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 Schismaticks.

The Similitude and Harmony betwixt the Romane Catholick, and the Heretick, 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 Pauls Church-yard. 1660.

TO THE RIGHT Reverend Father in God, THOMAS, By Divine Providence, Lord B. of DURESME, &c.

May it please your good Lordship;

AFTER I had taken a reso­lution to apologize for my departed friend, and make a kind of hedge to his Via tuta, I seriously bethought my selfe, who would maimtaine the fence, by one so made; and patronize this pa­tronage of that his worthy worke. For though the cause in hand, be the truth of God; and the person whom I undertake to defend against the Calumniations of [Page]his Adversarie, be now [...], out of the eye ofHorat. Od. 14. l. 3. Subla­tum ex ocu­lis quaerimus invidi. Ovid. l. 3. De Pont Pascitur in vi­vis livor post fata quiescit. Et Iuvenal. Sat. 1. Nulli gravus est percussus Achilles, aut multum quaesi­tus Hylas. envie, 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 poyson of theAristoph. in Plut. [...], id est, annulis me­dicinalis aut antidotus. Sycophants tooth, or venom of the Detracters 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 Sanctuarie in the grave; and thereforeBrusonius facet et exemp. l. 1. Solon legem condidit, quâ prohibuit in de­functos maledi­cta consicere. Et Theodorus Chius cen­suit Pom­peium in aegypt, admittendum addens Mor­tuos non mor­dere. Erosm. Apoph. p. 374. Selon ena­cted a Law, whereby, under a great pe­naltie, he prohibited any to cast any foule aspersion on the dead. AndBruson. 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 threatned 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 [Page]without horrour, nor expresse with­out griefe, what the Acts and Monuments of the Church, present to the view of all men, concerning Popish malice survi­ving life it selfe, and committing in­humane (not onely unchristian) outra­ges on the corpes, and not lesse upon the workes of Orthodoxe Professors now with God. The blessed Martyr, SaintCypr. 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 Racke, could straine no higher after hee had said, These Salvage Persecutors wreake their furie on the brused, 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 theyVide hist. de mort. Spala­tensis. M. S. Arraigne the dead, they sue against them an Ejection out of their long homes, and interre them inActs and Monuments, volume 3. pag. 778. The body of Peter Martyrs wife, at Oxford, was taken up by Doctor Marshall out of her grave, in the Church of Saint Frideswids, and buried in a dunghill. Lestals; nay they [Page]burne theirActs and Monuments, vol. 1. p. 606. The body, and bones of Iohn Wickliffe, by the Decree of the Synod of Constance, were taken up & burned, 41. yeares after he was buried, in his owne Pa­rish at Lutter­worth, and his ashes taken & throwne into the river; and so was hee re­solved into three ele­ments, Earth, Fire, and Wa­ter: thinking thereby, utterly to exstinguish and abolish both his name and Doctrine for ever. Acts & Monuments, volume 3. pag. 771. The Vice chancellor taking with him a publike Notarie, bound the Parishioners with an oath, to digge up Paulus Fargius his bones: and received the like oath of Roger Davis, and William Ha­zell, 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 chaine, fire being forthwith put to, as soone as it began to flame round about, a great sort of bookes that were condemned with them, were cast into the same. bones, and strew their ashes on the rivers.

Tantene animis coelestibus irae?

Loe the bowels of them who most boast of workes of Mercie, (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 himselfe damned with Lucifer, if ever any Lutheran were saved. towards the bodies of true Professors, whilome, Temples of the holy Ghost: yet their charitie to their soules, exceeds this; for these they pe­remptorily exclude out of heaven, and send them pell-mell, without Baile, or Mainprise, to the dungeon of hell; and there sentence them to more exquisite Coccleus hist. Hussit. l. 2. Multo graviora esse crediderim Wicklefi tormenta quam sint apud inferos, vel scelera tissimorum hominum Iudae proditoris Christi, & Neronis Christianorum perse­cutoris. torments, than either Nero the monster of men, or Iudas the betrayer of Christ himselfe, indure. Of this [Page]straine is the KnightsFlood, Spect. c. 17. per tot. Papists dying in their Reli­ligion saved, Protestants damned. Alastor, with whom I am to deale; whose perfect cha­racter your Lordship may see in Sozimus, drawne to the life by Isidorus Pelusiota, [...],’as your Lordship may find likewise, an exact Emblem of his booke in Plinie his description of thePlin. nat. hist. l. 9. c. 36. Beares whelpe, 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 needfull to make choise of a Patron of eminent qualitie, who with his Authoritie, might stoppe the mouth of such railing Rabshakah's; and if need be, lend them a smart blow with his Crozure, asHom. Is. s. [...]. Ʋlisses did Thersites with his golden Scepter. Now, although the Knight vvanted not many Noble and vvorthie friends, and some of your Lordships 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 Apologie to your [Page]Lordship. First, because none of your Lordships ranke 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 aboade in France, now 25. yeares agoe: where I saw theFitzg: Hector Romuli­dum cecidit sub Achille Iuello. 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. Armes 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.

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 lesse unimitable, then un­answerableMort. in­stitut. sacram. l. 3. c. 3. p. 158. Of Rom. Tran­sub. This sen­tence I have seene lately can­vased by a Ie­suit against a judicious and religious Knight, falsly imputing unto him diverse falsities, &c. And l. 7. c. 7. pag. 545. Your Iesuit in his booke of Spectacles made in confutation of a judicious and religious Knight, among many other of his Paradoxes and Ab­surdities &c. masterpiece, held up your buckler over the Knight then living, more [Page]then once, and ward off the Iesuits blowes; and therefore I doubt not but that your Lordship will now bestride him being dead, and save him from all further injury. For my selfe, as nothing induced me to make this supplement to his Apologie, but the love of Gods truth, and the truth of my friends love: so I hope that all who love the truth in sincerity, upon the impartiall perusall hereof, will doe the Knight honour, and me right. For envie it selfe cannot denie that he hath much advantaged the common cause, both by convincing the Adversaries, in all the maine points of difference betweene us, out of their owne mouthes, and disco­vering more at large then any the mystery of their Indices expurgatorij [...]; wherein though they professe to correct onely their owne writers, and that but from the yeare 1518. yet the Knight hath tra­ced them upwards, and detected their corruption of all sorts of Writers in all former ages: whereby the judicious [Page]Reader may observe such indirect dea­ling in our Adversaries towards us, asMelancth. orat. Tom. 1. de Od 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 occiliū 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 legall tryall, whose names were written in a certaine Cata­logue, Critias bearing a spleene to The­rammenes, first blots his name out of the Catalogue, and then proceeds to sentence him to death; and when Therammenes pleaded the priviledge of the law, as be­ing one of the thirty Governours, whose name was set downe 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 strucke out the name of Therammenes. Let any that hath a single eye, judge whether the proceedings of our Romish Adversaries against us, are not altogether as injurious as this of Critias towards his Collegue Therammenes. First, [Page]they raze out our Records, and burne 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 confesse 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 looke up­on him through the Iesuits Spectacles un­rubbed, he will thinke him very foule in some Allegations at least: but let him in­quire into the more Auncient and uncor­rupted Copies, or looke upon the Knights writings without the Iesuits false glasses, and glosses, or even through those Specta­cles he hath fitted for him in this last Pam­phlet; as they are now wiped and clensed by me, he will finde him a most faire and ingenuous Writer.

There is no text of Scripture among [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page]many scores, no Allegation of Antiquity among many hundreths, vellicated by the Iesuit, 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 layed by the Ie­suit 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 begunne by the Knight is finished: on which I crave leave to imprint your Lordships Name and Armes; entreating your Lordship to accept this Dedication as an indication of my sincere love to my de­ceased friend, and withall an acknow­ledgment of that great debt of thankes I owe your Lordship for your Lordships many undeserved favours, which I am a­ble no other wayes to discharge, then by underwriting my selfe,

Your Lordships most humbly and affectionatly Devoted, DA. FEATLEY.

The CONTENTS of the first Part.

In the Epistle to I. R.
  • FAlsifications objected by the Iesuit, answerd and retorted. pag. 2.
  • Personall succession of visible Professors is no certaine note of a true Church. pag. 3.
  • The second Commandement is morall, and the Iesuits leaving it out of the Decalogue, is unexcusable. pag. 8.
In the Answer to the Preface.
  • The Iesuits answer is full of railing, slanders, sophismes, 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 Poperie are new, by the confession of Papists themselves. pag. 38.
  • Protestants have a certaine 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 foy­sting bastard Treatises, & entitling them to the Fathers. 2. By fal­sifying their undoubted Treatises by additions, detractions, or mutations. 3. By alleaging passages and places out of them, which are not extant in their Workes: and of all these three kinds, Ro­manists are proved guiltie. 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 bitternesse against reformed Churches is causlesse. pag. 148.
  • [Page]The definition of Heretikes 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 partie. pag. 165.
  • The Councell of Trent intended a reformation of Faith as well as manners. pag. 173.
  • CHAP. IV. The Catholike 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.
  • Priests marriage is lawfull. pag. 181.
  • CHAP. V. Romanists prefer their own interpretations of Scrip­tures, before the ancient Fathers. pag. 188.
  • CHAP. VI. Many errours have crept into the Church, whose first Authors cannot be named. pag. 191.
  • The difference between Heresie and Apostacie. pag 196.
  • CHAP. VII. The petty degree of the Romish Faith is drawne from the ancient Heretikes, namely; the Osseni Helcheseite, the Capernaites, the Manichees, the A [...]gelici, the Collyridians, the Tacians, and the Cathorists. pag. 219.
  • CHAP. VIII. The Antiquitie, and Vniversalitie of the Prote­stant Faith in generall is proved by the testimonies of our lear­ned Adversaries. pag. 253.
  • There are but 22 Canonicall books of the old Testament, as is pro­ved by the testimonies of the ancient Fathers, both of the Greeke and Latine Church. pag 276.

Errata in the first Part.

PAge 42. line 8. reade his. lin. 17. r. authority, in marg. l. 2 r. ad Dard. p. 57. lin. 11. r. their foreseene. p. 66. l. 4. r. the deepe. 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 speake. 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. dele and. p. 270. l. 4. r. looke. p. 271. l. 29. r. of the. p. 273. l. 3. dele to the p. 279. l. 22. r. when.

To J. R. AUTHOR OF THE BOOKE CALLED A paire of Spectacles.

I Received a Treatise from you, (Mr. J. R.) not long since pub­lished against me by the title of A paire of Spectacles, or, An Answer to a booke called Via tuta, The safe way: wherein you say the booke is shewed to be a Labyrinth of Errours, and the Author a blinde Guide.

To what end your Spectacles were made for a blinde man I cannot tell; for sure I am, if I were blinde, a paire of your Spectacles could not make [Page 2]me see: howsoever if the indifferent Reader will look but upon the Frontispice of your own book, he shall easily discerne that your glasses are deceitfull, and do justly occasion a Writ of Error to be brought against your selfe, 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 Catholique Church) doth not come in the way, but goeth out of the way: wherein you have added these words of your owne (viz.) which is the Catholique 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 Scriptu­ris—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 canonicall Scriptures, that faith is formed and bred by which the just doe live. Nay more, hee expressely professeth with us, that the holy Scripture doth fix or settle the rule of our doctrine. And thus in your first citation you falsifie S. Austin, and go besides the rule of faith and good manners also, and by stumbling at the threshold, you shew your selfe to bee the blinde guide you speake of in the first page, and the first place.

I proceed to your Dedicatorie Epistle; first, you begin to descant upon my name, in paralelling the words Lyend and Lye, howsoever (say you) The title of Sir will be left for you.

These bee the first flowers of your eloquence, and they savour sweetly. Now if I should repay you in your owne language, and shew you what men are branded with the letter (R) which stands for your name; if I should shoot backe (I say) your [Page 3] arrowes, even bitter words, into your owne bosome, would it not shew rather want of matter than proofe of doctrine? If you delight to sit in the seat of the scornefull, it shall be my comfort to tread in the steps of my Saviour, who when hee was reviled, reviled not againe. To let passe 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 shew the visibilitie 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 mee my weapons, and teach mee how to fight.

Touching the visibilitie of the Church, it is not to be confined within the narrow compasse of an Epistle; and therefore I will answer you and your Jesuites 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 briefe, not in Rome, but in Ephesus; for otherwise it might seeme incongruous, that the Apostle should exhort Timothy to walke circumspectly in the Church of God, because the Church of Rome was the pillar and firmament of truth. And therefore the Turke may better alledge this place to prove Mah mets religion, being now subject to his power, than you to justifie the Romish religion, because Ephesus was the pillar of truth.

You proceed, and by way of prevention you tell [Page 4]me the controversie 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 quarrell it not, onely I pray you tell mee in the words of sobernesse and truth, did ever any wise man (except your selfe) un­dertake to prove the true Church by the visibilitie of the persons? May not Jewes and Heretiques by the same reason claime a true Church, because they had visible persons in all ages?

But say you this hath beene the way which the holy Fathers have taken, either in proving the Ca­tholique 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 Frontispice of your booke.

Touching your first Author,Tertull. pre­script. c. 32. & lib. 3. Car. ad­vers. Marcion. Tertullian, (in the first place cited by you) hee demonstrates two wayes how to discerne the Church: first, by shew­ing some Apostle or Apostolicall person to have founded it; next, by the conformity of the do­ctrine to the Apostles: and in his third book against Marcion (which is your second citation) hee 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, hee is expressely against you; for in the first chapter and third booke (cited by you) he saith, By the will of God they have delivered the Gospel to bee the pillar [Page 5]and foundation of truth. In the second hee saith, that when Heretiques are convinced by the Scrip­tures, they fall to accuse them, as if they were not right, or of authoritie, and that they are ambiguous and doubtfull. In the third hee proveth the truth of the Church by the conformitie of doctrine to the A­postles, not by the visibilitie, as you pretend. In his fourth booke cited by you, he shewes 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 free-hold of that Church which dispenseth with Stewes; but of the point in question he speakes nothing at all.

Touching your third Author, S. Cyprian, Cypr. Ep. 52. & 76. in the 52. Epistle cited by you, he perswades Antonianus rather to adhere to Cornelius than Novatianus: and in his 76. Epistle alledged by you, hee shewes that Novatianus succeeding none in that See, was ordained by himselfe, and therefore could bee no true Bishop; but as touching the controversie 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 Psalme, and there is nothing handled of the questi­on: you cite likewise his 165. Epistle, wherein hee declares a succession of Bishops from the Apostles [Page 6]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 tels his friend Honoratus, he must begin his enquirie from the Catholique Church.

Hee that told the Manichees, wee must take our Exordium from the Church, told the Donatists like­wise, wee 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 knowne Christ, Idem Ep. 166. in them wee have knowne 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 Schismatiques we or you? aske you not mee, I will not aske you, let Christ bee asked, that hee may shew us his owne Church.

After these severall passages you returne againe to your first Author Tertullian, Tertull. pre­script. c. 19. and with him you conclude; where it shall appeare that there is the truth of Christian discipline and faith, there shall bee the truth of Scriptures and Expositions. And from hence you inferre, that we are first to seeke the persons that professe 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 owne Asser­tion in the third chapter,Idem c. 3. Ex personis probamus fi­dem, an ex fide personas? As if hee should say, wee 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 expressely against you, the third speakes 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 foureteene severall places out of the ancient Fathers in one page, and all either impertinently, or falsly, or directly against your selfe: by which the Reader may conjecture what is like to bee the issue of your whole worke, who have so grossely falsi­fied so many authorities in your Epistle, and before the entrance into the body of your booke.

From your lame proofes of the Churches authori­tie, you proceed to the justification of your maimed commandements, 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 doe you not publish Gods comman­dements as hee wrote them? Admit that in your Catechismes you should set downe this forme of Baptisme, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and leave out the Sonne, and the Holy Ghost, would it be sufficient to say it is not absolutely left out, be­cause it is contained in the Bible? Shew mee the man amongst your Papalins that dare alter a Kings command or a Popes Breve, and will your Church attempt more against the Precepts of God, than [Page 8]against a Popes Bull or a Kings Proclamation? But the truth is, and you know it too well, if the second precept were expressely set downe in your Psalters, the common people would be too busie in expostu­lating the cause why Image-worship should be com­manded by the Church, and yet condemned by Gods word.

Yea, but it is part of the first commandement (say you) or otherwise it is ceremoniall.

Let it bee one or other, since God thought it needfull to be added, how dare you leave it out?Deut. 4.2. It was the voice of God himselfe, You shall not adde unto the word which I command, neither shall you diminish ought from it, that you may keepe the com­mandement of the Lord your God. Againe, how is it a part of the first if it be ceremoniall, when the first is agreed on all hands to be naturall & morall? The truth is, it is not ceremoniall, but morall, 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 ceremoniall, and so to cease at the comming of Christ; yet your owne Bellar­mine disavowes 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 Jewes, and for that Irenaeus, Tertullian, S. Cyprian, and S. Austin, doe all teach that the com­mandements, excepting the Sabbath, are a Law wholly naturall and morall.

After your Apologie for your maimed comman­dements, you grow so virulent, as if the poyson of Aspes were under your lips, you crie out, I notoriously falsifie some Authors, and impertinently alledge o­thers; you charge me with execrable perjurie, you say, I am a framer of lies, and I offend in all kinde of falshood: and lastly, you conclude the booke to bee none of mine, but some Ministers, because you heare it from some, that I scarce skill of ordinarie Latine.

I professe for my learning I cannot boast of it; I doe 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 Gods cause I seeke no praise, so I feare 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 enemie and the avenger. And howsoever seemingly you condemne mee for ignorance, yet I am verily perswaded that if I were more ignorant than you make mee, you would love me the more: for your Church commends Ignorance for the mo­ther of Devotion: and the rather, because your owne Clemangis tels us,Nich. Clemang. c. 6. before the dayes of reformati­on, Many Priests who had cure of soules, were sent to their flocks, not from their studies, or from the schoole, but from the plough, and they understood as much La­tine as Arabick; nay, they could not read, and that which was shamefull, they could not distinguish an Al­pha from a Beta. Neither can it be denied, that ma­ny Popes have dispensed with ignorant men, who [Page 10] per saltum, without any learning, have leaped into a Bishopricke. Pope Paul the third created Rober­tus Venantius Arch-Bishop of Armach, for two spe­ciall 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 hee could sing Masse sweetly; the other, because he could ride a Post horse skilfully. And in the latter ages it was so usuall to admit any Ignoramus's into a Bishoprick, that when our King Edward the third sollicited Pope Clement the sixth, to create Thomas Hartfield Bishop of Durham, notwithstanding the Cardinals cried out he was a Lay-man, and an Ideot, the Pope replyed, If the King of England had entreated for his Asse, 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 nee­rer to the times; Julius the third made the keeper of his monkey a Masse-priest, and I presume he had small store of Latine. 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 ordinarie Latine. And lastly, hee 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 speake not this by way of recrimination, but to let you know, how well you and your fellowes are read in the two titles of the Law, De maledicis, & De Clerico promoto per saltum.

Take therefore from me what learning you will, distraine it, and impound it at your pleasure, I will never trouble you with Replevin: onely I say with S. Austin, Seeke others of more learning, but beware of them that presume of learning.

And whereas you conceive a Minister made my booke, and I beare the name onely for to countenance the worke: If I had received help from some in this kinde, you need not blame me for it, for it is ordi­narie with your men, to have whole Colledges joyne their helping hand in defence of your cause. But in answer to your supposall, and to vindicate our Ministers from those great aspersions of igno­rance, of corruption, of obstinacie, of perjurie, laid unto their charge (as Authors of the worke) I witnesse a true confession before God, who knowes I lye not, a Minister was so farre from making my booke,Via Tuta. Via Devia. that I neither had help from Clergy-man nor Lay-man, for composing or making either of my bookes.

Let it suffice for me to have said the truth, which although it appeare never so simple, yet it is able to remove a mountaine of learning: if there be in mee, I say not any talent, but onely a mite of a talent, 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 mee with obstinacie and malice (which, say you, is the true cause of all my errours) let mee tell you, if I were in an errour, you have not the patience to shew it me, but by bitternesse and railing. Your learning haply may worke miracles in the eares of the un­learned that cannot judge; but it cannot turne dark­nesse into light, nor errour into truth. And although your bitternesse might justly occasion that malice, of which you accuse me; yet it is so farre from my [Page 12]thoughts, that I pitie you, and in requitall of your paines, 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 owne, and thereby gave sufficient triall of your ignorance and corruption, whereof you were convinced by (O.E.) but never clee­red your selfe of so foule a taxe.

It is true that some ten yeeres since I caused Ber­tram to be reprinted, and published with a preface before it; and it is as true, that hee being a Romish Priest taught our doctrine of the Eucharist above eight hundred yeeres since, and therefore by way of prevention, you terme him an obscure Author, though he were famous in his time.

As touching the foule taxe of ignorance and cor­ruption, in false translating it (wherewith you charge mee) you are much mistaken; for I never translated it, but onely reprinted the old translati­on: this both hee and you might have seene in the Frontispice of the booke, 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. Againe, in the end of my preface you shall finde these words, Pittie it were but this lamp should receive a new light by reprinting him, which the ini­quitie of the time had almost extinquished. Now I [Page 13]pray, Sir, what cause was there of any answer to your namelesse Author, or rather what cause was there of his and your bitternesse, in charging mee with false translating, with ignorance and corrup­tion? I professe I am not ignorant that your men are guiltie of many such false accusations (ad faci­endum populum) to make your Proselytes beleeve, that all our bookes are full of lyes; of whom I may truly say, as S. Austin sometimes spake of the Do­natists, When they cannot by slie and wily cosenage creep like Aspes, with open professed violence they rage like Lions.

Lastly (you say) that an Answer to my booke hath hitherto beene deferred, because no man of learning would thinke it worth his paines to make any.

Let mee tell you, I have received three printed answers to Via tuta, besides two written copies from namelesse Authors: the first was from a Mer­chant, and that is called Via verè tuta: the second from a Priest, and that is called A paire of Specta­cles to see the way: the third is from a Clerk, and that is termed A Whetstone of Reproofe. The first printed Author is termed Mr. John Heigham, whose Treatise savours too much of blasphemie and ri­baldrie: the second is Mr. John Floyd, whose worke is full of bitternesse and subtiltie: the third is Tom Tell troth (for so he termes himselfe) whose pam­phlet is fraught with all childishnesse and imperti­nencie. Now if none of these were men of learning, as you confesse (because no learned man would take the paines to answer it) what may I thinke of your [Page 14]wisdome, which hath returned an answer full of railing accusations (such as the Angell of God would not have brought against the Devill him­selfe)? I say, in regard your bitter lines are rather a libell 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 bitternesse 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 my selfe to call you to a sober reckoning, that the truth of God might appeare, and that by your owne bit­ternesse, you might better discerne the character of a bad cause, and an evill spirit.

For a conclusion take but a short view of your bit­ter reproaches: you term me a blind Guide, & a Mi­nisteriall Knight; you say my booke is a Labyrinth of errours; you crie out my sirname hath the two first letters of a lye; you say the title of Sir will be left for me; you condemne me of execrable perjurie; you affirme I am a framer of lyes, and abound in all kind of falshood; you tell me, I scarce understand Latine, and it is conceived a Minister made my booke; you charge me with obstinacie, with malice, with cor­ruption, with ignorance, with false translating; you proclaime the fearefull judgements of God upon me for perverting soules, and as if I were past all grace, you say I am not capable of any good advice; yet at last (as if you would make mee some amends [Page 15]for all your accusation) you conclude: I forbeare to say any more, resting howsoever your well-wishing friend.

Surely you have said enough, and you doe well to forbeare to say more; for I thinke the words of your Epistle are so sufficiently dipt in lye and gall, that they will serve for your whole worke: but I pardon you, and shall returne you no other answer than the Arch-Angell gave to Satan, Jude vers. 9. The Lord re­buke you: onely let me tell you, I cannot thinke you a well-wishing friend, whose heart and tongue is full of cursing and bitternesse; 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 foule one too.) In the meane time you must remem­ber that for your idle and vaine words you must give accompt to God; and for your fifteene seve­rall falsifications you must give an accompt to your Reader. And thus by way of Traverse and deniall to all other things impertinently alledged, I answer No: to your railing I answer nothing.


Good Christian Reader,

FIrst thou shalt observe, that the author of the Spectacles chiefe aime is either by shifts and ca­vils to outface the truth, or by Sophistrie and bitter words to darken it: one while hee cries downe my booke, and slights it in such a scornefull manner, as if it were not worth the answering;Pag. 20 [...]. another while hee complaines that there is no place in the whole booke, which is not either falsly or impertinently alledged: one while hee pro­claimes, that my endevours are poore indeed, and farre short of what is requisite in writing bookes; another while he professeth, It hath somewhat in it [Page 17]which may draw away an honest-minded man, and that his Catholique friend was stumbled at it. Now what is the reason of these impertinent excursions and contradictions? It was the observation of an­cient Maxentius: Heretiques when they finde them­selves not able to yeeld a reason of their wilfulnesse, then they fall into plaine railing. And certainly such is the bitternesse of this Author, that were I per­swaded Pythagoras transmigration of soules into other mens bodies, had beene true; I should be­leeve that the soule of Rabshekah had beene trans­ported into his body: for otherwise if he had but a graine of charitie, hee would never spurne a blinde man (for so he termes me) when Christian charitie teaches him another lesson. If he were well versed in Antiquities, hee would never have cited so many places of ancient Fathers falsly and impertinently in one page, and yet condemne others of ignorance (and falsification) in the Fathers. If hee were well read in the Booke of Wisdome (I meane, in the sa­cred Scriptures) he would never have replyed with such scorne and disdaine; for without doubt the Apostle spake to Mr. Lloyd the Romanist, as well as to the rest of the Romans: Rom. 11.3. Not to thinke of him­selfe more highly than he ought to thinke, but soberly, according as God hath dealt to everie man the mea­sure of faith.

Hee that accuseth another man of ignorance, of lying, of malice, of execrable perjurie, and the like, had need be a man himselfe without all exception; yet if wee may beleeve the Doctors of his owne [Page 18]Church, he is guiltie of these and much more: wit­nesse the Sorbonicall 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 heresie, of profane scurrilitie, of blasphemie and im­pietie, of furious, filthy, and devillish railing, of un­sufferable arrogancie, and the like: and as touching his bitter accusations, it seemes it is his accustomed manner of writing, witnesse 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 drencht his sponge in that gall of bitter­nesse (such charitie and unitie is there amongst them­selves) that I may truly say of him, as the Spartans sometimes said of the Theban Oratour; 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, hee spares my person, and condemnes the Authors themselves, and complaines they are branded with the note of heresie and sin­gularitie: when as in truth they are branded onely by their Inquisitors, for speaking against the errors of their Trent Doctrine, being otherwise, knowne members of the Roman Church.

When I cite an Author of our owne, as namely, B. Usher, for translating Aelfricks Homily out of the Saxon tongue, one while hee cries out, Ushers corruptions are laid open to the world: another while he tels mee, I tooke the words from Usher, be­cause I understood not Latine, or perhaps because I [Page 19]would be loth not to follow any errours or corruptions that come in my way: and thus hee spends about ten pages, sometimes inveying against our reverend and renowned Bishop, sometimes against mee, for false translating Aelfrick out of Latine, when as the Latine cited by B. Usher in the margent,See B. Ushers answer to the Jesuites chal­lenge, chap. of the Reall presence. which hee takes to be Aelfricks, is the Latine of Bertram, and not Aelfricks, whose was translated out of the Saxon tongue, and not out of the Latine.

Againe, 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 foule faults committed by you, that I know not where to begin: then hee tax­eth me with leaving out two principall words (Hu­mi & solo) whereas the Author, which I cite, hath no such words: I render the place truly as I finde it, I put not to him, I take not from him, I alter 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.

Againe, when I cite ten or twelve Authors for our Communion in both kindes, for our prayer in a knowne tongue, and the like: for most of them he sends me to Bellarmine for an answer, & for the rest (saith he) Ile question you. Then he complaines of falsifications, when as in fine, the Exception is a­gainst the translation of some poore 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 Latine Authors, I confesse I have not translated whole sentences ad literam; for I intended not a volume, but a ma­nuell: 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 hee confesseth I set downe the Latine truly, but I doe not translate it literally: another while hee cries out: It will not serve your turne, Pag. 224. to say you place it in the English as you place it in the Latine, for intranslation the sense is chiefly to be regarded.

Lastly,Pag. 459. hee protesteth for himselfe, that hee hath declined no Author, either moderne or ancient; when as it will appeare, he sends many of them to Bellar­mine for an answer; others he rejects, as condem­ned by the Index Expurgatorius; others hee de­clines, as unworthy of his answer, by slighting them, or otherwise passeth by them, as children use to doe; when they cannot read, they thinke it best to skip over.

To say nothing of his Elenchs, his Sophismes, his Sophistry, his Fallacies, which are many, I will trace him in his steps (God willing) laying a­side all bitternesse and railing accusations. In the meane 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 flouds are risen, the flouds lift up their voyce, Psal. 93.4, 5. the flouds lift up their waves, the waves of the sea are mightie, and rage horribly; but yet the Lord that dwelleth on high is mightier.

An Answer to J. R. his booke called A paire of Spectacles.

CHAP. I. The Summe of his Answer to my first Chapter.

IN this his first Chapter, hee 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 Councell of Trent: for proofe, he instanceth in the first Councell of Nice, and compareth that Coun­cell and their Creed with this of Trent: hee 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 Councels: hee excuseth their Index Ex­purgatorius, and accuseth us for falsifying the Fathers: and lastly, he concludeth with the doctrine of implicite 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 severall parts distinct­ly, and returne him a moderate answer.

The Reply to Mr. Lloyd. FIrst, touching your Trent Creed, you complaine that according to the common fashion of our [Page 22]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 foure and twentie.

Here you begin to quarrell at your first en­trance, but I hope you will gladly forgive us this wrong; for if wee accuse your Trent Fathers, for coyning twelve Articles in stead of foure and twentie, 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 finde they fall most naturally within the number of twelve.

But you would know what difference there is betwixt the Councell of Nice, and the Councell of Trent, and their two Creeds.

