1. deal of. p. 98. l. 28. in marg. r. alleviationem. p. 109. l. 2. in mar. r. de pecc. mer. p. 148. l. 10. r. at the first in. p. 151. l. 9 r. Of. p. 191. l. 12. in mar. r. perhibeat. p. 202. l. 12. deal visible. p. 203. l. 6. r. Miracles. l. 14. wonders show. p. 218. l. 6. deal the.  
Alphab. 2. pag. 39 l 12. in mar. r. hic. p. 51. l. 5. add he. p. 58. l. 16 r. et. & l. 26. r. her. p. 62. l. 19 r. Of. p. 92. l. 8. r. Caietans. p. 134. lin. 5. r. the.  
Errata in the Sermon. Pag. 181. l. 12. in mar. r. vertit. p. 184. l. 14 in mar. r. Condemnant. p. 191. l. 1. r. menacing. p. 192. l. 35. in mar. r. illaqueet. l. 36. oblectet. p. 195. l. 27. r. conseruare. p. 202. l. 8. in marg. r. puteum. p. 204. l. 16. in mar. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 17. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pa. 211. l. 6. in mar. r. volentibus. l. ult. r. his. p. 212 l. 3. r. doors. l. 8. in marg. r. Christo pa. 214. l. 7. in marg. r. obd●citur. & l. 11. in mar. r. Epitaphii. & l. 14. in mar. r. la●rymis implentur.   


CONCERNING JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ONLY.  
Spectacles Chap. 9 Sect. 1.  
THE Knight faileth in the proof of his first point of justification, producing but one only place out of a book entitled, Ordo baptizandi & visitandi, and that of no special good authority, as he allegeth it out of Cassander and Author placed in the first Classis in the first index librorum prohibitorum; and even in that which he allegeth, there is nothing that doth not very well stand being rightly under stood with the Catholic faith which we now profess, 
L. 1. de justific. c. 7. prop 3.  for there is nothing but that which was showed before out of Bellarmine, to wit, that in regard of the uncertainty of our own justice that is, whether we be just or no, and for the peril of vainglory it is most safe to put our whole confidence in the sole mercy and benignity of God; Which word sole, doth import confidence in that, and in nothing else with which it may stand very well, that men in the favour and grace of God may do works meritorious of increase of grace and glory, which is the controversy between us and heretics.  

The Hammer.  
AS David cut off Goliahs' head with his own Sword, 
a Eras. Apoph. Laconum.  and Brasidas ran through his Antagonist with his own Spear, and justine Martyr refuteth the Philosophers out of the principles of Nature; and Constantine the ancient Romans out of the Oracles of Sibylla, and Eusebius the Gentiles out of their own Historians, 
b Credis te non posse nisi per mortem Christi servari? respondet insirmus; etiam, tum illi dicitur age ergo dum super est in te anima in hac sola morte fiduciam tuam constitue, in nulla alia re fiduciam habe, huic morti te totum commit, hac solâ te totum contege: si dixerit tibi quod meruisti damnationem, dic, Domine, mortem, D. nostri jesu Christi obtendo inter me, & mala merita mea ipsiusque meritum, offero pro merito quod ego debuissem habere, nec habeo: credis quod Dom: noster Iesus Christus pro nostrâ salute mortuus sit? & quod exproprijs meritis vel alio modo nullus posset salvari nisi merito passionis eju●? Impres. Venet, 1575.  and S. Paul the Athenians out of their own Poets: so doth the Knight here in a litigious case, of greatest moment, convince the jesuite out of his own evidence a book entitled, The form and order of baptising and visiting the sick; printed and reprinted, and practised for many hundred years without any check, or control. In this book the Priest is directed to put this question to the sick; Dost thou believe that thou canst not be saved but by the death of Christ? the sick person answereth; I believe; then the Priest goeth on saying, Go too therefore as long as thy soul remains in thee, place thy whole confidence in this death only, have confidence in no other thing, commit thyself wholly to this death, with this alone cover thyself wholly, if he say unto thee, thou hast deserved damnation, say Lord, I set the death of our Lord lesus Christ betwixt me and my bad merits, and I offer his merit in stead of the merits which I ought to have and yet have not. What could Luther or Calvin, or Zuinglius, or Peter Martyr, or any Protestant in the world speak more expressly for the renouncing all merit, and relying upon Christ wholly and solely for justification and salvation? Yet our Spectacle-maker by a false gloss, as it were, a false glass, would make us believe, that the author of the Liturgy cast his eyes another way, and that this allegation maketh nothing for us.  
First, he excepteth against this Author as a single witness, you produce, saith he, but one only place out of one author, etc. I answer as the Lioness doth in the fable to the emulous beast twitting her, 
c Aesop. Fab.  that whereas other females had many young ones at once, she had but one, ac pol leonem in quit; but, saith she, that one is a Lion of more worth than twenty whelps: so I grant, that in this place he insisteth but upon one allegation, but it is a most remarkable one; It is very likely that this ordo visitandi, as other parts of the Liturgy and Catechisms, and confessions might be penned by one man: yet atfer they are generally received, and approved, and pass currant for many ages, they carry the authority of many, yea the whole Church; and howsoever the jesuite would intimate that the Author was an anonymus, yet he might have learned from their great 
d Hosius Conf. Petricon. c. 73 Sed & Anselmus Cantuar. Interrogat quasdam praescripsisse dicitur infirmis in extremis constitutis.  Cardinal Hosius that he was the famous Archbishop of Canterbury. Neither is there any reason to make scruple thereof, for it hath been anciently printed with his Works, and passed under his name, and both the style and the doctrine in it is very conformable to that we find in his unquestionable writings, as namely in his Comment upon Romans chapter the eight (v. 18.) I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us, if a man, saith he, 
e Si homo mille annis serviret Deo etiam ferventissimè, non mereretur ex condigno dimidium diem esse in regno caelorum.  should serve God a thousand years, and that most fervently, he should not deserve of condignity to be half a day in the kingdom of heaven. Neither is Cassander's testimony of this book (at which the jesuite gives so many a flert) to be slighted, for he was a man of eminent note, and in high esteem among the learned of his age, he was a favourite of two great Emperors, and lived and died in good reputation, as appeareth by the sundry encomiums before his Works; as also the Epitaph on his Tomb. As for the setting him in the first Classis of prohibited books, no whit eclipseth the glory, but rather enobleth him, for that Index is a kind of Ecclesiastical ostracism, by which the Romanists banish as fare as their power stretcheth, the most eminent Authors, and most free and ingenuous professors of the truth. As 
f Tertul in Apologet. c. 5. consulite commentarios vestros illic reperietis primum Neronem in hanc Sectam Romae orientem Caesariano gladio ferocisse. Sed tali dedicatore damnationis nostrae etiam gloriamu● qui enim scit illum intelligere potest non nisi grande aliquod bonum à Nerone damnatum.  Tertullian draweth an argument to prove the sincerity and holiness of the Christian Religion from the barbarous decree of wicked Nero against the professors thereof; it must needs, saith he, be singular good which that damned monster condemns: so if any man peruse the Authors censured, and the passages expunged in the Index expurgatorious, he shall find them to be of special note, and singular use. Albeit the Inquisitors pretend that they change not, nor blot out any thing, but only where manifest error is crept in, and that since the year 1515. Yet the Knight hath demonstrated before by undeniable instances in all ages, that they blot out of the Index of the Bible, the writings of the ancient Fathers; and since 800. years out of the Doctors of their own Church, what maketh most against their errors and superstitions. Yea, but saith the jesuite, this supposed book of Anselme hath been printed, and reprinted by heretics, and therefore may well fall under the Inquisitions censure; so hath Ignatius, Cyprian, Theodoret, and Ambrose, and Austin; yea and the originals of the old and new Testament, and must they therefore come under their file, and be subject to their Index correction? As 
g john 18.23.  Christ spoke to the high Priests servant; If I have spoken ill, bear witness of the ill, if well, why smitest thou me? So say we of these books printed and reprinted by those whom he terms heretics, because they impugn his errors and heresies, if they have printed aught amiss declare it: if not, why do you prohibit or correct their impressions?  
Well (saith he) for all this, if the worst come to the worst, if this Author prove to be S. Anselme and his words Gospel, the Knight gains nothing by it, or we lose, for though it be the safest way to cast anchor at the last in the bottom of God's mercy, and put our whole confidence in Christ's merits, it doth not from hence follow, but that men may do works meritorious of increase of grace and glory. First, why doth he lisp here, and not speak plain out the Romish tenet which is that our Works do merit not only increase of grace and glory, but remission of sins, and 
h Concil. Trid. Sess. 6. c. 32. Si quis dixerit hominis justificati opera non verè mereri augmentum gratiae & vitam aeternam, & ipfius vitae aeternae, si tamen in gratià decesserit, consecutionem, Anathema sit.  eternal life? Next, I would feign know how mercy and merit, nay sole mercy and merit can stand together? Certainly as mercy excludeth merit, so sole mercy all merit. Can those works which is S. Anselmes judgement will not bear scale in God's balance, weigh down superexcellens pondus gloriae, a superexcellent weight of glory? Certainly the Spectacle-maker put in a burning glass into his Spectacles which hath much impaired his eyesight, or else he could not but read S. Anselmes words in this place, in which he renounceth all merit, and that in most direct and express terms, I believe that none can be saved by his own merits, 
Vid loc. sup. cit. p. 4.  or by any other means, but by the merit of Christ's passion. I set the death of Christ betwixt ' me and my bad merits, and I offer his merits in stead of the merits which I ought to have, and have not.    

Concerning Transubstantiation Spectacles chap. 9 Sect. 2. à pag. 132. ad 187.  
THE Knight and the Protestants commit a great sin in administering the Sacrament of Baptism without those Ceremonies which were used in the Church from the Apostles times.  
Elfrick was not the Author of the Homily and Epistles, the Knight citeth against Transubstantion, in which notwithstanding there is nothing against Transubstantiation, but much for it, if the Knight had not shamefully corrupted the Text by false translating it, in five several places.  
The difference of Catholic Authors about things not defined by the Church maketh nothing for Protestants, because they virtually retract all such opinions by submitting their writings to the censure of the Catholic Church.  
Cajetan is falsely alleged by putting in the word supposed, and Transubstantiation: he denied not the bread to be transubstantiated into Christ's body, though he conceived that those words, This is my body, do not sufficiently prove the real presence of our Saviour's body for which he is worthily censured by Suarez and the whole school of Divines.  
Biel affirmeth that it is expressly delivered in holy Scriptures, that the body of Christ is contained under the species of bread, etc. Which former words the Knight leaveth out, because they made clearly against him, and in the latter set down by the Knight, he denieth not that Transubstantiation may be proved out of Scriptures, but that it may be proved expressly, that is in express terms or so many words.  
Alliaco his opinion maketh nothing for the Knight being a Calvinist, though he seem to favour the Lutherans tenet: and though he thought the Doctrine of consubstantiation to be more possible and easy, yet therein he preferred the judgement of the Church before his own.  
B. Fisher denieth not that the real presence can be proved out of Scripture; for the fourth chapter of the book cited by the Knight, is employed in the proof thereof against Luther: but that laying aside the interpretation of Fathers, and use of the Church, no man can be able to prove, that any Priest now in these times, doth Consecrate the true body and blood of Christ.  
Durand B. of Maundy doth not deny Transubstantiation to be wrougnt by virtue of the words, This is my body; For though in the first place he saith that Christ then made the bread his body when he blessed it, yet he after addeth that we do bless, illâ virtute quam Christus indidit verbis, 
Durand. rat. c. 41. n. 14.  by that power which Christ hath given to the words.  
Odo Cameracensis calleth the very form of Consecration, a benediction both because they are blessed words appointed by Christ, for so holy an end, and because they produce so noble an effect, or because they are joined always with that benediction and thanksgiving, used both by our Saviour in the institution of this holy Sacrament, and now by the Priest in the Catholic Church, in the Consecration of the same.  
Christopherus de capite fontium is put in the Roman Index of prohibited books, and in the words cited out of him by the Knight, there is a gross historical error in this that he saith, that in that opinion of his, both the Council of Trent, and all Writers did agree till the late time of Caietan, as if Caietan were since the Council of Trent; and in citing this place, the Knight is against himself, for whereas he maketh Cardinal Caietan, and the Archbishop of Caesarea his two Champions against the words of Consecration, as if they did both agree in the same: here this Archbishop saith quite contrary, that all are for him but only Cajetan.  
Salmeron relateth it indeed to be the opinions of some Grecians that Christ did not consecrate by those words, This is my body, but by his benediction: but this opinion of theirs is condemned by him as Chamier saith expressly in the place quoted by the Knight, l. 6. de Eucha. c. 7.  
Bellarmine in the place alleged saith nothing, but what is granted by all Papists, 
De Euchar. l. 3. c. 23.  to wit, that though the words of Consecration in the plain connatural and obvious sense infer Transubstantiation: yet because in the judgement of some learned men, they may have another sense, which proveth only the real presence, it is not altogether improbable, that without the authority of the Church, they cannot enforce a man to believe Transubstantiation out of them.  
Alfonsus à Castro affirmeth that of Transubstantiation there is rare mention in the ancient Fathers: yet of the conversion of the bread into the body of Christ, there is most frequent mention; and the drift of Castro in that place is to show, that though there be not much mention in ancient Writers of a thing, or plain testimony of Scripture, that yet the use and practice of the Church is sufficient, bringing in for example this point of Transubstantiation, and the procession of the holy Ghost from the Son.  
The meaning of Yribarne and Scotus, saying Transubstantiation of late was determined in the Council of Lateran is only this, that whereas the words of Consecration may be understood of the real presence of our blessed Saviour's body either by Transubstantiation, or otherwise; so the substance of bread do remain: the Church hath determined the words are to be understood in the former sense. And moreover Yribarne saith, that Transubstantiation was not from the beginning de substantiâ fidei, because it had not been so plainly delivered, nor determined in any Council, till Gregory the 7 his time wherein it was first determined against Berengarius.  
It is not the real presence whereof either S. Austin or Maldonate speaketh, but how they that eat Manna have died, and they that eat the body of our Lord shall live according to our Saviour's saying, which is a clean different thing.  
Gregory de Valentia having brought two or three several and substantial answers to a place alleged out of Theodoret concludeth somewhat roundly with the heretics in this manner, that if no other answer will serve the turn, but that they will still stand wrangling; that it is no marvel that one or two (he meaneth Theodoret and Gelasius) might err in this point, and that Bellarmine Suarez, and others answer the place otherwise, to whom he remitteth the Knight.  
Cusanus speaketh not of ancient Fathers, but of certain ancient Divines, whose names and errors are set down in our late Schoolmen: and this Cardinal himself in the place alleged by the Knight declareth his belief of Transubstantiation. 
Excit. l. 6.   
The Waldenses agree not with Protestants in the point of the Sacrament; for they had Mass but once a year, and that upon Maundy Thursday, neither would they use the words, hoc est corpus meum, but seven Pater nosters, with a blessing over the bread.  
Durand affirmeth not, that the substance of the Bread and Wine remaineth in the Sacrament, but the material part only, and he acknowledgeth that all other Schoolmen were herein against him.  
Gaufridus and Hostiensis, though they recount three opinions concerning the presence of Christ's body in the blessed Sacrament, of which the one saith, the bread is the body of Christ, another, that the Bread doth not remain, but is changed into Christ's body; a third, that the bread doth remain, and is together with the body of Christ: yet they approve none for true, but only that of the body of Christ, being upon the Altar by Transubstantiation.  
Tonstall with Scotus, speak either of the word Transubstantiation, or of the proof thereof by determining that sense of Scripture, or if they mean otherwise the matter is not great. For one single Author, or two contradicted by others, carry little credit in matter of belief.  
Erasmus is not an Author to be answered or named as the Knight hath been often told.  

The Hammer.  
AS Nugno wrote of an Argument of Suarez the jesuite, 
In 3. p. Tho q. 61. insolubile est argumentum Suarez propter intricationem & obscuritatem non difficultatem.  that it was in a manner insoluble, not in regard of the difficulty of the matter, but in regard of the intricacy and obscurity in the manner of propounding it: so this Section may be truly said to be uncapable of a clear and distinct answer thereunto, not in regard of any difficulty in the matter itself; for there is nothing contained in it, but Cram centies cocta; but in respect of the confusion thereof, the Adversary following no tract at all, but leporis instar viam intorquens, purposely like a Hare leaping out of the way, that he might not be caught, for which cause I have been enforced to leave the order, or rather disorder in his Paragraphes, and cull out of the whole Section here and there, what he materially answereth to the Knight's allegations, and reduce it to the numbers following, whereunto I purpose to refer my ensuing animadversions.  
To the first Exception. Whereas he taxeth the Protestants for leaving out ceremonies in Baptism used in the Church, since the Apostles time, he shamefully abuseth his re●der, for he speaketh not of the sign of the Cross, or of Godfathers and Godmothers, which ceremonies and custom of the ancient Church he knoweth that we retain: but of Salt and spittle, or baptismal chrism, which can never be proved to have been used in the Apostles time, or many hundred years after. Of the most ancient of them, to wit, Chrism he himself elsewhere, Apolog. c. 2. 
Pag. 57  acknowledgeth that it began but about Constantine's time (as Aurelius the Sorbonist observeth in his book entitled Vindiciae censurae, wherein the jesuite is trimmed, as such a shaveling deserveth.)  
To the second concerning Elfrick. That Aelfrick was not the Author of the Homilies we acknowledge, neither doth this any whit derogate from their authority, but add rather. For the more ancient the Author was, the more authority the Sermons carry. Now it appeareth out of an ancient Manuscript, that these Homilies were extant in Latin before the days of Aelfrick, 
In Bib. Bodelianâ, Oxon.  who was commanded by the Archbishop of York Wolstanus to translate them into English, which after he had faithfully done, the Bishops at a Synod commanded them to be read to the people on Easter day before they received the Communion. As for the shameful corruption he objecteth to the Knight by false translating the Homilies in five places, I cannot sufficiently pity the gross stupidity and blindness of the objecter. He who hath made a pair of Spectacles for the Knight, had need to have a Festrawe made for himself to spell withal; for here he most absurdly and ridiculously mistaketh a Collation for a Translation, and Bertram for Aelfrick. Doctor Usher now Primate of Armath, whom the Knight here followed step by step, maketh a kind of parallel between the words of Bertram, and divers passages in the Homilies and Epistles translated by Aelfrick, to show the conformity of the doctrine in both. This parallel by this blind buzzard is taken for a translation, 
a Cic. Phil. 2.  Viste, asine, literas doceam, saith Tully to Anthony, non opus est verbis sed fustibus: yea but the Author of this Homily is so fare from condemning Transubstantiation, that he professedly teacheth it in these words, 
b Sicu●● Paulò antequam pateretur, panis substantiam et vini creaturam convertere potuit in proprium corpus quod passurum erat, & in suum sanguinem qui post fundendus extabat, sic etiam in deserto Manna, & aquam de ●errâ in suam carnem, & sanguined convertere praevaluit.  As therefore a little before he suffered, he could change the substance of Bread, and the creature of Wine into his proper Body, which was to suffer, and into his Blood which was there extant to be afterwards shed, so in the Desert he was able to change Manna and water into his own body and blood. I answer, this passage he doth well to whet like a sharp knife to cut the throat of Transubstantiation. For let it be granted according to the doctrine of alfrick and Bertram, that Christ so turned the Bread into his Body at his last supper, as he turned Manna and water into his own flesh in the wilderness, what will hereupon ensue? but that the conversion or change which is made in the elements is not real, and corporal, but spiritual and sacramental, as that was in the Desert: of which the Apostle speaketh, the 
c 1 Cor. 10.4  spiritual rock followed them, and that rock waes Christ. When Manna fell, and the rock was strucken, Christ was not incarnate, nor many hundred years after: how then could the Manna, or the water be really and properly turned into his flesh and blood? Moreover, howsoever he eludeth the former words of Aelfrick; There is a great difference betwixt the body wherein Christ suffered, and the body which is received of the faithful, the body in which Christ suffered, was borne of the flesh of Mary, and consisted of blood and bone, but the other is gathered of many corns without hloud and bone, (by saying) that the difference which Aelfrick showeth between Christ on the Cross and Christ on the Sacrament is in his manner of being, not in the being itself, not denying him to be really in both: yet the later words which contain an inference upon the former: therefore there is nothing to be understood in the Sacrament bodily, but spiritually: admit of no colourable evasion, for if nothing be there understood bodily but spiritually; then must needs the words, This is my body, be understood figuratively, then must we not according to the doctrine of those times understand any substantial change of the bread into Christ's very body, or the Wine into his blood really and corporally.  
To the third. The difference between Papists of most eminent note concerning the words, by virtue whereof they teach Transubstantiation is effected, maketh much against the doctrine itself, and by consequence quite overthroweth it. For thus we argue against them out of this their difference: If the bread be turned into Christ's body, then either by the words of benediction before he broke the bread, or gave it, etc. or by the very words of Consecration, viz. hoc est corpus meum. But he neither changed the bread into his Body by the one, nor by the other; Ergo, he changed it not at all. Not by the precedent benediction, as Aquinas and Bellarmine prove. For till the last instant of the prolation of the words This is my Body, the substance of bread remaineth. Not by the words of Consecration: for as Durand and Odo Cameracensis, and Christopherus Archbishop of Caesarea prove, Christ could not have said after he had blessed the Bread, This is my body, unless by blessing it he had made it his body before. If when Christ said Take ye and eat. yea at that time the Bread by benediction were not changed, it would follow that Christ did command his Disciples to take, and eat the substance of Bread, which to say is to deny the article of Transubstantiation. Neither can the jesuite heal this sore by his virtual salve, in saying, that those men above alleged, who impugn the present tenant of the Schools concerning the words of Consecration, in which the essence of the Sacrament consisteth virtually retracted such opinions, because they submitted their writings to the censure of the Catholic Church: for so we may say with better reason, that what they held against us, they virtually retracted by submitting their judgement to the Catholic Church, which we can easily prove not to be the particular Roman, but the Universal, which in all times, and all places through the Christian world hath professed the common faith once given to the Saints without any of those later Articles which P. Pius the fourth, 
Jud. 13.  and the late conventicle of Trent hath pinned unto it.  
To the fourth, Cajetan is truly alleged by the Knight; for though neither the words Transubstantiation, nor supposed are in him, yet the sense of them is to be found in him; for as both Suarez and Flood himself acknowledgeth (p. 147.) Cajetan said, that these words, This is my body, do not sufficiently prove the real presence of our Saviour's body without the presupposed authority of the Church; and if in his judgement they prove not so much as the real presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament, much less prove they the presence thereof by Transubstantiation, or turning the bread into it. By the word supposed, which the Knight addeth more fully to declare Cajetans' meaning, he intended not suppositions, or barely pretended authority of the Church, but truly presupposed, which maketh not the speech sound at all contemptibly of the Church as Flood would have it, whose stomach is so bad, that it turneth sweet and wholesome meat into choler; 
Nectar cui fiet acetum  
& vaticani perfida vappa cadi.   
To the fifth. The Knight transcribeth so much out of Biel as was pertinent to his purpose: with the rest he thought not fit to trouble the reader. 
In Can. Miss Lect. 40. notandum guod quamvis expressè tradatur in scripture â quod corpus Christi veraciter sub speciebus panis continetur, & à fidelibus sumitur, tamen quomodo sit ibi corpus Christi an per conversionem alicujus in ipsum, an sine conversione incipiat esse corpus Christi cum pane manentibus substantiâ, & accidentibus panis in Canone bibliae non invenitur.  The whole passage in Biel standeth thus, It is to be noted, that though it be expressly delivered in Scripture, that the body of Christ is truly contained under the form or species of Bread, and received by the faithful, yet it is not found in the canon of the Bible, how the body of Christ is there, whether by conversion of any thing into it or whether it beginneth to be there without conversion, or turning the substance, and accidents of bread remaining. The former words in which passage, make nothing against the Knight: Who in this chapter for the most part condemneth Papists out of their own mouth, and therefore taking Biel for such, he maketh use of his testimony against the Roman Church in point of Transubstantiation. Which is very direct and express, and the jesuites answer is very weak and unsufficient thereunto, to wit, that he denieth only that Transubstantiation is found in Scripture in express words. For first Biel saith not non invenitur expressum, but non invenitur; It is not found in Scripture, whether Christ's body be there by conversion of any thing into it. Now many things are found in Scripture, as the Trinity of persons, the eternal generation of the Son, the procession of the holy Ghost from the Father and the Son, the number and nature of Sacraments: which yet are not set down in express words. Secondly, it is evident out of the former words of Biel, that he accounted those things expressly to be delivered in Scriptures, which yet are not set down in express words: for he saith that it is expressly delivered in Scriptures, that the body of Christ is truly contained under the species of bread, and yet those words are not found in Scripure. If we should admit then of Flood his gloss upon Biel, Transubstantiation is not found in Scripture, that is, is not found expressly: Yet our Argument from Biels' testimony is no way disabled thereby, because it appeareth out of Biels own words, that he holdeth that to be expressly delivered in Scriptures, which is either expressed in word, or sense; the real presence, he saith is express, not in the letter or form of words in the text, yet in the sense: but so saith he, is not Transubstantiation; the apparent opposition between the members of his sentence showeth that what he believed of the real presence, he believed not of Transubstantiation, but the former he believed could be proved out of Scripture, though not in express words yet in sense: therefore the later he believed could not be proved so much as in sense, much less in express words.  
To the sixth. Although Petrus de Alliaco inclineth rather to the Lutherans opinion in the point of the Sacrament, then to the doctrine of the Church of England: yet the Knight upon good reason produceth him as a witness; for he speaketh home against Transubstantiation: 
Cameracë. in 4 sent. q. 6. art. 2. patet quòd ille modus sit possibilis, nec repugnet rationi, nec authoritati bibliae imò facilior ad intelligendum & rationabilior est quum, etc.  his words are that (the conversion of bread into Christ's body) cannot evidently be proved out of Scripture, and that that manner or meaning which supposeth the substance of bread still to remain in the Sacrament is possible, neither is it contrary to reason, or to the authority of the Scripture; nay it is more easy to be understood, and more reasonable than that which saith, the substance doth leave the accidents. If this be not as Flood will have it so much as in show for the Knight, I am sure it is both in show and substance against the Trent faith: for if it be granted that Consubstantiation is not contrary to Scripture, nor reason; it followeth necessarily that Transubstantiation is grounded upon neither, but rather repugnant to both, for as trans. denieth con. so con. trans. If the remaining of the substance of bread with the substance of Christ's body be not repugnant to the authority of Scripture, nor the meaning of Christ's words, then do not these words, This is my body signify, or make Transubstantiation which necessarily abolisheth the substance of Bread, and putteth in place thereof the substance of Christ's body. If Consubstantiation be more easily to be understood, and more agreeable to right reason in Alliacoes' judgement then Transubstantiation: it is evident but for fear of his Cardinal's cap, he would have simply avowed the former, and renounced the latter.  
To the seventh. Take Roffensis his words at the best, the jesuite is at a great loss: admit he said no more than I.R. here confesseth that no man can be able to prove, that any priest now in these times doth consecrate the true body of Christ: see what will follow hereupon, that no man is able to prove that your priests and people are not gross Idolatours, adoring a piece of bread for Christ. Secondly, that none is able to prove that Christ is really and substantially offered in your Mass: for if it cannot be proved that he is there corporally present, as Roffenfis confesseth, and you be are him out in it: it cannot be proved that he is corporally offered, restat itaque ut missas, missas faciatis; 
Roff. cont. Luth captiv. Bab. c. 4 neque ullum positum hic verbum est, quo probetur in nostrâ missâ veram fi lci carnis, & sanguinis Christi praesentiam: non potestigitur per ullam scripturam probari.  it remaineth therefore that you dismiss your misses, or Masses. For what can they avail the living, or the dead, if nothing but mere accidents and shows of Bread and Wine be offered, which are mere nothing. We may yet gather farther upon Roffensis his words, if it cannot be proved by any Scripture, that Christ's body and blood are present in the Roman mass: it cannot be proved that they are present in any Mass, unless it be granted that the Roman masses are of a worse condition than others: if not in any mass, much less must Papists say in any Sacrament without the Mass. What then becometh of the main and most real article of the Trent faith, which hath cost the real effusion of so much Christian blood, I mean the real and carnal presence of Christ in the Sacrament. To Roffenfis I.R. should have added Cajetan, and so he might have had a parreiall of Cardinals, for the Knight alleged him, and his words are most express, not only against the proof of Transubstantiation, 
Caje. in 3. p. Tho. g. 75. dico autem ab ecclesiâcum non appareat ex Evangelio coactivum alivod ad intellg ●●dum haec verba propriè quod evangelium non explicavit expressè ab ecclesia accepimus, viz. conversionem panis in corpus.  but also of the corporal presence of Christ (as out of the words hoc est corpus meum.) The Cardinal's words are, that which the Gospel hath not expressed we have received from the Church, to wit, the conversion of the bread into the body of Christ, I say from the Church, because there appears nothing out of the Gospel that can enforce a man to believe that the words, This is my body, are to be taken properly. How doth this Flood swell in pride, that to so great a Cardinal, so profound a Schoolman, so eminent a Doctor, so divine a Commentatour, so golden a Writer (all which titles are given by the Roman Church to Cajetan) he vouchsafeth not a look. But indeed he held a Wolf by the ears, and was in a quandary what to do, whether to keep his holt, or to let him go: if he had taken notice of his testimony against the Roman Church, either he must have disparaged the Cardinal, or given his Trent faith a grievous wound.  
To the eight. Durand his words are plain enough to prove that the conversion of bread into the body of Christ, is wrought by the virtue of Christ's benediction before he uttered the words, 
Benedixit benedictione caelesti, & virtute verbi qua convertitur panis in substantiam corporis Christi. Dur. rat. c. 41.  This is my body, he blessed, saith he, the bread by his heavenly benediction, and by virtue of the Word, whereby the Brend is turned into the substance of Christ's body. Yea but faith Flood, he addeth, We bless, ex illa virtute quam Christus indidit verbis, we bless by that power or virtue which Christ hath given to the words, true: verbis benenedictionis, not consecrationis according to Durands' mind by that power which Christ gave to the words of benediction going before, not those words which you call the words of Consecration ensuing after, viz. This is my body, which words yet Durand there rehearseth not to prove the conversion to be wrought by them, but to prove Christ's body to be truly there.  
To the ninth. Though the form of Consecration may be called a Benediction for the reasons alleged by the Spectacle-maker: 
Odo Camerac. in can. mis. dist. 4. benedixit suum corpus fecit qui priùs erat panis benedictione factus est caro, non enim post benedictionem dixisset, hoc est corpus meum, nisi in benedictione sieret corpus suam.  yet it is certain that Odo Cameracensis distinguisheth the one from the other, and ascribeth the conversion of bread into Christ's body to the virtue of the precedent benediction, and not of the subsequent Consecration, Christ blessed the bread, he made it his Body, that which before was Bread by his blessing is made flesh; for he would not have said after he had blessed it, This is my Body, unless by blessing it he had made it his Body. Yea, but Flood threatneth to bring a place out of Odo expressly to the contrary, which is this, Take away the words of Christ, 
Odo Camera. expos. in Can. miss. dist. 5. tolle verba Christi, non fiunt sacramenta Christi, vis sieri corpus, & fanguinem, appone Christi sermonem.  and take away the Sacraments of Christ, wilt thou have the Body and Blood of Christ made, put thereto the word of Christ, but which word of Christ? for therein is the cardo questionis, whether the word of Benediction going before, or the word of Consecration following after? In Odo his judgement by the word of benediction; for he saith Benedictione factus est caro, by blessing it became flesh, and that before he uttered the words, This is my Body; which in Odo his apprehension as we heard before, could not be true: unlelesse bread had been turned into Christ's body, before he pronounced them.  
To the tenth. 
I.R.  Here johannes de Rivis, or john of the Flood speaketh very disgracefully of his Father Christopher us de capite fontium, Christopher of the head of the Fountains: Nay, to a most reverend Father, the Archbishop of Caesarea; for the Archbishop of Caesaerea his book, saith he, De correctione Theologiae scholasticae; I do not so much as look into him, but remit it to the Roman Index, where you shall find this book by you here cited forbidden, and even the arrogancy of the title showeth it to deserve no better a place. 
Solinus c. 43. Bonasus Tauri similis si insequantur Agasones, vebementiùs fimum emittit per tria jugera & quicquid tangit Vrit.  The Bonasus when he is hard followed casts dung in abundance on the pursuer, and brayeth hideously; so doth I.R. cast filth, and rail down right, when he is so hard pressed with a testimony that he hath nothing to reply. The Roman Index Prohibitorum librorum is to Flood like the Philosophers pons asinorum in all extremities he flieth to it. But what is this Index to us? he might as well allege the Turks Alcharon against the Knight. This Index of prohibited books deserveth not only a prohibition, but a purging by fire. For in the first rank we find the holy Bibles translated into vulgar languages to be set, and after them most of the prime and Classic Writers, almost in all professions. There is nothing so easy as to prohibit this or any other book: but unless our Adversariee back this Papal prohibition with detection of errors and heresies contained in such books, and a solid confutation thereof; this tyrannical Prohibition of the works of Authors will prove an evident conviction, that they forcibly smother that truth, the light whereof dazleth their eyes. Yea, but saith Flood, there is a gross historical error, in that he saith, that in that opinion of his, both the Council of Trent, and all the Writers did agree till the late time of Cajetan, as if Cajetan were since the Council of Trent. No historical error at all in the Archbishop, but a frivolous cavil in Flood. For he saith not that the Council of Trent was before Cajetan, but that the Council of Trent, and all Writers (before it also) did agree till the late time of Cajetan. Yea, but the Knight maketh Cardinal Cajetan, and the Archbishop of Caesarea his two champions against the words of Confecration, as if they did both agree in the same, whereas here the Archbishop saith quite contrary, that all are for him but only Cajetan. A ridiculous sophism, ex ignoratione Elenthi: the Knight allegeth both Cardinal Cajetan, and the Archbishop of Caesarea against the words of Consecration, but not ad idem, not to prove the same conclusion: he allegeth Cajetan to prove that there is nothing in the words hoc est corpus meum to enforce Transubstantiation; but the Archbishop of Caesarea to prove that the supposed conversion is made, not by the words of Consecration, This is my body, but by the precedent words of Benediction, 
Christoph. de correct. theoscholast fol. 11.41. usque ad 63. nisi prius quàm ista verba diceret Christus corpus suum ex pane factum erat, ista proposito non fuisset vera, ho est corpus meum, etc. Fol. 23.  and this he proveth against all Papists strongly after this manner; Unless before Christ uttered those words, this is my body, his body had been made of bread, this Proposition had not been true, This is my body, for when Christ said, take ye, eat ye, if at that time the Bread by benediction were not changed, it will follow that Christ did command his Disciples to take and eat the substance of bread, and so we must deny the article of Transubstantiation; therefore, saith he, (certo certius constat Christum, non solùm per ista sola verba non consecrâsse, sed ne quidem illa partem aliquam fuisse consecrationis quam fecit) it is most certain that these words were no part of the Consecration; And this he proveth to be the opinion of all the ancient Fathers by name of justine Martyr, Dionysius, S. Austin, Hesichius, S. Jerome, Gregory, Ambrose, Rupert, Alquine, Bernard, Seotus, Landulph, Peter de Aquila, Pelbert, and others.  
To the eleventh. The Knight allegeth not Salmerons opinion, but his relation of the opinion of other men: and although his credit be cracked with Protestants, yet it is whole with Flood and his fellow jesuits: as Chamierus on the contrary, his credit is good with Protestants, though none with Pontificians. 
P. 162.  Yea but saith Flood, Chamier discovereth the Knights bad dealing, I would feign know how, or wherein; first how? by the spirit of prophecy? or by some letter sent to the Knight after Chamier his death; for Chamier was dead many years before the Knight wrote. Were he alive what bad dealing could he discover in the Knight, 
Cham. de Euchar. l. 6. c. 7.  who out of him truly and sincerely relateth the words of Salmeron the jesuite concerning the Grecians in these words, seeing the benediction of the Lord is not superfluous or vain, nor gave he simply bread; it followeth that when he gave it, the transmutation was made, and those words, This is my Body, did demonstrate what was contained in the bread. What fault findeth he in this allegation? If the Greeks' had no such opinion, or Salmeron relateth no such thing, the blame must light between Salmeron and Chamier; howsoever the Knight is free. For he truly quoteth Chamier, neither dare Flood say that Chamier misquoteth Salmeron; 
P. 161.  For, saith he, though I found not this place in him, yet I will not say but it may be there. Let this Spectacle-maker put on a better pair of Spectacles, and he shall plainly read the words alleged out of Salmeron in the place quoted by Chamier. 
Cie. Orat. pro Rosc. Amerino.  The geese in the Capitol, if they gagled without cause, were to be beat for it: and the dogs to have their legs broken, if they barked when there was no suspicion of a thief approaching; Some such like punishment they deserve in Tully's judgement, who lay foul aspersions upon others without any colour of proof or semblance of truth.  
To the twelfth. At the Knight's allegation out of Bellarmine, Flood here nibleth, but can no no where fasten his tooth, he excepteth at the changing of the singular number into the plural, and translating Scriptures for Scripture, and the most learned and acute men, such as Scotus for most learned and acute men. It seemeth this jesuite is descended of the race of Domitian; 
Sueton in Domitian.  whose greatest exercise was all day to strike at flies with a sharp iron bodkin: read Scriptures in the plural, or Scripture in the singular or most acute, 
Bellar. de Euchar. l. 3. c. 23. Dicit Scotus non extare locum vilum soripturae tam expressum, ut sine ecclesiae declaratione evidenter cogat transubstantiationem admittere: at que id non est omninò improbabile: nam etiamsi scripturae nob is tam apertae videantur, ut cogant hominem non protervun: tamen meritò dubitari potest cùm homines doctissimi & acutissimi qualis imprimis Scotus fuit, aliter sentiant.  or the most acute, the confession of Bellarmine maketh still altogether as strongly against the grounding of Transubstantiation on Scripture. Scotus saith, that there is no place of Scripture so express (viz. for Transubstantiation) which setting aside the declaration of the Church evidently enforceth a man to admit it. For though the Scripture, viz. That text of Scripture brought by him to prove Transubstantiation, seemed to be so plain as to enforce a man not refractory to believe it; yet it may be doubted whether that text, viz. Hoc est corpus meum be clear enough to enforce it, seeing most learned and acute men, such as Scotus was, thought otherwise. If it may be justly doubted whether the text, This is my body, infer Transubstantiation, why do our Adversaries blame us for doubting of it? If sharp-sighted Scotus, and other most learned and acute men thought the text enforceth no such thing: let our Adversaries give us leave to prefer their opinion before the judgement of Flood and others, neither so learned nor so acute.  
To the thirteenth. 
L. 8 con. haeres. verb. indulg. de transubslantiatione panis in corpus Chrislirara in antiquis scriptoribus mentio rara, etc.  The Knight regarded not at what Alfonsus à Castro aimed, but he took up his arrow where he found it, and shooteth it against your Trent doctrine. Of the Transubstantiation, saith he, of the bread into Christ's body, there is rarely or seldom any mention made in ancient Writers: What doth I. R. answer hereunto? Alfonsus (saith he) saith true, and the Knight most false. For though of Transubstantiation there be no mention, yet of the conversion of the bread into Christ's body there is most frequent mention; 
P. 164.  Read my riddle, what's this? rare mention of Transubstantiation, but not rare mention of the conversion of the bread into Christ's body, pugnantia te loqui non vides? Is not this a flat contradiction? I would feign know, what difference there is between Transubstantiation, and the conversion of the substance of Bread, into the substance of Christ's body in the Sacrament. Neither can the jesuite free himself here from uttering an evident contradiction in the same sentence, by saying that Alfonsus speaketh of the word Transubstantiation, not of the thing itself. For Alfonsus there speaketh of things not of words, as Flood himself confesseth in the same page five lines after, saying, that Alfonsus his drift in that place is to show, that though there be not much mention in ancient Writers of a thing, or plain testimony of Scripture, that yet the use and practice of the Church is sufficient, bringing in for instance the point of Transubstantiation, and procession of the holy Ghost. See here Alfonsus speaketh not of the word Transubstantiation, but of the point or thing itself; and of this thing or point (he saith) there is rare or seldom mention in ancient Writers.  
To the fourteenth. Neither Scotus nor Yribarne speak of the interpretation of the words, This is my body, 
Bellar. l. 3. de Euch. c. 23. unum addit Scotus, etc. quod ante Lateranense concilium Transubstantiatio non fuit dagma fidei. Yrib. in 4. dist. 11. q. 3. disp. 42. in primitiuâ ecclesiâ de substantia fidei erat cotpus Christi sub speciebus contineri: tamin non erat de fide substantiam panis in corpus Christi converti. Aug. de doct. Christ. l. 2. c. 9 omnia quae continent fidem, & mores in illis inveniuntur quae apertè posita sunt in seripturâ. Chrysost. in 2. ad Thess. hom. 3. manifesla sunt in divinis Scripturis quaecunque, sunt necessaria. Rivet Cathol. orthod. q. 18.138 Gat. discourse of Tran. pag 60.61. Scotus 4. Sent. dist. 11. ad hoc multùm expressè videturloqui Ambrose.  nor of the manner of the delivery of the doctrine of Transubstantiation in former times, but the dogmate fidei, of a doctrine of faith, which they expressly deny Transubstantiation to have been, and what they say, may be confirmed by Flood his own answer in this place. For if Transubstantiation in former ages was not plainly delivered, as he confesseth, p. 167. it could not be then dogma fidei, or de substantiâ fidei, any doctrine of faith. For all doctrines of faith are plainly and evidently set down in holy Scriptures, as S. Austin and S. chrysostom jointly teach. As for the passage alleged by Scotus out of S. Ambrose it is fully answered, & retorted by Andrew Rivet, Mr. Gataker, and others; Whereunto I think fit to add nothing, but that Scotus in the place alleged speaketh not confidently of S. Ambrose, that he held the doctrine of Transubstantiation: but that in words he seemed to favour that opinion.  
To the fifteenth. Albeit S. Austin in the place alleged by the Knight speaketh not expressly against your carnal presence, yet by consequence he quite overthroweth it; for if the unbelieving jews in the Desert, and judas in the new Testament died spiritually, after they had received the Sacrament: it followeth that neither the one, nor the other in S. Austin's judgement received Christ's true flesh, which whosoever eateth shall live for ever. Again, it followeth that the true flesh of Christ cannot be eaten, but by faith only, and doth not this make much for the Knight? Yea, but saith the jesuite, with due reverence be it spoken to S. Austin's authority, Maldonat his interpretation is more suitable to the text, and discourse of our Saviour in the whole chapter then that of S. Austin's. And with due reverence be it spoken here, Flood and Maldonat two jesuites like Mules in the Latin proverb, Mutuum scabunt, scratch and claw one the other; But let any man examine the interpretation of Maldonat, and that other of S. Augustine's, and apply them, both to the words of Christ, and his main scope and drift in that sixth Chapter, and he will find S. Augustine's discourse in that tractate to be pure gold; and Maldonate his gloss to be dross or Alchemy stuff, which will not endure the fire.  
To the sixteenth. Gregory de Valentia concludeth not roundly with heretics, 
Greg. de Val. de trans l. 2 c. 7. minimè mirum est si unus aut alter, aut etiam aliqui è veteribus minimè consideratè, & rectè hac de re senserint.  (as Flood speaketh) but dealeth very squarely, confessing in effect that Gelasius and Theodoret are against Transubstantiation. Yea but (saith Flood) Bellarmine, Suarez, and Valentia himself bring other substantial answers to those Fathers. Very substantial answers indeed, that by substance are understood accidents like to the gloss in the Canon law, statuimus, id est, abrogamus, & quo magis id est, quo minùs. The words of Theodoret are, that the mystical signs after Consecration do not go out of their proper nature, but continue in their former substance, shape and figure, and may be seen and felt as before. How doth the jesuite think you, expound these words? 
P. 175.  Theodoret speaketh not (saith he) of the substance of bread, as if that did remain, but he only saith that the accidents remain in their own substance, that is their own entity, nature or being, which to them is not accidental, and therefore may be termed their substance; for it is plain that accidents have a certain being of their own, different from that of their subject wherein they inhere, or rest. I grant that it is plain they have: but it is as plain or rather plainer, that Theodoret in that place by sabstantia understandeth no such thing. For in this very Dialogue he exactly distinguisheth between substance and accidents, and telleth us that by (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) or substance, he means not accidents, but substance properly so taken, saying, 
Theod. Dial. 2. c. 22.  we call a body a substance, but health and sickness an accident. Besides that which he here calleth signum mysticum, he in this very Dialogue termeth donum oblatum, the gift offered, & eibum ex seminibus, bread made of seeds; and afterwards, a thing visible and tangible: but who ever heard of accidents without a subject offered to God for a gift? or that dimensions or colours or figures are a nourishment made of seeds, or that accidents without a subject can be felt? Again, it is evident and confessed by all, that accidents properly so called have not shape or figure. For that implies thrt the accidents should be one thing, and shape and figure another, whereas shape and figure are mere accidents themselves. Lastly, if Theodoret had thought that the substance of bread and wine ceaseth, and is changed into the very body and blood of Christ: and that the accidents thereof only remained; Theodoret and not taken the heretic in his own net, by retorting a similitude drawn from the Sacrament upon him; but the Heretic had taken Theodoret after this manner; It is granted by us both, that the body of Christ after his ascension is so changed, as the sacred symbols after Consecration: but the sacred symbols are so changed, that in the Eucharist there remaineth only the outward shape and form of bread, and not the real substance; therefore Christ's body after his Ascension is so changed, that the shape and form of flesh remaineth, and not the very nature and substance. 
Of this see more in the Romish Fisher held in his own net, P. 144.  Yea but (saith Flood) Theodoret speaketh of something which is wrought or made by Consecration, and which is understood and adored: What is this that is made here? not the accidents for they remain the same, not the substance of the bread, for that was before, neither is that said to be heleeved, much less adored. I answer briefly; of bread that was before common, a holy Sacrament of Christ's body and blood is made, and believed and reverenced as a most sacred mystery: as when Wax is made a seal, or bullion the King's coin, or money: 
The●d ibid. non mutans 〈◊〉 rum sed ●●●urae adijceers graetiam.  the substance is not changed, but the use, significancy or efficacy: so in the Sacrament according to the mind of Theodoret there is a change made, but accidental only, not substantial.  
To the seventeenth. Cardinal Cusanus is not produced by the Knight, as a witness speaking plain against Transubstantiation: but as lisping something to that purpose, not as maintaining professedly Consubstantiation: for that had not been safe for him, the Roman Church from whom he held his Cardinal's hat determining the contrary: 
Excit. lib. 6. si quis intelligeret panem non transubstantiari, sed supervestiri nobiliori substantiam. Prout guidam veteres Theologi intellexisse reperiuntur.  but yet secretly favouring that opinion, his words are, that some ancient Divines are found to have understood (by the words, This is my body) the Bread not to be transubstantiated, but to be over clothed with a more noble substance. Had he held Transubstantiation an article of faith, he would have branded those who held the contrary with a note of heresy, and not said some ancient Divines: but some old heretics thought, that the words, This is my body, employed not Transubstantiation, but rather a kind of Consubstantiation. As for that error of the Printer in the marginal quotation at which the jesuite glanceth, as if the Knight had mistaken libros excitationum, for exercitiorum or exercitationum. I answer, the error is as happy as that in the Colen edition of S. Cyprian, cessat error Romanus, for error humanus; and that in Platina, nisi qui duarum partium ex Carnalibus integra suffragia tulerit, 
Plat. in vit. Clement. Saunder. l. 1. de scbism. Aug. Or in Garnets' Apology by Eud. johann. rebustioribus est proponendus hic cibus Olidus for Cibus Solidus.  for Cardinalibus; or that of the Printer of Ingolstade, Wolfeum conatu summo nixum esse primam toties ecclesiae sedem occupare, & vanitatis sacerdotalis fastigium conscendere, for unitatis: For indeed those books of the Cardinal are no other than the exercise of his reader's patience, or at the best of his own wit or imagination.  
To the eighteenth. For Wickliff and the Waldenses, the Knight insisted not upon their testimony, though well he might; (for they were most eminent professors of the truth, and most free from those foul aspersions which their sworn enemies, and bloody persecutors cast upon them) because his purpose was in this chapter, as he professeth in the title, vos vestris gladijs jugulare, to cut your throat with your own swords, and condemn you out of your own mouth, as Christ doth the evil servant in the Gospel. 'Tis true, Wickliff was condemned for an heretic in the Council of Constance many years after his death, and barbarous inhumanity was also exercised upon his bones. Yet will it follow no more from hence that Wickliff was an heretic, then that jeremy was a false Prophet, or Christ and his Apostles false teachers, because they were condemned by counsels of Priests. And of all Counsels that of Constance carries the least credit, because it is not only condemned by all the reformed Churches, but by the Roman Church herself, and the Decrees thereof repealed in later Counsels. Touching the Waldenses what the jesuite here writeth of them he confirmeth by no testimony, and the contrary may be demonstrated out of Orthwinus Gratius, 
Histoire des Vaudois.  and the History and confession of the Waldenses lately set forth out of authentical records in French.  
To the nineteenth. The jesuits answer to Durand concerning the material part of bread remaining in the Sacrament, but not the substance, implying that the material part of Bread, and the substance are different things is not material nor true. For though the material part of any substance be a distinct thing, both from the form & the compositum: yet is it a substance, and hath accidents inherent in it. For according to the axiom of the metaphysics, ex non substantijs non fit substantia, a substance or substantial compound is not made or composed of non substances. Sith the whole is not distinct really from all the parts united together, the compound cannot be substantial, unless the parts of which it consisteth be substances. Durand therefore affirming that the material part of the bread remained in the Sacrament after Consecration: held that some part of the substance of bread remained, and therefore the Knight no way wrongeth Durand, but Flood the Knight. If Durand held that the whole substance of the bread was turned into the body of Christ according to your Trent Decree: 
De Euch. l. 3. c. 13.  why doth Card. Bellarmine censure his doctrine as heretical: if he taught not that the whole substance was converted, he must needs hold that some part of the substance remained as it was before; which is all the Knight chargeth him with. As for that the jesuite addeth to salve the matter, that he acknowledgeth all others to be against him in this point, 
Durand. in 4. sent. dist. 11. q. 1.  let him put on his Spectacles and read the place again, and he shall see there are no such words. Only I find quest. 3. This modest parenthesis salvo meliori judicio. Which indeed are respective words befitting a modest man: but no way amounting to a confession that his opinion in that point was singular, and that all others were against him, which notwithstanding Flood puts upon him.  
To the twentieth. Touching Gaufridus and Hostiensis cited by the Knight out of Durand, 
In 4. sent. dist. 10. q. 1. n. 13.  it is evident that howsoever they might peradventure incline to that, which the Roman Church determined, viz. the second opinion that the bread doth not remain, but is changed, yet they no way condemn the third opinion, viz. the substance of bread remains, and is together with though body of Christ. For as Durand well noteth, they call it an opinion, not an error, or an heresy; neither do they say it is to be reproved, but let it pass without any censure, which they would not have done, if they had held Transubstantiation to be a doctrine de fide to be believed of all upon pain of damnation.  
To the twenty one. Cuthbert Tunstall was a Bishop, and in great esteem among all the learned in his time, 
In his Epitaph in Lambeth Chancel he is styled Aureusiste Senex. Tunst. de Euch. l. 1. pag. 46. de modo quo id fieret fortasse satiùs erat curiosum quemque relinquere conjecturae sicut liberum fuit ante concilium Lateranense.  and therefore not lightly to be filliped off, and slighted by a priest and jesuit the face vulgi, by saying that the matter is not great, whether Tunstall said, that for which he is alleged or no, because one single Author or two contradicted by others carrieth no credit. For I find not that he is contradicted by any. His words are these, of the manner and means of the real presence, either by Transubstantiation, or otherwise perhaps it had been better to leave every man that would be curious to his own conjecture, as before the Council of Lateran it was left free. Neither did that learned Bishop of Duresme ever retract this opinion. For Mr. Bernard Gilpin a holy man, and a kinsman of the Bishop affirmeth, that the Bishop his Diocesan often told him, that Innocent the third had done very unadvisedly, in that he had made the opinion of Transubstantiation an article of faith. Neither do we find that any in his days or since before Flood taxed this Bishop for this his opinion.  
To the twenty two. None more slight men of worth than those who want it. Erasmus will live both in his own works, and in the writings of the ancient Fathers, and other Classic Authors corrected and set forth by him, when a thousand Floods, and Leomelij, and daniel's a jesus shall be buried in perpetual oblivion. Erasmus was in great esteem with Archbishop Waram, and Sir Thomas Moor Lord Chancellor of England, and of divers Bishops, yea and Cardinals also beyond the Sea, and what Tully spoke of Aristotle may be truly said of him, 
A golden river. A hellish lake.  there is in his writings, aureum slumen: but in the jesuit his adversary, lacus averni.    

Concerning private Masses, Spectacles Paragraph 3. à pag. 187. usque ad 199.  
OUR Saviour's words take ye, eat ye, make nothing against private Mass, for Christ there spoke to all his Apostles who did all eat: and out of that place a man might as well say, that all must communicate that are in the Church at the same time as two or three.  
S Paul's words where he inviteth Christians to imitate him, are meant of chastening the body, fasting and praying, and the like, in which Protestants follow him not, and if the words be extended to the Sacrament, Catholic Priests imitate S. Paul therein, because they are ready to communicate with all such as come worthily to receive, but the Knight must prove that S. Paul would not say Mass, unless others would communicate with him, or that he teacheth that other Priests must not.  
Where S. Paul 1 Cor. 11. commandeth the people to tarry one for another when they came together to eate he speaketh to the people, who made the suppers called Agape, as is plain by the text wherein bee reprehendeth the Abuses that were committed, as that some did exceed, others did want, some were drunk, some went away hungry, which could not pertain to the blessed Sacrament; besides the distribution of that belonged to the Priests not to the people who are here instructed, and reprehended for their manner of making their suppers.  
The cup of blessing is called a Communion, because it uniteth us to Christ our head, and also among ourselves, as members of the same body, and though it do this most perfectly when it is also received sacramentally, yet not only so, but it doth the same also in some measure being spiritually received: and as this union may remain among us members, though every one among us do not receive every day: so it may also remain between us and the Priest, though he say Mass, and we not receive. If this argument of the Knight were good, it would follow that not only some, but that all the people must receive together with the Priest.  
The Catholic Doctors cited by the Knight say indeed, that it was the practice of the primitive Church to communicate every day with the Priest, but they say not that it was of necessity so to do; nay some of them as Bellarmine and Durand prove manifestly that there was no such necessity or dependence of the Priests celebrating upon the people's communicating, that they might not celebrate unless the people did communicate. For S. chrysostom saith of himself that he celebrated every day, though there were no body to participate with him.  
The Council of Nants forbidding Priests to celebrate alone, speaketh only of not saying Mass all alone, without one or two to answer; to whom the Priest may seem to speak, when he saith, Dominus vobiscum, and the like; but what's this to saying Mass without some body to communicate with him?  
The Council of Trent doth not bless and curse out of the same mouth, or approve or condemn the same thing, when it commendeth sacramental communion of the people together with the Priest, and yet condemneth those who say private Masses are unlawful. For it is one thing for the Council to wish that the people would communicate, because to hear Mass and receive withal will be more profitable: an other to say, that if there be no body to communicate, such a Mass is unlawful, or that the Priest must not say Mass.  

The Hammer.  
THe jesuits answer to this Section of the Knight, wherein he impugneth private Mass by four texts of Scripture, two Canons of Counsels, and twelve pregnant Confessions of Romish Doctors, consisteth partly of sophisms, and partly of sarcasmes, to both which I purpose to return a short and smart answer, first by refuting his sophisms, and after by retorting his sarcasmes.  
To the first sophistical answer I reply. That the words of our Saviour, Take, eat, 
Mat. 26.26.  this is my body were spoken to all future communicants as well as to the Apostles then present, for they contain in them an institution of a Sacrament to be celebrated in all Christian Churches, till the end of the world, as the Apostle teacheth us from the 23. to the 28. especially at the 26 verse, 
1 Cor. 11.  as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye show the Lords death till he come. This the Apostles in their persons alone could not fulfil, for they lived not till Christ's second coming: they must of necessity therefore be extended to all that in succeeding ages should be present at the Lords Supper, who are as much bound by this precept of Christ to communicate with the Priest, or dispenser of the Sacrament, as the Apostles were to communicate with Christ himself, when he first in his own person administered it; otherwise if the precepts Take, eat, do this in remembrance of me appertained to the Apostles only, what warrant hath any Priest now to consecrate the elements? or administer the Sacrament? nay, what command have any faithful at all to receive the Communion? Yea but saith the jesuit, if not only the Apostles and their successors, but all the faithful are here enjoined to eat: it would follow that whensoever the Sacrament is administered, all must communicate that are in the Church at the same time. It will follow that all who are bid to the Lords table, and come prepared to whom the Priest in the person of Christ saith, Take eat, this is my body ought to communicate; 
De eccles. observ. sciendum juxta antiquos patres quod soli communicantes divinis mysterijs inter esse consueverint. Orat. de consecrat. dist. 2. peractâ consecratione omnes communicent nisi malint ecclesiasticis carere liminibus.  and this was the custom of the ancient Church as Micrologus teacheth, We must know, saith he, according to the ancient Fathers, that none but Communicants were wont to be present at the mysteries, and therefore before the Communion, the Catechumenie and penitents which were not prepared to communicate, were commanded to departed ite, Missa est: and we find an ancient Canon of the Roman Church attributed to Gelasius, enjoining all under pain of excommunication that are present after the Consecrationis finished, to participate of the blessed Sacrament.  
To the second. The precept of the Apostle, be ye followers of me as I am of Christ, 1 Co. 11.1. is general, and reacheth as well to acts of piety, as charity. As non est distinguendum ubi lex non distinguit, so non est restringendum ubi lex non restringit; as we may not distinguish where the law doth not distinguish: so we must not restrain where the law hath no restriction. The jesuite himself saith, that S. Paul's imitation is directed to all, if to all, then to Priests; and again he saith, these words come in very fitly to prove that in all things that appertain unto salvation we should seek to imitate S. Paul as he doth Christ. And I hope the jesuit holdeth the worthy receiving of the Sacrament a matter of salvation. I am sure the Apostle saith, 1 Cor. 11. He that eateth and drinketh unwerthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself. But what need we dispute this point any further? sigh the Apostle after he had delivered this precept in the beginning of the chapter, in pursuit thereof at the 23 verse instanceth in the Sacrament itself, saying, What I received of the Lord, that I delivered unto you, that the Lord jesus the same night he was betrayed taken bread etc. Surely if we are to follow the Apostle in the performance of moral duties, much more of religious, and this the jesuit in the end is compelled to grant, and therefore addeth for his further answer, that Catholic Priests do imitate S. Paul in the administration of the Sacrament, because they are ready to communicate with all such as come worthily to receive. Catholic Priests, that is in his language Romanists imitate S. Paul in their Mass; wherein? and how? he administered a Sacrament, they offer a sacrifice: he prayed in a known tongue, they in the Latin unknown to the people: he acknowledgeth no Lords supper where there is not a Communion, 
1 Cor. 10.17.  whereby many are made one bread and one body, because they all partake of that one bread; they say private Masses in which the Priest bids the people eat, and drink, but eateth and drinketh all himself: he speaketh of breaking of bread, they break none at all: he commandeth every one to examine himself, and so to eat of that bread, and drink of that cup, ver. 28. They forbidden the Laiety to touch the cup: and call they this an imitation of the Apostle? is it not rather an immutation and violation of the Apostles holy precepts and practise? in these things they tread in the Apostles steps, as the Antipodes do in ours, who are therefore so styled, because their feet and steps are diametrally opposite to ours. 
P. 194.  Yea but saith Flood, there are many things which S. Paul did, and wherein he did desire to be followed, as chastening of his body, fasting and prayer, in which Protestants are not so well able to prove themselves followers of him, as Papists can do. I answer, that although S. Paul in this place speaketh of no such thing, neither can his words reasonably be stretched to the chastening and beating down of his body to bring it in subjection, because he addeth, as I am of Christ be ye followers of me as I am of Christ. Now we read not that Christ beat his own body, or needed to endeavour to bring it into subjection, which was always so from the beginning: yet let him rightly understand the Apostles practise in taming his flesh, and subduing his body, and he will find Protestants as ready to follow him as any the most austere Papist. For by taming his body he meaneth not whipping or scourging, which Papists receive by tradition from the heretics called flagellantes or the whippers: nor was his fasting an abstinence from flesh and feeding on the daintiest fish, and pouring down the sweetest and strongest wines, 
Act. 28.33. Ye have continued fasting, having taken nothing, wherefore I pray you to take some meat, for this is for your health.  but an afflicting his body by watching, continual labour, and fasting from all kind of sustenance, and such fasts not only private Christians among us keep often, but our whole Church in public calamities by the command of supreme authority religiously observeth, and hath reaped singular benefits thereby.  
To the third. That the precept of S. Paul, to tarry one for another when they came to eat, appertaineth to the Sacrament is evident, 
1 Cor. 11.20.  first by that he calleth it the Lords supper which they came together to eat, when ye come together in one place, this is not to eate the Lords Supper. Now that by the Lord's Supper, not the Agape which were not instituted by him, but the Sacrament is meant not only S. Austin and S. Cyprian, 
Ep. 118.  tract. de coen. dom. and the Fathers generally quoted by Casaubonus, 
Exercit. 16. sect. 23. Baron. annal. tom. 1. An. 34. Constat coenam domini sic enim patres appellare consuevere institutionem sacratissimae Eucharistiae. Greg. Valent. Tom. 4. disp. 6. q. 1. puncto 1. solet vocari hoc sacramentum coena domini sicut appellavit  but Baronius and Gregorius de Valentia, and the Fathers in the Catechism of the Council of Trent expressly affirm. Secondly, it is evident by the coherence of the Apostles discourse in this chapter, who having reproved some abuses in eating the Lords Supper, to set an edge upon his reproof relateth, v. 23. & sequentibus the institution of the blessed Sacrament, and from thence inferreth, verse the 33. and 34. wherefore my brethren, when you come together to eat tarry one for another, and if any man hunger let him eat at home, that ye come not together to condemnation. Yea but saith the jesuit, 
Apostolus 1 Cor. 11. & Chrysostomus, hom 1. de coena dom. quamsanè appellationem tanquam à veteribus patribus usurpatā commemorat quoque catechismus Romanus. Catechis. Trid. pat. tract de sacram. Alt sanctissimi patres Apostolorum authoritatem secuti coenae etiam nomine eucharistiam interdum vocârunt, quòd illâ novissimâ coenâ salutari mysterio à Christo domi no sit instituta.  some among the Corinthians exceeded others, and some did want, some were drunk, and some went away hungry, which could not pertain to the Sacrament as every one knoweth. I grant these abuses could not fall out in the very act of receiving the Sacrament in which every one had but some part of the Consecrated bread, and a draught also of the holy Cup in such a small measure and quantity, as they could not be distempered thereby: neither doth the Apostle tax these abuses at the Lords Supper, but in their own supper which they took before, v. 21. their disorders in these he sharply reproves, not only as breaches of the Moral law, and acts of intemperance, but also as profanation of the Sacrament, to which they ought to have come with a holy preparation before. Yea but saith the jesuit, the distribution of the Sacrament belonged to the Priests, not to the people who are here reprehended for their manner of making their suppers. I answer, that albeit it appertaineth to the Priests to deliver the sacred elements, and the people to receive them from them: yet because the Priests cannot give, if none be to take from them, the people who either absented themselves from the Communion, or came not together, but one after another, are justly reproved: because by this their negligence or disorder, the Sacrament could not be so decently, or solemnly celebrated, as it ought. Now if the Apostle as the jesuit will have it, requireth the people to tarry one for another, before they began their feasts called Agapae; how much more think you would he require this duty of expecting one the other before they began the Lords Supper? which is one of the chiefest and most public Act and service, whereby we profess, and express the Communion of Saints. The neglect of the former duty in not staying for their guests at their Agapae, could be at the most but a discourtesy or incivility; but the neglect in the later, as the Apostle teacheth, trenched upon their conscience, and hazarded their salvation, wherefore my brethren, saith the Apostle, v. 33.34. When you come together to eat tarry one for another, and if any man hunger, let him eat at home that you come not together to condemnation.  
To the fourth. The text of the Apostle, the cup of blessing, which we bless, 
1 Cor. 10.16:  is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ? the Bread which we break, is it not the Communion of the body of Christ, for we being many are one bread and one body, because we are all partakers of that one bread, is pertinently alleged by the Knight against private Mass, which is a communion without communicants; much like to Caesar's monument, 
Philippica. 1.  which the Orator fitly termeth insepultam sepulturam, an unburied burial. How is the cup of blessing a Communion if none pledge as it were the one the other in it? how is the Bread a Communion if it be communicated to none? How are the people made one bread, and one body by it, if they partake not of it. I grant the union between the head and members, and Priest and people may remain though the Priest say Mass, and the people receive not: as likewise it may remain though the Priest say no Mass, nor communicate himself, because, there are other means of this Communion besides the Sacrament: yet because this Sacrament was ordained principally to confirm this union, and communion, and from thence taketh its name, they who impropriate a common, and of a public communion make a private Mass, destroy both the name and nature of this Sacrament. Moreover, as the worthy participation of the Sacrament wonderfully confirmeth: so it was instituted by Christ to represent the union of the Priest with the people, which cannot be done in private Masses wherein the Priest communicateth alone. For that representeth rather a distinction and separation of the Priest from the people, than an union. Yea but (saith the jesuit) if this argument of the Knight were good, it would follow that not only some, but all the people must receive together with the Priest, and that the people must not receive one without the other. I answer, that it followeth indeed that all the people that are solemnly invited by the Priest, and come prepared, aught to receive together; and this the Apostles words strongly enforce, we being many are one bread and one body, 
1 Cor. 10.17.  because we are all partakers of that one bread, mark it, all partakers of one bread, and therefore all one bread and one body. How can Papists make this argument good out of their private Masses, wherein none partaketh of the Bread, or tasteth of the Cup but the Priest?  
To the fifth. By the jury of twelve men true and honest in the jesuits account, (for they all lived and died in the communion of the Church of Rome) all Priests that say, (I cannot say celebrated) private Masses are cast as transgressors of the traditions and customs of the primitive Church; Nay farther as novelists and innovators. For they all testify and that jointly, that the practice of the primitive Church is for our public Communion, and against their private Masses, true saith the jesuit, they testify concerning the practice of the primitive Church, but they affirm not that the contrary practice was unlawful: the people than did communicate ordinarily with the Priest, but there was no necessity so to do. Admit this answer were true, that the verdict of this jury passed for the practice and manner of the primitive Church, not for any Canon or precept so to do: yet the Knight hath the better of the cause. For they all prove that for which he produceth them, viz. that by the confession of our Adversaries antiquity is for us in this point, and that there was a Church celebrating the Lord's Supper as we do, in the first and best ages when there was no Church extant in the world, either maintaining or practising private Masses. No man doubteth but that the constant and uniform practice of the primitive Church ought to sway more with all religious Christians, 
De sacrific. Miss. Dur. rat. l. 4. c. 53. in primitiuâ ecclesiâ omnes qui celebrationi missarum intererant communicabant. Bellith. in explicat can. c. 50 Micro. de eccles. observat. Tolos de Ritibus c. 38. Innocent. 3. l. 6. myster. mis. c. 5 Odo. in expos. ean. antiquitùs nullae missae sine collectâ, hoc est, caetu aliquo modò offerentium, & sacramenta participantiura agebantur. justin. in 1 Cor. 10. olim quod nunc etiam Graeci usurpant, ex uno eodemque pane consecrato delibatae particulae singulis tribuebantur ut melius unio & conjunctio cum Christo atque apertiùs significaretur.  than any novel constitution or practice of any later Church whatsoever. If we had nothing but their practice, that alone were of great moment. Yet we have more, I mean their judgement. For sigh whatsoever is not of faith is sin, especially in actions of this nature, their constant and uniform practice in this kind, may serve as a demonstration to any sober-minded man, that what they did, they thought most agreeable to Christ's institution. But the Witnesses depose farther, for some come home to the point of unlawfulness of private Masses. Albeit Cocleus saith no more than that anciently the Priests and people did communicate together; and Durandus, that all that were present at the celebration of the Mass did every day communicate. And Bellichus and Micrologus, and Tholosanus, and Innocentius the Third, that in the infancy of the Church, all that were present together at the Sacrament were wont to communicate. Yet Odo Cameracensis goeth a step farther, saying, in the Primitive Church they never had Masses without the convention of the people to communicate together. justinian addeth to the practice of the primitive Church, the present practice of the Greek Church backing them both with a good reason, In ancient times, saith he, which the Greek Church useth at this day of one loaf of bread Consecrated, divers parts were distributed to each communicant, that by this their Communion their union with Christ might be more plainly expressed. 
Hugo de S. Vict. in spec. eccles. post baec dicitur communio quae sic appellatur ut omnes communicemus, vel dicitur communio quia in primitiuâ ecclesiâ populus communicabat quolibet die. Cassand. de solitar. miss. propriè communio dici non potest nisi plures de eodem sacrificio participant. joan citat Cassand. consult de solit. miss. res ipsa clamat tam in Graecâ quàm in Latinâ ecclesiâ non solùm sacerdotes sacrificantes, sed & relics presbyteros, diaconos, nec non & reliquam plebem aut saltem aliquam plebis partem communicàsse, quod quomodo cessaverit mirandum est, etc. Bellar. li 2 de miss. c 9 et 10 Durandus de hoeret. l. 2. c. 4.  and Hugo out strippeth him, saying, it is therefore called the Communion, to teach us that we ought all to communicate of it, or because the people in the primitive Church did communicate every day together. Cassander enforceth the Argument drawn from the name of this Sacrament yet farther against private Masses, it cannot be said properly a Communion, but where some people are partakers of the same sacrifice with the Priest. And lastly johannes Hoffmisterus not only speaketh plainly, but cryeth out against your private Masses, The thing itself doth speak and cry aloud, that both in the Greek and the Latin Church, not only the sacrificing Priest, but the other Priests and Deacons, and the rest of the people, or at least some part of the people did communicate together, and how this custom ceased it is to be wondered, and we ought to endeavour that it may be restored again in the Church. Yea but saith the jesuit, Bellarmine and Durand prove by manifest authority, that in the Eastern Church in the time of S. Ambrose, S. Austin and chrysostom, the people did communicate but once a year: and yet S. chrysostom even there where he complaineth of the people's coldness, saith of himself, that he celebrated every day, though there were none to communicate with him. I answer, that the public and solemn time at which all were bound to communicate in the Eastern Church, was but once a year, to wit at Easter: yet did the people in those days both at other times, and especially when they lay on their deathbed, receive the Communion: which was therefore called Viaticum morientium. As for S. chrysostom; 'tis true that he much complaineth of the backwardness of the people in coming to the Communion, and professeth for his own part, that he neglected not his duty to celebrate the holy Sacrament, though he were much discouraged therein by the paucity and rarity of those, who presented themselves at the Lord's Table: yet I find not that he any where saith, that he celebrated the Communion when there was none to participate with him. For though it may be at some time especially on the week days, none of the people did communicate with him: yet always some of the Clergy, who assisted that action communicated with him; and therefore the jesuits inference, that by our doctrine the Priest must not say Mass once in seven years, unless the people be so devout as to receive with him, is most absurd. For in all Colleges, and Cathedral Churches, the Priests and Deacons communicate every month at the least, though none of the people sometimes receive with them. But in parish Churches it were a profanation and a mere mockery to administer the Communion without some of the people, to say, Take, eat, and drink you all of this, when there is none to eat or drink but the Priest himself, none, I say, neither Layk nor Clergy man.  
To the sixth. The Canon of the Council of Nants is mounted against solitary Masses; and what are solitary Masses but private Masses? the Fathers in that Council account it a ridiculous superstition in a Priest, to say, the Lord be with you, and lift up your hearts, and we give thanks unto the Lord, or let us pray, when there is none to make answer, 
Council Nan. c. 30. & Cassand. p. 83.  or present whom he inviteth to pray with him; and is it not altogether as absurd and ridiculous for the Priest to say as he doth in all private Masses, Take, eat, 
De myster. missae, c. 15. piè credendum est quòd Angeli dei comites assistant orantibus.  and drink ye all of this, when there is none to eat or drink with him? Neither will Innocentius evasion serve the turn, that we are piously to believe that though there are no men present, yet that the Angels accompany them that pray; for neither can the Angels join in such forms of prayer as are used, look upon our infirmities, and deliver us from fornication and other deadly sins: neither is it agreeable to sound Divinity or Philosophy to bid Angels that are spirits receive the body and blood of our Saviour. Here for want of better answer the jesuit picketh a quarrel with the Knight for not citing the Council of Nants out of any original but out of Cassander, 
Flood. p. 197.  beyond whom and one or two more such fellows, saith he, it seemeth his learning did not stretch. I will repay him in his own coin. For the jesuit himself citeth not the Council of Nants out of any original but out of Bellarmine and Burchard, beyond whom, 
P. 197, l. 27.  and one or two more such fellows, it seemeth his learning did not stretch. Is it no disparagement for Flood a professor in Divinity, and writer of Controversies to cite a Canon of a Council out of Bellarmine his fellow-Iesuit, and is it a disparagement for a Knight not professed Divine, to cite a Canon of a Council out of Cassander a most learned Doctor, and great Antiquary in high esteem when he lived in the Roman Church? If the jesuit answer that he could not cite the original, because that Decree is not now extant in any Council of Nants that we have, with one and the same answer he justifieth the Knight as well as himself. It is no argument of Ignorance, but rather of faithfulness and sincerity when a man cannot come to the sight of a record himself to transcribe it out of others verbatim, who have seen it and avouch them for it.  
To the seventh. The Council of Trent like Satyrus in the Poet bloweth out of the same mouth hot and cold; 
3. V 11.  or like the fountain in S. james, sendeth forth at the same place sweet water and bitter, 
c. 6. can. 8. optaret quidem sacro-sancta synodus ut populus qui astat communicaret, quòd hujus sanctissimi sacrificij fructus uberior proveniret.  for the Council accurseth them who say private Masses are unlawful, and yet wisheth that there might be no private Masses. It is true that it is one thing to wish that the people would communicate because to hear Mass and receive withal, will be more profitable: another to say, if there be none to communicate the Priest must not say Mass, or that such Mass is unlawful, yet there is such affinity between these two say, that a good argument may be drawn from the one to the other. For he that wisheth a reformation in private Masses, or (which is all one) that of private Masses they were made public Communions, consequently acknowledgeth that private Masses are faulty, or defective: and if faulty so fare as they are faulty, unlawful.  
And thus the indifferent reader may see that the water of this Flood wants ashes and soap to be mingled with it, lavat enim non perluit, for it washeth but scoureth not, nor fetcheth out foul stains in the Masspriests linen.  
Having refuted his sophisms, 
Loemel. spong feles unguentorum fragrantiâ, & Tigers pulsu tympanorum in rabiens aguntur.  I come now to retort his Sarcasmes. Tigers if they hear a drum grow mad: in this section the Knight sounded an alarm, and caused the drum to beat hard, at the sound whereof the jesuit his adversary after the manner of the Tiger groweth stark mad, and snappeth at every one he meeteth. First he falleth upon the Knight for creating a Cardinal, to wit, Hugo de S. Victore, 
Flood p. 188.  of his own free goodness to make up the number of his Bishops and Cardinals. I answer for the knight, that he created no supernumerall Cardinal: for he would not usurp upon the Poges privilege; but committed a small error in an 〈◊〉 and cry, which was made after one Hugh in stead of another, yet peradventure it was not the Knights mistake, but the Correctors. For Hugh of S. Victor, though he hath his Cardinal's hat in the margin, yet he standeth bareheaded in the text (it is called a Communion, 
Lynd safe way p. 119.  because it is a common union of Priests and people, otherwise, saith Hugo, it is called a Communion, for that the people in the primitive Church did communicate every day.) But admit the Knight mistook Hago de S. Victore, for Hugo Cardinalis, as Bellarmine confesseth, that many learned men of his own side mistook Anselmus Laudunensis, for Cantuariensis; yet Flood should have pardoned or let pass and overseen this small oversight, because we took him at a worse fault in the like kind in examining his last Section, wherein as I there shown he grossly mistaketh Bertram for Elfrick, and a collation of two Authors for a translation of one.  
Loripedem rectus derideat Aethiopem albus. 
Eras. Adag.  after this he jeareth at the Knight for saying that the Council of Trent wished well to our doctrine, 
P. 189.  What, saith he, have you Masses Sir Humphrey? take heed it may cost you money: an Informer that should hear this might catch you by the back, and bring you in for so many hundred marks as you have received bits of bread in your Church, which truly might prove a dear ordinary for you. The Orator said well, 
Cic. pray Coel.  nihil tam volucre quàm maledictam, nothing is so easily cast out as a contumelious word, and I may add nothing so easily returned bacl. The Knight no where saith that we have any Masses in our Church, but only that the Council of Trent wisheth well to public Communions wherein the people communicate with the Priest, which are not certainly your private Masses: but admit he had said we have Masses in our Church, he might very well have defended this speech by my Lord of Duresme his distinction of Christ his Mass, 
Tho. Mor. episc. Dunelm. l. nitit. Christ his Mass.  and the Pope his Mass. We have Christ his mass at every communion, neither is any man merced for being present at it, but for being absent from it. For Masses are not sold with us, as they are with Papists where there is a price set for dry Masses, and wet Masses, for low Masses and high Masses; the ordinary was but a groat for the one, and a tester for the other, but now it is raised; and so to speak in the jesuits language the Priest's Masses prove a Dear ordinary for the Laity. After this mad Tiger hath left the Knight, he fastens his teeth upon our Communion Table, calling it an empty Communion, nothing but a morsel of bread, 
P. 190.  and a sup of wine, and a pretty service and goodfellow Communion. 
P. 199.  Flood is the same full and fasting, in jest and in earnest, for in both he contradicts himself, which discovereth an idle and addle brain. If our Communion be empty and nothing but a morsel of bread, and a sup of wine what good-fellowship can there be in it? But in good earnest how can the jesuit call ours an empty Communion, which is every way full, and fuller than theirs, both for the signs, and the things signified? for the signs, we have the substance of Bread and Wine, they nothing but hungry accidents and shows, a bit of quantity, and a morsel of colours, and a sop of figures; neither have the Laity among them so much as a sup of the consecrated cup. For the thing signified we teach that all communicants by faith feed on the very body and blood of Christ, and all that so feed partake of all the benefits of Christ's passion: they teach that Infidels and reprobates eat Christ's body, and reap no benefit at all by it. As for his goodfellow Communion, let him take it to himself, for Aquinas noteth, that sometimes their Priests are overseen by drinking the liquor in the Consecrated cup, 
Missal. in cautel. si in casu gulae Eucharistiam evomuerit.  and the cautels of the Mass appoint what is to be done in case the Priest being drunk before cast up the host. As for our Communion there can be no excess, or as he termeth it good-fellowship in it. For the people have warning a week at least before to prepare themselves, and they receive always fasting before, and the quantity is so small that it cannot distemper any, which this bone Compaignion could not be ignorant of: But it seemeth he took a cup of vinum Theologicum in the Tavern before he set pen to paper in this section. For besidemanifold contradictions before noted, he termeth in it our Commnuion sacrilegious, 
P. 199.  not considering that they sacrilegiously take the cup from the Laity, and that we have restored it, and he concludeth the Section with these words, here is enough of such an idle subject. Now the subject as appears by the argument of the Section, and the title he putteth throughout, is Private Mass. Nay which is a most certain demonstration of his distemper; when he wrote this Section he forgot that he was a Priest, and reckoneth himself among the Laity, saying, the union may remain between us and the Priest, 
P. 197. l. 1.  though he say Mass, and we not receive.    

Concerning the 7. Sacraments, Spectacles, paragraph. 4. a pag. 199. usque ad 242.  
THe Knight unjustly chargeth Bellarmine for laying a foundation of Atheism, 
Concil. Trid. Sess. 7. can. 1. Bell. de effect. sacram. l. 2. c. 25. si tollamus authoritatem praesentis ecclesiae, & praesentis concilij, in dubium revocari poterunt omnium aliorum conciliorum decreta & tota fides christiana. 1 Eliz. 1.  in saying that if we should take away the credit of the Roman Church and Council of Trent (which decreeth the precise number of 7. Sacraments;) the Decrees of other Counsels, nay even Christian faith itself might be called in question, for if such a general Council may err, the Church may err; if the Church may err, the faith which that Church teacheth may fail, and consequently there can be no certainty. S. Gregory the great, did often say, and write, that he did hold the 4, first Counsels in the same honour that he did the 4. Gospels, which is the same, as to say they could as little err as the 4. Gospels. And the Parliament laws of England give as great authority to those 4. first Counsels, as S. Gregory doth, acknowledging that for heresy, whatsoever is condemned for such by any of them, which is in other words to acknowledge them for a Rule of faith, and consequently of infallible authority: neither can any thing be said more against the present Church, and present Council of Trent, then against the Church of that time, and the Counsels of those times.  
The Knight impertinently allegeth the testimonies of S. Paul, 
You know that I have withdrawn nothing that was profitable v. 27. I have not shrunk to declare unto you the whole counsel of God.  Acts 20.20. and Bellarmine l. 4. d. verb. Dei. All those things are written by the Apostle, which are necessary for all men, and which they preached generally unto all. For S. Paul speaketh not of the written word, but of the doctrine of Christ by him preached; neither doth Bellarmine's saying help any thing, because though those things which are necessary in general for all to know, which are but few be written, there be yet many more not written, which are necessary to be known by some in the Church.  
The Knight in praying that the Anathema decreed by the Council of Trent might fall upon his head, if any Papist could show the number of seven Sacraments to have been the belief of the Church for a thousand years after Christ, is too forward to draw malediction upon himself; it will come fast enough to his cost. It is an heavier thing than he is a ware of to have the curse of a mother, and such a mother as the Church which doth not curse without cause, 
Ecclesiasticus 3.11.  nor out of passion. For as the Scripture saith, maledictio matris eradicat fundamenta, the malediction of a mother doth root out the foundations.  
The Knight's definition of a Sacrament, to wit, that it is a seal witnessing to our consciences, that God's promises are true is senseless, and without ground, largely refuted by Bellarmine, 
Bell. l. 1. de sac. in genere. c. 14.16.  and proved to be most absurd. For how can the Sacraments be seals to give us assurance of his words, when all the assurance we have of a Sacrament is his word? this is idem per idem. Besides, what promises are these that are sealed? or if they be sealed, what need we more seals and Sacraments than one? if there may be more, why not seven as well as two? Again, how do we see the promises of God in the Sacraments? these are but foolish fancies bred in heretical brains, and so to be contemned.  
The Knight's Argument against five of our Sacraments, that in them the element is not joined to the Word, or they have not their institution from Christ, or they be not visible signs of invisible saving grace, is frivolous. For confirmation and extreme Unction have the element, and the Word, to wit, oil and the form: order and penance have institution from Christ, as is confessed in order the patten with an Host and Chalice with wine in it is the outward element: in penance humble confession with prayer, fasting, and almsdeeds, are the outward element: in Matrimony the bodies of a man or woman are as much an outward element, as water in baptism: and though Matrimony might be a natural contract before the Gospel, yet was it exalted to the dignity of a Sacrament by Christ, and though it be an holy thing as order is, yet as order is forbidden to all women, so upon good reason Marriage is forbidden to all Priests: because it is good, but of an inferior rank, and not so agreeable to the high estate of Priesthood.  
That S. Ambrose, Austin, chrysostom, and Bede 
Aug. in johan. tract. 15 de latere in cruse pendentis lanceâ percusso, sacramenta ecclesiae profluxerunt.  teaching, that out of Christ's side came the Sacraments of the Church prove no more two than seven Sacraments. For they say not that they were then instituted, or that there were no more Sacraments instituted, or that other Sacraments did not issue from thence.  
Saint Ambrose maketh express mention of the Sacrament of confirmation, 
L. 2. de sacram. c. 24.  and of penance, as Bellarmine showeth: who also yields a reason why S. Ambrose in his books de Sacramentis mentioneth no more but three Sacraments, because his intent in that work is only to instruct the catechumenie in those things which are to be done at the time of Baptism. For he neither writeth to the believers of his age, but only to some beginners, as is manifest by the title of one of his books: neither doth he there speak of the Sacraments which the Church hath taught and declared, but of the Sacraments which those beginners that he spoke to, had newly received.  
S. Austin in those places where he speaketh of two Sacraments restraineth not the number to two only. 
Respice ad munera ecclesiae, munus sacramentorum in baptismo in Eucharisliâ, et caeteris sanctis sacramentis.  For in his first Sermon upon the 103. psalm, he saith, cast thine eyes upon the gifts, or offices of the Church in Baptism, the Eucharist, and the rest of the holy Sacraments: and in his Epistle 118. having brought in the two Sacraments, Baptism, and the Lords Supper, he addeth this general clause, and if there be any thing else commended in canonical Scriptures. Neither doth the place the Knight citeth out of the third book de doctrinâ christianâ avail him any thing; for it is plain by the word sicuti, that he bringeth in Baptism, and the Lords Supper for example only, which doth no way restrain the number. Besides, his word in this place is not sacraments as the Knight citeth him, but signa signs, which is therefore a corruption of the Knights.  
S. Cyprian de ablutione pedum, reckoneth but five Sacraments, not that he thought there were no more: 
Cyp. doi ablut. ped. propter hoc benignissime Domine, pedes lavas discipulis quia post baptismum quem sui reverentia iterari non patitur, aliud lavacrum procurasti, quod nunquam debeat intermitti.  but that it pertained not to his purpose to speak of more in that place: his scope being only to speak of such Sacraments as had relation to our Saviour's last Supper, and by ablutio pedum, that Author meaneth the sacrament of penance, as appeareth by the words following, for this, O most benign Lord, thou didst wash thy Disciples feet, because after Baptism which may not be iterated, thou hast procured another laver which must never be intermitted.  
S Isidore in his sixth book of Etymologies cited by the Knight, doth not so much as intent to speak of any Sacrament at all, but his only intent is to treat of the names of certain feasts, as the title of the chapter showeth, to wit, of feasts and their names. Among which he putteth Christ's Supper. Moreover, to show that S. Isidore held more than the three Sacraments the Knight speaketh of, in his second book de Ecclesiast. offic. c. 16. & l. 23. c. 19 he mentioneth two more, Penance and Matrimony.  
Alexander hales in the place alleged by the Knight saith not, that there are no more than four Sacraments, but on the contrary concludes, Par. 4. q, 5. n. 7. art. 2. that there be neither more nor fewer than seven Sacraments; 'tis true indeed that Hales was of opinion that the form and matter which we now use in the Sacrament of confirmation were not appointed by our Saviour but by the Church in the Council, at Melda: but this Hales saith, sine praejudicio, that is with leave, not stiffly nor arrogantly maintaining his own opinion.  
Hugo de Sancto victore excludeth not Penance from being a Sacrament. For in his 23. chapter he calleth Penance the second board after shipwreck, 
C. 12. Septem sunt principalia ecclesiae sacramenta, etc.  and saith, that if any man endanger his cleansing, which he hath received by Baptism, he may arise, and scape by Penance. Moreover, the same Hugo in his Glass of the mysteries of the Church saith, that there are seven prinoipall Sacraments of the Church, whereof five are called general, because they belong unto all, to wit, Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme unction; and two special, to wit, Matrimony and Order.  
Although Bellarmine denieth that Extreme Unction can be deduced out of the last of S. Mark: and Cajetan out of the first of S. james, and although Hugo, and Peter Lomberd, and Bonaventure, and Alenfis, and Altisiodorensis deny it to be instituted by Christ: yet none of them all deny it to be a Sacrament.  
Bessarion the Cardinal saith not that there are but two Sacraments; for he was a great man in the Council of Florence, wherein seven Sacraments are precisely taught: but that we find these two Sacraments expressly delivered, and that we find none other, and none of the rest so delivered, that is, so plainly.  
Soto, though he denieth that ordination of Bishops, is truly and properly a Sacrament: yet he denieth not the Sacrament of order in the Church.  
Durand saith indeed that Matrimony is not ae Sacrament univocally, agreeing with the other six: but all acknowledge it to be an error in him, and Divines of his own time did note it for such, though the matter than were not so clearly defined.  
Cajetan saith indeed, that the prudent reader cannot infer out of the words of S. Paul, Ephes. 5. hoc est magnum Sacramentum, that Matrimony is a Sacrament: yet he denieth it not to be a Sacrament. For though it be not inferred from that place, 
Locor. Theol. l. 8. c. 1. si Lutheram de hoc matrimoniorum genere disceptare voluerint, intelligant se in scholae disceptationem incidisse, necoportere catholicum ad eorum argumenta respondere: sin verò argumententur matrimonium cum sacris ceremonijs administratum Sacramentum ecclesiae non esse tunc catholicus respondeat fidenter, securè contra pugnet.  it may be inferred from oiher; or if neither from that nor other, yet it may be deduced out of tradition.  
Canus telleth us that the Divines speak so uncertainly of the matter and form of Matrimony, that he should be accounted an unwise man, who in so great differences of opinion, would take upon him to establish any thing certainly: yet he denieth not Matrimony to be a Sacrament. For these are his words, if the Lutherans argue that Marriage administered with sacred Ceremonies, sacred matter, sacred form, and by a sacred Minister, as it hath ever been administered in the Roman Church, even from the Apostles time; if I say they argue that this is not a Sacrament of the Church, then let a Catholic answer confidently, let him defend stoutly, let him gainsay securely.  
Vasquez doth not say, that Matrimony is not a Sacrament properly so taken: but that S. Austin speaking of Matrimony doth use the word Sacrament but in a large sense: This is true, but it is but Vasquez his private and singular opinion, not in a point of faith, but only in the meaning of one Father, in the use of a word, and in this his opinion he is contradicted by other Catholic Divines.  
Bellarmine saith, that the Sacraments signify three things, 
De Sacram. in Gen. l. 1. c. 9  one thing past, to wit, the Passion of Christ; another thing present, to wit, sanctifying grace, which they work in our souls; another thing to come, to wit, eternal life. The signification of these three things is most apparent in Baptism, and the Eucharist: but not so apparent in the rest. Thus fare the Knight quoteth Bellarmine, but leaveth out that which followeth, tamen certum est implicitè illa omnia significari; but it is certain that the rest of the Sacraments signify all these things at least implicitly.  