Let mee tell you, if ever the proverb held true (Comparisons are odious) it holds betwixt the two Councels, and their two Creeds: the Councell of Trent is not worthy to be named the day wherein the Councell of Nice is mentioned. That famous Councell of Nice was the first, and best generall 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 foure Patriarchs of the Easterne and Westerne Churches. It was called by the first and best Christian Emperour,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 Physitian of our soules, (saith Eusebius.) This Emperour exhorted [Page 23]the Fathers and Bishops of that Councell,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 Councell, and compare them together. Your Councell of Trent, like Demetrius Assembly, was summoned by Pope Paul the third, without a lawfull calling; the three Patriarchs of Constantinople, of Antioch, of Alex­andria, refused to be present; the Legates of the Kingdome of Denmark, of Suetia, and the Duke­dome of Prusia, were all absent, and returned their answer, that the Gravamina opposita, Con­cil. Trid. Cau­sa. 1. pag. 21. Pope had no right to call a Coun­cell. Our QueeneEpit. 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 Councell, in so much that when the Pope sent Hieronymus Martinengus, as Legate into England, to summon our Bishops, shee would not suffer him to land, or set his foot on her Domini­ons. The French King signifieth by his Legate James Amiot, that hee for his part, neither held it for a generall, not yet for a lawfull Councell; but for a private Conventicle: and accordingly hee wrote, Conventui Tridentino. The Emperour,Innoc Gentil. sess. 12. and Hist. of Trent, l. 4. p. 319. Illyric. in Pro­test. contr. Concil. Trid. Charles the fifth, declared by his Embassadour, Hurtado Mendoza, in the name of the whole Em­pire, that the Bishops wholly hanging at the Popes becke, had no authoritie to make lawes, in causes of re­formation of religion and manners. Andreas Dudi­thius, Dudith. in Ep. ad Maximil. 2. de Calice, & Sacerdotum conjugio. [Page 24]the Bishop of five Churches, told the Em­perours Maximilian and Ferdinand, that the Trent Fathers were like a paire of countrey Bag-pipes; which unlesse they were still blowne into, could make no musick. The Holy Ghost had nothing to doe with that Councell, and therefore they could create no new Articles of faith. Your historie of Trent tels us,The historie of Trent. the Spirit was sent in a Carriers cloak-bag from Rome to Trent; but when there fell store of raine, the Holy Ghost could not come before the flouds were abated, and so it fell out, that the Spirit was not carried upon the waters (as wee read in Genesis) but besides them. Looke upon your Bishops, they were but fortie 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 beard­lesse, hired and procured by the Pope, to speake as hee would have them. To say nothing of those Empe­rours (who called the first and best Councels) 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 Councell amongst you, as one of you. Touching his Imperiall seat in the Councell,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 Emperour is allowed but to sit at the Popes foot-stoole; and it is (specially) to bee noted (saith your booke of ceremonies) that the place whereupon the Emperour sitteth, may bee no higher than the place where the Pope setteth his feet. [Page 25]Your Councell of Trent hath made many decrees for reformation of manners, but did they ever re­forme this abuse, and restore the ancient custome?

You then that are so confident in equalling those two Councels, doe you thinke there is no difference betwixt a conventicle and a generall Councell? be­twixt a Councell lawfully called, and one summo­ned by usurpation? betwixt a late Councell, held in a corner of the world, in the worst age, and an an­cient Councell, in a most famous citie, held in the most flourishing age? betwixt a Councell that layes her sole foundation in the Scriptures, and one that builds her first Article of faith upon Traditi­ons?Bulla Pii 4. Art. 1. betwixt a Councell approved by the whole Christian world, and one that is disclaimed by most Christian Kings and Bishops, and the major part of Christendome?

But you would further know a difference be­twixt their two Creeds.

Let me tell you in briefe. When a Romanist, like your selfe, 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 beleeved the Catholike Church in the Creed; the Protestant made answer, that wee beleeve the Catholike faith contained in the Creed, but doe not beleeve 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 necessitie of salvation, for everie humane creature to be subject to the Bishop of Rome. This thirteenth [Page 26]Article in your Trent Creed (besides the newnesse of the rest) makes a great difference (Mr. Lloyd) be­twixt the two Creeds; and the rather, because it is flat contrarie to the decree of the Nicene Councell, besides many other differences, as shall appeare hereafter.

But (say you) they agree in this, that as the Arri­ans of those times cryed 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 noveltie, and words not found in Scripture; as for example, Transubstantiation.

It is true, the Arrians at the time of the Coun­cell cryed out against the Nicene Creed, for defi­ning the word Consubstantiall, or Coessentiall, 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 ap­peares by Socrates: Wee know (saith he) that of the old writers, certaine 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 Councell of Nice.

The word therefore Consubstantiall 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 unknowne till the Councell of Lateran, Concil. Latera­nense, Anno 1215. Bellarm. 1200. yeeres after Christ; & therefore your comparison holds not in the first place. But ad nit the Coun­cell [Page 27]had first devised the word,Quomodo di­cis in Scriptu­ris 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 doe you say the word Consubstantiall is not in divine Scrip­tures, as if Consubstantiall 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 it selfe is found: and what more frivolous quarrell is it, than to contend about the word, when there is certaintie of the thing it selfe? In like man­ner Athanasius answered the Arrians in those dayes, as I must answer you: Touching the word [...], albeit it be not found in Scriptures, yet it hath the same meaning that the Scriptures intend, and im­ports the same with them whose eares 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 Tri­nitie, and the like, are not found in Scripture; yet wee teach them, wee beleeve them, because their true sense and meaning may bee deduced from the Scripture: and we professe with your Jesuite Vas­ques, Nihil refert, &c. It mattereth not whether the word be in Scripture or no, so as that which it signi­fieth be in the Scripture.

To come neerer to you: doe 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 condemne you justly, both for the newnesse of the word, and your doctrine also; hearken to the learned Doctors of your owne Church.

Your Schoole-man Scotus tels us, that before the Councell of Lateran, Bellarm. l. 3. de Eucbar. c. 23. Transubstantiation was not beleeved as a point of faith. It is true, your fellow Jesuites are ashamed of this confession, and there­upon Bellarmine answers:Ibid. This opinion of his is no way to bee allowed: Suarez in 3. Tom. in Euch. disp. 70. sect. 2. and Suarez, not content with such a sober reckoning, proclaimes that for his lowd speaking hee ought to be corrected: and as touching the words of consecration, from whence you would inferre 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 (hee addes withall) the secret and most mysticall manner hereof, God will once vouchsafe more clerely to unfold to his Christian Church. The doctrine therefore of your carnall and corporall presence is not so cleerely derived from the Scriptures: nay on the contrarie hee 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 [Page 29]for your word Transubstantiation, witnes your Cardinall Cajetan, Cajet. in Thom. part. 3. q. 75. art. 1. he assures us that there appeareth nothing out of the Gospel, that may inforce us to un­derstand Christs words properly: yea nothing in the text hindereth, but that these words [This is my body] may as well be taken in a metaphoricall sense, as those words of the Apostle, The Rocke was Christ: that the words of either proposition may well bee true, though the things there spoken be not understood in a proper sense, but in a metaphoricall sense onely. Nay more, your Jesuite Suare, Suarez Tom. 3. disp. 46. confesseth, that this Cardinall (in his Commentary upon this Article) doth af­firme, that those words of Christ [This is my body] doe not of themselves sufficiently prove Transub­stantiation, without the authoritie 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 behalfe.

Look upon your Cardinall Bellarmine; although he will not allow that sense which the Lutherans give,Bell. de Euch. l. 2. c. 19. yet hee granteth that those words [This is my body] may imply either such a reall change of the bread, as the Catholiques hold; or such a figurative change, as the Calvinists hold. And although hee would seeme to prove that the words of Scripture are so plaine, that they may compell a refractorie man to beleeve them, yet having well weighed the reasons and allegations of other Schoole-men,Bell. de Euch. l. 3. c. 23. at last concludes: It may justly be doubted, whether the [Page 30]text be cleere enough to inforce 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 doubtfull 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 proofe of Pope Pius Creed, I could urge Sr. Humfrey (say you) with the 39. Articles appointed by the authoritie of the Church of England, to be uniformely taught by all Ministers, which they are to sweare unto; which Articles, though they be in­deed new coyned, as the foundation of a new Church, yet Sr. Humfrey being his mothers Champion, will not (I suppose) yeeld her, or her doctrine to bee new. Thus you.

It is true as you say, there are 39. Articles ap­pointed by our Church, to bee uniformely taught by all Ministers: and it is as true that they are publi­shed and received with unitie and consent (which your men acknowledge for a proper marke of the true Church.) And withall, let me adde this one thing for your observation (and indeed it is a thing remarkable) whereas all your Trent Articles have beene questioned, and confuted by Chemnitius, Chamierus, Gentilletus, and other Protestant wri­ters, yet there was never any Papist could goe far­ther, than to tell us, as you doe, I could urge you with the novelty of the 39. Articles. I say, never as yet did any Romanist attempt, much lesse was able to confute and overthrow our Articles, which stand [Page 31]like a house built upon a rocke, immoveable, and cannot be shaken.

Let me tell you further, your comparisons betwixt our Articles and yours doe not hold; for all your Articles are fundamentall points to your Trent be­leevers, and the deniall of any of them makes them heretiques, and damned persons, as your Popes Bull expressely declareth.Bulla Pii quarti. On the other side, some of our Articles concerne the discipline of the Church, and are not essentiall to salvation; others concerne the ancient and latter heresies, wherein we teach the negative, and those are not properly Ar­ticles of faith which we beleeve, but points of do­ctrine which wee condemne, and beleeve not. And that you may know our Articles are not new, nor newly coyned by our men; if you will put on your spectacles, you shall finde that most of our prime Articles are taught and received by your owne Church, as well as ours; and therefore I hope you will confesse they are not coyned, 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 uniformely received by both Chur­ches. The second sort are ours onely, which we af­firme, 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 affirme; and for that cause you terme our re­ligion negative; and those remaine for you to make good. Joyne therefore those negative Articles, [Page 32]which are wholly yours, to those positive Articles which you hold with us, and you shall easily dis­cerne (if the denomination followeth the greater part) those Articles may most properly bee 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 twentie, or such wherein the affirmative is yours, and not ours, which are at least fifteene: take therefore your owne libertie, either confute ours, or make good your owne, & herbam porri­gemus, and I will give you the bucklers.

You proceed, and upon a false supposall, that our Church hath created new Articles, you proclaime in the name of your owne Church these words: We teach that for Articles of faith, the Church can make none, as she cannot write a Canonicall booke of Scrip­ture. Thus you.

When Diogenes saw a supposed Bastard casting stones in a presse of much people, he gave the boy this caveat: Take heed lest thou hit thy father. This is like to bee 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 appeares first, that you endevoured to shew, that your Church hath created no new Articles of faith, but for want of solid proofes you begin to faint, and thinke it the safest way to turne Prote­stant in this point, and say, the Church can create none: but I wonder how you dare pronounce in [Page 33]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 dazle the eyes of the ignorant with your false glasses, and to make them beleeve it is the generall Tenet of your Church; and then you thinke 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 professe the contrarie.

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 Tell-troth, in his Whetstone of Reproofe, thought it the wisest way to decline the question; for hee knew well when you were both at odds, and taught flat contrarie doctrine each to other, the Whetstone of necessitie would belong to one of his fellow writers. But to let passe such differences amongst your selves; bee it spoken to your comfort, Friar Walden, about two hundred yeares agoe, affirmed the same that you doe,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 yeares, be catho­lique and universall, when as it was unknowne to our fore-fathers for foureteen hundred yeares before? It was not beleeved, because not heard of, when the Apo­stle tels us, faith commeth by hearing. Such an arti­cle therefore, although it be of faith, yet it cannot be [Page 34]catholique: and this hee proves directly from Fa­thers and Councels. And whereas you affirme, that your Church can no more make an article of faith, than shee can make a Canonicall Booke of Scripture;Canus loc. Theol. l. 2. c. 7. p. 38. Canus, your Bishop of Canaries, will joyne with you, That the Church of the faithfull now living cannot write a Canonicall Booke of Scrip­ture: and hee gives the reason for it; There are not now any new revelations to be expected, i­ther from the Pope, or from a Councell, or from the universall Church: and from hence it will follow of consequence by your owne Logick; Therefore the Church can create no new article of faith.

Thus farre I have waded in your behalfe, that you may the better justifie your owne Assertion; for you wil find your Church is like a house divided against it selfe (and therefore cannot stand long). I say that Quere which was made in Waldens dayes, was resolved above two hundred yeares before by your profound Schoole-man Thomas Aquinas, in your Churches behalfe, 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 Doctour well understood that there were many new articles of religion crept into the Church in his dayes; he knew well, that (albeit he were the prime Schoole man of his time) yet with all his sophistrie hee could not make them comply with the ancient Catholique faith: and thereupon [Page 35]he thought it the surest way, to give the Pope an absolute and independant 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 onely to the authoritie of the Soveraigne Pope, to make a new Edition of the Creed, and all things else that con­cerne the universall Church: Then he concludes the question, and gives this reason for it; The publishing of a new Creed belongs to his power who hath autho­ritie finally to determine matters of faith: and this (saith he) belongs unto the Pope. Upon which pas­sages Andradius, a chiefe pillar of your Trent Coun­cell, 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 beene formerly hidden, have been accustomed to increase their Creed. Now what thinke you of your Aquinas position, and your Andradius confession? I hope you perceive that your learned Schoole-men are of another opinion: And that you may know that your Church doth not approve your pretended Tenet for Catholique doctrine; hearken 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 certaine that it is no way in the power of the Church or Pope to ordaine articles of faith. This you see is Luthers 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; hee declareth this with the [Page 36]rest of his Articles to be a pestiferous, pernicious, scandalous, and seducing errour to well-minded men; he protesteth, it was contrarie to all charitie, contrarie to the reverence of the holy Church, and mysteries of faith, and in conclusion condemnes all his Articles as hereticall, Inhibentes in virtute sanctae obedientiae, ac sub majoris ex­communicatio­nis latae sen­tentiae. Ibid. p. 136. forbids them to be received by vertue of holy obedience, and under paine of the graund Excommunication.

You have heard the sentence of your Lord Pa­ramount, and by it you may know your owne doome. If you hold with Luther, you are in dan­ger of Excommunication, and stand as a condem­ned heretique by his Holinesse with the Luthe­rans: If you forsake your hold, you have lost your faith: And thus you have a wolfe by the eares, you stand in danger whether you hold him, or let him goe. I wonder that you, having taken so long a time to answer so poore a Work, and having many Assistants for the composing of it, they and you could be all ignorant of the Popes infallible Bull. Your Cardinall 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 antiquitie and proofe out of Scriptures and Fa­thers, at last returnes this peremptorie answer; As if the Church of these latter times had ceased to be a Church, or had not power to explaine and declare, yea to ordaine and command those things, which apper­taine to faith and Christian manners: and that you [Page 37]may know that you and your Co-adjutors stand single in opinion against the Pope and his Cardi­nals, your Jesuite Salmeron will shew 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 essen­tiall points of faith: and hee 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 unitie amongst your selves: and howsoever these positions may seeme strange to you and others of your opinions, yet your School­men and Lawyers have played the Popes Mid­wives: yea, Pope Leo the tenth hath put to his helping hand, to deliver your Pope Pius the fourth of that issue, I meane, those new borne Articles, of which your Church hath so long time before tra­vailed. Briefly let mee tell you, your Articles are detected by your owne men to be grandement su­spicious of new coynage; and if for no other cause, yet for this alone, they give a just occasion and jea­lousie, when such poore 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 Catholiques:B. Morton, Grand Impost. cap. 2. sect. 2. He can onely make an article of faith who can create a soule, and after make a Gospel to save that soule, and then give unto that soule the gift of faith to beleeve that Gospel.

I proceed to your doctrine: That is onely to bee [Page 38]called a new faith (say you) which is cleane 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 wil joyne issue with you upon your last Assumpsit, That is only to be called a new faith, which is cleane 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 Councell of Trent, as shall appeare by proofes at large in their proper places. In the meane time let me tell you, your Church teacheth not onely Novê, but Nova, not onely Praeter, but Contra, even besides, and contrarie to that which she first received from the ancient Church: so that howsoever you seeke to darken truth by faire and specious pretences, yet in truth your Trent Additi­ons are forraine 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 owne confessions touching these particular Articles of your Roman Church.

Your doctrine touching Lay-peoples communi­cating under one kind (namely in bread onely) is an Article of the Roman faith, and now generally taught and practised in the Roman Church: but this practice, by your owne confession, is different and [Page 39]disagreeing from what was taught before: for you say, pag. 253. touching the Authors which you bring for proofe, That it was the common practice of the Church, for the Laytie to communicate in both kinds. I allow of their authoritie.

Your Prayer and Service in an unknown tongue, as it is now used in the Roman Church, by your owne 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 owne confessi­on is different and disagreeing from what was taught before; for, say you pag. 167. Transubstan­tiation might well be said not to have beene, de sub­stantia fidei, in the Primitive Church, (as Yribarne speaketh) because it had not beene so plainly delivered nor determined in any Councell, till Gregorie the se­venth his time: and this was above a thousand yeares after Christ.

Your private or solitarie Masse, wherein the Priests doe 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 everie day with the Priest. I grant it.

These points of controversie, 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 owne 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 maintaine the Pa­pacie, 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, &c. for verily it behoves him that speakes lyes and contradictions to have a good memorie. But it seemes you did conceive the Reader might easily passe by many such contradictions, being in severall passages, and farre distant pages. For otherwise it would seeme strange, that you, which so bitterly in­veigh against our reformed religion, should con­fesse the antiquitie of our Articles, and the noveltie of your owne, with flat contradictions to your owne Assertions. I will say to you therefore, as sometimes St. Hierome spake 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 Romane eares, spare the faith that is com­manded by the Apostles mouth, why goest thou about now after foure hundred yeares (I may say foureteen hundred yeares) to teach us that faith which we before never knew? why bringest thou forth that thing that Peter and Paul never uttered? Evermore untill this day the Christiam world hath beene 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 Canonicall, whereof there was doubt of three or foure hundred yeares to gether in the Church of God, as the Epistle to the He­brewes, the second Epistle of St. Peter, the Epistle of St. Jude, the Apocalyps of St. John, and some others, which were after admitted for Canonicall; [...]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 seemes you begin to feare that your Trent faith would be discovered to be different and dis­agreeing from what was taught before, and there­upon you would seemingly illustrate the antiquitie of your new Articles by the authoritie of the anci­ent Books of Canonicall Scripture. But, I pray, where doe you find that the Books of the New Testament, as namely, the Epistle to the Hebrewes, the Epistle of St. Peter, and St. Jude, and the Apo­calyps, were not received (for three or foure hundred yeares) for Canonicall? It is true there was some doubt who were the right Authors of those Books, but their divine authoritie was ever generally ap­proved by all Christian Churches, and allowed for Canonicall. The Epistle to the Hebrewes was therefore doubted of by some, because the diffe­rence & diversity of the stile made them think it not to be St. Pauls; and by others, because the Author of it seemed to them to favour the error of the No­vatian [Page 42]heretikes, in denying the reconciliation of such as fall after Baptisme: The second Epistle of St. Peter (which you speake of) some doubted of, because of the diversitie of the style: The Epistle of St. Jude was doubted, because the Author of it hath borrowed both the matter and manner of writing from St. Peter, and therfore he was thought some scholar of theirs, but no Apostle. Others said he brought in a profane Author, concerning the strife of the Arch-angell and the Devill about the body of Moses, which cannot be found in Canoni­call Scripture. Lastly, the Revelation of St. John was likewise doubted of; first, because of the no­veltie of the title of John the Divine: secondly, because of the difficultie and obscuritie 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 proofe of this Assertion, let an­tiquitie be heard, and it will appeare, that all those Bookes were cited for doctrine of faith, by the writers of the first ages, and consequently were approved from, and after the dayes of the Apo­stles.Hieronym. ad Dardan [...], de terra repro­missionis, Ep. 129. p. 1105. Looke upon St. Hierome, he proclaimes it to the Church, Illud nostris dicendum est. Be it known to our men, that the Epistle to the Hebrewes is not only received by all the Churches of the East, that now presently are, but by all Ecclesiasticall writers of the Greek Churches, that have beene hereto­fore; as the Epistle of Paul, (though many thinke it rather to be written by Barnabas, or Clemens,) and [Page 43]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 shewes plainly, that howsoever some doubt was made of the Author of that Epistle, yet it was re­ceived both by the Easterne & Westerne 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 Apostolike spirit; and accordingly Car­dinall Bellarmine tels you in your eare,Ineptè dici ve­tustatem de hac Epistola dubitâsse. Bell. de verbo Dei, lib. 1. cap. 17. It is foo­lishly spoken, in saying Antiquitie 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 speake against it: and if we respect not the multitude, but the antiquitie of the cause, the Roman Clemens is more ancient than Caius; and Clemens Alexan­drinus than Tertullian; and Dionysius Areopagita than both, who cites 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 fiftie yeares after Christ, and that by the name of Peter. The Epistle of St. Jude was cited by Dionysius Areopagita by the name of Jude the Apostle, within seventie yeares 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 yeares after Christ; by Origen and Cyprian within two hundred and fiftie yeares after Christ.

Lastly, touching the Revelation of St. John, it was received for Canonicall in the first and best a­ges: Dionysius Areopagita cals the Revelation, The [Page 44]secret and mysticall vision of Christs 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 seventie yeares after Christ. Ju­stin Martyr doth attribute this Booke to St. John, and doth account it for a divine Revelation; and this was an hundred and sixtie yeares after Christ. Ire­naeus saith, this Revelation was manifested unto St. John, and seene of him but a little before his time; and this was an hundred and eightie yeares after Christ.Tertull. de praescript. l. 4. Tertullian, amongst other things, accuseth Cerdon and Marcion of heresies, for rejecting the Revelation; and this was two hundred yeares after Christ. Origen, in his Preface before the Gospel of St. John, sayth, that John the sonne of Zebedee saw in the Revelation an Angel flying thorow the middest of Heaven, having the eternall Gospel; and hee flourished two hundred and thirtie yeares after Christ.

Thus you see the Catholique Christians, and most ancient Fathers in the first ages received both the Epistle to the Hebrewes, the second Epistle of St. Peter, the Epistle of St. Jude, and the Revela­tion of St. John, with one consent, accounting them no better than Hereticks, which either doubted of them, or denyed them: and yet you, to outface the truth, would make the world beleeve, that it was three or foure hundred yeares before they were received into the Church, and made canonicall; and upon this vaine supposall 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 alwayes received, even from the first times: and no more could that word of God bee changed, than God himselfe, 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 proofes, for the confirmati­on of your new Creed.

From your justification of your Trent faith, you begin to looke asquint thorow your Spectacles at the reformed Churches, and after your wonted manner you crie out, They have no certaine rule of faith wherewith wee may urge them; authoritie of Church they have none: Scripture they have indeed, but so mangled, corrupted, perverted by translation, and mis-interpreted according to their owne fancies, that as they have it it is as good as nothing. Thus you.

Have we no certaine rule of faith? What thinke you of the Scriptures? Doe not we make them the sole rule of our faith? and is not that rule by your own Cardinals confession,Bell. de verbo Deo. l. 1. c. 2. Regula credendi certissi­ma, tutissimaque, the most certaine 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, & authori­tie in controversies of faith; and yet it is not lawfull for the Church to ordaine any thing that is contrarie to Gods word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another: [Page 46]This Article shewes our obedience to the Scrip­tures, it declares the authoritie 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 generall, and your accusation capitall; therefore you must give me leave, for the better discoverie of the truth, to send out a Melius inquirendum, that your Translation and ours being compared in particulars, the truth may better ap­peare.

First then it cannot be denyed, that the Prote­stants in all their Translations have a recourse still to the Originall of Hebrew and Greek, which was in­spired by the Holy Ghost; and these they preferre before all Latine and Vulgar Translations whatso­ever:Bibl. Complut. in Proefat. on the other side, your Translation (as your Interpreters fancie) hangeth betweene the Greek and Hebrew, as Christ hung betweene two theeves. Nay more, your men esteeme the Vulgar Latine before the Originall:Bell. de verbo Dei, lib. 2. c. 11. Not (saith Bellarmine) that the rivers of Translations should be preferred before the foun­taines of Hebrew and Greeke of the Prophets and Apostles, but because the fountaine is muddie in ma­ny places, which otherwise should runne cleare; for without doubt, as the Latine Church hath beene more constant in keeping the faith than the Greeke, so like­wise it hath beene more vigilant in preserving her bookes from corruption.

These Paradoxes doe open a gap to Atheisme; for if the originall Scripture be corrupted, what as­surance, what certaintie can wee have of true faith and religion? (and if wee doubt, wee are condemned already.) Neither can it enter into my thoughts, that profane Writers should bee preserved in their simple purenesse from their first ages, and that their Translations should remaine 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 sleepes, for want of provi­dence, should suffer his sacred Word become a Tributarie to a Translation. But by this the world may see the guiltinesse of a bad cause; you will ra­ther charge the word of God it selfe with corrup­tion, than faile to make good the corruptions of your owne Church.

Your learned Andradius condemnes them that preferred the Latine before the Hebrew of the Old Testament, (as pretending it was corrupted by the Jewes.)Andrad. def. fidei Trident. l. 4. It was very inconsiderately conceived (saith he) by some, that there was more credit to bee given to the Latine Edition than to the Hebrew, because the Latine ever remained entire & uncorrupt in the Ca­tholique Church, and the Hebrew was falsified & de­praved by the perfidiousnesse of the Jewes. And your owne Sixtus Senensis doth witnesse of the Greeke Text likewise,Sixt. Senens. Biblioth. l. 7. that it is the same which was used in the dayes of S. Hierome, and long before him in the Apostles times, and is free from hereticall corrupti­ons, as by the continuall writings of the Greeke Fa­thers [Page 48](as namely) Dionysius, Justinus, Irenaeus, Me­lito, Origen, Affricanus, Apolinarius, Athanasius, Eusebius, Basil, Chrysostome, Theophylact, doth most plainly appeare; and yet your Gregory Martin, and the Rhemists, are not ashamed to professe that the Translation which they follow, is not onely better then all other Latine, but even than the Greeke Text it selfe, Preface to the Rhem. Testam. in those places where they disagree.

To examine your Translation in generall, and so descend into the particulars of yours and ours. First, it is decreed by the Councell 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 authen­ticall in all publike 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 Councell: 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 Councell.

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 Cardinall makes this faire 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 [Page 49]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 mixt.

Habemus confitentem reum. Now heare your owne 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) wee ing enuously confesse that many errours were corrected by Hierome in the old Translation, and likewise there are found in our new Editions some falsifications, solecismes, barbarismes, and many things ambiguous, not well expressed in the Latine; some things changed, other things omitted; and the like. Here both confesse 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 speake inge­niously, the Sunne never saw any thing more de­fective and maimed than the vulgar Latine. Your Bishop Lyndan cryes aloud,Lynd. de opt. genere Inter­pret. l. 3. c. 1, 2, 4.6. and protesteth it hath monstrous corruptions of all sorts, scarce one coppie can be found that hath one booke 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 plaine and naturall sense: the Translatour possibly was no Latinist, but a smattering Gre­cian.

I proceed to the examination of more witnesses. [Page 50]About forty yeares after Pope Paul the third had decreed the vulgar Latin in your Councel of Trent, Sixtus Quintus by his Breve prefixed to his Bible, gives us to understand, that certaine Roman Catho­likes were of such an humour of translating the Scripture into Latin,Breve Sixti 5. that Sathan, taking occasion by them (though they thought no such matter) did strive what he could out of uncertaine and great variety of Translation, so to mingle all things, that nothing might seeme to be left certaine and firme in them: and thereupon hee takes occasion to publish a Latine Translation of his owne perusall, and with­all makes his Declaration of it in this manner: We of our certaine knowledge and fulnesse of Apostolicall power, Sixt. 5. in Bulla praefix. Bib­liis, An. 1588. doe ordaine and declare that the Edition of the vulgar Bible of the Old and New Testament, which was received by the Councell of Trent as au­thenticall without any doubt or Controversie, is to be reputed or taken for this onely Edition; which being as well as was possible reformed and printed in our Vatican, our will and pleasure is, and we doe 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 generall and joynt consent of the whole Catholike Church and Holy Fathers; secondly, by a Decree made in the late Councell holden at Trent; and now lastly by that Apostolicall Authority and Power which God hath given us: and therefore is to be received and accompted for a true, lawfull, authenticall and undoubted Copie, to be read, and no other, in all [Page 51]publike and private Disputations, Lectures, Ser­mons, or Expositions.

This Translation was published by Sixtus with great care and paines, 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 Errours of it with his owne hands: he professeth it was appro­ved by the generall consent of the whole Catho­like Church: he professeth it was received for the best and most vulgar Latine Edition, excluding all other Translations private or publike whatso­ever; and thereupon concludes,Ibid. Let no man at­tempt to violate this our Decree, our will and decla­ration herein, or by rash boldnesse contradict it: for if any shall presume so to doe, let him know that he shall incurre 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 Councell. If it were his, and confirmed by a Generall Councell, 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 Councell of Trent, (for so are the words of his Bull) whereas the Councell was called Anno 1545. and Sixtus published his Bible Anno 1592. which was above 40. yeares after the Councell was called? But observe the sequell; 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 [Page 52]Pope Clement the eight, about seaven yeares after the death of Sixtus, called in question that Transla­tion, and published another of his owne, 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 Presse, and that it needed a second care, and that certainly he himselfe had in­tended to bring the whole worke to the Presse againe, had he not beene prevented by death.

These two Editions were published by two se­verall Popes, and both commanded to be read and followed in their severall Breves: Pope Sixtus disclaimes 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 Forme of each must be inviolably observed without the least particle of the Text added, changed, or detracted.

Now take your choyce of which Translation you please; if you allow Sixtus, it was corrected in many places by Pope Clement; if Clements, you must incurre the curse of his Predecessor Pope Six­tus: if you will receive the vulgar Translation, which you terme St. Hieromes, your Cardinall tels you it is not of his purest Edition. Lastly, if you approve the vulgar Edition, decreed by the Coun­cell [Page 53]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 Clements time was corrupt, or in vaine did Clement command a Correctorium to passe upon it, and to be read according to that correction. The worke 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 onely Edition confirmed by the Trent Councell, commanded to be read throughout all Chur­ches, and allowed by the consent of the whole Catho­like Church: this Bible (I say) which for many ages was reputed the onely authenticall Edition in your Church, is purged and corrected (I speake within compasse) in above 3000 severall places. And as it hath beene observed by a painfull labou­rer in that Vineyard,Dr. Iames in his Bellum Pa­pale. your Translations in many pla­ces are flat contradictory each to other, (and he that beleeves contradictions, beleeves nothing at all.)

From the charge in generall, I will descend into particulars. And first, I will give you an Instance in the Old Testament.

We reade in the 34. of Exodus and the last verse, The Children of Israel saw the face, that the skinne of Moses face shone: Videbant fa­ciem egredien­tis Moisi esse Cornutā. 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 complaines of Hierome, that contrary to the Originall he so tran­slated it. Thus one while you leave Hieromes Tran­slation when it savours not to your Palate, another [Page 54]while you excuse your owne by condemning of St. Hierome: (Now whether it were a part of that corrupt Translation which your men use, and Hie­rome himselfe corrected,Rident ita que nos, & ex­ecrantur Ju­daei quoties Mosen in no­flris Tēplis 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 Jewes doe scoffe and hate us Christi­ans, whensoever they happen to see the picture of Moses painted with hornes, as though, according to their Imagination, we though him to have beene a Devill.