The Hammer.  
ALthough the jesuit was very angry when he wrote this Paragraph, as appeareth by his snarling at every passage almost: yet in his discretion he thought good not to meddle with some things, which were too hard for his teeth. To Theophylact, Fulbert, and Paschasius, and the last passage out of S. Austin, as also to the refutation of the popish arguments for their septenary number of Sacraments, from incongruous and ridiculous congruities, he replieth not a word, and three of their prime Schoolmen, Durand, Vasques, and Cajetan, he lets shift for themselves, defend them he neither will nor can; yet for all this he puts up as if he had done wonders in this Paragraph, and filleth up the defect of solid answers with brags, and swelling words of vanity; Bullatis undique nugis pagina turgescit. But these bubbles we shall see will dissolve of themselves, in the particular answer to his twenty several exceptions against the Knight's discourse.  
To the first. The jesuit in this Paragraph thinketh that he discourseth very profoundly, for page 201. he saith, the Knight is not capable of it; whereas his channel here is so shallow, that any child instructed in his Catechism, may wade thorough it. Without an infallible rule, saith he, there can be no certain belief in God. An extreme verity, without an unerring Pope no certain rule of faith, an extreme falsity: the jesait cannot see Christ for the Pope, nor the Scripture for the Trent Canons. Let him remove them out of the way; and if he have an eye of faith, he may clearly see both, and in them an infallible rule of faith, and certain means to learn true belief in God. The occasion of this discourse of the jesuit was the Knight charging Cardinal Bellarmine for laying a foundation of Atheism in saying that if we should take away the credit of the Roman Church and Council of Trent, the Christian faith itself might be called in question. The charge lieth heavy upon the Cardinal. For to disparage the self-sufficiency of the holy Scriptures, and suspend our Christian faith upon the Decrees of a late factious conventicle, rejected by the greater part of the Christian world, is a ready way to overthrow all Divine faith, and true religion. Yet the jesuit seeketh to cover the nakedness of the Cardinal with these fig leaves, If agener all Council may err, the Church may earn; if the Church may err, the faith which that Church teacheth may fail, and consequently there can be no certainty. How easily are these leaves plucked away, and torn in pieces. 1. Though such a Council as the Council of Trent, consisting of a few Bishops swayed by the Italian faction may err, it would not from thence follow, that the whole representative Church might err. 2. Though the whole representative Church in a free and general Council lawfully called might err, yet many millions in the Catholic Church may hold the orthodox belief, and consequently the faith of the Church not totally fail. Yea but saith the jesuit, take away the infallibility of the Church there is no rule of faith. This assertion of his is open blasphemy, as if God would not be true, though all men were found liars: though the Roman Church and Pope err a thousand times, yet the rule of faith remaineth unvariable in the holy Scriptures. Yea but S. Gregory equalizeth the four first general Counsels to the Gospel, and saith in effect, that they could as little err as the 4. Gospels, and that upon the denial of their authority the Christian faith might be shaken as well as by the denial of the Gospels: and the like authority giveth your Parliament unto them. I answer, S. Gregory equalizeth the four first general Counsels to the four Gospels, not in respect of authority, but in respect of the verity of the articles defined in them: he saith not, they could as little err, but they did as little err, in their decisions, or to speak more properly that their doctrine was as true as Gospel, because the determinations in those first general Counsels against Heretics are evidently deduced out of holy Scriptures. Our Parliament alluding to the words of S. Gregory speaketh in the same sense, as he doth. Yea but saith the jesuit, your Parliament laws acknowledge that for heresy whatsoever is condemned for such in any of those Counsels, which is in other words to acknowledge them for a rule of faith, and consequently to be of infallible authority, and to join them in the same rank with the Canonical Seriptures. Idem jungat Vulpes; by the like reason the jesuit might say we join the book of Articles of Religion, and Homilies in the same rank with the Canonical Scriptures, because we condemn for heretics all that obstinately maintain any doctrine repugnant to them: which we do not, because we hold the Decrees of a provincial Synod, to be of in fallible authority: but because we are able to prove all the Articles there established, to be consonant to the holy Scriptures. Yea, but further saith the jesuit in the same statute, 
P. 203.  you give power to the Court of Parliament, with the assent of the Clergy in their Convocation to adjudge or determine a matter to be heresy, which is the very same as to give it power to declare faith, or to be the rule thereof. I answer, the statute giveth power to the Convocation, to declare faith, and determine heresy out of God's word, and by the sentence thereof, and no otherwise. In such sort to declare faith, is not to be the rule of faith, but to judge and measure things by the rule. There is a main difference between these two, (which yet the jesuit here confoundeth as if they were coincident) to declare faith, and to be the rule of faith every judge declareth the Law, yet is he not the rule of the Law. The Inquisitors in their jndices expurgatorij, and the Sorbonists in their censures declare what is heresy: yet they are not Itrow the Rule of popish faith, every meater in the market declareth that such or such is the measure of corn and grain: yet is not every, or any corne-meater the Winchester standard. It is one thing to be the rule, and another to measure by the rule, and declare what we have measured. But to retort the jesuits phrase upon himself, he is not capable it seems of this discourse which yet every market-woman or boy is. Well, let the authority of general Counsels be great in the Church, and of the four first Counsels greatest of all, quid hoc ad Rombum? what maketh this for the infallibility of the Trent conventicle? much saith the jesuit every way, for what, saith he, can you say more against the present Church, and present Council of Trent, then against the Church and Counsels of those times? What can we say? nay what can we not say? what have we not said? or what could all the Papists in the world answer to what we have already said? After he hath taken away the legal exceptions made against this conventicle by the Author of the history of the Council of Trent, and of the litterae missivae, and jewel his Treatise affixed to that History, and Chemnisius his Examen, and Doctor Bowles his latin Sermon preached to the Convocation, and lately printed: after he hath proved which he will never be able, that the Assembly at Trent was a free and general Council, and called by lawful authority, and all the proceed in it according to ancient Canons: yet it will still fall as short of the Council of Nice in authority, as in antiquity: that consisted of most eminent, learned, and holy Bishops and Confessors: this for the most part of hungry animals depending on the Pope's trencher as Dudithius a Bishop present at that Council declareth at large in his letter set before the History of the Council of Trent, to which I refer the reader.  
To the second. The testimonies alleged by the Knight for the sufficiency of holy Scriptures are ponderous, and weighty, and the jesuits exceptions to them are sleight, vain, and frivolous. To the testimony out of the Acts, I have kept bacl nothing that was profitable unto you, and I am pure from the blood of all men, 
Act. 20.20.27  for I have not shunned to declare unto you all the Council of God, he saith that S. Paul speaketh of the doctrine by him preached, not of the written word of God: as in like manner our Saviour saith, that what he heard from his Father he made known unto them, john 15.15. and yet delivered not one word in writing. It is true, S. Paul speaketh of the doctrine which he preached, but it is as true that the doctrine which he preached he confirmed unto them by testimony of Scripture. For S. Luke saith Acts 17.2. that S. Paul as his manner was, reasoned with them out of the Scriptures opening and alleging that jesus whom he preached unto them was Christ, and they that received the word with all readiness of mind searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so: 
Act. 24.14.  and again I confess that after that way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law, and the Prophets. If the jesuit had read the verse immediately following, testifying to the jews and Greeks' repentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord jesus Christ: he could not but have seen the absurdity of his answer, wherein he denieth that S. Paul speaketh of the written word. For who knoweth not that repentance towards God, and faith towards jesus Christ are written almost in every Sermon of the Prophets, and chapter of the Evangelists. What he addeth for confirmation of his answer, (from the example of our Saviour, who made known to his Disciples whatsoever he heard from his Father, and yet delivered not one word in writing) no whit at all helpeth his cause. For albeit we grant that our Saviour wrote nothing (except we give credit to a relation in Eusebius of a letter written by him to King Abgarus) yet he commanded his Apostles to write those things which they had heard and seen, what thou seest write it in a book, 
Euseb. eccles. hist. l. 1. Apoc. 1.11.  and send it to the seven Churches; and S. Peter saith, 
2 Ep. 8.20.  that no Scripture is privatae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, as Call vin well rendereth the words privatae impulsionis, of private impulsion or motion: for the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the holy Ghost: and therefore Irenaeus saith expressly, 
Advers. haeres. .3. c. 1. non per alios dispositionem salut is accepimus quans per quos E vangelium ad nos pervenit, quod primum praeconiaverunt, posted secundùm Dei voluntatem in script is reliquerunt, columnam & firmamentum fidei futurum. Euseb. hist. eccls. l. 2. c. 14. fideles iterat is precibus impetrârunt à Marcout monumentum illud doctrinae quod sermone, & verbis ill is tradidisset, etiam script is mandatum apud eos relinqueret. Esay 8.20.  that what the Apostles preached first by word of mouth by the will of GOD, they afterwards delivered in writing to be a pillar and foundation of our faith: and S. Austin affirmeth, that what Christ would have known of his words and deeds as needful to our salvation, that he gave in charge to his Apostles to set down in writing. If this suffice not, I will stop the mouth of this jesuit with the free confession of a greater jesuit than he, Gregory of Valence in his eight book of the Analysis of faith the fift chapter, minimè in ipsorum arbitrio positum fuit scribere, aut alio tempore aut alijs verbis scribere, the penmen of the holy Ghost were so guided by the spirit that it was not in their power, or at their choice to write, or not to write, or to write at another time, or to write in other words than they did. To the testimony of Bellarmine the jesuit gives as slight an answer as to the former out of S. Luke, whereunto I need to reply nothing, because in a case so clear we need not the Cardinal's confession, having such express testimony of Scripture and Fathers, as namely of Esay, to the law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, 
Deut. 4.2. Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it to the Priests which bore the Ark. Gal. 1.8. 2 Tim. 3.15.  it is because there is no light in them, of Moses, ye shall not add unto the words which I command you (which to be spoken of the written law is apparent by comparing this text with Galathians 3.10. and Deuteronomie 31.9.) And the words of Christ, john 5.39. search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life. And of S. john his beloved Disciple, john 20.31. these things are written that ye might believe that jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through his Name. And of S. Paul, if we or an Angel from heaven preach unto you any other Gospel then that ye have received; 
Advers. hermog. c. 22. adoro scripturae plenitudinem: scriptum doceat Hermogenes, Epist. ad Pomp: nihil innovetur in quit Stephanus, quod traditum est, unde est ista traditio? Vtrum de Dominicâ, & Evangelicâ authoritate descendens, an de Apostolorum mandatis, & epistolis veniens? ea enim facienda quae scripta sunt Deus restatur, siergo aut in evangelio praecipitur aut in Apostolorum. epistolis aut Actibus continetur, observetur haecsanctatraditio.  (that is as S. Austin expoundeth it praeterquam quod in Scriptures legalibus & Evangelicis accepist is, if any preach unto you any Gospel beside that which is contained in the writings of the Law and the Gospel, let him be accursed. And, thou hast known the Scriptures from a child which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ jesus, for all Scripture is given by Divine inspiration, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction and righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect throughly furnished to all good works. And of Tertullian, I adore the fullness of Scriptures; let Hermogenes prove what he saith out of Scriptures, or otherwise let him fear the woe denounced against all such as add any thing thereunto, or take therefrom. And of S. Cyprian; our brother Steven will have nothing to be altered in the Church tradition; Whence is this tradition, is it from the Gospel, or the Acts of the Apostles, or their Epistles, if it be so then let this holy tradition be kept, for God himself witnesseth that we ought to observe those things that are written. And of Athanasius, 
Athanas. orat. 1. cont. Arr. Sufficiunt per se inspiratae scripturae ad veritatis instructionem. Basil. Serm. de side: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hom. 3. in 2. ad Tbess. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Et in 2. ad Cor. Hom. 3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. jerom. advers. Helvid. c. 3. credimus quia legimus, non credimus quia non legimus. Augustin. de doc. Chris. l. 2. c. 9 in ijs quae apertè posita sunt in scriptura inveniuntur illa amnia quae continent fidem & mores. Cyril in Evang. johan. l. 1.2. c. 68, ea conscripta sunt quae scribentes Sufficere put drunt ad mores dogmataque. Vincen. Lyrin. advers. Haeres. hic requirat aliquis cum sit perfectus scripturae canon sibique ad omnia sat is superque sufficiat. Biel in can. mis. lec. 71. quae agenda, & quae fugienda, quae amanda, & quae contemnenda, quae timenda, & quae audenda, & quae credenda, & speranda, & caetera nostrae saluti necessaria, quae omnia sola docet Sacra scriptura.  the holy Scripturesare sufficient to instruct us in the truth. And of S Basil, it is a manifest falling away from faith, either to refuse any thing of those that are written, or to bring in any of those things which are not written. And of S. chrysostom, all things that are needful are manifestly set down in holy Scriptures; And again, in the holy Scriptures we have a most exact balance and rule of all things. And of S. Jerome, who maketh the Scripture a two edged sword cutting heresies on both sides, both in the excess, and in the defect, We believe, saith he, because were ade in Scriptures, we believe not what were ade not. And of S. Austin, among those things which are openly set down in Scriptures, all such things are to be found as appertain to faith and manners. And so of S. Cyril, all things which Christ spoke and did are not written, but all are written which the writers of the Gospel thought to be sufficient for doctrine of faith and manners. And of S. Vincentius Lyrinensis, the Canon of the Scripture is perfect, and over and above sufficient for all things. And of the prime of the Schoolmen Gabriel Biel, The Scripture alone teacheth us what we ought to believe and to hope for what things are to be done, and what to be shunned, and all other things that are necessary to salvation. And of William Pepin, Dom. 2. advent sala haec scriptur adocet perfectè & planè quid credendum, etc. The holy Scripture alone teacheth perfectly and plainly, what we ought to believe as the articles of our Creed, what we ought to do, as all divine precepts what we ought to desire as heavenly joys, what we ought to fear; as eternal torments. And of Scotus; 
In prim. sent. prol. q. 2. sacra scriptura sufficienter continet doctrinam necessariam viatori.  The holy Scripture sufflciently contains doctrine necessary for away faring man, that is in his travel to heaven. Howbeit, because Cardinal Bellarmine beareth down all before him, the more to convince this jesuit, and nonplus all Papists, I will examine what the Knight allegeth out of him to our present purpose; All thing, are written, saith he, by the Apostles, which are necessary for all men to know: If all things which are necessary for all men to know, than all things which are necessary for all Priests, Bishops, Cardinals, yea and the Pope himself to know, unless the jesuit will prove them to be no men. Assuredly the Apostles and the Fathers assembled at Nice and Constantinople set not down a different Creed for the Priest, and for the people, but one for all Christians. Yet I grant, that as the measures of the sanctuary were double to the common; so the learning of a Priest ought to be double at least to that of the common sort: a more exact, full, and exquisite knowledge of all, both the principles, and conclusions of faith is required in thom then in the other: yet nothing is required of them as necessary to salvation, which may not be drawn out of holy Scriptures, in which are contained all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 
2 Tim. 3.16.17. Oecum. & Chrys. in huno locum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lit. ad Phil. Hisp. reg. Nam quod ad Theologiam attinet quae summa Philosophia est, his libris omnia nostrae religionis, & divinitat is mysteria explicantur: quod verò attinet ad eam partem quae moralis nominatur, hinc quoque omnia ad omnes virtutes praecepta colliguntur, quibus quidem duabus partibus omnis nostrae salutis, & falicitat is ratio continetur. Banes in 1. p. Tho. q. 1. art. 8. conclus. 1. omnia quae non consonant judico eorum gravioribus censuris inurunt idque tanta facilitate ut meritò irrideantur.  The Apostle saith not only they are able to make wise unto salvation indefinitely, but that the man of God, that is the minister of God, may be wise & not only wise unto salvation, but furnished to every good work, that is, as S. chrysostom and Oecumenius expound it, fully accurately, and exactly instructed. And for ever to seal the jesuits mouth; thus much Gregory the thirteenth Pope of Rome in his letters to Philip King of Spain, freely confesseth thus expatiating in the praises of holy Writ, as for Theology which is the prime Philosophy or metaphysic in these books (speaking of the Bible) all the mysteries of our religion, and divine knowledge are unfolded, and as for that part which is termed moral; from hence all precepts to all virtues are gathered, and on these two parts depend all the course or means of our salvation and happiness.  
3. To the third. What Dominicus Banes wrote of certain Divines in his time, that were so free in their censures of other men, that they became a laughing stook to all men of judgement, may be truly applied to the Bishops assembled at Trent, who are so free in casting their thunderbolts of anathemas against all that differ from them in judgement, that the learned and judicious account divers of their Canons no better than Potguns. As arrows that are shot bolt upright fall down upon their heads that shoot them, unless they carfully look to it: so causeless curses fall always upon the cursers themselves, and hurt none else. This made the Knight so much sleight the bruta fulmina of your Trent Council. Yea but saith the jesuit, It is a heavy thing to have the curse of a mother, 
Apo. 17.5.  and such a mother which doth not curse without cause. The Church of Rome I grant is a mother, but mater fornicationum, as she is termed the mother of fornications and abominations of the earth; but she is none of our mother, jerusalem, or to speak more properly the catholic christian Church is our mother, the Roman Church must speak us very fair; if we own her for a sister, even this showeth her to be no Mother, that she is ever cursing us: the true Mother would by no means suffer her child to be divided. This cruel Stepdame not only suffereth those whom she would have taken for her children to be cut in sunder, but herself as much as in her lieth by her curses, divideth them from God, and all the members of Christ's mystical body, yet we spare to apply the words of the Psalmist unto her; she loved not blessing, and therefore it shall be fare from her; 
Ps. 109.17.18  she delighteth in cursing, and therefore shall it enter like oil into her bowels, and like water into her bones. Howsoever we are not scared with the bugbear, the jesuit goeth about to fright us withal; Maledictio matris eradicat fundamenta, the curse of a Mother doth root out the foundation; For first the book out of which he citeth this text is not Canonical. Next we deny that the text any way concerneth us, who are blessed and not cursed by our Mother the true Catholic Church; as for the Roman Church she can in no sense be termed our mother. For we had Christian Religion in this Island, before there was any Church at Rome at all, as I have elsewhere proved at large. Lastly, the text the jesuit allegeth is falsely translated, 
Ecclesiasticus 3.11.  he should have rendered the Greek thus; A Mother in dishonour or defamed, is a reproach to her children, such a Mother we grant the Church to be a reproach to all her children.  
To the fourth. The number of Sacraments we prove two manner of ways, first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; first by demonstrating our two; secondly, by refuting the five they add there unto. Howsoever the jesuit here as also Bailiff the antagonist of Rivet insult upon us, as if it were impossible to prove the precisenumber of two Sacraments and no more, because neither the name, nor the number of Sacraments is any where set down in terminis in Scripture: yet they shall find that we fail not in proofs of this point, but they in their answers. For to reserve the refutation of their five to the next Paragraph, we demonstrate our two by arguments drawn first from the name, secondly from the definition of Sacraments, thirdly from the example of Christ, fourthly from the end of the Sacraments, fifthly from the testimonies of the ancient Doctors of the Church.  
1. From the name, Sacramentum is derived from the verb sacrare, to consecrate, and signifieth a holy thing, a holy Rite whereby we are consecrated unto God. Now it is evident that by Baptism we give our names to Christ, we take our militare sacramentum, to fight under his banner, and that thereby we are sanctified and consecrated to his service: the like we may observe in the Lord's Supper, wherein we offer our bodies and souls, as a holy and lively sacrifice unto God, we are incorporated into Christ's body, and made one bread and one body, because we partake of one bread, the bread which we break; Is it not the Communion of the body of Christ? the Cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ? In the rest which our Adversaries term Sacraments, there cannot be given the like reason of the name. For by them we neither put on Christ, as in Baptism: nor are made members of his mystical Body, as by the Lord's Supper.  
2. From the definition of Sacraments; every Sacrament of the New Testament is a seal of the new Covenant. 
Rom. 4.11.  Now it is agreed on all parts that he only hath authority to seal the charter, in whose authority it is to grant it. But we find that Christ in the New Testament set only two seals, Baptism, the Institution whereof we have, Teach all nations baptising them, 
Math. 28.19.  in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost; and the Lords Supper, the institution whereof we have, be taken bread and broke it, saying, 
Luk 22.19.  this is my Body, do this in remembrance of me. In these Sacraments we have all the conditions required, first an outward and visible sign, in Baptism water, in the Eucharist bread and wine. Secondly, an Analogy or correspondency between the sign and the thing signified, between Water which washeth the body, and the spirit which washeth the soul; between bread and wine which nourisheth the body, and Christ's body and blood which nourisheth the soul. Thirdly, a promise of sanctifying and saving grace, to all that use the outward rite according to our Lord's institution: the promise annexed to Baptism we find, 
Mar. 16.16. Mtch. 26.28.  He that believeth and is baptised, shall be saved; to the Eucharist we find, this is the blood of the new Testament, which is shed for you, 
john 6.51.  and for many, for the remission of sins, and if any one eat of this bread he shall live for ever. When our adversaries shall prove in each of their five supernumerary sacraments, these three conditions we will subscribe to their whole number of seven, till than we content ourselves with our two.  
3. From the example of Christ. Christ our head consecrated in his own person all those holy rites, which he instituted for his own members. 
Mat. 3.15.  This Christ himself intimateth, when being repelled by S. john from his baptism, saying, I had need to be baptised of thee, and comest thou to me? He answered, Suffer it to be so now, for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. And S. Austin saith therefore Christ would be baptised, 
Serm. de Epiph. baptizari voluit quia voluit facere quod faciendum omnibus imperabat, ut bor us magister doctrinam suam non tam verbis insinuaret quam actibus exerceret.  because he would do that which he commanded all others to do, that as a good master he might not so much insinuate his Doctrine by words, as exhibit it by acts. But this our good Master exhibited by acts the doctrine of two Sacraments only, whereof he participated himself: of Baptism, Math. 3.16. And jesus when he was baptised, went up strait way out of the water: of the Eucharift; Matth. 26.29. I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until the day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom. Which words necessarily imply that before he uttered them, he had drunk of the cup which he gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of this.  
4. From the end of the Sacraments. We need but two things to instate us in grace, remission of our sins, and ablution; no more to maintain us in our christian life, but birth, apparel, food and physic: but all these are sufficiently represented, and effectually conveied unto us by two Sacraments. For we receive ablution by the one, absolution by the other: we are bred by the one, we are fed by the other: we are clothed by the one, we are healed by the other.  
5. From the testimonies of the ancient Doctors of the Church, S. Anstine, 
L. 2. de Symb. ad catechumenos. c. 6. percussum est latus ut Evangelium loquitur & statim manavit sanguis, & aqua quae sunt ccclesiae gemina Sacramenta; aqua in quâ sponsa est purificata; sanguis ex quo invenitur esse dotata. I sid. l. Origin. sunt autam Sacramenta baptismus & Chrisma corpus & sanguis Christi. Rupert. de vict. verb. l. 12. c. 11. quae & quot sunt praecipua salut is nostrae sacramenta? Sacrun baptisma, sancta corporis ejus, & sanguinis Eucharistia geminum spiritus sancti datum. Pasc. l. de coena dom. sacramenta Christianae Ecclesiae Catholicae sunt baptismus, & corpus, & sanguis Domini. Fulbert. ep. 1. lib. part. Tom 3. tertium est noscere in quo duo vitae sacramenta continentur.  Christ's side was strucken, as the Gospel speaketh, and presently there issued out of it water and blood, which are the two twin Sacraments of the Church, water whereby the Spouse is purified, and blood wherewith she is endowed. S. Isidore, the Sacraments are Baptism and Chrism, the body and blood of Christ. Rupertus, which and how many are the chief Sacraments of our salvation? He answers two, holy Baptism and the holy Eucharist of the body and blood of Christ, the double gift of the holy Ghost. Paschasius, the Catholic Sacraments of the Christian Church, are Baptism and the body and blood of Christ. Fulbertus, the way of Christian religion is to believe the Trinity and verity of the Deity, and to know the cause of his Baptism, and in whom the two Sacraments of our life are contained. Of all these arguments brought by Protestants the jesuit could not be ignorant. Yet he glanceth only at one of them, to wit, the second which he would make us believe to be an absurd begging the point in question; How can, saith he, Sacraments be Seals to give us assurance of his Word, when all the assurance we have of a Sacrament is his Word? This is idem per idem, or a fallacy called petitio Principij. As S. Austin spoke of the Pharisees, Quid aliud eructarent quàm quo pleni erant, What other things should these Pharisees belch out, then that wherewith they were full: we may in like manner ask, what could we expect for the jesuit to belch out against the Knight, then that which he is full of himself, sophisms and fallacies. That which he pretends to find in the Knight's argument every man may see in his, to wit, a beggarly fallacy called homonymia. For the Word may be taken either largely for the whole Scripture, and in that sense we grant the Sacraments are confirmed by the Word, or particularly for the word of promise, and the Word in this sense is sealed to us by the Sacrament: and this we prove out of the Apostle, against whom I trust the jesuit dare not argue; what Circumcision was to Abraham and the jews, that Baptism succeeding in the place thereof, is to us: but circumcision was a Seal to them of the righteousness of faith promised to Abraham and his posterity: 
Rom. 4.11.  therefore in like manner Baptism is a seal unto us of the like promise. What Bellarmine urgeth against our definition of a Sacrament to whom the jesuit sendeth us, is refuted at large by Molineus Daneus, Rivetus, Willet, and Chamier, to whom in like manner I remand the jesuit, who here desiring, as it seemed, to be catechised asketh, what promises are sealed by the Sacraments? I answer, of regeneration and communion with Christ. His second quaere is, what need more seals than one? or if more, why not seven as well as two? I answer, Christ might add as many Seals as he pleased, but in the new Testament he hath put but two, neither need we any more, the first sealeth unto us our new birth, the second our growth in Christ. If I should put the like question to the jesuit concerning the King, what need he more Seals than one? or if he would have more, why not seven as well as two? I know how he would answer, that the King might affix as many seals to his patents, and other grants as he pleaseth: but quia frustra fit per plur a quod fieri potest per pauciora, because two seals are sufficient, the Privy seal, and the broad seal: therefore his Majesty useth no other. Which answer of his cuts the windpipe of his own objection. His last question is a blind one, how may we see, saith he, the promises of God in the Sacraments? S. Ambrose and S. Austin will tell him by the eye of faith, Magis videtur, saith S. Ambrose, quod non videtur, that is more or better seen, which is not seen with bodily eyes; Sacraments, saith S. Austin, are visible words, because what words represent to the ears, that Sacraments represent to their eyes, which are anointed with the eyesalve of the spirit. In the Word we hear, the blood of Christ cleanseth us from our sins, in the Sacrament of Baptism we see it after a sort in the washing of our body with water: in the Word we hear Christ's blood was shed for us: in the Sacrament of the Eucharist after a sort we see it, by the effusion of the Wine out of the flagon into the Chalice, and drinking it; In the Word we hear, that Christ is the bread of life, which nourisheth our souls to eternal life: In the Sacrament after a sort we see it by feeding on the Consecrated elements of Bread and Wine, whereby our body is nourished, and our temporal life maintained and preserved.  
To the fift. In the former Paragraph we handled those Arguments which the Logicians term Dicticall, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  in this we are to make good our elenctical; in the former we proved positively two Sacraments in this privatively we are to exclude, and cashier all that the Church of Rome hath added to these two which deviseth Sacraments upon so weak grounds, and detorteth Scripture in such sort for the maintenance of them, that a learned Divine wisheth, that as for the remedy of other sins, so there were a Sacrament instituted as a special remedy against audacious inventions in this kind, and depravations of holy Scripture to convince them. For of an Epiphonema this is a great mystery, 
Ephes. 5.32.  they have made a Sacrament, the sacrament of Matrimony: of a promise, whose sins ye remit, 
john 20.23.  they are remitted; they have made a second Sacrament the sacrament of Penance: of an enumeration of the Governors and Ministers of the Church, Ephes. 4.11. And he gave some, Apostles: some Prophets: some, Pastors some, Evangelists: some teachers, a third Sacrament, the sacrament of Order: of a relation what the Apostles did, Acts 8.17. In laying hands on them, who received the gift of tongues; a fourth Sacrament, the sacrament of Confirmation: Of a Miracle in restoring the sick to their former health by anointing them with oil in the name of the Lord; a fift Sacrament, the sacrament of Extreme Unction. A child cannot be bishopped; a single party contracted; a Priest or Deacon ordained; a penitent reconciled; a dying man dismissed in peace, without a sacrament, the sacrament of Extreme Unction. If they take Sacrament in a large sense, for every divine Mystery, holy Ordinance, or sacred Rite, they may find as well seventeen as seven Sacraments in the Scriptures: if they they take the Word in the strict sense for such a sacred Rite, as is instituted in the New Testament by Christ, with a visible sign or element representing and applying unto us some invisible sanctifying and saving grace; I wish the jesuit might but practise one of their Sacraments, that is, do penance so long till he found in Scripture that, and the other four Sacraments which they have added to the two Instituted by Christ. To begin with them in order, and give Order the first place, we acknowledge the ordination of Priests and Deacons by Bishops to be de jure divino, and we believe where they are done according to Christ's Institution, that grace is ordinarily given to the party ordained, but not sacramental grace, not gratia gratum faciens, but gratia gratis data, a ghostly power for the good of others, not a necessary grace of the Spirit sanctifying and saving the soul of the ordained. Besides, this Sacrament of order is out of order. For it hath no element added to the sanctified form of words. Yes that it hath (saith Flood) the Host, Chalice, and Patent, or Letters of order. The Bread and Wine, I grant are elements appointed by Christ, but in another sacrament the Eucharist, not in this, and 'tis confessed on all sides, that as in the Sacraments of the old Law, so of the New, the elements must not be confounded. Neither doth Christ any where command that in the ordination of Bishops, or Priests, such a Rite or Ceremony should be used: neither doth the Host or Chalice signify or represent the invisible Grace, or Ghostly power then given. And as for the instrument it is a parchment, but no element; it is a legible writing testifying the party is ordained, but no visible sign of an invisible grace; no Seal of the new Covenant. For the Patent, Chalice, and Bible, they are not, as before was said, any sacramental signs of divine grace, but only ensigns and tokens of their several offices and functions, or instruments that are to be used in their ministration besides, every one of these orders is conferred by words and Ceremoniss clean differing one from another, whereupon it followeth, that either none of them is a Sacrament properly so called, or that each of them apart is a Sacrament, and so the number of Sacraments will be near doubled. Bellarmine's evasion De Sacram. ordin. l. 1. c. 8. to wit, that they are all unum genere, and referred to one end will not serve the turn, for so all the other six Sacraments are unum genere, and all referred to one end, to wit, to unite the receivers some way to Christ, or derive some grace from Christ to them, and yet they are not one Sacrament, but as they teach, six distinct species.  
For Confirmation, we allow of it as an Apostolical tradition, not as a Sacrament of Divine Institution. For where doth Christ command that those who have heene baptised, should be after confirmed by a Bishop? Where is an element or form of words prescribed by Christ as in Baptism and the Lords Supper? The jesuit answereth that the element in this Sacrament is chrism, or oil, but this cannot be: as well because in divers Sacraments there ought to be divers elements, and therefore sigh Chrism and oil is the element in Extreme Unction, which taketh the name from thence, it cannot be the matter or element in Confirmation. Accedit verbum ad elementum, saith S. Austin, & fit Sacramentum, the word of promise being added to another element appointed by God maketh a Sacrament. In this we have neither Word nor Element, therefore as the Greek Orator spoke of the evil laws enacted in his time, 
Aristor. Rbet. l. 2.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the laws need a law to mend them: so we may say of this Sacrament of Confirmation, it needeth confirmation and better proof for it, than yet we see.  
For Penance, as it is practised at this day in the Roman Church, it is not of divine institution: as it was practised in the Primitive Church, and is at this day in ours is a Divine ordinance, but yet no Sacrament: because we find in it no outward element with a form of words prescribed by Christ: no visible sign of invisible grace. No (saith Flood) is not the true sorrow of heart declared by humble confession, together with prayer, fasting, and Almsdeeds, an outward element, or thing to be perceived by sense? I answer, that every thing perceived by sense, is not presently an element in a Sacrament, it must be as the Schools out of S. Austin define a visible sign of invisible grace. Confession and prayer are indeed audible, but not visible: Fasting and Almsdeeds are visible, but visible works of piety and charity, not visible elements in the Sacraments: they are moral duties, not sacramental Rites. For what correspondency is between these, and absolution or remission of sins? how doth Fasting or Alms exhibit to the eye this invisible grace? Contrition of the heart of which he speaketh, is no visible or sensible sign, Confession is sensible, but not visible, nor ordained as the elements are in Sacraments to signify the grace of God, but to ask it: the sacred signs ought to be administered by the Priest, but Confession is made by the penitent, the same may be said of corporal satisfactions which are accomplished by the sinner, and commonly in his house by fastings, or whip, or abroad by pilgrimages, whereas sacred signs are to be administered by the hands of the Priest, and ordinarily in the Church; Absolution also cannot be a sacred sign of the grace of God, seeing that if it be good and available, it is the grace of God; besides this Absolution, is not an element, nor a visible sign of an invisible grace, for the words are not seen: if it be said that it is sufficient, that it is significantly the grace of God, by the same reason the preaching of the Word should be a sacrament, for it is significantly the grace of God. In all Sacraments the Word must be joined to the element; but here they will have the Word to be an element: the imposition of the Priests hands on the penitent is a visible action, but not a visible element, nor is it instituted by Christ. When the Trent Council, and the Roman Catechism come to assign the matter of this Sacrament, they do it very faintly with a quasi materia, Sess. 14. de poenit. c. 3. & Catechis. Rom. part. 2. c. 5. They say the actions of the penitent are, quasi materia, and such as the matter is, such is the Sacrament quasi sacramentum.  
For Matrimony, it is a holy ordinance of God, but more ancient than the New Testament, and therefore can be no seal of it: it was instituted by God in Paradise, not by Christ in the Gospel: yea but (saith the jesuit) though it were before a natural contract, yet might it not be exalted by Christ to the dignity of a Sacrament? I answer, the jesuit must not dispute what Christ might do, but what he did; When he proveth out of the Evangelists or Apostles, that Christ exalted it to the dignity of a Sacrament, we will hold it in that high esteem, but this he can never do: for none of the Evangelists relate that he altered the Law, or nature of Matrimony: but only that he confirmed it, and honoured it with his presence, and the first Miracle which he wrought. Other exaltation we find not in the Gospel; And as S. Jerome speaketh in the like kind, quia non legimus, non credimus, because we read it not, we believe it not.  
Our second exception against the Sacrament of Matrimony is, that in it there is no outward element sanctified by the Word of promise. To this the jesnit answereth; the bodies of men and women, are they not as much as an outward element? Yes surely as much in quantity and more too: 
Bell. l. 1. de matrim. c. 6. Si matrimonium consideretur.  jam factum & celebratum conjugati sunt materiale Synbolum & externum cujus re fut at. vid. apud Chamierum Panistrat. Cathol. de sacr. l. 4, c. 27.  but none ever before this jesuit and his Master Bellarmine maketh men's bodies outward elements in any Sacrament: the bodies of men and their souls are either the Ministers, or receivers in every Sacrament, not the elements or material parts thereof. The element in every Sacrament hath the denomination of the whole, as when we say the sacrament of Circumcision, of the Passeover, of bread and wine: but who ever heard of the sacrament of men and women's bodies. Our third exception against the sacrament of Matrimony is that if it be a sacrament conferring grace, as they teach, ex opere operato, why do they deprive Priests of it? and make them take a solemn vow against it? The jesuit answereth, that though Mariagebee a holy thing, as Order also is, yet as Order is forbidden to all women, so upon good reason Marriage is forbidden all Priests. 'tis true, I grant that all holy things in themselves are not fit for all ages, sexes, and callings. In particular it is no way fit that women should be admitted into holy Orders, because they are forbidden to speak in the Church; 
1 Cor. 14.34  and it seemeth to be against the law of nature, that the weaker and more ignoble sex should be appointed to instruct and govern the stronger and more noble: but there is not the like reason in Order and Matrimony. 
Heb. 13.4.  For the Scripture saith, Marriage is honourable among all, but not that the order of Priesthood is commendable in all men. Much less women, yet the jesuit saith, that upon good reason Marriage is forbidden Priests, because it is not agreeable to the high and holy estate of Priesthood and religious life. A strange thing that a sacrament should not be agreeable to the most sacred function, that a holy Rite conferring grace should not be agreeable to a religious life. If Marriage were any disparagement to the holiness of priesthood, why did God appoint married Priests under the law? and Christ chose married Apostles in the Gospel? Eusebius saith of Spiridion, that though he were married, and brought up children, 
Sozom. Eccles. hist. l. 1. c. 11. Chrys. in Gen. 5.22.  yet that he was nothing thereby 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hindered or disparaged in his sacred function, and S. chrysostom in his Homily upon those words, Enoch walked with God, noteth it that it is said twice for failing, Enoch walked with God, and begat sons and daughters to teach us that marriage is no impeachment to holiness, or the highest degree of perfection, whereby we are said to walk with God. To shut up this point concerning Matrimony, Cardinal Bellarmine teacheth us, that the seven Sacraments answer seven Virtues; Baptism answereth to Faith, Confirmation to Hope, the Eucharist to Charity, Penance to justice, Extreme Unction to Fortitude, and Matrimony to continence or temperance; if so, then certainly Matrimony is most agreeable to the office of a Bishop or Priest; 
1 Tim. 3.2.  For a Bishop must he continent and modest, and as it there followeth, the husband of one wife; and unless the rules of Logic fail, if Matrimony hold correspondency with temperance, the prohibition thereof, and forced single life must needs answer to intemperance, as the testimony of all ages proveth it.  
For Extreme Unction the lag of all their Sacraments little or nothing can be said. For it wanteth all the three conditions requisite to a Sacrament: it hath neither element, nor form of words prescribed by Christ, nor any promise of saving & sanctifying grace. The Apostles indeed used oil, but as a medicine to heal the body, not as a sacrament to cure the soul. As the Apostles used oil, so Christ spittle in restoring sight to the blind: will they hereupon make spittle an eighth sacrnment? Sacraments ought to be of perpetual use in the Church, whereas the Unction whereof the Scripture speaketh, whereby the sick were miraculously cured, is ceased long ago; if the jesuit will not give ear to us, let him yet yield so much respect to Cardinal Cajetan, as to peruse what he commenteth on that text of Scripture on which the Church of Rome foundeth this Sacrament; Is any sick among you, 
james 5.14.15.  let him call for the Elders of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up, and if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him. 
Cajet. come. in hunc locum neque ex verbins, neque ex effectu, verba baec loquuntur de Sacramentali Vnctione, seu sacramento Extremae Vnctionis sed magis de Vnctione quam instituit Dominus jesus in Evangelio à discipulis exercendâ in aegrot is: textus enim non dicit infirmatur quis ad mortem? sed absolutè infirmatur quis? & effectum dicit infirmi allemiationem. & de remissione peccatorum non nisi conditionaliter loquitur, cum extrema Vnctio non nisi propè articulum mortis detur, & directè ut ejus-forms sonat, tendit ad remissionem peccatorum adde quod Iacobus ad unum aegrum mult os praesbyteros tum orantes, tum. Vnguentes mandat vocari, quod ab Extremae Unction is ritu alienumest.  On these words thus Cajetan inferreth, it cannot be gathered either from the words, nor from the effect here mentioned, that the Apostle speaketh of sacramental or Ex. treame Unction, but rather of that anointing which Christ appointed in the Gospel to be used in healing the sick, for the Text saith not, is any man sick unto death, but simply is any man sick; and the effect he attributeth to this anointing is the ease or raising of the sick; of remission of sins he speaks but conditionally, where as Extreme Unction is given to none but at the point of death, and directly tendeth to remission of sins as the form importeth. Add hereunto that S. james commandeth many Elders to be sent for, both to pray and anoint the sick, which is not done in Extreme Unction.  
To the sixth. The Knight having shot two arrows out of S. Austin's quiver, the one with a head, the other without, yet sharp pointed: the jesuit quite concealeth the one, and endeavours to blunt the other. The former he drew out of S. Austin his treatise de symbol ad catechumenos, where speaking of Baptism and the Lords Supper, he saith, haec sunt Ecclesiae gemina Sacramenta, these are the two twin Sacraments of the Church. 
De latere in cruse pendentis lanceâ percusso sacramenta Ecclesiae profluxerunt.  to this the jesuit answereth, negry quidem. To the other taken out of the 15. tract upon S. john, that out of the side of Christ the Sacraments of the Churchissued, he would seem to answer something. First he quarrelleth at the quotation, saying, I do not think you will find in Chemnitius your good friend S. Ambrose and Bede cited: Whereunto I answer, that though the Knights good friend Chemnitius cite not Ambrose and Bede, yet the jesuits good friend Card. 
De Sacram. in gen. l. 2. c. 27. Amb. l. 10. in Luc. & Bed. c. 19 joh. intelligunt per sanguinem qui è latere effluxit redemption is pretium, & per aquam baptismum.  Bellarmine citeth them both, his words are, Ambrose in his tenth book upon S. Luke, and Bede in his comment upon the 19 of S. john understand by blood which issued out of our Saviour's side the price of our redemption by water Baptism. Next the jesuit endeavoureth to untwist this triple cord, by saying that these three Fathers speak of Sacraments issuing out of Christ's side, but no way restrain the number to two. Whereunto I reply, that though the word Sacramenta for the number may be as well said of seven as two Sacraments: yet where S. Austin alludeth to the same text of Scripture, and falleth upon the same conceit, he restraineth the number to two, saying, there issued out of Christ's side water and blood, quae sunt Ecclesiae gemina Sacramenta. Now I would feign know of the jesuit where ever he read gemina to signify seven, or more than two? Were the Dioscuri which are commonly known by the name of geminy seven, or two only, to wit, Castor and Pole-axe? As for S. Ambrose and Bede though they say not totidem verbis, that the two Sacraments of the Church issued out of Christ's side, as S. Austin doth: yet they can be understood of no more than two Sacraments: for there were but two things which issued out of our Saviour's side, to wit, water and blood, whereby they understand Baptism and the Lords Supper. Had there issued out of our Saviour's side, together with water and blood Chrism or balsamum, or had a rib been taken from thence, the jesuit might have some colour to draw more Sacraments out of it: but now sigh the Text saith there issued only two things, water and blood; and the Fathers say the Sacraments of the Church are thereby meant: it is most apparent that by Sacramenta they meant those two only: which they there name in express words, Baptism and the price of our redemption, that is Christ's blood in the Eucharist.  
To the seventh. The authority of S. Ambrose is as a thorn in the jesuits eye, for it cannot but be a great prejudice to their cause, that so learned a Bishop as S. Ambrose, writing six books professedly of the Sacraments omitteth the Romish five, and spendeth his whole discourse upon our two. If the Church in his time believed or administered seven Sacraments, he could no way be excused of supine negligence for making no mention at all of the greater part of them: it were all one as if a man professing to treat of the elements, or the parts of the world which are four, or of the Pleyades or the Septentriones, or the Planets which are seven should handle but two of that number. Bellarmine therefore and after him Flood pluck hard at this thorn, but cannot get it out (saying that S. Ambrose his intent was to instruct the Catechumeni only, as the title of one of the books showeth.) For first S. Ambrose hath no book of that title, viz. An instruction to them who are to be catechised, or are beginners in Christianity. The title of that book is De ijs qui initiantur, of those who are initiated or entered into holy mysteries. Secondly, this is not the title of any of the six books de sacramentis alleged by the Knight, but of another tractate. Thirdly, admit that S. Ambrose, as S. Austin and Cyrill wrote to the Catechumeni, and intended a Catechism: yet they were to name all the Sacraments unto them, as all Divines usually do in their Catechisms: because the Sacraments are always handled among the grounds, and principles of Christian religion. And though the Catechumeni are not presently admitted unto all, yet they are to learn what they are, that they may be the better prepared in due time to receive them. Fourthly, it is evidently untrue (which the jesuit saith) that S. Ambrose writeth not to the believers of that age, but only to some beginners. The very front of his book proves the jesuit to be frontless. For S. Ambrose his first words are, I will begin to speak of the Sacraments which we have received, etc. In Christiano enim viro prima est fides, for the first thing in a Christian man is faith. And as he writeth to all believers not beginners only, so he speaketh also of the chief Sacraments of the New Testament, and not of those only which the catechumeni received, as is apparent out of the fourth chapter of the first book De sacramentis. Wherein he proveth according to the title of that Chapter, Quôd sacramenta Christia. norum diviniora sint, & priora quàm Indaeorum, That the Sacraments of the Chrìstians are more ancient and more divine than those of the jews; and he instanceth especially in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. Lastly, the jesuit in this answer apparently contradicteth himself, first, saying that S. Ambrose intent in that Work was only to instruct the catechumeni in those things that were to be done in the time of Baptism, 
p. 210.  and within a few lines after he saith, 
Bud. deasse, Veritas nonnunquam invitis erumpit as fallens inter mendacia ab audientibus demuns agnoscitur cum interim loquentes adhuc se habere in potestate putent.  that he writeth of the Sacraments whereby they were so initiated which are three, Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist. So true is Budaeus his observation, That lies dash one with the other, and truth breaks out of the mouth of the liar ere he is ware. Who ever heard of the Eucharist to be administered in the time of Baptism, or that the Eucharist was administered at all to the punies or catechumeni whilst they were such, certainly if the catecumeni or younger beginners, to whom he saith S. Ambrose wrote, were capable of the doctrine of the Eucharist, containing in it the highest mysteries of Christianity, they were much more capable of Penance, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, which are easy to be understood by any novice in Christian religion.  
To the eight. That it may appear what was the judgement of S. Austin in this main point of difference, between the Reformed and the Roman Church, I will weigh what is brought on both sides, first what the jesuit allegeth for seven: and than what the Knight for two. S. Austin having written divers catechistical treatises, in which he had occasion to name and handle the Sacraments: yet no no where defineth the number of them to be seven, neither nameth all of them either jointly or severally: this the jesuit knowing well enough, bringeth no one testimony for the proof of their seven Sacraments out of him, but forceth only some sentences to prove out of them that he held more than two, as namely out of his first Sermon upon the 103. Psalm, Cast thine eyes upon the gifts or offices of the Church in Baptism, the Eucharist, and the rest of the holy Sacraments, and Epist. 118. having brought in two Sacraments, Baptism and the Lords Supper, he addeth such a general clause, and if there be any thing else commended in holy Scriptures; which words of his import that he held more sacraments than Baptism and the Lords Supper, in that very sense wherein those two by him named are called Sacraments. I answer, S. Austin in neither of these places taketh the word Sacrament in a strict sense: but in a large for every sacred rite commended in Scripture, or gift and office of the Church. As for the word coeter is, the jesuit insisteth upon: it importeth only a generical convenience and similitude not a specifical; and so we acknowledge that there are many sacred rites in the Church, which agree with Baptism and the Lords Supper in the generical notion of Sacraments: but not in the specifical as the word Sacrament is taken for a peculiar seal of the New Testament, having thereunto annexed a promise of justifying grace. Now let us weigh what the Knight allegeth out of S. Austin for two Sacraments only, 
De doct. Chris. l. 3. c. 9  Our Lord (saith that Father) and his Apostles have delivered unto us a few Sacraments in stead of many, in performance most easy, in signification most excellent, as is the Sacrament of Baptism and the Lords Supper. To disappoint this testimony, the jesuit first layeth corruption and falsification to the Knights charge, because S. Austin's words are signa pauca, not sacramenta. Which is nothing but a mere cavil, for signa and sacramenta are in S. Austin no other than synonimas, by signa he can mean no other than sacramenta. For he instanceth there in no other, neither did Christ deliver unto us any other signa or sigilla but these two. Yes, saith the jesuit, for it is plain by the word sicut, that he bringeth in Baptism and the Lords Supper for example only, and doth not restrain the signa to these two. It is not plain, for sicut bringeth in an example be it one, or more, neither can we from thence infer that there are more. For S. john speaking of our Saviour saith, vidimus gloriam ejus sicut unigeniti filij Dei, We beheld the glory as of the only begotten Son of the Father. Will the jesuit from thence infer that God had more only begotten sons? but to expound S. Austin out of himself those signs or Sacraments which here he calls a few, in his 118. Epistle he terms most few (Sacrament is numero paucissimis) surely seven Sacraments are not numero paucissima, fewest in number, but two are so: and therefore in his book De symbolo ad catechumenos, he termeth them gemina Ecclesiae sacramenta; which passage the jesuit taketh no notice of, because he could give no answer at all unto it, yet he setteth a good face upon the matter saying, this may suffice for such testimonies as were alleged out of S. Austin. Of all the Roman Captains I cannot liken him fit to any then to Terentius Varro, who though he fought so unhappily against Hannibal at Cannae, that he lost 40000. men upon the place, yet he seemed to be little daunted therewith, and the Roman Senate sent him public thanks, quòd de republicâ non desperâsset, that he despaired not of the Commonwealth.  
To the ninth. The author of the treatise De ablutione pedum, who was fare later than S. Cyprian, mentioneth indeed five sacraments which are more than two, yet less than seven, and for those five he nameth, it is evident he intended not that they were Sacraments in a strict sense. For one of them is ablutio pedum, which if it be a Sacrament in the proper sense, then hath the jesuit an eighth sacrament as himself is sapientum octavus. Not so, saith he, for ablutio pedum which that Author meaneth is the sacrament of Penance. Then belike Peter and the Apostles did Penance whilst Christ washed their feet. Although there may lie hid some mystery in that ablution, 
L. 2. de sac. c. 24.  and therefore it may be termed a Sacrament in a large sense, as Bellarmine expoundeth that author. Yet our Lord himself revealeth unto us no other mystery, nor maketh any other inference from it then a pattern of humility, 
joh. 13, 14.  If I your Lord and Master have washed your feet, ye also aught to wash one another's feet. Yea but (saith Flood,) the author speaketh of another Laver after Baptism, and what can that be other then Penance? He speaketh of another laver, not of another Sacrament, which laver is no other than the laver of penitent tears. But dicis causa, let ablutio pedum be Penance, yet we have but four Sacraments mentioned by this Author, what becometh of the other three? To this he answereth that the Author mentioned not them because his scope was in that place to speak of such Sacraments as had relation to our Saviour's last Supper. A ridiculous evasion, for what relation hath Baptism, or Penance, or Confirmation, or order to our Lord's Supper? But the jesuit like a Lawyer that hath taken his fee of his Client, thought himself bound in conscience to speak something in behalf of this Author, though nothing at all to the purpose, like Erucius in Tully Ego quid acceperim scio, quid dicam nescio. 
Cic. pro. Rosc. Amer.   
To the tenth. The jesuit in his answer to S. Isidore betrays extreme negligence. For the Knight quoting S. Isidore at large in his sixth book, and not naming any chapter, this Desultorius Miles posting through one chapter, and finding not the words there, chargeth the Knight with falsification; whereas in the chapter immediately following, to wit, the 19 according to the later edition of S. Isidore (but in the 18. according to the former) the testimony alleged by the Knight is found in express words, and Baptism, Chrism, and the Lords Supper reckoned by him for the Sacraments of the Church there, without addition of any other; If he had held seven sacraments, questionless in that place he would have named all, or at least the major part of them. The jesuit applieth a plaster to this sore, to wit, that elsewhere the same Father mentioneth Penance and Matrimony. But the plaster is too narrow, and the salve of no virtue at all. First, it is too narrow, for though Penance and Matrimony be added to Baptism, Chrism and the Lords Supper, we have yet but four (or if we take Chrism not for a Ceremony used in Baptism but a distinct Sacrament from it) at the most, but five: we are still out of our reckoning, we hear nothing of Order and Extreme Unction. Secondly, as the plaster is too narrow, so the salve spread on it is of no virtue at all. For though S. Isidore compareth Penance to Baptifme in respect of the effect thereof, viz. washing away of sin, yet he maketh not thereby Penance a Sacrament. Whatsoever washeth away sin is not therefore a Sacrament, 
Acts 15.9.  Faith purifieth the heart, as the Apostle speaketh; 
Luk. 11.41.  and Christ himself saith, do Alms, and all things shall be clean unto you; Yet doth it not from thence follow, that either Faith or Charity are Sacraments. For Matrimony he saith indeed there are three bones or good things in it, or as the jesuit translateth the words, three goods of it, fides, proles & sacramentum, faith, issue, and a Sacrament, but by sacrament there he understandeth the great mystery of the union of Christ with his Church, whereof Matrimony is a sign, and he alludeth to the words of the Apostle, 
Ephes. 5.34.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, this is a great my sterie, 
Apoc. 17.17. I will tell thee the myslerie of the woman and of the beast.  which the Latin interpreter translateth sacramentum, as he doth also the sacrament of the woman, and as strongly might they conclude out of him, that the Whore of Babylon is an eight Sacrament, as Matrimony is the seventh. 
So S. Aug. de pecca●●●●t, & remis. l. 1. c. 26 calleth bread which was given to the Catecumeni an holy Sacrament, and in Psal. 44. the mysteries of Christian religion Sacramenta docl rinae.  In our book of Homilies Marriage is called a Sacrament as all sacred Rites may in a large sense. The jesuit should have proved according to his undertaking pag. 202. that Marriage is a Sacrament in a strict sense, but his proofs are as his honesty is at large.  
To the eleventh. Hallensis lived in a dark age, yet in this point he saw some light through a chink, whereby he discovered that three of their supposed Sacraments, to wit, Order, Penance, and Matrimony had their being before the New Testament, 
Part. 4. q. 5. memb. 2.  and consequently were not to be said properly the Sacraments of the new Law: and he giveth us also a sufficient reason to exclude the fourth, to wit, Confirmation; because as he teacheth, the form and matter thereof were not appointed by our Saviour, but by the Church in a Council held at Melda. Yea but saith the jesuit he addeth, fine praejudicio dicendum, let this be spoken with leave, adding, let us hear but such a word from the Knight's mouth, and he shall see the matter will soon be ended. For answer whereunto I say, first, that the words of Hallensis, sine praejudicio, no whit prejudice the truth of his assertion: but only show the modesty of the man. Next, for the Knight, whosoever peruseth his Book with the Preface, shall find that he speaketh fare more modestly and submissively then Hallensis here doth, 
Part. 4. q. 5. memb. 7. art. 2  Sed tumour jesuitae non capit illius modum. What Hallensis concludeth that there be neither more nor fewer than seven Sacraments, maketh little against us, for he neither addeth Sacraments properly so called, nor Sacraments of the new Law, in quibus vertitur cardo quaestionis; if the jesuit so expound Hallensis he maketh him contradict himself, and so utterly disableth his testimony. For all Sacraments properly so called of the new Law must be instituted by Christ, the author of the new Law, which Hallensis denieth of Confirmation. Again, they must have their being by the new Law, not before which he affirmeth of three of the seven Sacraments as I shown before.  
To the twelfth. Wheresoever the Knight maketh mention of Hugo, the jesuit maketh an hideous noise like an hue and cry, you say, saith the jesuit, 
P. 231.  of Hugo, that he excludeth Penance from the number of the Sacraments and admitteth holy water. For both which Sir Humphrey a man may hold up his finger to you, and wag it, you know what I mean, etc. The Knight knoweth well what you mean, and also what manner of men they are, who hold up their finger in such sort, viz. fools or madmen, utrum horum mavult accipiat. Is it a matter that deserveth such hooting to allege Hugo de sancto victore out of Master Perkins in his Problems a most learned work, against which never a Papist yet durst quatch. How many hundred testimonies do Bellarmine and Baronius, and this jesuit allege at the second hand? Were the allegation false, Master Perkins must bear the blame, who misquoted Hugo, not the Knight, who rightly allegeth Master Perkins, but the jesuit neither doth nor can disprove the allegation, but out of another book of Hugo he allegeth a passage for seven Sacraments, which yet as I shall show hereafter may well stand with that which Master Perkins allegeth out of him against Penance. But before I expound Hugo, I wish the reader to observe in the jesuit, how true that is which the Naturalists relate concerning Serpents, that the more venomous they are, 
Plin. l. 8. c. 23. Aspidi hebetes oculi dati, eosque non in front sed in temporibus habet.  the shorter sighted they are. He who odiously and maliciously chargeth the Knight with a false quotation in this very place falsely quoteth the same Author himself. For the words he allegeth out of him, to wit, that there are seven principal Sacraments of the Church, are not found in the book he quoteth, viz. speculum de mist. Eccles. c. 12. It is true such like words are found in another Treatise of his, to wit de sacrament is, but this neither excuseth the jesuits negligence, nor helpeth at all his cause. For he that saith there are seven principal Sacraments, implieth that there are more than seven, though less principal. Either Hugo taketh the word Sacrament in a large or strict sense: if in a large, he contradicteth not us; if in a strict sense, he contradicteth the jesuit and the Trent Fathers, for they teach there are no more than seven Sacraments, whether principal, or not principal. Hugo reckoning seven as principal tacitly admitteth other as less principal. Yet the jesuit singeth an Iôpoean to himself, and most insolently insulteth upon the Knight, 
P. 231.  saying, Because you may less doubt of Penance, whereof for thus abusing your author and reader you deserve no small part, he hath a particular ●● hapter, wherein he calleth it as we do with S. Jerome the second board after shipwreck, and saith that if a man endanger his cleansing which he hath received, by Baptism he may rise and escape by Penance. How say you to this Sir Humphrey? have I not just cause to tell you your own? Agreed, suum cuique let the jesuit tell the Knight, and I will tell the jesuit his own; the Knight neither holdeth with the doctrine of Merit, nor the sacrament of Penance; the jesuit who holdeth both may by his belief merit their holy sacrament of Penance, for egregiously abusing Hugo de Sancto Victore, and S. Jerome and his reader, by making a Sacrament of a metaphor, and out of them arguing thus wooddenly against the Knight. Hugo hath a particular chapter wherein he calleth Penance as we do with S. Jerome, the second board after shipwreck, Ergo, Penance is a Sacrament of the new Law; doth he not deserve for concluding so absurdly, to have the character of his own sacrament indelebly imprinted upon his flesh?  
To the thirteenth. The Knight allegeth not Bellarmine nor Hugo, nor Peter Lombard, nor Bonaventure, nor Hallensis, nor Altisiodorensis, nor Suarez himself; as if they expressly and in direct terms denied Extreme Unction to be a sacrament: this they do not, neither as things stood with some of them might do safely, the Roman Church having defined the contrary. Yet so great is the force of truth, that what in words they affirm they consequently deny; and thus much Suarez ingenuously confesseth; some, 
Suar. tom. disp. 39 sect 2. nonnulli negârunt hoci sacramentum fuisse à Christo institutum ex quo planè sequebatur non esse verum sacramentum.  saith he, have denied that this Sacrament was instituted by Christ, whence it followeth by plain consequence that it is no true Sacrament. Yea but saith Flood, if those Schoolmen had lived in this age, they would have said that Christ did institute it. Whereunto I answer, that all judgements proceed ex allegatis & probatis, not allegandis & probandis upon things alleged, and proved not upon things to be alleged and proved in future times, neither is it likely that they would have altered their opinion, upon notice of the Trent decision, for if the Church of France, and divers other Romish Catholics, as they term them, submit not at this day to all the Decrees of that Council: much less may it be thought that those ancient and acute school Divines, who bore the greatest sway in their times, would have suffered themselves to baffled by the pretence of a petty Council, charging her canons with nothing but paper-shot: every Sacrament of the New Testament is supported with two pillars, institution by Christ, and a promise of justifying grace annexed to the due receivers thereof set down in Scripture, the former pillar the ancient Schoolmen take from Extreme Unction: the later Bellarmine and Cajetan, how then can it stand? The jesuit answereth upon a third pillar unwritten tradition. But this I have proved before to be a weak and rotten one: and to speak the truth it serveth Papists as pons Asinorum did the ancient Logicians to which they fly for shelter, when all other help faileth them. Albeit they brag much of Scripture, yet upon examination of particulars it will appear, that their new Trent Creed consisting of twelve supernumerary Articles, hath no foundation at all in Scripture: and therefore they are forced for their support to fly to verbum Dei non scriptum, an unwritten word of God, which I would feign know of them how they prove to be God's word? Whether by Scripture, or by unwritten tradition? by Scripture they cannot say, for it implies a flat contradiction, that verbum non scriptum should be scriptum, that unwritten traditions should be found in, or founded on Scripture; if they say they prove it to be God's word by tradition, than they prove idem per idem the same thing by itself, and build their faith upon a silly sophism called petitio príncipij, the begging the main point in question.  
To the fourteenth. In the allegation of Cardinal Bessario the jesuit chargeth the Knight with ambiguous translation, 
P. 225.  and so placing the words, that they may have a double sense, the one to deceive the simple, and the other to excuse himself against the objections of the learned: and for this he pronounceth a woe against him, vae peccatori terra● ingredienti duabus vijs, Woe to the sinner going on the earth two ways: But the truth is, as Pentheus after he was distracted, imagined, duplices se ostendere Phoebos, 
Oresles apud Euripidem Electram sororem appellat Furiam quòd eam ne fureret in lectlo constringeret.  that he saw two Suns, when yet there was but one in the sky: so the jesuit in a fit of frantic malice, imagined the Knight to go two ways whereas he goeth but one, and that a fair and straight way, for he setteth the Latin words of the Cardinal without any addition or detraction in the margin, haec duo sola sacramenta in Evangelijs manifestè tradita legimus, and he translateth them faithfully: we read that these two Sacraments only were delivered us plainly in Scriptures; he rendereth not the words we read plainly in Scriptures, that there were two only Sacraments delivered unto us, which had been a misplacing of Bessarions words, and misinterpretation of his meaning, but we read that these two only were plainly delivered in the Gospel; there is no more ambiguity in the translation then in the original, which though it denieth not that other Sacraments may be delivered in the Gospel, yet it affirmeth that these two only are plainly delivered there, and consequently that these two only are, de fide, matter of faith, and upon pain of damnation to be believed; for as I proved before out of S. Austin, and S. chrysostom, all things that concern faith and manners, and are necessary to salvation are plainly delivered in holy Scriptures.  
To the fifteenth. Some Papistsas Flood confesseth deny the four inferior Orders to be Sacraments, 
P. 234.  and Soto denieth the superior, what a confusion is here in your sacrament of order? If the ordination of Bishops be not truly and properly a Sacrament, as Dominicus Soto acknowledgeth, neither is the ordination of Priests a Sacrament; for what can be alleged more for the one than the other? and if the ordination of Priests be no sacrament, much less Deacons, or subdeacons' or Acolytes or Exorcists. Whether there be the same character imprinted in the ordination of Bishops, and Priests, it is not material to our present question, for if it be the same, than it followeth according to the doctrine of the Schools, that they are one and the selfsame Sacrament: if a divers character be imptinted by the one, and by the other, then are they two distinct Sacraments. If they are the same Sacraments, than Soto denying the one, consequently denieth the other to be a Sacrament: if they are distinct Sacraments, than there are eight Sacraments. Yea but saith the jesuit, Whither there be a new character in a Bishop, or the same extended is no matter of faith, and therefore we are not to dispute with you of it, but keep you off at the staffs end, or rather out of doors: when you are once admitted into the Catholic Church, we may admit you to speak of a School-point or else not. We know well that ye are loath that we should hear of your differences among yourselves: but the fire of contention cannot be kept within the walls of your Schools, quis enim celaverit ignem? Lumine qui semper proditur ipse suo, it breaketh out, and if ye look not to it, it will set on fire the whole fabric of your Romish Babel. Mean while the jesuit giveth us great encouragement to desire to be admitted into the Roman Church, because then forsooth we shall have leave to tread the endless mazes of scholastical disputes.  
To the sixteenth. If Soto come short, Durand cometh home to the point in question, for he affirmeth that which is alleged by the Knight, and confessed by the jesuit, that Matrimony is not a Sacrament univocally, if not univocally, not truly and properly, but equivocally or analogically. Yea but saith the jesuit, all acknowledge it for anerror in Durand: he saith all, but he names none. Surely the Divines of the reformed Church acknowledge it for no error in Durand, but defend it for a truth: and for such Romish Divines that adhere to the Council of Trent, they are but a faction in the Church, nor is their authority more to be urged against the Doctors of the reformed Churches, than the authority of the Doctors of the reformed Churches against them: which yet if any should produce against any of the Articles of their new Creed, they would not vouchsafe them so much as a look. For the definition of the Church in the Council of Florence, which the jesuit toucheth upon, it is of little or no authority, because that Council was not general, nor called by lawful authority, but by the schismatical Pope Eugenius the fourth, who was deposed by a general Council held at Basil.  
To the seventeenth. Because the jesuit is forbidden by the Pope's law to taste of the fruits of Matrimony, at which it seems his mouth waters, he is content to let the tree fall to the ground, for want of support. To Cardinal Cajetan who gave a strong push at it, by denying that it can be proved to be a Sacrament. Out of the words of S. Paul Ephesians the fift, he answereth nothing but with ifs, if it be not proved out of that place it may be out of others, if out of no other, yet out of tradition to his ifs I return fies; fie for shame that they should bind all their followers under pain of a heavy curse to believe this Sacrament of Matrimony, and yet know not where to ground this their belief, upon Scripture or tradition. If it may be proved to be a sacrament out of S. Paul, 
Ephes. 5.  their most learned Cardinal Cajetan is out: if it may not be proved out of those words, Cardinal Bellarmine and almost all Papists that wrote since Cajetan are in an error. The jesuit holdeth a Wolf by the ear: he dares neither hold with Cajetan, nor against him: but puts the matter off with an though. If it cannot be proved to be a Sacrament out of that passage, as Cajetan affirmeth, yet it may be out of other texts. What texts? why doth he not name them? it is a sign he feareth his coin is counterfeit, that he dare not bring it to the test. If that place which seemeth to make most for his Romish tenet, make nothing at all, as the acute Schooleman, and most learned Cardinal Cajetan confesseth there is no likelihood that other texts which have less appearance will stand them in any stead, and therefore for his last refuge he flieth to unwritten traditions, as the old Dunces as I noted before, ad pontem asinorum.  
To the eighteenth. Canus puts a strong sharp weapon in our hands to wound your Trent doctrine concerning Matrimony, 
Canus loc. Theol. l. 8. c. 5. in materiâ & formâ hujus Sacramenti, viz. Matrimonij statuendâ, adeò sunt inconstantes & varij, aàeò incerti & ambigui ut ineptus juturus sit quis in tantâ illorum varietate, & discrepantiâ rem aliquam certam, constantem, & exploratam conetur afferre.  but withal forbiddeth us to strike with it, as the jesuit Flood telleth us, as if we were at his beck, and might not use our weapons as we list. But let him know, though he be so foolish as to give advantage, we will not be so childish as to leave it. If that be true which he writeth, that the Divines of Rome writ so uncertainly of the matter and form of Matrimony, that it were folly in any to go about to reconcile these differences, and determine any thing certain in the point: we will infer upon him that it is likewise folly to define Matrimony to be a Sacrament, for if the matter and form of Matrimony be so unknown as he saith, the genus of it must needs be unknown. For the genus as Porphyry teacheth, is taken from the matter, 
L. de praedicab. c. de genere.  and answereth thereunto as the difference is taken from the form. If the genus be uncertain, how can it be an article of faith, that matrimonium is species sacramenti. The whole nature of a thing consisteth of matter and form, which if it be unknown, the specifical essence is unknown, and if the specifical essence be unknown, how can it be ranked in his predicament under its proper genus? What Papist soever therefore defineth Matrimony, and putteth it under a Sacrament as the proper genus, Canus putteth the fool upon him take it off when you can.  
To the nineteenth. Vasquez giveth the jesuits cause not so light a blow (as he imagineth) in saying that where S. Austin calleth Matrimony a sacrament, he taketh the word Sacrament in a large sense, and not in the strict and proper: for if S. Austin be so to be understood, he held not Matrimony a sacrament properly so called, but in a large sense only, and if that were his judgement, we have a great advantage of our Adversaries in the cause, for S. Austin carrieth a great stroke, not only because he is held the acutest of all the ancient Fathers, and father of all the Schoolmen: but especially, because the Pope in the Canon law professeth Augustinum sequimur in disputationibus, We follow for the most part, saith Pope Gelasius, S. Jerome in the interpretation of Scripture, S. Gregory in matter of morality, but S. Austin in point of controversy. Yea but saith Flood, this is but Vasquez his private and singular opinion concerning S. Austin. Neither doth the Knight otherways urge it then as the singular opinion of a singularly learned jesuit enforced by evidence of truth, to give over their chiefest hold of antiquity in this point the authority of S. Austin. Well, be it so saith Flood, Vasquez is so fare for you, yet we have an Oliver for a Rowland, Bellarmine for Vasquez; for this opinion of Vasquez, is contradicted by other Catholic Divines, and by Bellarmine in particular. Where is then the unity our Adversaries so much brag of? two of the greatest Champions of the Pope Vasquez and Bellarmine strive about S. Austin, and the one refelleth the reasons of the other, so that it seemeth our popish Divines are as ill resolved about the proof of their doctrine, as I shown before out of Canus, that they were in a wood concerning the doctrine itself. Moreover I add, that though Bellarmine may go in equipage with Vasquez: yet Vasquez against them more disparageth their cause, than Bellarmine for them helpeth it. For a testimony from an enemy is of more force for us, than the testimony of a friend, or rather sworn vassal to the Roman Church can be for them.  
To the twentieth. Since signification is of the essence of the Sacrament, and Bellarmine will have this signification necessarily to contain in it three things, the Passion of Christ, sanctifying grace, and eternal life. And whereas farther he confesseth that the signification of these three things is most apparent in Baptism and the Lords Supper. The Knight strongly concludeth out of him that our doctrine concerning two Sacraments is more certain and evident, then theirs concerning seven, and consequently that our belief is safer in this point then theirs. As for that which the jesuit addeth out of Bellarmine, that the rest of the Sacraments signify all these things at least implicitly were it true, yet we had the better of the cause. For our two Sacraments, as it is confessed, signify these things plainly and evidently; theirs obscurely and implicitly; but indeed it is not true that they signify or represent those things at all. For what representation is there between imposition of hands in orders, or joining of hands in Matrimony, or confessing sins in penance, or chrism in Confirmation, or oylein Extreme Unction, and the Passion of Christ, and eternal life? What the jesuit addeth for conclusion, that the rest of the Knight's section is nothing but such foolish stuff as he is wont to talk, without rhyme or reason, needeth no other answer then this that the Knight indeed from p. 157. to 161. taketh an inventory of a great deal of foolish stuff, but it is theirs, not the Knights, to wit, that Christ satisfied the people with five loaves and two fishes which make seven, and that which Andrew said, there is a boy here which hath five loaves and two fishes, must be understood of the rank of S. Peter's successors, 
Tyrabosc. pat: Ven. vid. Gentilet examen council. Trid. l. 4.  and that which is added; make the people sit down, signifieth that salvation must be offered to them, by teaching them the seven Sacraments. Again, there are seven Virtues, seven mortal sins, seven Planets, the Lord rested the seventh day, seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread; Balak effered seven Bulls, and seven Rams; and in the Apocalypse we read of seven Candlesticks, seven Seals, seven Trumpets, seven Angels: Ergo, there are seven Sacraments properly so called, or rather properly so proved.  
Spectatum admissi risum teneatis amici? Are such argumemts the reasons of men, sobriae & vigilant is fidei, as S. Austin speaketh, are they not rather dreams of the seven Sleepers? or as Epictetus spoke of arguments against the truth, 
Ex Hnmfr. in Vit. juelli.  Haec sunt infernorum somniorum Phantasmata.    

Concerning the Communion in both kinds. Spectacles, chap. 9 Section 5. a pag. 242. usque ad 259.  
THe Knight in alleging the Council of Constance touching Communion, in one kind translateth the Latin falsely and absurdly. I confess that under one kind only all and whole Christ, and the true Sacraments are received, as if the Council had said, omnis & totus Christus, whereas the words are, totus atque integer Christus, that is, whole and entire Christ.  
In bringing this Decree, he hath brought a staff to beat himself withal, for the non obstante which he would join with Christ's Institution in both kinds, as if the Council forbidden it in both kinds, notwithstanding Christ did so institute it, is not so joined in the Council, but otherwise thus; Though Christ did Institute this venerable Sacrament after supper, and administered it in both kinds, yet notwithstanding this, the approved custom of the Church hath observed, and doth observe, that this Sacrament is not to be Consecrated after Supper, nor to be received by the faithful but fasting; which Decree I suppose the Knight will not condemn.  
This was no new thing begun by that Council, but it being grown to be a general practice to communicate in one kind, which also from the beginning was somewhat practised, and certain heretics arising, and condemning the practice and belief of the whole Church; this Council condemned them, and commanded the former custom to be still retained.  
Though Christ did institute the Sacrament in both kinds, yet it is lawful to receive in one: neither doth the Council decree any thing against Christ's Precept by establishing the Communion in one kind, for Christ may institute a thing without commanding it. For example, he did institute Marriage, yet commanded not every man to marry.  
The Council of Trent doth not any way contradict Christ's institution or practice as the Knight would have it: but inferreth only thus much, though Christ did institute and deliver the blessed Sacrament to his Apostles in both kinds in the last Supper, yet is Christ contained whole and entire in one kind, and a true Sacrament received, wherein saith he, I would feign see, what opposition the subtlety of the Knight's wit can find? what reason can he give? why it may not stand with Christ his institution in both kinds, that he be whole under one, and if whole, why not also a true Sacrament?  
The words, Drink ye all of this, and do this in remembrance of me were spoken and appertain only to the Apostles, and in them to Priests, as appeareth more plainly by S. Mark, who showeth all which our Srviour meant of when he said, Drink ye all of this, for saith S. Mark, and they did drink all.  
Though Christ at his last Supper did institute a Sacrament in both kinds, and so gave it to his Apostles: yet Christ might at some other time after his resurrection communicate some of his Disciples in one kind; and some Fathers think he did his two Disciples at Emmaus.  
The Knight needeth not to produce ten or eleven Authors to prove it to have been the practice of the primitive Church, to communicate in both kinds: for that would have been granted him without all that labour: but he should have proved that the practice was grounded upon some divine precept indispensable, or else it followeth not, but that it is in the power of the Church to alter the practice in the use, and administration of the Sacrament.  
Bellarmine bringeth six several Rites or practices of the ancient Church which Protestants cannot deny, evidently convincing the frequent use of one kind.  
The Nazarites among the first Christians in jerusalem did communicate in one kind, for they were forbid to drink wine, or even eat a grape or reisin.  
The Knight in alleging Tapperus against the Communion in one kind, leaveth out the principal verb, and one half of the sentence answering the former, which of itself was imperfect, which was the Authors absolute judgement and determination for the whole sentence of Tapper, art. 16. is this, it were more convenient if we regard the Sacrament, and the perfection thereof to have the Communion under both kinds, then under one: for this were more agreeable to the Institution thereof, and to the integrity of a corporal refection, and the example of Christ; but in another consideration, to wit, of the reverence which is due to the Sacrament, and to the end we may avoid all irreverence, it is less convenient, and no way expedient for the Church, that the Christian people should communicate in both kinds.  
In the laws of King Edward the sixth revived and confirmed by Queen Elizabeth, it is ordained that the Communion be delivered to the people under both kinds with this exception, unless necessity otherwise require.  
That it is not requisite that every article of faith have sufficient and express proof of Scripture, 
Dial. 2. cont. Lucifer. etiamsi sacrae scripturae authoritas non subesset, totius orbis in hanc partem consensus instar praecepei obtinerct.  for as S. Jerome teacheth, although the authority of holy Scripture were wanting, the consent of the whole world on this side should have the force of a Precept.  

The Hammer.  
IN this Section the jesuit beginneth merrily with a fiddle, but endeth sadly, and every where answereth sorily. For to omit his omission of some things that pinched him shrewdly, as namely, first that the Council of Constance by reason the first Sessions judged the Council above the Pope, is condemned, and rejected by the Council of Florence and last Council of Lateran; but for the last Sessions wherein the half Communion is established contrary to Christ's precept, and holy institution, it is allowed by Pope Martin the fift, and rectived of all Catholics; whereby it appears that Papists are more tender of the Pope's supremacy, than Christ's honour; Secondly, 
De Euchars l. 4. c. 7.  that Bellarmine saith, that it is not to be doubted; but that is best and sittest to be practised that Christ hath done. Now it is evident out of Scriptures, and confessed by the Fathers in the Council of Constance and Trent, that Christ instituted and administered the Sacrament in both kinds: Lastly, that the Papists in this point apparently contradict themselves, for they require antiquity, universality, and consent, as the proper marks of Catholic doctrine, and yet confess that in this the practice of their Church is contrary to the practice of the Primitive Church, nor was it ever received in the true Church, till above a thousand years after Christ. 
Dichotomived.  To let pass these his preteritions, all that he saith in reply to other passages of the Knights may be dicotomized into idle cavils, and sophistical evasions, as shall appear by the examination of each particular,  
To the first. The jesuit as it should seem taken Ennius the Poet for his pattern, who as Horace observeth, Nunquam nisi potus ad arma prosiluit, etc. never undertook the description of a war, or set himself to write strong lines before he had comforted his heart with a cup of strong liquor. For if the French wine had not assaulted his Capitol, as the Frenchmen did sometimes the Roman: if a strong fume had not made his head so dizzy, that he thought all things before him went round, he would never in so serious a subject as is the Sacrament of Christ's blood use such light and comical saracasmes as he doth; against this saith he, he bringeth two places of Scripture, 
P. 243.  and the practice of the Primitive Church, and so concludeth the antiquity and universality of his Church, this goeth round with a fiddle Sir Humphrey: if he had a purpose to make sport to his reader in the merry pin he was set on, he should rather have said you Creed Sir Humphrey goeth round with a crowd. But crowd or fiddle whether he please to term the learned discourse of the Knight, I hope it will prove like David's Harp, and conjure the evil spirit out of the jesuit. To fall upon the particulars in order, whereas in the first place he chargeth the Knight with false and absurd translation of the Decree of the Council, rendering totus Christus, all Christ, not whole Christ, and would make us believe that all can in no sense be attributed to Christ; he forgot that text of the Apostle that Christ is all in all. Surely it should seem this jesuit is descended from Pope Adrian, who was choked with a fly, for what a silly fly choketh him here? The Knight to avoid a tautology in translating totus & integer Christus, whole and whole Christ, rendereth the word all and whole Christ, and what falsity or absurdity is there in this? doth not every puny know that omnis in Latin, and all in English is often taken collectiuè, as when we say Lazarus was covered all over with sores, do not the Papists themselves sometimes so render the word totus, as namely in those places, I have stretched my arms all the day long to a rebellious people? and all the day long have I been punished, and all Scripture is given by divine inspiration, and is profitable for doctrine for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished to all good works: In which passages it is most evident that all is taken for whole, and so the best interpreters render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, tota scriptura, that is the whole Scripture.  
To the second. The Knight in bringing the Decree of the Council of Constance, hath not brought in a staff to beat himself withal, but to beat all such Romish curs as bark at the light of the Sun, I mean the clear words of Christ's institution, 
Sess. 13.  Drink you all of this. Yet saith that Council to the Laity, none of you drink of this. If Christ had said in like manner, receive you the Communion after supper, we would never receive it fasting. It is true that he instituted it the night he was betrayed after supper, which circumstance yet bindeth us not now to receive it at that time: but the argument no ways follows from the change of a circumstance to the change of a substantial act: the Church may dispense with the one, not with the other. We argue not barely from the practice of Christ and his Apostles, but from their doctrine and practice. What Christ did and taught, as S. Cyprian sound collects, must be perpetually observed in the Church: but he taught and practised the Communion in both kinds, fecit & docuit, he both did so, and taught us so to do; but for the circumstances of time, number of Communicants, & gesture sitting or leaning, though at that time he used such circumstances: yet he commanded not us to use them, and therefore we may administer the Sacrament at another time, to a greater or lesser number than twelve, we may receive it also with another gesture than Christ or his Apstles used, because he no no where toeth us to those circumstances, but we may in no wise administer or receive it in one kind, because he commandeth us to communicate in both, saying, drink ye all of this; and what though the Council join not the word notwithstanding to Christ's institution in both kinds, but to his administering after supper: yet this no way excuseth the Fathers in it from confronting Christ, and abrogating his commandment by their wicked Decree: for notwithstanding Christ's command, drink you all of this; that Council by a countermand forbiddeth any Priest under a great penalty to exhort the people to communicate in both kinds, or to teach that they ought so to do.  
To the third. If the jesuits forehead had not been made of the same metal which he worshippeth in his images, he would have blushed to utter so notorious an untruth contrary to the Records of all ages, and the confession of all the learned of his own side. Never any before this jesuit durst to say, that the half Communion was the belief, and practise of the whole Church before the Council of Constance, for besides Salmeron, Arboreus, Aquinas, Tapperus, Alfonsus a Castro: the Council of Constance, Bellarmine and Cassander alleged by the Knight, 
See grand Sacrilcg. Sect. 17.  I could add Estius the Sorbonist, Ecchius the great adversary of Luther, Suarez their accomplished jesuit, Soto their acutest Schoolman, and Gregory de Valentia, who of all other hath most 〈◊〉 laboured in this argument, all not only affirming, but some of them also confirming that the Communion in both kinds was anciently, and universally administered to the people. It is well known that the Eastern Churches in Greece and Asia, and Southern in Africa, and Northern in Muscovia have ever, and at this day do administer the Communion to the Laity in both kinds: and in the Western and Roman Church itself for a thousand years after Christ and more, the Sacrament was delivered in both kinds to all the members of Christ's Church, which is manifest saith Cassander, 
Cassand. consult. art. 22.  by innumerable testimonies of ancient Writers, both Greek and Latin. And when the new custom of communicating in one kind began a little before the Council of Constance, 
Soto artic. 12. q. 1. in dist. 12. non modo inter baeretieos verùm inter Catholicos ritus ille multo tempore iuvaluit.  it was impugned not by heretics, as Flood would bear us in hand, but by good Catholics, as Soto a man fare before Flood ingenuously confesseth.  
To the fourth. Albeit I grant there is some difference between an institution, or constitution, or command: yet our argument drawn from Christ's institution in both kinds is of force against the Romish half. Communion. For a command is, as the genus, and an Institution is as the species, every command is not an institution: but every institution is a command; for what is an institution, but a special order or appointment in matter of Ceremony or Sacrament? was not the institution of Circumcision an express command to circumcise every male child? was not the institution of the Passeover a command for every family to kill a Lamb, and eat it with sour herbs? Was not the institution of Baptism a command to Baptism all Nations in the name of the Father, Son and holy Ghost? Was not the institution of the Lords Supper by words imperative, Take, eat, do this in remembrance of me, and drink ye all of this? Yea but the jesuit instanceth in Marriage, which we acknowledge to be instituted by God, yet not commanded. I answer, all sacred Rites (and namely the ordination of Marriage) are injunctions and commands to the Church, or mankind in general, though they bind not every particular person, but such only as are qualified for them; 
Gen. 2.24.  if crescite & multiplicamini, be rather a benediction upon Marriage, than a command to marry, yet certainly those words used in the Institution of Marriage, therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be one stesh, contain da direct command not to every man simply I grant, but to every one that hath not the gift of continency. 
1 Cor. 7.2.  to avoid fornication, saith the Apostle, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. And again, if they cannot contain let them marry, 
V 9  for it is better to marry then to burn.  
To the fist. There needs no subtlety of wit to find out the opposition between the Decree of the Trent Council and Christ's institution; the dullest wit cannot but stumble upon it. For if whole Christ be received in either kind, why did Christ who doth nothing superfluously, institute the Sacrament in both kinds? If the Sacrament can not otherwise exhibit Christ unto us then by virtue of his Institution, how can we be assured that whole Christ is communicated unto us, when we violate his institution administering the holy Communion but by halves? the Sacrament exhibiteth nothing but what it signifieth, but the bread signifieth Christ's body not his blood: the wine signifieth his blood, not his body; therefore accordingly the one exhibiteth only his body, the other his blood. Again, if Christ be whole in either kind, than a man might receive whole Christ in drinking of the cup only, though he eat not at all of the bread, and consequently a man may without sin at the Lords board drink only of the Consecrated cup, and not eat of the bread which yet no Papist to my knowledge ever durst affirm.  
To the sixth. This evasion of the jesuit is exploded by Philip Morney, 
De Euch. l. 1. c. 10.  & Chamierus tom. 4. resp. Bellar. & in D. F. his conference with Everard p. 256. and divers others. This may suffice for the present, for the overthrow of this general answer of all Papists to the words of the institution, Drink you all of this, viz. (that by all in S. Matthew and S. Mark, Priests only are to be understood.) First I note at this time the Apostles were not fully ordained Priests. For as yet Christ had not breathed on them, nor given them the power of remission of sins: next admit they were Priests, yet in the institution of this Sacrament they were none conficients, supplying the place of mere communicants, and therefore consequently whatsoever Christ commanded them, he commanded all receivers after them. Thirdly, Christ commanded the same to drink, to whom before he said, Take, eat, this is my body; but the former words, take, eat, are spoken to the Laye-people as well as Priests, therefore the words drink you all of this, are spoken to them also, 
Math. 9.6.  those things which God hath joined together let no man put asunder. Fourthly, I would feign know of our Adversaries when Christ saith, This is the cup of the New Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins, who are those many? will they say Priests only? have the Laiety no sins, or no remission of sins by Christ blood? if they have, as all profess they have, why do they forbid them that which Christ expressly commandeth them, saying, Drink ye all of this, for it is shed for you and for many. All worthy communicants are to drink Christ's blood for whom it was shed, thus much Christ's reason importeth; but it was shed for the Laiety as well as the Clergy, they therefore are alike to drink it. If the Laiety expect life from Christ, they must drink his blood as well as eat his flesh, 
john 6.53.  for except a man eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, he hath no life in him. Lastly, 
1 Cor. 11.28.  when the Apostle enjoineth all to examine themselves before they receive the holy Communion, I desire to be informed by our Adversaries, whether this Precept of examination concerneth not the Laiety especially? I know they will say it doth, because the people most need examination, that they may confess their sins, and receive absolution for them before they presume to communicate: let them then read what followeth in the same verse, and so let them eat of that bread, and drink of that Cup, let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that Bread, and drink of that Cup: the coherence of the members in this sentence inferreth, that as none are to be admitted without precedent examination: so that all who have examined themselves are to be admitted to the Lords table, both to eat of that Bread, and drink of that Cup.  
To the seventh. There is no force at all in the inference which the jesuit would make from Christ his breaking of bread with the two Disciples at Emmaus, to prove the Communion in one kind, for neither is it likely Christ instituted any supperafter his last Supper, neither was the place fit for a Communion being a common Inn: neither read we of any preparation on the Apostles part, nor of any words of institution used then by Christ: neither could the jesuit allege any one Father, who saith that Christ at that time administered the Communion to those two Disciples in bread only. For it is well known to all that are acquainted with the language of Canaan, that breaking of bread in Scripture by a Syneodoche is taken for making a meal, and it is very unlikely that the disciples travelling at that time of the year in so hot a country as judaea is, when they came to their Inn for a repast, should call for bread only and no drink.  
To the eighth. Though the jesuit make many a bravado here, and elsewhere: yet upon the matter in granting to the Knight that the general practice of the primitive Church was to communicate in both kinds, he yields up the bucklers. For the main scope of the Knight in this and other Sections is to prove the visibility of our reformed Church in former ages by the confession of our Romish adversaries: this he doth in the point of the Communion in both kinds abundantly in this Section, and the jesuit cannot deny it; it followeth therefore that in this main point of controversy between us and the Church of Rome, we have antiquity, universality, and eminent visibility, and the Roman Church none of all: whereby any understanding reader may see that the Knight hath already won the day; Yet for the greater confusion of the jesuit I add that what the primitive Church did uniformly, they received it from the Apostles, and what the Apostles did jointly, no doubt they did by the direction of the holy Ghost, according to our Lords will: and so their example amounteth to a Precept. Again, the practice of the Catholic Church is the best expositor of Scripture, therefore the question being concerning the meaning of that text of Scripture, Drink you all of this, whether they concern the Laiety, or Clergy only, that must be taken for the true exposition which the Catholic Church by a constant and uniform practice hath allowed. Lastly, either this practice of the Catholic Church was grounded upon some divine Precept, or it is a mere will-worship which the jesuit dare not say: if it be grounded upon any divine precept undoubtedly upon this, Drink ye all of this, that is, as well Ministers as Say people, as Paschasius commenteth upon the words.  
To the ninth. The arguments of Bellarmine drawn from six ancient Rites to prove the frequent use of Communion in one kind are answered at large by Philip Morney, and Chamierus, in the places above mentioned, and they are every one of them retorted against Bellarmine himself by D. F. in his book entitled the Grand sacrilege, cap. 14. accipe quomode das si tibi machera est, & nobis vervina est, if it be sufficient for him to object by prox, why may not we answer by prox?  
To the tenth. To the instance in the Nazarites, I answer first, that I read of no other Nazarites since Christ's time in the writings of the ancient Fathers, then certain Heretics so termed of the sect of Ebionites, who went about to  the Gospel with the beggarly rudiments of the Law, upon whom S. Austin passeth this verdict, 
L. De haeres. ad quod vult Deum dum volunt Iudaei esse & Christiani nec judaeisunt, nec Christiani.  that whilst they laboured to be both jews and Christians, they became neither jews nor Christians, but a sect of heretics, partly judaizing, partly Christianizing. Secondly, if there were any Nazarites that sincerely embraced the Gospel, questionless they communicated in both kinds: for though they had vowed against drinking of wine, yet either their Vow was to be understood of drinking it civilly not sacramentally: for their corporal refection, not for their spiritual repast: or if their vow were absolutely against wine, yet Christ's command, Drink ye all of this, implied a dispensation for their Vow in that case. A private vow of any man must give place to a public command of God: even now a days those who upon any great distemper of body or mind by wine, vow to abstain from it, yet make no scruple of conscience to take a small quantity of it physically for the recovery of their health: how much more ought they to do so notwithstanding their vow, if it be prescribed by the heavenly physician for the cure and salvation of their souls?  
To the eleventh. Concerning Tapperus the Knight no way misquoteth him though he leave out some passges in him; for the truth is Tapperus halteth between two opinions, he speaketh some words plainly in the language of Canaan, and others he lispeth in the language of Ashdod, where he speaketh in the language of Canaan, as he doth most plainly in those his words (if we regard the Sacrament and perfection thereof, and the integrity of corporal refection, and the example of Christ, it were more convenient to have the Communion under both kinds) the Knight hearkeneth to him: but where he lispeth in the language of Ashdod, saying, (that in consideration of the reverence due to this Sacrament it is ill and inconvenient to communicate in both kinds) the Knight had reason to turn a deaf ear to him, for it is cousin german to blasphemy to say that is ill and inconvenient, which Christ and his Apostles, and the whole Church in all places for more than a thousand years practised: the Knight might well say to Tapperus in the words of him in the Poet, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I will be sober with you, but I will not run mad with you.  
To the twelfth. For the statute made in the days of that Phoenix of his age, King Edward the sixth, the meaning is, unless among the people there be some that either by a natural antipathy to wine or other infirmity, cannot receive the Sacraments in both kinds, it is ordained that it be delivered to every one in both kinds, cessante ferreâ necessitate obtinet haec aurea regula, that all receive the whole Sacrament in which the Statute, and the articles of Religion, published first in the reign of this blessed Prince, fully accord; For so we read Article the thirtieth, both parts of the Lords Sacrament by Christ's ordinance and command ought to be ministered to all Christian people alike.  
To the thirteenth. That every article of faith ought to have sufficient proof out of Scripture is proved by innumerable testimonies of antiquity produced by Philip Morney in his Preface to his book De Eucharistia, Bilson of Supremacy part the fourth Abbot against Bishop, chapter the seventh; and Laurentius de disp. Theolog: Neither doth S. Jerome any way contradict them or us, for we believe that the consent of the whole Christian Church is an infallible argument of truth. Albeit we teach that any particular Church, as namely the Roman or the French, or the Dutch or the Greek Church may err: yet we deny that the catholic Church universally hath ever erred, or can err in matter of faith necessary to salvation: and further I add for conclusion, that as the words of S. Jerome alleged by the jesuit make nothing against us, so if they be applied to our present subject they make most strongly against him, being propounded after this manner. Although the authority of holy Scripture were wanting for the Communion in both kinds, (which is not so) yet the consent of the whole world, on this side testified by their uniform practice confessed by Papists themselves, aught to have the force of a divine Precept, and so there would be an end not only of this Section as the jesuit speaketh, but of this whole Controversy.    