Looke upon the particulars in the new Testa­ment. In the third of Matthew for Repentance you translate Penance, and by Penance you understand satisfaction for sinnes. So that when the Evangelist saith, according to the Greeke Originall (Repent) you follow the Latine Translation, which hath an ambiguous construction, and say, Paenitentiam agite, which your Rhemists translate, Doe 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 Originall.) And lastly, as if you were guilty of a false Translation in both, in the first of St. Marke, Mark. 1.15. you translate the words according to the Originall, and in stead of Doe Penance, you right­ly interpret, Be penitent, and beleeve the Gospel.

In the 11 of St. Luke you have maymed and falsified the Lords Prayer: you say in this manner; Father sanctified be thy name, thy Kingdome come, our dayly bread give us this day, and forgive us our sinnes, for because our selves also doe forgive every [Page 55]one that is in debt to us: And lead us not into tempta­tion. In this absolute forme 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 evill. 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 Originall.

In the 11 to the Romans we reade, according to the Originall;Rom. 11.6. If it be of grace, then it is not now of works, for then grace is no more grace: but if it be of works, then it is now no grace, for then worke is no more worke: 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 workes then it is now no grace, [...]. Graec. Orig. for then worke is no more workes; for what end let the Rea­der judge.

In the first Epistle to the Corinthians we reade according to the Originall, Let a man so accompt of us, as of the Ministers of Christ, and Stewards of the Mysteries of God; [...]. 1 Cor. 4.1. your Rhemists following the Latine Translation reade, Dispensers of the Myste­ries of God: and howsoever these words might be dispensed withall in some sense, yet by no meanes as you force it. For when your Proselites doe 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, [Page 56]and Dispensers of the mysteries of God: and so by consequence we may dispence with the Sacramen­tall Cup, by the authority of Scripture. Witnesse your Councell of Trent touching the Churches power of dispensing with the Sacrament,Id autem Ape­stolus non ob­scurè visus est innuisse, &c. 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 Originall,1 Cor. 15.51. Behold I shew you a mysterie, we shall not all sleepe, but we shall all be changed: your Rhemists translate it according to the vulgar Latin, Rhem. Test. ib. flat contrary to the Originall, and the mea­ning of the Holy Ghost; Behold I tell you a mysterie, we shall all indeed rise againe, but we shall not bee changed.

In the second Epistle to the Corinthians wee reade according to the Originall, Wherefore hence­forth know we no more after the flesh, yea though we have knowne Christ after the flesh, yet henceforth know wee him no more: Rhem. Test. printed at Ant­werp An. 1621. in 2 Cor. 5.16. your Rhemists, doubting these words may trench too farre upon your natu­rall and carnall presence, have quite perverted the sense by their last Edition in these words, There­fore wee from henceforth know no man according to the flesh, and if we have knowne according to the flesh, but now know him no more. Here is no mention at all of Christ, but the chiefe 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 [Page 57]the Errata upon the Annotations, but none upon the Text it selfe.

In the second of the Ephesians we reade accor­ding to the Originall,Ephes. 2.10. [...]. We are his workmanship crea­ted in Christ Jesus unto good workes: your Rhe­mists following the Latine Translation deprave the Text, saying;Non satis com­modè vertit vulg. Inter­pret. &c. Vega opusc. de Mer. & Justif. q. 6. Wee are created in Christ Jesus in good works: Which is no fit interpretation (saith your owne Vega) because we must beware lest that some take occasion from the Latine, to attribute the cause of their creation in Christ, unto his foreseene good works; than which nothing can be more contrarie to St. Pauls doctrine.

In the fift to the Ephesians according to the Originall we reade, [...]. Eph. 5, 32. This is a great mysterie (spea­king of Christs 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 Cardinall Ca­jetan tells us, The learned cannot inferre from hence that Mariage is a Sacrament, for St. Paul said not, It is a Sacrament, but a Mysterie.

Lastly, to maintaine your Image-worship, whereas we reade in the Hebrewes according to the Greek, Jacob blessed both the Sonnes of Joseph, [...]. Hebr. 11.21. and worshipped leaning upon the top of his staffe: your Rhemists according to the vulgar Latine reade it, Jacob dying, blessed every one of the sonnes 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 [Page 58] Latin; now let the Reader judge which of those readings are most agreeable to the Originall. If we enquire of your Rhemists, they tell us that we have no cause to complaine of their Translation, unlesse we complaine of the Greeke also. Nay more, they have not onely 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 Greeke,Preface to the Rhem. Testam. both the phrase and the word, that deli­cate Heretikes (for so they terme us) therefore re­prehend us of rudenesse, and that it followeth the Greeke farre more exactly then the Protestants Tran­slations.

It is true indeed, that sometimes you would seeme to affect the Greeke, sometimes the Latine tongue in your Translation; but withall you have cunningly devised uncouth words and phrases, and for this purpose onely, that the Scripture may seeme hard and obscure to the common people, that they might eyther take no pleasure in the reading them, or reape 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 your selves superedified. Once at length you have reflouri­shed to care for me. Against the spirituals of wic­kednesse in the celestials. But they are written to our correption. That he might repropitiate the sinnes 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 bragge [Page 59]of, and for which we condemne you.

Now doe you joyne to these English phrases, your falsifying and corrupting the genuine sense of the Holy Ghost by your Latine Translations, and tell me if I may not truly retort your Assertion into your owne bosome: 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 owne fancies.

Your bolt is soone shot, and if all your words were Oracles, and that Ipse dixit were sufficient, your bare word (for other proofes you have none) would easily conclude us; but I will shew you so plainly, that without Spectacles you may see that these Aspersions likewise reflect upon your selves.

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 himselfe: Ehud killed Eglon, and there­fore I may kill Henry; for Eglon was a King, and so is Henry; Eglon signifies a Calfe, and Henry is a Calvinist; and therefore assuredly I may murther him by Scripture. I hope you will confesse that this Je­suite, although he were of your Society, did inter­pret the Scripture according to his owne fancie. In like manner, your Patriarke of Venice concludes seven Sacraments from the words of Scripture, and I conceive, it is according to his owne fancie: That [Page 60](saith he) which Andrew spake, 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 ranke of St. Peters successors; and that which is added, Make the people sit downe; 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 soules in Purgatory: the fowles of the Ayre, that is to say, the soules of the Blessed in heaven: whether this Exposition be according to the sense which the Catholike Church holdeth, or according to his owne 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 spirituall and the temporall. St. Mathew saith, Give not that which is holy unto dogges: Mr. Harding ex­pounds it,Juels Def. p. 52. Therefore it is not lawfull for the vulgar people to reade the Scriptures. It was sayd to St. Peter in a vision, Arise, kill, and eate: your Car­dinall 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 passe those farre fetched and ex­travagant senses of Scriptures, which your learned [Page 61]men wyer-draw for your Romish Doctrine. It is the word of God, Goe 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 bee given to the Com­mon people, and not the Cup.Roffens. adver. Luther. Art. 16. Our Saviour opened the Booke of the Prophet Esay, and afterwards closed it: Ledis. de divinis Script. Quâvis linguâ non le­gendâ. cap. 22. therefore Prayer and Service in an unknowne tongue is commanded by the Scripture. These and such like false glasses you temper for your Specta­cles, to deceive your poore ignorant Proselites with the name of Scripture; and for feare they should make any doubt of the right interpretation of them,Si quis habet interpretationē Ecclesiae Roma­nae, de loco ali­quo Scripturae, etiamsi—tamen habet ipsissimū verbum Dei. Hosius de ex­presso verbo Dei. your Cardinall 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 minde of that excellent passage of St. Hilary, who speaking of the errours and Heresies crept into the Church in the dayes of Constantius, makes this generall com­plaint, which in these dayes 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 vnderstood as you will.

I come now to your forbidden Bookes, wherein the mysterie of iniquitie will manifestly appeare: [Page 62]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 Bishops power to grant leave, if upon Confe­rence with the Parish Priest or Confessor of the partie that desireth leave, he finde him to be such a one as may not incurre danger of faith, &c. 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 licensed by the Bi­shop, but the party must have the license in writing: and withall it is decreed,Regula 4. in indice libr. prohibit. p. 16. If any presume without such license either to reade or have it, unlesse he come in first and give up his Bible to his Ordinary, let him not have the pardon of his sinnes. It is not lawfull then to reade the Bible without a dispensation, but with a license any man may reade 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 license: for Pope Clement the eight about thirty yeares 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 license 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 reade or keepe Bi­bles in the vulgar Language, or any part of Scripture, as well of the New as the Old Testament, or any sums or Hystoricall Abridgement of the same in any vulgar [Page 63]Language hath beene 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 license to be void and of none effect; and that which concludes your Assertion for an un­truth, it was by him decreed, to bee kept without any dispensation or violation.Inviolatè ser­vandum.

Thus touching the sacred Bible you have severall Translations, upon severall paines to be received, and both different each from other in many hun­dred places: you have ranked the sacred Bible a­mongst the Bookes prohibited; and lastly, you see­mingly grant a license for the Ignorant to reade the Scripture: and by another decree you abridge that license 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 grossely false which the Knight after the ordinary Ministeriall 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 carpe at? Nothing but that they themselves are stung, in that hereby they are kept either from publishing their owne wicked workes, or corrupting the Fathers at their pleasure; and to wipe away this blemish from themselves, would lay it upon us. Thus you.

It seemes you have beene well acquainted with Rogues and sturdy Beggers, who have taught you [Page 64]the Terme of (Canting) a word proper for such kinde of people: but whereas you say it is grosse­ly false that you blot and raze the Fathers, and that therein we seeke to wipe away the blemish from our selves, and lay it upon you; for the better ma­nifestation of the truth, first, looke I pray upon the place where the corrupted Fathers were printed, & see by whom they were licensed; then heare your owne men witnessing their owne confession, of pur­ging them; and lastly, peruse the places which I shall produce razed and corrupted, and then tell me if the Mysterie of Iniquity doth not closely worke in your Roman Church, and that the ancient Fa­thers are grossely falsified, and notoriously cor­rupted by your owne men, even in the principall points of Doctrine controverted betwixt us.

First then wee 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 alledging passages, and places out of them, which are not ex­tant in their workes: and of all these three kindes your men are guilty,Expurgari & emaculari curâsti om­nium Catholi­corū scriptorū, praecipuè vete­rum Patrum scripta. Sixt. Senens. in Ep. Pio 5. as it shall appeare by instances in their severall Ages, for the first 800. yeares.

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 Catholike Authours, but [Page 65]especially those of the ancient Fathers, to bee purged. And Gre [...]zerus your Jesuit proclaimes it by way of justification;Gretz. l. 2. c. 10 If it be lawfull to suppresse or inhibite whole Bookes, as namely Tertullian and Origen, then it is lawfull likewise to suppresse 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 shewes your good intention to the ancient Writers. I may adde to these, that you doe not onely purge, and corrupt the Fathers (as shall ap­peare in matter of fact in severall Ages) but you forge Bastard Epistles in the names of ancient Bi­shops, and you thrust counterfeits into the Chayre of the true and Catholike Doctors. Peter Warbeck is taken for Richard Duke of Yorke, and obscure Au­thors, as namely Dorotheus, Hormisda, Hermes, Hypolitus, Martialis, and other counterfeits, for famous Writers, and all to supply your defects of doctrine in the Orthodox Fathers. Severinus Bi­nius hath published certaine decretall 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 severall proofes of your Trent Doctrine. Gratian saith,Grat. Dist. 20. Decretales. they are of equall Authority with Councels: nay more, he labours to prove out of St. Austin, Distinct. 19. in Canonicis. that those decretall E­pistles were reckoned by him amongst the Cano­nicall [Page 66]Scriptures; and yet by the severall Confessi­ons of your learned Writers, are adjudged to be all counterfeit: and without doubt, their leaden-stile, their deepe silence of Antiquity concerning them, the Scriptures alledged by them after St. Hieroms Translation (being long before his time) doe easily convince them of falshood. Antoninus Contius, the Kings Professor of Law in the Universitie 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 hee pro­ved, and shewed manifestly, that the Epistles of the Popes,Silvester An. 314. who were before Silvester, were all false and counterfeit. The Preface, with the reasons al­ledged 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 Bookes, would not suffer it to passe, and what became of it he remembred not, nor knew how to procure it. Thus your men are not onely ashamed to publish their Bastard Epistles, and equall them to the Word of God, in behalfe of your new doctrine, but you censure also and purge your owne 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 materiall: for your owne men are guilty of both. And lastly, when neither purging, nor falsifying will serve the turne (which you have practised in Bookes set out the first 800. yeares) you bring a Prohibition a­gainst all Authors, Priests, and Professors in the [Page 67]bosome of your owne Church, which testifie the truth of our doctrine, and injoyne them silence by your Index Expurgatorius, by cutting out their tongues, and refining them with a new impression; and this hath beene your ordinarie practice, for the last 800. yeares. 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 shews that our Communion in both kindes was practised in his dayes: 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 Margent,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 Cardinall Bellarmine tells us; There is not much credit to be given to the Greek Copies, for the Latine reades it otherwise: by which reason, a man may appeale from the Originall to a Translation; which is a thing unheard of.

Again, whereas he saith in the same Epistle,Ignat. ibid. ut suprà. Oh yee Virgins in your prayers set Christ (onely) before your eyes, and his Father, being enlightened by his spirit: hereby teaching, that we ought to directour prayers to the Trinity only, and not to Saints & Angels: your men in their late Edition printed at Lyons, by their corrupt translation have left out the word Precibus, Ignat. Lugdun. impres. An. 1572. and thrustin Animabus, soules for prayers; by which change of words, the sense & meaning of the Father is cleane perverted. It followeth further in the same [Page 68]Page, in speaking of Peter and Paul, and other Apo­stles, who betooke 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 faire warning for us to take notice, that in after Editions that passage may also be cleane left out.

In the third Age, Tertullian paraphrasing upon the words of Christ,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 speake flat contra­ry both to himselfe, 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 Popes Supremacie. In his Tract of pa­tience he tells us,Nec post gu­statam Euchari­stiam, manus gladio & cruo­re maculentur. Sic Cypr. Pari­siis apud Petrū Drovart. in vi­co Jacobaeo An. 1541. fol. 89. Nec post gesta­tam Eucharisti­am, &c. Cypr. de bono Patien­tiae. Impress. Partsiis apud Claudium Cha­pelet Via Jaco­baet An. 1616. p. (Mihi) 316 Post gustatam Eucharistiam, &c. After the eating of the Eucharist, the hands are not, or ought not to be defiled with bloud: 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, doe cite this place for the circumgestation of the Sacra­ment: whereas the Ceremonie of carrying about the Eucharist, was not knowne in many hundred [Page 69]yeares after Cyprians time. But Pamelius, a Canon of the Church of Bruges, and Licentiate in Divi­nity, returnes 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 Copie in Cambron Abbey. The word then we see was chan­ged by his owne Confession, and the Cambron Co­pie is brought for the defence of this forgerie: 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 heare 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 yeare 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 doe it; and to furnish them the better with all things ne­cessary, he put foure Cardinals, wise and vertuous, in trust with the worke; and for the correcting of Cy­prian especially above the rest, singular care was ta­ken; by Cardinal Baromaeus, a Copie was gotten of [Page 70]great antiquity from Verona, and the exquisite di­ligence of learned men was used in it.

These Testimonies make a faire shew of sin­cere and plaine 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 appeare, let us looke into St. Cyprian in his booke touching the Unity of the Church. De Veritate Ecclesiae. Whereas the ancient and true Cyprian sayth, The rest of the Apostles were equall 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 Pri­macie is given to Peter. And whereas the ancient Cyprian saith, Christ did dispose the Originall of unitie beginning from one; the Roman and Paris have added,Unam Cathedrā constituit. p. 254 He appointed one Chayre. And whereas the ancient Cyprian sayth, The Church of Christ may be shewed to be one; the Roman and Paris have added,Cathedra una constituitur. ib. and the Chayre to bee one. And because the Chayre may bee as well applyed to the Bishop of Carthage, Cathedram Pe­tri. Ibid. as to the Bishop of Rome, the Paris Cy­prian hath added Peters chayre. And whereas it was in Cyprian, even in the Roman print too, Hee who withstandeth and resisteth the Church, doth he trust himselfe 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 Peters chayre, in which the Church was founded, doth he trust himselfe to bee in the Church?

Now as you have heard that Manutius hath added, and forged much in his Roman Edition, for [Page 71]the Popes Supremacie, so likewise you shall ob­serve, that he hath rased and purged an ancient Re­cord and speciall Evidence, against the universality and supremacie 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 confesse) wherein he professeth, that he is justly moved with indignation, at the manifest folly of Stephanus (then Bishop of Rome) that boasting so much of his Bishoprick, 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 &c. p. 204. Insuper & Cy­prianum Pseu­do-Christum, & Pseudo-Aposto­lum, & dolosum operarium dice­re, qui omnia inse conscius praevenit, &c. p. 205. and that he hath the succession of Peter, upon whom the foundation of the Church was set; brings in many other Rockes, &c. He bids him not deceive himselfe, he hath made himselfe a Schismaticke by separating himselfe from the Communion of the Ecclesiasticall unitie; for while he thinkes he can separate all from his Communion, he hath separated himselfe onely from all. He taxeth him for calling St. Cyprian a false Christ, a false Apostle, and a deceitfull workeman; which he himselfe being guilty of, and privie to him­selfe, that those termes of right belong to himselfe; by way of prevention, he objected them to another.

Touching these severall 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 Copie 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 himselfe professeth, he perused five and [Page 72]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 thinkes it was left out purpose­ly by Manutius; Argumentum Ep. 75. p. 198. and, saith he, Perhaps it had beene more wisedome it had never been set out at all: (but withall he addeth) because Morelius did publish it before me, I thought it not fit to let it passe, but print it.

Now let us looke backe, and examine the rea­son of these severall Editions and falsifications. Mr. Hart sayth, that the Additions were taken from a very ancient Copie 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 Copie was printed at Rome, by the Popes command, and with the advise of vertuous and wise men, to be perfectly corrected, and free from all spots. Pamelius saith, it was better than any other; but withall, it was not so exact, but that the old Proverbe might take place, the latter is commonly the better. Lastly, touching the razing out the Epistle of Firmilianus, Pamelius conclu­deth that his Copie (which doth cite it) is so per­fect, Indiculus Codi­cum in initio Cypriani. that, be it spoken without envie, there will need no further recognition; yet happely (saith he) it had beene better it had never come forth.

Thus you may discerne, what forgeries are used by your men, to support the circumgestation [Page 73]of your Sacrament, and the Popes Supremacie; which is a maine Pillar of your Faith: And this may serve to shew your falsifications and forgeries in the third Age.

In the fourth Age.The fourth age. An. 300. to 400. The first Generall Coun­cell of Nice is forged by Zozimus Bishop of Rome, in behalfe of his owne supremacie. The pretended Canon is this;In Concil. Car­thag. c. 1. Binius Those who in the Nicene Synod gave their sentence concerning Appeales of Bishops, said in this manner: If a Bishop shall be accused, and the Bishops of his owne Province shall thereupon con­demne and degrade him, if he thinke fit to appeale, and thereupon flye 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 adjoyning, and let it be at his plea­sure to doe what he will, and as he in his judgement shall thinke fittest to be done. This Canon is not to be found either in the Greeke or Latine Copies of the Nicene Councell; 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 Bastar­die (saith Contius your Lawyer) is proved even by this, that no man, no not Gratian himselfe, Raynold. chap. 9. Divis. 2. pag. 575. durst al­ledge them.

Eusebius Caesariensis Bishop of Caesarea is cor­rupted, to prove the Popes supremacie: In the Ba­sil print translated by Ruffinus, he sayth, Peter, [Page 74]James, Euseb, impr. Basiliae ex Offi­cinâ Henr. Pe­trina, Ruffino Aquiliensi In­terprete. Sed Jacobum, qui dicebatur Justus, Aposto­lorum Episcopū statuerat. Eus. l. 2. Eccl. Hist. c. 1. p. 677. Petrum, Jaco­bum, & Johan­nem, non de glo­riâ & honore contendisse in­terse, sed uno consensu Jaco­bum Justū Hie­rosoly monum Episcopū 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 honor of Primacie 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 honor 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 honor of primacie; 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 Jerusalē.

This Authority is so pregnant against the Popes 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 Catholike, Bellar. de Rom. Pont. l. 1. c. 26. the word Primacie is not to bee found; and in stead of the words [Bishop of the Apo­stles] are inserted, Bishop of Jerusalem. The Car­dinall doth not complaine, that Ruffinus Transla­tion was false and corrupt (for they are the words in the Originall of the ancient Eusebius) neither could he say truly, that the Colein was translated by a Catholike, for indeed it is the property of an Here-ticke to falsifie 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 bloud, with his word and secret power, saying; Take, eate, this is my Body: whereas there are no such words to be found in all his Works.

The Councell of Laodicea is falsified in favour of your I [...]vocation of Angels. The words of the Originall are these: [...]. &c. Conc. Laod. Can. 35. Bin. Tom. 1. p. 245. Christians ought not to forsake the Church of God, and depart aside and invocate Angels, and make meetings, which are things forbid­den: If any man therefore be found to give himselfe to this privie Idolatrie, let him be accursed. Now in the same Councell published by James Merlyn, and Fryer Crab, by transmutation of a letter, you are taught a lesson contrary to sense and reason, saying,Quod non o­porteat Ecclesiā 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 lawfull for Christians to forsake the Church of God, and goe 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 seeke Corners, when so faire 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 Councell of Nice, for the worship of Images; his words are these: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 honor 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 [Page 76]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, &c. Citatur ibid. Ep. Adr. p. (Mihi) 506. As God gave leave to the Gentiles, to worship things made with hands, and to the Jewes to worship the carved workes, and two golden Cheru­bins which Moses made; so hath he given to us Chri­stians the crosse, and permitted us to paint and reve­rence the Images of Gods workes, and so to procure him to like of our labour. These words (you fee) are cited by your owne Pope, at a generall Councell, 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 bee found at that time, to prove your adoration of Images, when your Pope was driven to shifts and forgeries: especially, when your owne Polydore tells you,Polyd. de Rerū Invent. that the worship of Ima­ges, not onely Basil, but almost all the ancient ho­ly Fathers condemned, for feare of Idolatrie; as S. Hierome himselfe 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 hee had otherwise observed in Athanasius, Chrysostome, 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 Millaine is falsified and corrupted. Franciscus Junius as an eye witnesse,Junius Praefat. in Ind. Expurg. Belg. tells us, that at Leyden in the yeare 1559. being fa­miliarly acquainted with Ludovicus Saurius Cor­rector of the Printing house, and going to visit him, hee found him revising of St. Ambrose workes which then Frelonius was printing: after some con­ference had betwixt them, Ludovicus shewed him some printed leaves, partly cancelled and partly razed; saying, this is the first Impression, which wee printed most faithfully, according to the best Copies; but two Franciscan Fryers by command have blotted out those passages, and caused this alteration, to my great losse and astonishment.

It may be the discoverie 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. Rever. Rom. Eccl. p. 190. Non habent Petri haeredi­tatem qui Petri sedem non ha­bent. Grat de Paenit. Dist. 1. c. Potest fieri. But for a proofe of this falsified Ambrose, Lessius the Jesuit tells us, that Bolseck doth confesse he saw the Copie in the hands of a Se­cretary: howsoever their later Editions are sufficient proofe of your manifold falsifications. But I will speak of Impressions (onely) that have been within my view. First, to prove your succession in doctrine in your owne Church, Gratian tells us from St. Ambrose, They have not the succession of Peter, who have not the Chayre of Peter; and thus he hath chan­ged Fidem into Sedem, Faith into Chaire. This forgery in time may creepe into the Body of Am­brose; but as yet the words of Ambrose are agree­able [Page 76]to our doctrine; that is,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.

Againe, in his Booke of the Sacrament St. Am­brose saith,Fac nobis hāc oblationem ascriptam, &c. 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 sayth, (quod sit in figuram) as if it might stand for a figure, but were no figure; and more particularly in the Canon of your Masse, you cite all those former words of Ambrose to prove the Antiquity of your Masse, but you leave out the latter (which is a figure of the Body) and say;Ut nobis corp. & sanguis fiat dilectissimi fi [...]ii tui Domini no­stri Jesu Chri­sti. Missale Parv. An. 1626 p. (Mihi) 82. Grant that it may be to us the body and bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ. And lastly, that Ambrose might seemingly appeare to be yours, in the point of Transubstantiation, whereas he shew­eth the power and wonders of God in creating all things of nothing by his word only, and from thence concludeth,Si [...]ergo tanta vis est in sermo­ne Domini Jesu, 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 therfore 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 sheweth 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 [Page 77]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 poore words, (Sint) and (et) and ac­cordingly the sense runneth after this manner; How much more is the speech of our Lord powerfull 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 bee changed into another thing. And by this meanes St. Ambrose a Protestant, is become a Masse Priest; and with a clip­ped tongue lispeth Transubstantiation. Fryer Wal­den in writing against Wickliffe, cites 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 principall words (quae erant) shewing 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 behalfe of our Doctrine, and cryes out against him, O mentem amentem! &c. O mad mind! O impudent lyar! now truly there is no such words to be found in all St. Ambrose his workes, 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, &c. In the fift age. An. 400. to 500. &c. 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. Chrysostome Archbishop of Constantinople is razed and purged, touching the doctrine of the Sacrament: his words bee these; If therefore it be so dangerous a matter to transferre unto private uses those holy Vessels (in which the true Body of Christ is not, but the mysterie of his body is [Page 80]conteyned.) 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 Antwerpe and Paris are wholly left out, there is not a syllable of them to bee seene: for indeed the Author of that worke saith negatively, that (the irue body of Christ is not) there, which overthrowes the very ground of your Popish presence: and although your men make great brags of Antiquity, to prove your reall Sacrifice of the Altar out of St. Chrysostome; yet in the 19. Homily upon St. Matthew, where hee termes it the Sacrifice of bread and wine, Sacrificium panis & vini. they being also privie to this evidence, as against their owne doctrine,Sacrificium corporis & sā. guinis Christi. Paris. apud Au­doenum P [...]rvū. An. 1557. in. c. 7. Matt. Hō. 19. in their Edition at Paris have taught him to speake the Trent language, in these words; It is the Sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ.

Touching the Testimony of divine Scriptures, St. Chrysostome 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 triall 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 onely: This authority is wholly agreeable to our doctrine, and thereupon these times of Controversies and Heresies, that have over­spread the face of the Church, wee say with St. Chrysostome, those that be in Judaea, let them flye to the Mountaines of the Scriptures. But what an­swer can be made, thinke you, to the razing of so faire an Evidence? BeholdTotus 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 beene inserted into [Page 81]St. Chrysostome 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 Antwerpe Edition,Crakenth. in Spalat. p. (mihi) 59. published 1537. purged in this Homily. It seemes then it is hereticall doctrine, to have recourse to the Scriptures onely for finding of the truth; But sure I am, it is the part of Heretikes to raze ancient Re­cords, and to avoyd the triall of their cause by the sacred Scriptures.

The fourth Councell 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 baptize. What answer therefore may we expect to this Canon? Binius the publisher of the Councels, expounds the meaning of it thus; The Councell (saith he) doth decree that a woman should not presume to baptize, 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 necessitie: so that in the absence of the Priest, and in case of necessitie, women may baptize by the authority of your Church, notwithstanding the Councels decree. And this is according to Bellarmines confession: Al­though (saith he) those words of exception (nisi ne­cessitate cogente) be not found in the Tomes of Coun­cels, Bell. de Baptis. l. 1. c. 7. yet Peter Lombard and Gratian cite the Canon in that manner. And thus by your owne Cardinals profession, your Priests have added that exception to the Canon, to dispense with women for Admi­nistration [Page 82]of the Sacrament, which is not found in the Councell.

Againe, the same Councell is razed both by the compiler of the decrees, and publisher of the Coun­cels: for the Councell saith in the 44. Canon,Clericus nec comam nutriat, nec barbam radat, Concil. Carth. Can 44. Let no Clerke weare long hayre, nor shave his Beard: The decretals, and your late Councels 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 Councell in shaving of Priests.

S. Austin Bishop of Hippo is both purged, and falsi­fied in favor of your doctrine. First, for the purging of him your own men make this declaration:Augustinus nuper Venetiis excusus, in quo, praeter multo­rum locorum restitutionem secundum colla­tionem veterum exemplarium, curavimus re­moveri illa om­nia quae fideliū mentes haeretic â pravitate pos­sent inficere, aut a Catholica or­thodoxa fide deviare. Prae­fat. Ind. lib. pro­hibit. ad Lecto­rē, 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 mindes of the faithfull with Heresies, or cause them to wander from the Catholike faith. This publike profession your men have made, and accordingly theIn hunc modū est repurgatus, ut in libri in­scripsione testātur qui editioni praefuerunt. Ibid. p. 6. Booke was purged, as those who were present at that Edi­tion doe witnesse in the Inscription of the Booke: but let us returne to the corrupted Editions in our view.

St.De Civitate Dci lib. 22. c. 24. Austin in his 22. booke of the Citie of God and 24. Chapter, is cyted byBell. de Purg. l. 1. c. 4. Bellarmine for the proofe of Purgatory: yet in that Chapter (saithLud. 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. booke and 8. [Page 83]Chapter he tells us, there are many additions in that Chapter, without question, foysted in by such as make practise 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 cer­taine 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 Authour so printed I have not seene. But when neither adding nor detracting could make good your Transubstantiation, Fryer 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 doe not remaine, whereas we see many things in the workes of God no lesse marvellous. A woman God changeth substantially into a stone, as Lots wife; and in the small workemanship of man, hay and ferne into glasse. Neither must we beleeve that the substance of bread and wine remaineth, but the bread is turned into the Body of Christ, and the wine into his bloud, the quali­ties or accidents of bread and wine onely remaining. This fo gery was judicially allowed by Pope Mar­tin the fist, and his Cardinals, in their Consistorie, and yet it savours rather of a Glasse-maker, than an ancient Father: but what answer maketh Walden to this invention?Egoenimrepe­ri & trāscripsi de vetustissimo exemplari scripto antiquā valdè manu formatâ. Idem Ibid. I found it (faith he) and transcribed [Page 84]it out of a very ancient Copie written with a set hand. Thus one while you adde, another while you de­tract, another while you falsifie the ancient Fathers, if either they make for us or against you; and yet you tell us, that we are guiltie of corrupting the Fa­thers. But above all, Gratian hath most shame­fully and lewdly falsified St. Austin, whom he hath made to say;Inter Canoni­cas Scriptur as decretales Epi­stolae connume­rantur. Dist. 29. In Canonicis. fol. 19. A. The decretall Epistles of the Popes are accounted in the number of Canonicall Scrip­tures.