Concerning Prayer in an unknown tongue. Spectacles, Sect. 6. a pag. 259. usque ad 283.  
THe Knight falsely chargeth the Council of Trent with approving prayer in the vulgar tongue: for though the Council saith that the Mass containeth great instruction, yet it doth not say that it ought to be in the vulgar tongue: nay contrarily it pronounceth an anathema against any whosoever shall say that the Mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue.  
It hath been the general practice and custom in the Church of God, of having the Mass, and the public office in Latin, all over the Latin and Western Church, both in Italy, Spain, France, Germany, England, Africa, and all other places, and so likewise in Greek in the Grecian or Eastern Church, though it were as large in extent, and had as much variety of languages in it as the Latin Church hath.  
Uniformity which is fit to be used in such things and unity of the Catholic Church is excellently declared, and also much maintained by this unity of language in the Church office.  
The use of vulgar tongues in the Mass or Church office would cause not only great confusion, but breed an infinite number of errors by many several translations.  
The use of vulgar language in such things would breed a great contempt of sacred things, with profaneness and irreligiosity, besides the danger of heresy, which cometh no way sooner than by misunderstanding of holy Scripture.  
The place of Scripture alleged by the Knight concerning announcing our Lord's death, is not understood by words but by deeds, as is most plain by the circumstances.  
The text of S. Paul where he asketh how he that understandeth not the prayers shall say Amen, is not of the public prayers of the Church which no man can doubt of, either for the truth or goodness, and therefore he may confidently say Amen to them, but of private prayers made by private and Say men extempore in an unknown tongue.  
Haymo requireth not that all that are present at Divine service should understand, but only that he that supplieth the place of the idiot or Laye-man in answering for the people, should be so fare able to understand, as to answer Amen at the end of every prayer.  
justinian the Emperor is ordinarily taxed for taking too much upon him in Ecclesiastical matters: yet all that he saith may be well maintained without prejudice to the present practice of the Roman Church, for in the Decree alleged by the Knight, he requireth nothing more, but that Bishops and Priests should pronounce distinctly and clearly that which according to the custom of the Eastern Church was to be spoken aloud.  
The Canon law capite quoniam in plerisque requireth only that where divers Nations are mingled, that the Bishop of the City should substitute one in his room to celebrate the divine Office, and administer the Sacraments according to their ownerites and language: for indeed it is a matter of necessity in administration of some Sacraments to use the vulgar language, as in Marriage and Penance, but not so of other things.  
Lyra, Belithus, Gretzer, Harding, Cassander, and the rest of the Authors quoted by the Knight say indeed, that in the beginning, Prayers were in the vulgar tongue, but the reason was because those three holy languages, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin dedicated on the cross of Christ, were then most vulgar, none of them speak a word of any Precept.  
There is no precept in the Scripture commanding prayers in a known tongue, or forbidding in an unknown, whose authority or example can you bring for yourself in this matter? name him if you can.  
It was more needful in the Primitive Church that the people should understand, because they were to answer the Priest, which now is not so as Bellarmine noteth, because that belongs only to the Clerk.  
That the Knight contradicteth himself in one place, saying That the alteration of the Church service was occasioned by certain Shepherds, who in the days of Honorius having learned the words of Consecration by heart, pronounced them over their Bread and Wine in the fields, and thereby Transubstantiated them into flesh and blood, and for this profane abuse were strucken dead by the hand of God. In another place he saith, that the alteration was brought in by Pope Vitalian about the year 666. which cannot well agree with his former observation, for Honorius the first was the sixth Pope before Vitalian, by which computation the alteration must have been fourscore, or a hundred years before Vitalian.  

The Hammer.  
AMong the known errors of the Roman Church, there is none more gross or palpably absurd, than this concerning Prayers in an unknown tongue; For as Velleius the Epicure in Tully, goeth about to maintain by reason that it had been better a man had not been endued with reason then with it: so in this argument our Adversaries in good earnest strive cum ratione insanire, to prove by reasons, that it is best to exhibit to God an unreasonable service to speak understandingly for speech without understanding, and that in the public worship of God: to persuade civil men that in their prayers the Priest ought to be a Barbarian to the people, and the people to the Priest; In a word, to enforce the people instead of offering the calves of their lips to God, to offer to him the lips of calves bellowing without understanding. The Knight therefore upon very just reason taketh the Church of Rome to task for this unsufferable abuse, and undeniable aberration from the Primitive, and catholic Church. Wherein he confoundeth all Papists not only with pregnant testimonies of Scripture, and ancient Fathers, but also with the confession of the learnedest of their side. Yea, but Flood the jesuit maketh great brags that he will reckon with him for it; and reckon he doth according to his best skill in Arithmetic, but to halves, for the Knight presseth the Romanists with the history of the Council of Trent, and the contradictions of their Bishops there, and other passages of moment which the jesuit lisently passeth by, being willing to charge himself with no more than he thought he was fairly able to put off. What he saith either by way of objection against the practice of the reformed Churches, or in answer to our arguments shall be particularly discussed in my reply to his particular heads.  
To the first. The Knight saith not that the Council of Trent approveth in express and direct words the practice of our Church, 
Concil. Trent. Sess. 22. c. 8.  but that by consequence it doth so in saying the Mass containeth great instruction for the common people, and commanding that the Mass Priest, or some other should frequently expound or declare unto them the mysteries of the Mass: for if the Mass contain as the Council saith great instruction for the people, and for that end ought to be expounded unto them, by the same reason it ought to be translated into the mother-tongue, and so read unto them; Unless they will say that the people receive as much instruction form that they understand not, as from that they understand. Which none will say but he that were a degree below S. Paul's idiot. 
In 1. ad Cor. c. 14. melius ad edificationem ecclesiae est orationes publicas quae audiente populo dicuntur dici lingua communi clericis & populo quam dicilatinâ .. Contar. in catec. interrogat ult. populus linguâ non intellect â orans caret eo fructu quem perciperet, siorationes eas quas ore proferunt, etiam intelligerent nam & speciatim intenderent animum, & mentem in deum, ut ab eo impetrarent etiam speciatim ea quae ore petunt, & magis aedificarentur ex sensu pio earum oraftonum quas ore proferunt.  Doubtless that which was written and appointed to be read before the people for their instruction, and edification, aught to be delivered unto them in a language which they understand: but the Mass was written and appointed to beeread before the people for their edification and instruction (as the Council agnizeth) therefore it ought to be celebrated in a known tongue. This reason alone prevailed so far with two Roman Cardinals, Cajetan and Contarenus, that they subscribed to the doctrine of the reformed Church in this point. The former his subscription is in these words, It were better for the edification of the Church, that the public prayers which are made in the audience of the people should be said in a tongue common to the Priest and people, then that they should be said in Latin. The other in these words, The people that prayeth in an unknown tongue wanteth that fruit which they might reap, if they understood those things which they pronounce with their lips, for they would in a special manner apply their mind to God, that they might obtain of him those things which they pray for especially, and they would be more edified by a godly feeling of those prayers which they utter with their mouth.  
To the second. The general practice and custom of the Western Church, having their public service in Latin, and of the Eastern Churches, having their service in Greek, maketh for us, not against us. For the Latin service was generally understood in the Western Church, and the Greek in the Eastern; when and where it was not so generally understood they had their service in their Mother-tongue, as namely among the Syrians, Armenians, Russians, Egyptians, Aethiopians. While the Roman Empire flourished, and the Imperial laws bore the sway, as namely in It alley, Spain, France, Germany, England, Africa, and wheresoever the divine service was celebrated in the Latin tongue, the people generally understood the Latin. If the jesuit speak of later times after the inundation of Goths and Vandals, when the Latin tongue was corrupted and degenerated into several languages, as Italian, Spanish, and French, in such sort, that the people in those parts underdood not the Latin: God stirred up in these Western parts many religious and learned men, who turned the Bible, and the common prayers into the vulgar tongue, and the Bishops of Rome were very much to blame, who commanded not the like to be done throughout all their jurisdiction, and it is worth the observation that Irenaeus teacheth, 
L. 5. c. 30.  that the number 666. containeth the name latinus, and that in that very year of our Lord Pope Vitalian commanded the Latin service generally to be received in the Western Church, though at that time in most parts few of the people understood it.  
To the third. We are not so much to regard uniformity in the Church. service, as conformity to the will and word of God, which requireth that all things in the Church be done to edification, 
1 Cor. 14.15, 16.26.  that we pray with the spirit, and with understanding also, that the people join with the Priest in all parts, as well prayers as giving of thanks and testfie it by saying Amen, Which cannot be done if prayers be said in a tongue which people understand not. Moreover, as diversity of instrumentstuned together marreth not the music, but maketh it sweeter: so diversity of languages, in which the same prayers are said, breeds no deformity at all, but uniformity rather. Sith it is not the different sound of words, but of sense that makes a difference either in the belief or practice of the Church. There was never more unity then in the Apostles time, 
Acts 2.46.  when all the be leevers were of one mind yet then they praised God in divers languages, 
Acts 2.9.  Parthians and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Indaea and Cappadocia, in Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, in Egypt and the parts of Lybia, about Cyrene and strangers of Rome, jews and Proselytes, Creets and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.  
To the fourth, The diversity of translations either of the Scriptures or the Church office breedeth no inconvenience at all, provided care betaken that the translations be revised by the learned, and licenced by authority: nay on the contrary the Church reapeth much benefit by it for languages have been thereby improved, and the Scriptures much opened. For oftentimes that which is obscure in the original, is cleared in a good translation. An unknown tongue is like a veil before a beautiful picture, or a film before the eye, which by a good translation is taken a-away. If it were either unlawful or inconvenient to translate the holy Scriptures, or choice parts of them in the Church Liturgy into vulgar languages; why did Severus translate them into the Syrian, S. Jerome into the Dalmatian, S. chrysostom into the Armenian, Vlphila into the Gothian, Methodius into the Slavonian? Bede into the British, and the Divines of Douai and Rheims of late into the English? 
Aeneas Sylbist. Bohem. c. 30.  Nay, why did the Pope himself sign and subscribe unto the Petition of Cyrill, and Methodius Monks sent to convert the flaves, and Dalmatians who in behalf of their Converts, desired of his holiness, that he would give leave to say service unto them in the Slavonian tongue, which the Pope consented unto upon their much pressing him with that text of holy Scripture, 
Ps. 150. v. ult.  Let every thing that hath breath praise the Lord, and let every tongue confess unto him.  
To the fift. If there were any force in the jesuits reason at all, it would prove that neither the Scriptures of the Old Testament should have been delivered to the jews in the Hebrew, nor the New Testament to the Greeks' in the Greek. For Hebrew was then the vulgar tongue of the jews, and the Greek to the Gentiles, yet we find that neither the writing the Old Testament in the Hebrew, nor the New in the Greek, which were then the vulgar languages to those people, bred any contempt of sacred things with profaneness and irreligiousness, but the clean contrary effects. The use of Scripture in a vulgar tongue is not the cause why any disesteem or undervalue it, but want of instruction in heavenly mysteries, and careless and superficial reading without searching into the bottom of the spiritual meaning, where Orient Pearls lie. A counrerfeit stone if it be often handled is discovered to be false, and thereby looseth its value, whereas a rich Diamond though it be worn every day on the finger, loseth nothing of the price, or value of it. If the public use of Scriptures would have derogated any thing from the worth and value of it, God would never have commanded the children of Israel to rehearse the book of the Law continually to their children, 
Deut. 6.7, 8, 9  to talk of it when they tarried in their house, and when they walked in the way, when they lay down, and when they risen up, to bind the words of the law for a sign upon their hand, and as frontlets between their eyes to write them upon the posts of the house, and upon the gates. Worldly wise men seek to improve their knowledge by concealing it, or at least impropriating it to some few: but God contrariwise valeweth his wisdom by making it common. Earthly commodities the rarer the dearer, but heavenly jewels the more common they are, the more precious: of other liquor the less we taste, the more we thirst after it, but heavenly wisdom thus speaketh of herself, He that drinketh of me, the more he drinketh the more he shall thirst. As the comfortable beams of the Sun which shineth daily upon us are not less valued, than the rays of those stars that seldom appear in our horizon: so the word of God which is the light of our understanding issuing from the Sun of righteousness loseth nothing of the reverend estimation, and religious respect due unto it by the frequent irradiation thereof at the preaching and reading of Scripture, nay it gaineth rather with all hearers in whom there is any spark of grace. As for danger of heresy, 
Rain. l 1. de Idol.  indeed Claudius Espenceus writeth, that a friend of his in Italy told him, that in that country they made  of reading Scripture, for fear of being made heretics thereby, but by heretics he meaneth such as S. Paul was, who after the way which they call heresy worship the God of their Fathers, 
Acts 24.14.  believing all things which are written in the Law and the Prophets, for otherwise if heresy be taken in the proper sense for erroneous doctrine in point of faith, it is as absurd to say, that the stequent use of Scriptures is a cause or occasion to bring men into heresy, as that the often taking of a sovereign antidote against poison, is the ready means to poison a man. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrys. tom. 5. Matth. 22.29.  S. chrysostom in his Homily de Lazaro exhorteth all his Christian hearers to the frequent reading of Scriptures, as a special means to preserve them from errors and heresies. For all errors in point of faith arise from the ignorance of Scriptures, as our Saviour teacheth the Saducees, saying, Ye err, not knowing the Scriptures. Assuredly there is less danger of falling into heresy by reading Scriptures, than any other book whatsoever, partly because they alone are free from all possibility of error, partly because God promiseth a blessing to those that read and meditate on them: yet our Adversaries suffer all other books to be translated out of the learned Languages into the vulgar, only they forbidden the translation and public use of the Scriptures, which contain in them most wholesome receipts, not only against all the maladies of the will, but of the understanding also: not only against all morallvices, but also all intellectual errors in matters of faith which we call heresies.  
To the sixth. Had the jesuit but an ounce of discretion and common understanding he would never translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to announce, which is no English word at all, neither is he of sufficient authority to coin new words at Douai or Saint Omers, and make them currant in England. For the matter itself it is false which he saith, that the Actions at the Lords Supper without the words show forth, or as he speaketh, announce the death of our Lord, for Bread is broken, and Wine poured out at common meals, yet our Lord's death is not thereby declared: both must concur, mysterious rites, and sacred forms of words lively to present Christ's death. The Knight's argument therefore standeth firm. The Sacraments ought so to be celebrated, that by them the Lords death might be showed forth: but it cannot be showed forth, unless the Evangelicall story, and especially the words of the Institution be pronounced in a language that may be understood. For to speak Latin to the people that understand it not, is surdo narrare fabulam, to tell a tale to a deaf man, or to set a beautiful picture before him that is blind, or in the Knight's phrase to speak to a wall; at which notwithstanding the jesuit ridiculously carpeth, saying, I never heard before, that it was all one to speak Latin, and to speak to a wall, were he according to our English proverb as wise as a wall, he could not but understand what was the Knight's meaning, to wit, that to speak Latin prayers and exhortations, as Papists do at their Mass to those who understand them not, is no better than to speak to so many walls, when the Apostle touching upon the same string the Knight doth, 
1 Cor. 14.9.  termeth the uttering words in an unknown tongue, as speaking into the air; This jesuit in the spirit of Lucian might in like manner have jeered at the Apostle, saying, I never heard that to speak in an unknown tongue, be it Greek, Latin, or Hebrew, is to speak to the air. The meaning of both phrases, to speak to a wall, and to speak into the air, is all one to lose a man's breath to speak idly and unprofitably, or to no end and purpose, when no man is the better for it, as the jesuit afterwards confesseth, saying, The other reason from the Apostle is, that those which hear a prayer in a strange language, are nothing the better for it, nor can say Amen unto it. What then can the common people be the better for hearing popish Matins or evensong, which are chanted in Latin, a language which they understand not?  
To the seventh. Admit the Apostle in that place spoke not of public prayers, but rather of private extemporary devotion: yet the reasons he there useth against prayer in an unknown tongue, are as forcible against public as private ptayers. For if we may not pray without understanding, or speak into the air in our private devotions, much less in our public. But the truth is, the Apostle speaketh evidently of public prayers, and all the parts thereof; first of petitions v. 15. secondly, of giving of thanks v. 17. thirdly, of prophesying and interpreting of Scriptutes v. 4. fourthly, of singing Psalms v. 15. and all this when the whole Church be come together in one place v. 23. Moreover, he speaketh of prayers made in the Church, v. 19 of the edification of others, v. 12.26. and of blessings also wherein the people are to join with the Priest v. 16. and what can such prayers, benedictions, hymns, and thankesgivings be other then part of the public Liturgy in the Church in those days? Yea, but saith the jesuit, he cannot speak of the public prayers of the Church which no man can doubt either for the truth or goodness of them, and therefore he may confidently say Amen to them, though they be uttered in an unknown tongue. I answer, that the Apostle here speaketh not of confidently saying Amen, but understandingly saying it, which no man can do, who is utterly ignorant of the tongue in which the Priest prayeth. 
Hos. de verb Dei. I believe what the Church believeth, the Church believeth what I believe.  And howsoever none of the colliers implicit circnlar faith can make any doubt of the truth or goodness of the prayers said in the Mass: yet those whose eyes are not put out with the Romish coal dust, may very well doubt of them; first they may well doubt whether the Church of Rome which appointeth them may not err as other Churches have done, especially considering what the Apostle speaketh expressly of that Church, 
Rom. 11.22. Vid. Bull. praefix breviar. Rom. Melcbior loc. theol. l. 11. c. 5. nec enim animus est meri omnes historias quae passim in ecclcsiâ loctitantur. Claudius' Espen. in 2. ad Tim. c. 4. digres. 2. nostri quantum me pigeant falsa in ecclesia Dei cantica canentes quantae nugae canore mihi audibiles? in uno hymno praeter ineptitudinem sententiarum mendacia ad minus 24. reperi. Petrus Pictau: ep. 31. conqueritur inepta ac falsa in laudem Sancti Mauri super aquas currentis afficta.  that if she continued not in her goodness, she should be cut off. Secondly, he may doubt whether all those corruptions and abuses which the Fathers in the Council of Trent complain to have crept into their Mass are reform. Thirdly, he may doubt whether the Priest's book may not be somewhere false printed. Lastly, he may doubt whether the Priest always reads true; surely that Priest who baptised a child, in nomine patria filia, & spiritua sancta; and another who read in the Doxology glia pni: flo: & spui sco scutrat in primpo scla sclorum, Amen, said Mass by rote, and could not have skill of brachygraphy, nor well spell Latin, and can no man then doubt of the truth and goodness of any of the prayers that are said by your Masspriests?  
To the eighth. The shaft which the Knight draweth out of Haymo his quiver, flieth home. For first he expressly teacheth that S. Paul speaketh of public prayers, 
1 Cor. 14.  and among other reasons used by the Apostle against the conceiving of prayers in an unknown tongue, he insisteth upon that v. 16. when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the Room of the unlearned say Amen at the giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? adding if one knoweth that only tongue wherein he was borne and bred; if such an one stand by thee whilst thou dost solemnly celebrate the mystery of the Mass, or make a Sermon, or give a blessing, how shall he say Amen at thy blessing, when he knoweth not what thou sayest? for as much as he understanding none but his mother's tengue, he cannot tell what thou speakest in that strange and barbarous tongue. Hereunto the jesuit answereth, that if we take Haymo altogether, we shall find he doth not require, that all that are by, shall understand, but that he that supplieth the place of the idiot, or laye-man in answering for the people shall understand. An answer befitting an idiot indeed, for doth not S. Paul, 
1 Cor. 14.16.  and after him Haymo speak indefinitely of any that occupy the place of the unlearned, or standeth by at Service or Sermon in an unknown tongue? or is it less absurd for any other man to be present at a prayer which he understandeth not, then for a Parish-Clarke whom alone he will have here to be understood. Who is very much beholding to him for bestowing the name of idiot upon him, and truly such a Clerk as the jesuit here defineth, may very well take the idiot in the worst sense to himself. For he requireth no more in a Clerk then that he understand the Service so fare, 
P. 265.  as to be able to answer Amen. But it seemeth the jesuit took his holy orders per saltum, and skipped over the Clerk. For if he had well considered what belongs to the Clerks office, he should find that he hath more in his part then to say only Amen; for in all ancient and later Liturgies that I have seen, many short sentences or responds are to be said by him, as namely christ eleeson & cumspiritn tuo, & habemus ad Dominum, and the like, neither can he say Amen to any prayer in the Apostles sense, unless he perfectly understand it: for to say Amen, is not only to utter the word which a Parrot or Popenjay may do, but to join in prayer with the Priest, and to give his assent to every clause.  
To the ninth. The jesuits answer to justinian is lame on both feet. For whereas he taxeth him for taking too much upon him, it will appear to any who peruseth the Code & Digests, that he taketh no more upon him then God commendeth to Princes, to wit, the custody of both tables: he did no more than S. Austin affirmeth appertaineth to Christian Kings, to command those things that are just and honest not only in civil affairs, but also in matters of religion; for what he did, he had many excellent precedents before him in David, Solomon, Hezekiah, and josiah, Kings of judah; and Constantine and Theodosius, and other Christian Emperors, as is declared at large by B. Bilson in his defence of the oath of supremacre, and Doctor Crakenthorpe in his most learned Apology of this Emperor. Next what he saith that the Decree of this religious Emperor may well stand with the present practice of the Roman Church is most false. 
Novel. constit. 123.  For the words of the Emperor are general, commanding all Bishops and Priests to celebrate the sacred oblation of the Lords Supper, and prayer used in Baptism, not in secret, but with a loud and clear voice, that the minds of the hearers might be stirred up with more devotion, to express the praises of God. Now I would feign know to what end all Bishops and Priests are commanded to pronounce their words clearly and distinctly, both at the administration of Baptism, and the Lords Supper; but that their hearers might undetstand what they say, and be affected with those things they hear; which cannot beif the Priest speak to them in an unknown tongue? For how can the loud pronouncing of words in a strange language stir up the devotion of the people to praise God for his benefits, which the Emperor here requireth under a great penalty, saying? Let the Bishops and Priests know that if they neglect to do according to our princely command, they shall yield an account in the dreadful judgement of the great God for it, and we having information of them will not leave them unpunished.  
To the tenth. After the Imperial Decree the Knight allegeth a text out of the Canon law, not to show his skill in both laws, as the jesuit would have it, but to demonstrate that the practice of the Roman Church in this point of prayer in an unknown tongue, is against all law both Ecclesiastical and civil, 
Tit. 3. de Offic.  and that the walls of the Romish Babel are battered by her own canons; for though the Decree of Pope Gregory were made upon a special occasion: yet it is grounded upon this general rule, that Service and Sacraments must be said and administered to the people in a language they understand, which the jesuit himself confesseth in part, saying, that it is a matter of necessity in the administration of some Sacraments to use the vulgar tongue, as in Marriage and Penance; as for the Council of Lateran, and the Pope in his Decree, they speak indefinitely of holy Service and Sacraments, and the Logicians rule is that indefinite propositions in materia necessaria are to be taken for universals, and by the same reason, which the jesuit allegeth for Penance and Marriage to be celebrated in a known tongue we may conclude, that Baptism also, and the Lords Supper ought to be so celebrated. For in both, questions are put to the people, to the god fathers in the one, and communicants in the other, and answers are expected from them.  
To the eleventh. The jesuit is like them taxed by the Apostle who knew not what they spoke, nor whereof they affirm. Our question is not, whether divine Service ought always to be said in the mother tongue, for we ourselves do other ways in divers Colleges: but the point in controversy is, whether the service ought always to besaid in a tongue understood by those that are present: this all the Authors alleged by the Knight affirm, and therefore they make for us, and assuredly if for seven or 800 years the public prayers of the Church were offered to God in a language understood by the people, as is confessed: questionless in many places the prayers were turned into vulgar languages. For it cannot be imagined that all the people in the Christian world before Pope Vitalians time understood Hebrew, 
Lyra in 1 Cor. 14. in primitiva ecclesia bene dictiones, & coetera fiebant in linguâ vulgari. Gretz. def. Bel. l. 2. de verb. Dei linguâ auditoribus non ignotâ omnia peragebantur, & consuetudo tunc ferebat ut omnes psallerent. Harding. apud jewel. jam 3. art. divis. 28 Verily in the primitive Church prayers were made in a common tongue known to the people. Liturg. canonicam precem, & in primis dominici corporis, & sanguinis consecrationem ita veteres legebant, ut à populo intelligi, & Amen ucclamari possint. joban. Belit. in sum. de divin. offic. in primitiva ecclcsia prohibitum erat ne quis lo quereturling u is nisi esset qui inter pretaretur quid enim prodesset, etc. Wald. in doct. art. eccies. tit. 4. c. 31. fuit ergo ratio talis benediction is in ecclesiâ tempore Apostoli cui respondere solebat non tantùm clerus sed omnis populus. Aquin as lect. 4. ideò erat insania in primitiuâ ecclesiâ quia erant rudes in ritu ecclesiastico.  Greek, or Latin, neither is it a point much material, whether the Authors alleged by the Knight speak of any Precept of praying in a known tongue or not, it is sufficient, that they confess that it was the general practice of the Primitive Church, to perform their devotions in the vulgar tongue. For certainly what they generally practised in their divine Service, they thought to be fittest and most agreeable to God's commandment. If we had nothing but their practice for us, it alone would prove the visibility of our Church in this main point, wherein we stand at a bay with the Roman Church; but the truth is, though the jesuit would be loath to hear it, his own witnesses Cassander, Belithus, Waldensis, and Aquinas speak home to the point even of a Precept; the words of Cassander are, the Canonical prayers, and especially the words of Consecration of the body and blood of our Lord; the Ancients did so read that all the people might understand it and say Amen according to the precept intimated by the Apostle, 1 Cor. 14. 16. The words of Belithus are, that in the Primitive Church it was forbidden that any should speak with tongues, unless there were some to interpret; for what saith he, should speaking avail without understanding? Waldensis saith more than that, in the Apostles time, the giving of thanks was in a known tongue, he confirmeth the practice with a reason, saying, There was reason it should be so, because in those times not only the Priests, but the people also were wont to answer Amen. Aquinas goeth a step farther, that it was madness in the Primitive Church for a man to have prayed in an unknown tongue, because then the people were rude and ignorant in Ecclesiastical rites. Now if the jesuit think that it was not prohibited in the Apostles time, to do any mad act in time of divine Service, he himself is bound for the Anticyrae. Now for that the jesuit addeth for the imbellishing of his former answer, that none of the vulgar languages but the three learned, to wit, the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, were Dedicated on the cross of Christ, and consequently that they being the best and perfectest of all languages were fittest for divine Service to be said in them: it is more plausible than substantial. For though I grant that every devout soul so affecteth the person of our Lord and Saviour, that she loveth the very ground he trod upon, and honoureth those languages above all other in which his titles were proclaimed, for the greater advancement of his kingdom: yet the reason holdeth not in our present case. For though a golden key be simply better than a key of iron, yet a key of iron which will open to us a casket of most precious jewels, is better for that use then a key of gold which will not open the lock. Admit the original languages of Greek and Hebrew are simply perfecter, and better than any other which are derivatives from them, yet the Mother-tongue, or vulgar language, is better and fit for the congregation in time of divine Service, because it answereth the wards of their understanding, and openeth to their capacity the Divine mysteries then celebrated, which the learned languages cannot do. As for Pilat's writing over the Cross, it is certain he had no end therein to honour the three Languages, with this title: but to dishonour our Saviour thereby, and put a scorn upon him; and therefore that inscription in the three languages was rather a pollution then a Dedication of those tongues. If Pilat's action herein be of any force it maketh rather against then for our Adversaries. For Pilate therefore commanded the title to be written in those three languages, that it might be understood of all, or the greater part of those that then were at jerusalem. By which reason people of divers languages ought to have their mysteries (for so the jesuit calleth this title) celebrated in their own several langurges. 
Praef. in psal. his maximè tribus linguis sacramentum voluntatis Dei, & beati regni expectatio praedicatur ex eoque illud Pilati fuit, ut in his tribus linguis regem Iudaeorum Dominum nostrum jesum Christum esse praescriberet.  S. Hilary who is alleged by Bailiff the jesuit for the consecration of these tongues, neither saith that these tongues were consecrated by that inscription, not that Christ's kingdom is to be proclaimed in them only. His words are in these three languages, especially the mystery of God's will, and the expectation of his blessed kingdom is preached; and hence it was that Pilate wrote our Lord jesus Christ King of the jews in those three tongues. This testimony cutteth the throat of our Adversaries, for the adverbe maximè or chief implieth that the mysteries of Christ's kingdom were to be preached in other tongues, though in these especially, because these were then, and are some of them at this day most generally known and understood. 
Inc. 15 Marc. Deus voluit ut causa mortis Christi varijs linguis scriberetur quo ab omnibus intelligeretur. Et Hieron. ib. hae tres linguae in crucis titulo conjunctae ut omnis lingua commemoraret perfidiam judaeorum. Baron. tom. 10 Anno Chris. 880. ep. 147. litter as Slavonicas, à Constantino philosopho repertas quibus Deo laudes debitas resonent jure laudamus, & ut in cadem lingua Christi Dei nostri praeconia, & opera enarrentur, jubemus: neque enim trilus tantùm linguis, sed omnibus Dominum laudare authoritate sacrâ monemur, quae praecepit dicens, laudate Dominum omnes gentes: nec sanè fidei vel doctrinae allquid obstat five missas in eadem Slavonica lingua canere, sive sacrum evangelium, vel lectiones divinas N. & V. Testamenti benè translatas, & interpretatas legere, out alia horarum officia psallere quoniam qui fecit tres linguas principales Hebraeam scilicet Graecaem, & Latinam, ipse creavit & alias omnes ad laudem & gloriam suam.  Lyra and S. Jerome harp upon this string, God would have saith Lyra, that the cause of Christ's death should be written in divers tongues that every tongue might declare the treachery of the jews, and which marreth all the jesuits music, the Pope's Diapason soundeth out the same note, for so we read in Bope john's Epistle to the King of Moravia, we commend the Slavonian letters found out by Constantine the Philosopher, whereby those of that country set forth the due praises of God, and we command that the preaching and works of Christ our God be declared in them, for we are admonished by the Divine authority which commandeth, saying, Praise the Lord all ye Gentiles, to praise the Lord not in three tongues only, but in all, for he who made the three principal languages, Hebrew, Greek and Latin; he created also all other for his glory.  
To the twelfth. To this insolent interrogation of the jesuit we answer, that in general, prayer in an unknown tongue is commanded in all those texts of Scripture, which require us to come near unto God, and pray unto him with our heart. For by the heart the understanding as well as the will and affections are meants, as appeareth by that prayer of Solomon, Da mihi cor intelligens? in particular and express words it is commanded in the 1 Cor. 14. chapter through the whole, out of which we thus argue, if it be better in the Church to speak five words with understanding, that by our voice we may teach others, than a thousand words in an unknown tongue: then certainly the public Service of the Church ought to be in a known tongue; but it is better in the Church to speak five words with understanding to instruct others thereby, than a thousand words in an unknown tongue, v. 19 Therefore the public Service of the Church ought to be in a known tongue. If all things ought to be done in the Church to edification, then ought the public Service to be in a known tongue; (for he that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth not, v. 5.) but in the Church all things ought to be done to edification, v. 26. Ergo, the public Service ought to be in a known tongue: If in the prayers of the Church the people are to join with the Priest, and testify their consent with him by saying Amen to his prayers, and giving of thanks: then ought the public Service to be in a known tongue: But in the prayers of the Church, the people ought to join with the Priest, and testify their consent by saying Amen to his prayers, and giving of thanks. Ergo, the public Service ought to be in a known tongue. If in the Church prayers we ought to pray and sing with understanding, than aught Church service to be in a known tongue (for if we pray in an unknown tongue our spirit prayeth, but our understanding is unfruitful, v. 14.) But in the prayers of the Church we ought to pray and sing with understanding, v. 15. Ergo, the public Service ought to be in a known tongue. Neither can the jesuit shift off these passages with a wish, saying that S. Paul indeed adviseth and wisheth, that when any prayer is made in an unknown tongue, there should be some to interpret, but that he requireth no such thing to be observed as a divine precept: for v. 37. he addeth, if any man think himself a prophet or spiritual, let him know that the things which I writ unto you, are the commandments of God. To conclude, when S. james commandeth, that whosoever prayeth, 
james 1.6.  ask in faith, nothing doubting but that he shall receive what he asketh, he necessarily implieth, that we ought to pray to God in a known tongue. For how can he believe that he shall receive what he prayeth for, if he knoweth not what himself saith in his prayers, or what an other prayeth for him, to whose prayers he saith Amen. To the jesuits second quaere, where prayer in an unknown known tongue is forbidden. I answer, Esay 29.13. and Mark the 7.10. Well Esay prophesied of you hypocrites, this people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is fare from me: and 1 Cor. 14. where the Apostle professedly disputeth against speaking in the Church in an unknown tongue. But the jesuit excepteth, that S. Paul in that chapter condemneth not simply prayers in an unknown tongue, though he preferreth prophesy. By which his ignorant exception, it should seem that he read that chapter in an unknown tongue; for he speaketh so wide from the matter as if he understood never a word in it. It is true that the Apostle in that chapter comparing the gift of tongues, and prophesy together condemneth neither of them, but preferreth the gift of prophecy; and in prosecution of the comparison falleth upon those who used the gift of tongues in public prayers in the Church, and he expressly condemneth that practice of them, because they that prayed in such sort uttering words that were not understood, spoke not to men, because no man understood them, v. 2. spoke into the air, v. 5. edified. not by those prayers, v. 12.17. because others could not join with them in their prayers, nor say Amen to their thanks, v. 15. Now if the Apostle reproved the use of the miraculous gift of tongues (which redounded so much to the honour of God) in the Church, without an interpreter, v. 28. saying, if there be no interpreter, let them keep silence in the Church; How much more may we conceive would he have sorbidden the use of an unknown tongue acquired by humane industry? To his third quaere, what authority we can bring for ourselves, or example? I answer, that the Knight hath brought the authority, and example of the catholic Christian Church for 700. years at the least, and because he calleth upon us to name any Father, who teacheth as we do, that the service of the Church ought to be in a known tongue, 
Exposit. in psal. 18. vult ut quod conamus intelligamus ac humana ratione non quasi avium voce canamus nam, & psittaci, & corvi, & picae, & hujusmodi volucres saepè abhominibus docentur sonate quod nesciunt sciunter autem cantare naturae hominis divina bonitate concessum est.  I name S. chrysostom, who in his Commentary upon the 14. chapter of the first to the Corinthians saith that the Apostle teacheth, that we ought to speak with our tongues, and withal to mind what is spoken, that we may understand it; and S. Austin willeth, that we understand what we sing like men endued with reason, and not chatter like birds, for ousels, parrots, crows, pies, and such other birds, are often taught by men to sound out that which they know not, but to know what they sing, or sing with knowledge and understanding, is by Gods will peculiarly given unto man. I name also justine Martyr, and S. Basil, and many other ancient Doctors, whose testimonies are plentifully alleged by Bishop jewel, Article the third, and Bilson of Supremacy, part the fourth, and not yet answered by any Papist to my knowledge.  
To the thirteenth. The observation of Cardinal Bellarmine concerning the different custom of the ancient Church, and the present Roman, maketh rather against the jesuits then for them. For who will not attribute more to the uniform practice of the primitive Church, then to the heteroclyte practise of later Churches? assuredly the practice of the primitive Church wherein the people answered the Priests, and not the Clerk only, is most agreeable to the doctrine of S. Paul, and consonant to reason. For public prayers were instituted especially for three ends, first, for the most solemn worship of God, when thousands of hands are at once lifted up to him, and as many tongues confess his name: secondly, for the stirring up of greater devotion, when many hundreds praying and blessing, and singing together, like so many coals on the same hearth kindle one the other, and increase the flame. Thirdly, for more prevalency with God, when we offer violence, as it were to heaven, and send up our united devotions like a volley of shot to batter the walls of it; They who pray in a tongue which the people understand not, and therefore cannot join with them in their prayer, fail of all these ends. Yet to sodder all, the jesuit beareth us in hand, that the Mass being the same continually, the people understand it sufficiently for the exercise of their devotion, though not to satisfy vain curiosity; which speech of his is partly senseless, and partly blasphemous: it is senseless to imagine that a man who never learned his Grammar, nor ever was taught Greek or Latin, by hearing only the Mass read over, though a thousand times should come to understand it; secondly, it is blasphemous to say that to desire to understand the particular contents of the Epistles and Gospels read in the Mass, or the psalms of David, sung in the Church is vain curiofitie, or heretical pride. Lo here Flood his channel falleth again into the Stygian lake.  
To the fourteenth. There is no contradiction at all in the Knight's observations. For though this story of the shepherds abusing the words of Consecration, and struck dead for it, might peradventure occasion some alteration in those Churches, where it was believed, yet there was no general command for the practice of the Latin Service, in all Christian Churches before Vitalians time; who in the year 666. verified the number of the name of the beast in himself, which according to the interpretation of S. Irenaeus, who flourished within two hundred years after Christ, is lateinos, as before I noted. But for mine own part I have no faith at all in that legendary fable of the Shepherds; First because those that coined it, agree not in their tale, for some say, that the Bread and Wine were transubstantiated into flesh and blood, and the shepherds for their profane abuse struck dead: others tell it otherwise, 
Cassand. liturg. c. 28. Honorius in Gem. animae, Bellar. l. 2. de Mis. c. 22.  that neither the Bread nor the Wine were transubstantiated, but consumed by fire from heaven, nor the shepherds strucken dead, but only laid for dead. As for the Author of the book called Pratum spirituale, he is of no credit at all. For in his Spiritual meadow, as he termeth his work, there are many such Eutopian flowers, as this is, where I leave the jesuit to gather him a nosegay, till I have leisure to meet with him in the next Section.    

Concerning worshipping of Images. Spectacles, Sect. 7. a pag. 283. usque ad 319.  
THe text of Scripture which the Knight quoteth, maketh not any mention of Image-worship, but idol-worship, which he could not but know to be a different thing having been so often told it.  
It followeth not the jews might not adore Images; Ergo, we may not: for the jews might not eat blood nor swine's flesh, nor many other things which we may.  
If the second Commandment were moral, and now in force, the Knight could not have his wife's picture, nor she his, without breach of that Commandment: therefore in that sense he cannot urge it more against our pictures, than we against his.  
Cornelius Agrippa was a Magician, and therefore no heed to be given to what he testifieth against the Roman Church.  
Philo judaeus saith nothing, but that the jews admitted no image into the Temple, which is true; for God cannot be painted, neither could they have the Image of any Saint: for there was none as yet which might have that honour, to have their images or pictures in the Temple, themselves being not yet admitted into the heavenly Temple of God.  
It is no marvel that the jews hate crucifixes, sigh they could not endure Christ himself.  
Notwithstanding the prohibition in the second Commandment, were it Moral or Ceremonial, men did adore the Cherubins in the Temple, and the Ark and the Temple itself.  
There may in the New Testament be some precept, or example both of our Saviour and his Apopostles for the adoration of images, though not written in Scripture, because as S. john saith that all is not written, or rather a very small part is written as his words import.  
We have the example of our Saviour and his Apostles testified by good authentical histories, many great and grave Authors make mention of two several images made miraculously by our blessed Saviour himself, one was that which he sent to Abgarus King of Edessa, who had a desire to see him: the other was that of Veronica, which he made with wiping his face, as he was carrying his Cross: a third was one which Nicodemus gave to Gamaliel, all which are testified, not only by grave and learned Authors, but by God himself, though not in Scripture, yet by great and wonderful miracles.  
S. Austin taketh not Simulachrum for an image, as the Knight falsely translateth him, but for an idol, and so commendeth Varro for coming nearer to the knowledge of the true God, and going further from idolatry then other Gentiles.  
Eusebius saith not, that images sprang from an heathenish custom, but he meaneth by mos gentilis, the fashion of their own people, and kindred, who were wont to honour such that had done them any benefit, or help by erecting statues in memory of them. Moreover, Eusebius relateth this story of the woman's statue with approbation; upon the basis or foot thereof, there grew a certain strange and unusual kind of herb, which as soon as it grew up so high as to touch the hem of the brazen garment, it had virtue to cure diseases of every kind.  
The Council of Elliberis, was an obscure provincial Synod of 19 Bishop's only, without any certainty of the time when it was held, to which we oppose one of Constantinople, another at Rome, under Gregory the third, and a third at Nice, of 350. Bishops. Moreover, this Council forbiddeth not pictures absolutely, but painting on walls, and soleaving them to the fury, and scorn of the Gentiles, and it is plain, that the Council made the Decree out of honour to images, because they thought not the walls a place convenient, because the plaster breaking off in some places, they might become deformed, and so contemptible.  
Valens and Theodosius whom the Knight joineth in making a law against images, were not alive together: Valens being killed 23. years before Theodofius was borne; besides Valens was a wicked Arrian heretic, upon whom God did show his judgement by a disastrous end, and the law made by him cited by the Knight is foully corrupted, and the meaning wholly perverted, for the law was made in honour of the Cross, towit, thus we command that it shall not be lawful for any to carve or paint the sign of our Saviour Christ, either on the ground, or in any stone or marble lying on it.  
Nicolaus Clemanges was himself a Wiclefian heretic.  
Cassander, Erasmus, and Wicelius, are of no account in the Roman Church.  
The Council of Nice, held under Constantine and Irene, was not condemned at Frankford; Nay, in that very Council an Anathema is said to all such as deface Images.  
Polidore Virgil, in saying the ancient Fathers condemned the worship of images, for fear of Idolatry, speaketh not of the Fathers of the New Testament, but those of the Old; particularly naming Moses and Hezekias: nay farther, Polydore accounteth him a dissolute and audacious man, who judgeth otherwise of the worship of Images, then hath been approved by the Decree of two or three Counsels which he there allegeth.  
Peresius denieth not the worship of Images, but that the picture is to be adored with the same worship, as the prototype, or thing represented by it, which maketh nothing against the doctrine of the Catholic Church touching the worship of Images.  
Agobardus his drift in his book De picturis & imaginibus, is only against the idolatricall use or abuse rather of images against which he speaketh very much, by occasion of some abuses in his time.  
Although it were true that some silly women, or ignorant rustics should be so blockish, as to conceive some Divinity in pictures, and accordingly adore them: yet the use of pictures must not be taken away for the abuse, for the axiom of the law is, utile perinutile non vitiatur.  