The truth is, St. Austin in his booke of Christian doctrine, informes a Christian what Scripture hee should hold for Canonicall; and thereupon bids him follow the greater part of the Catholike Church: Amongst which those Churches are, which had the happinesse to injoy the seates of the Apostles, and to re­ceive Epistles from them. Gratian in the Canon Law altereth the words thus: Amongst which Ca­nonicall Scriptures, those Epistles are which the Apo­stolicke See of Rome hath, and which others have de­served to receive from her; and accordingly the title of the Canon is, Imer Canonicas Scripturas, &c. The decretall Epistles of Popes are counted by St. Austin for Canonicall Scriptures. Now judge you what greater forgerie, nay what greater blasphemie can be devised, or uttered against Christ and his Spirit, than that the Popes Epistles should bee ter­med canonicall Scriptures, and held of equall au­thority with the Word of God; especially since by your owne men they are censured as Apocryphall and counterfeit Epistles. Your owne Bellarmine, as [Page 85]a man ashamed of such grosse forgeries, would seeme to excuse it;Bell. de Concil. Author. l. 2. c. 12. Primo. That Gratian was deceived by a corrupt copie of St. Austin, which he had besides him, and that the true and corrected copies have not the words, as himselfe reporteth. Thus Walden excuseth his forgerie by an ancient Manuscript, the Cardi­nall by a corrupt copie; and yet, by your Cardinals leave, this and many other such like forgeries stand printed in the Canon Law, no Index Expurgato­rius layes 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. Cā. 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 hee professeth the worke was purged and restored to his integrity, by most learned men, by the command of Gregory the 13. in the yeare 1580. Your Alphon­sus à Castro tells us, that this shamefull errour ought to be made knowne to all men, lest others by this abuse, take occasion to erre in like manner; as namely, Johannes de Turrecremata, and Cardinall Cajetan, who both cited this place out of Gratian for the Romish faith, and the Popes Supremacie, and yet no such thing is to be found in St. Austin.

The Councel of Milevis, alias, the African Coun­cell, is falsified by Gratian for the Popes Supre­macie: The words of the Councell are these, Those that offer to appeale beyond the Seas, let none within Africa receive them to Communion: Gratian ob­serving that this was a strong evidence and barre to the Popes Supremacie, according to his custome, hath thrust in these words into the Canon (Except it bee to the Apostolike See of Rome.) Now what saith Bellarmine to this falsification? He confesseth that some say, This exception doth not seem to square [Page 86]with the Councell: I know not how the squares goe with your men at Rome, but I finde that amongst your partie there is no rule without an exception; especially if it make against your doctrine.

St. Cyrill Bishop of Alexandria is purged in the Text it selfe, and is forged by Aquinas, for two principal points of faith; viz. Transubstantiation, and the Popes Supremacie: Touching the first he saith, That we might not feele horrour, Aquin. in Cate­na in illud Luc. 22, Accepto pane, &c. seeing flesh and bloud on the sacred Altar, the Sonne 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 faire Evidence, or rather a foule falsification for your carnall presence. But what saith your owne 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 workes.

Againe, touching the Popes Supremacie, hee 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 bowe to him; so hee 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 owne 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 bee instead of God. And to him, even to Peter, all doe bowe their head by the law of God, and the Princes of the world are obedient to him, even as to the Lord Jesus. And [Page 87]we, as being members, must cleave unto our head the Pope, and the Apostolike See: That it is our duty to seeke and enquire what is to be beleeved, what to bee thought, what to be held, because it is the right of the Pope alone to reprove, to correct, to rebuke, to confirme, to dispose, to loose, and binde. Here is a large and ample testimony cited in the name of an ancient Father for the honour and power of the universall Bishop. This passage is alledged out of Cyrils worke intitu­led The Treasurie against Heretiques; Thesaurus ad­versus haeti­cos. Tom. 2. p. 1. but whereas there are 14. Bookes written by him of that Title, there are no such words to be found in the whole Tract. But observe the proceedings of your good Saint; hee conceived the authoritie of one Father (though rightly cited) was not a sufficient proofe for an Article of faith, and thereupon, to make good his former Assertion, hee summons 630. Bishops, who (saith hee) with one voice and consent made this generall acclamation in the Councell of Chal­cedon; Aquinas in opusculo, ut su­pra. God grant long life to Leo, the most holy, Apo­stolike, and universall Patriarch of the whole World. He tels us further, it was decreed by the same Coun­cell, If any Bishop be accused, let him appeale to the Pope of Rome, because we have Peter for a rocke of refuge, and he alone hath right, with freedome of power, in stead of God, to judge and try the cause of a Bishop accused, according to the keyes which the Lord did give him. Without doubt this decree was a good inducement for the Church of England to subscribe to the Popes Supremacie (if you could make good this proofe out of the Councell of [Page 88] Chalcedon) for it is one of the first foure generall Councels, which we subscribe unto by our Acts of Parliament. An. 1. Elizab. But where are those words to bee found in that Councell? Your Pope Zozimus falsi­fied a Canon in the first Councell of Nice (as I have shewed) and your Popes Champion St. Thomas hath falsified another, and both for the universality of the Pope; by which you may easily discerne, that you wanted antiquity to prove your faith, when your men are driven to forge and faine a con­sent of many hundred Bishops, in an ancient and ge­nerall Councell,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 hee condemneth halfe Communion as sacrilegious: his words are these; We finde that some receiving a por­tion of Christs holy Body, abstaine from the Cup of his sacred Bloud, which because they doe out of I know not what superstition, we command therefore that ei­ther they receive the entire Sacraments, or that they be entirely with-held from them; because the divi­sion of one and the selfe-same Mystery cannot be with­out grand Sacriledge.

Gratian, the compiler of the Popes Decrees, borrowed his chapter out of that Epistle of Gelasius (saith Bellarmine) & withall 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 Bloud; Ea Epistola Gelasii, quae mo­dò fortasse non extat. Ibid. that is to say, without the conse­crated Cup; and yet by Bellarmines confession, That Epistle peradventure is not now extant: and [Page 89]which is more, your Non conficient Priests doe ge­nerally commit that Sacriledge, 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 Councell of Orange is falsified in the behalfe of your merits; the words of the Councell are these:Hoc etiam salu­briter profite­mur & credimus, quod in omni opere bo­no non nos in­cipimus, & posted per Dei misericordiam adjuvamur; sed ipse nobis, &c. Concil. Arausi­canum, Can. 25. Bin. Tom. 2. p. 639. We solemnely professe and beleeve, that in every good worke wee our selves doe not first begin, and are helped afterwards by the mer­cie 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 Councell condemned the Pelagians for their doctrine of Merits and Freewill; and accordingly declared that we have neither free will of our selves to doe good, neither any fore-going workes to merit any thing of our selves; and this is a safe and humble confession both of our weaknesse, and Gods good grace and mercy towards us. But ob­serve your Church-men, for the defence of their merits, they have falsified the Canon, and quite perverted the sense and meaning of the Councell; and in the place of nullis meritis, no merits, have inserted the word multis, many merits; so that the Fathers of the Councell are taught to reade a new lesson, flat contrary to the ancient Doctrine of the Church, viz. We solemnely professe that wee first be­ginne (many) of our owne merits going before, &c. than which assertion what can be more arrogant, in assuming power to our selves, and derogating from the goodnesse of our God.

In the seventh age, Gregory the great Bishop of Rome is falsified: his words be these; The King of Pride is neare, 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 haynous thing to name, Exercitus Sacerdotum, a whole armie of Priests is provided to attend his comming. In your Edition of Antwerpe and Paris, for the word (exer­citus) you thrust in (exitus Sacerdotum) so that whereas Antichrist comming it is observed that an host of Priests shall belong unto him; now on the contrary it is read, that at Antichrists comming there shall be an end of Priesthood.

Now as you have detracted from Pope Grego­ries 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 Apostolike See bee trou­hled by any mans presumption; Greg. l. 11. In­dict. 6. Ep. 42. Citatur à Bel. in Ep. ad Black­well. contra jus regium. Vide Jacob. Re­gis ope a. p. 262. & 279. for then the state of the members doth remaine sound, when the head of the faith is not bruised by any injury, and the autho­rity of the Canons alwayes remaine safe and sound. This was urged to Blackwell the Priest, by your Cardinall Bellarmine, as a principall testimonie 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 bee found in the ancient Manuscripts.

Againe, in the former Epistle St. Gregorie is likewise falsified by Stapleton, in behalfe of the Popes Supremacie: the words of St. Gregorie are these,Greg. Regist. l. 4. Indict. 13. Ep. 38. Certainly Peter is the first member of the uni­versall Church; Paul, Andrew, and John, what are [Page 91]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 cohaerent, viz. Christo. Ep. 36. Stapl. de prin­cip. doctrin. l. 6. c. 7. All the members are joyned to one head, Christ. Now observe the addition and fal­sification of your learned Stapleton; Andrew, James, and John (saith he) were heads of severall Congrega­tions, and all members of the Church under one head, Peter. And thus your Popes creature hath left out Peter in the first place, where hee was made a member, and added the name of Peter in the last place, to make him a head.

Againe, Gratian, who was ever ready to supply all defects for the Popes title, hath given us an in­excusable forgerie, in the name of Gregorie, for the Papall power: the truth of it was this; When Ana­tolius Deacon of Constantinople, had written to Pope St. Gregory, that the Emperour 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 Emperour commanded another to be chosen in the place of our reverend Bro­ther John Bishop of Justiniana, because of the paine of his head: by which tenour St. Gregory shewes that the Popes obeyed the Princes lawes (so they were not against their Canons.) Now observe Gratian hee leaves out first the words,Grat. causa 7. quest. 1. fol. (Mihi) 186. our most religions Lord, and in stead of the Emperours name, he as­sumes the Popes person, saying, Your lovingnesse [Page 92]wrote to me, that I should command another to be cho­sen, whereas in those dayes, by the confession of Pope Gregory, the Emperors made Election of the Bishops, and not the Popes.

The sixt Councell of Constantinople is falsified & corrupted by Gratian; in the 36. Canon of the said Councell it was thus decreed: We determine that the See of Constantinople shall have equall priviledges and honour with the seat of elder Rome, and in Eccle­siasticall matters be advanced as far forth as it, being next unto it: Gratian cites the former, non tamē in Ec­clesiasticis (saith he) but not in matters Ecclesiasticall; which is flat cōtrary to the meaning of the Councel.

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 Fryer Walden, to prove the doctrine of Transubstantiation against Wickliffe; 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 forme of Bread is seene, where the substance of Bread is not, neither is any other Bread there, but that which des­cends from heaven: This is alledged out of the Booke de mysteriis Missae, in the name of Bede, when as in all his 8. Tomes, hee never wrote or mentioned any such worke.

The Councell of Franckford is likewise corrup­ted and falsified, for the honour of your Images; for whereas Regino faith,Concil. Franck-ford. An. 794. Bin. p. (mihi) 141. Bin. Not. in Concil. Frā c. p. (mihi) 164. b. The false Synode 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 Councels, declareth [Page 93]that the Acts of the second Councell of Nice in the cause of Images was confirmed by it; which is so farre from truth, that he is inforced to confesse that therein he doth dissent, 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. Againe, to make the world be­leeve that the Synod of Franckford condemned not the second Councell of Nice (the chiefe 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 turne, you place the Bible amongst the Bookes prohibited.

In the second Age you have forged Epistles in the names of 31. Bishops of Rome, which were none of theirs; and to suppresse 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 falsifie Saint Cyprian for your circumgestation of the Sacrament, and your Popes supremacie.

In the fourth Age you corrupt Eusebius Caesari­ensis for the Popes supremacie; you forge Eusebius [Page 94]Emissenus for your corporall presence; you falsifie the Councell of Laodicea for your invocation of Saints and Angels; you forge Saint Hierome and Saint Basill the Great, for your worship of Images; you falsifie Saint Ambrose for the Popes 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 Chrysostome, both which confirme our Do­ctrine, the one concerning the Lords Supper, the other concerning our tryall by the Scriptures: you have falsified the Councell of Carthage for the bap­tizing of women, and for the shaving of Priests: you have falsified Saint Austin for your Purgatory, and for your Doctrine of Transubstantiation, and your Popes decretall Epistles: you have forged the Councell of Africa for the honour of your A­postolicke See: you have forged Saint Cyrill for your Transubstantiation, and your Popes Suprema­cie.

In the sixt Age you have corrupted the Coun­cell 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 comming of Antichrist; you have purged him in an Epistle which maketh a­gainst the Popes Supremacie: you have falsified the Councell of Constantinople in your Popes be­halfe.

Lastly, in the eighth Age you have forged vene­rable [Page 95] Bede in behalfe of your Transubstantiation; and you have falsified the Councel of Franckford in behalfe of your Image-worship; and yet for all this you are not ashamed to professe, that for anci­ent Authors you note onely what is amisse, but you nei­ther raze nor blot out any thing; that corner-cor­recting (say you) wee leave for such corner-compani­ons as shunne the light, p. 144. What credit can be given to you or your Church, let the Reader judge, when as by your owne confession, the Trent Coun­cell hath decreed it as a thing unlawfull to change any thing in the Bookes of ancient Catholikes, Concil. Trid. in Ind. lib. prohib. de correct. 4. p. (mihi) 32. except a manifest error appeare to have crept in by the fraud of Hereticks or negligence of the Printer. Sure I am you will confesse that all these mentioned corrup­tions are not Errata, slips of the Printer; And as touching the fraud of Heretickes which did corrupt them, your Trent Councell (which made the De­cree) could not meane the Protestants: for in those dayes they had printed no Fathers, neither had they any Manuscripts, but such as were kept pri­soners in your Church: The name of Heretickes therefore doth properly reflect upon your Pope Adrian, upon Gratian, upon Stapleton, upon Tho­mas Aquinas, upon Cardinall Bellarmine, who ap­peare to be Authors of your falsifications; and in generall upon your Roman inquisitors, who are the knowne Authors of your corrupting and altering the true Fathers. And this must needes seeme very probable to all, because they are corrupted chiefely in those main Articles of Faith which make against [Page 96]your Church. The ancient Records and Eviden­ces which you have had many hundred yeeres in your possession, doe all witnesse these forgeries and corruptions in the printed Fathers, and will you claime the Fathers for your Rule of Faith, when you make them speake more like children than fa­thers? Shall a Guardian to an infant, having pos­session of his Lands, and keeping his Deeds and Evi­dences during his minoritie, raze and falsifie them, and thereby intitle himselfe to the Wards Lands, because hee was some time possessed of them, and can produce forged Evidences for them? This is our very case: The Church of Rome in her infancie was a faithfull Guardian of her childrens right, shee kept the Manuscripts and the ancient Records of the Fathers, in that puritie as she first received thē; after the Pope had made an universall Title and claime to all Catholike Churches, hee intruded into other mens Rights by forgerie and corruptions, he made the Fathers speake according to the Trent decrees, in an unknowne tongue, and now by forged cavilla­tion detaines the possession against the right own­ers. But let me tell you, as the Kings Subject, you are lyable to punishment in such cases in temporall affaires.See the title of Forger of false deeds fol. (mi­hi) 180. b. For if any person shall by false conspiracie, subtilty and falsity, forge any Deed, Charter, or Wri­ting, or shall pronounce, publish and shew forth in E­vidence any such false or forged Deed or Writing as true, knowing the same to bee false and forged, and shall be thereof convicted, he shall be set upon the Pil­lory in some open Market Towne, and there to have [Page 97]both his Eares cut off, and also his Nosthrils to bee slit and cut, and seared with an hot iron, so as they may remaine for a perpetuall note or marke of his falshood.

Compare now this humane law with those forgeries of divine Evidences, and tell me what you and your fellowes can say for your selves, why the same judgment should not be pronounced against you. For if the lawes of Kings are so strict in behalfe of temporall records and assurances betwixt men, what may wee thinke the Law-giver himselfe will require at their hands, who doe not onely raze and falsifie Evidences touching the greatest mysteries of Salvation, who I say not onely doe the same, but have pleasure in them that doe them?

Thus much touching the razing and corrupting of the Fathers for the first 800. yeares. Now I proceed to your Index Expurgatorius, your pur­ging and blotting out the moderne Authours for the last 800. yeares.

Forasmuch (say you) as concerneth the late Catho­like Authors of this last age, for this our Index (of which is al the difficultie) beginneth but from the yeere 1515. whatsoever needeth correction, is to bee amen­ded or blotted out; yet for others going before that time, it is expresly said, that nothing may be changed, unlesse some manifest errors, through the fraud of He­retikes, or carelesnesse of the Printer, bee crept in: Thus you.

From your corrupting the ancient Councels and Fathers (which I have showne) wee are at last [Page 98]come to the correcting of moderne Authors; and as I have led you through an Hospitall of maimed Souldiers, so now I will send you to the house of correction, where I will leave you without Baile or Maine-prize, till you have cleared your selfe and your associates, for wounding and cutting out the tongues, of your owne Authors, in speaking truth against the corruptions of the Church.

But your correcting Index (say you) began but from the yeare 1515.P. 24. & 144. and nothing is changed of Ca­tholike 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 dissent from us; and this your assertion will prove as true as the rest. Yea, but (fay you) it is expresly declared by the Church, that nothing may be changed; and if this be true (as true it is indeed) the lesse credit is to be given you or your Church­men, who make decrees, and breake them at their pleasure; for it shall appeare that your Index doth extend it selfe to the time of the Apostles: and how­soever you pretend to purge the Fathers onely in the Index and Table of their Bookes; yet I say some you have purged in the Text it selfe, others you have corrected in the Index, in the expresse words delivered in the bodie of those Bookes. And as touching your Assertion, that you purge the latter writers onely from the yeare 1515. and not beyond that time, this is most false, and you had said more truly, if you had confessed that for 1515. yeares together, your Church spared no Authours, [Page 99]ancient or moderne, if they speake not Placentia, agreeable to your Popes faith and doctrine.

For the better manifestation of this truth, looke first upon your Correctorium (for so Lucas Brugen­sis termes it) your worke of correction upon the Bible; and tell me if you have not altered, by your Popes command, above three thousand severall 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 Commandements, upon the Lords Prayer, upon severall places of Scripture (as I have shewed) there is a Deletur, a leaving out, and a detracting from it.

Looke upon your Index Expurgatorius, prin­ted at Madrid, by Cardinall 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 selfe: as for instance;Justificamur fide in Christum, Galat. 2.16. We are justified by faith in Christ: Justitia nostra Christus, 1. Cor. 1.30. Christ is our Righ­teousnesse: Fide purifi­cantur corda, Act. 15.9. By faith our hearts are purified: Justus coram Deo nemo, Psal. 143.2. No man is righteous before God: Uxorē habeat unusquisque. 1 Cor. 7.2. Let every man have his wife, &c. All these passages I say are the very word of God, in the Body of the Scriptures, and yet they are commandedInd. Hisp. Madr. f. (mihi) 15. B. tanquā propositiones suspectae (for so are the words of your Index) as if they were things questionable, to bee blotted out. A­gaine, when your glosses or marginall 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 reade in your owne Transla­tion, [Page 100] You shall not make to your selves an Idoll or thing graven; Deleatur illud, Sculptilia pro­hibet fieri. Idem fol. 7. when the glosse in the Margent 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 onely: Ibid. fol. 8. b. the glosse upon the Text, which is the same in substance, viz. wee must serve God onely, 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. &c. Ind. Madrid. fol. 62. a. Deleantur ex Textu illa ver­ba: Sed ubi non habuerit Dei timorem in se­ipsis, nec Jesum per fidem inco­lam, &c. Ibid. Eam verò so­lūmodò natu­ram, quae incre­ata est, colere & venerari didi­cimus. Ant. Me­liss serm. 1. Bell. descript. Eccl. p. (mihi) 184.

Looke upon the Fathers, and tell mee if your Index Expurgatorius doth not correct both St. Chrysostome, and Austin, and Hilarie, and Hierome, in their Index, touching the prime points of con­troversie betwixt us: Nay more, St. Austin (saith Vives) is purged ten or twelve lines in the body of his workes; St. Chrysostome in his 49. Homily is purged 70. lines; & by Bellarmines confession, other places are razed out of him and other Fathers, as I have shewed before. Looke upon St. Cyrill Bishop of Alexandria, who was living above 1200. yeares agoe, and tell me if your Inquisitors have not com­manded a Deleatur upon his words, in the very Text it selfe. Looke before his time upon Gregory Nyssen, and tell me if through the sides of Antonius Abbas (who was living, by Bellarmines accompt, neare 900. yeares agoe) you doe not wound that ancient Father in the body of his workes, in com­manding [Page 103]this golden sentence to bee blotted out:Ind. Belg. p. 270. [...]. Greg. Nissen. in Orat. 4. Tom. 2. Edit. Graeco-lat. p. 146. We have learned to worship and adore that nature (onely) which is uncreated: Parsōs warn­word to Sir Fran. Hastings wast-word. Enc. 2. c. 9 p. 69. your F. Parsons takes great paines to little purpose to excuse it; one while he tells us, that the sentence is not to bee 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 mee in good sooth, if those places of Scriptures and Fathers did make for your Religion, would you purge them? Or must we beleeve, that your Inquisitors would take such infinite care and paines to review all Authours for 1600. yeares, and spunge them onely in the Index? Without doubt that man who doth willingly deface the Kings picture, stamped in his coyne, 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 speedie searching of the truth.

They resemble the Phylacteries of the Jewes, which had a Ribband of Blue upon the borders of their garments, that by them they might the better remember the Commandements of God: he that would have cut the fringes of those garments in those dayes, to prevent the remembrance of Gods law, would (no doubt) have offered violence to the Ta­bles, on which God himselfe had written, if hee durst attempt it. The truth is, the words imprinted in the skirts and tables of your Bibles and Fathers, [Page 104]are thornes in your eyes, and goades in your sides: and from hence we may easily discerne, why you leave out the second Commandement, and alter the fourth in your Psalters and Breviaries, which you dare not alter in your Bibles. And that your Assertion may more particularly appeare to bee most untrue, viz. that you purge no Authours before the yeare 1515. I will begin from the ninth age, where I last left, and shew your owne Authours purged, and forbidden in all the succeeding ages for this last 800. yeares.

First therefore the Reader shall understand, that your Roman Inquisitors have published an Index of prohibited Bookes, and in that Index they have divided the Authors into three severall Classes, or orders.Classis. 1. In the first they ranke all those Bookes which are adjudged by your men for Heretikes; as namely, Berengarius, Wickliffe, Luther, Cassander, Erasmus, Raynolds, and divers others; whose Bookes not onely now written, but whatsoever shall be published in their names hereafter, are pro­hibited as Hereticall.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 forsooke the Church, and therefore not personally to bee noted: and of this sort are Charles the great, Agobardus, Bertram, Huldericus, Cajetan, and divers others, whose Bookes are now purged; and some of them lived 800. years since.Classis. 3. The third is of namelesse Authors, which (say they) deliver pernitious doctrine, and [Page 105]are condemned by the Roman Church; and those onely which have beene published without a name since the yeare 1584.

These three rankes of Classicall Authors, ac­cording to our Adversaries doome, may be desti­nated to these three severall places. The first sort to Hell, which containes the Heretikes and dam­ned persons, never to be redeemed. The second sort to Purgatory, which are suspended and restrained upon suspicion of false doctrine, or veniall sinne, and must not be freed till they be purged, and have payd the utmost farthing to the Pope. The third, to Limbus Infantum, and those are Anonymoi, such as were unbaptized, and have beene published with­out a name, from the yeare 1584. Of these three sorts, I will produce onely the Authors of the se­cond Classis, which lived and died members of your Church, such as were never condemned for heresie, but (touse you own words) have Suspectam Doctrinam, that is to say in plaine 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 adscriptū, de Imaginibus, cujus Titulus est, Opus illu­strissimi, &c. Ind. l. prohib. p. (Mihi) 18. and this (as shall appeare) was many ages before the time prefixed, 1515.

I proceed: In the ninth age Charles the Great wrote foure Bookes concerning Images; he profes­seth that hee began the worke in his owne King­dome; and your owne Ecchius, and Luzenburgus, both witnesse that this Emperour wrote all those Bookes: yet your Index Expurgatorius layes hold on him, and forbids the worke; pretending that it [Page 106] is falsely ascribed to him, when as the true reason is, because he condemned Image-worship, and forbids the 7th. Councell to be called either agenerall, or lawfull Councell: for otherwise your owne Hinc­marus Archbishop of Rhemes, Hinckm. Rhē. contr. Hinchm. Jandun. Episc. c. 20. who was living when these things were fresh in memorie, professeth, that a generall Synod was kept in Germany by the con­vocation of the Emperour Charles, and there, by the Rules of Scripture and doctrine of the Fathers, the false Councell of the Grecians, was confuted and utterly rejected; of whose confutation there was a good bigge Booke sent to Rome by certaine Bishops from Charles the Great, which in my youn­ger yeares I read in the Palace.

Now admit that Charles were not the Authour of those Bookes (although your owne men wit­nesse he was) yet the Authour you see was anci­ent, and living in that age; hee condemned your Image-worship, hee confuted the reasons of the Nicene Councell, and by this it appeares that your Church hath transgressed her limits above 700. yeares; and therefore your Trent decree was made sutable to your Spectacles, which makes that seeme to be, which is not.

Agobardus Bishop of Lyons (An. 840.) is pur­ged, propter non sanam & suspectam doctrinam; because he delivers our Protestants doctrine, which you account non sanam, in these words; If the workes of Gods hands be not to be adored and worship­ped, Sioperd manu­um Dei, &c. Bibl. Pp. Tom. 9. p. (mihi) 590. no not in honour of God, how much more the workes of mens hands are not to be adored and wor­shipped, [Page 107]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 bee blotted out, usque ad Titulum, to the very title.

Papirius Massonus, the publisher of Agobardus workes, delivered the argument touching Images and Pictures in this manner; Detecting most mani­festly the errours of the Grecians (that is, the Fathers of the second Nicene Councel) touching Images and Pictures, he denyeth that they ought to be worshipped; which opinion all wee Catholikes doe 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 Jesuite extremely wondreth that this judgement of the Booke of Agobardus should proceed from a Catholike; for Agobardus in that whole Book doth nothing else but indevour to demon­strate, although with vaine labour, that Images are not to be worshipped: Usher p. 463. and yet I say it is more to be wondred that your men should purge such Authors of Antiquitie 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 shew where our Church and Religi­on was visible before Luther.

Johannes Bertram, a Priest of the Monastery of [Page 108] Corbey in France, wrote a Booke of the Body and Bloud of Christ: This Booke is forbidden to bee read by command of your inquisitors, and condem­ned by the Councell of Trent. But the Divines of Doway, perceiving that the forbidding of this Book gave an occasion to many to seeke more earnestly after it, thought it better policie 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 Booke of Bertrams be extant or no; yet seeing we beare with many errors in others of the old Catholike Writers, and extenuate them, and by inventing some devise, oftentimes deny them, and faine some commodious sense for them when they are objected in disputations or conflicts with our Adversaries; we doe not see why Bertram may not deserve the same equity and diligent revisall, lest the Heretikes cry out, that we burne and forbid such antiquity as maketh for them. This is a free and faire 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 seene visibly, wee 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 shew of answer to the vulgar people, yet they proved [Page 109]harsh & untunable to the eares of your learned Pro­selytes, and thereupon your Romanists wisely by way of prevention at length gave up this verdict; It were not amisse, nor unadvisedly done, Ind. Belg. p. 421 & Quiroga p. (mihi) 140. B. that all these things should be left out. But it seemes these small pills did not sufficiently purge the Authour; and thereupon, after more mature deliberation, it was at last concluded, Totus liber penitùs auferatur; Ind. Belg. p. 17. let the whole Booke be suppressed. Now what an­swer doe you thinke can be made in justification of this proceeding? Your Jesuite 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 naturall Father, but a Step­father, who nourisheth not the Church with wholesome food, but with darnell and pernitious graine together with the Wheate: wherefore as the Popes have dealt with some writings in Origen and Tertullian, by the same right may they now, according to their wisdome, 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 owne meaning; and when all would not serve the turne, they absolutely forbid 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 [Page 110]to the Doctrine of our Articles. This Booke is ex­tant in the Saxon tongue in many Libraries: but what is the reason he is not numbred amongst your Bookes prohibited? Why surely you have foisted in a Parenthesis, which by a miracle inferres your corporall presence, which makes some shew for your Religion; and yet because it is contrary to the whole scope of his Booke, you confesse that Harpsfield in his History shewes, That the Beren­garian Heresie began somewhat to bee taught and maintained out of certaine 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 cleane out of your Bookes.

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 Clergie, 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 doe compell Clerks by force to keepe themselves from marriage, which you should admonish to forbeare; for it is violence when any man is constrained to keepe a particular decree against the institution of the Gospell and the Doctrine of the Holy Ghost; wherefore wee counsell you, by the fidelity of our subjection, that with all diligence you will remove such a scandall, and by your discipline root out that Pharisaicall Doctrine from the flocke of Christ. And whereas it was obje­cted, that Gregory the Great long before that time [Page 109]had made a Decree for the restraint of Priests 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. hee tells him, There be some which take Gregory for a main­tainer of their Sect, whose ignorance I lament; for they doe not know this perillous Decree was afterwards purged by him, when as upon a day out of his ponds were drawne above 6000. childrens heads; which after he beheld, he utterly condemned his Decree, and praised the counsell of Saint Paul, It is better to mar­ry than to burne; adding this also of his owne, 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 plaine evidence for our Church, your Inquisitours have ranked this Epi­stle amongst the Bookes prohibited.

Anselme Archbishop of Canterbury taught our Doctrine in the most substantiall point, touching faith and good workes. The forme of preparing men for their death, was delivered to the sicke man in this manner:Credis nō pro­priis meritis, sed passionis Do­mini nostri Je­su Christi vir­tute & merito, ad gloriam per­venire? &c. Ind. lib. prohib. p. 696. Dost thou beleeve to come to glory, not by thine owne merits, but by the vertue and merit of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ? Dost thou beleeve that our Lord Jesus Christ did dye for our sal­vation, and that none can be saved by his owne merits, or by any other meanes, but by the merits of his Passi­on? then for a conclusion it followes (fol. 35.)Nō erit despe­randum vel du­bitandum de salute illius, &c. Ordo bap­tizandicū 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 despaire of the salvation of that man, who beleeveth with his heart, and confesseth with his mouth the forenamed propositions. These se­verall passages are commanded by three severall Indices to be blotted out: Nay more, the Booke [Page 110]which containes this Doctrine, you thrust it into the third Classis, amongst those namelesse Authors, which deliver Doctrine (say you) in some sort per­nitious to the Catholike faith; as if the foundati­on of all comfort in Christ were pernitious to the Christian faith: But let me tell you, your Inquisi­tors have much forgot themselves; for they forbid that Booke, which, say they, was printed at Venice (1575.) when as by their owne rules they professe openly, that they never meant to condemne any namelesse Authors, but such onely as have beene published since the yeere (1584.) nor any Author whatsoever (by their Trent Decree) but from the yeere (1515.) Howsoever this namelesse Author was both printed atSee Bishop Ushers answer to the Jesuites 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 Romane Church.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 CardinallHosius in con­fessione Petri, cap. 73. Hosius himselfe. But this was the time wherein the D [...]vill was let loose, and wherein your Pope Hildebrand did not onelyNon solum fabulas commi­niscitur, annales corrumpit, res gestas invertit, sed etiam coele­stia oracula a­dulterat. 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 Cardinall Beno, who wrote of the life of Hildebrand, and was living in that age, isInd. lib. pro­hib. p. 11. vide Illyric. de vita Hildebrand. p. 1322. forbidden also to be read, because he tou­cheth to the quicke your Caput fidei, the head of your Church.

In the twelfth ageSigeberti liber contra Papam Gregorium, & contra Epist. Paschalis Papae. Ind. lib. prohib. p. 85. Sigebertus Monachus Gembla­censis wrote a Booke against Pope Gregory, The twelfth Age, An. 1100. to 1200. and a­gainst the Epistle of Pope Paschalis; hee lived and dyed a member of the Roman Church, yet his Booke is prohibited, because it complaineth of the state of your declining Church;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 Ba­bylone colle­ctam, praevidit confusionem dissentionis quâ hodie scin­ditur Ecclesia. Ibid. For what greater confusion (saith he) was there in times past 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 faithfull. Saint Peter saith, the Church which is Babylon salutes you; hitherto hee did inter­pret that Peter by Babylon did signifie Rome, because Rome at that time was confounded with Idolatry and all uncleannesse: But my griefe doth now interpret unto mee, that Peter by a propheticke spirit, by the Church at Babylon, foresaw the confusion of dissen­tion, which doth now rent the Church of Rome.

If this testimonie 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 shewes that there was a revolt, a de­fection from the faith (after the loosing of Sathan) which were proper for your men to permit to bee read and seene in after ages, that the truth might appeare in all and every age of the alteration of the Church.

Arnol de villa. Novaopera ni­si repurg [...]ntur. Ind. lib prohib. p. 5 & 36. & 37 Arnoldus Carnotensis (Abbas bonae vallis) his workes are forbidden till they be purged, and for no other reason, as I can conceive, but because he disco­vers the errours of your Church. He tells us, that [Page 112] Cloyster Monkes are damned, because they falsifie the doctrine of Christ, and leade soules to Hell. He tells us, that your Clergie-men did most perfidiously mingle Philosophicall dreames 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 sonne at Constan­tinople, called by them the seventh generall Coun­cell, was there in the Councell of Franckford rejected by them all, as voyd and not to be named the seventh, nor any Councell at all. This Councell was assem­bled at Nice and not at Constantinople; but the word Constantinople is forged in stead of Nice, that the honour of that Councell for Images might not seeme to be impeached or condemned, when as the Synod at Constantinople banished Images. Now what answer I pray is made in defence of this forge­rie?August. Stench. de Donat. Con­stant. l. 2. nume­ro 60. Behold your Augustine Stenchius, Keeper of the Popes Librarie, tells us that wee have forged those Bookes, and conveyed them into the Popes Li­brary, where they lye written in ancient hands. How probable this answer may seeme, that wee should forge Authours 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 Co­pie, printed by command of your Inquisitours and Superiours.

Againe, there be certaine additions to the Histo­rie of Urspergensis, which treate of divers memo­rable things, from the time of Fredericke the second,Ind. lib. prohib. p. 94. unto the time of the Emperour Charles the fifth; that is, from the yeare 1230. to the yeare 1537. all which are forbidden to be read; wherein are con­tained the proceedings of the Councell of Constance against Hierome of Prague, and John Husse; where the decree is mentioned for the 19. Session of the Councell of Constance, viz. Sess. 19. de­cernitur, Hae­reticis non esse servandam fi­dem, quam vo­cant Salvum conductum. Pa­ralip. p. 378. That faith is not to bee kept with Heretikes, which is wholly omitted and purged in your printed Councels.

Honorius Bishop of Anthum in France, Anno 1220. Honorio Angu­stodunensi (falso ut credi­tur) adscriptus liber de praede­stinatione & libero arbitrio. Ind. lib. prohib. p. 47. wrote a Booke of Predestination and Free-will, but so different from your doctrine, that your Inquisitors forbid him to be read untill hee be purged. What good soever the Elect doe, it is God that workes it in them, (as it is written) God doth worke in us both the will and the deed, according to his good pleasure; if therefore God doe worke in us, what reward is impu­ted to man? God doth worke, and the Elect do worke; God doth worke his Elect by his preventing Grace to be willing, and by his subsequent Grace to bee able, and both co-operate by Free-will, by consenting with a good will, this good will is rewarded in them, as it is written, We have received Grace for Grace; wee have received Grace when God prevented us to be wil­ling, and followed us to make us able.

Looke into his forbidden Dialogues: Turne thee (saith he) to the Citizens of Babylon, consider the principall persons there, and thou shalt finde the [Page 114]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 Booke of Dialogues is falsely ascribed to him.

In the fourteenth age flourished William O­cham a Fryer 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 Emperour, by that meanes hee fell into some errours, and therefore deserved to have his name registred amongst the Bookes prohibited. Now ob­serve those errors;Ocham. Com­pend. Error. Joh. 22. He complained that many in his dayes perverted the holy Scriptures, denyed the say­ings of the holy Fathers, and rejected the Canons of the Church, and civill Constitutions of the Emperours; He professed, according to St. Hieromes and the do­ctrine of Gregory the Great, that the Bookes of Judith, Idem. Dial. par. 3. Tract. 1. l. 3. c. 16. Tobit, the Machabees, Ecclesiasticus, and the Booke of Wisdome, were not to bee 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 Generall Councell, al­though it be a part of the militant universall Church, yet is not the universall Church: and consequently (saith he) It is rashnesse to say that a Generall Coun­cell cannot erre 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 [Page 115] succeeded St. Peter,Idem. Dial. part. 1. l. 2. c. 3. p. 413. or that the Church of Rome hath the Primacie, or that hee governed the Church of Rome, or any thing touching the Papacie 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 mouthes of them that heard it, that in the yeare 1333. on Munday 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 publike Consistorie, wherein by word of mouth, with great earnestnesse he indeavoured to prove that the soules 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 workes 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 remaine unpurged (saith your Index) are forbid­den. Now observe the reasons why hee is put to silence. The truth is, he wrote a Booke 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 shewes that he was not contented with the fruits and profits of the Bishopricke of Rome and St. Peters Patrimonie, Idem. c. 4. though very great and Royall; he layd his greedie hands on other mens flocks, replenished with milke and wooll: Cap. 5. & 7. and usurped the right of bestowing Bishoprickes and livings Ecclesi­asticall throughout all Christendome: Cap. 5. and disannul­led the lawfull elections of Pastors, by his reservations, [Page 116]provisions and advowsons, Cap. 6. Cap. 7. Cap. 8. and oppressed Churches with first fruits of one yeere, of two yeeres, of three yeeres, yea sometimes of foure yeeres; with tithes, with exactions, with procurations, with spoiles of Prelates, and infinite other burthens, 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 suites in his Court, and rules of his Chancery, that the house of God was a denne of Theeves,Cap. 13. and raised his Cardi­nalls as complices of his pompe from Clergie men of low estate, Cap. 14. to be the Peeres 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 foure hun­dred or five hundred, or more, and those not small or leane ones, but even the best and fattest: To bee short, in that he filled the Sanctuary of the Lord with dumbe dogges, Cap. 19. & 20. Cap. 7. & 14. Cap. 29. Cap. 42. Cap. 18. Cap. and evill beasts, even from the highest Prelates to the basest hedge-Priests, through usurpations, exemptions, compositions, symony, prosti­tution and fornication committed with Princes of the earth, and all to maintaine the pride, and lust, and riot of his wordly state, which he hath lifted up above Kings and Emperours. Lastly, he complaines that the Study of Divinity is made a mocking stocke, and that which was most monstrous for the Popes them­selves, they preferred their owne traditions before the Commandements of God. These bee the pretended errors (Mr. Floyd) which causeth your Index ex­purgatorius [Page 117]to spare no Author for his age; and yet you tell us, such corner-correcting you leave for such corner-companions as shunne the light, p. 144.

Aeneas Sylvius (who was afterwards Pope Pius the second) is forbidden by your Index: and the reason is given for it; Aeneas wrote in behalfe of the Councell of Basil, when he was a young man (saith 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 Bookes are deservedly for­bidden. But what say you then to his Retractations? are you pleased with them? No,Cautè legenda opera Aeneae Sylvii; ipse enim in Bulla Re­tractationis nonnulla quae scripserat, dā ­navit, &c. Ind. lib. prohib. Class. 2. a. p. 3. you must yet wa­rily read the Workes of Aeneas Sylvius, for in his Bull of Retractations hee hath condemned something himselfe which he had written; and therefore when a new Edition shall come out, let that Bull also be pur­ged in the beginning of his Workes. It seemes then, neither that which hee wrote as a private man in his younger dayes, nor that which he retracted as Pope in his latter dayes, 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 Sylvius as a private man, protested thatAntè Nicenā Synodum unus­quisque sibi vi­xit, & parvus respectus ad Ecclesiā Roma­nam habebatur. Aene. Sylv. in Epist. 288. be­fore the Councell of Nice each Bishop lived severally to himselfe, and little regard was there then had to the Church of Rome: Pope Pius the second (being the same man, but onely that hee was now become a Pope) doth exhort andSuadete om­nibus, ut id soli­um prae caeteris venerentur, in quo salvator Dominus suos vicarios collo­cavit, &c. Bulla Retract. Pii, 2. Tom. Concil. 4. post Concil Floren. p. 739. perswade all, that they would reverence the See of Rome, or that Throne of Majesty above all. Aeneas Sylvius saith, They [Page 118] thinke themselves well armed with authority, that say, no Councell may be kept without the consent of the Pope: Ex hisce au­thoritatibus mirum in mo­dum se putant armatos, qui Cōcilia n [...]gant fieri posse sine consensu Papae: Quorū senten­tia, si ut ipst vo­lunt inviolata persistat, ruinā 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, & aliorū Augustorū adcongreganda Concilia quaesitus est magnopere Romani consensus Papae. Idem de Concil Basil. l. 1. Whose judgement, if it should stand as they would have it, would draw with it the decay and ruine of the Church. For what remedy were there then, if the Pope himselfe were vitious, destroyed soules, overthrew the people with evill example, taught Doctrine contrary to the faith, and filled his subjects full of Heresies? should wee suffer all to goe to the Devill? Verily when I read the old Stories, and consider the acts of the A­postles, I finde no such order in those dayes, that onely the Pope should summon Councels: And afterward the time of Constantine the Great, and of other Em­perours, when Councels should be called, there was no great accompt made of the Popes consent. On the contrary, PopeBulla Pii 2. Retractat. p. (mihi) 739. Pius saith, Order requireth that in­feriours should be governed by their superiours, and all should appertaine to one, as the Prince and Gover­nour 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 Go­vernour and Judge of all, which is the Vicar of Christ Jesus; from whence, as from a head, all power and authoritie is derived into the subordinate members. Thus when he was young, and had read the old Stories, and considered the acts of the Apo­stles, hee found no such Authority and respect given [Page 119]to the Pope: but when he was Pope, and old, it seemes he forgat the Apostles and ancient Writers; then hee attributes all power and reverence to the Pope of Rome. Briefly, Aeneas Sylvius saith,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 wee might shew forth very many examples (if time would permit) that they have beene found either Hereticks, or else defiled with other vi­ces. But Pope Pius saith (speaking of these and the like assertions)Pudet erroris, poenitet malè fecisse, & male dictorū, scrip­torumque ve­hementer poeni­tet, &c. 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 him selfe and his Writings, as published by him when he was a private man; and yet notwithstanding, the Inquisitors professe hee hath retracted that, as Pope, which afterwards hee condemned; and therefore by their doome hee must have a new purgation, and from thenceforth, Tum Pius Aeneas. But tell mee I pray, was hee Pius Aeneas, when he complained that at Rome theNam & ipsae manus imposi­tiones, & Spi­ritus sancti do­na venduntur. Aene. Sylv. Ep. 66. imposition of hands, and the gifts of the Holy Ghost were sold for money? Was hee Pius Aeneas when he complained that the Court ofQuid est Ro­mana curia his qui summam tenent, nisi tur­pissimum pe­lagus ventis undi (que) durissi­mis, & rēpesta­tibus agitatū. 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 hee Pius Aeneas when he protested with griefe, thatJacet spreta religio, justitiae nullus honos, fides penè in­cognita. Ep. 398. religi­on was despised, righteousnesse dishonoured, faith in a manner unknowne? Or was hee Pius Aeneas when he retracted, as Pope, that which he had written, or when he condemned that which hee had retracted? No surely, he was Pius in nothing (in the opinion [Page 120]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 him­selfe beggs of your Church,Bulla Retra­ctat. Pii 2. Illud Gentile nomen, parentes 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 Apostolike calling.

You may adde to this, Aeneas was a private man, and subject unto errour, 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 feare nor hatred, and yet he was forced to retract it: but Pius Cum doctrinā non sanam, & suspectam, & quae offensionem parere potest, contineant, &c. 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 bee 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 sa­tisfie your Church, either as he was Aeneas, or as he was Pius? neither as a private Doctor, nor as an infallible Pope?Rivet. Criticū Sacr. Specimen. c. 7. p. 49. or rather I may say with your owne Canus, What doth it availe men who desire to know the truth, to raze Records out of their Bookes, when they cannot blot it out of their mindes?

Petrus Crinitus was a Romish Priest,Anno 1450. and is commanded to be purged; and if we shall examine the reason, we shall finde it for no other cause, but [Page 121]that he speakes 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 shewes 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 generall thinke they may doe what they list. Againe, when he speakes of ancient Lawes,Idem. l. 14. c. 5. made in generall 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 shewes that Leo the Emperour made an Edict,Idem l. 9. c. 9. that all Images in Churches and houses of the Christians should be razed; and hee declares in his opinion, that it doth not appertaine to Religion to adore any mans 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 kinde of metall or matter; and that wheresoever any such Image should bee found, they commanded it to be taken downe: 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 severall Indices command to be razed out; and what cause can you pretend, but that it makes against a speciall Arti­cle of your faith, viz. that Images should be set up in Churches, and worshipped? and by this meanes you strike likewise at the Articles of our Church, [Page 122]and when you have made such Doctrines and Evi­dences invisible, by razing the records, then you bid us shew where the Church was visible before Luther.

Now what credit shall the Reader give unto you and to your Trent Councell, that would assure us that your Church intended the purging of no Au­thors, but from the yeare 1515. when as it appeares plainely that you have spared neither the writings of the Apostles nor the Fathers, in razing and falsi­fying their owne 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 yeare of 1515.

In the sixteenth age Luther began his Heresie (saith Bellarmine) Anno 1517.Anno 1517. Bell. Chronol. p. 3. pag. 117. and your Church, to make some shew that your Index Expurgatorius had a relation onely to Luther and his followers, tooke her rise from the yeare 1515. (which was but two yeares before his comming) as if all the members of your Church before his comming had lived in the unity of one faith and doctrine. This deceivablenesse of your unrighteousnesse, I have in part discovered. Now I come to your Authors of this last age (for I will cite none but your owne Au­thors) and therein lieth another mysterie not infe­riour to the first; and that is this: your Index Ex­purgatorius was first proclaimed generally against all Heretickes (meaning the Protestants) but when [Page 123]it comes to examination, it points especially at the particular members of your owne Church; and that which is most remarkable, after that your Trent Councel had distinguished with Anathema's her Roman faith from the faith of Protestants, after she had forbidden and condemned by her Index divers of your owne Authors, as savouring of suspected, and false, and scandalous doctrine; nay more, after she had declared all to be Heretickes, and their Doctrine Hereticall, who would dare to teach or publish any contrary beliefe to that which was once established by a Generall Councell; yet I say, the members of your owne Church, and those not of the meanest ranke, 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 He­retickes; when for the very same Tenets we are ac­cused, accursed, forbidden, and utterly condemned as Heretickes 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 appeare as a strong Evidence, to shew that such doctrines were taught in former A­ges: and howsoever the faction in the Papacie for­merly [Page 124]prevailed, yet it is more than evident by the Testimonies and Records of your owne men, that we had not two Churches before Luther, but that we had alwayes Testes Veritatis, witnesses of Gods truth and our owne Religion in all Ages, in the bo­some of the Roman Church.

I proceed to particulars in this last age.Anno 1500.

Cardinall Cajetan is purged in severall and maine points of doctrine, being different from your owne Church: Touching the ground of Transubstantia­tion, he denies that the words of Scripture (This is my body) are availeable to prove it of themselves, and thereupon your Jesuit Suarez complaineth, Ex Catholicis, &c. 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 confirmā ­dam nonsuffi­cere Suarez. Tom 3. Disp. 46. Sect. 3. quaest. 75. Art. 1. p. 515. Impress. Mog. An. 1509. Amongst the Catholikes, Cajetan onely teacheth that the words, This is my Body, bee not sufficient, without the authoritie of the Church, to confirme 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 (onely) whereas hee saith,Absque excep­tione aliqua cō ­ditionis, sexus, qualiatis, &c. dicitur omni credenti, sola fi­des exigitur ad salutem. Cajet. Ep. Paulï &c. Parisus 1571. fol. 4. Ind. lib. prohibit p. 876. without any exception of person, of any Sexe, or quality, or condition, It is said of every Beleever, faith alone is required to salvation: your Index commands those latter words to bee blotted out. Lastly, in speaking of the Crosse and the like, he saith; These are altogether unlawfull, 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 subjoyne these words fol­lowing (which are flat contrary:)Idem. p. 805. These are altoge­ther lawfull, and are to be embraced, because they are part of the divine worship: and the better to colour [Page 125]these miserable shifts and falsifications, you give this Caveat to the Reader:Idem ibid. p. 805. Be warie if you finde any such Doctrine, for it is to bee feared the Heretikes have suggested it.

Alphonsus à Castro wrote a large Booke against Heresies,Anno 1500. and in particular he charged Luther with many. Yet in his first Booke and fourth Chapter hee attributeth the same title of Heretike to the Pope, and shewes the Pope as Pope is subject to Heresie; 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 aliàs 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 Nouesianus, 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 Heretike, they seeme in a sad mat­ter to dally with words: For (saith he) wee make no doubt whether the Pope and an Heretike may agree in one person; but this is our question, whether a man that otherwise might have erred in the Faith, by vertue of the Papall dignity, be made such as he cannot erre. For I doe not beleeve that there is any so impudent a flatterer of the Pope, that will give him this prehemi­nence, to say, that he can neither be deceived nor misse in the expounding of the Scriptures; for seeing it is well knowne that many Popes be so utterly void of lear­ning, [Page 126]that they know not the Principles of their Gram­mer, 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 looke into Al­phonsus, printed within these last threescore yeares, I beleeve you will finde them razed in this particu­lar without an Index Expurgatorius; which plain­ly shewes that as the Pope was and may be an He­retike, so likewise falsifying of Records is a proper marke of Heretikes.

Johannes Ferus a Frier Minorite,An. 1500. Usher p. 162. and prime Prea­cher at Mentz in Germany, is purged and falsified in many points of controversie which he held with us. Touching the power of Priesthood in remitting of sinnes, it was the doctrine of Ferus: Non quòd homo propriè remittat pecca­tum, sed quòd ostendat ac certificet à Deo remissum. Ne (que) 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 sinne, but did declare and certifie that it was remitted by God: so that the absolution recei­ved from man is nothing else, than if hee should say, Behold my sonne, I certifie thee that thy sinnes are for­given thee, I pronounce unto thee that thou hast God favourable unto thee, and whatsoever Christ in Bap­tisme, and in his Gospell hath promised unto us, hee doth now declare and promise unto thee by me. Of this thou shalt have me to be a witnesse; goe in peace and in quiet of conscience. This declarative power of remitting sinnes was Ferus doctrine; this is ours. But behold the case is altered; for in Ferus printed at Lyons 1609. all those words are razed out, and on the contrary saith, thatSacerdos enim Dei minister verè remittit peccata, ac certificat à Deo remissa. fol. (mihi) 160. b. In Matth. l. 2. c. 9. the Priest doth truely [Page 127]remit sinnes, and, as the Minister of God, doth also cer­tifie that they are remitted of God.

Touching our justification by faith onely: 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 owne workes, whatsoever they be, are not of that value that they should merit a reward of condignitie or con­gruitie, but so farre forth as God in his mercie doth accept them. These and the like passages are com­manded to be blotted out.

And whereas hee sayth,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 kinde of men that are lesse moved with the word of God, than those which trust in their owne righteousnesse; your men, as being guilty of their trust in their merits of workes, command this and the like passages to bee stricken out.

Your Index of prohibited Bookes, published by theOpera tamdiu prohibentur quādiù expur­gatio nō prodie­rit. Ind. l. pro­hibit. p. 56. Cardinall of Sandonall and Roxas, tells us, that the workes 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 appeale to you and your fellow Jesuites (Mr. Floyd) whether these passages following be his or yours; I meane, either the Protestant doctrine, which he published before Luthers dayes, 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 sayth,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 heare of a reward promi­sed, know that it is not due for any thing else, but for the divine promise sake. Your Inquisitors com­mand [Page 128]it to be altered thus;Quòd si ali­quando merce­dem audis polli­ceri, scias non sine promissio­ne esse debitam Ind. Madrid. fol. (mihi) 125. If thou heare 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 addes 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 Eccle­siā 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, &c. Thou art Peter, and upon this Rocke I will build my Church, she wing that this Rocke was meant of Christ by the confession of Peters faith; And (saith hee) whosoever is ignorant of this Faith, belongs not to the Church, although hee seeme to be the chiefe in the Church. These words are otherwise read in your generall Indices, and are commanded to bee stricken out. And upon the words, Si quis natus fuerit, &c. he saith,In Joh. c. 3. p. (mihi) 69. Ind. lib. proh. p. 625. The Preachers of Gods Word ought first to teach faith by which a man is justified, and afterwards good workes; 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: Looke 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,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 certaine sure rule of Christian Doctrine. In Ferus printed at Rome, he is taught to say, The holy Scrip­tures [Page 131](and Romana edit. An. 1577. traditions) are given us as a cer­taine sure rule of Christian Doctrine. The true Fe­rus saith,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 sinne; for even the just doe fall seven times a day: your Roman Ferus addeth,Sine peccato originali. not without veniall sinnes. The true Ferus saith,Fi [...]ē & chari­tatē conjungit Apostolus, ita tamen ut fidem praeponat. Ibid. The Apostle conjoyneth faith and chari­ty, yet so as hee preferreth faith: your Roman Ferus addeth, he preferreth faithAdditur, or­dine, non per­fectione. in order, not in perfection. The true Ferus saith,Charitas ti­moremexpellit, quia fidem quâ Christum, vitā, propitiationem & salvato­rem nostrum apprehendimus, probat & con­firmat, certám­que reddit. Ib. c. 4. Aliter. Charity driveth out feare, because it trieth, confirmes, and makes as­sured our faith, whereby we apprehend Christ, our life, propitiation and salvation: your Romane Ferus saith,Charitas ti­morem expellit, quia peccata remittit, & Spirit us sāctus eam consolatur testimonium perhibens quòd filii Dei su­mus. Ibid. Charity drives out feare, because it forgiveth our sinnes, and the Holy Ghost doth comfort it, giving testimony that we are Gods children. The true Ferus saith,Ibid. cap. 5. There be some, who after faith doe earnestly urge good workes, but because they teach not withall, 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 doe trust in their owne workes, and so they build upon the sand: the Roman Ferus saith, There were some, who after faith, and with faith, did earnestly urge good workes; 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 workes (omnem gloriam;) your Ro­man [Page 132]Edition hath turned omnem into inanem, and saith, Saint John condemned (inanem gloriam) vaine glory,Ridiculum est quod quidam bîc volunt, Ce­phas idem esse quod caput. Idem. in Joh. c 1. p. mihi (43) &c. 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 dyed a member of the Roman Church; yet is pur­ged, because hee speakes not Placentia, sutable to your Trent Doctrine. In his Commentary on the Epistle to Titus, in his first digression, hee is com­manded to be purged (per quinque paginas) five leaves together; ‘in which hee complaines of the abuses and corruptions growne into the Roman Church and See; he shewes that their greedinesse of gaine, and love of money caused them to dis­pence with all kindes of wickednesse; as namely, with unlawfull 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 Apostolicke Chamber (for so they terme them) in which Booke (saith hee) being publikely and daily printed,Taxae Camerae Apostolicae. you may learne more wickednesse than in all the summes and catalogues of vices.’ Then hee shewes that the Councell of Trent was a third time assembled by the command of Pius the fourth;Adeo tamen Romanam cu­riā repurgare non permisit. yet by no meanes would hee permit that the Court of Rome should be reformed. And [Page 133]thus in severall 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 hee complaines of the like abuses in the See and Court of Rome, the In­quisitors command to be blotted out.

Lastly, hee proves out of Gregory the Great, and Saint Bernard, Ibid. p. 526. In Tit. c. 3. That every soule is subject to the higher power; that is, the Priesthood to the secular power, the Bishops and Archbishops to Emperours and Kings: and in conclusion, when it is questio­ned (saith hee) touching the reformation of the Cler­gie, and orders of Monkes, for sending the Shepheards to their owne folds, and compelling them to feed their owne 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 Councell of Trent? Did the Pope and Councell cause them to bee more diligent in their calling? &c. 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 Booke 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. hee shall finde 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 hee is inforced contrary to himselfe to speake the Trent language. As for instance; whereas the true Polydore saith, When God is every [Page 134]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 wisdome to represent God the Father in these dayes, which in the beginning of the world was foolishnesse.

In his fifth Booke and fourth Chapter,Ibid. l. 5. c. 4. p. 84. usque adp. 87. your Inquisitors command seven whole pages to bee 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 lawfull, 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 Pauls Doctrine, the Bishops and Deacons, and conse­quently all orders of Priesthood, had them; and this custome (saith hee) continued long in the Church:Porro, dum sa­cerdotes gene­rabant legiti­mos filios, Ec­clesia faelici prole virüm vi­gebat; tum san­ctissimi erant Pōtifices, Epis­copi innocentis­simi, Presbyteri Diaconíque in­regerrimi ca­stissimíque. Ib. p. 86, 87. Ibid. c. 9. and withall concludes; Furthermore, whilst the Priests did beget lawfull sonnes, the Church flourished with a happy off-spring of men; then your Popes were most holy, your Bishops 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, hee saith, Worship thou one true and eternall God; but worship thou no Image of [Page 133]any living creature, Ind. Belg. p. 175 deleatur (say your Inquisi­tors) let it be strucken out.

In his sixth Booke,Idem l. 6. c. 13. and beginning of his thir­teenth Chapter, he testifies from St. Hierome, That almost all the holy ancient Fathers did condemne the worship of Images, for feare of Idolatrie. He proves from the Law of Moses, that nothing made with hands should be worshipped; and from the Prophet David, Confounded bee all they that worship graven Images. Hee shewes further, that Gregorie the Great, albeit hee reprehended Serenus Bishop of Marsilia for breaking downe of Images, yet hee 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 Antwerpe, 1576. in their Edition of St. Austins workes at Antwerp, Anno 1576.

In his Epistle to King Henry the 8th, where he saith, that Princes are supreme Governours 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.

Againe, in his Comment on the 8th. Booke of the Citie of God, he tells us how your Romish Priests upon good Friday doe celebrate Christs passion up­on the stage. There Judas (saith he) playeth the [Page 134]most ridiculous Mimick, Lud. Viv. in Au­gust. de Civit. Dei, l. 8. c. 27. even then when he betrayes Christ; there the Apostles runne away, and the Soul­diers follow, and all resounds with laughter; then comes Peter and cuts off Malchus eare, and then all rings with applause, as if the betraying of Christ were now revenged; and by and by this great Fisher Peter for feare of a Girle, denies his Master, all the people laughing at her question, and hissing at his deniall; and in all these revels and ridiculous stirs, Christ onely is serious and severe; but seeking to move passion and sorrow in the audience, he is so farre from that, that he is cold even in the divinest matters, to the great guilt, shame, and sinne 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 doe well to command them to bee blotted out; but yet they are reprinted, and your men are not a shamed to continue the practice of it in your owne Religion.

And lastly, where he sayes, That those who pre­ferre the Latin Translation before the Greeke and Hebrew fountaines, Idem in Aug. l. 15. c. 13. p. 83. are men of evill mindes and cor­rupt judgements; that passage is left out in the An­twerpe print. And whereas he saith, that the story of Susanna, Idem. l. 18. c. 31 of Bell and the Dragon, are Apocryphall Scriptures, and not received of the Jewes, 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 severall 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 doe; and therefore it is commanded to be stricken out.

Againe, speaking of the Scribes and Pharisees, who did attribute righteousnesse to themselves and their owne workes;Ibid. c. 6. f. 30. a. Ind. Madr. fol. 112. The faithfull (saith he) which are of the Law of grace, doe worke most di­ligently, but doe attribute nothing to themselves, or their owne workes; but all of them doe impute their righteousnesse to the grace of God; All consisteth with the one in the merit of workes, with the other in grace: the one respect themselves and their workes, and are delighted therein; the other regard not them­selves, but the grace of God; they admire his good­nesse, and therein is their chiefe delight. Againe, if any man shall doe good in this world, hee must not doe it because it is his will, but because God comman­deth it; For he which is perfect hath not a will peculiar to himselfe, 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, &c. he shewes, that according to St. Pauls doctrine,Ibid. fol. c. 16. (mihi) 74. b. the Rocke was Christ; Hee shewes that Peter was so farre from being a firme rocke, that Christ himselfe did inti­mate the contrarie, when he said, Get thee behinde me Sathan, for thou savourest not the things of God, but of men: He shewes us further, that our Lord Christ promised to Peter the Keyes of binding [Page 136]and loosing, but withall testifies, that those Keyes were not Peters, but Christs, whereby Peter doth not binde or loose by his power, but by the will of Christ. He addeth moreover, that not onely Peter received those Keyes, but also all the rest of the A­postles: But (saith he) there be some which under­stand by the Keyes of binding and loosing, the Popes power, as Christ spake of that faith, witnessing that he was the Sonne of the living God, which is one of the Keyes of the heavenly Doctrine, upon which the Church is founded, and Peters faith, as upon the true Rocke Christ, was builded. Deleatur ab illis verbis, Ne quis putet Pe­trum, &c. 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,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 re­cipiēdo: Quare bonum, &c. deleatur us (que) ad Dei autem omnia. Ind. ut supra. Those which any wayes trust in their workes, have the least affiance in God, and love him the lesse; but those which give all to his promise, and to God himselfe, 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 goodnesse, for it is the will of God, and of his speciall grace, that wee are saved, and not of our will or workes: 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,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. hee shewes, that it was lawfull for Priests to marry a ‘Virgin till the time of Gregory the seventh, (which was nine hundred yeeres after Christ:) hee shewes likewise that the Grecians kept the Apostolicall Tradition in marrying of Wives, and could not change them, and that other Chur­ches which vowed single life, by their inconti­nencie fell into the snares of the Devill:’ And lastly, in his Commentary upon the Galathians, at large he proves,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 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 himselfe, and leanes upon a staffe of Reed, which is broken in it selfe; whereby he doth not discern the heavenly light, from whence our justification doth descend: These and many other like passages in seve­rall places of his Workes, which are consonant to our Protestant Doctrine, are commanded by theInd. Madr. f. (mihi) 118, 119. Inquisitors to be strucken out.