The Hammer.  
AS those who beheld the head of Medusa wereturned into stocks and stones, and presently deprived of all life and sense: so those who gaze upon with admiration, this head of the Romish doctrine concerning Image-worship, become so stupid and senseless, as if they were turned into those stocks and stones, to which they give religious veneration. A notable experiment hereof we have in a conference in France, in which a Sorbon Doctor present, hearing how absurdly the Patroness of Images maintained the worship of them said, of a truth I find the words of Psalmist verified, those that make them are like unto them, and so are all they that put their trust in them. But we need not go so fare for an instance; the jesuit in this Section maketh good that observation, showing us a forehead of the same metal the images are made for which he pleadeth. For he loadeth the Knight with shameless calumnies, and most impudently defendeth such gross idolattie as the wiser of the heathen were ashamed of: he whetteth his poisonous tooth, and like a mad dog snaps at all he meeteth with, and fare out-raileth Rabsekah himself, as the Reader cannot but judge if he peruse but a few passages ensuing, namely first, page 298. This is your discourse Sir Humphrey, wherein you have given so sufficient testimony of notorious had dealing, especially in the two places of Eusebius, and of the civil law: that if there were nothing else falsified or corrupted in your whole book, this were enough utterly to deface all memory of you, from among honest men. And page 301. What say you to all this Sir Humphrey? look now into your own conscience, and see whether it can flatter you so much, as to say you are an honest man. And page 205. May not you then bear away the bell from all lying, and corrupting fellows that have ever gone before you? He that seethe such foul stuff come out of the jesuits mouth, would he not think that he were sick of the disease called miserere? but I leave his Grobian language, and come to consider first what he layeth to the Knights charge, and after, how he dischargeth himself of the idolatry and superstition, wherewith the Knight in this chapter burdeneth the Roman Church. First, he chargeth the Knight with false translation, of the Council of Trent. We teach that the image of Christ, the Virgin Mother of God, and other Saints are chief in Churches to be had, and retained, which Decree he might have translated a little better, and more clearly by saying, that those images are to be had, and retained especially in Churches, the Latin word being praesertim, and his translating it chiefly, and placing it so oddly, gives cause to think he had an evil meaning therein, as if he would have his reader think that the Council taught that those images were the chief things to be had in Churches, etc. It is a sign of a light head to stumble at a straw: yet here lieth not so much as a straw in the jesuits way: only he wanted a festrawe to point to the accent, which is set upon Churches not upon had, the meaning of the Council and the Knights is all one, to wit, that images by that Decree were to be had, and retained chief or especially in Churches, not to be had or held to be the chief thing in Churches. For no man would imagine that the Council could be so absurd and impious, as to prefer images before the sacred Scriptures, the Font and Chalice, the Altar or communion Table: much less the sacred Symbols of Christ's body and blood. Secondly, he chargeth the Knight with gross ignorance, in Chronologie, But I may ask you, saith he, how come you to say the jews never allowed adoration of Images for four thousand years, when as the people of the jews were not such a people above two thousand years; nay Moses lived not passed 1500. years before our Saviour, so that of your own liberality and skill in Chronologie you have added 2000 years to make your doctrine seem ancient. There is a gross mistake I confess, but in the jesuit, not in the Knight: who saith not 4000 years, but for almost 4000 years in the first edition, and in the later editions this escape of the press is mended, and the figure altered. For the matter itself, the Knight might truly have said, that the people of God, who lived partly under the law of nature, partly under the law of Moses, never allowed adoration of Images for 4000 years: so ancient is the doctrine of the reformed Churches in this point. Thirdly, he chargeth the Knight with Simbolizing with jews in the hatred of Christ, You saith he, in alleging the jews hate of the cross, as an argument why you should also hate the same, tacitly confess that you love Christ so well as they: 
1 Cor. 16.22.  A fearful charge: for whosoever loveth not the Lord jesus, let him be anathemamaranatha, but a ridiculous proof; for a man may hate an idolised crucifix, out of love of Christ, because he cannot endure Christ his honour to be given to graven images. Heat of zeal against idolatry, doth no way argue coldness of affection to the true religion; 
2. King. 15.4.  Witness King Hezekiah the non pareil of a religious Prince, who demolished the brazen Serpent, and stamped it to powder, calling it nehustan, though it were an image and type of Christ crucified, as Christ himself teacheth us. 
Io. 3.14.  As Moses lifted up the Serpent in the wilderness, So must the Son of man be lifted up; Witness Saint Peter, who loved Christ more than the rest of the Disciples, 
1 Pet. 4.3.  Diligis me plùs quàm high? and yet he brandeth all Image worship by the title of abominable idolatry. Nay, witness S. john the beloved Disciple, who went behind none in zeal against idolatry, 
1 Io. 5.21.  saying, babes keep yourselves from idols. It is one thing to dislike crucifixes in Churches out of hatred of Christ, as jews, Turks, and Infidels may do: and another thing to disallow them out of hatred of idolatry and superstition. To stab the King's picture, or any way deface it out of hatred, or contempt of his person is disloyalty: yet to take a piece of counterfeit coin prohibited by law, though bearing the King's image, and prick it full of holes, or nail it to a post, is no argument of disloyalty, but contrary, an act of Loyalty, and obedience also to the King's laws. Lastly, he chargeth the Knight with Sacrilege and profanation of holy things, saying, You, and such as you, have had your shares in pulling down of images, and silver shrines, this last hundred years, are more like to be drawn with the love of gain, to the pulling down of Images, than we that lose all for maintaining and setting them up: for what we and our Ancestors have parted with from ourselves, and out of our own purses for the honour of God and his Saints; you or men of your religion, pull back from God and his Saints, to bestow upon your backs and bellies, and upon your Ministers, their wives and brats. I would cast this dung bacl again on your Nun's bellies, and Pope's face, and tell you of the brats of the one buried in the earth, and drowned in moats, to cover the shame of the parents, and give you a bill of the expense of the other upon their mistresses, fare surmounting the charge of all the Ministers wives in England; but I choose rather to purge the Knight from all foul aspersion herein, who is so fare from having any hand in pulling down your silver shrines, and images, and making sale of them, that he was not then borne, when by command of King Edward the sixth those Monuments of idolatry were knocked down and defaced, which yet was accounted a work so acceptable to God, 
Vit. Ed. 6. by Sir john H.  that the self same day that the images were broken down in London, God gave us a notable victory in Scotland; but the truth is, the Knight chargeth the jesuit home with the example of Demetrius and his followers maintaining images, because they were maintained by them. For who seethe not in all popish countries, how when all other Artificers shut up their shops, to wit, on Sundays and holy days the Priests open theirs, setting out as it were their golden puppets on the stalls, whereof they make no small advantage? and therefore to all his railing rhetoric with which he concludes this section, I hold sit to return no other answer then the French provethe, The Ass brayeth never so hideously, as when he is overhard girt. Thus having held up my buckler for the Knight, and warded off the jesuits blows: now I fall on whetting and sharpening the Knight's sword, wherewith he woundeth the Idolatrous superstition of the Roman Church, the edge whereof the jesuit endevoureth to dull by the twenty exceptions above mentioned, which now I will scan in order.  
To the first. It is true that we have been oft told by Papists, that we ought to make a difference between Image-worship, and idol-worship: but it is as true that this is a distinction without difference, which hath been a hundred times refuted by all those who have entered into lists with Papists about the question in hand, and did not the jesuit arm his forehead with the metal of his images, he would blush to say that the texts alleged by the Knight make against idols, 
Vulg. lat. ex edit R. Stephani, non facietis vobis idolum, & sculptile nec titulos erigetis, nec insignem lapidem ponetis in terrâ vestrâ ut adoretis eum. Lorinus in Act. 7. v. 29. sculptilis imago distinctiùs ac enixiùs prohibita est, quoniam cultus idolorum versa batur potissimùm insoulptâ imagine vel statua quae soliditate partium, atque crassity mag is exhibet personam, quae adoranda proponitur, quàm si haec in superficie duntaxat coloribus exprimatur. Tertul. count. Marcio. l. 4. c. 22. nec enim imagines eorum, nec staivas populus habuisset lege prohibente. Vasquez. disp. 5. in 3. p. Thon & disp. 94. c. 2. substantia praecepti fuit, usum quemlibet imaginum auferre.  and not at all against images; for the first text, Levit. 26.1. word for word according to the original, and agreeably to the vulgar Latin is thus to be rendered, Ye shall make you no idols nor graven images, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall you set up any image of stone in your land to bow down to it. The second text Exod. 20.4. is thus to be translated, Thoushalt not make thyself any thing carved or graven, in Hebrew Pesel derived from pasal, signifying to carve or engrave, in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the vulgar Latin unto which all Papists are sworn sculptile. To which Commandment Tertullian alluding saith, Peter knew Moses and Elias by the spirit, when they appeared with Christ in the Mount, not by any picture or image which he had seen of them, for the people of the jews had no such, the law prohibiting it. And Vasqnez the jesuit convinced by the evidence of the text confesseth, that God in the second Commandment forbiddeth not only to worship an image for God, but also to worship God in any similitude, and consequently he thereby taketh away all use of any image of God. Yet were there any mist in the word pesel, the words following clearly dispel it; nor the likeness of any thing, that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth, thou shalt not bow down to them, viz. with thy body, nor worship them in thy soul: Papists do both, and therefore though they could escape the net laid for them in the first words (non facies tibi sculptile) yet they are caught and strangled in the next. For albeit they could prove that their images are no idols prohibited in the word pesel, yet certainly they are the similitudes of something that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the water under the earth. The third text alleged by the Knight out of Dent. 
Custodite solicitè animas vestras, ne forte deceptifaciatis vobis sculptam imaginem, vel similitudinem masculi vel foeminae.  4.15.16. & 17. is thus rendered in their own vulgar Latin, keep carefully your souls, you saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire; take heed lest peradventure being deceived, you make to yourselves any graven image, or the likeness of male or female. Neither is the last allegation out of Esay the fortieth, less prevalent than the former, to batter down all popish images, 
v. 18.  to whom will you liken God? or what likeness will you compare unto him? in the vulgar Latin, quam imaginem ponetis ei; and verse the 20. the workman melted a graven image, and the Goldsmith spreadeth it over with gold, and casteth silver chains, he that is so impoverished, that he hath no oblation, chooseth a tree that will not rot, he seeketh unto him a cunning workman to prepare a graven image that shall not be moved, etc. And this may serve to illustrate the texts alleged by the Knight. Now for the words imago & idolum, upon which the jesuit foundeth his distinction of image-worship, and idolworship, if we respect the original, and ancient use of them, they are all one for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifying the shape, or form of any thing; 
L. de sensu & sensibili.  and Aristotle calleth the species of such things as we apprehend by sense idola; and Tully interpreteth the word imagines by idola: 
Cic. de fin. imagines quae idola nominantur.  and the second Council of Nice, action the sixth, termeth the images then used in the Church's idols, saying, these idols may be converted to other uses. And lastly, Cardinal Cajetan in his Comment upon the 20. of Exodus speaking of the images of the Angels in the Ark termeth them idola Cherubinorum, word for word, the idols of the Cherubins. But if we have regard to the more common use; the words imago & idolum, differ as much as mulier & scortum, a woman and a strumpet. For as such women only as are abused, and defiled by corporal fornication are termed strumpets: so now for the most part, those images only which are abused to spiritual fornication are called idols. Thus Tertullian defineth idolatry to be the consecration of images, 
De idle c. 4. imaginum consecratio est idololatria. Isid. l. 8. Orig● c. 11. idolum est simulacrum quod humana effigie est consecratum.  or devoting of them to a religious use, or setting them up to be worshipped; and agreeably hereunto S. Isidore defineth an idol to be an image, consecrated in a humane shape, and such were all idols at the first, but in process of time as men in a quagmire sink still deeper, and more foul themselves: so the Pagans fell by degrees into grosser idolatry, and turned the glory of God, not only into the similitude of a corruptible man, but also of beasts and fowls, and creeping things, Rom. 1.23, 24. The difference which Cardinal Bellarmine maketh between an image and an idol, viz. that an idol is the representation of that which hath no existence in nature, 
De tradit. p. 3. multa idola erant in qui●us, nec daemon aliquid respondebat, sed tantùm benefactorum Deum representârunt.  but an image the likeness of something existent, is very false and absurd. For as Martinus Paresius confesseth, there were many idols of the Gentiles, in which they represented God as a benefactor. The mother of Mica dedicated the hundred shekels of silver unto the Lord, to make a graven and a molten image, 
L. 2. de imag. c. 24. idololatria non solùm fit cum adorantur idola relicto Deo, sed etiam adoratur idolum cum Deo, quod si latria quae exhibetur imagini propter aliud est idem cultus cum eo qui exhibetur Deo, aequè colitur creatura atque ipse Deus, quae certè idololatria est. Lor. Comment in Act. c. 17. si verum est Cherubin ore, manibus, cruribus, erection corporis humanam, jubis à pectore, & cervice pendentibus leoninam, alis Aquilinam, ungulis pedum vitulinam figuram retulisse  and persuaded herself that God would bless her for it: yet no man doubteth but that was an idol, and she an idolatress, jud. 17.4. Nay, the Cardinal himself ingenuously acknowledgeth, that to exhibit divine worship, even to the image of God is idolatry; which, saith he, is committed not only when an idol is worshipped in stead of God, but also when an idol is worshipped together with God. By his own confession then, an image made to represent the true God, may be an idol, by attributing to it latria, or the worship proper to God. Moreover, the Cherubins he will have to be as they were indeed images, and not idols in his sense: yet never was there any thing in nature existent in that form, as they were expressed, namely, as the Rabbins teach, and the popish Painters draw them at this day, in the shape of a child with wings; or as Lorinus hath it, with the face, hands, thighs, and body of men, but with the mane of Lions, wings of Eagles, and parted feet of Calves. And no man doubteth but that the image which Aaron made, and which Ezekiah broke down, and which the Philistines consecrated, and the Baalites worshipped were idols: yet were they representations of things existent in nature, the first of a calf, the second of a Serpent, the third of a fish, the fourth of the Sun.  
To the second. The jesuit maketh a brutish reply unworthy a Christian, much less a Divine. For who knoweth not, that delectus ciborum, the difference of meats was apart of the Ceremonial law abrogated by Christ, who teacheth us, that it is not that which goeth into a man which defileth him, 
Matth. 15.17  but that which cometh out of him; Who sent Peter to Cornelius, Acts 10. and by a miraculous vision revealed unto him, ver. 14.15. that he might not account any meat common or unclean, what God hath cleansed, saith he, that call not thou common. Let the jesuit show us a like abrogation of the law concerning making and worshipping of images, and then we will free his Church from idolatry in this point. But on the contrary, it is so evident, that the second commandment in the Decalogue is not ceremonial, and positive, but moral, 
Clemens Alex. in protrept. Tertul. de Idol. c. 4. Bellar. de imag. l. 2. c. 7.  that not only the ancicient Fathers; but their great Cardinal is forced to confess as much; nay, he is so zealous in the point that he taketh Peresius, Catharinus, and all such Romanists to task, as affirm the second Commandment to be juris positivi, and solidly proveth out of Irenaeus, Cyprian, and S. Austin, that it is a moral, and consequently bindeth us as strict as the jews.  
To the third. The jesuits argument is a non sequitur, for God by Moses forbiddeth not simply to make any image, but to make any image to ourselves, thou shalt not make thyself any graven image, to wit, to bow down to it, or to worship it, as the words following declare, thou shalt not bow down to them, nor worship them. Now what a lose kind of arguing is this of the jesuit, the law forbiddeth us to make any image of God thereby to worship him: therefore it forbiddeth us to make any image of man or woman to remember them: the law forbiddeth all superstitious use of images, therefore it forbids all civil use of them scilicet?  
To the fourth. Although Cornelius Agrippa wrote books De occultâ philosophiâ, wherein he seemeth to hold too near correspondency with Magicians, and Conjurers, yet this doth not altogether disable his testimony. For Eusebius and Constantine the great made good use, not only of the prophecies of the Sybbillaes', who for aught appears were heathenish women: but also of the Oracles of Apollo, dictated by the devil himself. Seneca would have taught the jesuit a better lesson by precept, non quis dicat, sed quid dicat; we are not to consider so much who it is that speaketh, as what it is that is spoken: and Virgil by his practice, who often read the Poems of Ennius, whose skill was little in poetry, & language obsolete, and being questioned for it, answered aurum è stercore, I gather gold out of muck. By the jesuits rule no Physician or Apothecary should make use of a precious stone called Bufonites, because it is found in the head of a Toad, or of a Turks; or Lyncurie, because it issueth out of the body of a spotted beast, called Lynx. Let Cornelius Agrippa be in his eyes as ugly as the Lynx or Toad, yet the sentence or testimony rather which the Knight taketh from him like the Lyncurie or toadstone, it is of price and of good use, to wit, that the jews were so fare from making any thing that they worshipped, or worshipping any thing that they made, that they abhorred nothing more than images.  
To the fift. Philo judaeus in this point is Philo-Christianus a friend to our orthodox Christian doctrine, concerning the unlawfulness of making any image of God, 
Antiguit. l. 18 c. 11. judaei supplicant ne se a deam necessitatem cogeret, neuè sacratam urbem pollueret vetitis imaginibus, tum Petronius, pugnabitis igitur cum Caesare, nec illius opes, nec vestram imbecillitatem adbibentes in concilium, non pugnabimus niquiunt, & ●oriemur citiùs quam discedamus à legibus simulque procumbentes, nudantes jugulos, paratos se aiebant ad excipiendos gladios. Aelius Lamp. in Alex. Strom l. 5. & 6. Moses multis ante seculis aperte legem sanxerit, nullam op●rtere sculptilem, vel fusilem, velfictam, vel picked am imaginem simulacr umve facere, quoniam inquit nihil in robus genit is potest referre Dei imaginem. Lib. de Spectac. c. 23 jam ver ò ipsum opus personarum quaero an Deo placeat qui omnem similitudinem vetat fieri, quantò magis imaginis suae, non amat falsum outhor veritis at is, adulterum est apud illum omne, quod fingitur. Orig. l. 4. cont. Celsum; Dei in corporei, & invisibilis nullam effigiem faciunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Minut. Fel. in Octau. quod enim simulacrum Deo fingam cum si rectè aestimas sit Dei homo ipsesimulacrum? Lactant. divin. instit. l. 2 c. 8. quare non est dubium quin religio nulla sit ubicunque simulacrum est: nam si religio ex divinis rebus est, divinum autem nibil est nisi in caelestibus rebus; carent ergo religione simulacra, juia nihil potestesse c●eleste in ear quae fit ex terra. Concil. Elib. can 36. placuit pictur as in ccclesia esse non debere ne quod colitur, aut adoraturin parietibus pingatur. Orat. count. Greg. Sabel. stultorum, & vecordium ista sunt verba, oculis, & loco volentium compeehendi id quod incorporale est.  or setting it up in the Church or Temple. For in his book wherein he treateth of his Embassy to Cajus he writeth, that the Temple from the first beginning to his time never admitted any image, being the house of God: for the work, saith he, of painters and carvers, are the images of material gods, but to paint the invisible God, or to feign any representation of him, our Ancestors held a wickedness. Philo is seconded by josephus, When the Emperor Caligula was desirous to have his own image set up in the Church of jerusalem, the jews, saith josephus, first entreated him, that he would not defile the holy City with images forbidden by the law, and for their own particular, they resolved rather to die, then suffer the law which forbade the setting up of images in Churches to be abrogated. Neither was this the common opinion only of those learned jews, that none could, or aught, express the majesty of God by pictures: but of the Christian Doctors in all succeeding ages, for  
In the second age Adrian the Emperor commanded, that Temples should be made in all Cities without images, and thereupon it was presently conceived, that he intended those Temples for Christians. Clemens Alexandrinus teacheth, that Moses made a law whereby he plainly and expressly forbade any image melted, carved, or painted, to be made of God, because, saith he, there is nothing in the creature that resembleth the image of God. Tertullian living much about the same time, in his book De spectaculis affirmeth, that God hath forbidden the likeness of any thing to be made, much more the likeness of his own image: the author of truth doth not love any thing that is false or counterfeit, and all that is feigned or form by art of him, is nothing but counterfeit. Origen spea king of the South Church, saith, the Christians make no image of the incorpor all and invisible God.  
In the third age Minutius Felix, when the Gentiles demanded of the ancient Christians, why they had no Images returned this answer, What image shall I make to God, when man himself, if we rightly judge, is God's image? Lactantius concludeth peremptorily, there is no doubt that there is no religion, whersoever there is an image, for seeing religion consisteth of Divine things, and nothing divine is to be found, but in heavenly things; images therefore are void of religion, because nothing that is heavenly can be in that thing which is made of earth.  
In the fourth age, the Council of Eliberis decreed, that no pictures should be in Churches, lest that which is worshipped and adored, should be painted on walls. Athanasius condemneth them for fools and senseless, who liken God to corporal things: 
Euseb. evan. praef. l. 3. quid simile baber corpus humanum menti Dei? & quis tam amens erit ut dei formam, & imaginem statuâ viro simili referri perhibeat?  Eusebius is as hot in the point as Athanasius, what similitude hath the body of man with the mind of God, who would be so mad as to imagine the form and image of God to be resembled by an image and statue like unto man; and in his Epistle to Constantia the Empress, who sent to him for an Image of Christ, he thus debateth the matter, What image do you require of Christ, such an one as may express the characters of his divine nature? but I think you are sufficiently instructed of this, that no man hath thus seen the Son, but the Father. Do you require the image of the form of a servant which he took? 
Epiph. ep. ad johan. jerus. ep. 60. inveni ibi velum pondens in foribus ejusdem ecclesiae tinctum atque depictum, & habens imaginem quasi Christi vel. sancti alicujus non enim satis memini cujus imago fuerit: cum ergo hoc vidissem in ecclesiâ Christi contra authoritatem scripturarum, hominis pendere imaginem scidi illud. & magis dedi consilium custodibus ejusdem loci ut pauperem mortunm eo obvolverent, atque efferrent. Jerome in Ezek. l. 4. c. 16. nos unam habemus vivam, & unam veneramur imaginem quae est imago invisibilis, & omnipotentis Dei. Amphiloc. citat. à pat. council. Constantinop. An. 754 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Aug. de mor. Eccl. c. 34 novi multos esse sepulchrorun & picturarum adoratores, etc. Ep. 109. ad jan. in primo praecepto prohibetur coli aliqua in figmentis hominum Deisimilitudo, non quia, non habet imaginem Deus, sed quia nulla imago ejus coli debet, nisi illa quae hoc est quod ipse. L. de fid. & symb. tale simulacrum Deo nefas est Christiano in templo collocare.  but you must understand that that was joined to the glory of his Godhead, in so much, that his Apostles could not behold the glory of his flesh in the mount; much more glorious is it now having put off mortality, who is therefore able with dead and liveless colours, and a shadowed picture to express those bright and shining beams of so great glory. Epiphanius as zealous as either for entering into a Church at Anablathra, and finding there a veil hanging at the door died, and painted, and having the image as it were of Christ, or some Saint, seeing this, that contrary to the authority of Scriptures the image of a man was hung upin the Church of Christ, he cut it, and the veil and gave counsel to the Keepers of the place, to wrap and bury some poor dead man in it, and he entreated the Bishop of jerusalem to give charge hereafter, that such veils as that was, being repugnant to Christian religion should not be hanged up in the Church of Christ. S. Jerome in his Comment upon the sixteenth of Ezekiel teacheth, that Christians never acknowledge, nor worship any image of the invisible and omnipotent God save one, to wit, his Son.  
In the fift age Amphilochius Bishop of Iconium instructeth us what account the Church made of images in these words, We have no care to figure by colours the bodily visages of Saints in tables, because we have no need of suchthings; But by virtue to imitate their conversation; and S. Austin treating of the catholic Church professeth that he knew many worshippers of graves and pictures, and withal addeth the Church censure of them, but the Church, saith he, condemneth them, and seeketh every way to correct them as ungracious children: and in his 109. Epistle to januarius, C. 11. he writeth that in the first Commandment, any similitude of God devised by man, is forbidden to be worshipped, not because God hath not an image, but because no image of him ought to be worshipped, but that which is the same thing that he is; as for drawing him after the similitude of a man he utterly disliketh it, saying, it is unlawful for a Christian to erect any such image, and place it in the Church; for as elsewhere he argueth, images prevail more to bow down the unhappy soul, in that they have a mouth, eyes ears, 
Psal. 113. Conc. 2. plus enim valent simulacra ad curvandam infaelicem animam, quòd os babent, oculos habent, aures habent, nares habent, manus habent, pedes habent, quam ad corrigen●am quòd non loquantur non videant, etc. God. li. 8. tit. 12. prohibemus basilicam alicujus imagine obscurari. Greg. Regis l. 7 ep. 109. ad Seren praetereà judico dudum ad nos pervenisse, quòd fraternit as vestra quosdam imaginum adoratores aspiciens easdem ecclefiae imagines confregit atque projecit, & quidem zelum vos ne quid manufactum adorari possit, habuisse laudavimus, sed frangere easdem imagines non debuisse judicamus, idcirco enim pictura in ecclesia adhibetur, ut' high qui litter as nes●iunt saltem in parietibus videndo legant, quae legere in codicibus non valent. Vid. Concil. Nic. 2. Act. 6. Zonoras' hist. Tom. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  nostrils, hands and feet, then to correct it, in that they neither hear, nor see, nor smell, nor handle, nor walk.  
In the sixth age. The Emperor justinian setteth down a law made by Theodosius and Valentinian, which forbiddeth Churches to be obscured with any images or painted tables.  
In the seventh age. When Images began to be set up in the Churches, Serenus Bishop of Marsilis broke them down, which fact of his, though Gregory disliked, because he thought that images might profitably be retained as laymen's books: yet in this he commended his zeal, that he would by no means suffer them to be worshipped.  
In the seventh age. There was a Council held at Constantinople, Anno 754. whereinlt was decreed by 338. Bishops in this manner, We do declare that all images of what nature soever, made by the wicked art of the Painter be cast out of Christian Churches, whosoever from this day forward shall dare to set up any images of God either in the Church, or in a private house; if he be a Bishop let him be deposed, if he be a layman let him be accursed. Zonoras' saith, that in the hearing of all the people they openly forbade the worshipping of Images, 
H. de orthodox fid. l. 4. c. 17. & orat, de imag.  calling such as adored them idolater. And in the year 794. Charles the great called a Council of 300. Bishops of France, Italy, and Germany, in which the second Synod of Nice, which decreed the erecting and worshipping of images is refuted and condemned; yea, and some of the patroness of images, as namely Durand, and Gregory the second professedly inveigh against all Images and Pictures, made to represent the Deity or Trinity, it is impossible, saith Damascene, that God who can neither be seen by man, nor circumscribed, should be expressed in any shape or figure; nay, saith he, it is extreme madness and impiety to make a representation of the Godhead: 
Ep. Greg. ad Leo. Imper. de imag. in.  and Gregory the second giveth this reason to Leo the Emperor why they painted not God the Father, Quoniam quis sit non novimus, because we know not who he is, and the nature of God cannot be painted, and set forth to man's sight.  
In the eighth age. 
Rhem. count. Hinc. Laud. c. 20.  Hincmarus' Archbishop of Rheims tells us, that not long before his time a general Synod was called in Germany by Charles the great, and therein by the rule of Scriptures and Fathers, the Council of Nice indeed saith he, a wicked Council touching images, which some would have to be broken in pieces, and some to be worshipped was utterly rejected. In this age in the year 824. a Synod was held at Paris under Ludovicus Pius, where the foresaid Council of Nice was likewise condemned.  
In the ninth age. 
jonas Aurelian. de cultu imag. l. 1. quae picturae non ad adorandum, sed solummodò teste beato Gregorio, ad instruendas nescientium mentes in ecclesijs sunt antiquit us fieri permissae. Agob. l. de ●ict. & Imagine. rectè nimirum ad ejusmodievacuandam superstitionem ab orthodoxis fratribus definitum est picturas in ecclesia fieri non debere, ne quod adoratur in parietibus depirgatur. Rhemig. in psal. 96. non sun sunt adoranda simulacra, nec enim Angelus adorandus est. Ansel. gloss. interlin. in Deut. c. 4. formam non vidistis ne scilicet volens imitari sculpendo faceres idolum tibi. Vid. Symph. Cathol. p. 822. Ann. lal 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  jonas Bishop of Orleans wrote against Claudius' Bishop of Turin concerning images, wherein he holdeth, that the images of Saints are not to be worshipped, though they may be set up in Churches for ornament, and to bring into the mind of simple people the story of the Bible. And Agobardus Bishop of Lions telleth us, that the orthodox Fathers for the avoiding of superstition, did carefully provide that no pictures should be set up in Churches. Rhemigius boldly professeth, that neither images nor Angels are to be worshipped.  
In the tenth age. Anselmus Laudunensis the author of the interlineare gloss upon the Bible, composed of the Father's writings, expoundeth that text of Deuteronomie, Ye saw no manner of similitude in this sort, lest that willing to resemble that similitude by engraving, thou shouldst set up an idol to thyself.  
In the eleventh age. Nicetas Croniates a Greek historian reporteth in the life and reign of Isaac Angelus, one of the Eastern Emperors, that when Frederick Emperor of the West made an expedition into Palestine, the Armenians did gladly receive the Almains, because among the Almains and Armenians the worshipping of images was forbidden alike.  
In the twelfth age. 
Annal. p. 1. Hist. eccls. l. 18. c. 53. imagines patris, & spiritus sancti effigiant quod est pe rabsur dum. Durand. in 3. sentent. dist. 9 q. 2. facere imagines ad repraesentandum deum patrem, et spiritum spiritum sanctum, aut venerari ej us imagines fatuum est; unde Damascenus dicit quod insipientiae summae, & impietatis est, figurare quod est divinum. Avēt. hist. Bavar. l. 7. In Deut. 4. in imaginibus signantibus Deum unde scilicot trinitatem duo inconvenientia sequi possunt primum idololatriane etiam imago colatur, secundum error, & haeresis scilicet attribuere Deo illam corporeitatem, & essenti●lem differentiam gualem tres illas figuras figurare conspicimus.  Roger Hoveden an English Historian condemneth the worship of images: for speaking of the Synodall Epistle written by the Fathers of the second Nicene Council, wherein Image worship was established, he addeth, quod omninò ecclesia Dei execratur, which the Church of God altogether abhorreth.  
In the thirteenth age. Nicephorus writing of the jacobites saith, that they made images of the Father, and the holy Spirit, which, saith he, is most absurd. Durand stoutly maintaineth, that it is utterly unlawful to picture, or represent the Trinity, or God, otherwise then as in Christ he took our flesh: and Pope john the 22. calleth certain men that dwelled in Bohemia and Austria, Anthropomorphitas (that is, heretics ascribing an humane shape to God) because they painted the Trinity in form of an old man, with a young man and a Dove.  
In the fourteenth age. Abulensis is utterly against all painting of the Trinity, because from thence two inconveniences may follow; first the peril of idolatry, in case the image itself should come to be worshipped: secondly, error and heresy by ascribing to God such bodily shapes and forms, as the Trinity is usually pictured withal. And Gerson commenting upon the first Commandment speaketh fully in the Protestant language, all images are forbid to be made to adore or worship them: thou shalt not adore nor worship them; that is, thou shalt not adore them with any bodily reverence, as bowing or kneeling to them, 
Gerson compend. theolog. de pri. praecep. ad adorandum, & colendum prohibentur imagines fieri.  thou shalt not worship them with any devotion of mind.  
But to return back to Philo, whose testimony the jesuit would feign put off by a double answer, first, that the jews had not in their Temple any picture of God, because he cannot be painted: next that they had no picture of Saints, because there was none as yet might have the honour to have their pictures in the Temple, being not yet admitted themselves into the Temple of God. The first of these answers, the better it is, the worse it is for himself; the stronger it is, the more it maketh against the practice of his own Church: in which we see the Trinity familiarly painted. In his second answer he palliateth idolatry by impiety, and that he may have some colour to set up images of new Saints in Churches upon earth, he excludeth all the old Saints before Christ, out of the heavenly temple of God. Not to digress here to a dispute about their imaginary Limbus, I would feign know of the jesuit, where did Enoch walk with God after he was translated, that he should not see death? to what place was Elias carried in a fiery chariot, not into heaven? When Dives soul was dragged by Devils into hell, was not Lazarus soul carried by Angels into heaven? the text saith, 
Luk. 16.22.  he was carried into Abraham's bosom; and where is that S. Austin will inform you, even where the soul of his friend saint Nebridius, and other blessed Doctors and confessors now live: whatsoever place, saith he, is meant by the bosom of Abraham, ibi vivit Nebridius meus quis enim alius locus tam piae animae? 
August. Confess. l. 9 c. 3.  there my Nebridius liveth, for what other place were meet for so godly a soul?  
To the sixth. There is nothing so easy as for a man with Antipho to pursue his own fancy, or shadow, to set up a man of straw, and push him down with a festraw: the Knight doth not thus argue, the jews hate the Image, and cross of Christ, therefore Christians ought so to do: for by the like reason it will follow that we should condemn the very Gospel, yea and hate Christ himself, because the jews do so; that is not his argument, but the jesuits phantasm. The Knight's argument standeth thus if of his enthymem we make a Syllogism;  
None may or aught to give a scandal to jew or Gentile.  
But by setting up images or crucifixes in Temples, the jews are so scandalised, that even those among them, who other ways might be inclined to embrace the Christian faith are made utterly averse from it: because they cannot persuade themselves that it can be the true religion which maintaineth image-worship, which is so directly and expressly forbidden by God in the law.  
That the jews are thus scandalised at the idolatrous practice of the Roman Church, the Knight proveth by an eyewitness Sir Edwine Sands, who in his description of the religion in the West parts observeth, that the worship of images as it is at this day practised by the Roman Church, is such a stumbling block to the jews, and hindrance to their conversion, that when they come to Christian Sermons, as in Rome they are enjoined at least once a year, so long as they see the Preacher direct his speech to a little wooden crucifix that standeth on the Pulpit by him, to call it his Lord and Saviour, kneel to it, embrace it and kiss it, to weep upon it, as it is their fashion in Italy, it is preaching sufficient for them, and persuadeth them more with the very sight of it to hate Christian religion, than any reason the world can allege to love it.  
To the seventh. The argument drawn from the Cherubins, is refelled professedly by Tertullian, 
De idol. c. 5. Apostolus affirmat omnia tunc figuratè populo accidisse, & addit benè quòd idem Deus quilege vetuit similitudinem fimilitudinem fieri, extraordinario praecepto serpent is similitudinem fieri mandavit, si eundem Deum observas, habes logem ejus nefeceris similitudinem, si & praeceptum factae posteà similitudinis respicis, & tu imit are Mosen ne facias adversus legem simulacrum aliquod, nisi & tibi Deus jusserit.  the Apostle, saith he affirmeth, that all things happened to the jews in figures, and he addeth well, the same God, who in his general law forbade any similitude to be made, by an extraordinary precept commanded some similitude to be made, if thou dost serve the same God, thou hast his law; Make to thyself not graven image, or similitude, if thou regardest the Precept of making a similitude (as of the Cherubins, or brazen serpent, & e.) imitate thou Moses, make thou no image against the law, unless God command thee by a Precept. Whereunto we may farther add, that the Cherubins were not made publicly to be seen and gazed upon by the people: but were kept in the holy place whither the Priests only resorted; neither were they worshipped by the Priests, as Lyra (cited by the jesuit) who was himself a jew at the first, and well knew their practice, professeth, the jews, saith he, worshipped not the Ark nor the Cherubins, nor the mercy seat, but the true God which promised to help them, neither were they set up in the Temple for adoration, but for ornament, 
L. 9 c. 6. q. 7. non ut adorarentur sed ob ornatum, & pulchritudinem Tabernaculi vel Templi, & ad majestatem Dei plenius ostendendam. Lorin. in Act Apost c. 17. de Cherubinis jussu Dei factis, & de alijs imaginibus ● Solomone dicendum, fuisse duntaxat ut appendices, & additamenta ornatus alterius rei non verò per se propositas modo accommodato ad adorationem quam conslat quoque ab Haebreis ipsis, non fuisse exhibitam, quod utrumque docet Tertullianus eritque id magis verum, si verum●est Cherubin over, manibus, cruribus, erection corporis bumanam, jubis à pectore, & cervice pendentibus Leoninam, alis aquilinam ungulis pedum vitulinam figuram retulisse. Vasq. I de adorat. 2. disp. 4. c. 6. nunquam cherubinis honour, aut adoratio adhibita fuit, aut osculo, aut genuflexione, aut oblatione ●huris, aut alio signo peculiari ad ipsos directo, nec quisquam nisi ex suo cerebro, & absque ullo fundamento contrarium poterit affirmare.  as Azorius convinced by evidence of truth acknowledgeth, saying, the Cherubins were not painted or engraven on the Ark, to the end they might be adored, but only to adorn and beautify the Tabernacle, and more fully to express the majesty of God, with whom Lorinus and Vasquez accord, concerning the Cherubins made by the command of God; and other images in Solomon's Temple, we must say that they were there as appendices and additions for the adorning of something else, not set forth by themselves in a manner fit for adoration; which it is manifest that the jews never exhibited to them, both which Tertullian teacheth. Vasquez cometh not behind Lorinus, teaching a contrary lesson to Flood here, his words are, That the Cherubins were never adored nor worshipped, neither by kissing them, nor with bowing of the knee, or by offering Frankincense, or by any other means, neither can any man affirm the contrary, except it be out of his own brain without any foundation or ground at all.  
To the eighth. In this allegation the jesuit showeth from whence he and his fellows are descended, 
L. 3. cont. haeres c. 2. cum ex scripturis arguuntur in accusationem convertuntur ipsarum scripturarum, quasi non rectè haheant, neque sint ex aviboritate, & quia variè sint dictae, & juia non possit ex his inveniri veritas, ab his qui nesciunt traditionem, non enim perliter as traditam illam, sed pervivam vocem. Aug. in 10. tract. 49. Sanctus Evangelifia testatur multa Dominum Christum & dixisse, & fecisse quae scripta non sunt: electa sunt autem, quae scriberentur, quae saluti credentium sufficere videbantur. Cyr. in 10.12. c. 68 non omnia quae Dominus fecit conscripta sunt, sed quae scribentes sufficere put ârunt tam admores quàm ad dogmata, ut rect â fide, & operibus, & virtute rutilantes, ad regnum caelorum perveniamus.  viz. from the ancient Gnostics and Valentinians, who as Irenaeus testifieth against them, When they are convinced of their heresies out of Scripture, they fall on accusing the Scriptures themselves, impeaching their authority, and charging them with ambiguity, and saying that the truth cannot be found out of them by those who know not tradition, for that it was not delivered by letters, but by word of mouth. But because I have beat the jesuit heretofore out of this dodge, and have proved abundantly the sufficiency and perfection of Scriptures, I will spare farther labour herein, and only show how shamefully he depraveth one text to the derogation of the whole Scripture, S. john in the place alleged by him speaketh not of points of faith or manners, precepts, or examples for our imitation, but of miracles, 10.20. 30. Many things truly did jesus in the presence of his Disciples, which are not written in this book; Upon which words S. Austin and S. Cyrill thus gloss full in the Protestant language, the holy Evangelist testifieth that Christ did, and said many things that are not written, but those things were chosen to be written, which seemed sufficient for the salvation of them that believe; and S. Cyrill, all things which Christ did are not written, but what the writers thought to be sufficient as well for our conversation as doctrine, that shining with theright faith and virtuous works, we may attain to the kingdom of heaven.  
To the ninth. Were the grave authors, the jesuit speaketh of authentical, and these stories gospel: yet the Adversary would gain nothing thereby, nor we lose; For we are none of the Iconomachi that bid battle to Images, and knock them down wheresoever they find them with battleaxes. Forbear the representation of the invisible Deity, and blessed Trinity, and remove all scandal from the people, and peril of idolatry, and let the images and pictures of Christ and his Saints stand where they do for memory, history, and beautifying and adorning the walls and windows. We dislike it not as the jesuit may read in our books, and see in our Churches, and houses. But the truth is, neither are the stories of credit, nor the authors of them of that account as the jesuit would have them. 
Comment. in 2 Timoth.  Of some of them we may truly say, as Espencaeus doth of Nicephorus, that they are in these relations, si non mendaces, saltem audaces, if not altogether fabulous, yet very audacious; for the image sent to King Abgarus, it is of no more credit than the letter sent with it, which the Romish Church, as all other Christians, hold to be Apochryphas were it Canonical it should make a part of the New Testament. And for the second we cannot but wipe our eyes in bewailing their folly, who believe that Christ by wiping his face, as he was carrying his Cross, should imprint his image in his handkerchief. Yea but these images are confirmed by wonderful miracles wrought by them. I answer first out of Biel upon the canon of the Mass, 
Dist. in prophano cultu Diabolus plurimùm delectatur, & quantum valet cooperatur ac assistit apparentibus miraculis. Cic. in Ver. act. 6. multa prodigia vim ejus numenque declarant. Strab. l. 8. Geograph. Espenc. loc. sup. cit. daemonum spectris & mulierum somnijs parum verecundè utchantur. Edwin Sands discourse of his Travels, & Apolog Herodoti per R. Stev.  that the Devil is much delighted in profane worship (such is your worship of images) and helpeth it forward as much as he can by seeming miracles; next, that this was the heathens plea for their worshipping of images; for Tully speaking of the image of Ceres in Sicily, saith, many wonders do show the divine virtue thereof; and the Grecians as Strabo writeth, used to set upin tables the diseases cured by Aesculapius in Epidaurius, as the Papists at this day do, the diseases cured by the image of the blessed Virgin in Lauretto. Thirdly, that learned Papists find much fault with the seventh general Council for founding the worshipping of images upon the delusion of Devils, and old wives tales, and dreams. Lastly, most of the Popish legendary stories in this kind, may easily be proved to be no miracles of God, nor wrought by sorcery or enchantment through the power of Satan, but to be mere impostures wrought by their Priests, who are the greatest jugglers in the world in this kind.  
To the tenth. S. Austin maketh great account of this speech of Varro, for he twice maketh mention of it in this fourth book. First chapter the ninth, 
L. 4. De civet. Dei, c. 9 Varroni simulacra ita displicuerunt, ut cum tantae civitatis perversâ consuetudine premeretur, nequaquam tamen dicere & scribere dubitaret, quòd hi qui populis instituerunt simulacra, & metum dempserunt, & errorem addiderunt;  Varro was so fare out of love with images, that though he were pressed with the perverse custom of so great a City as Rome was, yet he made no bones, both to say and write that they, who first brought in Images, both took away religious fear of God, and added error to boot: and in his thirty one chapter he hath this memorable observation, the Romans worshipped their gods more than a 170. years without images, and if they had done so still, saith he, the gods had been more chastely or purely worshipped by them. Yea, but the jesuit with a wet finger turneth over these passages, as if nothing were said by S. Austin or Varro to the prejudice of their images shrines, or Altars: for S. Austin by Simulacrum meaneth not animage, but an Idol, not the representation of the true, but a resemblance of false and feigned deities. The distinction of image and idol, I have before refelled: nothing remains for the refutation of this answer of the jesuit, but that I show out of S. Austin, 
De fide, & Symb. c. 7. nec id ipsum quod sedêre pater dicitur flexis po litibus fiert purandumest, tale simulacrum Deo nefas est Christianoin Templo ●● locare.  that by Simulacrum he meaneth any image, even of the true God. And not to trouble the reader with many instances those words of his in his Treatise of faith, and the Creed, clearly convince the jesuit, We must not think, saith he, that God the Father who is said to sit, sitteth in heaven-with bowed knees, as a man sitteth in a chair, such a simulacrum or image, it is not lawful to set up in the Temple of Christians, had the jesuit but perused the chapter pointed to by the Knight, to which he professeth to give a direct answer, he would have given himself the lie, and checked his former interpretation of S. Austin's words; for immediately after the former period, the Father addeth, that Varro in proof of his assertion allegeth the custom of the jewish nation; 
Hujus sententiae suae testem adhibet gentem judaeam. Vnum Deum, à quo mundum crederet gubernari, sine simulacre colendum censuit.  and a little after he saith, that Varro thought that God by whom he believed the world was governed, aught to be worshipped without an image: by which words it is evident, that by simulacra he meant, not only the images of false gods, which alone the jesuit calls Idols, but also of the true God; For the jews whose custom he bringeth in for himself, abhorred all Images or Pictures even of the true God: and Varro himself by that Governor of the world whom he would have to be worshipped, without an image, meant the true God, as S. Austin himself testifieth of him. Howsoever the title which he there giveth him of anima mundi, or soul of the world, soundeth harshin a Christian ear: yet S. Austin alloweth of Varro his assertion or opinion, as coming nearer to the truth, than other of the heathen Philosophers, in that he taught but one God, and him to be not material or corporeal, but of a spiritual and invisible substance, and therefore not to be drawn with pencil, or counterfeited with colours, without error or impiety.  
To the eleventh. Eusebius relateth the story of Veronica her statue dedicated to the memory of Christ's miraculous cure wrought upon her, with approbation there of as being a lasting monument, and standing testimony of her gratitude to our Saviour, and much tending both to the confirmation of the Gospel in general, and that particular miracle of Christ, for who would not believe that the woman was cured of her bloody issue by touching the hem of Christ's garment, when he saw an unusual kind of herb growing at the foot of that Statue, which as soon as it grew up so high, as to touch the hem of the brazen garment, received a miraculous virtue from it to cure diseases of every kind; notwithstanding all this fair weather Eusebius falleth fowl upon the Original of this erecting statues to the memory of the dead, attributing it to a heathenish rite or custom. Neither doth the Knight any way wrong Eusebius in the relation, or translation of this passage. For certain it is, that the people of God began not first to set up images, or erect statues. The first which we ever read of, was consecrated to Belus, the successor of Ninus by the Assyrians who were Paynims, and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ethnicus or gentilis, signifieth Gentile or Heathen; whatsoeur the jesuit allegeth out of Thomasius Dictionary to the contrary, saying, Look in your Dictionary of Thomas Thomasius, whether amongst all the Englishes of Gentilis which are there set down, 
P. 300.  you can find heathenish, which I dare say you cannot. The Greek word in Eusebius text is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the Latin gentilis signifieth the same thing, to wit, belonging to a country, people, stock, or family, had the jesuits, and Seminary Priests at Douai and Rheims, better studied Thomas Thomasius Dictionary, they would not have fraught their English translation of the Bible, with so many affected harsh-sounding, and uncoth words to English ears, as announce archisynagogue, azymes, commessations, depositum, didrachme, euroclydon, exinanited, holocaust, hosts, victim, paraclete pasche, resuscitate, neophyte, superedified, and the like. Again, though Thomasius render not the word Heathenish, yet he rendereth it gentile, which is all one; and let the jesuit turn over all his Thomasius, and eliot's, and Riders, and Cooper's, and Calepines, and see whether he can find any other proper Latin word answering to the English Heathen, or heathenish, then gentilis or ethnicus, a word derived of the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the very word used by Eusebius in this place. When so often in the holy Scriptures of the old Testament the word gentes occurreth, as in the 2 Psal. v. 1. the 9 v. 5. and the 10. v. 16. and the 44. v. 2. and the 98. v. 1. and the 135. v. 15. and elsewhere, what can the jesuit mean by it but Gentile, 
Orat. de obit. Theodos. regem adoravit, non lignum utique quia bic gentilis error est, & vanit as impiorum.  or how can he translate it in pure and proper English, but heathen or heathenish nations: according to the meaning of the holy Ghost in those texts? What will he say to the words of S. Ambrose, When Helena read the title upon the Cross then newly found, she fell down and worshipped what or whom? The King (saith that Father) to wit, Christ there entitled the King of the jews; not verily the wood, for that is a heathenish error, and a vanity of ungodly men. Doth not gentilis here signify profane, Pagan and heathenish, therefore the Knight's credit is salved in that his translation of Eusebius, and the jesuits credit and cause also lieth a bleeding. For though the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek, and gentilis in Latin; sometimes in good authors signifieth no more than belonging to a country or nation, 
Verisimile est quod majores nostri ad gentilis consuetudins similitudinem, quàmprimùm accedentes, eos qui tanquam servatores illis fuissent, apud se honore ad hunc modum afficere consueverunt.  be it Christian or heathenish: yet in this place of Eusebius it cannot be other ways taken then for heathen, for Eusebius a little before saith, it is not to be wondered that those who are sprung of the Gentiles, or came of heathenish parents, and received benefits of our Saviour where he lived, did thus unto him, adding it is very likely, that our ancestors herein followed the custom of the heathen; who honoured all such with Statues who had been as saviours unto them preserving their lives.  
To the twelfth. The Council of Eliberis is as a thorn in the jesuits eyes, and therefore he hath many plucks at it: yet he plucks it not out, but pricketh his own fingerse. First, he saith it was an obscure Council, 
Vid suprà verba Agobardi.  without any certainty of the time when it was held. As obscure as he maketh it, it is a Council of reverend antiquity cited by S. Agobardus, and approved by him, and honourably mentioned by all Writers, who impugn idolatrous innovations, & corruptions in the Church. As for the time Baronius and the best Chronologers affirm, that it was held in the year of our Lord 305. in the time of Marcellus the first, and was consequently more ancient than the first most famous Council at Nice; if to this Council the jesuit oppose one of Constantinople, the other at Rome under Gregory the third, and the third at Nice in favour of images: we in like manner oppose to those idolatrous and heretical, many Counsels of better note, condemning image-worship, as namely the Council of Constantinople, held in the year 754. and another celebrated there in the year 814. and a third at Frankford in the year 794. and a fourth at Paris under Ludovicus, in the year 824. together with the book of Charles the great, and the Epistle of the English Bishops penned by Alcuinus, and mentioned by Hoveden in his story of England, and many other tractates of famous writers of England & France, who professedly impugned and refuted the Decrees of the second Council at Nice, establishing image-worship. Yea, but saith the jesuit, the Canon of Eliberis shooteth not home to the point in question, for it forbiddeth not pictures absolutely in Churches, but only painting them on the walls. I reply first, that the Council forbiddeth pictures in Churches absolutely, the express words of the Canon are, placuit in ecclesiâ pictur as esse non debere, it seemed good to the Council, that pictures should not be in Churches; Whereof the 19 Father's present at that Synod render this reason, ne quod collitur in parietibus depingatur, lest that which is worshipped should be painted on the walls. Secondly, I reply if the Council of Elliberis, as the jesuit granteth, forbiddeth any image to be painted on the Church-walls, why do Papists every where in their Churches at this day paint images on the walls? Yea but the jesuit addeth, who is best at a dead lift, that we are besides the matter, in producing the Canon of this Council against images, which was made in honour of them, si crederefas est. For the Council, saith the jesuit, forbade painting images on the walls of the Church, because they thought not the walls a place convenient, lest the plaster breaking off in some places, they might become deformed, and so contemptible. Where unto I rejoin, first, that if the Council did this out of honour to images, 
Canus loc. theol. non modò imprudenter, sed & impiè decretum.  why doth their learned Bishop Canus so severely tax this Decree, terming it not only a foolish, but an impious Canon? Secondly, if the Council made this Deeree out of honour to images; Why do not all Papists, who stand so much for the honour and worship of images, obey this Decree, and deface all images that are painted on Church-walls? Thirdly, if it be an honour to images to be removed out of all Churches according to the purport of this Decree in the jesuits understanding, than the reformed Churches may justly be thought to have showed the most respect, and done the greatest honour to images of all other, by cashiering them out of their Churches, prae amore excluserunt foras; no doubt out of love they shut them out of doors. Fourthly, this reason taken from plaster breaking needeth a plaster to make it whole, for if for this reason images may not be painted on walls, for fear of being defaced by weather or the plaster breaking: by the like reason they should not be painted in cloth, or upon board, because they are in like manner subject there to be soiled, razed, stolen away, or many other ways to be injured.  
To the thirteenth. The jesuit sueth a Duplex querela against the Knight concerning Valence the Emperor; first, because he styleth him a good Emperor; next, because he ranketh him with Theodosius as Copartner with him in the Empire, whereas Valence was killed twenty three years before Theodosius was borne. Against his first quarrel I need plead nothing, because Valence is not so styled by the Knight in the last corrected edition of Via tuta. If the Knight had so styled him in any former edition, 
Bapt. in Chron.  he might have vouched a good author for it, namely Baptista Egnatius who speaking of Valence, and his brother Valentinian saith, Digni imperia fratres, & inter bonos referendi, they were worthy the Empire, and to be ranked among good Princes, saving that Valence was somewhat blemished by being seduced in judgement by the Arrians; 
Invect. in julian.  as also was Constantius the Emperor; and yet Gregory Nazianzen commendeth him for a religious Prince, that much promoted the affairs of the Christians against the heathen. and for the blot of error in his judgement he lays the blame of it upon the subtle wits of the Arrian heretics, who put tricks upon that otherways good Emperor. For the second quarrel he picks, it is not worth a straw. For though Valence and Theodosius lived not together, yet they might both enact the same law. Valence might first make it, and after Theodosius confirm and revive it, as King james hath revived many laws made by Queen Elizabeth, and other her predecessors, though they never reigned together in this Kingdom; howsoever if there were any error in relating this law out of the Coad as the jesuit pretendeth, 
Zanch in praec. 2. Sed Petrus Crinitus scribit apertè se vidisse legem ipsam in antiquissimis codicib. qaae simpliciter habebat. ne pingeretur nulla mentione soli, out marmorum humi positorum facta. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  he ought to pluck Petrus Crinitus by the beard for it; for the Knight quoteth not the Coad or Digests for this law, but Petrus Crinitus, De honestâ disciplinâ, l. 9 c. 9 where he may find the precise words alleged by the Knight, unless peradventure his Petrus Crinitus hath felt the razor of the Popish Inquisition, and if so, let him look to more ancient editions of Crinitus, quoted by the Author of the English Homilies, and Zanchius in his Comment upon the second Commandment, where this golden lock of Petrus Crinitus is not cut off. For what Timon spoke concerning the Editions of Homer, may be said of Crinitus and other Romish Authors, the most correct copies are those that were never corrected.  
To the foureteenth. The jesuit should have said a Paulian heretic, for Clemanges and Wickliff profess with Paul, Acts 24.14. That after the way which they (the Papists) call heresy, they so worship the God of their fathers in spirit and truth, that they believe all things written in the Law and the Prophets; and nothing as necessary to salvation, which is not written in them. It is true, Wickliff was condemned for an heretic: but it was many years after his death, when he could not plead for himself: and the Council which condemned him was a perjured and a condemned Council, not only in the judgements of Protestants, but also ingenuous Papists; for in that Council three Popes were deposed, and a fourth chosen, Martin the fift Huz and Jerome of prague, contrary to the safe conduct, sent them under the Seal of the Emperor Sigismond, were burnt to death, and their ashes thrown in the River. Now as it is an honour laudari à laudato, to be commended by men that themselves deserve commendation: so it is no disgrace or disparagement at all damnari à damnato, to be condemned by a Council which is condemned, and reproved itself even by the Roman Church at least in the first Sessions of it. 
Bellar. de Concil. c. 7. Concilium Constantiense quantum ad primas Sessiones ubi definit concilium esse supra Papam reprobatum est, in concilio Florentino, & Laterananensi ultimo.  And such as are the first fruits, such is the whole lump.  
To the fifteenth. All the jesuits Geese are Swans, 
Multa Dircoeum levat aura Cygnum, etc.  but our Dircaean Swans with him are no better than geese, antiquum obtinet; this was just the fashion of the ancient hereretiques, the Gnostics, and the Donatists, if any came over to their side, he was presently cried up for a man of singular parts and virtues, but if he returned to the bosom of the Church, he was cried down for a Weathercock, or a tressis agaso. It was well saith Saint Austin, for Maximianus and Primianus, that they fell to the Donatists' sect, whereby presently they gained the reputation of great Clerks and prime men, where as other ways if they had kept their old station, Maximianus would have been held Minimianus, and Primianus Postremianus: but let me tell the jesuit that how much soever he sleighteth Cassander, Erasmus, and Wicelius: that the worst of them in the time when he lived, was of better account then I. R. or Leomelius, or Daniel a jesus. As for gravity and wisdom, he cometh fare short of Cassander, for zeal and integrity, of Wicelius: so if we speak of all kind of learning, he is not worthy to carry Erasmus books after him; Dispeream, si tu matulam praebere Mamurrae dignus es.  
But I spare him in this kind, because for his impudency and ignorance: two Sorbon Doctors, Aurelius and Lallier, have disciplined him to the purpose, and I will be 10th saevire in plagas & vulnera. Yea but some of these men's Works are marked in the Roman Index, saith the jesuit, they are so indeed to the eternal praise of their ingenuity: and to the everlasting infamy of the Romish Inquisitors cruelty, who so deal with the witnesses of truth, as Pope Sergius did with Formosus his predecessor after his death; they mangle and deface them, cutting off their thumbs and fingers wherewith they testified and signed the truth in their writings.  
To the sixteenth. In this Paragraph the jesuit is totus in fermento: it wonderfully transporteth him, and putteth him in a cold sweat, that the Knight should say out of Chemnitius, that the second Synod of Nice, in which Image-worship was established, was condemned in the Council of Frankford held in the year of our Lord 794. 
P. 308.  The Magdeburgians, saith he, and other your own Authors affirm, that that very Council of Frankford did say an Anathema to all such as deface images; is not this then abominable falsehood in your friend Chemnitius to cite, nay forge it against images, and in you to follow him in it? ne Saevi magne Sacerdos: let not the jesuit lay about him so furiously, lest peradventure he lend a blow to his best friends, for besides other Historians of good note, Hincmarus' Archbishop of Rheims, 
P. 306. Hincma. Rhem. advers. Hincma. Laudunens'. c. 20. Graecorum's pseudosynodus destructa est, & penitùs abdicata. Ado. Vien. in cron. aetat. 6. pseudosynodus quam septimam Graeci appellant pro imaginibus adorandis abdicata penitùs. Idem habet Regino ad. ann. 794. Bellarmine, lib. de Concil. c. 7. Concilium Francofordiense reprobatur, quantum ad alteram partem in qua exerrore damnatur septima Synodus.  whom himself calleth a Catholic indeed; nay, and Cardinal Bellarmine himself also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith as much as Chemnitius or the Knight, to wit, that the Council of Nice was condemned in the Council of Frankford; neither doth the Anathema pronounced in that council against such as deface images, fall upon us who fight not against images, as the Iconomachi did, but against image-worship, as that Council of Frankford doth.  
To the seventeenth. The words of Poly door Virgil are these, 
Deinvent. l. 6 c. 13. de simulacrorum cultu jam agamus quem non modò nostrae rellgionis expertes, sed teste Hieronymo omnes ferèveteres sancti patres damnabant oh metum idololatriae.  Let us now speak of the Worship of images, which not only those which were ignorant of our religion, but as Saint Jerome testifieth, almost all the ancient holy Fathers condemned for fear of idolatry. To this allegation the jesuit saith, that Polydore is to be understood of the Fathers of the Old Testament only. Although Polydore hath not the word Old Testament, but ancient Fathers and Saints, which style the Church of Rome never attributed to any before Christ. But be it so, let us take what he granteth, we have then the testimony of the true Church before Christ's Incarnation against image-worship: and this is advantage enough, unless the jesuit could confront their judgement by Christ and his Apostles, or some of the Fathers of the New Testament. Yet what if Polydore Virgil in that place nameth some of the Fathers in the New Testament? 
Divus quoque Gregorius Serenum episcopum Marsiliensem reprehendu quòd imagines fregisset, & laudat quòd coli inhibuisset.  will not that stop the jesuits mouth? read then a little further in Polydore in the same chapter courteous Reader, and thou shalt meet with these words. Saint Gregory also reproveth Serenus the Bishop of Marseilles for breaking down images, and yet commendeth him in that he forbade the worship of them.  
To the eighteenth. Peresius saith, that there can be no sound proof brought either out of Scripture, or tradition of the Church, or common consent of Fathers, or determination of a general Council, or any other effectual reason to persuade a man, that the image of Christ, 
L. de tradit. nullum quod ego viderim, afferunt validum fundamentum, neque scripturas, neque traditionent ecclesiae, neque communem consensum sanctorum, neque concilij generalis determinationem aliquam, nec etiam rationem quâ hoc efficaciter suaderi posset, scilicet imagines Christi, & sanctorum adorari debere, eadem adoratione quâ & res quae repraesent antur. P. 242.  and the Saints are to be worshipped with the same adoration that the samplers are. Is this nothing against you? then Aquinas, and in a manner all the Schoolmen, Ludovicus Paramo, Bernardus, Pinned, Franciscus Petigianis, Petrus de Cabrera, Azotius, Lamas, Rubio, Bustus, quoted by the Bishop of Ely, in his reply to Fisher, with divers others reckoned up by Bellarmine, l. 2. the imag. c. 20. were no Papists. For all the , hold that opinion for Catholic, which Peresius condemneth.  
To the Nineteenth. The more we look into Agobardus the greater reason we have to make account of him: for the first he allegeth the Council of Eliberis against setting up of images in Churches: next he affirmeth that the ancients had pictures of Saints painted or carved, ad recordandum non ad colendum, to remember the Saints by them, not to worship them. Lastly, he averreth that there is no example in all the Scriptures, or Fathers for adoration of images: and what doth or can any Protestant say more against the doctrine of the Roman Church in this point, than this Agobardus doth, whom this jesuit canonizeth for a saint? neither can he put him off by saying, 
Hic author cautè legendus est, quoniam laborat eodem errore quo Agobardus, & reliqui ejus aetatis Galli, qui negabant sacris imaginibus ullum deberi cultum religiosum.  that he speaketh against idol-worship, or some abuse of Images which crept in in his time; for Bellarmine who better studied Agobardus, than this jesuit, in his book of Ecclesiastical Writers, ad annum 820. in his censure of jonas Bishop of Orleans saith, this Author is to be read with caution, because he was infected with the same opinion that Agobardus, and other French Bishops of that age were, who deny any religious worship to be due to images.  
To the twentieth. Sententias loquitur Carnifex; this is the first essay we heard from this jesuit, but nothing to the purpose, for we grant that things that are good in themselves, and of a necessary and profitable use, are not to be taken away for the abuse: but we deny that Images in Churches are of that nature; neither is his law-Axiome universally true, Vtile per inutile non vitiatur, that which is profitable, is not corrupted or made bad by that which is unprofitable. For the brazen Serpent in the Wilderness was for a time utilis, profitable, curing them that had been stung by the fiery Serpent: yet perinutile vitiabatur, it was corrupted and made scandalous and unprofitable by the people's abusing it to idolatry: and if that Image being a type of Christ, and set up by God's special command, was yet broken in pieces by good King Ezekiah, after the people began to worship it: how much more ought those images to be knocked down, and stamped to powder, which are set up in popish Churches against GOD'S commandment, and have been abused to idolatry above eight hundred years in such a gross manner, especially by the vulgar, that as Polydore Virgil ingenuously confesseth, many of the ruder sort of them, magis ijs fidunt quàm Christo, put more confidence in the image than Christ himself?    

Concerning Indulgences, Spectacles, paragraph 8. a page 319. usque ad 345.  
THE Knight himself granteth the use of giving Indulgences, to have been in the ancient Church, and that Bishops had power to grant them.  
Christ's Merits lying in store for the need of all men, may be fitly compared to a common Treasure, and be called by that name. So fare forth then as those Pardons were grounded on Christ's merits, or granted by application of them to the penitent, there is no difference between theirs and ours.  
Saint Paul forgave the incestuous Corinthian, not only in the person of Christ, but for their sake also: which importeth, the prayer and deserts of Saints to have some place in the bestowing of that Indulgence; and so likewise, it was the practice of the Primitive Church: and what was this, but by applying the superabundant merits in the one, to supply the want in the other?  
That the merits of Martyrs were applied to others, appeareth by Tertullian, who being become now an Heretic, did reprehend that custom, saying, that a Martyr's merits were little enough for himself, without having any surplusage to help others withal.  
Many a man continueth his great austerity of Fasting, Watching, Praying, and other exercises of all virtues, after he hath obtained pardon for the fault itself, by hearty contrition and by humble confession obtained also remission of the temporal punishment, within the space of 1, 2, 3, 7, 10, or 12 years (for example sake) he then leading the same life for 20, 30, 40, 50, or 60 years, as many have done; what shall become of all that satisfaction which is over and above, for that sin or sins which he committed before? It doth not perish or pass without fruit, though not of him, yet of others: and if they be not applied presently, why may they not then be said to lie in deposito, as money in a Treasury?  
Sith all grant Indulgences for the living, why not for the dead, so long as they pertain to the Communion of Saints, and have need thereof?  
The authority which the Knight citeth, to make Indulgences applied to the souls in Purgatory to be ridiculous, out of the old Sarum book of the hours of our Lady, doth not mention Purgatory, but only saith, That whosoever shall say these and these prayers, shall gain so many thousand years of pardon, which is no more for the dead than for the living.  
It is false which the Knight averreth, that we give Pardons for thousands of years in Purgatory after death. For we do not so, neither do we understand those Pardons, wherein are mentioned such number of years so, as if men were without those Pardons, to remain so long in Purgatory: but we understand those years according to the penitential Canons, by which, many year's penance were due for one sin, and many men's sins being both very grievous, and as a man may say, without number, according to the account of the ancient penitential Canons, they may soon amount to thousands of years, which, though a man cannot live to perform here in this world, nor even in Purgatory, for the length of time; yet he may in Purgatory, in few year's space, nay, few months, or few week's space, suffer so much punishment as is answerable to all that penance of many thousand of years, which a man should have performed here, if he could have lived so long.  
The Authors alleged by the Knight, against Indulgences, prove no more than we grant, that there is not so express mention in Scriptures or ancient Fathers of them, as of many other points, because there was not so much use of them in those days.  
Though some Father's mention them not, we prove the use of them out of others more ancient, to wit, out of Saint Cyprian and Tertullian, as you may see in Bellarmine, lib. de indul. c. 3. and besides them, the authority of certain Counsels, as that of Nice, Ancyra, and Laodicea.  
Though we had not either the testimony of these Fathers, nor of those Counsels, yet would not that follow which the Knight groundeth thereon, to wit, that we want antiquity, and consent of Fathers for them; for it is a most strong argument of antiquity, that it is the practice of the Catholic Church, time out of mind, and of consent, that no man is found to have spoken against them, but only known Heretics, 
In contrarium est generalis consuetudo & doctrina ecclesiae quae contineret falsitatem, nisi per indulgentias dimitteretur aliquid de paenâ peccatori debitâ.  such as the Waldenses, who were the first impugners of Indulgences.  
Durand, whom the Knight allegeth in the first place, having propounded the question, in 4. sent. dis. 20. q. 5. an aliquid valeant indulgentiae, after the manner of the Schools, putteth two arguments against them in the first place, and then cometh with his arguments. Sed contra, agreeing expressly with his conclusion. On the contrary, saith he, is the general custom and doctrine of the Church, which should contain falsehood, 
13. De hear sibus, l. 8. tit. indulg. verum ●tsi pro indulgentiarum approbatione sacrae scripturae testimonium apertum de sit, non tamen ideo contemnend e erunt, quoniam ecclesiae catho licae usus a multis annorum centuriis tantae est autboritatis, ut qui illam contemnat haereticus merito cen seatur.  if something of the punishment due to a Sinner, should not be forgiven by Indulgences; and presently after, he nameth Saint Gregory, and saith of him, that he did institute Indulgences at the stations in Rome.  
Alfonsus a Castro, though he confess the use of Indulgences, not to have been so much in those ancient times as since; yet he alloweth them so fare, as to condemn any man for an Haeretike that shall deny them.  
14. The Knight prateth very freely of the Pope's selling of Indulgences, and bringing money to his own coffers by them: but to that I need to make no other answer, but that it is such riff-raff-stuffe as their Ministers are wont to eke out their books, & Sermons, without being able to show any Bull of Pope, or testimony of good author of any Indulgence so granted.  
For the Knights profane jest out of Guicciardine of playing a game at Tables for an indulgence, suppose that were true, might not a man think you tell as good a tale of some Protestants, who in their pots have made so bold with Almighty God himself, as to drink a health to him; and were not this a fine argument to prove that there is no God?  
It is intolerable presiemption in the Knight to take upon him to censure so great a Council as that of Trent. Wherein the whole flower of the Catholic Church, for learning and sanctity was gathered together, the splendour of which Council, was so great, that your night owl Heretics durst not once appear, though they were invited to go and come freely with all the security they could wish.  
Whoreas the Knight saith that it is a senseless and weak faith that giveth assent to doctrine, as necessary to be believed, which wanteth authority out of Scriptures and consent of Fathers. I answer, he knoweth not what he saith, for all the Fathers agree, that there are many things which men are bound to believe upon unwritten traditions, whose authority you may see in great number in Bellarmine. 
De verbo Dei. l. 4. c 7.   
The consent of Doctors of the Catholic Church cannot more err in one time then another, the authority of the Church, and assistance of the Holy Ghost being always the same, no less in one time then another, 
Tertull. de prescript. cap. 28. quod apud multos unum invenitur, non est erratum sed traditum.  and Tertullia's rule having still place, as well in one age as another, that which is the same amongst many, is not error but a tradition.  
St. Paul thought, he answered sufficiently for the defence of himself, and offence of his contentious enemy, when he said (1 Cor. 11.) If any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor the Churches of God.  
It is false which the Knight again repeateth, that an article of faith cannot be warantable, without authority of Scriptures, for faith is more ancient than Scripture; to say nothing of the times before Christ, faith was taught by Christ himself without writing, as also by the Apostles after him, for many years without any word written.  
As no less credit is to be given to the Apostolical preaching, then writing, so no less credit is still to be given to their words, delivered us by tradition, then by their writings: the credit and sense of the writings depending upon the same tradition.  
St. Austin defendeth many points of faith, 
De baptism. l. 2 c. 7. l. 5 c. 25. cont. Maximin: l. 3. c. 3. et Epist. 174. de Genesi ad litteram. l. 10. c. 23. l. de cura pro mortuis. et Epist. 118. de unit. eccles. c. 22. et tract. 98. in johan.  either only or chiefly by tradition, and the practice of the Catholic Church; as single Baptism against the Donatists, consubstantiality of the Son, the divinity of the Holy Ghost, and even unbegottennesse of the Father against the Arrians, and the Baptism of children against the Pelagians: to say nothing of prayer for the dead, observation of the feasts of Easter, Ascention, Whitsuntide, and the like. Nay, this truth was so grounded with him, that he accounted it most insolent madness to dispute against the common opinion, and practise of the Catholic Church. In his book of the unity of the Church, he saith, that Christ beareth witness of his Church; and in his Tractates upon John, having occasion to handle those words of St. Paul. If we, or an Angel from Heaven, etc. wherewith the Knight almost concludeth every Section, he thus commenteth upon them, the Apostles did not say, if any man preach more than ye have received: but besides that which you have received, for if he should say, that he should prejudicated, that is, go against himself, who coveted to come to the Thessalonians, that he might supply that which was wanting to their faith, but he that supplieth, addeth that which was lacking, taketh not away that which was before: these are the Saints very words in that place, by which it is plain, that he taketh the word praeter besides, not in that sense, as to signify more than is written, as you would understand it, but to signify the same that contra. St. Paul himself useth the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, para, besides, Rom. 16.17. for contra, and you in your own Bible's translate it so. I beseech you brethren mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them.  

The Hammer.  
AS Erucius the accuser of Roscius Amerinus having little to say against him, 
Cic. pro Rosc. Amer.  to fill up the time, rehearsed a great part of an invective which he had penned in former time against another defendant: so the jesuit here, failing in his proofs for indulgences (for which little or nothing can be said) to fill up the Section, transcribeth a discourse of his, which he had formerly penned, concerning the necessity of unwritten traditions, which hath no affinity at all with the title of this Chapter, de Indulgentiis. In other paragraphs we find him distracted, and raving; but in this he turneth Vagrant, and therefore I am to follow him with a whip as the law in this case provideth. Touching the point itself of Indulgences, which Rivet fitly termeth Emulgences, but the jesuit the Church's Treasury: whosoever relieth upon the superabundant merits and satisfaction of Saints for his absolution, for his temporal punishment of sin after this life, shall find according to the Greek proverb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of treasure, 
Eras. Adag. Thesauri Carbones.  glowing coals heaped upon his head in hell. For neither are there any merits or superabundant satisfactions of Saints, 
Luk. 17.10.  Christ saying, when you have done all, you are unprofitable servants, nor were there any, could they be applied or imputed to any other men, 
2 Cor. 5.10.  the Apostle teaching that every man shall receive according to that which himself hath done in his body, whether it be good or evil, 
2 Cor. 11.15.  nor hath the Pope any more power to dispose of this treasury for the remission of sins; our Saviour, Matth. 18. v. 18. and john, 20.23. conferring the same power of remitting sins upon all the Apostles which he promised to S. Peter, Matth. 16. Neither, if the Pope had any special power of granting Indulgences, could it extend to the souls in Purgatory, quia non sunt de foro Papae, because they are not subject to the Pope's court, 
Serm 2. de defunct. 9 9  as Gerson rightly concludeth. Neither lastly, can it be proved, that there is any Purgatory fire for souls after this life, St. john expressly affirming, that the blood of Christ purgeth us from all our sins. 
1 john 1.7.  the fire therefore of Purgatory is rightly termed chymerica and chymica, chymericall and chemical; chymericall, because a mere fiction, and chemical, because by means of this fire, they extract much gold. The Apostle saith, there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ jesus. If no condemnation, no punishment, 
Rom. 8.1.  eternal or temporal. The Prophet saith, 
Mica. 7.18.  he will cast our sins into the depth of the Sea, surely there is no fire to purge them: if we repent us of our sins, 
Ezek. 18.22.  God promised us that they shall be remembered no more, if they shall not be so much as mentioned, surely they shall not be sentenced to be punished with fire, either temporal or eternal. In that time, saith the Lord, 
jerem. 50.20.  the iniquity of Israel shall be sought for, and there shall be none, and the sins of judah, and they shall not be found, for I will pardon them whom I reserve: from which text we thus argue. All their sins whom God pardoneth, shall be found no more, if found no more, then to be purged no more, especially after this life. Where there is no spot, there needs no purging, or cleansing, but in the souls of all believers there remains no spot, as Bellarmine himself confesseth, 
L. 2 de Indul. c. 3. cum dicimus ex sancto Iohanne quod sanguis jesu Christi purgat nos ab omni peccato, respondet Apostolum loqui de remissione culpae quae maculam proprie gignit in animâ, macula enim est quae ablutione tollitur, non paena quae debitorem non sordidum facit.  shaping this answer to our objection, out of St. john (that the blood of Christ purgeth us from all sin) the Apostle speaketh of the remission of the fault which properly begets a spot in the soul, for it is the spot which is taken away by washing. When we say that Christ's merits are applied to us, our adversaries jeer at us, holding it for a most absurd doctrine, that the merits of one should be imputed to another: and yet what they deny to Christ, they attribute to Saints: that which they deny to God, they attribute to the Pope: they will by no means hear that God imputeth to us the merits and sufferings of his son, although the Scripture is express for it: and yet they teach that the merits and satisfactions of Saints by the Pope, may be applied to us, and that they satisfy for our temporal punishments. But to leave farther prosecution of the point in general, and to grapple with the jesuit in the ensuing particulars.  
To the first. The jesuit playeth the Sophister, and feign would deceive the simple Reader with the ambiguity of the word Indulgence, which the Knight accuratly distinguisheth; and showeth, that the Indulgences now granted by the Pope, are no more like the Indulgences in use in the Primitive Church, than an Apple is like to a Nut. The Indulgences whereof we read in the ancient Fathers, were mitigations of some censures of the Church, before inflicted on the living for their amendment: 
Cyp ad Demet. postquam hinc excessam est nullus datur penitentiae locus, nullus satisfactionis effectus.  these are reluxations from satisfactory pains in Purgatory flames after this life. After which, notwithstanding, as Saint Cyprian truly informeth Demetrian, there remaineth no place for repentance, no effect of satisfaction, here eternal life is either gained or lost.  
To the second. As the jesuit doth sometime answer to that which we object not, so he oft proveth that we deny not. We attribute more to Christ's merits than any Romanist doth; for we teach, that they are a Treasure of infinite value, abundantly sufficient, without the addition of any Saints merits to them, to discharge the infinite debt of all mankind: to release all who by faith apply them to themselves, from all temporal, as well as eternal punishment. We profess, with that religious Divine, Effusio justi sanguinis Christi tam dives fuit ad pretium, ut si universitas captivorum redemtorem su●m crederet, nullum diaboli vincula retinerent: The effusion of Christ's righteous blood is so rich in price, that if all the captives did believe in their Redeemer, the devil's bands could hold none. And in very deed, this is one of our mainest exceptions against the Roman Church, that they infinitely wrong the infinite bounty of our Redeemer, by going about, as it were, to ●●ke out his merits by the excrescensie and superabundancy of Saints satisfactions. What they arrogate to Saints in this kind, they derogate from our Saviour; we acknowledge his merits to be a rich Treasury, containing in it, many millions of pure gold; whereunto, to add the sufferings of any Saints or Martyrs, were no better than to take away pure gold, and instead thereof (to fill up the room, not the sum) to lay a few brass tokens. This seemed so absurd to some of the acutest Schoolmen, as by name, Durandus a Sancto Portiano, 
Durand. in 4. sent. dist. 20. q. 3.  and johannes de Mayro, that they excluded all Saints satisfactions out of this treasury: their reasons are specially these, Nothing needeth, or indeed can be added to that which is of infinite value, but such are Christ's merits and sufferings. Secondly, the Saints are already abundantly rewarded, and that far above their desert, as the Apostle witnesseth, Rom. 8.18. I account, that the afflictions of this present life are not worthy the glory which shall be revealed: and (2 Cor. 4.17.) our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a fare more exceeding and eternal weight of glory. Wherefore, the Saints sufferings being so fully recompensed already, cannot help towards the expiation of the sins of others. 
Ego teneo cum Francisco de Mayro in tractato de indulg. quod cum merita sanctorum sint ultra condignum remunerata a deo, et sic exhausta quod solum dantur (indulgentiae) ex merito Christi & passionis ejus, cujus minima gutta sanguinis vel sudoris sufficeret ad expiationem omnium peccatorum quae unquam fuerunt perpetrata aut perpetrabuntur.  To which point, Angelus de Clavatio, verbo Indulg. numero. 9 I hold, saith he, with Francis Mayro, in his Treatise of Indulgences, that forasmuch as the merits of Saints are rewarded of God beyond their merit, and thereby the treasure of them is exhausted, that Pardons are only given for the merit of Christ and his passion: the least drop of whose blood, or sweat, would have been sufficient to expiate all the sins that ever have been or shall be committed. Thirdly, the intention of him that meriteth, is most necessary required to this, that the fruit or reward of his merit redound to another: but, supposing that the Saints were so rich in merits and sufferings, that they had any to bestow upon others, yet it cannot be proved, that the Saints had ever any such intention, to transfer the fruit of their passions upon others. Fourthly, if the Saints sufferings could expiate our sins, the Saints might be accounted our Redeemers, which Aquinas himself blushed to affirm, 
Durand. in 4. sent. dis. 20. q. 3. quia intentio merentis est necessaria ad hoc quod fructus seu intensio merent is redundet in alterum sic enim fructus metiti passionis Christi in nos redundat ex ejus epressâ intentione quod autem intentio quorumcunque sanctorum fuerit fructum passionum suarum in nos transfer, nulla historia docet. Aquin. sum: part. 3. q. 48. art. 2. passiones sanctorum proficiunt ecclesiae non quidem per modum redemtionis, sed per modum exempli.  and therefore resolveth the quite contrary; the Sufferings of Saints profit the Church, not by way of Redemption, but by way of Example.  
To the Third. The instance is not to the purpose: for the Corinthian, whose punishment Saint Paul released, was alive; our question is of Indulgences, releasing souls after death. Secondly, the incestuous Corinthian was excommunicated, and thereby excluded for the time, from the Communion of Saints: our question is of those that died reconciled to the Church, in the state of grace, Whether they by the Pope's Indulgence, may receive aught out of the treasury of Saints sufferings, to purchase their freedom from Purgatory, or at least, mitigation of their pains there? Thirdly, the Indulgence Saint Paul granted the Corinthian, was the releasing the sentence of Excommunication, not abating flames of Purgatory. Fourthly, Saint Paul condescended more willingly to grant that excommunicate Corinthian his absolution, for the earnest prayers and entreaty of some of his neighbours and friends: he did not impute the sufferings or merits of his friends unto him, and in that consideration absolved him. These things therefore, agree as well as Harp and Harrow, to absolve the living from sentence of Excommunication, at the suit or request of persons that have well deserved of the Church, or have a special interest in our love: and to release the dead out of Purgatory, by imputing the surplusage of another man's merits and satisfactions unto him.  
To the fourth. The jesuit might have learned of Dr. Francis White in his reply to Fisher the jesuit, from whom he borrowed this objection, an Answer thereunto: or if he thought much to learn of him, he might have been beholding to his own Pamelius, so fare, as to inform him, that the Indulgences which Tertullian impugned, were not such as we treat of, but the same whereof Saint Cyprian speaketh, 
Ep. 10.11.12.  to wit a relaxation of canonical censures, and penance to adulterers and other notorious sinners upon the request of martyrs, being in prison and yet alive. Now it seemed to this Father to be unjust and unfitting, both that the Martyrs in such cases should be intreaters, and that the Church should grant absolution to such persons, or mitigate the censures most justly imposed upon them. Whether Tertullian in this were in the right or not, it makes nothing for the jesuit, or against us, for he speaketh of living Martyrs and not dead: of forgiving the crime itself, not only the temporal punishment, and that in this life, not in Purgatory. As this is one of the most impertinent allegations in his book, so he handles it as strangely and absurdly; for first, he discrediteth and disableth his witness, by branding him with the note of an Heretic, and then he produceth him.  
To the fift: What rope of sands hath the jesuit here twisted; first he can never prove that any man can fully satisfy for the least fin committed against the infinite majesty of God, much less by any penance he can endure, though never so long, satisfy over and above as he speaketh. Secondly, the continuance of his penance, if it be done in true humility, and sincerity, shall not be without fruit to himself, for it shall be a means to mortify his fleshly lusts, and prevent future sins and through faith in Christ, to obtain a greater reward in heaven. Thirdly, had the Saints any such surplusage of merits, and were there nothing allowed to themselves for it here, or hereafter: yet could not these their merits be communicated to others for their behoof, because God hath set it down in his law expressly, 
Ezek. 18.20.  that as the sin of the sinner, so the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself. To the jesuits quaere therefore. Why may not the overplus of their sufferings lie in deposito as money in a treasury, for the benefit of others? I answer briefly, because there is no such money, nor such treasury, nor order from the master of the house, to lay up such supposed money in such an imaginary treasury, as it were in a Bank, for the benefit of others. Do we say this only, do not the Scriptures and the Fathers say the same. 
job 9.3.  Doth not job demand how should man be just with God? if he contend with him, he cannot answer him one for a thousand. Doth not David? 
Psal. 19.12.  Who knoweth how oft he off endeth? 
Pro. 20.9. Esay, 64.6. james, 3.2.  Doth not Solomon? Who can say, I have made my heart clean? I am pure from my sin. Doth not Esay ingenuously confess? 
Bas. l. de penit. non Angeli sumus sed homines, et cadimus et resurgimus, idque saepius eâdem hora. Ambros. apol. David, c. 2. unusquisque nostrum per singulas horas quam multa delinquit Bernard de quadrup. Debit quis amplius grunniet dicens n●mium laboramus, nimium jejunamus nimium vigilamus, cum nec millessime nec minime parti debitorum suorum quis valeat respondere. Serm. de virgin. Stulta petitio, vix justus salvabitur, vix Sanctis justitiae suae oleum sufficet ad salutem, quantò minus & sibi & proximis.  We are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness is as filthy rags, and St. james, in many things we offend all, and after him St. Basil, We are not Angels, but money, we fall and rise again, and that often times in one and the selfsame hour. And Ambrose. Every one of us how often do we sinne? every hour. And most fully of all, St. Bernard, Who dare gruntle from henceforth, saying? we labour too much, we fast too much, we watch too much, seeing that a man cannot answer the thousandth, nay, not the least part of his debt. And again, commenting upon those words, 25. of Matth. and the 8. Give us of your oil, a foolish petition, the righteous shall scarce be saved, the oil of their own righteousness, hardly sufficeth the Saints to salvation, how much less will it serve themselves and their neighbours.  
To the sixth. The reason is not alike, for Indulgences for the living, are the releasing of Ecclesiastical censures inflicted upon their persons, which undoubtedly the Bishops have power to mitigate upon the submission of the party, whereof they can take notice: which can have no place, in the souls of the deceased, as the Church hath no power to enjoin them penance for their misdemeanour, so neither to take it off: for as the jesuit himself confesseth, the Pope is no superior in respect of the souls in Purgatory, nor are they under his power. 
P. 328. Absolution is a iuridicall act to be performed by a superior and judge towards an inferior and a subject being under his power, which the souls in Purgatory are not in respect of the Pope.  Here by the way, let the Reader observe how the jesuit unwittingly striketh a blow at the Pope's triple crown. For if the souls in Purgatory are none of his subjects, where is his third Kingdom? Why should he wear a triple crown, if he may not bear his sword in Purgatory? the word Mysterium anciently engraven upon the Pope's Mitre, was wont to be thus declared, that the three Crowns compassing it, signify the rule he bears in Heaven, Earth, and Purgatory, but if he hath of late lost that kingdom, and is not now as the jesuit saith, Superior to the souls that fry in Purgatory. What power hath he to mittigat their fine, or release their mulct, or abate their fire? much less wholly absolve them from the guilt of temporal punishment there in toto? As for that he addeth, concerning communion of Saints, it yields no support at all to his cause: for the communion of Saints, which all Christians believe, is partly in the blessings of this life, partly in the use of spiritual graces, whereby they pray one for another, admonish, instruct, and comfort one the other; this communion no way extendeth to inward habits, as faith, hope & charity, nor to outward penal sufferings, which can be imparted to no other, as may be most evidently deduced out of Scriptures, and the joint testimonies of the ancient Fathers. First therefore we say, that the Saints have no superabundance of merits or satisfactions, as I have proved before: next that admitting they had any, they cannot dispose of them to others, for every one shall bear his own burdens, every one shall receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad, not according to that which he hath done or suffered in the body of another. 
Gal. 6.5. de pudicit. c. 22. Quis alienam mortem sua solvet nisi solus fi●ius Dei, proinde qui illum emular is donando delicta si nihil ipse deliquisti plane patere pro me si vero peocator es quomodo oleum facuiae tuae sufficere tibi & mihi porerit. In johan. tract. 24. Et si fratres pro fratribus moriantur, tamen in fraternorum peccatorum remiss●one nullius sanguis martyris funditur. Leo ep. ad Palest. Accepere justi non dedere coronas, et de fortitudine fidelium nata sunt exempla patientiae non dona justitiae singulares, quip eorum mertes fuerunt, nec alterius quisquam de bitum suo fine persolvit. Bernard. ep. 198 cont. Abelard. Satisfactio unius omnibus imputatur, sicut omnium pecca-ta ille unus portavit, nec alter invenietur qui fore fecit, alter qui satisfecit, satisfecit ergo caput pro membris.  the wise virgins said to the foolish that begged of them oil to fill their lamps, Not so, lest there be not enough for us & for you; the righteousness of the righteous shallbe upon him, & the wickedness of the wicked shallbe upon him, Ez. 18.20. Who ever (saith Tertullian) satisfied by another man's death, his own death, but only the Son of God: therefore thou, who imitatest him in forgiving sins, if thou hast sinned in nothing thyself I pray thee suffer for me; but if thou art●a sinner as I am, how will the oil of thy little lamp suffice for thee and for me? If Tertullia's coin be not currant, I am sure St Austin & St Leos is, Although, saith St Austin, brethren die for their brethren, yet the blood of no Martyr was ever shed for the remission of their brother's sins. For, as St. Leo testifieth, the righteous have received, they have not given crowns: from the fortitude of true believers; we receive examples of patience, not gifts of righteousness. For their death was singular; neither did any of them by it discharge the death of another; the head hath satisfied for the members, & the satisfaction of one is imputed to all. Mark, he saith of one, not of more, & the head satisfied for the members, not the members one for another.  
To the seventh. I freely subscribe to the conclusion, and believe without any scruple, that the 56000. years of pardon granted by the Pope, to every one that shall say seven prayers before the Crucifix, and seven Pater-nosters, and seven Ave-maries, is no more for the dead then for the living. For done to such an intent, neither are the better for it, neither the living nor the dead are gainers, but only the Pope himself and his Agents, who sell paper and lead at a dearer rate, than any Merchant or Stationer in Christendom. Yet, by the jesuits leave, Pope Gregory granting 14000 years of Pardon, and Nicolas the first, as many, and Sixtus the fourth, twice as many, which make up the full number of 56000; must needs be thought, to intent benefit to the souls in Purgatory, or in hell: unless you will make the Pope to be so absurd, as to suppose that any were to live upon earth so many thousand years, which had been an error 55000 times worse than the error of the Millenaries. For they taught, that the Saints should live a thousand years with Christ on earth: but these, that sinners should live in durance here, or in Purgatory 56000 years, which is 50000 years longer than by all computations, the World hath, or as most think, shall last.  
To the eighth. What Scripture or Tradition hath the jesuit for this his incredible paradox? If we should grant him such a Purgatory as he desires, which no man yet could find either in the Map of this world, or in the Table of holy Scriptures: yet is it impossible to defend with any probability this position of his, that in few week's space, a soul might suffer punishment answerable to the Penance of many thousand years. For, the learned Romanists generally accord, that Purgatory fire differeth little from hell, but in time; that the one is eternal, the other temporal: they believe it to equalise, or rather exceed any fiery torment on earth. How then can they imagine so much fuel to be laid on that fire, and the torments in it so improved, that a man may suffer so much punishment in a few weeks, which may weigh down, or bear scale with the penance of 56000 years; or if the torments could be so increased, what soul would be able to bear them for those few weeks, nay rather a few hours?  
To the ninth. The Authors alleged by the Knight, namely, Durand, Sylvester Prierias, Major, Fisher Bishop of Rochester, Alfonsus a Castro, Antoninus, Cajetan and Bellarmine, speak not, as the jesuit would have it, comparatively, but positively. Durand saith, 
Durand. 4. sent. dist. 20. q. 3. de indulgentiis, pauca dici possum per certitudinem, quia nec scriptura expressè de iis loquitur, sancti etiam patres Ambrose, Hilarius, etc. minime loquuntur de indulgentiis. Prierias, cont. Luth. de Indul. Indulgentiae authoritate scripturae non intuere nobis sed authoritate ecclesiae & Romanorum Pontificum. Major, in 4. sent. dist. 2. q. 2. Difficile est modum indulgentiarum fundare authenticè in scripturâ sacrâ. Roffensis, artic. 18. cont. Luther, Quamdiù nulla fuerat de purgatoria cura nemo quesivit indulgentias, nam ex illo pendet omnis indulgentiarum estimatio ceperunt igitur indulgentiae postquam ad purgatorii cruciatus aliquandiù trepidatum erat.  The Scriptures speak not expressly of Indulgences, neither the Fathers, Austin, Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome, etc. Sylvester Prierias affirmeth, that Pardons have not been known to us by the authority of Scriptures, but by the authority of the Church of Rome, and the Popes. Fisher Bishop of Rochester confesseth, that of Purgatory there is little or no mention amongst the ancient Fathers, and that as long as Purgatory was not cared for, there was no man sought for Pardons: sigh Purgatory therefore hath been so lately known and received of the whole Church, who can now wonder concerning Indulgences? And here Master Flood is at a stand, his Flumen is turned into Stagnum; for having made offer to answer Durand, and finding that his answer would not hold, his heart failed him, and he durst not venture to shape any answer at all to the Authors last mentioned, namely, Alfonsus a Castro, 
Alfon. de verbo Indulg. Harum usus in ecclesiâ videtur serò receptus, de Transubst antiatime rara in antiquis mentio de purgatorio fere nulla, quid ergo mirum si ad hunc modum contigeret de indalgentiis ut apud priscos nulla sir mentio? Antonin part. 1. tit. 10. de indulgentiis nihil expressè habemus in sacrâ scripturà aut etiam patrum scriptis. Cajet. opus. 15. 1. Nulla scriptura sacra nulla priscorum doctorum grecorum aut latinorum authoritas indulgentiarum ortum ad nostram deduxit notitiam. Bellor. de indul. l. 1. c. 17. Neque mirum videri debet si authores antiquiores non habemus, qui harum mentiorum faciunt.  whose words are; There is nothing in Scripture less opened, or whereof the ancient Fathers have less written, than of Indulgences; and it seemeth the use of them came but lately into the Church: there is seldom any mention of Transubstantiation among the Ancients, almost none of Purgatory. What marvel then, if it so fall out with Indulgences, that there should be no mention of them by the Ancients? Antoninus; There is not any express testimony, for proof of Indulgences, either in Scriptures, or in the writings of the ancient Fathers. Cajetan; There is no authority of Scriptures, or ancient Fathers, Greek or Latin, that bringeth the original of Indulgences to our knowledge. Bellarmine; It is not to be wondered, if we have not many ancient Authors which make mention of Indulgences; for, many things are re●●●ned in the Church only by use and custom, without writing. See how the Romanists second one the other: Bellarmine saith, That not many ancient Authors make mention of Indulgences. Cajetan and Antoninus say, Not any. Durand saith, that The Scriptures speak not expressly of them. Prierias saith, That they speak not at all of them.  
To the tenth. The Indulgences those Fathers and Counsels speak of, have no more affinity with the Pardons the Pope selleth now adays, than the Rivers of Paradise have with Styx or Avernos; or Simon Peter with Simon Magus; or Philip the Apostle with Philip King of Macedon, as I shown before.  
To the eleventh. The jesuit hath neither proved the practice of the Catholic Church, nor of the Roman, time out of mind, for Indulgences: but only practices of later times, since manifold abuses crept into the Roman Church. As for his negative Argument, to wit, that It is a strong evidence of consent, for Indulgences, because none is found to have spoken against them: unless he otherwise qualify it, it will no more prove Purgatory, or the lawful use of Indulgences, than it will prove there is a Commonwealth in Utopia, or Cities, or Countries in the Moon, or many worlds; because, peradventure none is found to have spoken or written against them. And for the Waldenses, that they were the first impugners of Indulgences, is said by the jesuit, but not proved; much less, that these Waldenses were known Heretics. For they were fare from heresy by the confession of their greatest adversary, the Inquisitor Rainerius. 
Cont. Wald. cap. 4.  They live, saith he, justly before men, and believe all things well concerning God, and all the Articles contained in the Creed, Solummodo Romanam Ecclesiam blasphemant. & Clerum, only they speak evil of the Roman Church and Clergy.  
To the twelfth. It was happy for Durand, that he lived before the Inquisition and Index Expurgatorius. 
Durand. in 4. sent. dist. 2. q. 3. Quod dictum est Petro. Mat. 16. tibi dabo claves, etc. intelligitur de potestate ei data in foro poenitentiae, de collatione autem indulgentiarum non est quomodò debeat intelligi, sancti enim Ambrose, Hilarius, Augustinus, Hieronimus, minime loquntur de indulgentiis.  For he argueth so strongly against Indulgences, saying, (that Little can be spoken of any certainty concerning them, because the Scripture speaketh not expressly of them; for what is spoken, Matthew the 16. to Peter, I will give thee the Keys, and whatsoever thou bindest on earth shall be bound in heaven; is understood, of the power given him in the penitential Court, and cannot be understood of the bestowing of Indulgences; for the holy Fathers, Ambrose, Hilary, Augustine, Jerome, speak not at all of Indulgences) that his writings, if not his person, would have been purged by fire, if he had lived in these times: yet, true it is, that having argued strongly against Indulgences, and the Church Treasury, so fare as it consisteth of the merit of Saints, he bethought himself, and pro formâ, allegeth to the contrary, the Custom and Doctrine of the Church, meaning the Roman Church; whose lash he feared, if he should not have given bacl that by Wholesale, which he had taken away from her by Retale. It's true also, that he mentions Indulgences at the stations of Rome in the days of Saint Gregory: but let it be noted, that Gregory is without the compass of the Primitive times, and that he was interested in the cause; for, Purgatory fires began to sing men in his time, and thereupon, Indulgences to be in request, which afterwards proved a Staple commodity to the See of Rome. Lastly, 
Mart. Epig. de Lab. Non es crede mihi bonus: quid ergo ut verum loquar optimus malorum Pisones Senecasque Memmiosque, et Crispos mihi redde sed priores fies protinus ultimus bonorum.  as Martial writeth of Labulla, it may be truly said of this Gregory, that he was the worst of the good, and best of the bad Popes.  
To the thirteenth. The Knight, after Alfonsus, quoted Antoninus, Cajetan, and Bellarmine, to prove the novelty of Indulgences, and that there is no ground for them in Scriptures, or the writings of the ancient Fathers: to whom, the jesuit answereth not a word; and here the second time, he is Gravelled in this Section. To Alfonsus he seemeth to say something, but upon due examination as good as nothing: first he falsifieth his words, saying, page 334. that Alfonsus confesseth the use of Indulgences to be most ancient, and of many hundred years standing; whereas his words are not; that the use of Indulgences was most ancient, but that it was said by some, to be most ancient among the Romans: Apud Romanos vetustissimus praedicatur illarum usus; this praedicatur is of no more credit, than Pliny his fertur, or Solinus his aiunt. For notwithstanding this report, Alfonsus resolves in that very place, It seems that the use of Indulgences came but lately into the Church. Secondly, the jesuit forceth a wrong Inference from Alfonsus his words. For albeit, he affirmeth that Indulgences are not to be contemned, because they have been in use in the Church for some hundreds of years: yet he condemneth not a man for an Haeretique that shall deny them, but any one that shall contemn the Church or despise her authority: his words are Quoniam ecclesiâ Catholicâ tantae est authoritatis ut qui illam contemnat Haereticus meritò censeatur, we say the same also, 
Matth. 18.17.  and the Scripture beareth us out in it, tell the Church and if he refuse to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a Heathen or a Publican, but what if Alphonsus out of fear blows hot and cold with one breath, what's that to us? He lived and died a professed Papist, and therefore what he writeth against Protestants, is little to be set by, but what he writeth against the Church of Rome whom he had a mind to defend in all things, and whose feed advocate he was, must be thought to be drawn from him by evidence of truth; howsoever let it be noted that Alphonsus calleth not him an Haereticke, who denieth Indulgences, as the Knight doth, 
Vid. Rain. Thes. Romana ecclefia nec est Catholica nec sanum membrum Catholicae ecclesie.  but who contemneth the Catholic Church, which neither the Knight, nor any Protestant doth: we deny not, much less do we contemn the authority of the Catholic Church. But we deny that the Roman Church is the Catholic, or a sound member thereof.  
To the fourteenth. Our Ministers do not like Flood, and other jesuits, bring muddy stuff in their sermons, out of Petrus de Voragine, and the like fabulous Authors: but what they produce in this kind against the Pope for his base sale of Indulgences, and making merchandise of his ghostly power, they prove out of good Authors, grave Historians, Canonists, and Schoolmen, such as are the author of the lives of Popes, and the book called Taxa camerae Apostolicae & Centum granamina, together with Wescelius Croningensis, Guicciardine, Henricus de Gandavo, & Altisiodorensis. If Altisiodorensis words are not plain enough, Sum: l. 4. d. relap. Dicunt quidam quod relaxatio non valeat quantum ecclesia permittit, sed facit ut excitentur fideles ad dandum, et decipit eos ecclesia; some say that the Pope's Indulgence prevails not so much as the Church promiseth, but that thereby men are stirred up to give more freely and that therein the Church deceaveth them; what say they to that note in Taxa camerae Apostolicae, 
Nota diligenter quod hujusmodi gratiae non consceduntur pauperibus; quia non sunt, nec possunt consolari. Matth. par. in Hen. 3. Romanorum loculos impregnare.  note diligently that such favours, to wit, Indulgences are not granted to poor● folk, because they have not wherewithal, they cannot be comforted: or that pregnant phrase of Matthew Paris; that Christ's blood alone though it be all sufficient to save souls, yet the same without saintly satisfaction applied by the Pope, is not sufficient to impregnate his holiness' Coffers. If the jesuit smell not in th●se sentences the fat steam of the Pope's Kitchen he hath no nose.  
To the fifteenth. It is well the jesuit termeth the drinking of a health to Almighty God, a tale, and by his quoting no author or it, sheweth that it was a signal lie of his own inventing, when he was between hawk and buzzard: Never any but himself who can blush at nothing, affirmed any such thing of any Protestant, that ever came to that height of impiety and prophannes, as to drink a health to his Maker: 
Historia Ital. l. 13. Leo nullo temporum et locorum habito delectu per universam orbem amplissima privilegia quibus non modo vinis delictorum veniam consequendi sed & defunctorum animus, ejus ignis in quo delicta expiari dicuntur paenis eximendi facultatem pollicebatur, promulgavit, quae quia pecuniae tantum a mortalibus extorquendae gratia concedi notum erat & a questoribus hui● negotio praefectis impudenter administrabantur magnam plerisque locis indignationem offensionemque concitarant, & presertim in Germania ubi a multis ex ejus ministris hujusmodi mortuos penis liberandi facultas parvo pretio vendi, vel in canponum tabernis aleae subiici cernebantur.  but Luitprandus and Polonus, telleth us of one john the twelfth, a Pope of Rome, and consequently no Protestant: who made so bold with Almighty God, as to give Orders in a Stable, and so familiar with the Devil, as to drink a health to him. As for the Knights profane jest as he calleth it: it is no jest, but a serious testimony out of a grave historian, convincing the Pope's agents of Atheism and prophannes, and the Popes themselves, of sordid covetousness, his words are, Leo published large privileges through the whole world without any distinction of times and places, by which he promised not only pardon to the living, but also power to deliver souls of the dead out of Purgatory pains; which because it was known that they were granted only to fill the Pope's coffers, and because his farmers carried themselves lewdly in the sale of them, great offence was taken at them, especeally in Germany, where such Indulgences were set at a low price, and seen to be staked in Taverns and Alehouses at games of Tables.  
To the sixteenth. The Trent Synod was not a Council, but a Conventicle, wholly swayed by the Italian faction, wherein not the flower of the Catholic Church for learning: but the bran of the Romish, bolted by the Pope, was gathered together. Let Andreas Dudithius the Bishop of Quinque eccles. 
Ep. ad Maximil.  who was present at this Council, speak his mind of it, the matter came to that pass, through the wickedness of those hungry Bishops that hung upon the Pope's sleeve, and were created on the sudden by the Pope, for the purpose, that that Council seemed to be an assembly, not of Bishops, but of Hobgoblins, not of men, but of Images, moved like the statues of Daedalus by the sinews of others. What the jesuit addeth of night owls, not daring to appear in the splendour of that Council, hath no colour of truth. For it is no news for owls to appear at popish Counsels. At a Council held at Rome by Pope Heldebrand, 
Fascic. rerum expetend. & sugiend.  Ortwhinus Gratius writeth, there appeared an huge great Owl, which could not be frayed away, but scared all the Bishops. As for Protestants, whom this Blackbird of Antichrist termeth night Owls, if they had flocked to that Council, they had showed themselves not Owls, by appearing in that twilight at Trent, but very Woodcocks, to trust any security offered them by those, who after public faith given to john Huz, and Jerome of prague, notwithstanding the safe conduct of Sigismond the Emperor, for their going to, and coming from the Council at Constance, most cruelly burned them at a stake to ashes.  
To the seventeenth. Divine faith must be grounded upon divine authority, and that cannot be the Catholic faith, which wanteth consent of Fathers. As for those Fathers whose authority Bellarmine draweth ob torto collo, to testify for unwritten traditions de verbo Dei. lib. 4. cap. 7. the jesuit may see them fully answered in junius Whitaker, Daniel Chamierus, and Dr. Davenant Bishop of Sarum, and a fare greater number of Fathers alleged to the contrary, by Robert Abbot in his answer to William Bishop, cap. 7. Philip Morney in his preface to his book, de sacrâ Eucharistiâ and jacobus Laurentius in his singular tractate de Disputationibus, and others.  
To the eighteenth. The assistance of the Holy ghost was more special in the times of the Apostles then in latter ages: they could not err in their writings, others might; yet we charge not the Catholic Church of Christ in any age, with any fundamental error, though we may the Roman; Tertullian his rule may have still place, and as well in one age as another if it be rightly taken, and not misconstrued and misapplied; for if it be taken generally, that whatsoever is the same amongst many, is no error but tradition, it is itself a great error. For the same opinion concerning the inequality of the Father and the Son is found amongst many; to wit, the Arrian Churches: the same doctrine concerning the procession of the Son from the Father only, is found amongst many, namely, all the Greek Churches at this day: the same practice of administering the Eucharist to children, was found amongst many; namely, all the Churches of Africa in St. Austin's time, yea, and in all Church's subject to the Bishop of Rome for many ages, as Maldonat the jesuit confesseth; yet the above named Positions, and this latter practice are confessed on all sides to be erroneous. But Tertullian by many understandeth not the practice of some particular Churches, 
Tertul. de prescrip. Age nunc omnes ecclesiae erraverint verisimile est ut tot et tante in unam fidem erraverint.  much less of factious persons of one Sect, but the general and uniform doctrine and practice of the whole Church as his words in the same Chapter, quoted by the jesuit declare. Go too now, admit that all Churches have erred, is it likely so many, so great Churches should erringly conspire in one faith?  
To the nineteenth. We derogate nothing from any general custom of the Catholic Church, let the jesuit produce out of good Authors any such custom for Indulgences to redeem souls out of Purgatory flames by Papal Indulgences, and this controversy will soon be at an end; howsoever let me tell the jesuit the way, that this text of St. Paul is impertinently alleged to prove this or any other article of the Trent faith. For St. Paul in this place speaketh not of any Article of faith nor matter of manners necessary to salvation, but of habits, gestures fashions, and indifferent rites: in matter of which nature there is no question at all, but that the custom of the Churches of God ought to sway, as is abundantly proved by Dr. Andrew's late Bishop of Winchester, in his printed Sermon upon that text.  
To the twentieth. Disputabamus de alliis respondet jesuita de cepis, we dispute of Indulgences, the jesuit answereth of Traditions in matter of Faith. These are very distinct questions, and so handled by all that deal Work-man-like in points of difference between the Reformed, and the Roman Churches, but the Jesuits common place of Indulgences was drawn dry, and therefore he setteth his cock of Traditions on running, which yields nothing but muddy water. What though Faith be ancienter than Scriptures, the Argument is inconsequent? Ergo, Scripture is not now the perfect rule of Faith. Faith neither is, nor can be more ancient than the Word of God, upon which it is built, this Word of God is now written; and since, the consigning and confirming the whole Canon of the written Word, by Saint john in the Apocalypse, is become the perfect, and as the Schools speaketh, the adequate rule of Faith. It is true, Christ and his Apostles first taught the Church by word of mouth; 
Lib. 3. advers. heres. cap. 1. Non enim per alios dispositionem salutis, nostrae cognovimus quam per eos per quos Evangelium pervenit ad nos, quod quidem tunc praeconiaverunt postea per dei voluntatem in scriptures nobis tradiderunt fundamentum & columnam fidei nostrae futuram.  but afterwards, that which they preached, was by the commandment of God, committed to writing, to be the foundation and pillar of Faith; as Irenaus testifieth in express words.  
To the twenty one. If the jesuit could prove as undoubtedly any words of the Apostles that are not set down in Scriptures, to be their own words, as we can prove the writings we have, to be theirs; we would yield no less credit to them, then to these: but that neither can he, nor so much as undertaketh to do. And whereas he further faith, that the credit of the Scripture depends upon Tradition; unless he qualify the speech some way, it is not only erroneous, but also blasphemous; for it is all one, as if he should say, that man gives credit and authority to God (as Tertullian jeareth the Heathen, 
In Apolloget.  not receiving Christ for God, because the Roman Senate would not give their consent and approbation to make him one, jam homo deo propitius esse debet) or that the credit and authority of God's Word dependeth upon man's receiving it. Whereas in truth, God's Word is not therefore of divine and infallible authority, because the Church delivereth it to be so; but on the contrary, the Church delivereth it to be so, because in itself it is so; and the Church should err damnably, if she should otherwise conceive of these inspired Writings, then as of the undoubted Oracles of God, to which we own absolute consent and belief, 
Vid. August. supr. cit.  without any question or contradiction.  
To the two and twentieth. Saint Austin defends no point of Faith against Heretics, either only or chief, by the Tradition and practice of the Catholic Church; but either only or chief by the Scriptures. For example, in his book of Baptism, against the Donatists, after he had debated the point by Scriptures, he mentioneth the custom of the Church, and relateth Stephanus his proceeding against such as went about to overthrow the ancient custom of the Catholic Church in that point. But he not where grounds his Doctrine upon that custom, though he doth well approve of it, as we do. Again, in his book against Maximinus, and his 174 Epist. to Pascentius, he confirmeth the faith of the Trinity by the written Word, against those Heretics: his words, Ep. 175, 
Haec siplacet audire quemadmodum è Scripturis sacris asserantur.  to the same Pascentius are; Here thou mayst hear, if thou wilt, how these points of our Faith are maintained by Scripture. So fare is he from founding those, or any other points of faith only, or chief upon unwritten Traditions. What the jesuit allegeth out of his tenth book, De Genes. ad literam, cap. 23. 
Consuetudo matris Ecclesiae in baptizandis parvulis nequaquam spernendus est, neque ullo modo superflua deputanda.  no whit advantageth his cause; for there Saint Austin saith no more, but The custom of the Church in baptising Infants, is no way to be despised, or to be accounted superfluous. We all say the same, and condemn the Pelagians of old, and Anabaptists of late, who deny Baptism to be administered to children, or any way derogate from the necessity of that Sacrament. The jesuit saith, he will say nothing of Prayer for the dead, yet he quoteth Saint Austin, de curâ pro mortuis, as if in that book he taught Prayer for the dead, and grounded it upon unwritten Tradition. Whereas in that book, he neither maintaineth Prayer for the dead, nor maketh mention of any unwritten Tradition for it; but on the contrary, solidly out of Scriptures proveth, 
Esaias Propheta dicit, Abraham nos nescivit, et Israel non cognovit nos: si tanti patriarchae, quid erga populum ex his procreatur, ageretur, ignoraverunt quomodo mortui vivorum rebus atque actibus cog noscendis adjuvandisque miscentur; et paulo post ibi ergo sunt spiritus defunctorum ubi non vident quecunque aguntur, aut eveniunt in istâ vitâ hominibus. Ep. 118. Si quid hocum sic faciendum divinae Scripturae praescribat authoritas, non est dubitandum quin ita facere debeamus, similiter si quid per orbem tota frequentat Ecclesia.  that the Saints departed have no knowledge of our affairs upon earth: the Prophet Esay saith, Abraham knoweth us not, and Israel is ignorant of us. If so great Patriarches knew not what befell their posterity after their death; how can it be defended, that the dead intermeddle with the actions or affairs of the living, to help them onward, or so much as to take notice of them? A little after, he concludes flat upon the Negative, The Spirits therefore of the dead there remain where they know not what befalleth to men in this life. To what end therefore, should we call upon them in our troubles and distress here? Neither hath this Father any thing in his 118 Epistle for the jesuit, or against us; for there he speaketh of Ecclesiastical Rites and Customs, as appears in the very title of that Epistle, not of Doctrines of Faith: and yet, even in these, he giveth a pre-eminence to the Scriptures. If, saith he, the authority of divine Scripture prescribe any Rite or Custom to be kept, there is no question to be made of such a Rite or Custom: and in like manner, if the whole Church throughout the world constantly useth such a Rite or Custom. The jesuites next allegation out of this Father's book De unitate Eccles. cap. 22. falleth short of his mark; he saith there, that Christ beareth witness to his Church, that it should be Catholic, that is, spread over the face of the Earth, and not to be confined to any certain place; as the Province of Africa. We say the same, and add, that the bounds of it, are no more the territories of the Bishop of Rome, than the Provinces of Africa. We grant, that Whosoever refuseth to follow the practice of the Church, to wit, the Catholic, or universal Church, resisteth, or goeth against our Saviour, who promised by his spirit, to lead her into all truth, and to be with her to the end of the World. Which promise may yet stand good and firm, though any particular Church err in Faith, or manners, as did the Churches of Asia, planted by the Apostles themselves, and the Church of Rome doth at this day. 
Cont. lit. Petil. l. 3. c. 6.  Now, because that testimony of Saint Austin, wherewith the Knight concludes almost every Section; If we, or an Angel from heaven, preach unto you any thing, whether it be of Christ, or of his Church, or any thing which concerneth Faith, or manners, besides that which you have received in the Legal and Evangelicall Scriptures, let him be accursed; is as a beam in all Papists eyes; therefore, they use all possible means to take it out, but all in vain; for the words of the Apostle, on which Saint Paul commenteth, are not as the jesuit would have them: If any man preach unto you, Contra against; but if any preach unto you, Praeter besides: 
Ep. ad Galat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Neque enim inquit si contraria solum predicaverint intulit anathema esto, sed si evangelizaverint preter id quod ipsi evangelisavimus, hoc est, si plusculum quidpiam adjecerent.  as Saint chrysostom and Theophylact accutely observe. The Apostle saith not (if chrysostom rightly understand him) if they should preach any thing contrary; but if they shall in their preaching, add any thing, be it never so little, besides that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. And Theophylact is altogether as plain as chrysostom, in his Gloss upon the words, The Apostle inferreth not, if any man preach contrary to that ye have received; but if any preach besides that which we have preached unto you, that is, if they shall presume to add any thing, though never so little, let them be accursed. Neither doth Saint Austin in his tractate upon Saint john, upon which Bellarmine, and after him, Flood, so much bear themselves, any whit contradict the former interpretations of Saint chrysostom and Theophylact. For his words in that place carry this sense, The Apostle saith not, if any man preach more unto you, than you have already received, that is, perfectly conceived and apprehended: for than he should go against himself, who saith, that he desired to come to the Thessalonians, to supply that which was lacking to their Faith; to supply, I say, that which was lacking to their Faith, not to the Gospel which Saint Paul preached: he saith not, let him be accursed, who further informeth you in the Doctrine of the Scriptures, or delivereth you more out of them, than ye have yet received within that Rule; but he that delivereth you any thing besides that Rule. And that this is his meaning, appeareth by the words immediately following, which the jesuit cunningly suppresseth, to wit, these, Qui praetergreditur regulam fidei, non accedit in viâ, sed recedit de viâ; He that goeth besides the Rule of Faith, doth not go on in the way, but departeth out of the way. Yea; but the word in the Greek translation, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, here used, is the same with that, Rom. 16.17. which we in our Bible's translate, against, not Praeter, besides. Yea, but the Jesuits in their own Latin vulgar translation, to which they are all sworn, (as we are not to ours) render this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Praeter besides, and not Contra against: and that this translation is most agreeable to the Apostles meaning, appeareth by comparing this text, Rom. 16.17. with a parralelled text, 2 Thes. 3.6. Withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the Tradition which you have received of us. There is no necessity therefore, of expounding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in that text to the Romans, by Contra against; we may as well (or better) expound it by Praeter, that is, besides: yet, if in one place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might signify Contra, it doth not follow that it must be so taken, Galathians 1.8. for it is well known, that the natural and most usual signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek, is Praeter besides, not Contra against; and words are to be taken in their most proper and usual signification, unless some necessary reason, drawn from the circumstances of the text, or analogy of faith enforceth us to leave it, which here it doth not. As for Saint Austin's judgement in the point itself, to wit, that Scripture is the perfect rule of Faith, he plainly delivereth it, both in his 49 tractate upon john, and in the ninth chapter of the second book De doctrinâ christianâ; and in the last chapter of his second book De peccatorum meritis & remissione, and in his book De bono viduitatis, cap. 11. What words can be more express and direct for the sufficiency of Scripture, than those in his 49 tractate upon john? The Lord jesus did, 
Quae saluti credentium sufficere videbuntur. In iis quae aperte posita sunt in Scriptura inveniuntur illa omnia quae continent fidem, moresque vivendi. G. ult. Credo etiam h●ic divinorun eloquiorun clarissima authoritas esset, si homo illud sine dispendio salutis ignorare non posset. Sancta Scriptura nostrae doctrinae regulam sixit, ne auderemus sapere ultra quam oportet.  and spoke many things which are not written, as the Evangelist testifieth; but those things were chosen to be written, which seemed to suffice for the salvation of Believers: unless those in his second book, De doctrina christiana, Among those things which are openly or plainly set down in Scriptures, all things are found which concern or contain Faith or manners: or those in his second book of the remission of sins, I believe that the authority of divine Scriptures, would have been most clear and evident in this point, if a man could not have been ignorant of it, without peril of his salvation: or lastly, those in his book in the commendation of Widowhood, What should I teach thee more than that which thou readest in the Apostle? for the holy Scripture settleth the rule of our Doctrine, lest we should presume to be wise above that we ought.    

Concerning the infallible certainty of the Protestant faith, and the uncertainty of the Romish; Spectacles, Chapter the 10. a page 346. usque ad 380.  
THE Knights failing in his proofs of our novelty is a sufficient proof of our antiquity, and his own novelty.  
The Jesuits may not be ashamed of the oath they take to defend the Papacy, nay, they may glory in it as an heroical act, whereby they bind themselves to the defence of that authority whereon the weight and frame of the whole Catholic Church and salvation of all souls from Christ his own time, to the very end of the world; hath, doth, and still shall depend.  
Catholic Doctors whom the Knight chargeth with division among themselves, may indeed differ in opinion so long as a thing is undefined, for so long it is not faith, but when it is once defined, than they must be silent, and concur all in one, because than it is matter of faith.  
The Knight can have no certainty of his Christianity, because that dependeth upon his Baptism, or the faith of his parents which he cannot know.  
He can have no certainty of his Marriage, or the legitimation of his children, because the validity of the contract dependeth upon the intention of the parties which marry, and no man can have any certain knowledge of another's intention, and so the Knight is in no better case than his adversaries in this respect.  
It is clean a different thing to dispute of the certainty of the Catholic faith which we maintain, and of every man's private and particular belief of his own justification or salvation, which we deny to be so certain: the one being grounded upon the authority of God's divine truth, and revelation, the other upon humane knowledge, or rather conjecture. Howscever though we be not certain by certainty of divine faith, that this or that man in particular is truly baptised or ordained a Priest; yet we are certain by the certainty of divine faith, that not only there be such Sacraments, but that they are also truly administered in the Catholic Church.  
It might be good and profitable as Bellarmine noteth, to invoke the Saints, though they themselves should not hear us, as the Knight would prove out of Peter Lombard and Gabriel Biel, who though they doubt of the manner, yet they doubt not of the thing itself; Gabriel saith, the Saints are invocated not as givers of the good things for which we pray, but as intercessors to God the giver of all good. And Peter Lombard saith that our prayers become known to the Angels in the word of God which they behold, so also do Saints that stand before God.  
Though it be true which Caietan saith, that it cannot be known infallibly that the miracles whereon the Church groundeth the Canonization of Saints be true: yet it followeth not that we are uncertain whether the Canonised Saints be in Heaven or no, because the certainty of Canonization dependeth upon more certain ground, to wit, the authority of the See Apostolic, and continual assistance and direction of the Holyghost, the spirit of truth, to whom it belongeth not to suffer Christ's Vicar, using humane diligence, and proceeding prudently in a matter of that moment, 
Ep. 68 vivebant ut latrones, honoraebantur ut martyrs.  to err; and whereas St. Austin saith that many were tormented with the Devil in Hell, who were worshipped by men on earth: it may be well understood of the Martyrs of the Donatists, who were Canonised by those Haeretikes to be Martyrs, whose souls were tormented in Hell: and whereas Sulpitius and Cassander speak of wicked Robbers and damned persons honoured by the name of Holy Martyrs, it followeth not that because some people in St. Martin's time did err in worshipping a dead thief for a Saint, without any approbation of the Church: ergo Catholics may err in worshipping of Saints Canonised and Authorized by the Church.  
Though Gregory, and other Catholic Divines differ about the place, manner, punishment, and durance of Purgatory: yet, none rejecteth the belief of Purgatory itself. And as for Saint Austin, alleged by the Knight to the contrary, his words are to be meant of the final and eternal place of souls. For otherwise, Saint Austin is so express for Purgatory, in the very book and place quoted by the Knight, to wit, in his Enchiridian ad Laurentium, that Mr. Antony Alcock, a zealous Disciple of Luther, as it seemeth, translating it into English, is feign to write certain annimadversions upon this Chapter, wherein he confesseth, 
C. 110. Neque negandum est defunctorum animus, etc.  Saint Austin's opinion is here for Purgatory. The Saints own words are, Neither is it to be denied, that the souls of the dead are relieved by the piety of their friends living, when the sacrifice of our Mediator is offered for them, or alms given in the Church. The same Father elsewhere saith, The whole time between the death of a man, and the general resurrection, containeth the souls in hidden receptacles, as each is worthy, either of ease or pain.  
The Doctrine of Catholics, concerning worshipping of Images, is not uncertain, it being this only, that Images are to be worshipped, but not as Gods. For the second Council of Nice, it requireth not only kissing of Images, and a civil kind of embracing, but a prostration on the ground, and praying on the knees before them: Gregory de Valentia taketh the word Simulacrum, in a good sense, and concludeth out of Saint Peter, that some Image-worship is lan full, not any Idol worship, as the Knight imposeth on him.  

The Hammer.  
IN this Chapter, the jesuit in the fourth, fift, sixth, seventh, twelfth, fifteen, and sixteen Paragraphs, doth nothing but seethe again his old Coleworts, which were tasted before, and after cast into the dunghill. From whence, I purpose not to gather them again, or set them before the Reader, lest his stomach should rise at them: but I address myself to examine only such Sophisms, Cavils and Evasions, whereby he indeavoureth to elude or retort the Knight's arguments, brought against him in this Section, in order as I have set them down.  
To the first. The consequence of the jesuit, drawn from the Knights supposed failing in his proofs, fails many ways, as may be proved by manifold instances. For albeit, many later Mathematicians fail in refuting Copernicus his giddy opinion of the earth's circular motion, and the heavens standing still: yet this their failing is no sufficient proof of Copernicus his new fancy: neither will it follow, that the religion of Pagans & Infidels hath sufficient ground, because Lactantius fails in his proofs of Christianity, in Saint Ieromes judgement: and Cyprian also in the judgement of Lactantius. The defects of the Patron or Advocate, ought not to be imputed to the cause. It is a weak and silly Religion, whose whole strength consisteth in the weakness of some of the opposers of it. The truth is, the Knight hath not failed in his proofs of the novelty of the Trent Creed, as the judicious Reader will find: yet if there were any defect in them, it may be abundantly supplied out of Iuels challenge at Saint Pauls-Crosse, Abbot's answer to Bishop, entitled, The true ancient Roman Catholic, and Doctor Faner in his Book of Antiquity, triumphing over novelty, and divers others.  
To the second. That the salvation of all souls dependeth upon the Pope's supremacy, which the jesuits are bound by a fourth, and supernumerary vow to defend, is a bold and blasphemous assertion, derogatory to Christ himself, who is the Saviour of his body, 
Ephes. 5.23. 1 Cor. 3.11.  and only foundation which beareth up the weight and frame of the whole Catholic Church. When Christ said to Peter, Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock will I build my Church; he meant not, as Saint Austin rightly observeth, To build himself upon Peter, but Peter and the whole Church upon himself; non super te edificabome, sed super me edificabo te. The Church was founded and established before there was any Pope or Bishop at Rome, and shall so continue, when Rome shall, perchance, be burnt with fire, 
Tract. de auferibilit. Papae.  and the Papacy which now tottereth, shall be utterly destroyed. Doth not their own Gerson teach, that the Pope may be quite removed, and yet the Catholic Church still remain? how then can the Jesuit say, that the weight and frame of the whole Catholic Church dependeth upon the authority of the Pope?  
To the third. The Knight used a dilemma, or twoforked Argument. Either the Pope's sworn-Servants, and our sworn enemies, whose depositions before we heard, against divers articles of the Trent Faith, concurred with other Papists in judgement, or not: if they concurred, then by the joint confession of all, for those points, at least, they are destitute of universality, which yet they make a prime note of their Church: if others concurred not with them in judgement, than their Doctors are divided amongst themselves, and consequently, they want another special mark of their Church, which they make unity in point of Faith. To avoid the push of this Ram, the jesuit starts 
* Quintil. Institut. orat. lib. 6. Diverticula et anfractus suffugia sunt infirmitatis, ut qui cursu parum valent flexu eludunt.  aside into a Scholastical speculation, whether any thing is to be held for an article of Faith before it be defined, and resolveth the matter thus: When a a thing is once defined, to wit, by the Church, than it becomes a matter of Faith. He should rather determine, because this or that is a matter of Faith, therefore the Church defineth it to be so, and not because the Church defineth it to be so, therefore it is a matter of Faith. For Faith, if it be divine, is founded upon God's Word, not the Church's definition: if nothing be matter of Faith, before it be defined by your Church, than Transubstantiation was no article of Faith, before the Council of Laterane, and Innocentius the third his days; nor the Doctrine of Concommitancie, and lawful communicating in one kind, before the Council of Constance, under Martin the fift; nor the Pope's superiority to Counsels, before the Council at Laterane, under Leo the tenth; nor most of Pope Pius the fourth his Articles, before the late Council of Trent, wherein those points were first defined. Then which, what Argument can be more forcible, to convince the novelty of the Romish Faith? But whether an article of Faith is to be accounted such, because it is defined to be such by the Church; or whether it be defined to be such by the Church, because it is such in its own nature; it will little serve the jesuits turn to make up the breaches of the Roman Church. For certain it is, that their Doctors differ amongst themselves, even in points defined by the Church. For after the books of the Old Testament, with all the parts (known by the name of Apocrypha) by the Council of Trent were defined to be of Canonical authority; Sixtus Senensis makes scruple of some of them. 
Sixtus Senens. bib. Sanct. l. 1.  After the immaculate conception of our Lady was defined by Sixtus the fourth, and the feast in testimony thereof, authorised by him; yet, the Dominicans generally hold, that she was conceived in sin. After Justification by inherent righteousness, 
De Caus. instit. l. 7. c. 21.  was defined in the Council of Trent, Albertus Pighius and others, cited by Vegas held the contrary. And though the Council of Trent stigmatize the doctrine touching assurance of salvation, yet Ambrose Catharinus, a learned Papist, set forth a learned treatise de certitudine salutis. Lastly, though Pope Leo the tenth, in the Council of Lateran, defineth the Pope to be above a general Council, yet the Sorbonists at this day maintain, that a general Council is above the Pope. Therefore as St Thomas Moor said pleasantly of a poor Physician that he was more than medicus, to wit, by one letter, 
Mor. in Epigr.  meaning that he was mendicus. una tibi plus est litera quam medico; so it may truly be said of the unity Papists brag so much of, that it is more than Unity by a letter, to wit, Vanity.  
To the fourth. If the Knight or any Protestant suspended the efficacy of their Baptism upon the faith of their Parents, or (as all Papists do) upon the intention of the Priest, the jesuit might with some colour object to us the uncertainty of our Christendom: but let him know if he doth not, that we maintain generally that the effect of Baptism dependeth not upon the faith of the Parents and Godfathers, nor yet upon the intention of the Priest, known to God only and himself; but upon his outward action and his words known to all the Congregation. We say that the observation of Christ's institution in baptising the party in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holyghost, and not the Priests hidden intention makes Baptism effectual to all that belong to the covenant.  
To the fift. The jesuit most absurdly inferreth absurdities upon his own Tenet, supposing it to be ours, whereas we disclaim it, affirming that although the Church useth in marriage, all means possible by questions and answers, by joining hands, by plighting their troth in most significant terms, and confirming their mutual promises by giving and receiving a ring, and denouncing Gods judgements against them in most fearful manner, if they know any thing one by the other, why they should not be joined in marriage, yet because the heart is known to God alone, the validity of marriage with us dependeth upon the outward profession, and sacred action done before sufficient and undoubted witness and not the secret intentions of the party. What the jesuit addeth by way of jeer, that a small deal of orders serves our turns, for he seethe not any thing done by virtue of our ordination which any man or woman may not do without it. I hold it not worthy any other answer than that, sigh he professeth his eye sight to be so dim, he would make use of the Spectacles he made for the Knight, by help of them if he be not stark blind, he may see, that by virtue of our ordination, men in holy orders preach the Gospel, administer the Sacraments, remit and retain sins: which if he think any man or woman may do without ordination, like the fool in the Poet, 
Dum vitant stulti vitia in contrario currunt.  he is gone from one extreme to the other, and of a Papist become an Anabaptist. With us none may execute the Priest's office, but he that is called thereunto, as was Aaron. If the jesuit mean that any man or woman may do the outward acts of Priesthood de facto, though not de jure: may they not do the like also sometimes among them? doth not their Legend tell us that some Boys getting by heart and pronouncing the words of Consecration, hoc est Corpus meum, turned all the Baker's bread in the street into flesh? Do not Lady Abbesses and Nuns chant Matins together in Romish Chapels? Do not Midwives christian children in their Church? With what face then can he charge us with those disorders whereof all the world seethe we are free, but he and his Church most guilty?  
To the sixth. If we can have but a conjectural and wavering knowledge of our salvation, what comfort can a true Christian have in life or death? If his hope be only in this life, the Apostle affirmeth expressly, 
1 Cor. 15.19.  that he is of all men most miserable; and certainly he is but little better if all his hope in the life to come be no better than a guess, or slender conjecture. justly therefore did Martin Luther term the Romish doctrine concerning uncertainty of salvation, non doctrinam fidei sed diffidentiae, no doctrine of faith but of diffidence and distrust, which if this jesuit stiffly maintains, I would feign know of him how he interpreteth that Article of the Creed, I believe the remission of sins. Is the meaning only this, that there is a remission of some sins in the Church? if so, than the Devil believes as much concerning this Article as he, but if as he believeth in the Article of the Resurrection, the Resurrection of his own flesh, so in the Article of remission of sins, the remission of his own sins; then his own justification, and particular belief of his own saltion is a part of his Catholic faith; and if that be but conjectural, then there is no certainty in the Catholic Faith. It is true, that it is a different thing to dispute of the certainty of the Catholic faith in general, and of every man's private and particular belief of his own justification, and salvation: yet there is such a dependence between them, that if the former be uncertain the latter cannot be certain. Yea but (saith the jesuit) we are certain, by the certainty of divine faith, not only that there be seven Sacraments, but that they are also truly administered in the Church, so as there can be no danger of the failing of either, to the notable prejudice of faith and the salvation of souls. I reply first, that for five of the seven as was discussed at large, Section the fourth, the jesuit is so fare from any certainty that indeed he can bring no probability that there be any such Sacraments in the Catholic Church; and for the other two which we acknowledge to be Sacraments properly so called, he cannot be certain that they are ever effectually administered in his Church according to their own Tenants, who suspend the efficacy of them upon the Priest's intention. Nay farther, he cannot be certain that they have any Church at all amongst them, for there can be no Church (as they teach) without a visible succession of lawful Pastors, whereof he cannot be certain, sigh no man knoweth whether the Bishops, who ordained their Priests, or the Archbishop, who ordained their Bishops, or the Pope, who consecrated their Archbishops, intended that which your Church intendeth; and if there failed an intention in any of all these, or in him who baptised or ordained their first Pope, (since the Bishops of Rome began to be Popes) he hath no certainty according to his own grounds, of any Priesthood or Christianity in his Church.  
To the seventh. I never heard before, that it could be good, or any way profitable surdo fabulum narrare, to tell a Tale in the care of a deaf man. Where do the Scriptures, or ancient Fathers give any approbation to such senseless devotion? can a man call upon him with faith, or any hope of obtaining his suit, whom he conceiveth to be out of his hearing? Yea, but Gabriel Biel speaketh not doubtfully, but certainly, of Invocation, though he seem to doubt of the manner how Saints in heaven know our necessities on earth. Biel indeed lispeth somewhat that way, but he speaketh not plain; he saith, Invocantur sancti, not sancti sant invocandi; he speaketh confidently and certainly of the practice of the Roman Church, out not of the truth of this point of the Romish Faith, that Saints ought to be called upon: for that he taught, 
In Can. Missae Dist. 31. videri probabile.  that It may seem probable that God revealeth to Saints, all those suits which men present unto them: consequently holdeth, that it may seem also probable, that the living may pray unto them. But what is this his probabile, or Peter Lumbards' not incredibile, to build an Article of Faith upon? Yea, but Peter Lombard, though he make some doubt, whether the Saints hear our Prayers as they proceed from us, (they being in Heaven, and we in Earth, they being but in one place, 
Sicut enim Angelis, ita etiam sanctis qui Deo assistant, petitiones nostrae innotescunt in verbo Dei quod contemplantur.  and those that call upon them in a million of places, distant fare one from the other) yet, He maketh no doubt of their knowing and seeing our Prayers in the Word of God, as the Angels do. I answer, that this imaginary Glass of the Schoolmen, wherein they conceive, that the Saints and Angels see all things by the contemplation of God, in whom are all things, hath been long ago battered in pieces. For if, because they see God, they must needs see all things that are in him, and know all that he knoweth; it would hereupon ensue, that the Saints knowledge should be infinite, as Gods is: that they should know the day and hour when Christ shall come to judgement, contrary to the express words of our Saviour, Mark 13.32. that they should know the secrets of all hearts, which the Scripture ascribeth as a singular prerogative to God. To avoid these Rocks, if our Adversaries will confine the knowledge of the Saints or Angels, to such things only, as God shall be pleased to reveal unto them, they beg then the point in question, which they ought to prove: viz. That God will reveal to every Saint, what every man on earth prayeth to him for.  
To the eighth. First the jesuit in this answer flatly contradicteth Cajetan, whom he undertaketh to defend: for, if the Church groundeth not the canonisation of Saints upon the report of miracles voiced on them: Cajetans' Argument in that place is weak, and of no force. Secondly, for the authority of the See Apostolic, and the infallibility of the Pope's judgement, they are as uncertain, or more than that such persons canonised by the Pope are Saints. 
L. 3. ep. 3. nec quisquam sibi quod soli filio tribuit pater vindicare se putet, ut ad areum pargandam, etc. 1 Kings 8.39.  Saint Cyprian in his time, severely censured those who arrogated to themselves that which the Father hath given to the Son only; to wit, in the floor of the Church, to take the fan in his hand, and sever the Wheat from the Chaff. If God only knoweth the hearts of all the children of men, either the Pope must be God, as the Canonists blasphemously called him, or he cannot infallibly know who are true Saints, and sincerely believe, and love God. As for Saint Austin's complaint (that many were worshipped by men on earth that are tormented by the devil in hell) they are indefinitely spoken, and not restrained to Donatists, or any other Heretics: yet, were it so, we may see in those Donatists a perfect picture of Papists. For what Donatus did in Africa, that doth the Pope in Europe; he canonizeth those of his faction for Saints. And as the Donatists gave the honour of Martyrs to those, who justly suffered death for Robberies and Murders, so do the Papists crown the heads of Murderers and Traitors with the garland of Martyrdom; witness Becket, Campian, Oldcorne, and Garnet; whereof the first standeth in the Calendar of Romish Saints, the later in the Register of Jesuitical Martyrs. Neither can the jesuit so easily fillip off the testimony of Cassander, as if he taxed the ignorant for making a Saint of a Thief, 
Cassan. consult. art. 2.  and no way touched upon the Pope or your Church; for he layeth not the blame upon the people, as the jesuit here doth, but saith simply, that Saint Martin found a place honoured in the name of a holy Martyr, to be the sepulchre of a wicked Robber. Secondly, 'tis well known that the people cry not up at first a Saint; or Martyr after his death, but the Priests, who voice miracles upon them, and keep their Shrines and Relics, and by showing them to the people, make no less gain, than Demetrius and his fellow Craftsmen did of their silver Shrines of Diana.  
To the ninth. As he that plucks the sticks out of the Chimney one by one, at last puts out the fire: so the Knight by loosening, or quite removing the fuel of Purgatory fire, consequently extinguisheth it. If all the parts and circumstances of the Doctrine of Popish Purgatory are doubtful and uncertain, the whole certainly can be no Article of Faith: but the Antecedent the Knight proves out of Bellarmine, Dominicus a Soto, Fisher Bishop of Rochester, Gregory the great, and venerable Bede, let the jesuit therefore look to the Consequent. The Church of Rome commandeth every one upon pain of hellfire, to believe a temporary purging fire after this life. First, upon what ground, Scripture, or unanimous consent of Fathers, or Tradition of the Catholic Church? no such thing. But upon apparitions of dead men, and testimony of Spirits, whether good Spirits or evil they cannot tell. Next, we demand what souls, and how long do they continue there? To this they must answer likewise Ignoramus. Soto thinketh that none continueth in this purgation ten years. If this be true, saith Bellarmine, No soul needs to stay in purging one hour. Thirdly, the souls that are supposed to be there, till their sins are purged, where with are they purged? With fire only; so saith Sir Thomas Moor, and proves it out of Zacharie 9.11. Thou hast delivered the prisoners out of the place where there is no water: or with water and fire: so saith Gregory in his Dialogues, lib. 4. Some are purged by fire, and some by baths: and Fisher Bishop of Rochester, proves it out of those words of the Psalmist, We have passed thorough fire and water. Fourthly, admit they are purged by fire, whether is this fire material or metaphorical? Ignoramus, We know not, saith Bellarmine, lib. 2. de Purg. cap. 6. Lastly, is there any mitigation of this pain in Purgatory, or no? They cannot tell this neither. For venerable Bede, hist. Ang. lib. 5. tells us of the apparition of a Ghost, reporting that There was an infernal place where souls suffered no pain, where they had a brook running through it. Neither is it improbable, saith Bellarmine, l. 2. de Purg. cap. 7. that there should be such an honourable prison, which is a most mild and temperate Purgatory. Yea, but saith the jesuit, Saint Austin is a firm man for Purgatory, and he will prove it out of that book of Enchiridion, and place quoted by the Knight. Resolutely spoken, but so falsely, 
Encharid. ad Laurent. c 69. Tale aliquid etiam post hanc vitam fieri incredibile non est, et utrum ita sit quaeri potest et ut inveniri, aut latere possit, nonnullos fideles per ignem quendam purgaiorium salvari non tamen tales de quibus dictum est regnum Dei non posside bant.  that in this very book, chapter 69, Saint Austin speaking of a purging fire, and commenting upon the words of Saint Paul, He shall be saved as it were by fire; addeth immediately, It is not unlikely that some such thing may be after this life: but whether it be so or no, it may be argued; and whether it can be found, or not found, that some Believers are saved by a purging fire; yet it is certain, that none of them shall be saved, of whom the Apostle saith, they shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. And in the same book, chapter 109. he resolves, that All souls from the day of their death to their resurrection, abide in expectation what shall become of them, and are reserved in secret receptacles accordingly as they deserve, either torment or ease. These hidden Cells or Receptacles wheresoever they are situated in St. Augustine's judgement, 
C. 109. Tempus quod inter hominis mortem & ultimam resurrectionem interpositum est animus abditis receptaculis continet, sicut unaqueque digna est vel requiae vel arumnâ.  certain it is, they are not in the Popish Purgatory; for St. Austin placeth in these secret Mansions all souls indifferently, good or bad, whereas the Popish Purgatory is restrained only to those of a middle condition, being neither exceeding good nor exceeding bad. Again, in St. Austin's hidden repositories, some souls have ease, and some pain, as each deserveth: but in the Romish Purgatory, all souls are in little-ease, being tormented in a flame little differing from Hell fire, or rather nothing at all, save only in time, the pains are as grievous but not so durable. Else where St. Austin is most direct against Purgatory, and wholly for us, as namely, de peceat. meritis de remissione, l. 1. c. 28. There is no middle or third place, saith he, but he must needs be with the Devil who is not with Christ. And Hypog. l. 5. The first place the faith of Catholics by divine authority believeth to be the Kingdom of Heaven, the second to be Hell, tertium locum penitùs ignoramus, the third place, we are altogether ignorant of; and in his book de vanit. seculi cap. 1. Know that when the soul is separated from the body, statim, presently, it is either placed in Paradise for his good work, or cast headlong into the bottom of hell for his sins. Neither can the jesuit evade by saying that there are two only places where the souls remain finally and eternally, to wit, Heaven and Hell, but yet that there is a third place where the bodies fry in purging for a time; for St. Austin speaks of all souls in general both good and bad, and saith that statim, that is, presently upon death, they are received into Heaven, or thrown into Hell; and therefore stay no time in a Third place. What then say we to the passage in which the jesuit so triumpheth? Enchirid. ad Laurenc. c. 110. Neither is it to be denied, that the souls of the dead are relieved by the piety of their friends living, when the Sacrifice of our Mediator is offered for them, and Alms given in the Church. We answer, that where St. Austin is not constant to himself, we are not bound to stand to his authority, and therefore we appeal from Saint Austin missing his way in this place, to the same Austin, 
Nullum auxilium misericordiae potest preberi a justis defunctorum animabus etiamsi justi praebere velint, quia est immutabilis divina sententia Qualis quisque moritur talis a Deo judicatur, nec potest mutari, corrigi, vel minus dimia sententia.  hitting his way elsewhere, namely, l. 2. Quest. Evan. c. 38. There can be no help of mercy afforded by just men to the souls of the deceased, although the righteous would never so feign have it so, because the sentence of God is immutable: and Ep. 80. ad Hesich. such as a man is when he dieth, for such he is judged of God, neither can the sentence of God be changed corrected, or diminished. As for Mr. Anthony Alcots confession, that Saint Austin's opinion was for purgatory, it maketh not for the jesuit, but against him; for he saith, it was his opinion, not his resolved judgement, and his opinion at one place and at one time, which after he retracted and resolved the clean contrary, as Mr. Alcots there in part showeth, and Danaeus most fully in his Comment upon St. Austin his Enchiridian ad Laurentium.  
To the tenth. If all Papists did agree in this, that all Images were to be worshipped, but not as Gods; yet are they at odds in other Quillets concerning Images, namely, whether they are to be worshipped in themselves, and for themselves, or only ratione prototypi, in regard of that they represent: whether properly, or improperly: whether with kissing and embracing, and other civil compliments, as Tharasius the Patriarch of Constantinople teacheth, or with prostration, or corporal submission before Images, as the jesuit indeavoureth to prove out of the Acts of the second Council of Nice. Neither is it certain, and resolved among all Papists, that Images are to be worshipped, but not as Gods. For some of them deny, that they are at all to be worshipped, others over-lavish on the contrary, and teach, that they are to be worshipped as God. 
De Imag. sanct. l. 2. c. 22.  For though Bellarmine himself approve not the opinion of those Roman Catholics, who teach that Latria, or divine honour is due to Images, unless it be improperly, and by accident; yet he confesseth that Alexander de Hales, Aquinas, Cajetanus, Bonaventure, Marsilius, Almain, Carthusian, Capreolus, and Henricus teach, that The Images of God are to be worshipped with the same worship wherewith God himself is worshipped; and what is this less, than to worship Images as God? As for the Canons and curses of the Council of Nice, they are but Bruta fulmina, and if the jesuit be not as senseless as the Images which he worshippeth, he must needs confess as much. For to speak nothing of the ridiculous arguments used in that Council, such as these are; God made Man after his own Image, therefore we may make or worship Images: and the Angels are to be painted, quia corporei sunt, because they are bodily substances. What is there spoken in the 115 Psalm, the 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 verses, against Idols, which may not be applied to your Popish Images? It is said of them, They are the works of men's hands; are yours the work of Angels, or Devils? It is said of them, They have mouths and speak not, eyes and see not, ears and hear not, noses and smell not, hands and handle not, feet and walk not: do any of your venerable Images made of silver and gold (or rather, of which you make so much silver and gold of) speak, see, hear, smell, handle or walk? I conclude therefore in the words of the Psalmist, They that make these Images are like unto them, and so are all they that defend the worship of them. For Gregory de Valentia, the jesuit telleth but a sorry tale; for first, he disparageth his learning in the Greek, saying, that alleging a Text out of Saint Peter, who wrote in Greek, he followed the Latin translation, never looking to the original: which argueth in him, either gross ignorance in the Greek, or gross negligence. After he hath thus disgraced their noble Champion, he leaveth him in the open field, saying, pag. 377. Neither do I allow Valentia his use of the word Simulacrum, nor his explication of Saint Peter's text, neither this his argument drawn from thence. The truth is, Gregory de Valentia is unexcusable; 
De Idolatr. l. 2. Quid attinebat ita determinatè cultus simulacrorum illicitos notare, si omnino nullos simulacrorum cultus licitos esse censuisset.  for howsoever he distinguisheth of Image and idol-worship, and intendeth to prove no more out of Saint Peter, then that some Image-worship is lawful: yet, if his collection were good out of Saint Peter, it would prove some idol-worship to be lawful. For Saint Peter's word is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unlawful Idolatries; and if because Saint Peter brandeth Idolatry with the epithet of Unlawful, he will infer that therefore some Idolatry is lawful: by the same reason he might conclude, that some Adultery or Theft were good and profitable, because the Apostle, Ephes. 5.21. biddeth us to have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness. For the distinction of an Image and an Idol, I have spoken at large heretofore; here only I observe, that the jesuit (in saying that Idolum, according to the prime signification of the word, might be taken more indifferently, because it signifieth the seeming shape or beauty of a thing or person) contradicteth himself, and the whole current of his own Doctors, and strengtheneth our Arguments against them, drawn from the prohibition of making or worshipping Idols, that is, the shape or beauty of any thing or person. 
Flood, pag. 337.  The shape or beauty of any thing or person, according to the prime signification and etymology of the word is an Idol: but all Popish Images are the shapes of some thing or person, they are all therefore Idols, and the worshippers of them Idolaters, according to the primitive signification of the word. The truth is, every Idol is an Image, and every Image an Idol, according to the first signification of the word: but according to the present use, an Idol for the most part is taken in the worst sense, and signifieth such an Image only as is idolised, that is made for religious worship, or rather irreligious, as all Popish Images are: and because they are so, the places of Scripture which we bring against the worship of Idols, as this of Saint Peter, are strong and in force against them and their Worshippers. And this may serve for answer of the fourteenth Paragraph of this tenth Chapter. In the 15. and 16. following, he doth but champ somewhat of that which before he chewed, and therefore I conclude this Chapter with his own words a little altered: we find nothing in matter of faith uncertain in the Protestant Church, nothing certain on the jesuits side but only this, that he is always and every where himself, that is a Proteus: whose motto may be that of the Heathens Goddess, Fortune: constans in levitate suâ, constant to his inconstancy, and true to his false dealing.    