Friderici Furii Cenolani Valentini Bo­nonia; sive, 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; hee dedicates his Booke to Cardinall Bovadillius, and he tells him that wee esteeme it an excellent thing to reade the workes of Greeke and Latine Philosophers; and therefore much more ought wee 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 bee ignorant of the other brings a grievous mischiefe, besides eternall destru­ction [Page 138]of the soule. Againe, what is it (saith hee) to forbid the Scriptures to bee read in the vulgar tongue, than to forbid God his owne purpose, and as it were to command God, which doth declare himselfe to all by his Word, that hee 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 knowne tongue should discover An­tichristian Doctrine by frequent reading,Ind. lib. proh. p. (mihi) 36. the Book it selfe is forbidden, till it bee purged in this and the like places witnessing against your Romane Doctrine.

Johannes Langus is numbred amongst your He­retiques in the first Classis, pag. 51. Yet his Annotations uponPermittuntur verò ejusdem in D Justinum annotatiōes, itē in Nicephorum scholia, si ex­purgentur. Ind. l. proh. p. mihi 51. Justin Martyr, and his Com­mentaries upon Nicephorus, are allowed if they bee purged. Now let the Reader observe for what cause you would have him purged: First touching his Annotations upon Justin Martyr; 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 substātiā. They containe many things disagreeing to the Catholike Religion; but among those, that is chiefe, that hee doth not ac­knowledge Transubstantiation, but doth openly main­taine, that the true substance of bread and wine doth remaine with the body and bloud of Christ. Againe,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.

Gerardi Lo­richii Adama­rii collectio tri­ū librorū, &c. de missa publi­caproroganda. Ind. l. proh. p. 11. Gerardus Lorichius is prohibited till he be purged for the reproving and condemning your private Masse, and Communion in one kinde; his words be [Page 139]these, There be false Catholikes, that are not ashamed by all meanes to hinder the Reformation of the Church; they, to the intent that the other kinde of the D [...] Missa pub. Racemati­onum, lib. 2. Canonis pars 7. p. (mihi) 177. Sacrament may not be restored to the Lay people, spare no kinde of blasphemy. Excusum an. 1536. For they say, Christ said onely to his Apostles, Drinke yee all of this; but the words of the Canon of the Masse, are, Take and eate you all of this: Here I beseech them let them tell mee, whether they will have this word (All) to pertaine onely to the Apostles? Then must the Lay people abstaine from the other kinde, of the bread also; which thing to say is an Heresie, and a pestilent and detestable blasphemie.

Ambrosius Catharinus Archbishop of Compsa wrote against Cajetan; and (saithBellar. de Ec. Scrip. p (mihi) 312. Bellarmine) hee wrote likewise against Luther: e Opuscula ve­rò similiter prohibentur, ni­si corrigantur, Ind. l. prohib. p. 4. Yet something hee wrote is disallowed of the Church, as namely, touching the words of consecration: other things are commonly refuted by the Doctours of the Church, viz. the cer­tainety of Grace, of Predestination, &c. therefore his Workes 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 againstCommentaria 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. Luthers whole Workes in the first Classis.

Didacus Stella is prohibited to bee printed be­fore hee be purged. The places which are purged are such wherein hee teacheth Protestant Doctrine, as may be seen inSee Appendix to the Romish Fisher caught in his owne net. Mr. Crashaw, and Dr. James, and D. F. Observations.

Andreas Masius in his Commentarie upon Jo­suah is purged for this Protestant doctrine;Ad solam vitae benè actae imi­tationem, non etiam ad religi­osum cultum, quem adoratio­nem vocant Theologi, Di­vorū monumen ta conservare fas est. In Comment. Jos. hist. c. ult. Ind. l. expurg. p. 31. Wee ought to preserve the Monuments of Saints onely for the imitation of their godly life, not for Religious wor­ship, which Divines call Adoration. Againe, hee saith,Idem in Jos. c. 22. The Church sets before our eyes the figure of Christs Crosse, (not that wee should worship it;) which latter words are commanded to bee razed out.

Lastly, Cardinall Bellarmine, who was the first and best that ever handled all controversies indiffe­rence betwixt us,Ind. Belg. p. 269. was in danger of a prohibition, or rather of an absolute suppression of all his workes. Your owne Barclay witnesseth of him,Barclay of the authoritie of the Pope. c. 13. p. 66. Engl. That there is not one of the Popes partie, who hath either gathe­red more diligently, or propounded more sharply, or concluded more briefly or subtilly, than the worthy Di­vine Bellarmine; who although he gave as much to the Popes authority in temporalties, as honestly hee might, and more than he ought, yet could he not satis­fie 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 neare by his Pontificiall censure (to the great hurt of the Church) to have abolished all the writings of that Doctour (which doe oppugne Heresies with great successe at this day) as the Fathers of that order (whereof Bellarmine was then) did seriously report un­to me. How probable this may seeme, his worke [Page 141]of Recognitions doth witnesse to the world; where­in he was inforced 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 Emperour in tem­porall affaires; on the contrarie hee recants it, say­ing,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 law­full Judge. Againe, whereas it was said the Popes used to be chosen by Emperours, the word Emperor (potest, & fortè debet deleri) Idem de Cler. p. (mihi) 52. it must, and peradven­ture ought to be blotted out. And when I sayd that Paul was subject to Caesar, as to his temporall Lord, I meant it was soDe 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 compresse 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 4to. in fact, but not of right.

And in truth it seemes, that neither the Pope, nor his Inquisitors were well pleased with this Ca­tholike doctrine: For Frier Paul of Venice acknow­ledged Cardinall Ballarmine and Baronius for lear­ned men; and further saith, that he hath knowne the one and the other in Rome; but he could wish with­all, that they had written that which they sincerely thought, without being forced to recant any thing that they had spoken. For Frier Paul knew well that under Sixtus Quintus there came out an Index of prohibited Bookes, which though it were suddainly stayed and called in, yet it was not so closely acted, but that there remained Copies of it; and in that Index the workes of Bellarmine were comprehended. If this learned Cardinals Booke had beene forbidden, you and your fellowes would have beene to seeke of an answere for many objections made against you; [Page 142]for it is usuall with you to referre 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 autmā ­ca, aut non om­nino ad plenam veritatem abs se fuerāt 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 perswaded, ere long wee shall have an Index Defēsio Johā ­nis Marsilii in favorem respō ­si 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 Councels after his manner, and for his owne purpose, and so assume unto himselfe a licence here­unto; which God forbid. Againe (saith he)Marsil. p. 357. See B. Mortons encounter a­gainst M. Par­sons reckoning, l. 1. c. 1. p. 10, 11 the An­swers of Cardinall Baronius are not unlike the an­swers of Cardinall Bellarmine, who whilst he cannot finde an objected argument to be assoiled by Historie, he saith, that those words have beene inserted into the Bookes: much like to Mr. Floyd, when there is no answere to be made to some particular objections out of the Authors, you reject them all as condem­ned by your Inquisitors: And this answere I am sure may serve for all objections that can bee made from most Classicall Authors.

The last thing which I here meane to speake of, is a certaine distinction of explicite and implicite faith, which the Knight and his Ministers cry out against, and are pleased sometimes to make themselves merry withall, as if they would laugh out; but it is too well and solidly grounded to bee blowne away with the breath of any such ministeriall Knight, as he is. Thus you.

You professed formerly to teach mee for my learning; now it seemes you would instruct me for my manners: you tell me I make my selfe merrie with your doctrine, as if I would laugh out: truly I am sorry to thinke you teach such ridiculous do­ctrine, as should deservedly cause laughter. Shall I make you my Confessor? I cannot chuse but smile when I consider what great paines you have taken in this whole Chapter, to uphold the Articles of your Faith with sixe pretended rules, and all infal­lible, as namely, Scripture in the plaine and literall sense; Tradition or common beliefe and practice of the whole Church; Councels either generall or particular, confirmed by the See Apostolike; the authoritie of that whole See it selfe defining Ex Ca­thedra, though without either generall or particu­lar Councell; the common and uniforme consent of ancient Fathers or moderne Doctours and Schoole-men, delivering any thing unto us as mat­ter of Faith: All these sixe rules (say you) we ac­knowledge, and are ready to make good whatsoever is taught any of these wayes.

When I say you assume confidently, that all these are infallible rules to leade 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 implicite faith. This I confesse is such a mystery of foolishnesse, 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 perswaded that your selves [Page 144]doe smile when you meet each other, to thinke how you cousen the poore ignorant people with a blind obedience, and an implicite Faith. To let passe your Golden Legends and leaden miracles, (which occasion sufficient mirth in long winter nights for all sorts of people) what I pray is that implicite Faith, that you condemne me and our Ministers for laughing at? Mistake us not, I know no Pro­testant doth laugh at an implicite Faith, which is directed to the proper object, the holy Scripture; we laugh not at an implicite Faith, which cannot be well unfolded or comprehended by reason, as name­ly, the unsearchable mysterie of the Trinitie, of Christs conception by the holy Ghost, and the like; but we disclaime and condemne your Catho­like Colliers Faith, which is canonized for your Popish Creed; that is, to pin our Faith upon the Churches sleeve, and to assent to every thing the Church propoundeth to be beleeved, without exa­mination whether it be agreeable to the Scripture, or besides it. We laugh, or rather wee pitie that Merchant of Placentia, who chose rather to bee a Papist than a Protestant,Laurent. Di­scept. Theolog. p. 5. because (saith he) I can briefly learne the Roman faith; For if I say what the Pope saith, and deny what the Pope denyes, and if he speake and I hearken unto him, this is alone sufficient for me. And wee cannot choose but smile at the judgement pronounced by your Gregorie de Valen­tia, upon this poore ignorant Merchant; God (saith he) will have nothing to lay to this mans charge at the dreadfull day of Judgement: His meaning, it may [Page 145]be is, God can charge him with nothing, because this man knew nothing.

This doctrine of Obedience doth well agree with Cardinall Bellarmines exposition upon that place of Job, Bell. de Justif. l. 1. c. 7. The Oxen did plow and labour, and the Asses fed by them. By the Oxen (saith hee) are meant the learned Doctors of the Church, by the Asses are meant the ignorant people, which out of simple beliefe rest satisfied with the understanding of their Superiors. And accordingly your Cardinall Casanus perswades his Proselytes to relye upon the Church, without further inquirie 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 erre, must resigne up his understanding with this beliefe,Bellar. de Pont. l. 4. c. 5. If the Pope should so farre forth erre, as to command vices, and forbid vertues, the Church were bound to beleeve that vices are good, and vertues are evill, unlesse she will sinne against her owne conscience.

This is Bellarmines lesson, and that must bee your Faith. Nay more, Cardinall Tollet will assure you, that if one beleeve his Bishop, Toll. de Instruct. sacerd. l. 4. c. 3. although it be con­trary to the faith, yet in beleeving that falshood, hee shall performe an act meritorious.

I understand you are a Jesuite, and therefore I doe not much wonder, that you so much insist upon the justification of an implicite faith; for you had it from your founder, and are injoyned to make it [Page 146]good by your owne Order. There is a little Pam­phlet entituled Regulae Societatis Jesu, which your selves have caused to be printed at Lyons, in which Ignatius Loyala, the Spanish Souldier, and Patron of your Sect,Anticotton, or a refutation of Cottons letter to the Queene Regent, p. 24. printed at Ly­ons by Jaques Roussin. Anno. 1607. hath laid downe these rules to your Societie: Entertaine the command of your Superiour in the same sort, as if it were the voice of Christ. A­gaine, Hold this undoubtedly, that all which a Supe­riour commands, is no other than the commandement of God himselfe; and as in beleeving those things which the Catholike faith proposeth, you are presently carried with all the strength of your consent; so for the performance of all those things which your Supe­riour commands, you must be carried with a certaine blinde impetuosity of will, desirous to obey without fur­ther inquiring why or wherefore. ‘And lest that such command might seeme sometimes unjust and absurd, he commands your Jesuits so to capti­vate their understanding, that they sift not the commands of their Superiours; but that they may follow the example of Abraham, who prepared even to sacrifice his sonne at the commandement of God: and of Abbot John, who watered a drie log of wood a whole yeare together, to none other purpose, but to exercise his obedience; and another time put himselfe to thrusting downe of a great Rocke, which many men together were not able to move, not that hee held them things either usuall or possible, but onely that hee would not disobey the command of his Supe­riour.’

This is that blind obedience and implicite faith which wee laugh at, and this is the ridiculous Do­ctrine which your Rhemists teach. He saith enough, Rbem. Annot. in Luc. 12.11. and defendeth himselfe sufficiently, who answereth he is a Catholike 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; wee are ready alwayes, 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, wee testifie 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 doe all the words of the Law. We say there­fore particular knowledge is to be joyned with the assent of faith; for no man can assent to that which hee never heard, and therefore I thinke no man of understanding, with a blind obedience and implicite faith, will resigne up his eie-sight, and looke through such spectacles as you have tempe­red for them. For without doubt it was the con­stant and uniforme Doctrine of the ancient Church, that howsoever faith apprehends mysteries not to bee 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 dayes You might see every where the points of our Faith to bee held and knowne, [...] &c. Theod. Graec. Serm. 5. not onely to them who are Ma­sters in the Church and Teachers of the people, [Page 148]but even of Coblers, Smiths, and Weavers, and all kinde of Artificers, of all sorts of women; and all these you may finde (saith he) discoursing of the Trinitie, and the creation of all things.

CHAP. II. The summe of his Answer to my first Section.

THe Church of Rome, not without cause, bitter against the Reformed Churches, because they are Heretikes: Theodoret is impertinently alledged: Bellarmine is falsified: The Catholike Church cannot be depraved be­cause of her promises. And this (setting aside your reproches 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 Heretikes.

It is true, the Church of Rome is not bitter against Heretikes (as you understand them for Pro­testants) for they are no Heretikes: but if the termes of Luthers whelpes, Hell-hounds of Zwing­lius, damned persons, and worse than Infidels; if such termes (I say) be Catholike complements (which your fellow Jesuits have given us) I shall freely con­fesse your Charitie is mistaken.

But (say you) the word Heretike, 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 Heretike may alwayes goe 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 beleeve that if all the pictures and patternes of a Papist were lost in the world, they might all againe be recovered, and a Papist painted to the life in the description of such an He­retike as you here define.

Looke upon the particular doctrines of private Masse, your halfe Communion, your Prayer in an unknowne Tongue, and tell me if these be not new: why else doe you and your associates confesse that the contrary Tenets were taught and revived by the Ancients? And as touching the name of Antichrist, if that be appropriate to Heretikes, 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 Generall, [...] 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 beare the markes of Antichrist, and consequently the word (Here­tike) reflects upon your selves.

Cassander tells us, there be some who make the [Page 150]Pope of Rome Almost a God, Cassand. de officio Pii viri. preferring his authori­tie not onely above the whole Church, but above the sacred Scriptures, holding his judgement equall 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 confesse I much wonder, that any Prote­stant should give you that honourable title of Ca­tholike, especially when you terme them by the name of Heretikes.

Those that have the marke of the Beast imprin­ted in their foreheads, have borrowed both the Name and Nature from him; and therefore your Cardinall 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 bee a Christian man, a childe of the Church, and subject to Christs Vicar. You that are so inquisitive after other mens pedigrees, see if with all your Heraldrie you can make good your nominal descent from Christ, and, as you stile him, Pope Peter.

Your Father Bristow, Bristow. De­mand. 8. as a knowne Antiquarie in this point, gives your Father Bellarmine the lye; for he avowes it for certaine, that your name (Pa­pist) was never heard of till the dayes of Pope Leo the Tenth, and this was 1500. yeares after Christ; and this opinion I am sure is most probable, and more sutable to the Noveltie of your Reli­gion.

But (say you) we Catholikes stile the Knight [Page 151]and the Reformers, by the common name of Here­ticks.

You told me formerly the title of (Sir) would be left for me: now you have added to the title the name of Hereticke, and you professe it is the worst word of all. It seemes the worst word you have is good enough for me: But I pardon you, and I must let you know that the name of Catholike is as comely with the Professors of your new doctrine, as a golden ring in a swines snout. And as touching the name of Hereticke wherewith you charge me, you rightly resemble Athalia, 4 Kings 11. who when shee under­stood that Joas the right inheritour of the Crowne of Judah, was proclaimed King, ranne in her furie to the Temple, and cryed out, Treason, Trea­son, when the treason was not in King Joas, but in herselfe that wrought it. Your Alphonsus à Ca­stro hath written a Booke against the Heretickes in all ages; and in his Index haereticorum, I have sear­ched diligently, and I finde the names of certaine Popes among them, but mine owne name I doe not finde: For I professe with St. Austin, Errare possum, haereticus esse nolo, I may erre, but I will not bee an Hereticke. Shall I make my confession unto you? I beleeve 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 beleeve the holy Catholicke Church. This is an Article of my Faith, and this I first received from the Apostles Creed. Next, I undoubtedly beleeve the Nicene Creed; and this was called Catholicke by those holy Fathers, to [Page 152]distinguish the Heretikes from the Orthodoxe Christians in the Primitive Church; or, according to your owne words,Chap. 1. p. 2. appointed to be publikely pro­fessed by all such as meant to bee counted Catholikes; Concil. Trid. Sess. 3. and for the same cause your Councell of Trent de­creed it to be received (as a Shield against Heresies) and therefore by your owne confession, the Coun­cels decree, and your Creed it selfe, I am free from the name of Heretike. Lastly, I professe and be­leeve Athanasius Creed, and that Holy and ancient Father witnesseth of that confession, Haec est fides Catholica, This is the Catholike Faith.

If therefore I beleeve the Scriptures, and Ca­tholike Church, which teacheth the true Faith; If I beleeve the Articles of the Nicene Creed, which distinguisheth the right Beleevers from the Here­tikes; If I receive Athanasius Creed, which con­taines the summe and substance of all Catholike Faith and doctrine, what remaines then why I should not be exempted from the name of Heretike, unlesse I shall acknowledge with you the fourth Creed published by Pope Pius the fourth, and con­sequently subscribe to new particular doctrines, which (as you confesse) doth ever accompanie the nature of Heresie?

But the Reformers are Heretikes.

He that shall heare 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 [Page 153]and Thyatira there were some of the Sadduces opinion, who denied the Resurrection, others that joyned Circumcision and the workes of the Law with Christ, and the worke of salvation. The A­postles you know did reprove those errors in their dayes, and no doubt many accordingly did reforme themselves: Now will you condemne those reformed persons for Heretikes, because they differed from the rest with an utter dislike of those errors which the seduced partie retained? Surely this is the true state and condition of our Church; and accordingly your Trent Fathers made a decree for Reformation in the Councell, and pretended that it was summoned to redresse Heresies which were crept into the Church; and will you say, if they had redressed them, the Reformers had beene Heretikes?

The Rogatian Heretikes would have made the world beleeve that they were the onely Catholikes; and the Arrian Heretikes called the true Christians, sometimes Ambrosians, sometimes Athanasians, sometimes Homo [...]sians. And in this manner St. Paul himselfe was called before the Judges to make answer to matter of Heresie, and according to this way which you call Heresie, Acts 24. so worship we the God of our Fathers, beleeving all things which are written in the Law and the Prophets.

They that so rashly pronounce and call every thing Heresie, are often stricken with their owne dart, Alph. de Heres. l. 1. c. 7.(saith your owne Alphonsus) and fall into the same pit which themselves have digged for others: Hee [Page 154]shewes therefore by way of conclusion what hee would have called Heresie.Ibid. This would I rather call Heresie (saith he) to accompt mens writings among the Scriptures of God; and so doe they that thinke it a wicked matter to dissent from the writings of man, no lesse than it were the judgements of God. Now that your men are guilty of such Heresies in the highest degree, appeares by his owne confes­sion;Ibid. l. 1. c. 2. p. 14. for he complaines of Gratian, who did insert the Popes decretall Epistles amongst the holy Scrip­tures, as if they were of equall authoritie with them: and he speakes as an eare witnesse of others, who in their publicke Sermons have declared, that whosoever shall dissent from the opinion of St. Tho­mas, is to be censured for an Hereticke. O fortes verbi Dei Praecones! O powerfull 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 meanes it will come to passe, that blessed Bonaventure must be censured of heresie, Ibid. p. (mihi) 31. for he crosseth St. Thomas; and blessed An­selme must be suspected of Heresie, 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 Hereticks, so likewise he professeth that the head of the Ro­man Church, as well as the members are subject to that capitall accusation whereof you accuse the Re­formers, and particularly he doth instance from Platina in Pope Liberius for an Arrian Hereticke, and Pope Anastasius for a favourer of the Nestorian [Page 155]Heretickes, and withall hee resolves the question (which without all question is so to bee resolved) that the Pope (which you make one of the infal­lible Rules of your Faith) may become an Here­ticke.

You shall doe well therefore to forbeare your name [Catholicke] till you can free your Pope and his adherents from the markes of Heretickes. In the meane time I might more justly retort your owne words, cum faenore, into your owne bosome, and say, We Reformed Catholickes, not onely stile, but prove J. R. and the Romanists to be rightly stiled by the common name of Heretickes.

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 proofe (notwithstanding your exception) stands good; for if the agreement of both parties in the Nicene Councell, in his judge­ment, ought to have allayed the heate of contention in the Church of Antioch, I might well conclude much more, that the three Creeds, and the first foure Generall Councels (wherein both sides agree) ought to have abated the edge of your sharpe and bitter Invectives against our Church. And as for abusing of Bellarmine, I assure you it was farre from my thoughts; and you cannot be ignorant that the inference, according to true meaning, standeth thus. If Protestants beleeve and hold all things necessarie for all Christians, then are they not to be accomp­ted damned persons, and worse than Infidels: But [Page 156]they beleeve the Apostles Creed, they teach the ten Commandements, and administer some few Sa­craments, which in your Cardinals opinion are those things which are simply necessarie for all to know and beleeve; and to this argument you an­swere nothing, but you quarrell about words. When I translate [nonnulla] a few Sacraments, you say I falsifie Bellarmine, for the word (few) is not there; and yet you know well, that by nonnulla hee doth not meane omnia, Nonnulla is a diminutive terme signify­ing not none, that is, some, be they never so fevv. 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 alter not the sense, nor are wee bound precisely to the words, but to the sense, in translating a passage out of any Au­thor.

But (say you) what man ever tooke Babylon for a true Church?

If by Babylon you understand literally the anci­ent Citie of Chaldea, or that famous City in Aegypt, 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 confesse that I otherwise ex­presse my selfe:) 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 Heresie, and become spi­rituall and mysticall Babylon, this is not onely my assertion, but your Romanists and fellow Jesuites in the Church of Rome.

Ribera your fellow Jesuite of Salamanca in [Page 157] Spaine, 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 againe; as it was in the case of Hierusalem, which of a faithfull City once, became afterwards a Har­lot. And according to the Prophesie 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 foole 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 Idolatrie, 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 Monke Sige­bert about 500. yeares agoe 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 signifie Rome, because Rome at that time was confounded with Idolatrie and all uncleannesse; but my griefe doth now interpret unto mee, that Peter by a Propheticke spirit, by the Church of Baby­lon, foresaw the confusion of dissention with which the Church of Rome at this day is rent in pieces.

Honorius Bishop of Anthun in France, speaking of the fall of the Church of Rome, not long after the same time, cryes out to the members of his Church,Honor. Angust. in Dial. de Prae­dest. & l. arbit. Turne to the Citizens of Babylon, and see what they are; behold the buildings of that damned Citie, consider the principall persons there, and thou shalt finde the See of the Beast. Thus you see the first Babylonian tels what he feared would come to passe [Page 158]in the Church of Rome hereafter; but these two la­ter proclaimed openly that Rome was become Ba­bylon many hundred yeares 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 speake the truth, let the Reader judge; but that which is observable, you raze the Records which testifie for us; you forbid them to speake, if it make against your Church, and then you demand of us, What man ever tooke Babylon for Rome?

I will give you one witnesse more, who is an­cient and beyond exception, who spake (as it were prophetically) of the Church of Rome in her most flourishing state. St. Hierome writing to Marcella, a noble Lady, exhorteth her to depart from Rome, which he compares to Babylon. Hier. ad Mar­cel. Ep. 17. Tō. 1. p. (mihi) 156. Reade (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 Moun­taines, of the great waters, of the fall of Babylon: Goe out from thence my people, Babylon is falne, and is become the habitation of Divels, and the hold and cage of every foule spirit.

Now that wee might understand this was not spoken by him of heathen Rome, he adjoyneth 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 [Page 159]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 faire pretence of holy Law for selling it, yet may you buy or sell almost any kinde of cause holy or hellish for money. In D. August. Annot. Ludov. Vives prohi­bentur nisi cor­rigantur. Ind. l. prohibit. Class. 2. For this and the like passages, your Vives is forbidden till hee be purged.

I must confesse I doe not thinke that the Rhemists would have interpreted Babylon for Rome, if it had not beene to prove Peters being at Rome: It is hap­py therefore for you that Peter wrote his Epistle from Babylon, for otherwise your succession from Peter had beene questioned; and it is as well for us that you are contented to allow Babylon for Rome, for by this meanes your Antichristian Doctrine is discovered, and your succession of Peters faith is quite abolished.

But (say you) if you meane as you expresse your selfe, that a true Church may bee depraved, I know not what to say, but to stop my eares against that mouth of blasphemie: And is it blasphemie to say, a true Church may be depraved? Sure I am it is not blasphemie 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 goodnes, Rom. 11.22. if thou conti­nue in his goodnesse, otherwise thou also shalt be cut off: [Page 160]And may not a Church (thinke you) be depraved, that is in possibility of being cut off? What thinke you of the Church of Hierusalem? Psalm. 48.19. Did not the Prophet David terme 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 Christs time was not that house of Prayer be­come a denne of Theeves? Mat. 21.14. He that sayes Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of God, doth plainely intimate, that the true Church may be depraved, and that be­fore his comming there was a true Church.In his answer to Card. Peron. p. 9. Eng. What Babylon is (saith learned Casaubon) thus much the matter it selfe doth plainly shew, 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 goe out, and to breake off communion with her. And as touching the authority you cite, that he would be with them to the worlds end, that the Church is built upon a Rocke, that the gates of Hell should not prevaile against it; these promises (I say) concerne no more the particular Roman Church, than the seven Chur­ches of Asia that are falne away. The blasphemie then you lay to my charge (if any such be) is but against your Roman Church, and of such blasphe­mie many of your best learned are guilty, in ac­knowledging a depravation of their faith, (not­withstanding all the promises of Christ to the [Page 161]Catholicke and universall Church.)

Your Bishop of Bitonto by way of prevention cryes aloud in your Councell of Trent, Cornel. in Con­cil. Trident. Would to God they were not wholly with generall consent gone from religion to superstition, from faith to infidelitie, 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 eares will not endure such blasphemie. Howso­ever, since your best learned have acknowledged Babylon to bee meant by Rome, and that Rome is falne from her first faith,Jerem. 51.6.9. I say with the Prophet Jeremie, Fly out of the midst of Babylon, and deliver every man his soule; we would have healed Babylon, but she is not healed; forsake her, and let us goe eve­rie one into his owne Country, for her judgement rea­cheth unto Heaven, and is lifted up even unto the skies.

CHAP. III. The summe 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 [Page 162]by asking, what is this to the purpose for the visi­ble Church? Secondly, with the contradiction of a former lye, he telleth a new one; for the Refor­mation was sought for manners onely, 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 lye: 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 Booke 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 proofe of a visible Church, if your Index Expur­gatorius did not spunge them, and cause their testi­monies to be often invisible. For instance; in our behalfe I cite Cassander: To Cassander you answer, he is like your selfe, an Hereticke, or next doore to them: and yet elsewhere you say, with much adoe he may passe for a Catholike. Pag. 21. Oportet esse memorem. I cite Cecenas Generall of the order of Franciscans, as witnessing the visibili­tie of our Church above 300. yeares agoe; you an­swer, he was condemned for disobedience and rebellion; for he said Pope John the 22. was an Apostata [Page 163]and an Hereticke, and therefore not true Pope: And in this manner you can easily resolve all doubts, and reject all Authors that speake not Placentia, accor­ding to your pallate; onely (say you) St. Bede is a Catholicke. Now if you please, take a review of these Authors. Cassander (you know) was a lear­ned man, he was highly favoured for his wisedome by two Emperours, Maximilian and Ferdinand; he was moderate in all his writings, he sought to ex­tenuate the palpable errors and heresies of your Church, he indevoured to accord, and (if it had beene possible) to reconcile the differences on both sides; and lastly, he lived and died in the communion of the Roman Church. Cecenas was a Frier, and Generall of the Order of Franciscans, he was con­demned de facto by the Pope; but it doth not ap­peare quo jure, by what right, for if the accusation were true, the Pope deserved the punishment, and not the innocent Frier: listen therefore to the re­bellion and disobedience for which he was accused. Cecenas shewes in particular that Pope John was a schismaticke and an heretike, in his peremptorie opposition against the Word of God and the Ca­tholicke Church;Mich. de Cece­na tractat. con­tra errores Pa­pae p. (mihi) 1314. & 1336 in Tom. 2. Gul. Occham. de Ju­risdictione Im­periali. Naucler. Ge­ner. 45. Anno 1324. he charged him with twelve se­verall errors, which you may reade at large in the place cited; and for those and the like accusations he was excommunicated and deposed by the Pope. I confesse the accusation was capitall, 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 [Page 164]name of Pope) to be an Hereticke for certaine errors; Tepidè. which errors notwithstanding it is said that he (cold­ly) revoked at the time of his death; and hee addes withall, that Pope Benedict his immediate successor openly condemned the same errors. You see then it was not the Franciscan Frier onely, but many Di­vines both good and learned did condemne him of Heresie; and not they alone, but the Pope himselfe who succeeded him, publikely condemned him for an Hereticke. 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 yeares after; he was chosen Pope atPlat. in Joh. 24. Bononia, by the consent of all the Cardinals. Against this John, it was specially objected at the Councel of Constance, Quinimo dixit, & perti­nacitèr credi­dit, animam hominis cum corpore humano mori, & extin­gui ad instar animalium bru­torum. Concil. Constant. That he ob­stinately held that the soule of man dieth together with the body, and is consumed to nothing, as the soule of brute beasts: Neither did he hold this Tenet as a private man (which is your generall Answer) for Antoninus saith plainely, Pope John held this error in the time of his Popedome, Johannes ser­monē faciens in publico consi­storio, dixit quaedam haere­sin sapientia. Anton. part. 3. tit. 21. c. 6. and pronounced words savouring of heresie openly in the Consistorie. Nei­ther was this accusation of these men accounted rebellion and disobedience in them, as it was in Ce­aenas; for (saith Gerson)Falsitas do­ctrinae Papae Jo­bānis vicessi­mi, quae dānata 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 withall the Councell it selfe deprived him of his Popedome (which shewes plainly, the authority of a Councell is above the Pope.) And to his depo­sition [Page 165]subscribed 4. Patriarkes, 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 onely Ceaenas was deposed for his disobedience towards an Hereticke, and is now thrust into your first Classis of damned Au­thors, but the whole Councell of Constance touching that Session (where they decred the Councell to be above the Pope) is rejected, and disavowed by your Church.

It is no difficult thing then to prove your infalli­ble Pope may bee an Hereticke; but if any man of your owne Church shall say so, and manifestly prove it, yea although it be a generall Councell, 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 Councell of Pisa, and out of the Councell of Trent; To which I answere: For matter of manners wee willingly acknowledge a reforma­tion to be needfull, but for doctrine with the contra­diction of his owne former lye, hee telleth a new one.

It is a true saying of Chrysostome, A lyar thinkes no man speakes the truth; Qui mendax est neminen [...] verum putat dicere. Chrys. in Matth. Hom. 19 But that the truth of my assertion may appeare, looke upon the Letters of summons; they declare that the Councell was cal­led to reforme errors that concerned Faith; they [Page 166]shew 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 faithfull: And accordingly Pope Alexander did assemble the most learned of all Nations;Idem dixit, quod ipse vole­bat vacare cir­ca Reformatio­nem Ecclesiae, &c. Acta Con­cil. Pis Sess. 20. Bin. Tom. 3. Pars 2. p (mihi) 837. the Cardi­nals did binde themselves with an Assumpsit, that they would not proceed to the election of a new Pope (when his predecessors Gregorie the 12. and Benedict the 13. were deposed) unlesse 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 onely? Cardinall de Aliaco was living in his dayes;De squallor. Rom. Eccles. p. 34. in Biblioth. Westmonasteri­ensi. Gers. declaratio defect. virorū. he complaines that Pagan abuses, and dia­bolicall 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 Idolatrie; Apocryphall Scriptures were brought into the Church, to the great damage of Christian Faith. Occham compē ­dium contr. er­rores Papae p. 957. Incipit Prologus. Looke into the age before him; Occham (a Frier Minorite) cries out, Alas the time of which the blessed Apostle prophesied (when men will not suf­fer wholesome doctrine) is altogether fulfilled in our eares; For behold there are many that pervert the holy Scriptures, deny the sayings of the holy Fathers, reject the Canons of the Church, and civill Constitu­tions of the Emperors. Looke into the age before him;Matth. Paris. p. 843. Grosthead (Bishop of Lincolne) complaines that there was a defection, a revolt, an Apostasie from the true Faith. Looke into Bernards time, and there [Page 167]you shall finde by his owne confession,Bernard. in Cant. Serm. 33. p. (mihi) 673. The wound of the Church was inward, and past recoverie. These former complaints and grievances in the Church did sound aloud in the eares 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.

Looke after Pope Alexanders time, and before the Councell of Trent, and your Bishop of Bitonto will shew you the state and miserable condition of your Church, as it were in a Glasse.In Ep. ad Ro­man. c. 6. Alas (saith he) how were the Scriptures neglected in the later Ages, to the detriment of all peple! Rivet. Sum. Controv. p. (mi­hi) 98. There was then in re­quest a tedious and crabbed Divinitie about Relati­ons, about quiddities and formalities; and all those things were handled and wrested with Syllogismes and humane Sophistrie, 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 perpetuall 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 vaine glory to speake bigge words with great lookes among women, not to be un­derstood when they disputed of the Scriptures. The Preachers of the word were all sworne to the word of their Masters: and from hence sprung sixe hundred Sects; as namely, Thomists, Scotists, Occhamists, [Page 168]Alexandrians, &c. O heinous wickednesse! The Gos­spels and Epistles of the Apostles were laid aside, true Divinitie lay hid, and was handled of very few; but coldly, I will not say, unfaithfully.

In what state the Church remained in those dayes, when Papall Traditions and cunning Sophi­stry prevailed against the sacred Scriptures, let the Reader judge:Onus Ecclesiae c. 16. p. (mihi) 79 Your owne St. Francis foretold that the times were at hand, wherein many differences should arise in the Church, when charitie should waxe cold, iniquity should abound, and the Divell should be let loose, and that the purity of his Roman Religion should be depraved; and accordingly (saith my Au­thor) the Image of the Crosse in the Church of St. Damian spake unto him;Vade, repara domum meam, quae ut cernis, tota labitur. Goe and repaire my house which you see is altogether decayed. Thus Bi­shops, and Friers, and Images, stocks and stones cried out of the falling away of your Church (if we may credit your owne Authors) and yet by no meanes you will assent to a reformation of doctrine or manners.

At Luthers first rising, which was almost 30. yeares before the Councell of Trent, your Guicciar­dine tells us,Guicciard. Hist. lib. 13. that there were that yeare many mee­tings at Rome, to consult what was best to be done. The more wise and moderate sort wished the Pope to reforme things apparently amisse, and not to persecute Luther. Hieronymus Savanarola told the French King, Charles the 8. he should have great prosperitie in his voyage into Italie, to the end hee should reforme the state of the Church, which if he did [Page 169]not reforme, he should returne with dishonour; and so (saith he) it fell out.

I come to the Councell of Trent it selfe, where you may reade many decrees for reformation, and yet neither doctrine nor manners reformed. But let us heare your owne confession. It is true, the Councell indeed complaineth with great reason of the avarice of such whom the Knight calleth the Popes Collectors, though the Councell speaketh not of the Pope: but false it is which he saith, that the Councell complaineth of Indulgences, an Article of faith (as his words are.) The Councell likewise complaineth of many things crept into the celebration of the Masse, and the words of the Councell are right cited by him in Latin in the Margent, but in the English he foully corrupteth them: For in stead of many things, hee translated many errors, which is a grosse errour and corruption in the Knight.

These be your grand exceptions to the grosse corruptions laid unto my charge; but all this while you doe not discharge the accusations laid justly to your Church. And in this I must needs say, you play the Hypocrite, who can discerne a mote in your Brothers eye, and cannot see a beame in your owne: First therfore cast the beame out of your own eye, and then you shall easily disccrne without Specta­cles, that the Collectors of Indulgences are the Popes Collectors, although the Pope is not mentio­ned in that place; and Indulgences are an Article of Faith created by that Councell, although the Councell proclaime it not an Article of Faith: so [Page 170]that (multa) many things, might well stand for ma­ny errors and corruptions, since they were errors in practise. Neither would I have set the Latin in the Margent if I had meant to corrupt them in English; and withall, 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 foule corruptions, had beene needlesse. 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 falsarie, Hieron. ad Pā ­mach. 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, Deerely beloved: These things and such trifles (saith he) are laid unto my charge. Now heare what An­swer St. Hierome makes; Whereas the Epistle it selfe 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 fooles, and see­king to reprove other mens unskilfulnesse, they betray their owne. Let us heare therefore the rest of your Things (for so you will have me terme them) which are crept into your Church, and need a Refor­mation.

The Councell (say you) seemeth to acknowledge the avarice of Priests in saying Masse for mony, was not farre from Symonie. It speaketh of the use of Mu­sicke, wherewith some wantonnesse was mixed, as also of certaine Masses or Candles used in certaine num­ber, [Page 171]proceeding rather from superstition than true Religion. This you confesse is true in your Coun­cell, 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 Masse, for your Councell confesseth them both: and I thinke it toucheth your errors in Doctrine. But have you reformed 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 musicke, redressed? Is your covetousnesse in Priests, with their Supersti­tion and Idolatry in the Masse, abolished?Mirae mirae en­tis Res. Juve­nal. These cor­ruptions are things and things (as you call them) and such as I wonder your Councell was not ashamed to confesse, much more to tolerate, or rather to pra­ctice in the daily sacrifice of your Masse. I hasten to the Reformation in doctrine: but you tell me it is a Lye, the Councell never intended it; I instance in private Masse, Latin Service, &c. You answer it is most false, for the doctrine is the same still, and ever was.

I perceive your passion makes you much forget your selfe: for your doctrine (I confesse) which is commonly received, is the same now, that was de­creed in the Councell of Trent; but that it was ever the same, as now it is, all the Colledge of Cardi­nals and Jesuits cannot prove. Looke upon your owne confession in those two particular instances: Your private Masse, where the Priest communi­cates alone, is not the same now, as it was hereto­fore; [Page 172]For (say you) it was the practise of the Primi­tive Church for the people to communicate every day with the Priest. Spectacl. pag. 191. Your Prayer in an unknowne 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 Lye upon your selfe.

Againe, you confesse that the Councell wisheth that the standers by did communicate, not onely spi­ritually, Pag. 53. but also sacramentally: and doth not your Church in this wish a reformation in doctrine? Doth it not in this preferre the practice of the re­formed Churches before their owne, and in a man­ner confesse an error in the allowed practice of the Roman Church? Your Councell commands Pastors that have care of soules, to expound that to the peo­ple, which is delivered in the Masse in an unknowne tongue; and doe not those that require the Priests to expound it to the people, shew likewise that without such exposition the people are little better for the Masse, and that the Church intended the people should understand it? What is this else, but to joyne hands with the Protestants, and to acknow­ledge a reformation needfull in your Church, for requiring Service to bee celebrated in a knowne 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 [Page 173]truth, in affirming the Councell of Trent did make decrees for Reformation for doctrine as well as manners, looke upon the second Session, and tell me if they did not professe a reall intention in both.Concil. Trid. Sess. 2. the words of the Session are these; Whereas it is the speciall care and intention of the Councell, that (the darkenesle of Heresie being expelled, which so many yeares hath covered the earth) the light and parity of the Catholicke truth may shine, through the helpe of Christ which is the true light; and that those things which need reformation may be reformed; the Synod exhorteth all Catholikes assembled, or to be assembled, and especially those who are skilful in the sacred Scrip­tures, that with continuall meditation they may dili­gently consider with themselves how these things may bee effected; that they may condemne 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 glorifie God the Faiher, and our Lord Jesus Christ. Take a review of the words of your Coun­cell; First, Praecipua cura & intentio, ut propulsa­tis errorum tenebris, quae per tot annos operiarunt terram; the chiefe care to dispell the darkenesse of errour 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, &c. ut probare proban­da, & damnare damnanda queant. There needed [Page 174]not this diligence and skill in Scriptures for Luthers Religion, for they were condemned before by the Pope. Thirdly, Nullus debeat &c. obstinatis discep­tationibus contendere, which should not be about Lutheran points, but about doctrines of their owne. Fourthly, in the third Section, de extirpandis hae­resibus, &c. which (say they) is adversus spiritua­les nequitias in caelestibus, which heavenly places are meant by their owne Church, not by Luthers, as is most evident. For they would never acknow­ledge our Churches heavenly places.

Now I pray, what thinke you of your Coun­cels 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 chiefly to be imployed 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. Looke upon the third Session, and there likewise you shall finde 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 Councell was principally called. It is a most evident truth then (howsoever you redouble the lie upon me) that the Councell did intend 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 [Page 175]what purpose were those disputes and oppositions in the Councell against particular points of Do­ctrine, if they had not beene adjudged erroneous, and needed a reformation? But herein the Reader shall easily discerne the policie of your Church. At the first calling of the Councell (when these first Sessions were made) the number of Bishops were but few, (about 40.) but after the faction of the Popes creatures in multitude prevailed, all hope of reformation was abandoned; And thereupon the Bishops of Apulia publikely declared, that the Trent Fathers were nothing else but the Popes crea­tures, and his bondslaves; See Craken­thorpe. and accordingly there was an oath proposed severally to be taken in this manner;

I vow and sweare true obedience to the Bishop of Rome,Bulla Pii 4. &c. And all other things likewise doe I un­doubtedly receive and confesse, which are delivered, defined, and declared by the sacred Canons, and gene­rall Councels, and especially the holy Councell of Trent; and withall, I condemne, 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 carefull this true Ca­tholike faith (out of the which no man can be saved, which at this time I willingly professe and truly hold) be constantly (with Gods helpe) retained and confes­sed whole and inviolate to the last gaspe; 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, [Page 176]and sweare, So God me helpe, and his holy Gospels.

Now what good (saith Dudithius) could be done in that Councell, Andr. Dudi­thius in Ep. ad Maximil. 2. which onely numbred, 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 owne. This Author was sent as Ambassador to the Councell from the state and Clergy of Hungarie, and he consirmes what I have testified of their pro­ceedings. But observe the mysterie of iniquitie displayed in your Councell, 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, contrarie to their former decree of Reformation, that the Synod was (chiefly) called for restoring of Ecclesiasticall discipline; and hereby is plainly dis­covered their deceivablenesse of unrighteousnesse; insomuch as I may truly say with that learned Gentleman and Translator of the Trent Historie, The Bishops of Rome,Sir Nathaniel Brent in Ep. to the Historie of Trent. in stead of being Christs holy Vicars, as they pretend, have beene the greatest, and most pernicious quacksalving Juglers that ever the earth did beare. 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 integritie (as your Trent Bishops pro­fessed) let them consider with themselves how neare that Prophesie of David doth concerne them, who deny a Reformation; For unto the ungodly (said God) why dost thou preach my Lawes, Psal. 50.16, 17. and takest my Covenant in thy mouth, whereas thou hatest to bee [Page 177]reformed, and hast cast my words behinde thee.

CHAP. IV. The summe of his Answer to my Fourth Section.

TO this Section, the title whereof is, That many learned Romanists have falne from the Catholike Faith to be Protestants, he saith, the Catholike Faith is indivisible, and they that re­nounce it in part, renounce it in all: Hee affirmeth that in Priests, who cannot conteine, to marry, it is a greater sinne than to keepe a concubine. This is the substance of his fourth Chapter, in answer to my fourth Section.

The Reply. I shewed in my fourth Section, that many learned Romanists, convicted by evidence of truth, either in part, or in whole, renounced Poperie be­fore their death.Pag. 58. That some have renounced the same inpart (say you) is foolishly said, for no man can re­nounce the Catholike Faith in part, it being indi­visible.

If I shall prove your assertion to bee a strange Paradoxe, the foolishnesse will returne into your owne bosome. For the better illustration therefore of your Tenet,Oratio in lau­dem Athanasii. heare what division Gregory Nazi­anzen makes upon that ground: When one taketh [Page 178]up water in his hand (saith he) not onely that which he taketh not up, but that also which runneth forth, and findeth passage betweene his fingers, is divided and separated from that which he holdeth and incloseth in his hand: so not onely the open and professed enemies of the Catholike Faith, but they also that seeme to be her best and greatest friends, are sometimes divided one from another. What thinke 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 beleeve one point, ceaseth to beleeve any one as he should: And is this wisely spoken thinke you? Is not this your latter error greater than the first? For proofe therefore of your assertion, shew mee that man, who before the Councell 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 compasse of fifteene hundred yeares beleeved all your doctrines of Faith, en­tirely in all points, and for that one mans sake, I will confesse your Faith is indivisible, and submit my obedience to your Church.

Your Index Expurgatorius discovers the weak­nesse of your opinion: I speake not of Authors which were condemned in your first and third Classis for Heretikes,Propter suspe­ctam doctrinam Ind. lib prohibit. but of those Romanists who in the second Classis are purged for their suspected doctrine (as you terme it) and yet never forsooke your Church; I dare confidently avow, that there are above foure hundred of those Classicall Au­thors, [Page 179]all members of the Roman Church, never excommunicated, never condemned for heresie 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 beleeve 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 beleeve one point, ceaseth to beleeve 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 Recoverie against your owne 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 originall sinne: yet the contrarie Tenet is likewise maintained by the members of your owne Church. Ludovicus Vives tells us, that two orders of Friers, Ludov Vives in lib. 20. de Ci­vit. Dei. cap. 26. p. 828. both fierce, and both led with undaunted Generals, set this question a foote; the Dominicans by Thomas Aquinas, and the Franciscans by Duns Scotus: the Councell of Basill decreed, that shee was wholly pure without all touch of sinne, but the Dominicans obje­cted that it was no lawfull Councell, and the Mino­rites of the other side avowed that it was true and ho­ly, and called the Dominicans Heretikes for slande­ring the power of the Church; so that the matter had come to a shrewd passe, but that Pope Sixtus forbad [Page 180]this Theame to be any more disputed.

To proceed to the rest of your observations. I produced for a witnesse Paulus Vergerius, who re­nounced Poperie, being a Romish Bishop, by the testimonies of Sleidan, and Osiander; I cited the Councell of Basil, for dispensing with the cup to the Lay people; Aeneas Sylvius for Mariage of Priests; Mr. Harding against your private Masse; Mr. Ca­saubon for your translating of the Scriptures; Lord Cooke 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 fellowes both for lying and heresie; Paulus Verge­rius, when he dyed, cast forth a horrible stench, and roared most fearefully like an Oxe; The Councell of Basile (you know) is of little or no authoritie with Catholikes, as being reproved by the Sea Apostolicke; Aeneas Sylvius, what hee wrote in the time of that Councell, 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 Cooke, he was soundly answered by a Catholicke Di­vine, and so exposed to the scorne of the world for his notorious falshoods.

These be your severall answers, and this is a confutation of their authorities: but I say to you, if these men have spoken untruth, beare witnesse of their falshood, if otherwise they delivered the truth, why do you reproach them? Either let their proofs bee plainly and moderately confuted, or let the [Page 181]lying lips (saith David) be put to silence, Psalm. 31.20. which cru­elly, disdainfully, and despightfully speake against the righteous.

Such as is your charitie, such is your chastitie: for when I cite your Jesuite Costerus for a witnesse,Coster. Enchir. cap. 17. propo. 9. Pag. 64. that a Priest doth sinne more grievously in marrying a wife, than keeping a concubine, you scoffingly re­turne me this answere: You seeme to take this for a great error, but in Priests who cannot marrie, it is a greater sinne to marrie, 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 sonnes 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 raigne in his Kingdome; as namely, Abra­ham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Esay, and other Prophets; of Peter and Paul, and other Apostles, who lived in matrimonie, and used conjugall rites. And in conclusion hee answeres your assertion in these words; If any man call lawfull copulation and procreation of children, Idem, ibid. corruption and unclean­nesse, that man hath a serpent, the Devill (that fell from God) dwelling in him. Grat. Par. 1. dist. 56. fol. 67. Osius Palea.

Againe, your owne Gratian tells us from Pope Damasus, that many Bishops of Rome were Priests sonnes, as namely Pope Hosius, Bonifacius, Agape­tus, Theodorus, Silverius, Deusdedit, Faelix, Gela­sius, all these were Popes, and Priests sonnes: and then he concludes;Cōplures eti­am alii inveni­antur, qui de sacerdotibus nati, Apostolicae sedi praesuerūt. Ibid. There were many others also to [Page 182]be found, who were begotten of Priests, and governed in the Apostolike See. Athanas. ad Dracontium. p. (mihi) 518. And Athanasius writing to Bishop Dracontius, tells him, that in his dayes ma­ny Monkes were Parents of children, and Bishops likewise were Fathers of Sonnes; and this was 340. yeares 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 Capitall offence for a Priest to marrie, and a veniall sinne to keepe a concubine, doe right­ly resemble the old Heretike Aërius, who used to say,Epiph. haeres. 76. To have the company of a woman out of marri­age, is no more sinne, De bono Ma­trim. dist. 27. Quoniam. than for a man to claw his eare. St. Austin puts the question, and resolves it in this manner; Some say they be adulterous that mar­rie after they have made a vow; but I tell you (saith he) they sin grievously that put such asunder. And elsewhere more particularly hee concludes against your Tenet;Augustinus de bono viduitatis cap. 10. They that say the marriage of such men or women as have vowed continencie, is no marriage, but rather adulterie, seeme unto mee not to consider discreetly and advisedly what they say. And in his Tract of holy virginitie he plainly shewes the Anti­quitie 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 Virginitie, but for feare 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 [Page 183]were it for them to marrie, than to burne, that is to say, with the flame of their concupiscence to be wasted; they are sorrie for their profession, and yet it grieveth them to confesse it. Chrys. contra Judaios Gentil. & haeret. serm. de nuptiis Cana in Galil. In like manner Chrysostome in the same age doth elegantly illustrate the honour of marriage in Spirituall persons. Our Lord honoured Marriage with his presence, and sayest thou that Marriage is a hindrance unto godlinesse? I tell thee Marriage is no hinderance. Had not Moses a wife and children? Helias, was not hee a virgin? Moses brought downe Manna from Heaven, so did Helias fire: Moses caused Quailes to flie 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 ayre, and Moses travelling through the Sea. Behold Peter a Pillar of the Church, he had a wife, therefore finde no fault with Marriage.

Looke into the Ages following; your Angelicall 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 Masse. If an Aco­lothyte (saith he) doe confesse to a discreet Priest, that by no meanes he can containe, the Priest doth not much offend in giving him this counsell, that he should marry privately, and closely blinde the eyes of the Bishop. And if afterwards he be willing to take Orders, we hold it lesse sinne for him to use his wife, than to commit forni­cation; for it is a lesse offence to accompany with his wife, than to commit fornication against the Divine Precept. They who pretend chastitie, and make a vow to keepe it, when they enter into holy Orders, [Page 184]doe breake it even in this, when they allow a con­cubine. Aeneas Sylvius was conscious to himselfe of the danger of that sinne, and therefore he wished that marriage were restored to Priests; yea, whilst he was a Cardinall he had his concubine, to whom at last he gave threescore Florens for her Dowrie: and it seemes when he was well in yeares, in or a­bout the time of his Popedome, he confessed; I cannot boast of any merit in my chastity, Magis me Ve­nus Jugitat, quam ego illā horreo. Ep. 92. for to tell the truth, venerie doth rather flie from me, than I from it. Neither was it his particular case alone; for the Booke called Taxae Camerae Apostolicae, which your Bishop Espencaeus complained of, doth sufficiently witnesse the damnable effects of such divellish doctrine. The gravest Cardinals in Rome, who were appointed by speciall Commission, and presented their information to Pope Paul the third, doe sufficiently witnesse the forbidden fruits of such an evill tree: The words are these; In this City of Rome the Curtezans passe 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 deare friends attend upon them. We never saw such cor­ruption, but onely in this Citie, which is the example and patterne of all other: moreover, they dwell in faire and goodly houses.

On the other side, you would make us beleeve, that your Curtezans goe altogether on foote; that they have a speciall badge of dishonestie, whereby they may be knowne; that they are despised and reviled of the people, but especially by Cardinals [Page 185]and the Nobles; that they dwelt in out-houses and back lanes: but to ride on horsebacke, to be attyred as honest Matrons and Noble Ladies, to be atten­ded by Priests and Cardinals friends, and to dwell in faire and beautifull houses, this shewes that your dispensation for stewes is occasioned chiefly by the forbidding of marriage; and by this meanes marriage, which is honourable in all, Heb. 13.4. and the bed un­desiled, by the Apostles doctrine, is now become a sinne, and your Apostolike See the Mother of Fornications. This occasioned your owne Agrip­pa to complaine of your casting up of the Bawds rents with the revenew of your Church.Agrip. de va­nit. scient. c. 64. de Lenonia. I have heard (saith he) the accompts cast up in this sort; he hath two Benefices, one cure of twenty Ducats, a Priorie of forty Ducats, and three whores in a bro­thell house.

I list not any longer to stirre this filthie puddle,Camerinam movere. Eras. Adag. which stinkes in the nosthrils of God and good men; the counsell of your Canonist is safe and good in this particular.Panor. dè Cler. Conjug. Cap. Cū Olim. The Church (saith he) should dis­charge the part of a good Physitian, who when by ex­perience he findes one medicine rather hurt than helpe, he removeth it, and applieth another: and there hee gives the reason, Because we finde by experience, that the Law of single life hath brought forth contrarie effects: and the rather, because it is resolved by your learned Cardinall:Cajet. in quod­libet contra Lutherum. It cannot bee proved either by reason, nor yet by authority, to speake absolutely, that a Priest doth sinne in marrying a wife; for neither the Order of Priesthood, in that it is Order, nor the [Page 186]same Order, in that it is holy, is any hindrance to matrimonie; for Priesthood doth not dissolve matri­monie, whether it be contracted before Priesthood or afterwards, if we (setting apart all other Ecclesiasti­call Lawes) stand onely to those things which we have received of Christ and his Apostles.

Againe,Panorm. l. extr. de Elect. C. Li­cet. de Vit. Ab. your owne Panormitan tells us, that the Priests of Grecia, being within Orders, doe marrie wives; and we see they doe it (saith he) sine peccato, without sinne, or breach of Law, either of God or man: And thus by your owne Tenet you stand with the positive law of man against the law of God; you stand in opposition against the Greeke Church, which ever used it; and lastly, you are at difference among your selves,Espencaeus de Continentia. l. 1. c. 11. p. 116. when many prime members of your owne Church utterly condemne it. The doctrine of St. Paul is evident and plaine, It is bet­ter marrie than burne. This Law is cleane perver­ted by your Jesuits doctrine;Utrumque est malum, nu­bere & uri, imo pejus est nubere, quicquid excla­mant adver (a­rii: praesertim ei qui habet vo­tum solenne. 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 marrie than burne, especially for him that hath made a solemne vow: So that the Law of God must give way to the Law of man, and chiefly for reason of state and policie. For (saith Cardinall 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 yeeld to any prejudice of the Church: they will seeke also to make their Benefice hereditarie, and in a short space the authoritie of the Apostolike See will be [Page 187]confined within the walles of Rome. And to these rea­sons you may truly adde this, as appendant to the rest; the dispensation of Stewes 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, evill in it selfe, you comply with the Devillish doctrine of Tatianus; If it be evill quia prohibetur, because it is forbid­den onely, then fornication, which is evill of it selfe, and in it selfe, must needs bee the greater sinne.

CHAP. V. The summe 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 li­tle of the Knights own raving. Maldonat approveth and commendeth St. Austins explica­cation, but addeth another of his owne. After this, the Knight hath a great deale of foolish stuffe, which needs no answer.

The Reply. Your answer is short, but your words be some­what [Page 188]sharpe: and you can finde nothing in that Se­ction but raving and foolishnesse? If it be raving to cite Texts of Scripture against your maimed Com­mandements, your Invocation of Saints, your Prayer in an unknowne tongue, your worship of Images, and the like: If it be raving to say Purgatorie is created a point of Faith, & that Faith is confirmed by Councels, meerely for the benefit of the Pope and Clergie; that you doe not exercise the power of your Priesthood in binding as well as loosing, by reason no man will give monie to be bound, but to be loosed in Purgatorie: If it be raving to say your Jesuite Maldonat preferres his owne explication of Scripture before St. Austins, onely because it more crosseth the sense of the Calvinists; and with­all confesseth that St. Austins opinion is more pro­bable; If this I say may bee deemed raving, then will I confesse your railing is a good answer. But he despaires (say you) of his cause, who seeth Maldo­nats saying practised by the Church of Rome against his Church and doctrine.

I confesse with the blessed Apostle,Acts 5.38, 39. If our coun­sell or worke be of men, it will come to nought, and then I might despaire of it, but if it be of God, yee cannot overthrow it, lest happely yee be found even to fight against God. We have no cause (blessed be God) to despaire of our Religion, which in one Age hath spread over the better part of Christen­dome. But I conceive there is little hope of you or your cause, who have sold your selves either with Ahab to worke wickednesse, and maintaine [Page 189]Idolatrous worship for your owne advantage; or like Maldonat, See Maldonat. Col. 1536. Unum è duo­bus intelliga­tur necesse est, aut tunc non scandaliz abimi­ni, cùm videri­tis filium homi­nis ascendentē ubi erat prius: aut (contra) tunc magis scandaliz abimi­ni: prioremsen­sum plerique sequātur, Chry­sost. Augustin. &c. Yet Mal­donat follow­eth the latter. openly to professe greater hatred to Protestants, than love to the truth it selfe. For it is apparent, ex professo, he preferreth his owne o­pinion without any authoritie, before St. Austin, nay contrarie to St. Austin, and hee gives this rea­son for it; Because this sense of mine doth more crosse the sense of the Calvinists. But I may say to you, as sometimesLudov. Viv. de Civ. Dei. l. 13. c. 24. Ludovicus Vives spake upon the like occasion: St. Austin is now safe, because of his age, but if he were alive againe, he should be sha­ken off as a bad Rhetoritian, or a poore Gramma­rian. And yet this good Saint was so farre from defending any opinion against the knowne truth, that on the contrarie, he preferreth the in­terpretation ofAugust. 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 summe of his Answer to my Sixth Section.

THe Knight (saith he) seemes to acknow­ledge that he cannot assigne the time and persons when and by whom the errors of the Roman Church came in. Good Physitians use to enquire of the causes, effects, and other circum­stances, [Page 190]and upon the circumstance dependeth the knowledge of the disease. We pleade prescrip­tion for our doctrine from the beginning. The difference betwixt Heresie and Apostasie. The Church cannot fall away, without some speciall note and observation.

The Reply. I [...] is to be wondered what art and policie your Church doth use to put off the triall of her cause, when it should come to hearing. If we speake of a depravation of your Faith, you crie out it is blas­phemie; If we shew your owne mens complaints for a reformation of your doctrine, you say they meant a reformation onely of Discipline; If we plainly prove the noveltie 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 assigne 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 doe you not rather complaine of the Noveltie of our doctrine, and bid us shew the time when, and the Authors who first broached our two Sacraments, our Communion in both kindes, our Praier in a knowne tongue, our spirituall presence, and the like; if I faile in these, then say, The Knight see­meth to acknowledge he cannot doe it.