Concerning the greater safety and comfort in the Protestant faith then in the Romish; Spectacles, Chap. 11. a page. 381. usque ad 404.  
THE Knight though he talk so much of proving the safety, and comfort of the Protestant faith out of Catholic Roman Authors, yet he cannot name that man that saith any such thing: for suppose he find one or two Authors that say some thing different from the common opinion, doth he presently say, the Protestant faith is safe?  
Even those points of Protestant religion, which of themselves perhaps might seem indifferent, their disobedience and spirit of contradiction makes damnable.  
The Protestant religion is not safer than the Roman, in regard of the all-sufficiency of Scripture, on which the Protestants rely, for the Catholics rely upon the same ground of safety, acknowledging and reverencing the authority of Scripture, as much, nay much more than Protestants.  
It is not safer to adore Christ (as Protestants do) sitting at the right hand of his Father in Heaven, then to adore the Sacrament: for Christ is as surely in the Sacrament as in heaven, the same Catholic faith teaching both verities; and to make you study a little, saith he, I may say in some sort, more sure; for a man that would be contentious, may deny Christ to sit at the right hand of his Father, because his Father hath neither right hand, nor left.  
There is no more safety in the Protestant doctrine of justification, than the Roman. For Catholics trust wholly in God, attributing no more to their own good works, than that they cooperate to justification, meriting grace and glory: and on the contrary, Protestants teach vain confidence in most of these points, as that a man must assure himself that his sins are forgiven, that he must assure himself of his salvation, and that he cannot fall from grace, and the like: which ground supposed, how can he work out his salvation with fear and trembling?  
Though some Catholics say, that there is more perfection of the Sacrament, which consisteth in the representation in both kinds, than in one; yet there is the same safety and fruit in one, and in both kinds.  
Though the sacrifice of the Mass is more profitable, when the people comnunicate with the Priest, as the Knight proveth out of the Council of Trent, Harding and Bellarmine: yet he proveth not, that there is any danger in private Masses, or that it is unlawful for the Priest to say Mass without he have some to communicate with him, which is the Controversy between Catholics and Protestants.  
Aeneas Silvius, Cassander, and Panormitan are of opinion indeed, that Priests should have liberty to marry: yet they would not have them marry against the law standing in force, but they would have the law taken away: which is a fare different Doctrine from that of Protestants. Howsoever, it is safer to follow the judgement of all other Doctors of the Catholic Church, all other Fathers and Counsels teaching the contrary; of all which, there is abundant proof in Bellarmine, and which was never contradicted by any, but known wicked men.  
Though public Prayers in Latin may not be so profitable to the people, yet they are lawful and safe, and the fruit of refection of the understanding by Prayer in a known tengue, whereof Aquinas speaketh, will not countervail the tenth part of the inconvenience which may happen by having public Prayers in a known tongue. The inconveniences are vanity, curiosity, contempt of Superiors, disputes, schisms, profanation, and divulgation of secret Mysteries: besides, the very ignorance of the Latin tongue, and consequently, of all learning which would follow thereof only in Clergy men, is ten hundred times more harm, than that fruit in the Laity is good. Cajetan was greatly mistaken, when he expoundeth the fourteenth chapter of the first Epistle of Saint Paul to the Corynthians, of public Prayers in the Church: and he is also mistaken in the very end of Prayer, which is not edification, or instruction of the people, but the honour of God immediately. Gabriel Biel speaketh not of Prayer in a known tongue, nor of public Prayers, but only of mental Prayer, and vocal; and giveth those seven reasons which the Knight allegeth, to show, that besides mental Prayer, it is convenient to use vocal.  
There is no danger in worshipping Images, or praying to Saints: and Erasmus, Cassander, and Chemnitius, who teach the contrary, are of none authority.  
Neither Bernard, nor Waldensis, nor Bellarmine, contradict the Doctrine of the Romish Church in the point of Merit. For Catholics acknowledge with Bernard, that there is no safe rest or security for a weak soul, but in the wounds of our Saviour; which doth not hinder but a man may say, God rewardeth the good works of his servants, out of his justice and fidelity, which out of his mercy he gave them grace to do: and though Waldensis and some other Divines, approve not of the word of Merit, especially De condigno; yet in the thing itself, they all agree, to wit, that eternal life is given to men, as the reward of their good works: which is all that others mean by condign Merit. The Doctrine of Bellarmine, to wit, that it is most safe to trust wholly in the Merits of Christ, is as well the Catholic Doctrine, as the Protestants: who condemn not Protestants for not trusting in their works, or trusting wholly in Christ; if so be they deny not the necessity and efficacy of good works, for purchasing grace and glory.  

The Hammer.  
AS Asia Minor is called by some Geographers Asia Asiae, and the field of Agrigentum, Sicilia Siciliae, and Attica, Graecia Graeciae, and the Ball or Apple in the eye, the eye of the eye: so this Chapter of the Knight may be not unfitly termed via viae, the safest path in his safe way, other Chapters tend to the proof of his title Via Tuta: but this is full upon it. For here he proves by many remarkable instances, that our rock is much more sure than theirs, our very adversaries being judges; his instances are prayers in a known tongue, communicating in both kinds, partaking of the Sacrament with the Priest, immediate address to God by Christ, adoring the Creator only, resolution of our faith upon God's word, relying wholly upon his Grace and mercy, and renouncing man's merit. And whose understanding apprehendeth not, that it is safest to pray to God with understanding; whose spiritual senses tell him not that it is more comfortable and profitable to communicate with a Priest then to look on, and to receive the Sacrament in both kinds, then in one only; whose reason persuadeth him not that it is safer to worship God in spirit, then by an Image; to adore Christ in Heaven, then in a pe●ece of bread; to expect aid from God, than Saints; to trust in God's word, then in man's; in his Grace, than our will; and in Christ's merits, than our own? yet as resty jades stumble in fair way: so the jesuit in this fairest road of the safe way stumbleth often, and tumbleth also, as the Reader may observe in the several annotations at his particular slips, or rather downfalls in this Chapter.  
To the first. The Knight doth not conclude out of any one particular, but maketh an induction out of many particulars in this manner. The Protestant faith by the best learned among Papists in the point of Communion in both kinds, of Prayer in a known tongue, justification by Faith alone, et sic de ceteris, is safer than the Roman: ergo, simply and generally it is safer. Though Silurus his Son could break every Arrow by itself, which his Father gave him, yet he could not in like manner the bundle or sheaf of Arrows which he put in his hand, and bid him assay to break them if he could, — nam vis unita fortior. Et quae non prosunt singula multa juvant; but the jesuit hath not been able to break any one of the single Arrows shot by the Knight in the former Sections, how then will he be able to break the sheaf in this?  
To the second. By the uncharitable censure of the jesuit, he showeth of what spirit he is. The searcher of all hearts knoweth that we contradict Romish doctrines, not out of disobedience to man, but out of obedience to him who commandeth us to contend for the true faith: and to reprove and convince all gainsayers. What Papists intentions are, we take not upon us to judge: their doctrines we put to the test of God's word, and find them false and adulterine, and all be it some points of their belief, considered in themselves, might seem indifferent: yet as they hold them they are not, because they are not of faith, 
Rom. 14.23.  and what soever is not of faith is sin. Now no point of the Romish Creed as they hold it, is of that faith the Apostle speaketh of, that is, divine faith; because they ground and finally resolve all their articles not upon God's word, but upon the authority of the Pope, 
Resp ad Archiepis. Spalaten. c. 47. Firmitas fundamenti ●● firma licet implicita in aureo hoc fundamento veritatis adhaesio valebit, ut in Cypriano sic in nobis ad salutem: faenum & stipula imbecilitas & caries in tecto & contignatione, & explicitae erroris opinio non valebit, nec in Cypriano, nec in nobis ad per●●tiem.  or Church of Rome, which is but the authority of man; whereas on the contrary as Doctor Crakent horpe demonstrateth, If any Protestant build hay or stubble upon the true foundation, he may he saved; because be holdeth the true foundation, which is, that every doctrine of faith ought to be built upon Scripture. If the jesuit wonder at this conclusion, let him weigh the Author's reasons, and he will be forced to confess, that the errors, if there be any in Protestants, in regard they stick close to the true foundation, and implicitly deny them, cannot in them be damnable, whereas the very true doctrines of faith in Papists, because they hold them upon a wrong ground and foundation, very much derogatory to God and his truth, are not so safe.  
To the third. With what face can the jesuit avow this? considering that Prieras before alleged, and other writers approved by the Church of Rome, maintain this blasphemous assertion, that the authority of the Church is greater than the authority of Scripture, and all Papists of note at this day, hold that the Scripture is but an imperfect and partial rule of faith; all Protestants on the contrary teach, that it is an entire and perfect rule of faith; Papists believe the Scripture for the Church's sake, Protestants the Church for the Scripture sake; Papists resolve all points of faith generally into the Pope's infallibility, or Church's authority, Protestants into the written word of God, which as Bellarmine himself confesseth, 
De verbo Dei non script. l. 4. c. 11.  containeth all things necessary for all men to believe, and is a most certain and safe rule of beleeveing. Yea but saith the jesuit out of Vincentius Lerinensis, 
De verbo Dei l. 1. c. 2.  he that will avoid the deceits and snares of Haeretikes, and remain soundin the faith, must strengthen his faith two ways, to wit, by the authority of the divine law, and the tradition of the Catholic Church. This advice of Vincentius is sound, and good if it be rightly understood, and not in the jesuits sense. Vincentius there by tradition of the Catholic Church understandeth not unwritten verities, but the Catholic expositions of holy Scriptures, extant in the writings of the Doctors of the Church in all ages, and we grant that this Catholic exposition of the Doctors where it can be had, is of great force to confirm faith, and confound Heretics. 
 Scripturae ecclesiastice intelligentiae jungatur authoritas.  For the stopping of whose mouth that Father saith, and we deny it not, that there is great need to add to the Scripture the Church's sense or interpretation, albeit as he there addeth, which cutteth the throat of the jesuits cause, The Canon of Scripture is perfect, and sufficient of itself for all things: nay rather, as he correcteth himself, Over and above sufficient; cum sit perfectus scripturae canon sibique adomnia satis superque sufficiat.  
To the fourth. Here the jesuit would make his Reader study a little, and his Adversary to muse; 
Vero nihil verius, certo nihil certius.  but it is indeed, whether he be in his right wits, or no. For first, as Seneca well resolveth, one thing cannot be said truer than another; one truth in Divinity may be more evident to us than another, but in itself it cannot be truer or surer. Secondly, admitting there could be degrees of certainty, at lest quoad nos, there can be yet no comparison, in regard of such certainty between an Article of the Creed assented unto by all Christians, and a controverted conclusion, maintained only by a late faction in the Western Church. But the sitting of Christ at the right hand of his Father, is an Article of the Creed, set down in express words in holy Scripture, 
Mark 16.19. Luke 24.  consented unto by all Christians in the world; whereas the carnal presence of Christ in the Sacrament by Tranfubstantiation, is no Article extant in any Creed, save only that of Pope Pius his coining, in the year of our Lord, 1564. It is neither in words set down in Scripture, as the other Articles are; neither can it be necssarily enforced or deduced by consequence, as four great Cardinals of the Roman Church confess, Cameracensis, Cajetan, Roffensis, and Bellarmine. Neither was this Doctrine of the Roman Church ever assented unto by the Greek Church, nor by the Latin anciently, or generally, as I shown before. Thirdly, the jesuit contradicteth himself within eight lines: for having said in the eighteenth line, 
Pag. 384.  that Christ his corporal presence in the Sacrament was more sure, than his presence in heaven at the right hand of his Father; about seven lines after, forgetting himself, he saith, that We shall find as much to do (mark as much, not more) in expounding that Article of the Creed, as they do in expounding the words, This is my Body. Wherein it is well he confesseth, that Papists make much to do in expounding the words, This is my Body, which is most true; for by the demonstrative Hoc, they understand they know not what. Neither this Body, nor this Bread, but an Individum vagum, something contained under the accidents of Bread, which when the Priests saith Hoc, it is Bread; but when he hath muttered out an Umh, it is Christ's Body. Likewise by the Copula est (is) they understand they know not what; either shall be, as soon as the words are spoken, or is converted unto, or is by Transubstantiation. Lastly, by Body, they understand such a body as indeed is no body, without the extension of place, without distinction of Organs, without faculty of sense, or motion: and will he make this figment so incredible, so impossible, as sure, nay more sure than the Article of Christ's ascension into heaven, and his sitting at the right hand of his Father there? Yea, but the jesuit demandeth, Wherein are you more safe than we? if he be not there, we are in danger of adoring him where he is not; if he be there, then are you, saith he, in danger, by not adoring him where he is. I answer, we are every way safe, and they both ways in danger: we are safe, because if he be there, we who worship him there in spirit and truth, not under any corporal shape, are in no danger at all; because we worship him at his Table, as he requireth: if he be not there, we can be in no danger, for not worshipping him there where he is not. They are in danger both ways, of Will-worship if he be there; of Idolatry, if he be not there. Of Will-worship, I say, if he be under the accidents of Bread and Wine, because they are not where commanded to worship him under such forms: if he be not there, then are they apparently guilty of grosser Idolatry, by exhibiting Culium latriae, divine worship to a piece of Bread.  
To the fift. Here the jesuit, like an Adder, thrusteth out his forked sting, pricking with one of his forks, the Knight, for calumniating their Doctrine: with the other, the Doctrine of the Reformed Church, touching assured hope of salvation, as matter of vain confidence, and a dangerous precipice of the soul. The first is easily plucked out; for the Knight chargeth them with nothing, but what the jesuit himself confesseth. For if men cooperating to their justification, merit both grace and glory, they do not ascribe the whole glory of it to God; but as the Romans, for the victory they gained over the Cimbri, sacrificed Deo & Mario: so do the Papists at this day, for the conquest of their ghostly enemies, and their purchase of heaven, burn incense Deo & Mariae, to Christ and Mary, and attribute their justification and salvation, partly to Christ's merits, partly to their own; together with the superabundant satisfaction of the blessed Virgin Mary, and other Saints. The other fork reacheth not home to invenome our most wholesome doctrine, concerning assured hope of salvation: for though we teach, that a man ought to be assured that his sins are forgiven him: yet withal we teach, that this assurance is upon condition of Repentance and Faith. And withal we affirm, because he standeth not by his own strength, but by God's power, Who worketh in him both the will and the doed; he ought not to be high minded, but to feaxe, and in this fear to work out his salvation. 
Phil. 2.13.  I mean, in fear: as fear is opposed to carnal security and presumption, not as it is opposed to religious confidence: and as he must work out his salvation with this fear, so also with trembling; as trembling is taken for an awful and filial reverence, not for a servile affrighting. For the trembling here meant, is not only joined with assured hope, that God will work both the will and the deed, but also with joy, rejoice unto him with trembling. 
Psal. 11.   
To the sixth. Though the jesuit tug hard, yet the Knight holdeth him fast in Hales, Vasquez, and Valentia his net. For if it be true that the Sacraments effect what they represent, it will follow upon the jesuits own confession, that in regard the Sacrament is perfecter in both kinds then in one, in regard of representation, it must needs be more perfect also in the fruit and operation: and if so, then more safety and comfort in our entire, then in their half communion.  
To the seventh. 
Bell. de Missa, l. 2. c. 10. Negari non potest quin sit magis perfecta et legitima, missa ubi communicantes adsunt quam ubi non adsunt. Harding, art. 1. of private Mass, Where the people cō nunicate, it is more con nendable, & more godly. Council Trent, ses. 22. cap. 6. more fruitful, and more profitable.  The jesuit would feign contradict the Knight, but indeed he contradicteth himself. For in granting that which Bellarmine, Harding, and the Council of Trent extorteth from him, that it is more profitable for the people to communicate with a Priest at the Mass, then to loake on; he says by consequent that there is more safety in it: which is the proper point in controversy in this Chapter. For as that which is unprofitable for the soul, cannot but be dangerous: so that, which is profitable to the soul cannot but be safe, nothing is profitable to the soul but that which some way tendeth too, and furthereth the salvation thereof: and is not that safer which more tendeth to salvation?  
To the eight. Aeneas Silvius maketh no mention at all of any Law of single life, 
De gestis council. Bafil. l. 2. Coss. de caelib. Sacerd. art. 23. Panor. de cler. conjug. c. Quum olim. Credo pro bono et salute animarum statutum nunc iri ut non valentes continere possint contrahere.  but simply saith, that It were safer for Priests to marry; for that means many Priests might be saved in married Priesthood, 
Cass. de caelib. Sacerd. art. 23. Panor. de cler. conjug. c. Quum olim. Credo pro bono et salute animarum statutum nunc iri ut non valentes continere possint contrahere.  which now in barren Priesthood are damned. Cassander and Panormitan make mention of the law, which toeth Priests to single life, and both think that the abrogation of it would be good and behooveful to the fowls of many Priests that those who cannot attain to the first degree of chastity in a single life, may be permitted to live in the second degree of chaste marriage. And what is it else that we contend for, but that it may be left free to the Ministers of the Gospel to marry if they think good? which liberty implieth two things; First, that where there is a law restraining them from marriage, that law may be abrogated: Secondly, for the future, that no law prohibiting marriage in the Clergy may be enacted. Yea but saith the jesuit, all the Doctors, all the Fathers, all the Counsels, and the continual practice of the Church from the very beginning is against Priest's marriage, of all which you have abundant proof in Bellarmine. I answer, of all this, nay, none of all this, as you may see in Chemnitius History the celibatu sacerdotum, junius, and Chaumerus their reply to Bellarmine, and most largely and plentifully in Dr. Hall now Bishop of Exon. his three books against Coffin; entitled, The honour of the married Clergy. 
Pag. 392.  Yea but saith the jesuit in the last place, the law restraining Priests marriage was never contradicted by any but known wicked men. What a loud and Stentorian untruth is here uttered by a foul mouthed jesuit? Was Paphnutius the confessor, Spiridion the Saint, were all the Fathers of the first general Council of Nice, together with Pope Pius the second, and the Fathers at the Synod at Basill, besides infinite others, produced by the Authors above named, all known wicked men? The Lord rebuke thee thou false tongue.  
To the ninth. The jesuit here only troubleth the water, that the truth may not be clearly seen in the bottom; let the water but settle a little, and we shall presently discern it: for though the terms be different, profitable, and lawful, as likewise unprofitable and unlawful: yet the question, whether prayers in an unknown tongue be profitable and safe for the soul, and whether they be lawful or coincident. For whatsoever is unlawful, is consequently unprofitable, and whatsoever is unprofitable in divine service is unlawful, because against the rule of the Apostle, let all things be done to edification; now in a prayer which a man understandeth not, how is the understanding bettered? or as Aquinas speaketh, fed by the fruit of refection. As for the inconveniences that are pretended to come by prayers in the vulgar tongue, neither the Hebrew nor the Greek Churches, nor all the reformed in the Christian world find any such: and if there should fall any such, they are not to be imputed to God's Holy Ordinances, but to men's abuses. Yea, but saith the jesuit, the very ignorance of the Latin tongue, and consequently of all learning that would follow thereon only in Clergy men, is a thousand times more harm, than the fruit in the Laity is good. Here the jesuit straineth very high, but without all show of reason, or shadow of Truth, and against daily experience: for who knoweth not, that the Clergy in the reformed Churches, where Divine Service is in the vulgar tongue, are as ready and expert (to say no more) in the Latin tongue, as your ordinary Masspriests. Again, you are exceedingly over-lavish, in saying, that ignorance in Latin in Clergiy-men, is a thousand times more harm than that fruit is good which the Laity might reap by the public service in a known tongue. For the Clergy are but exceeding few, in comparison of the Laity, scarce one for a hundred, I may say a thousand; and the saving knowledge which the Laity might, and do reap by the Divine Service, and Sacred Scripture read in a known tongue, is a thousand times more worth, than the knowledge of the Latin tongue in the Clergy. Lastly, his consequence, that the ignorance of the Latin tongue would bring with it the ignorance of all Sacred learning, is most ignorantly absurd. For who knoweth not, that the Scriptures themselves (the treasury of all Sacred learning) were written in Hebrew and Greek. To say nothing of the first general Counsels, and the prime and flower of all the Greek Fathers, to the knowledge of whom a man may attain without any Latin at all. But because Latin is your best mettle, you undervalue Gold and Silver. For Cardinal Cajetan, he may for the jesuit go with Crassus, and gather cockles and pebbles at the shore of Cajeta; for he maketh no more account of Allegations out of this Cardinal, than of Tricae apinaeque aut si quid vilius istis; Me thinks the Scarlet robes of the learnedst of all the Roman Cardinals, and Schoolmen of his time, should produce a like colour in the cheeks of this jesuit, if he have not lost all tincture of modesty. Doth Cajetan sometime nod? Aliquando bonus dormitat Homerus? And doth the noddy Flood never? Cardinal Cajetan affirmeth, that Saint Paul in the fourteenth chapter of the first Epistle to the Corynthians, speaketh of public Prayer; the Jesuit Flood denieth it, utri credemus? Whethers authority will bear down the scales? Cardinal Cajetan saith, that edification is the end of public Prayer; and he hath Saint Paul of his side, prescribing in this chapter, 
1 Cor. 14.  that All things be done to edification: but Sus docet Minervam, the Jesuit Flood instructeth the Cardinal better, that the end of Prayer is the honour of God, as if Subordinata pugnarent, things that are subordinate were contrary; or as if the edification of the people tended not to the honour of God, or there might not be several ends of Prayer: the first and chief, the immediate worship of God; the secondary and less Principle, yet necessary also, the instruction and edification of the people. For Biels seven reasons, 
Can. missae lect. 62.  insisted upon by the Knight, though they were not alleged professedly to prefer Prayer in a known tongue, before Prayer in an unknown; yet the reasons there set down, as strongly infer the Knight's conclusion, as that which there Biel intendeth. The evidence whereof is so clear, that the jesuit himself is constrained to confess, 
Pag. 401. l. 11.  that Some of his reasons indeed, have no place where the words are not understood. Those reasons therefore fight for us, and the rest with a little help, will be brought to do good service against Romish and unintelligible Prayers; for how can a Prayer whereof never a syllable is understood, Stir up the mind to inward devotion? which is Biels first reason: Or enlighten the understanding? which is his second: Or cause the remembrance of things spoken in the time of Prayer? which is his third: Or keep the thoughts from wandering? which is his fourth reason: Or cause a more full performance of duty, both in body and soul? which is the fift: Or a better redundance from the soul to the body, by a vehement affection? which is the sixth: Or serve for the instruction of our Brethren? which is the last.  
To the tenth. The Knight needed not here to allege any more authorities against the peril of Idolatry and Invocation of Saints, because before in the seventh Section, he had cloyed his Reader with testimonies in this kind; for the worth of Erasmus and Cassander, Quos rumor albâ gemmeus vehit pennâ; their Epitaphs, and printed Eulogies before their works, which have kept their fame alive this hundred years, make good proof to the world, that they are like to flourish in perpetual memory, after the leaves of a thousand such scribblers as the jesuit is, shall be withered. In Chemnitius the jesuits eyes failed him; for the Knight in this place, allegeth not his words, but the words of S. Austin; and them, not to prove that we cannot pray to any Saint living or dead: but according to the title of his whole book, and special Argument of this chapter, that it is the safest and sweetest way to have immediate address to our Saviour: Tutiùs, saith he, & jucundiùs loquor ad meum jesum; I speak with more safety and delight to my JESUS.  
To the eleventh. Here the Knight may well say, Dicite Ió Pean & Io bis dicite Pean: For here twice he hath brought his Adversaries to subscribe unto justification by Faith alone; and to confirm with his own hand, the title of the Knight's book with advantage. The title is but Via tuta, but the jesuit confesseth over and above, that the Protestants way, who rely upon Christ's merits only for salvation, is Via tutissima, The safest way. And if Vasquez and Bellarmine, and other pleaders for merit by condignity, mean no otherwise than the jesuit interpreteth them, we shall all soon shake hands; for who ever denied, that God rewarded our good works? but here, either wittingly or ignorantly, the jesuit concealeth the conditions required, to every meritorious Act, ex condigno. First, that the work be properly ours, and not his, of whom we pretend to merit. Secondly, that it be opus indebitum, a work to which otherwise we are not bound. Thirdly, that it be some way profitable and beneficial to him from whom we expect our reward. Fourthly, that it have condignity to the reward expected; or as Vasquez speaketh, Be worthy of the reward, and have an equal value of worth to the obtaining thereof. Upon all these conditions we contest with Papists, and consequently deny any merits of condignity; yet freely acknowledge a reward of good works, and this reward to be due unto us, (but a reward of grace and free bounty) and due to us by his promise, no way by our deserts.    

Concerning the Fathers, whether Protestants or Papists attribute more unto them; Spectacles, chap. 12. a page 405. usque ad 434.  
IT cannot be unknown to any man of learning, or that hath but any the least acquaintance with the Controversies of this age, what great advantage we Catholics have by the writings of the ancient Fathers, how highly we esteem them, what confidence we place in them, and how we appeal to them for decision of our Controversies; and how small respect on the other side Heretics show, either to their persons or writings, as being in their opinions but men, and subject to error. Or rather how contemtibly they speak of them; for proof whereof, a man need not go no farther than that little Treatise of Campian's ten reasons, the fift of which is of the Fathers.  
In the thirteen Instances, by which the Knight will prove, that Bellarmine, and Stapleton, and Senensis, and Gregory de Valentia, and , and Ribera, and Canus, and Salmeron, either elude or reject the Fathers, the Knight dealeth not squarely. For, though he quote the words for the most part truly, yet he concealeth their reasons which they give of their answers. Neither do those Writers insist only upon those answers to the places objected out of the Fathers, but add many other unto them, to give the Reader better satisfaction, as will appear by the particular examination of each passage.  

The Hammer.  
ALthough in this Chapter the jesuit lie as open to the lash, as in any of the former; yet partly because he is like him in the Poet, that was so tawed and flayed with rods, that there was no skin left on his body for a new stroke to fetch off: partly because, Page 406, he confesseth he cannot tell what to say to the Knight; but especially, because the Argument of this Chapter is most fully and accurately handled by Dr. Humphrey, and Dr. Whitaker, in their answer to Campian his fift reason, and in a singular Treatise lately set forth by Laurentius, entitled, Reverentia Ecclesiae Romanae erga sanctos patres. I will forbear to examine the several Paragraphs in this Chapter, (wherein, whatsoever is material, is refuted in the answers to the former Sections) only I will point at some notorious falsities and absurdities, if not to rectify the jesuits judgement, yet to disabuse the credulous Reader. First, he denieth not that the Roman Doctors above mentioned, utter those disgraceful speeches of Saint Austen, Origen, Theodoret, Cyprian, Tertullian, and the rest, but he addeth that they gave other answers to our objections out of those Fathers. What is that to the purpose, or against the Knight? who denieth not that Popish writers have other shifts and evasions to our arguments drawn from the testimony of ancient Fathers besides those, which are here set down in this chapter, which are refuted by Chamierus, junius: and for the better part of them by me in the former Sections: but he produced these passages only to show the Romanists disrespect and sleightening of the ancient Fathers, if in any thing they cross their Trent Faith. Secondly, to touch upon some particulars, how ridiculously and absurdly doth the jesuit speak, Pag. 417. Epiphanius saith in plain manner, that the Image which he saw hang in the Church at Anablatha, and tore down the vale in which it was drawn, was not the Image of Christ or any Saint, but the Image of a man, he knew not whom; which if it had been Christ's, or any Saints he would have known whose it was, neither would he have called the Image of Christ or any Saint the Image of a man. Why I pray you? is not Christ a man? were not Saints men? What should Epiphanius have said else, who saw there the representation of the feature, and liniaments of a man, but knew not what man that was? he saith, he saw a veil having on it the Image as if it had been of Christ, or some Saint, for he knew not whose it was. If he knew not whose it was, for aught he knew it might be made for the Image of Christ, or any Saint. Upon what ground then doth the jesuit say, that it was neither the Image of Christ nor of any Saint? 
P. 423.  Thirdly, he saith it is evident that Saint chrysostom did say Mass every day; whereas neither in that place quoted by him, neither in any place in all his works can it be gathered, that he ever said Mass, or administered the Sacrament without communicants: the Romish Mass is of a fare later date, than the age of Saint chrysostom. 
P. 425.  Fourthly, he most shamefully and falsely traduceth the Protestants (whom he terms the Haeretikes of this age) that they speak generally, very meanly and contemptibly of the most sacred Virgin. I marvel his heart did not smite him, when his hand wrote these words so directly against the truth, and his own conscience. For he cannot be ignorant that King james in his admonition to all Princes, set forth in Latin, French, and English, and our Church in the book of Common Prayer, speak most honourably and reverently of that most Sacred and blessed Virgin, religiously observing the feasts of her Annunciation, and Purification, and rehearsing at every Evensong, her Magnificat. 
P. 427.  Fiftly, he saith that Saint Jerome alloweth the the book of Judith to be Canonical Scripture: whereas in the place quoted by him, the preface to judith he saith only that it is read, or that he had read somewhere, that the Nicene Synod did reckon the book of Judith among the holy Scriptures, but for himself he saith in that very Preface, that this book is not fit to be alleged for the confirmation of those things that are in controversy. And in his Preface to the book of Proverbs, he saith expressly, that the book of Judith is not accounted by the Church for Canonical. judith & Toby, 
P. 430.  & Machabeorum libros legit quidem ecclesia, sed eos inter Canonicas Scripturas non recipit. Sixtly, he affirmeth that there is no controversy between them and us concerning the immaculate conception of our Lady; whereas both Chemnitius and Reynolds, & many other Protestant writers have overthrown the ground of their feast of the immaculate conception of our Lady; and all reformed Churches in general have struck that feast out of the Calendar, and the title of the 15. Article of religion of Christ alone without sin, showeth to the world, that we believe it to be the prerogative of our blessed Saviour, among all the Sons of Adam, that he alone was free from all original and actual sin. And now Master Flood, sigh you are taken in so many and fowl untruths in one Chapter; I hope the Reader will not envy you that Guerdon, which Aristotle bestows upon a lewd and loud Liar, not to be credited when he speaketh the truth.    

Concerning Razing of Records and clipping Authors tongues; Spectacles, Chap. 13. a page 435. usque ad 446.  
BECAUSE there have been many books published this last age, by occasion of Heresy, and liberty which came therewith to the great prejudice of the Catholic faith: there hath been a course taken for the restraint of all such, not only writings of Haeretikes, but even of Catholics which have any tang of heresy: and this kind of care hath been ever used in the Catholic Church. So we see in Scripture itself some that followed curiosities becoming Christians, confessed their deeds and burnt their books.  
Gelasius in the year 490. maketh a Catalogue of haereticall books, which he forbiddeth: and I would know of the Knight, or any man else that cryeth so bitterly against our Index Expurgatorius, what he can say against it, that he may not say against this Decree, and Council of Gelasius, and against which we may not defend ourselves by opposing it as a buckler against all their darts?  
Sith all swarving from the rule of faith is a declining to heresy, it appertaineth to the Catholic Roman Church, which as Gelasius saith, hath neither spot, nor wrinkle, to prevent the danger that may come by such books forbidding the use of them.  
It were a more dangerous and unnatural part in the Church not to use this care, than it were in a mother that should see sugar and ratsbane lie together, and seeing her child going to taste thereof, should forbear to warn it.  
I will not stand particularly to examine every Author, and justify the inquisition: only I cannot omit one Author called Bertram, whom of all men living me thinks the Knight should never so much as have named, considering how much disgrace he hath sustained by translating that book, and venturing his own credit, and the credit of his Church, upon the faith thereof.  
Another thing I am to note concerning his quoting the Canon of the Council of Laodicea, wherein first is to be noted his error in Chronologie concerning the time of this Council, which he maketh to be in the year 368. forty three years after the first Council at Nice; whereas it was celebrated before that Council. Secondly his corruption in the translation and cutting off the Canon, which is thus; non oportet relictâ ecclesiâ ad angelos abominandae idolatriae congregationes facere, quicunque autem inventus fuerit occulte huic idololatriae vacans anathema sit. Now where in this Canon doth the Knight find the word invocation of Angels, which is the thing he pretendeth, to be forbidden.  
Whereas the Knight objecteth to us the recantation of Henry Buxhorne, who was sometime appointed to put in execution the tyrannical Decree of the inquisitors, and had noted 600. several passages to be spunged and blotted out; which animadversions of his he wished he could have washed away with his tears and blood, his heart being smitten, and his eyes open by the mercy of God: I answer, if such matter will serve the Knights turn he may have enough: neither need I search corners to find out such obscure fellows, as this Buxhorne; he might bring the Fathers of the Knight's religion: for example, Luther, Calvine, Zuinglius, Beza, Carolstadius, and who not? for though they might pretend several causes, yet there was one principal one, which consisted indeed in the smiting of their hearts with a fiery dart of carnal love, and when they found an Eve to give them an Apple, than their eyes were opened, and so it proved also with their friend Buxhorne, as I shall show by a brief story of his life, most authentically related by that grave and Holy man Oliverius, of the society of Jesus. Henry Buxhorne, a licentiate of Divinity, etc. It was not the razing then of evidences that made Buxhorne fall from his faith, but there were certain Lutheran baits wherewith many of them were catched, which were aurum, gloria, delitiae, veneres, gold, glory, delights and Venus, of which some are catched with one, and some with another.  

The Hammer.  
IN the former Section, the jesuit shown himself a prevaricatour, but in this a cowardly runagate. For to the mangling of authors, and razing out of Records objected against him, namely, this marginal note out of Stephanus his Bible, Deus prohibet sculptilia fieri. This Gloss upon Gratian the Priest, cannot say significatively of the bread, This is my Body, without telling a lie, Cassander's observation upon the same words, that setting aside the authority of the Church, they prove not sufficiently Transubstantiation, Cassander's whole Tract concerning the Communion in both kinds, Vdalricus his Epistle touching the lawfulness of Priest's marriage, Anselmes Treatise concerning the visitation of the sick, together with divers passages in Cassander against merit, in Polydore Virgil against Images, in Langus against Transubstantiation, in Ferus against the Pope's supremacy. The jesuit answereth nothing at all in particular, but only applies Salves in general, which no way heal the wounds given by the Knight to the Inquisitors, as the Reader shall see by taking them off one after another, and viewing the Sores.  
To the first. The jesuits instance is wide from the purpose. For those Books were not burnt by any decree of the Church, much less the Church of Rome, which was not then in being: but by the owners of them, to testify their unfeigned Repentance; for so we read, Acts 19.19. Many also of them, brought their Books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it 50000 pieces of silver. Secondly, these Books which the owners burnt of their own accord, were Books of such as used curious Arts; that is, Books of Art-magick, Necromancy, Sorcery, and the like. Whereas, the Books which the Romish Inquisitours either mangle or utterly deface are Christian Treatises, written for the most part by them, that lived and died in the bosom and peace of the Church of Rome.  
To the second. This Decree of Gelasius which the jesuit opposeth, as a Buckler against all our darts, is not altogether approved by the present Roman Church; for in reckoning the Canonical books of Scripture, the Pope there excludeth the book of Baruch, and the second book of the Macchabees, and the book of Nehemiah, which the present Roman Church receiveth for Canonical. Secondly, Gelasius with his Roman Council, freely give their censure of all Theological books then extant, but they clip not the tongues of any Authors, nor burn their books. If the Romish Inquisitors had done no more, if they had let the Records and Evidences remain, and only censured them at their pleasure; we would not so much have blamed them, for using the freedom of their judgements: we would only freely have censured their Censures, 
Lips. Epist. Critica nostra non effugêre 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and left all to the judicious and intelligent Readers judgement. An error in Criticism is pardonable, but the making away of the evidence of Truth, 
Advers. Gentes, l. 3. Intercipere scripta, & publicatam velle submergere lectionem, non est Deos defendere sed veritatis testificationem timere.  and defacing authentical Records, is a damnable practice, and an undoubted Argument, both of an evil conscience, and a desperate cause; as Arnobius layeth the Law to the Gentiles.  
To the third. Gelasius his testimony of the Roman Church, whereof he was then Bishop, can be of no great moment. It seemeth at that time, the Church of Rome wanted good neighbours, that the Pope was feign to blazon his own arms, and gild his own Diocese; not thinking of the old Proverb, Laus propria sordet in ore. Howbeit, we grant in Gelasius his time, the Roman Church had not many spots and wrinkles, for than she was young in comparison; now she is old and decrepit, and all full of wrinkles: and after the manner of crooked old age, boweth down, to wit, to rood-lofts, Images, and Pictures. But neither then nor now, hath she any power to forbid the use of any Books through the whole Church: but only within her own jurisdiction.  
To the fourth. This Plaster is a great deal too narrow for the Sore of the Roman Church, to which the jesuit applieth it. For it is not their admonitions to the Children of their own Church, which we here complain of; but their cutting out of the tongues of learned Authors, when they witness the truth: not the censuring their own Writers, but the mangling of some of them, and utterly abolishing others. Under colour of taking away Ratsbane out of the way, they take away Sugar from their Children; and which is worse, debar them from the sincere Milk of the Word, I mean, the Scriptures in the vulgar language. Yet were there Ratsbane, in some of the Writers with whom the Inquisitours have to deal, they should have only given notice thereof, or prescribed some Antidote against it, considering that Physicians, and Apothecaries, and Householders also, make good use of Ratsbane sometimes.  
To the fift. The jesuit doth well, not to undertake justifying of the Inquisition, which he well knoweth he is not able: only here and there he nibleth at some Author or other that hath fall'n into their hands, as Bertram in this place: whom the Knight long ago rescued, and gave unto him the wings of the Press to fly abroad; whereby he hath received no disgrace, but many thanks from all that love the Truth in sincerity. For the translation thereof, which the jesuit imputeth to the Knight, as a great disparagement to him; the truth is, the Knight translated not Bertram, but published the translation of another, by reprinting it, and gracing it with a learned and elegant Preface of his own. Which, I marvel not that the jesuit kicketh at, because he and his fellow jesuits are sore Galled with it. When the jesuit shall prove any falsification in the translated Copy, or any error inserted into it, he shall receive a further answer. Till then, let the brand remain upon the Roman Index, for damning the original; and upon the jesuit, for defaming the true translated Copy of so learned and orthodox a Writer as Bertram was.  
To the sixth. In citing the Council of Laodicea, and detecting the Inquisitours foul dealing with it, by turning Angels into Angles, to gain a starting hole for their Idolatry: the jesuit by recrimination objecteth to the Knight, error in Chronology, and corruption of the Council. To the first I answer, that the Primate of Armath, and other learned Antiquaries have set this Council about the year mentioned by the Knight; your Binius ingeniously confesseth, quo anno celebratum fuit incertum est; It is uncertain in what year of our Lord this Council was held; he saith, it was celebrated before the Council of Nice, but he brings no proof of it. If we should grant him that this Council were elder by 40 or 50 years, than the Knight accounteth it, it would be more for our advantage, and against him; sigh Counsels, the more ancient they are, caeteris paribus, the more authority they carry with them. To the second I answer, that the translation which the Knight followed, agreeth verbatim with the original, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: which words, two of the Romish Translators set in Columns one against the other by Binius, render, as followeth. The first thus, Quod non oporteat Christianos relictâ dei ecclesiâ abire, & Angelos nominare. The other thus, Quod non oporteat ecclesiam dei relinquere atque Angelos nominare. That is, that Christians ought not to leave the Church of God, and go their ways, and name Angels: that is, mention them in our Prayers, or take their names in our lips, as the Psalmist speaketh of Idoll-worshippers; 
Psal. 16.4.  Their drink-offerings of blood will I not offer, nor take their name in my lips. And thus Theodoret in his Comment upon the second Chapter of St. Paul to the Colossians, vers. 18. allegeth the Canon of this Council: Because, saith he, they commanded men to worship Angels; Saint Paul enjoineth on the contrary, that they should send up Thanksgiving to God the Father by him that is Christ, and not by the Angels. The Synod of Laodicea also following this rule (of the Apostle) and desiring to heal that old disease, made a Law, that they should not pray unto Angels, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Here the jesuit hath both the Canon, and the Report; the Canon of the ancient Council held at Laodicea, thundering against their Invocation of Angels: and the learned and ancient Father Theodoret his Report of it.  
To the seventh. Those men whom the jesuit nameth, were not Fathers of our Religion, but Brethren only of our profession; neither was their motive for the change of their Religion carnal love as the jesuit, like impure Nero, judging others by himself, conceiveth; but a voice from Heaven saying unto them, go out of Babylon my people, 
Apoc. 18.4.  lest you partake of her Plagues. It is true, those instruments of God's glory were married as the Apostles St. Peter and St. Philip, and many of the chief Bishops and Pastors in the Primitive Church were, of whom it may be said as Sozomen spoke of Spiridion that famous Bishop of Cyprus: 
Eccles. Hist. l. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  they lived in wedlock, and had many children without any disparagement at all to their Sacred function. As the Rod of Aaron in these brought forth fruit in Holy Matrimony: so it budded also in others in our Church, who followed virginal chastity, and lead a single life, as jewel, Reinolds, Andrew's, Lakes, and many other reverend Prelates and Doctors, who for eminent learning and exemplary life, may compare with any of the Romish Mitred Prelates, or late Canonised Saints. Neither can they pretend that any Eve gave these an Apple, whereby their eyes were opened: but on the contrary we can produce many a Lucretia who have given Apples to their Popes, 
Lucretia nomine, sed re Thais, Alexandri filia, sponsa nurus.  whereby their eyes have been blinded, and their reputation for ever blasted. See Picus Mirandula his oration extant in Fasciculus rerum expetendum & fugiendum, and Mantuan his Poem.  
Sanctus ager scurris, venerabilis ara cinaedis  
Servit honorandae Diuûm Ganymedibus aedes.  
As for Olivereus Manareus his Legend of Buxhorne, if the Reader will be pleased to peruse an apology for this Buxhorne, written to the Chancellor of Lovan, wherein the true cause is related, for which this licentiate Divine abandoned the Papacy, he shall find in that treatise printed in the year of our Lord, 1625, a Rowland for his Oliver, or Oliverius Manareus the jesuit, to whose relation as much credit is to be given as to Cocleus his History of Luther, and Bolsecs of Calvin. The Devil, the grand Calumniator hath suborned in all ages men of prostituted consciences, and corrupt minds and mouths, to stain with their impure breath, the golden and the silver vessels of the Sanctuary: but Illi linguarum, nos aurium dominsumus, their tongues are their own, they may speak what malice dictateth; our ears are our own, and we will hearken unto, and assent only to what truth confirmeth. As for their Lutheran baits, he mentioneth, aurum, gloria, dilitiae, veneres; gold, glory, delights and Venus, if these things abound any any where, it is in the Roman Church, where the Pope who pretends himself to be the successor of Peter the fisher; fisheth with a golden hook, and baits it with fleshly lusts; what so pompous and glorious as his Holiness triple Crown, and his Cardinal's Hats, and his Bishop's Mitres and Croziours; for what sense hath not the Romish Religion baits? for the eyes they have gaudy shows; for the ears, most melodious music; for the smell, sweetest incense and perfumes; for the taste, feasts without number; for the touch, whole streets of Courtesans, not only in Rome itself, but in all the Pope's Towns which are commonly known by this fowl Cognizance.    

Concerning our adversaries their blasphemous exceptions against the Scripture; Spectacles, Chap. 14. à page 447. usque ad 463.  
THough Catholics hold for most certain, that the Scripture is not the sole rule of faith, nor that out of it alone all controversies can be decided, as for example in particular, which books be Canonical Scripture, which not: yet for most things now a days in controversy, many Catholics have offered to try the matter only by Scripture.  
Though Catholics ground many points upon tradition and practice of the Church: yet they ground others upon plain and express authority of Scripture, from which, Protestants are feign to fly, running to this or that corner of I know not what figurative, or tropical interpretation.  
Though the Pope question not, much less condemn Scriptures of obscurity and insufficiency: yet his Apostles and Evangelists have left some things in writing, of which some are hard even by the judgement of Scripture itself, for so saith Saint Peter of the Epistle of Saint Paul, which saith he, the unlearned and unconstant do abuse as they do other Scriptures, to their own perdition.  
If any condemn the Scripture of insufficiency, it is St. John in saying, that all things are not written, and St. Paul in willing the Thessalonians to hold the traditions which they had learned, whether by speech or letter.  
Whereas the Knight chargeth us with ranking the Bible in the first place of prohibited books: we say it is false; for it is not in the Catalogue of such books: only in the rules which concerns the Index there is mentioned, how the free use of vulgar translations is not to be permitted; but for the Latin vulgar translation there is no manner of restraint, though if there had been, we might very well have warranted it by the authority of St. Jerome, who did no way admit such free use even of the Latin Bibles.  
It is no such crime to forbid the reading of Scripture to some sort of people, as may appear by the testimony of this holy Father, who in the same place saith moreover, that the beginning of Genesis, and the beginning and end of Ezekiel were not to be read by the jews, till they came to thirty year of age.  
A kind of forbidding of reading the Scripture is no derogation, but a great commendation of it, for they are forbidden to be read out of reverence and honour due unto them, and in regard of the danger which may come by them, not of themselves, but in regard of the weakness of the Reader for want of necessary learning and humility.  
For Cornelius Agrippa, it maketh no more matter what he saith, than what the Knight saith, for it is but ask my brother if I be a thief.  
Not to answer the places objected by the Knight, out of Lindan, Lessius, Turrian, and Pighius, I say in general, that those things are spoken not of the Scripture, as it is in itself, that is, consisting of both words and meaning, but of bare words and letters only, which Haeretikes still do, and ever have abused, as the Devil himself did to our Saviour; and in this sense it is a wood of thiefs.  
Our Authors say no more than St. Jerome doth in effect; Martion, Basilides, and other plagues of Haeretikes have not the Gospel of God, 
Comment. in 1. ad Gal.  because they have not the Holy Ghost, without whom it becometh the Gospel of man which is taught; nor let us think that the Gospel consisteth in the words of Scripture, but in the sense; not in the superficies or bark, but in the pith; not in the leaves of speech, but in the root of reason: so that if the Knight will say any more of this matter, he must undertake the quarrel against St. Jerome.  
Lessius in particular, whom the Knight most up braideth to us, is fare from saying that the Scripture is uncertain in itself; that is, that the doctrine thereof is doubtful, but only that our rule will be uncertain, or rather we uncertain of the rule, because we cannot know the Scripture by itself.  
It is not all one to say that Scripture alone is no sufficient Rule, and to say it is imperfect. For although the Knight imagineth, that the all-sufficiency, or containing of all things expressly, is a necessary point of perfection, he is deceived; for than would it follow, that the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Saint Mark, and other particular Books should be imperfect, and especially that of Saint John, wherein he saith expressly, that all things are not written.  
Were the Scripture perfect in the Knight's sense, yet would it not then be a sufficient rule of Faith of itself alone; for it would still be a book or writing, the very nature whereof, doth not suffer it to be the sole rule of Faith, or judge of Controversies; for a judge must be able to speak, to hear, and to answer, whereas, the nature of a Book is, as it were, to leave itself to be read, and expounded by men.  
No Catholic declineth the trial of Scripture, in regard of imperfection, but only in regard that it being a written Word; no Heretic can be convinced by it, as I shown you even now out of Tertullian, who saith, It is lost labour to dispute with an Heretic out of Scripture.  
Let any man by the effects, judge who reverence the Scripture most, Catholics or Protestants: let him compare the labours of the one in translating and expounding Scriptures, with the labour of the other, and he shall find the truth of this matter.  
In admitting any trial with Protestants by Scriptures, 
De prescript. c. 15. Non esse admittendos haereticos ad ineundam de scripturis provocationem, quos sine scripturis probamus ad scripturas non pertinere. Vos qui estis? quando & unde venistis? quid in meo agitis non mei. Quo denique Marcion jure sylva●● meas caedis  we condescend more to their infirmity than we need, or they can of right challenge. For we acknowledge that saying of Tertullian most true, that Heretics are not to be admitted to the Scriptures, to whom the Scripture in no wise belongeth; who are you, when, and whence are you come? What do you in my ground, you that are not mine? By what right, o Martion, dost thou fell my wood? By what leave, o Valentine, dost thou turn my fountains? By what authority, o Apelles, dost thou remove my bounds? etc. This is Tertullia's discourse and words, where it is but changing the names of Martion, Valentine, and Apelles, into Luther, Calvin, and Beza; and it will fit as well, as if it were made for them.  
You must first show yourselves owners of the Land, before you can claim the writings and evidences belonging to it, and which make good the Title.  

The Hammer.  
Whereas many other things argue, that our Adversaries maintain a desperate cause: so especially their excepting against the holy Scriptures of God, and refusing to be tried by them in the points of difference between us and them. For what was the reason why the Manichees called in question the authority of the Gospel of Saint Matthew, 
Aug. l. 28. cont. Faust. cap. 2.  and the Acts of the Apostles? Desperation; because by those writings they were convinced of blasphemous Error. What was the reason why the Ebionites rejected all Saint Paul's Epistles? Desperation; 
Irenaeus, l. 8. cap. 26.  because by them their heresy was most apparently confuted. 
Iren. l. 3. c. 2. Cum ex scripture is arguuntur in accusationem convertuntur ipsarum scripturarum, quasi non recte habeant, nec sint ex authoritate nec possit ex iis inveniri veritas ab his, qui ignorunt traditionem. Tertul. praesc. advers. haeret.  What was the reason why the Gnostics and Valentinians disparage the Scriptures, saying, that They were not of authority, and the truth could not be found out of them by those who were ignorant of Tradition? Desperation. What was the cause why Papias, and the Millenaries preferred word of mouth before Scriptures, and pretended 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unwritten tradition for many of their fables? Desperation. What was the reason why the Heretics in Tertullia's days refused to examine their Doctrines by the touchstone of the Scriptures, saying, More things were required than the Apostles had left in writing, for that either the Apostles knew not all, or delivered not all to all. In like manner, we can impute it to nothing else but diffidence, and distrust of their cause; that Lyndan, Turrian, Lessius, and Pighius speak so disgracefully of holy Scriptures as they do, terming them dead Characters; a dead and kill Letter, a shell without a kernel, a leaden rule, a boot for any foot, a nose of wax, Sibyl's Prophecies, Sphinx his riddles, a wood of Thiefs, a shop of Heretics, imperfect, doubtful, obscure, full of perplexities. If they should bestow the like scandalous Epithets upon the King's Letters patents, or the Pope's Bulls or Briefs, they would be soon put into the Inquisition, or brought into some Court of Judicature, and there have either their tongues or their ears cut, or their foreheads branded: yet the jesuit is so fare from condemning these blasphemous speeches in his fellow-Jesuits and Romanists, that he deviseth excuses for them, and sows fig-leaves together, to cover these their Pudenda: which I will pluck off one after another, in my answer to his particular exceptions against the Knight.  
To the first. It is true, that some Roman writers of late have made an assay to prove some of their Popish doctrines out of Scripture: but with no better success than Horantius had in undertaking to refute Calvin his Institutions, as appeareth by Pilkington his Parallels. If the Scriptures were so firm for our Adversaries, why are not they as firm for them? why doth the jessuit in the forefront of this Section, bid, as it were, defiance to them, professing in plain terms, that The Scripture is not the sole rule of Faith; nor that out of it alone, all Controversies can be decided. Doubtless, any indifferent Reader will conceive, that the Scriptures make most for them who stand most for their authority, and perfection, as all the reformed Divines do, not only affirming, but also confirming, that the Scripture is not only a most perfect, but the only infallible rule of faith: 
Ep. 112. Si divinarum Scripturarum earum scilicet quae in Ecclesiâ Cano. nicae nominantur, perspicuâ firmatur authoritate, si●e ullâ dubitatione credendum est: aliis verò testibus vel testimoniis quibus aliquid credendum esse suadetur, tibi credere vel non credere liceat, quantum ei momenti ad faciendam fidem vel habere, vel non habere perpenderis. Ep. 97 Solis iis Scripturarum libris qui jam Canoniti appellantur, didici hunc timorem honoremque defer, ut nullum earum authorem scribendo aliquid errasse firmissimè credam. lib. de Nat. & Grat c. 61. Me in hujusmodi quorumlibet Scriptis hominum liberum, quia solis Canonicis debeo sine recusatione consensum, l. 11. c. 5. & Ep. 48.  every article of divine faith must be grounded upon a certain and infallible ground to us, but there is no certain and infallible ground to us of supernatural truth but Scripture, as is abundantly proved by Saint Austin; If any thing be confirmed by perspicuous authority of Canonical Scriptures, we must without any doubt or haesitation believe it, but to other witnesses or testimonies, we may give credit as we see cause, and in his 97. Epistle to St. Jerome, I have learned to yield that honour and reverence only to the Canonical Scriptures, that I most firmly believe, that no Author of them could err in any thing he wrote: and in his book de natura & gratia, I profess myself free in all such writings of men, because I own absolute consent without any demur or staggering only to the Canonical books of Scripture. To the same purpose he writeth against Faustus the Manichee l. 11. c. 5. and ep. 48. But what need I press St. Austin when the evident letter of Scripture is for this truth, Titus, 1.2. Rom. 3.4. God cannot lie, and let God be true and every man a liar that is subject to error and falsehood. Again, the Scriptures are sufficient to instruct us in all points necessary to salvation: therefore every article of divine faith is evidently grounded upon Scripture. The Antecedent I thus prove, 2 Tim. 3.15.16. whatsoever is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, in such sort that it is able to make a man wise unto salvation, and perfect to every good work, is sufficient to instruct in all points of salvation: but the Scripture is so profitable, that it is able to make wise unto salvation and perfect to every good work: Ergo, It is sufficient to instruct in all points necessary to salvation. The major is evident ex terminis: the minor is the letter of the text; and that the adversary may not except that this is my collection only, 
L. 3. Advers. haer. c. 1. Non per alios dispo sitionem salutis nostrae cognovimus quam per eos per quos evangelium ad nos pervenit, quod quidem tunc preconiaverunt, postea per Dei volun tatem nobis in Scriptures tradiderunt fundamentum & columnam fidei nostrae futuram. Aug. l. 3. cont. Lit. Petil. c. 6. Sive de Chrlsto sive de ejus ecclesia, sive de quacunque re quae pertinet ad fidem vitamque nostram, non dicom si nos, nequaquam comparandi ei quid dixit si nos, sed omnino quod seturus adjecit, si Angelus de Coelo vobis annunciaverit praeterquam quod in Scriptures Legalibus & Evangelicis accepistis, anathema sit.  I will produce to him impregnable testimonies of the ancient Fathers. Irenaeus, We have not known by others, the means which God hath appointed for our salvation, then by those by whom the Gospel came unto us, which at the first the Apostles preached by word of mouth, but afterwards by the will of God, delivered in writing to be the foundation and pillar of our faith. The second is Saint Austin, Whether concerning Christ, or concerning his Church, or concerning any thing that pertaineth to our faith and life, I will not say, if we but even as he going forward addeth, if an Angel from Heaven shall preach unto you any thing but what you have received in the Scriptures of the law and the Gospel, accursed be he. Yea but the jesuit objecteth against us and these Holy Fathers, that by the Scriptures we cannot prove, which books of Scripture are Canonical, and which are not. I answer: first, our question here, is not of the principles of Divinity, but of Theological conclusions. Now that Scripture is the word of God, and that these books are Canonical Scriptures, are principles in Divinity, and therefore not to be proved (according to the rule of the great Philosopher) in the same science: It is sufficient to make good our Tenet, that the Canonical Scriptures being presupposed as principles, every conclusion de fide, may be deduced out of them. Secondly, that such books of Holy Scriptures are Canonical, and the rest which are known by the name of Apochryphas, are not Canonical, is proved by arguments and testimonies drawn out of Scripture itself, by Whitaker, Disputatione de sacrâ Scripturâ, controversiâ primâ; by Reynolds most copiously in his Censura librorum Apochryphorum. Thirdly, I retort the jesuits argument against himself, when they teach tradition is part of God's word, how prove they it to be so? by Scripture, or Tradition? by Scripture they cannot prove, that unwritten traditions are God's word: if they prove it by Tradition, than they beg the point in question, and prove idem per idem.  
To the second. The Romanists ground some doctrines of their faith upon the letter of Scripture, but it is that letter which killeth, as for example; they ground their carnal presence of Christ in the Sacrament, upon those words in the sixth of St. john; unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of God and drink his blood, you have no life in you: which words, if you take according to the letter, this letter killeth, saith Origen; but it is the spirit saith our Saviour, that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing, the words which I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life, john, 6.63. He that pierceth the bark, and cometh to the sap, runneth not from the tree of life, but rather runneth to it: so do we when we leave the bark of the letter upon necessary occasions, and pierce into the heart, and draw out the sap of the spiritual meaning. To press the letter of Scripture against the spiritual meaning and analogy of faith, is not only jewish but Haereticall. For example, The Anthropomorphites ground their heresy upon plain and express words of Scripture: from which to use the jesuits own words, All Orthodox Divines are feign to fly to figurative and tropical interpretations.  
To the third. First, Saint Peter saith not, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not in which Epistles of St. Paul, but in which points and heads of doctrine many things are hard to be understood. Secondly, though some points be hard to be understood in themselves, or are obscurely set down in Scripture, it followeth not from thence, that all things necessary to salvation are not plainly delivered therein. For, as before I proved out of Saint Austin and Saint chrysostom, Among those things which are plainly delivered in Scriptures, all such points are found as contain faith and manners, all things that are necessary are manifest. Thirdly, those things which are obscurely set down in Saint Paul's Epistles, may be, and are elsewhere in holy Scriptures more perspicuously delivered. Lastly, Saint Peter saith not, that those things are hard to be understood simply, and to all men; but to the ignorant and unstable, who wrist all Scripture to their own destruction. Among which number, the jesuit must reckon himself and his associates, before they can fit this text to their purpose.  
To the fourth. First, this passage out of Saint john hath been discussed before, and cleared; where I shown, that it maketh nothing against, but strongly for the sufficiency of Scripture, to instruct in all points necessary to salvation. For, though all Christ's speeches and actions are not registered by the Evangelist, yet as Saint Austin rightly inferreth out of the words following, (haec scripta sunt ut credatis & credentes vitam aeternam habeatis.) 
2 Thess. 2.15.  electa sunt quae saluti credentium sufficerent: Such things were made choice of to be written, 
Ver. 2. And Paul as his manner was, went unto them of Thessalonica, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures.  as might suffice for the salvation of all Believers. Neither is that text of Saint Paul any whit derogatory to the perfection of Scriptures: for whatsoever he means by Tradition (per Sermonem) taught by word of mouth, it is certain out of the seventeenth of the Acts, that all Saint Paul's speech and discourse to the Thessaloinans, whereunto the words have reference were out of Scripture. Secondly, the words themselves, Tenete traditiones quas dedicistis sive per sermonem, sive per Epistolam; import not that the Apostle delivered divers things to them in writing by an Epistle, and without writing, by word of mouth: but that he preached to them, and taught them the Christian doctrine both ways, by Letters, and by speech: and that they should have as much care of his writings, as of those things he spoke to them in presence. Thirdly, admit they were different things which he spoke to them, and which he wrote: all that can be from thence inferred, is but this, that all points of saving Doctrine are not written in this Epistle of Saint Paul to the Thessalonians: which may be granted without any prejudice to our Tenet. For those things that are not written in that Epistle, might be, and undoubtedly are written in other of his Epistles, or other books of holy Scripture.  
To the fift. Saint Jerome is not against the free use of Scripture in the vulgar tongue, for he himself translated the Scriptures into the vulgar tongue of the Dalmatians; he dedicates his Commentary upon Scripture to Lay-people, yea many of them to women: whom he exhorteth, 
Haec monilia in pectore, haec in auribus hereant.  to account them as their chief casket of jewels; let these jewels hang upon your necks, and in your ears, Epist. ad Demetriad: wherein he much commendeth the Husbandmen about Bethlem, for being so perfect in Scriptures, that They had the Psalms of David by heart, and sang them as they followed the Blow. Arator stivam tenens cantat Davidicum melos: he instructeth Laeta a religious Matron, how to bring up her daughter in the knowledge of the Scriptures, and what method to observe in the reading thereof, Progemmis & serico divinos codices amet, 
In steed of silks and precious stones, let her handle the books of holy Scripture: let her first learn the Psalter, etc.  discat primo Psalterium his se Canticis avocet, & in Proverbiis Salomonis erudiatur ad vitam. In Ecclesiaste consuescat quae mundi sunt calcare. In job virtutis & patientiae exempla sectetur. Ad evangelia transeat nunquam eapositura de manibus, etc. Neither are the words you quote out of him, against the free use of the Scripture, but against the practice of some forward persons, who, Lapwing-like, offer to fly with a piece of the shell on their head, taking upon them to expound holy Scriptures to others, which they understand not themselves, and to teach that which they never learned, docent quod nunquam didicorunt.  
To the sixth. This practice of the jews concludeth nothing at all, but that those passages of Scripture above mentioned are very difficult, and subject to misconstruction; and therefore require a discreet Reader of ripe years, and judgement. Whether this their practice be commendable or no, in restraining all before they arrive to thirty, from reading those passages of Scripture, I dispute not: but this is certain, that even this custom of theirs which the jesuit brings against us, makes for us; for they permitted all men before thirty, to read all other chapters of holy Scriptures, and after thirty, these also.  
To the seventh. The honour the Papists do the Scriptures, in prohibiting them to be read, is like the favour she did her Paramour in the Poet, Quae prae amore exclusit foras, which out of pure love thrust him out of doors. The greatest honour we can do Gods holy Oracles, is diligently to read them, attentively to hear them, humbly to obey them, and daily to search them, as the deeds and evidences of our salvation; 
joh. 5.39.  according to the Precept of our blessed Saviour, Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me. As for the jesuits reason, drawn from the weakness of the Readers, it is very weak, and of no force at all. 
Psal. 19 7. Prov. 1.4.  First, because the Scriptures were written to give knowledge to the simple, and wisdom to the unlearned. Secondly, because if this his reason were good, their Church should prohibit all other books as well as Scriptures, or rather much more than Scriptures, in regard there are errors in them, but none in Scriptures: and God hath promised a special blessing to those, who in obedience to his ordinance, diligently read and study the holy Scriptures, which he hath not to those that read other books.  
To the eight. This Proverb might most rightly have been applied to the jesuit in the former Section, when he, a jesuit, produced Oliverius Manerius a Jesuit, against Henry Buxhorne, Deane of Tyelmond, than he said in effect, Ask my brother Jesuit if I be a thief, or rather a slanderer. But it no way fitteth Cornelius Agrippa, and the Knight, the one being a zealous Protestant, the other a professed Papist, though discovering, and ingeniously confessing divers abuses in the Papacy. If he were as the jesuit says, a Magician, because he wrote of Art-magicke; what were Pope Hildebrand and Sylvester, who not only studied, but also practised the black-Art, as Benocardinalis, Platina, and others writ.  
To the ninth. The jesuit will not stand answering every one severally, because he dare not keep that station for fear of Gun-shot. For the answer he giveth in general, it is false and absurd, if not impious: false, because it is certain, that those similitudes cannot be applied to the letter only, without the meaning; nor do the Heretics now a days, nor did the Devil himself allege only the letter and syllables of Scripture, but the meaning also, 
2 Pet. 4.16.  though perverting and wresting it to an evil end, and drawing false conclusions from it. He that calleth the Scriptures Sibyls Prophecies blasphemously carpeth at the obscurity of the meaning: and Pighius, who compared it to a nose of wax, impiously taxeth the diversity of senses, and interpretations which the Scripture is subject unto in itself. Lastly, the jesuit taketh himself by the nose, in saying, Heretics in all Controversies run to the letter of the Scriptures, leaving the true sense, and spiritual meaning: for so do the Romanists apparently, namely, in the Controversy of Supremacy, Ecce duo gladii; Lo here two swords: therefore the Pope hath the temporal and spiritual Sword at command. Peter, rise up, kill and eat: therefore the Pope hath power to put Princes to death. In the question about the number of Sacraments, they allege the letter of that text in the vulgar translation, Hoc est magnum Sacramentum, to prove marriage a Sacrament; whereas the Apostle in the same place saith, that he speaketh not of corporal marriage of a man and his wife: but of the spiritual marriage of Christ and his Church. Likewise in the Controversy about the real presence, they run to the letter, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood: though Christ in the same place expounding himself, saith, The words which I have spoken unto you, are spirit and life: the like may be observed in other Controversies. For answer to all which texts, we tell him out of Saint Jerome, whom himself quoteth in the next Paragraph; That the Gospel consisteth not in the words of Scripture, but in the sense: not in the supersicies or bark, but in the pith: not in the leaves of speech, but in the root of reason.  
To the tenth. How near neighbour's the Romanists are to Martion, who denied, or by consequence, overthrew the truth of Christ's human nature; as the Papists do in the Sacrament, vailing him under the outside, or accidents of a round water; and what affinity the jesuit hath with the rest of the ancient Heretics, the Knight shown him before in his seventh Section: and if he desire to know more of his pedigree from them, I refer him to an Appendix to Whitakers answer to Sanders his Demonstration, page 801. As for the aspersion of old Heresies, which he casts upon us, they are washed away by Bishop Morton, and Doctor Field, in their Treatises of the Church, Ad notam sextam. But why he denies that we have the Spirit, arrogating it only to himself, I see no reason but the pride of his own spirit, together with the malice of the evil spirit, who suggested unto him this uncharitable censure of us.  
To the eleventh. The Scripture is a Light, Psal. 119. and the nature of a light is, first to discover itself, and then all things else: therefore Calvin to his fond question, how know you Scripture to be Scripture? answereth acutely by retortion, how know you the Sun to be the Sun? If he say, by his bright lustre and beams; we say the same of holy Scripture, that it is discerned by its own light. Which, if the Papists see hot, the fault ought not to be laid upon the Sunbeams, but upon their Owls eyes.  
To the twelfth. That rule which needeth any thing to be added to it, is imperfect: but all Papists teach, that to the written Word unwritten Traditions must be added to make a complete and perfect rule of Faith: all Papists therefore teach, the Scripture alone to be an imperfect Rule. We on the contrary stand for the perfection of Scripture, and constantly and unanimously defend that not only the whole Scripture is perfect, but that every part also hath its own perfection, but not the perfection of the whole. Because the eyes have not the perfection of the whole head; or the head, the perfection of the whole body; a man cannot conclude, that the eye, or the head is imperfect: no more can the jesuit conclude that the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Saint Mark, or Saint john are therefore imperfect, because they contain not in them all doctrines in particular necessary to salvation. It is sufficient that they together with the rest, perfectly instruct us in all points of faith: by themselves they perfectly inform us so fare as the Holy Ghost intendeth, that we should be informed by each of them in particular, and this is their perfection, that they have no defect in matter or form, and that they concur with the rest of the books of Scripture, to the main end of the Holy Ghost in committing the word of God in writing, for the infallible and perfect instruction of the Church, and every faithful soul in all Doctrines needful to salvation.  
To the thirteenth. Although many Protestants have written de Scripturâ judice, and they have warrant our of Scripture so to style it; (the words which I have spoken they shall judge you) yet in propriety of speech, which especially ought to be used in stating questions, the Scripture is rather to be termed a rule and law, or sentence of the judge, than the judge himself: the supreme and infallible judge of all controversies, we teach to be the Holy Ghost, speaking to us out of Scriptures, and the subordinate or inferior Judge the consencient authority of the Catholic Church.  
To the fourteenth. The jesuit shown no such thing, nor can show out of Tertullian, 
De praescrip advers. haeret. c. 17.  who convinced the greater part of Haeretikes in his time by Scripture, as appeareth in his writings. In the place which the jesuit quoteth, he hath no such words as he allegeth out of him: viz. that there is no good to be done with Haeretikes by Scriptures. He saith indeed in that place, that it was but in vain to confer with a certain kind of Haeretikes by Scriptures alone, quia ista haeresis non recipit quasdam Scripturas, et si recipit, non recipit integras et si aliquatenus integras praestat, etc. That is, This heresy admits not of certain Scriptures, or not entire, or if in some sort in ire, it perverts them by divising divers interpretations. In which words he no way disparageth the holy Scriptures, or derogateth from their perfection: but discovereth the wicked practice of Haeretikes, and their evasions and tergiversations, when they are most evidently convinced by Scriptures. Will you say that if a Bedlam or wilful malefactor either by puffing out the Candle, or shutting his eyes, or looking another way, will not read or see the evidence that is brought against him, that therefore the evidence is not able to convince him?  
To the fifteenth. Though it were granted the jesuit, that the Papists have written more upon the Scriptures than Protestants, it will not from thence follow, that they more reverence or honour the Scripture: since in their very Commentaries upon Scripture, they derrogate from the authority, sufficiency, and perfection of them, by refusing to refer all points of faith in controversy to their decision: by resolving their faith last of all not into them, but into the Church: by teaching, that they are obscure even in points necessary to salvation; and that unwritten Traditions are equally to be reverenced with them. Secondly, compare men with men, and opportunities with opportunities; it may easily be proved that the Protestants in their preaching, and writings upon Scripture, have been fare more laborious than the Papists. Name me one Papist who Preached so often, and wrote so accurately upon the Holy Scriptures, as Calvin. I grant their books exceed in bulk and number, because they have a hundred to one, and they abound with leisure, and means, having many thousands maintained in their monasteries, who are not charged as our Divines are, with care of souls, and perpetual labours in their Pastoral function.  
To the sixteenth. If it were sufficient to bandy sentences without proof, and words without reasons, how easily could we say, mutato nomine de te fabula narratur. It is but changing the names of Martion, Valentine and Apelles, into Bellarmine Valentia and Lessius, or if you will, into john Flood, and it will fit as well as if it were made for him. How proves he that Papists are in the Church, and Protestants out of it? He shall never prove but that we have as good title, and much better, to the Holy Scriptures, the deeds and evidences of our salvation than they.  
To the seventeenth. Possession of a land, proveth not necessarily a right to the writings, and evidences belonging unto it. For possession may be got by violent usurpation, or intrusion; but on the contrary, the writings and evidences left by the disposer and bequeather of the land, being examined, will show who hath the true title to the land, that is, the Church. By these deeds and evidences, we offer to be tried, but they refuse the trial, pretending I know not what nuncupatory will by word of mouth, and disparaging these writings, and evidences as uncertain, ambiguus and unperfect, as the Knight hath made good against him in this Section.    

Concerning the testomonies of Cardinal Bellarmine; Chapter 15. Spectacles, a page 464. usque ad 485.  
THE testimonies alleged by the Knight out of Cardinal Bellarmine for the Protestant faith, in the points of Transubstantiation, private Mass, Prayer in an unknown tongue, Communion in both kinds, the number of Sacraments, the necessity of good works, and justification by faith alone, have been all answered in the former Sections, and that which he addeth concerning universality and miracles, maketh for the Catholic and against the Protestant faith.  

The Hammer.  
THe testimony of an adversary is of great force, 
Isid. Polus. ep. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  especially a learned one, most of all one his deathbed, when he looketh every hour to be summoned before the Judge of all flesh: and therefore we have all reason to make great dainties of the noble confession of the learnedest of all our Romish adversaries in the main point of faith, wherewith he gave up the ghost: Domine me admittas in numerum sanctorum tuorum, non meriti astimator, sed veniae largitor. Lord admit me into the number of thy Saints, not weighing my merits, but pardoning my offences: this testimony and prayer of his, printed in his will, the Knight in this Section backeth with another taken out of his third book Dejustificat. c. 17. Vel habet homo vera merita, vel non habet, etc. Either a man hath true merit, or he hath not; if he hath not, he is dangerously deceived, and seduceth himself, whilst he trusteth in false merits; for these are deceitful riches, saith Saint Bernard, which rob a man of the true: but if he hath true merits, he looseth nothing by this, that he regardeth them not, but putteth his whole trust in God's mercy only. This is not only Fort, but Fulgens telum: to use the words of Quintilian, Not only a strong, but a beautiful, bright, and shining weapon: wherewith the Knight giveth his Adversary such a deadly wound, that he panteth as it were for life, through all this Section. Much ado he hath to say any thing, which yet is as good as nothing: to wit, that Bellarmine in his first book De justificatione, cap. 1. saith, that He will endeavour by five principal Arguments, to demonstrate that a man is not justified by Faith only. What will the jesuit conclude from hence? that the Cardinal contradicteth himself? I grant it, and I take it for a singular Argument and Evidence of Truth on our side, which enforced this great Cardinal, after he had spent all his strength in justifying the Romish Tenet concerning justification by works, and the merit thereof, in the end to undo all that he had done, and conclude fully with the Knight, that In regard of the uncertainty of a man's own justice, and the danger of vainglory, it is safest to renounce all man's merit, and to put our trust only in God's mercy. Sufficit ad meritum scire, quod non sufficiant merita. For other passages in this chapter, I shall pass them over with a dry foot, because there is nothing material in them said in excuse of Bellarmine his warping from the Romish Religion, which hath not been discussed before. As for such Rotten-stuffe wherewith he pieceth it up in his later Paragraphs, namely, five, six, seven, and eight; fetched from Romish Broker-shops concerning the name Catholic, and multitude of Professors, and miracles, because none of it suits with the title or argument of this Chapter, I will not defile my hands with it: only I wish the Reader to take notice, that the jesuit twice in this Chapter convinced by evidence of Truth, yields the Knight the Bucklers, acknowledging out of Cardinal Bellarmine, That our Doctrine is safer than theirs, in two main points: the one concerning the Sacrament, the other justification by Faith only. For the first, 
Linea 28.  Page 465, he is constrained to confess, that though he holdeth Private Mass to be lawful; yet, that It is a more perfect; and in a certain sort more lawful Mass, where there be some to communicate with the Priest: for than it hath both the ends for which it was ordained. Certainly, that which is more lawful, is safer: our Communion therefore, wherein some of necessity communicate with the Priest, is safer than their Private Mass by the jesuits own confession. For the second, I find, page 471. that, though much against his will, yet in Terminis, he concurres with Bellarmine, in acknowledging our Doctrine concerning relying only on Christ's merits, and God's mercy for salvation, to be safest: and what else do all Protestants contend for in the point of Justification by Faith alone; but that all men renounce their own inherent righteousness, and trust only to God's mercy in Christ for Justification and Salvation? If at Christ's dreadful Tribunal, the safest Plea are Christ his merits applied to us by Faith, I wonder any dare to use any other? If there be safety, nay most safety, as the jesuit confesseth in this point of Protestant doctrine, there must needs be truth in it; for there can be no safety for the soul in a lie.    

Concerning Romish Martyrs; Spectacles, Chapter 16. a page 485. usque ad 490.  
THE blessed Martyr Edward Campian in his tenth reason, bringing all sorts of witnesses for proof of the Catholic Faith, beginneth with Martyrs; those particularly, who being Pastors of the Roman Church, suffered Martyrdom successively one after another, to the number of thirty three. These (saith Campian) were ours, and nameth some of them, as Telesphorus, Victor, Sixtus, Cornelius, with the particular points, which they held conformably with us against Protestants.  
That these Martyrs are ours, notwithstanding they died not for any of those points the Knight mentioneth, is plain, because they professed the same Catholic Faith which we do; which we also prove by the Faith of their successor Vrban the vl, who, as he holdeth their seat, so also their Faith; for Peter's Chair and Faith go together, as the very Heretic Pelagius confessed to Pope Sozimus, saying to him, Tu qui Petri fidem & sedem tenes. Not to stand here upon the most effectual and infallible Prayer of our Saviour himself, Oravi pro te Petre ut non deficiat fides tua: which proof must stand firm till Sir Humphrey can tell us what Pope began to vary from his predecessors.  
For adoration of Images, whereas the Knight asketh whether any of these three and thirty were canonised for it: though there be no special mention of any of these three and thirty, their adoration of Images, yet there is very pregnant presumption thereof by this, that Pope Sylvester, who was the very next after the three and thirtieth, and was Pope in time of Constantine's conversion, had the pictures of Saint Peter and Saint Paul, which it is most like, he received from his Predecessors.  
Moreover it is plain, that those three and thirty were ours, by their own decretal Epistles, which are so full of those points which Father Campian citeth, that the Heretics have no other shift, but to deny the authority of the same Epistles.  
That the consecrated Bread depending upon the Priest's intention, is the real Flesh of Christ: or that this Priest, Garnet by name, hath power to consecrate, is no matter of Faith; but that in the Sacrament, the matter, form, intentton, and all things requisite concurring, the Bread and Wine is really and truly converted into the Body and Blood of Christ: this is a matter of Faith, and this a man is to die for. Neither maketh it any matter whether any man have died for it, or not; for that is more in the persecutors power, to appoint what point of a man's Faith he will put him to death for, than in the Martyrs own, who must be ready to die for all and every one, as well for one as for another.  

The Hammer.  
IN this Chapter the Knight pulleth the garland of Red Roses off from the heads of all Papists: I mean the Crown of Martyrdom, by three most forcible arguments, which may thus be reduced into Syllogistical form.  

1. 

None of those who suffered death for the common Articles of the Christian Faith, which we all profess: are to be accounted Popish Martyrs.  
But the 33. Popes and all the Martyrs in the Primitive Church, suffered death for the common Articles of faith, which we all profess.  
Ergo none of them were Popish Martyrs: neither can they lay any more or better claim to them then we, if so good.    
2. 

All that may be termed truly Popish Martyrs, must suffer death either for the profession of the Trent Faith in general, or some special point of it, wherein they differ from the reformed Churches.  
But none of the Primitive Martyrs suffered death for the profession of the Trent Faith in general, or any point thereof wherein they differ from the belief of the reformed Churches.  
Ergo, none of the Primitive Martyrs were Popish.    
3. 

If the Articles of the Romish Creed published by Pope Pius were either unknown to the Primitive Church, or not then declared to be de fide, none in those days could suffer Martyrdom for them.  
But the twelve new Articles of Pope Pius his Creed were altogether unknown to the Primitive Church, or not then declared and defined to be de fide, as the jesuit Page 490. in part acknowledgeth.  
Ergo, none in the Primitive Church could suffer Martyrdom for them.     
What wards the jesuit hath for these blows, we shall see in the examination of the particular exceptions before mentioned.  
To the first. It is as true that those 33. martyred Popes were Martyrs of the Romish Religion, as that Campion the jesuit, who suffered death for Treason against Queen Elizabeth, was a Martyr. The truth is, that although Campion in his tenth Reason, search Heaven, and rake Hell also, for witnesses to prove the truth of the Romish Religion, yet he findeth none, as D. Whitaker clearly demonstrateth in his answer to that tenth reason, and his defence thereof against Dureus. To let others pass, those 33. Bishops of Rome, the jesuit mentioneth, who now wear Crowns of Martyrdom in Heaven, never beware the Pope's triple Crown on Earth. 
P. 486. l. 16. I answer that those Martyrs suffered death not for the points now in controversy with Haeretikes, but for the profession of Christianity at the hands of the enemies of Christ.  They sat as Bishops of Rome, they sat not as Lords over the whole Church: neither was the cause of their death any contestation with Princes for Sovereignty, nor the maintenance of any points now in controversy, as the jesuit himself confesseth, but the profession of Christianity. They were not therefore Martyrs of the Roman Church as she is at this present, nor of their Trent Creed; but of the Catholic Church and the common faith once given to Saints.  
To the second. The jesuits argument drawn from these 33. Bishops of Rome to Pope Vrbane the eighth fall short at least by 1300. years. If he should thus argue in the Schools: Pope Vrbane the eighth, in the year of our Lord, 1633. held the Trent faith, and believed Pope Pius the fourth his Creed: therefore the 33. Bishops that suffered Martyrdom under the Heathen Emperors within 300. years after Christ, held the same faith, and subscribed to the same Articles of Trent; he would be stamped at, and hissed out by all present; for who knoweth not that George the Arian immediately succeeded Athanasius the most Orthodox Bishop, and that all the Arian Bishops in Constantius his time, held the Sees of those Orthodox Bishops, who in the first Council at Nice condemned that blasphemous heresy. In our memory, did not Cardinal Poole a Papist, succeed Cranmer, a Protestant Bishop and Martyr? again, did not Parker, in Q. Elizabeth's days, a learned Protestant succeed Cardinal Poole an Arch-papist, in his Archbishopric of Canterbury? What a wooden Argument than is this, to infer succession in Doctrine from succession in the same Chair? This wretched Argument the jesuit proves as lewdly, by the testimony of Pelagius the Heretic. This is indeed to Ask his brother if he be a thief, or no: to ask an Heretic whether your Romish Doctrine be not heretical. Yet so unfortunate is he in his proof, that even this his only witness, how liable soever to exception, saith nothing for him: Pelagius was not so absurd as to hold this position, that Peter's Chair and Faith go always together; but only spoke in a glozing manner thus to Pope Sozimus, Thou holdest Peter's Chair and Faith: and will the jesuit infer an universal from a particular? Pope Sozimus held Peter's Chair and Faith: therefore all that hold Peter's Chair, hold his Faith. What holdeth these two together? 
Luke 22.32. Quest. vet. & N. Test. q. 75. Quid ambigitur pro Petro rogabat & pro jacobo et johamne non rogabat? ut caeteros taceam manifestum est in Petro omnes contineri.  a most strong and effectual Bond, saith the jesuit, namely, Christ's promise to Peter, I have prayed for thee, that thy Faith fail not. The time will fail me to declare particularly how many ways this Argument of the jesuit fails: first, Christ prayed not here for Peter only, as Saint Austin affirmeth, What doth any man make question hereof? did Christ pray for Peter, and not for James and John? To say nothing of the rest, it is manifest, that in Peter all the rest are contained. This prayer than no more privilegeth the See of Rome from error, than of jerusalem or of Ephesus, or any other See of the Apostles. Secondly, Christ prayed not that Peter might not err, who afterwards erred, 
Gal. 2.14.  and was reproved by Saint Paul, Galathians the second: but that his Faith might not fail, that is, be overcome in that fearful temptation, in such sort, that he might not rise again after his fall. Thirdly, Christ's prayer is for Peter himself in his person, and the Apostles whom Satan winnowed, not for his See. Fourthly, if this promise any way belonged to his Successors, certainly no more to those of Rome, than Antiochia; so infirm is this the jesuits proof, which yet he saith, Must stand firm, till Sir Humphrey can tell what Pope began to  from his Predecessors. Agreed: Sir Humphrey shall presently tell him by name, Liberius the Arrian, Vigilius the Eutychian, Honorius the Monothelite condemned in three general Counsels sixth, seventh, and eighth; john the three and twenty, deposed in the Council at Constance: as for other enormous crimes, so for this his damnable heresy, that He denied the immortality of the soul, and the life to come. To which, after the jesuit hath replied, instance shall be given in many other Popes, which have been branded with the note of heresy in like manner.  
To the third. A strange and lose inference, three and thirty Popes adored Images because their Predecessor had the pictures of Saint Peter and Saint Paul. Pope Gregory allowed of the standing of pictures in the Church, 
Vid. supr.  yet would have them by no means adored: Helena the mother of Constantine had the wood of Christ's cross, yet adored it not, saith Saint Ambrose. If to have the picture of Saint Peter, or Saint Paul, nay, or of Christ himself, maketh a man an Idolater, or a Papist, than not only all the Lutherans generally, but very many of the most orthodox Divines in our, and other reformed Churches, will be proved as good Papists as Pope Sylvester.  
To the fourth. Not only Protestants, whom the jesuit nicknameth Heretics, but also Contius, and other Romanists have disparaged these Epistles: and if the jesuits nose be not very flat, and stuffed also, he may smell the forgery of these Decretals by the barbarism of the stile, disagreeing to those times, and many absurdities and contradictions noted in them by Coqueus and others.  
To the fift. If it be no matter of Faith, that this particular Priest Transubstantiateth the Bread, because no man knows his intention, nor that particular Priest, Et sic de caeteris: It followeth, that it is no matter of Faith to believe, that any Priest in the Roman Church, by the words of Consecration, turneth the Bread into Christ's Body. As for that, he addeth, that it is no matter whether any ever died for this point in particular; I answer, it is a matter of great moment: for if Garnet would not take it upon his salvation, that this Bread he consecrated, immediately before the death, was turned into Christ's Body; nor any ever would, or did pawn his life for Transubstantiation: it is evident, that Papists themselves doubt of the certainty of that Article. On the contrary, we can produce hundreds, nay thousands, who for denying Transubstantiation, have been put to death, and have signed the truth of the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches, concerning the Sacrament with their blood: and therefore the Doctrine of the Protestants in this point, is of more credit than the contrary, because it is strengthened and fortified by a Noble army of Martyrs.    

Concerning the Protestants charitable opinion of the salvation of Papists; Spectacles, Chap. 17. à page 491. usque ad 508.  
THE Knight's discourse in this Chapter is wholly from his purpose, which he pretendeth in the title of his Chapter, which is to answer our objections.  
The Knights eight instances in the Doctrine of Merits, Communion in both kinds, public use of Scripture, Priest's marriage, Service in a known tongue, Worship of Images, Adoration of the Sacrament, and Traditions, are all answered before, and proved some false; for the things wherewith he chargeth us are all absurd, if we consider the proofs of Scripture which he bringeth.  
All testimonies from an enemy proceed not from charity, but from truth, and such are those which Catholics bring out of learned Protestants, to prove that a man dying in the Romish Religion, may be saved.  
, Prayer for the Dead, Honouring of Relics, Real Presence, Transubstantiation, Communion in one kind, Worshipping of Images, the Pope's Primacy, Auricular Confession, and the like, are all acknowledged, some by one Protestant, some by another, not to be material points; so as a man may without peril believe either way: the several authors are, Perkins, Cartwright, Whitgift, Fulke, Penrie, Somes, Sparks, Reynolds, Bunnie, and Whitaker.  
John Frith, a Foxean Martyr, acknowledgeth, that the matter touching the substance of the Sacrament bindeth no man of necessity to salvation or damnation, whether he believe it or not.  
John Huz held the Mass, Transubstantiation, Vows, Freewill, Merit of works, and of the heresies now in controversy held only one, to wit, communion in both kinds.  
Dr. Barrow acknowledgeth the Church of Rome to be the Church of God, Hooker, a part of the house of God, and limb of the visible Church of Christ; Dr. Somes, that all learned and reformed Churches, confess that in Popery there is a Church, a Ministry, and true Christ: Field and Morton, that we are to be accounted the Church of God, whose words may be seen in the Protestants Apology, Tract. 1. Sect. 6.  
Whereas the Knight saith, that men otherways morally good, relying wholly on the merits of Christ, that is, living Papists, and dying Protestants in the principal foundation of our faith, may find mercy, because they did it ignorantly: where hath the Knight learned this Theology, that a man may be saved in one Religion, yet so as he must die in another. This is a new conceit never heard of before, that a man may be saved in a Religion, but so as not to die of it.  
To conclude, since Protestant Doctors make no doubt, but we may be saved in our faith: and no Doctor of ours saith so of your faith, it is out of doubt the safer way to embrace ours. The force of which argument, the Knight goeth not about to avoid, otherwise then by denying that to be the opinion of learned protestants, which being proved to be so manifestly, the argument still hath his force, and the more, because he cannot answer it.  

The Hammer.  
IN the former Chapters the Knight brandished his sword: but in this he holdeth up his Buckler to bear off a blow, wherewith some Professors especially of the Female Sex, are said to have been wounded to death. For thus they whet their sword, and shape it on the Protestant anvil: Protestants confess, at least, many of them, that there may be salvation in the Roman Church; but Papists absolutely deny that there may be any salvation in our Churches: 
Fisher relation of a 3. conference.  therefore it is safer to come to theirs, then to stay in ours; to be where almost all grant salvation, then where the greatest part of the world deny it. Hereunto the Knight truly and solidly answers.  
First, that our Protestant Tenants are of that nature, that the Papists themselves cannot pretend with any probability, that there is any danger in them, but rather in the contrary; as he maketh it evident by eight remarkable instances.  
Secondly, that our Religion is not to be accounted the worse, but rather the better for our charitable opinion of our Adversaries: for true piety is ever joined with compassionate charity.  
Thirdly, 
Rom. 14.4. What have I to do to judge another man's servant, seeing he standeth or falleth to his own master.  that though we leave the persons of Papists to their and our judge, not pronouncing damnation on them, as they do on us: yet we proclaim confidently to all the world, that their doctrine is not safe.  
Fourthly, he distinguisheth also the persons of Papists, some are invincibly ignorant, who are compelled to resign up their own eyesight, and to look through such Spectacles as their Priests and Pastors have tempered for them; for these poor souls if they make as good use as they can of the public and private means afforded them for saving knowledge, and hold fast the Articles of the Apostles Creed, without opposition to any ground of Christian Religion; and furthermore have a mind and purpose to obey God, and keep his Commandments, according to that measure of knowledge and grace which they have received, and live for outward things in the unity of the Church where they dwell, much may be said: other live under Princes and States, who as God's true Watchmen and Shepherds, desire they should be better informed, and take care, that they may have means to be instructed in the true saving knowledge of Christ; such Papists shutting their eyes against God's light, and persisting in their ignorance, and saying in effect, We will not the knowledge of thy ways, job 21.14. go not safely out of the world. How the jesuit refuteth these answers, we shall see in the examination of his particular exceptions.  
To the first. That cannot be fare from the Knight's purpose, which agreeth with the title of his whole Book, Via tuta, The safe Way: this safe way he proves to be the Protestants way by divers instances, in which the Papists affirmation is dangerous, but our Negation cannot but be safe. For example, there is apparent danger in maintaining the adoration of Images, and the creatures of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament: because it is expressly forbidden under many fearful curses; to offer Sacrifice, burn Incense, or exhibit any Divine Worship to any save God only, Psalm. 97.7. Confounded be all they that worship graven Images, and boast themselves of Idols: but there can be no danger in not Worshipping the Creature instead of the Creator, who is blessed for ever, Rom. 1.25. They are in danger of a curse that forbidden Marriage, and hold it in some persons to be unlawful and unclean; which Saint Paul calleth, The Doctrine of Devils, 1 Tim. 4.1, 3. But there can be no danger in not prohibiting Marriage in any, which is Honourable in all, and the bed undefiled, Heb. 13.4. They are in danger who equal Traditions with Scripture, because it is written, Cursed be he that addeth or taketh away from the words of the Law, or the Gospel, Deut. 4.2. Apoc. 22.18. There is danger in confidence in our own merits; because, Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, jer. 17.5. but there can be no danger in not relying upon our own merits; for Blessed are they that trust in Christ, and him only, Psalm. 2.12. for that the Cardinal himself confesseth to be Tutissimum. There is danger in taking away the Cup from the Laity, for it is a violation of Christ's institution; for Jesus said unto them, john 6.53. Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you: but there can be no danger in not taking away the Cup from the Laity, but reaching it to them; for Whosoever eateth Christ's flesh, and drinketh his blood, hath eternal life, vers. 54. There is danger in keeping the Scriptures from the Laity; for The people perish for want of knowledge: 
Hos. 4.6.  and God poureth his wrath upon the people that know not his name: 
Psal. 79.6.  but there can be no danger in permitting them to Search the Scriptures, for in them they have eternal life, joh. 5.39. and, Blessed are they whose delight is in the Law of the Lord, and that exercise themselves in that Law both day and night, Psal. 1.2. There is danger in praying in an unknown tongue; for they which do so, Worship they know not what; draw near to God with their lips, but their hearts is fare from him: but there can be no danger in Service in a known tongue; for the Apostle saith, I will pray with the spirit, I will pray with understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, I will sing with understanding also, 1 Cor. 14.15. It was a curse inflicted upon the bvilders of Babel, that they understood not what was spoken: and the gift of tongues hath been ever esteemed a singular blessing conferred upon the Church, whereby the people of all Nations and Countries understood the Apostles, and their Successors preaching to them, and praying for them.  
To the second. I reply, that all his answers are refuted in my Animadversions upon the former Chapters, only some Cavils he addeth, which I will answer in a word.  

Flood.  
I presume, his Father had some Apprentice bond not to marry during his Apprenticeship: I would then know of him, whether his Father in that case did forbid marriage, and teach the Doctrine of Devils.   

Answer.  
It had been fit for the jesuit to be bound Prentice than set to school, he is so dull and stupid that he maketh it all one to forbid a Boy under age to marry during the time of his Apprenticeship, and that under a legal penalty, without any vow or oath: and to forbid the whole Clergy to marry at all, by tying them to single life by a vow and solemn oath, whether they have the gift of continency, or not.   

Flood.  
Saint Paul saith, the gift of Tongues is a sign for Infidels; but Prophecy, that is, Exhortation or Interpretation, is for the Faithful, or those that believe already: wherein, I would know what any man can find against Prayer in the Latin tongue.   

Answer.  
I will easily help the jesuits ignorance herein: Prayer in the Latin tongue, when it is not understood, is Prayer in a Strange tongue, which the Apostle here implieth, No way tendeth to edification. Nay farther, he proveth it to be a curse out of the Prophet Esay, 
28.11.  to a people to hear a Language which they understand not: and if that people were accursed, in that they heard a Language which they understood not; our people in this regard must needs be blessed, who hear in the Church the Word of God read, and Divine Service said in a Language which they understand.   

Flood.  
The Catholic Church doth draw in several Nations to unity of Language, making all to speak one and the same Tongue: whereas Heretics in the several places, by use of other Languages, understand not one the other, and therein most perfectly resemble the Babel-builders, as well in their diversity of tongues, as in the diversities of Doctrines.   

Answer.  
The jesuit here ignorantly babbleth about Babel, and the bvilders thereof, upon whom God sent as a curse, not simply the diversity of Languages which Acts 2. was given to the Apostles by miracle for a blessing: but confusion of Languages, whereby it came to pass, that though they all spoke one to another, yet none understood one the other. This curse cannot be denied to be fallen upon the Lay-people in Popery in the time of their benediction; and hereby the Roman Church, as by many things else, may be discerned to be Spiritually Babylon. Now whereas the jesuit saith, that they make all Nations to speak one and the same tongue, his tongue runneth before his wit: for though the Pope by enjoining Latin Service, make all Nations under the Roman jurisdiction, hear one and the same tongue in their Service: yet he maketh them not to speak it, nor so much as understand it. Whereas all the Reformed Churches, as they agree in the unity of their Doctrine against Romish errors and superstitions; so they also concur in this, that they have all their Liturgies in their Mother tongue, that all the children of our Churches may hear their heavenly Father speak unto them in his Word, and they to him in their Prayers in a language understood.   

Flood.  
But for that which he saith, that he acknowledgeth universality of Nations and people, not to be a mark of his Church, I cannot but wonder at it; for what is this, but even in plain terms to confess his Church, not to be the Church of Christ? Esay saying, All nations shall flow unto it: and the Prophet David describing the kingdom of Christ, saith, that He shall bear sway from Sea to Sea: and Daniel describeth the kingdom of Christ, Like a mountain growing from a little stone, and filling the whole Earth: Saint john seethe a Multitude which no man could reckon, of all Nations, and Tribes, and People.   

Answer.  
We do not say that the Church of England is the Church of Christ, that is, the whole, or only Church of Christ, but a Church of Christ; or to speak more properly, a member of the Catholic Church scattered over the face of the the whole earth. The texts alleged by the jesuit, are meant of the Catholic or universal Church, not of a particular; for it implieth a kind of contradiction, that a part should be the whole, and all Nations comprised in one. Secondly, the Knight speaketh not, Page 312. simply of multitudes, nations, and tongues, when he denieth that we have any such in our Church: but of multitudes, and nations, and tongues that are at the Woman her command in the Apocalypse: The City which reigneth over the Kings of the Earth, 
Apoc. 17.4, 5, 6, etc.  which sitteth on seven mountains, and is drunk with the blood of Saints and Martyrs: of whom it was foretold, that she should ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition. These can be no marks of our Church, as all the world seethe: and if they be, as indeed they are most visible and apparent marks of the Roman Church, let them lay claim to her, and keep her to themselves, we no way grudge or repine at it. But if the question be, where it is safer being with the Woman that fled into the wilderness, or this Queene-regent of the world, we give warning to all that have Care of their salvation, to come out of Babylon, that they be not partaker of her plagues.  
To the third. It is not true, that all testimonies proceeding from an enemy, are from evidence of Truth; for a testimony may proceed from an enemy sometimes from weakness of judgement, as Tertullian long ago hath observed, concluding, that it is no certain and undoubted Argument of strength and valour to conquer an Enemy: for many times the victory is gotten, not because the conqueror was a man of might, and well handled his weapons; Sed quia qui vincebatur infirmis erat viribus: but because he had the good hap to enter into the lists with a weak Adversary. Yet, let the jesuits Observation be general, the Knight will gain by it; for the greatest part of his book consisteth of Testimonies taken from the mouth of learned Romanists: and therefore by this Rule laid down by the jesuit, all must be presumed to proceed from evidence of Truth. For the testimonies which he here allegeth out of Protestants against us, though they have been long ago answered, in the Prostants Apology, written against Brerely his falsely so called Catholic Apology: yet in the due place I shall show, that they make nothing for, but rather against the Romish Church.  
To the fourth. The jesuit cannot be ignorant, that the misnamed Catholic Apology set forth by Brerely, was refuted seven and twenty years ago by a Catholic Appeal for Protestants; there all these shafts which Brerely taketh out of the Protestant Quivers, are either broken, or their heads so taken off, that they can do no hurt to any that hath his Buckler of Faith on, or his eyes in his head. To which Appeal I refer the discreet Reader; when the jesuit shall quote any of these Authors for any particular point, he shall have a punctual answer.  
To the fift. Frith was a worthy and glorious Martyr, whose faith may be known by his books yet extant: wherein he no way approveth of Transubstantiation, but condemneth it expressly. Neither doth he say that a right belief in the Sacrament touching the substance thereof is no matter of salvation: but that it is no matter of salvation to believe after what manner the substance of Christ's body is in the Sacrament, whether by Consubstantiation, or Transubstantiation which is most true: for as Doctor Andrew's, late Bishop of Winton acutely observed, Christ said hoc est Corpus meum, non hoc modo est, or fit Corpus meum, this is my Body, not the bread is after this manner my body.  
To the sixth. If communion in both kinds be an heresy, Christ, his Apostles, and the Primitive Church which administered and received the Communion in both kinds, as is confessed in the Council at Constance, cannot be free from heresy. And whereas the jesuit saith, that this Martyr in all other points held with Papists, the contrary appears in his printed books, and by the prayer he made at his death, mentioned by Cocleus in the history of the Huzzites, wherein he prayeth to God, that his soul after his death might be where the soul of Wickliff is.  
To the seventh. To the jesuit his allegations out of Barrow, Hooker, Some, Bunnie, and Covell; Dr. Morton now Bishop of Duresme answereth at large in his Catholic appeal, l. 4. from the first Section to the sixth, where he proveth, that the testimonies themselves, and the reasons annexed to them do show, that the above cited Protestants yield no more security to the Romish Church, than they do to any other erroneous Church, wherein there is true baptism and the the profession of the chief principles of faith. Barrow acknowledgeth the Church of Rome to be a Church of God, that is a Church professing Christianity, in which there may be a possibility of salvation, not an Orthodox or right believing Church, in which there is certainty of salvation. Hooker saith, that the Church of Rome is a member of the visible Catholic Church, a member, not the Catholic Church, and no sound member neither, according to that Thesis of Doctor Reynolds, Romana ecclesia nec est Catholica, nec sanum membrum Catholicae. Dr. Somes saith, as likewise junius, 
junius de Eccles. l. sing. Papatu● est in Ecclesia seu in papatu est Ecclesia, Papatus tamen non est Ecclesia.  that in Popery there is a Church, that is, under the Pope's dominion Christ hath his Church, or that Popery is in the Church: yet that Popery is not the Church. Bunnie saith, that we are not a several Church from the Papists, that is, not essentially defferent from it, no more than a sick man differeth from a sound. Covell saith, the Church of Rome is a part of the Church of Christ, but a very unsound part. From all which passages, this only may be concluded of the Roman Church, as of other erroneous assemblies, that though in regard of their manifold errors, they must be esteemed sick and unsound Churches; yet in regard of the being and essence of a Church, they must be acknowledged visible Churches of Christ. Neither Field nor Morton saith, that the Church of Rome is the Church of God, but a Church of God. Fields words are, Romana ecclesia est verè ecclesia, non vera ecclesia; is truly a Church, not a true Church: Morton proveth in one whole Section, that the Church of Rome is not properly the Catholic Church, but a particular Church subject to error. Sect. 6. Protest. appeal, l. 4. But in this point, in what sense the Protestants call the Church of Rome a true Church, see a late Treatise set forth by Doctor Hall, the Bishop of Exton, called the Reconciler; wherein, both he and Bishop Davenet, and Morton, in their letters affixed thereunto, clear the matter nothing at all I assure you to your advantage.  
To the eight. The Knight saith not that a man may be saved in one Religion, yet so as he must not die in it: but that a man living in one Religion, to wit, the Popish, may be saved: so that he renounce it before his death, and die in a better: for not only the bosom of the Church, but also the gates of Heaven are always open to the penitent, as the Prophet Ezekiel teacheth: 
C. 18.23.  neither is this any new conceit of the Knight, but the general opinion of all Protestants, as the jesuit may read in the Catholic Appeal, l. 4. c. 1. The Reverend Bishop now mentioned, understanding how that great and honourable personage in the last Act of her life, renounced all presumption of her own inherent righteousness, and wholly affianced her soul to Christ in belief to be justified only by his satisfactory justice, did therefore conceive hope of her salvation by virtue of that Cordial prescribed by the Holy Apostle, viz. that where sin aboundeth, the grace of God doth superabound, which the Apostle hath ministered for the comfort of every Christian, who erring by ignorance, shall in sincere repentance for all his known sins, depart this mortal life, having the heel or end of his life shod with the preparation of the Gospel of peace, not of the new Romish, but of the old Catholic faith, which is the faith of all Protestants. 
C. 15. p. 363.  And again, in his book entitled, the Grand Imposture, If you demand why Protestants have so charitable opinion of some Romanists, you are to understand, that it is in regard of that, without which they cannot be saved, that they died in the belief of this Protestant Article of Faith, which is to be justified by remission of all their sins, through the satisfactory righteousness of Christ, apprehended by faith, and not by the legal justice or perfection of inherent righteousness in themselves, as your Council of Trent hath decreed: and this opinion we find verified in the experience of many Papists, who howsoever in their life time they profess and magnify your doctrine of perfection of works: yet on their death bed as soon as the least glimpse of the majesty of Christ's tribunal is revealed unto them, and the book of their conscience gins to be unclapsed, and so laid open before them that they cannot but read their sins, which in their life-time they held as venial, to be deadly and written in Capital litters: then they take Sanctuary in the wounds of Christ, from whence floweth the Ocean of all expiatory merit and satisfaction, by which it is impossible but that every faithful penitent should receive life.  
To the ninth. To this argument I say, that it is paralytical and weak in the sinews. For how doth this follow? the Donatists held as the Papists do, that all men were damned that were not of their sect; St. Austin de unit eccles. c. 12. and other Catholic Bishops thought that some of them might be in the state of grace, and that their Baptism was good, Ergo, it is a safer way to embrace the Donatists' heresy then the Catholic Faith: or at least send their children to the Donatists to be baptised, 
L. 1. De baptis. count. Donat. c. 3. Esse vero apud Donatistas baptismum, & illi asserunt & nos concedimus.  because both parties granted that there was true Baptism among the Donatists, whereas the Donatists denied that there was any true Baptism among the Catholics; or this, the Indian Priests teach, that it is unlawful to take bread from the hand of a Christian; the Christians teach that it is lawful to take bread from an Indian: therefore it is safer to take bread from an Indian then from a Christian, or have fellowship with an Infidel Indian then with a charitable Christian, because a Christian hath a better opinion of the Infidel, than the Infidel hath of him: as Protestants have a more charitable opinion of Papists, than Papists have of them. When the jesuit is sober let him think how to give an answer to Bishop Morton his instance, whereby he showeth the invalidity of this mad argument of jesuits, A mad man thinketh other men to be beasts, a sober man confesseth that a mad man is a man and no beast: is a mad man therefore in the right or in the better case than the sober man, because the sober man judgeth better of the mad man, than the mad man doth of the sober?     

Concerning the confession of all sides for the safety of the Protestant Religion; Spectacles, Chapter 18. à page 509. usque ad finem.  
THAT the ground of safety which the Knight thinketh he taketh from Catholics, is foolish, impertinent, and without sense as he setteth it down; for thus he saith, it is the safer way to persist in that Church, where both sides agree that salvation may be had, then where one part standeth single by themselves in opinion: for I would know what Church is that wherein there be two sides to agree or disagree? or what Church that is, that doth not stand single in opinion by itself, if it be a Church of a different faith (as we speak here of a Church?) A Church must have unity, it being a company of men, all professing the same faith and Religion, therefore it is plain there is no sense in this principle of his.  
I would ask him whether the Protestants do not stand single as well as we, by affirming of what we deny, or denying what we affirm: or rather whether he and his Church be not so much more single than we, as they have not one on their sides for every million, which we have or have had on ours.  
By the Knight's argument, a man may prove any heresy that ever was, nay, judiasme and Turkism to be a safer way than the Catholic, or even the Knights Protestant faith: for Arius may say, he agreeth with us Catholics in all things, save only in the Divinity of the second Person of Trinity, whom he acknowledgeth with us to be an Holy Man: and that we stand single by ourselves in the assertion of his Divinity. Macedonius may say the same of the Holy-Ghost: Nestorius of the plurality of persons in Christ: Eutyches of the singularity of Natures: Sergius Pyrrus, and the Monoth●lites of the unity of will in Christ: Ebion, Cerinthus, Martion, and almost all haeretikes in their several heresies, may say as the Knight doth, of the points controverted, that we stand single by ourselves in them: and so it is the safer way to believe only that wherein they and we agree; nay, the jews may make the same argument thus, That they agree with us, that there is one God Creator of heaven and earth, and that the old Testament is Canonical Scripture; for the rest we stand single: and the Turk may say that he agreeth with us, that Christ was an holy man, and a Prophet; for the rest we stand single: and therefore he is in the safer way.  
What can the Knight say for defence of his Argument? For though jews and Turks do not agree with us in the profession of the Christian Faith, yet I see not why that should be necessary by the Knight's Argument; and thereby a man may see what a good guide he is, and how safe a way he goeth: and whether the saying of Solomon be not truly verified of his Safe Way; 
Prov. 14.12.  There is a way which seemeth to a man strait, and the end of it leadeth to death, and consequently to hell: for what other is the end of Heresy, Judaisme, and Turkism? whereto the Knight's rule doth lead all such as will be ruled thereby.  

The Hammer.  
SEmper ego auditor tantum nunquam ne reponane? Hitherto the Knight held up his Buckler, and stood upon his own defence: but here he setteth upon his Adversary, closeth with him, wresteth his own Sword out of his hand, and therewith giveth him as many wounds as julius Caesar received in the Senate. For, besides the 12 Articles of Pope Pius the fourth his Creed, in all which, the Papists stand single, he inffanceth in eleven points more, wherein the Papists agree with us in our affirmative positions, but they alone maintain their affirmative addition; whereupon he condemneth the jesuit as Christ doth the Evil Servant in the Gospel, out of his own mouth thus:  
That Religion is less safe, in which the Professors stands single, than that in which the parties, other ways dissident, agree.  
But in all or most of the affirmative points of Popish Religion, they stand single; but in all such positive points of the reformed Faith, not only Papists, but in a manner all Christians of the world concur with us.  
Therefore the Popish Religion, by the jesuits own rule, is less safe.  
To illustrate this by a few instances, the positive points of our Doctrine are chief these: 

1. That the three Creeds; the Apostles, the Nicene, and that of Athanasius are to be received upon pain of damnation.  
2. That religious worship is due to God.  
3. That God is to be called upon.  
4. That Christ is head of the Church.  
5. That he is our Mediator and Advocate.  
6. That he was conceived without sin.  
7. That we are saved by his merits and satisfaction.  
8. That the Scripture is a rule of Faith.  
9 That there are two and twenty Canonical Books of the old Testament.  
10. That the originals in the Greek and Hebrew are authentical.  
11. That there are two Sacraments of the new Testament, Baptism, and the Lords Supper.  
12. That Children of the Faithful are to be christened.  
13. That in Baptism, water is necessarily to be used.  
14. That Christ is truly present at his Supper; and that the worthy Receiver is by faith made spiritually partaker of the true and real body and blood of Christ.  
15. That the Sacrament may be administered in both kinds.  
16. That the Images of Christ and his Saints may serve for Ornaments and Memorials, and that there is a lawful historical use of them.  
17. That Peter had a Primacy of Order among the Apostles.  
18. That there are two places for souls departed, Heaven and Hell.  
19 That there are three holy Orders in the Church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.  
20. That Confession to a Priest, in case the Conscience be troubled with any grievous Sin, is profitable and behooveful.    
To all these points, and many more like unto these, the Papists assent; but in all their additions they stand single, as namely: 

1. That a fourth Creed made by Pius the fourth, is likewise to be received under pain of damnation.  
2. That religious worship is due to Saints.  
3. That Saints and Angels are to be called upon.  
4. That the Pope is the visible head of the Church.  
5. That Saints are our Mediators and Advocates.  
6. That the Virgin Mary also was conceived without sin.  
7. That we are justified and saved in part by our own Merits, and superabundant satisfactions of Saints.  
8. That Tradition is a rule of Faith as well as Scripture.  
9 That besides those two and twenty, there are other Books of the old Testament, to wit, Tobit, Judith, Baruch, The Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, and the Maccabees, to be admitted into the number of Canonical Scriptures.  
10. That the vulgar Latin translation of the Scripture is most pure and authentical.  
11. That besides Baptism and the Lords Supper, there are five other Sacraments; Confirmation, Order, Penance, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction.  
12. That Galleys and Bells may, and aught to be christened.  
13. That besides Water; Cream, Salt, and Spittle are to be used in Baptism.  
14. That Christ is present in the Sacrament by Transubstantiation, and that his body and blood is not only received spiritually by Faith, but also carnally by the mouth.  
15. That the Sacrament of the Lords Supper may lawfully be administered to the Laity in one kind only.  
16. That besides an historical, there is a religious use of Images; and that they are to be worshipped.  
17. That Peter had not only a Primacy of Order, but a power also, and jurisdiction over the Apostles.  
18. That besides Heaven and Hell, there is a third place of abode for souls, to wit, Purgatory; and a fourth also, termed Limbus infantum.  
19 That besides those three holy Orders of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, there are others, as namely, Exorcists, Acolyts, etc.  
20. That confession of every known Sin to a Priest, is necessary.    
Now because Negatives are not properly Articles of Faith, but Positives or Affirmatives; it appeareth evidently, that the Faith of the reformed Churches is assented to by Papists themselves, and all Christians in the world, and therefore is most certain & safe by the confession on all sides: whereas the Popish additions, wherein we stand only upon the Negative, and they are to make good the Affirmative, are assented to by none but themselves; and therefore by the jesuits rule, are weak, doubtful, and less safe. This is Vulcaneum telum et argumentum palmarium, the main and principal argument whereby the Knight demonstrateth the title of his Book; and he is so confident of it, that if that be to be accounted the safer way, wherein different parties agree both in one, as the jesuit laid it down in the former chapter, he will join issue with all Papists in the world in this very point: and if in this he make not good the title of his Book, that we are therefore in the safer way, because they agree in the principal and Positive points of Religion with our Doctrine; he will reconcile himself to the Roman Church, and creep upon all four to his Holiness for a Pardon. At this the jesuit is so mad, that he foameth at the mouth, and raveth, saying, 
Pag. 512.  That to creep upon all four is a very fit gate for men so devoid of reason, as to make such Discourses, and to use such malicious insinuations, as if men used to creep upon all four to the Pope, 
Parce sepulto  
Parce pias scelerare manus:  be not so inhuman and barbarous, in tearing the fame of the dead; there is no cause at all given of such rage and fury. The Knight doth herein no way blaspheme, or falsely traduce Dominum deum Papam; for those that ordinarily kiss the Pope's toe, unless his Holiness be the more courteous to hold up his foot the higher, must needs be near creeping on all four. To say nothing of Dandalus King of Crete and Cyprus who was upon all four, and that under the Table before the Pope's Holiness, as jewel in his Apology, and the defence thereof undeniably proveth out of good Authors against Mr. Harding; yet the Knight in this place chargeth not the Pope with any such imperious demand of Luciferian pride: but only professeth what penance he would willingly enjoin himself, if he should abuse the Reader, and not make good the Title of his book by the argument above propounded; against which, what the jesuit here particularly Articleth and objecteth, I will now consider.  
To the first. The words which the jesuit would make seem so ridiculous, are related by the Knight, as their own words not ours, as any may perceive by the Preface to them, therefore say they, and by this that they are written in a lesser Character, and is it not senseless in the jesuit, and most ridiculous to laugh at himself, and put his own nonsense upon the Knight, who taking the jesuits words as he found them, scorning to nible at syllables, interpreted the jesuits words at the best, and taking his meaning, joins issue with him upon the point in this manner. In a Church professing Christianity, where the Scriptures of the old and new Testament are received, and the two Sacraments instituted, by Christ administered, suppose we there to be two sorts of Professors, either publicly allowed as in France, or at least tolerated, as in other Kingdoms, both these entituling themselves to be members of the pure Orthodox Church, and neither of them having been particularly condemned in any general Council, received through the Christian world; the problem than is, whether of these two, that party is not in the safer way, who holdeth no positive Article of faith, to which both parties (besides all other Christians) give not their assent unto: then the other who maintaineth twelve Articles of faith at least, wherein they themselves stand single, and are forsaken by all Christians, not only of the reformed Churches, in England, France, Germany, Denmark, Swethland, Norway, Poland, Transylvania, but also in the Eastern, and Greek Churches dispersed through the large Dominions of the Turk in Europe, Asia, and Africa. But thus it standeth between us and Papists, all the positive Articles which we hold necessary to salvation, they themselves, and all other Christian Churches in the world assent unto: whereunto the Church of Rome hath added many other positive Articles in joining all under pain of damnation to believe them; in all which additions, she standeth alone by herself: therefore it is safer to adhere to the doctrine and faith of the reformed churches, than the Pope his new Trent Creed. The jesuits exceptions against this argument are very idle, and all his instances in Turks, jews, and Haeretikes, nothing to the purpose: for the unbelieving jews and Turks never were, nor yet are members of the Catholic Christian Church: the Arians, Nestorians, Eutychians, and Marcionites have been long ago excluded out of the true Church of Christ, and their Heresies are by name condemned in ancient general Counsels approved by the whole Christian world. These therefore come not within the verge of the Knight's proposition, which is restrained to Christian Churches, and such whose Tenets have not in particular as yet been cried down, and censured as erroneous in any ecumenical Council: among such, doubtless those are in the safer way, who hold nothing for an Article of faith necessary to salvation, which is not clearly deduced out of Holy Scripture, and assented unto, even by the opposite part, whose testimony, saith the jesuit, Page 498. must needs proceed from evidence of truth.  
To the second. The jesuit hath received answer already to the former of these demands, where I shown by twenty instances that we stand not single as they do, by affirming what they deny, and denying what they affirm: for the most, if not all the affirmative Articles of our Creed, are firmed and subscribed by Papists themselves, whereas their additionals to them are firmed by none but themselves: and therefore herein our cause hath a great advantage on theirs. For if their belief be true, our belief in all the affirmative Articles thereof must needs be so; but not on the contrary, because they have many affirmative Articles which we give no credit unto. To his second demand I answer, that though a multitude of Professors is no perpetual and infallible mark of the true Church: 
Luke 12.32. Matth. 7.13. Apoc. 13.17. Apoc. 20.2. Apoc 1●. 4. The woman arrayed in purple and scarlet, called The Whore of Babylon, had a cup of gold in her hand, etc. Apoc. 13.3. All the world wondered, and followed the Beast. & ver. 8. All that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the Book of Life.  for Christ's flock is but a little flock in comparison, and broad is the way that leadeth to death and destruction; and though it is true that in the latter and worse ages of the Church, especially after the year 666. which is the number of the name of the Beast, and much more after the thousandth year wherein Satan was let lose, the Romish Church was much more visible to the eye of the world than the Protestant, as it is prophesied in the Apocalypse the 16. 6. that the false and malignant Church should be fare more glorious and pompous than the true Spouse of Christ: yet in the first and best ages of the Church, our adversaries have not so much as one single witness, who can be proved to have given testimony to their Trent faith, and since the happy reformation began by Martin Luther in King Henry the eights days, the better part of Europe is fallen from the Pope; add we to them all those, who in Asia and Africa profess the Christian faith, and yet acknowledge not the Pope, nor subscribe to the Trent faith: and it will appear we have near a thousand for one in the Catholic visible Church scattered far and wide over the face of the earth, as may be seen in the Maps set forth in a book printed the last year, and entitled Christianography, or the Description of the multitude and sundry sorts of Christians in the World, not subject to the Pope, with their unity, and how they agree with the Protestants in the principal points of difference between them and the Church of Rome.  
To the third. If the argument be so weak, let the jesuit remember that it is his own, and that he confesseth as much in the first words of this Chapter, which are these, The substance of this Section is contained in the title, and it is nothing but to turn the Catholic argument, mentioned in the former Section the other way for the Protestant side. The argument than is a Catholic argument of their own, and if it make for Haeretikes, jews, and Turks, as he saith it doth, the blame and shame thereof must light upon the jesuits, that first framed it, and not upon the Knight who retorteth it only upon them: for thus it moveth upon their Axletree, that wherein Professors of different religions both agree, is safer to believe then that wherein they stand single, but jews and Christians agree in the belief of the old Testament; Christians and Turks agree in the truth of Christ's humane nature, in other points the Christians are single, therefore the belief of a jew or a Turk is safer than the belief of a Christian. The conclusion is here false and blasphemous, the minor or assumption is evidently true, and confessed on all sides: the fault therefore must needs be in the major or ground of this argument, but the major or ground is your own, as will appear by reducing the jesuits Argument, propounded in the former Section, into form: That Church wherein parties of a different Religion, as Papists and Protestants agree, is a safer way than that wherein one party stand single. But Papists and Protestants both agree, that salvation may be had in the Romish Church; but the Protestants stand single, in that they say, salvation may be had in the Protestant Church: therefore it is safer living and dying in the Papists Church than in the Protetestant. In this Syllogism, the Knight and all Protestants, though they answer to the Assumption by distinguishing, as is expressed in the former chapter: yet they simply & absolutely deny the Major, which is not universally true, nor at all necessary. Secondly, Dato & non concesso: that the Major is true, the Knight nimbly turns the mouth of the Papists own Canon, to batter their own walls, thus: That position, say you, in which both Papists and Protestants agree, is safer than that wherein one party standeth single: but in the eleven Points mentioned by the Knight, Papists and Protestants agree: in the twelve Articles coined by Pope Pius the fourth, the Papists stand single; therefore the Protestant Faith is the safer.  
To the fourth. A strange Argument, for the jesuit to conclude other men's sight from his own blindness: because he seethe not how the Knight can avoid the instances in Jews, Heretics, and Turks, whereby he goeth about to disable the Knight his retorted Argument; therefore will he infer, that any man may see that the Knight is no good guide. For pity let some fit the jesuit with a pair of Spectacles, that he may better see the Knight his way, and his own wander. 
* How far the Romish Religion is distant from Heresy, judaisme, and Turkism, or rather trencheth upon all three; See P: Croy his book of Conformities, and Sutcliffe his Turco papismus.  jews and Turks are out of the Christian Church, hold not all Positive Articles necessary to salvation, and therefore they come not in the Knight's way at all; nor hath he to do with them in this Argument, which proceedeth from professed Christians, and not open enemies to the Faith. For the Knight from his heart detesteth all paths leading to any of those dangerous precipices; and chaulketh to all men Viam vere tutam, certam, rectam & regiam; a fair and Safe Way, and the very King's Highway to his Palace, wherein we have Christ and his Apostles for our Leaders; the holy Spirit for our Guide; the blessed Angels for our Convoy; the ancient Fathers and Doctors of the Church for our fellow Travellers through the whole, and the best learned of the Roman Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, and Schoolmen to bear us company the greater part of our way. Wherefore, I doubt not, but that the indifferent peruser of the Knight's Book, and the jesuits Answer, and my Reply unto it; will break out into the Apostles exclamation, and say to this Romish Sorcerer, 
Acts 3.13.  or rather if he will so, false Spectacle-maker, Flood: O full of all subtlety and mischief, thou child of the devil, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right way of the LORD?     
FINIS.  
Laus DEO sine fine.