The errors in your Church which wee com­plaine [Page 191]of, are negative Articles amongst us, and the proofe lies on your side: If you cannot shew Apostolicall Authors for your owne doctrine, must we be therefore condemned, because we doe not prove the Negative? Or otherwise it must needes follow by your Logick, that it is the same doctrine which was once delivered to the Saints, because we cannot shew the first Author of it.

You cannot denie 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 custome of communicating little children in the Sacrament of the Lords bodie and bloud was an error, and con­tinued long in the ancient Church, yet the first Au­thor of it was not knowne. 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 Anthor was not knowne. The opinion that all Catholike Christians, how wicked soever, shall in the end be saved, as by fire, was an ancient error, but the Author is not knowne. Againe,Alph. contr. hae­res. verbo In­dulgentia. p. (mihi) 354. there are many things (saith your Alphonsus) knowne to la­ter writers, which the Ancients were altogether igno­rant of. There is seldome any mention of Transub­stantiation amongst the Ancients; almost none of Pur­gatorie; what marvell if it so fall out with Indulg en­ces, that there should bee no mention of them by the Ancients? If therefore such errors crept into the Church in the first and best Ages, which are now [Page 192]condemned by your selves and us, without enquiring after the time, and Authors that first broached them. Nay more, if your points of Faith, as name­ly, Transubstantiation, Purgatorie, and Indulgences, were altogether unknowne to the Ancients (as your men confesse) why should you require us to shew the first Authors of your doctrines, which were utterlie unknowne 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 & beleeved his Prophe­sies; There shal be false Teachers among you, 2 Pet. 2.1. who (pri­vily) shall bring in damnable heresie. If the Apo­stle both forewarned you and us, that errors and he­resies must steale in privily, sensim sine sensu, secretly and by degrees into the true Church, and yet would not reveale the Authors of the heresies, what mad­nesse were it in you or us to passe by those damna­ble Heresies, or rather to pleade for them, because wee cannot learne the name of the false Tea­chers?

Vincentius Lyrinensis, Vincent. Lyr. de haeres. c. 15. who was living 400. yeeres after the Apostles time, complaines that cer­taine in his dayes did bring in errors secretly, which a man (saith he) cannot soone finde out, nor easily con­demne. The Serpent hides himselfe as much as hee can (saith Tertullian) and sheweth his chiefe skill in wreathing himselfe into folds, Tertull. advers. Valent. c. 3. and in thrusting him­selfe into dark and blinde holes: Such is the nature of false teachers, they seeke nothing more (saith the same [Page 193]Author) than to hide that which they preach, Idem c. 1. if yet they may be said to preach that they hide.

But good Physicians (say you) use to enquire 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 enquire of the causes of the disease, but will they deny the Patient to be sicke, or refuse to minister Physicke to him, unlesse he tell them precisely how or when he first tooke 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 thinke you never read such Aphorismes either in Gallen or Hyppocrates; neither doth your knowledge of er­rors and heresie 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 heresie abroach; as namely, Saint Austin precisely in the time and place, delivered the Orthodox Do­ctrine of grace, when and where Pelagius spread his heresie.

From your Rules of Physicke you returne to the Rules of Divinity, and tell us from Saint Austin, thatQuod univer­sa tenet Eccle­sia, nec Conci­liis institutum, sed semper re­tentum est, non nisi authorita­te Apostolicâ traditū rectis­simè creditur. De Baptis. contr. Donat. l. 5. c 24. in ini­tio. Tom. 7. p. mihi 433. whatsoever the Catholike Church doth generally beleeve or practise, so as there can be no time assigned when it began, it is to be taken for an Apostolicall tradition. This place of Austin you neither quoted in your Answer, neither have you recited his words [Page 194]faithfully, for hee speakes not of assigning the time when the Doctrine begins, but whatsoever the uni­versall Church doth hold, not being ordained by Coun­cels, but hath beene ever held, that is most rightly be­leeved for an Apostolicall tradition. This is his Te­net, and this is ours: but you have put in the word (Catholike) in your sense for universall, you have ad­ded (generall beleefe and practise) you have thrust in these words (so as no time can be assigned when it began) and you have omitted the principall 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 heare 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 neede to put us to the search of times and Authors for the first Founder of your Faith; For if your Popish Doctrines were alwayes held by the universall Church, and not ordained by Councels, we should not need to looke into your Councell of Lateran for your Doctrine of Transubstantiation, nor into your Councell of Constance for Communion in both kindes, nor into your Councell of Florence for your seven Sacraments, nor into your second Councell of Nice for your worship of Images: for these and many such traditions were first ordained by Councels, and were not the generall beliefe and practice of the Church. Againe, if the universall Church had alwayes held your Doctrines from the Apostles times, why doe you your selfe confesse, [Page 195]that your prayer in an unknowne tongue,Pag. praeceden­ti. your pri­vate Masse, your halfe Communion, were taught otherwise in the primitive Churches? Nay, if they be Apostolicall, how comes it that they are flat contrary to the Doctrine of the Apostles? And thus much of your two rules of Physicke and Divi­nity; let us he are the rest of your authorities.

Tertullian (say you) hath this Rule for discer­ning heresie from truth,Tertul. prae­scrip. 31. p. mihi 78. That which goeth before is truth, and that which commeth after is errour. This Rule is most true, but these words you cite by the halves; for hee saith expresly,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 commeth after (saith he) is sarre different: where hee shewes like­wise in these words following, that after Christs time, and in the dayes 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 iniquitie began then to worke; and therefore hee will not have it enough to derive a Doctrine from a man which lived with the Apostles, unlesse 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 eares the heavenly wisdome of the Sonne of God, then that conspiracie of detestable errour, through the deceipt of such as delivered strange Doctrine, tooke rooting; and because that none of the Apostles survi­ved, [Page 196]they published boldly with all might possible the doctrine of falshood, and impugned the manifest and knowne truth.

But wee 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 doe the name of Catholikes) as if they came from Sara the free wo­man, Abrahams true and lawfull wife, when in truth they tooke their first beginning from Agar the bond-woman; 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 easie way to claime a prescription from the time of the Apostles; for you have razed many prime Evidences of the Fa­thers for the first 800. yeeres, which make for our Doctrine, and you have proscribed many learned Authors and their Records (as I have shewed be­fore) for the last 800. yeeres, which testified against your errors: And now I come to your Churches apostacie or falling from the truth, which occasi­oned these errors.

Apostacie (say you) is a defection, or forsaking of the Name of Christ, and profession of Christianity, as all men understand it.

I shewed in this Section, that in the primitive Church, when any heresie did arise that indangered the foundation (such as was the heresie of the Ar­rians, of the Pelagians, and the like) the Authors were observed, the times were knowne, the place [Page 197]was pointed at, and forthwith letters of Premoni­tion were sent to all the sound members of the Ca­tholike Church; by which publike advertisement the steale-truth was discovered, and herein the Au­thor, the time, and place was observed and knowne to all: but in the Church of Rome it was other­wise; there was first an Apostacie, a falling away from the truth, which was first caused by an error secretly stolne into the Church; and therefore it is sometimes called a mystery of iniquity, because my­stically, covertly, secretly hee shall winde his abo­minations into the Church of God: and accor­dingly the Apostle gives Timothy to understand, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, 1 Tim. 4.1. giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of De­vils, and such as speake falshood in Hypocrisie: which place plainely shewes (saith a learned Divine) that Antichrist himselfe shall not professedly renounce Christ,Mr. Bedel a­gainst Wads­worth. p. 40. and his Baptisme; that his kingdome is a revolt, not from the outward profession, but in­ward sinceritie and power of the Gospel. And therefore all doe not understand Apostacie, a forsa­king of Christ and Christianity: Not all, no not the same Apostle, where hee useth the same word Apostacie to the Thessalonians: [...], &c. 2 Thess. 2.3. Let no man deceive you by any meanes, for that day shall not come, except there come (an Apostacie) a falling away first: Hee speakes of the departing from the orthodox Faith, not from Christianitie. 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, [Page 198]that Gods Church, and all learned Catholikes, that this great defection and revolt shall not be onely from the Roman Emperour, but especially from the Roman Church, and withall 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 Jesuite, who termes Luther an Apostata, for falling from your Church, not from Christianity. Not all, no not your Decretals, who terme a Monke, for leaving his Order, or a Clarke 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 uni­versall Bishop. Lastly, Not all, no not your Coun­cell of Basil, where 900. condemned and deposed your Pope Eugenius for a Symonist, Concil. Basil. sess. 34. a forsworn man, a man incorrigible, a Schismaticke (an Apostata) a man fallen from the faith, and a wilfull Hereticke. I say therefore, not all, nor any of these did under­stand an Apostacie to be a forsaking of the name of Christ and Christianity; and therefore I hope you will confesse, that your assertion is neither Catho­like nor universall.

When therfore we lay Apostacie to your Church, we doe not charge you with a totall falling from Christian Religion, like that of Julian the Aposta­ta, with an obstinate pertinacie, in denying the principles of the faith necessarie to salvation, or a renouncing your Baptisme, and consequently the name of Christianitie: Wee charge you not with Apostacie in such a fearefull and horrible sense, un­lesse [Page 199]you will assume it to your selves;Lyra in 2. Thess. 2. but wee thinke with Lyra, that as there was an Apostacie or revolt of many Kingdomes from the Roman Empire, and of many Churches from the Communion of the Roman Church; so there hath beene an Apostacie from the Catholike 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 sinceritie of the Faith.

After your definition of Apostacie, you proceed in this manner; How then can we be Apostatas? in no wise certainely: but if wee erre, wee erre as here­tikes, and if wee be heretikes, you confesse you must as­signe the persons, time and place.

I have cleared you from the hainous title of Apo­stata in your owne sense, but not in ours;D. Potter p. 19. & 60. yet let me tell you (with griefe and pitty be it spoken) your profane and wicked application of the Apostles Creed, as you pretend, in jests, is a fearefull signe of falling from Christ and Christianitie it selfe: and therfore, although I may free your Church in ge­nerall of that name, and in that sense, yet it behoves you to acquit your selfe in that particular. But this by way of friendly admonition.

If we erre (say you) wee erre as heretikes] I shall easily condescend unto you in that: For the errors in the Roman Church caused an Apostacie at first, and was mysticall and secret; now after long pra­ctise and usage in the Church, is become an heresie; and so wee may truely assent unto you, that you erre as heretikes: And although I am not bound upon this acknowledgment, forthwith to assign you [Page 200]the Authors of your heresies, because they came in by degrees, and at severall 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 meane time let me tell you, it is another errour in you to say, They come to have the name of heresie, onely by the condemnation of the Church. For the Church condemnes them, because they are here­sies; contrariwise, they are not heresies, because the Church condemnes them. The Doctrines of Arrius, Macedonius, Nestorius, Eutyches, Eunomi­us, and Dioscurus, were themselves hereticall, even before they were solemnly condemned in the foure generall Councels: but woe to us and all the refor­med Churches, if this Tenet were true and Catho­like, for then are wee condemned already. But I pray, what if your Pope (whom you Jesuites now make the onely Church) admit, I say, your Pope were an Heretike, 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, &c. Bell. de Pont. l. 4. c. 5. Sand. de visibili Monarch. l. 7. An. 1541. p. mihi 595. and make that heresie which is no here­sie? Indeed your Cardinall sayes, The Pope hath power to make that no sinne which is sinne, and accor­dingly he hath placed that Tenet amongst the Here­tikes, and by the same Law he makes that to be he­resie, which is no heresie. Your learned Sanders tells us, it is heresie to translate the Scriptures into [Page 201]the vulgar Tongue, and accordingly he hath placed that Tenet amongst the Heretikes. Your Chancel­lor of Paris and Director of the Councell of Con­stance tells us, it is heresie to communicate in both kindes; and accordingly he hath wrote a Tract, De haeresi communicandi sub utrâque specie. And to passe by all the Trent Articles (the deniall of all or any of which makes a man an Heretike) your infallible Pope Nicholas proclaimeth,Qui Romanae Ecclesiae privi­legium auferre conatur, hicpro­culdubio labitur in haeresin. that whoso­ever goeth about to abrogate the priviledges of the Church of Rome, he is no doubt an Heretike.

If the deniall of all or any of these make an He­retike, there is no doubt, all the Reformed Chur­ches stand guilty of that capitall crime, by the law of your Church, and your Popes doome. 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 kindes; and your first foure generall Councels 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 Heretikes? If you call this Heresie, goe on, and fill up the measure of your wrath, untill the time come that Christ and his Saints acquit us, or condemne us of that impu­tation. In the meane time you shall doe well to reflect upon your selfe, and consider rather the case at this day betwixt the Sorbonists and the Jesuites, which meerely toucheth your owne particular.Aurcl. in vindi­ciis, pag. 383. Idem in libro sine titulo. Hermannus Laemelius, that is to say, John Floyd, termes the propositions of the Parisians, destructive to the Church, and hereticall; on the other side, they [Page 202]accuse him of heresie, Hadier in ad m [...]ait. ad Lect. p. 8. 9. 16. 24. blasphemie, and impietie, and the like. Are you all members of one Church, un­der one head the Pope, and are your propositions different and hereticall on both sides, and must I say, that you and the rest have the name of heresie onely by the condemnation of the Church? But you are sure the Pope will not condemne his owne members, and without his judgment they are but words of course, or at best but course phrases deli­vered in heate against an adversary: For (say you) The Fathers did forbeare absolutely to condemne things for heresies, till they had acquainted the Bishop of Rome, and had his judgement, as is cleere by St. Cyrill of Alexandria, in the case of Nestorius. Neither doe we denie, 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 hee might be judged by his Peeres; 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 condemne you, because those errors which then began to spring in the Church, by custome 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 [Page 203]of dead, perhaps wicked mens tombs and pictures: and for a solution of this place you referre me to Bellar­mine. It seems you could give me no satisfactory an­swer of your own, and therefore you returne 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 conceale 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. Tō. 1. Bell. de Reli­quiis Sanct. l. 2. c. 4. I know many worshippers of tombes and pictures, your Cardinall leaves out the word pistures, and saith, I know many worshippers of tombes; and for his full solution he subjoyneth, Austin wrote this in the be­ginning of his first conversion. Again, he cites 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 Emperour did pray at the Sepulcher of St. Peter, yet proves not the point in question, that he did worship the Sepulcher it selfe; for who doubts but that we also may worship God at St. Peters shrine, and yet not wo ship the shrine it selfe. Nay, hee goeth on further, and she wes that Austin did not reprehend Chrysostome, and Hie­rome, but the ignorant sort of people: for Chryso­stome saith, Let us adore the Tombes of Martyrs; when as there are no such words in Chrysostome, but rather, Let us adorne them.Ut Tumulos Martyrum de center cur ari. Chrys. And whereas he saith further, that Hierome wisheth Marcella, a Ladie, 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 [Page 204]as a thing spoken properly, but figurative­ly. For elsewhere he saith expresly against Vigilan­tius, I say not, we worship not nor adore thereliques of Martyrs, but neither the Sunne, nor the Moone, nor Angels, nor Archangels, nor Cherubin, nor Seraphin. Neither did S. Austin speak as you say of the heathe­nish and superstitious worshipping of wicked mens Tombes,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 shewes, that his owne mother Moni­ca did usually bring to the shrines of Saints certaine Bread and Wine, August. Confes. 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) shee did so piously and obedi­ently embrace, as that my selfe did wonder to see her made (with such ease) rather a condemner of her owne ancient custome, than a questioner of the present prohibition. For a conclusion; whereas you would excuse it, that St. Austin did condemne onely the superstitious worship of wicked mens Tombes, your men are likewise guiltie of the same wor­ship: For your owne Cardinall 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 appeare and told them, that he had heene a theefe and was damned; Idem, ibid. And that Alexander the third reprehended certaine men for worshipping one as a Martyr, that was killed in his drunkennesse: and thus (to use your owne words) for these, I send you backe againe 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, Gregorie de Valentia, in severall points against your new doctrine; now let us heare your severall an­swers to them. Touching Ferus, he is a Frier (say you) in your Bookes, but not in ours, save onely in the Roman Index of forbidden Bookes. Touching Polydore, he saith as the Knight telleth us, and as much as any Heretike can say, but it booteth not, for his Booke is forbidden. Touching Erasmus, he is no Authour for us to answer, he is branded in the Ro­man Index. Touching Scotus, you neither con­demne him, nor answer him: he tells you plainly, that Transubstantiation was not received for a point of Faith till the Councell of Lateran, above 1200. yeares 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 Gregorie de Valentia, for this say­ing he ought to be corrected. As touching Agrippa and Cassander, you will not vouchsafe them an an­swere, but reject them inter damnatos authores, as men to be cast out of your Synagogue. Lastly, tou­ching Gregorie de Valentia, you sav his authoritie 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 [Page 206]appeare (saith Greg de Valentia:) Youto prove my corruption, cite the words in this manner; When that custome began in some Churches, it appeareth not; but that there hath been some use of one kind ever from the beginning. I shewed before; so Valentia; and thus you.

But in truth, this is none of Valentia's own period, but one of your owne making, who cunningly joyne 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 custome began in some Churches, Augustana Confessio. it appeares not, as is acknowledged by the Augustane Confession. Now in that Confession, the words are these, The custome of both kindes remained long in the Church, neither doth it appeare when, or by what Author it was changed; so that he plainly speaketh of the Church in gene­ral, & sheweth the corruption here pretended by M. Floyd to be but a cavill, viz. That Valentia saith this, not of the Church in generall, 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 quarrell without any just occasi­on offred; and this wil prove an easie 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 generall, 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 angrie with St. Paul, that he hath been an­swered [Page 207]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 minde of the saying of Ludovicus Vives, amember of your owne Church, who assures us,Lud. Vives de Civ. Dei. l. 13. c. 24. If St. Paul were living in these dayes, he would be held either a mad man, or an heretike. And since you will not resolve me of St. Pauls meaning in that place, I will appeale 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 here­tike for their founder; the Maniches had Manes,Bernard. in Cant. Serm. 66. the Sabellians had Sabellicus, the Arrians had Arrius, &c. so that we know the Authors of those plagues; but by what name will you terme the Author of those that for­bid 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 (fay you) is not a thing evil in it selfe, but because it lesse agreeth with the holinesse which is required for the exercise of Priestly function. I pray then what thinke you of a concubine? Doth com­panie with her better agree for exercise of your sun­ction, than with a wife? Sure I am, this is the doctrine of your Church: nay more, your Pope Siricius would inferre by authoritie of Scripture, that mar­tiage is unholy in it selfe, for he cites 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 heretikes, and the members of your Church? The Montanists, the Tatiani, the Eucratitae, did not [Page 208]prohibite marriage to all, no more than you doe, but onely to their perfecti, as being a disparagement to their perfect estate; or as you interpret, not agreeing to the holines of Priesthood. Again, whereas I proved out of Polydore, that the marriage of Priests was not altogether forbidden till the time of Gregorie the 7. that is to say, above a thousand yeares after Christ; you answer, that which Polydore cites is most evi­dently false, as appeareth particularly by a Canon of the first Councell of Nice, and the second Coun­cell of Carthage. Now if Polydore were mistaken, it concernes 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 Councels.Sozom. l. 1. c. 22. For the Councell of Nice (saith Sozomen) commended Paphnutius judgement, and touching this matter of mariage, made to decree an all, but left it to each mans owne will, without any force of necessity; And the Councell of Carthage forbiddeth not marriage in Priests, but commandeth abstinence from marriage rites for a certaine time, as St. Paul doth, that they may more freely give themselves to prayer, and the of­fices of their sacred function. Which plainly shewes, that both Priests were married in those dayes, and consequently, that those two Councels make flatly against you. But Marius (say you) cannot find the be­ginning of this prohibition; Polydore findeth it, and yet both make for the Knights purpose. And without doubt they doe, for they contradict not one the o­ther: Polydore speaketh of publike, absolute, and re­all prohibition; Marius of the first condemning it in any Priest; and these confessions may well stand to­gether.

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

  • 1. That the imputations of ancient Haeresies are false.
  • 2. That Succession besides Antiquity importeth con­tinuance, and perpetuity without intermission.
  • 3. That Protestants have no shaddow of successi­on in person or doctrine.
  • 4. That Papists have a most cleare personall successi­on, being able to shew 200. and odde Popes succeeding the other in place and office.
  • 5. That personall succession is a firme argument of succession in faith.

IT is my promise in my seventh Section, to shew a descent of both Religions (as namely) that the Romish faith was derived from antient Haeretiks, and the Protestant faith was drawne downe from Christ and his Apostles. But (say you) It is one thing to prove a thing to have beene anciently taught, another to have beene successively taught: It is true, Antiquity and Succession differ; neither did I undertake to prove that those Haere­tikes, or your Church had a perpetuall succession in person and doctrine; but for the truths sake I have acknowledged the antiquity of your Trent faith, although descended from ancient Haere­tikes, and I made the first instance in Latin Ser­vice, [Page 218]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 averre fuch a knowne falsehood upon no other autho­rity, pag. 87. then 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 expresly, About nine hundred yeares past, it is certaine the people in some Countries had their service in an un­knowne tongue, Iuel in his 3. Article, Divis. 1. as it shall be proved of our owne Country of England. Now observe the difference, Wolphius said, the Latin Service came in after Christ about the yeare (666.) Mr. Harding (who wrote these (67.) yeares since) as appeares by Bishop Iuels Epistle, tells us it came in (900.) yeares past: compute Wolphius (666.) with Mr. Hardings time of (967.) and you shall finde that they agree about one and the same time, and therefore it was neither absurd, nor false, which Wolphius uttered.

Neither doe you disprove the reason of Wol­phius, but you make a qu [...]ere upon his assertion; During his (600.) and odd yeares) what other Ly­turgies were there in the Latin Church, but Latin? And I may aswell say, what were there in the Greeke Church but Greeke? But this demand ma­keth against your Service in an unknowne tongue, not against Wolphius, who affirmeth not that the Latin Service was not in the Latin Church before the yeare (666.) but that the Pope obtruded it [Page 219]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 Greekes call upon God in the Greeke tongue, and the Latins in the Latin tongue, and all severall Nations pray unto God, and praise him in their owne natur 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 Greeke or Latin, and knoweth none-other. The ancient Primitive Churches therefore taught the Doctrine in a knowne 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, nume­rū habens valde verisimile est quonlam verissi­mum nomen hobet vocabu­lum. Latini e­nim sunt qui nunc regnāt, 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 essentiall markes of the Roman Hierarchie. And I know not whether it were by conjecture, or by inspiration, that Irenaeus above foureteene hundred yeares agoe, in the word La­teinos, found out the name of Antichrist, and the number of (666.) The name Lateinos (saith he) conteining the number of six hundred sixty six is ve­ry likely, because the truest kingdome hath that name; for they are the Latines that now raigne, but (saith he) we will not glory in this.

You proceede to the Haeretikes Ossem, and you say first, I am notably mistaken in placing them to­wards the Apostles time, and withall, you have read the Chapter there twice over, and the second time more attentively then the first, and [Page 220]yet you find not any such word so cited by mee.

First,Trajan, Anno 100. Bel. de script Eccles. pag. mihi. this Sect continued till Trajans time, not an hundred yeares after the Apostles; and there­fore it was no errour 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 hee re­peats a Prayer, which (if you peruse the Greeke text) is more expresse. Let no man inquire after the meaning, only in his Prayer, Let him say such words, (viz.) such Hebrew words which Epipha­nius there setteth downe. Are not these Heretikes (thinke you) neere kinne to them who say, Heare Latine Masse, and say after the Priest, it mattereth not whether you understand what hee saith, or not.

From Epiphanius you flie to Saint Ambrose, and there you make a great complaint, that I put in words of my owne in the same Character with Saint Ambrose, which are none of his (as namely) There were certaine Iewes amongst the Graecians, Ambr. in 1 Cor. 14. as namely, the Corinthians, who did celebrate the Divine Service, and Sacraments, which the com­mon people understood not.

I confesse ingenuously, it is an errour in the print, and I shall willingly alter the letter, but not the words, at the next impression. But I con­fidently professe, 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: [Page 221]and therfore I may truly answer you with S. Au­stine, What folly is it to contend about words, Aug. Ep. 174. when there is the certainty of the thing it selfe?

It cannot be denied, that Ambrose taxeth the Hebrewes, 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 Commentarie on this place, hee gives the Hebrew to understand; If you meet toge­ther to edifie 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 speake a tongue which hee himselfe onely understands, and whereof hee that heareth can reape no fruit? And a little after; The Apostle saith, I had rather speake five words in the Church, according to the Law, that I may edifie others, than any long and large discourse in obscuritie. Againe, by [Oblationibus] (which you interpret, Offrings) Saint Ambrose cannot meane, the peoples gifts or offrings; (for there was no need of any speech, much lesse a long speech at these offrings.) It must therefore fol­low, that either he meanes the celebration of the Sacrament, or some spirituall sacrifices of Praise and Thanksgiving.

You proceed from one heresie to another, (viz) from your unknown Service, to your Tran­substantiation. This Doctrine I shewed, had his descent from the Heretikes, Helcesaitae, from Marcus, from the Capernaites. Touching the [Page 222] Helcesaitae, (you say) It is an hereticall fable: for those Heretikes make two Christs, pag. 92. wee 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 affinitie with their Tenets, as neere as cosen Germans once removed. For as you acknow­ledge but one Christ in the heavens, and in the Host, no more did those Heretikes in words; for they rehearsed the Apostles Creed, Et in Iesum Christum, and not in Christos: and as they made a two-fold 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 quantitie, and distin­ctions of Organs. And what is this, but con­sequently to make two Christs, 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 Heretike, (you say) Hee changed the colour; but you teach, that the co­lour and accidents remaine, and the substance is changed.

It is true; and your opinion in this, is more ab­surd than that of Marcus: for hee changed the Colour, to make the people beleeve it was true blood; and you make them beleeve it is blood, when there is neither tast, nor colour of blood.

Lastly, touching the Capernaites; you deny there is any likenesse of Doctrine. For (say you) the Capernaites thought they should eate Christs body piece-meale, but wee receive Christ whole and entire, not in the forme and shape of flesh, but of bread, &c.

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 doe, in a grosse and carnall manner: and therfore Christ in reproving them, saith not, Flesh eaten piece-meale, profiteth nothing; but absolutely, The flesh profiteth nothing. As touching your eating of Christ, whole and intire; it is all one with their eating of him by piece-meale: for there may be many differences in eating, but all eating the flesh of Christ with teeth and jawes, is Caperniticall. But you neither see, nor taste the flesh of Christ, which they dream'd they should; for you receive it, Not (say you) in the forme of flesh, but of bread. I will returne 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 downe your throats, and these be proper actions, and right instruments of externall and Ca­perniticall eating; your eyes and your taste be not; else blind men, and such as by reason of Sicknesse can taste nothing, by your Divinitie can eate no­thing. Since then you concurre with the Capernaites (in eating and swallowing) notwithstanding you vary from them in sight and taste, yet your opinion [Page 224]establisheth a corporall eating of Christs flesh, and a perverting of the meaning of Christs words, no lesse than theirs did.

Let mee paralell them together with the most favorable construction I can, yet your Church must have her Antiquitie and descent from those Capernaites. For, suppose the Capernaites did be­leeve that Christ would kill himselfe, and give his body to be eaten; yet the Church of Rome teacheth, that Christ did eate his owne flesh, a thing no lesse barbarous (being meant litterally) than to kill himselfe. Admit the Capernaites did beleeve that Christ would give his flesh to be mangled by pieces, or by halves; yet your Chur­ches opinion is no lesse cruell, to beleeve that in the Sacrament, Christs flesh is swallowed up whole at one morsell. Lastly, let it be granted that the Capernaites did believe, that Christs flesh should be eaten when hee 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 crueltie to devoure 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 eate 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, Wee affirme plainly, the body of Christ is truly [Page 225]handled of us, carried about, ground with the teeth, and sensibly sacrificed. Long before him Pope Nicholas confirmed this doctrine in a Councell at Rome, and taught it for a lesson to Berengarius, Verum Corpus Domini nostii Iesu Christi sensuclitèr non solum in Sacra­mento, sed 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 beleeve that the body of our Lord Iosus is sensibly and in very deede touched with the hands of the Priest, and bro­ken, and rent, and ground with the teeth of the faith­full. This confession stands a Record in the Ro­man Decrees, and unlesse you mince the words strangely, you must needs acknowledge that you eate the flesh of Christ peice-meale, and then you sympathize in all things with your first Parents the Capernaites.

From Transubstantiation you proceede to the Popes 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 finde (Rome) for Constantinople: and this you might well understand to be an error in the print, because my purpose was to shew a descent of the Bishop of Romes 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 her selfe chiefe of all [Page 226]Churches; so that (anteà) before that time, the Bishop of Rome had no Supremacy: and this a­grees to Pope Gregories owne confession, None of my Praedecessors did ever use that prophane 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.) Iohn and Cyriacus, who both succes­sively assumed the title of Vniversall Bishops, before ever the Bishop of Rome had any: and those Bishops were suborned by Mauritius, a bloody Emperour, like unto Phocas, who at that time made Constantinople the chiefe place of his aboade, and by meanes of advancing the Bishops dignity, sought to winne 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 claime to it himselfe, being then Bishop of Rome, For mine owne part (saith he) I seeke to encrease in vertues, and not in vanitie of titles; Greg. lib. 1. ep. 30. for if you call me universall Bishop, you de­ny your selves to be that which indeede you are. And when Mauritius the Emperour 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 vertuous Lord, that I should bee at peace with my brother and fellow Bishop, Iohn; indeede it well beseemeth a Religious Prince to com­mand Bishops in such things, but this was heavy to mee, that my Soveraigne Lord did not rebuke him for his Pride. After the death of Iohn the first Oe­cumenicall [Page 227]cumenicall Bishop, Cyriacus succeeded in the See of Constantinople and continued that title of Oecu­menicall Bishop by the power of the Emperour; and accordingly Pope Gregory writes againe to Mauritius, not to take part with Cyriacus, and withall writes to Cyriacus at his first entrance into his Bishopricke,Idem. l. 6. ep. 28. that he would abolish the word of Pride, by which there was so great scandall given to the Church.

After the death of Mauritius, Phocas (who was a souldier and fought under the banner of Mauri­tius) was proclaimed Emperour by the muti­neirs, who having committed many murthers and cruelties, (which Cyriacus could not approve) (for otherwise it is probable he might have conti­nued the title of Oecumenicall) he called a Synod at Rome, consisting of (62.) Bishops, and by ver­tue of his power, granted his Letters Patents to Boniface then Bishop of Rome, whereby your Popes had the first authority of (Volumus & jube­mus) wee will and command. And thus Phocas pro­cured his Imperiall authority by treachery and blood; Boniface obteined his power and Supre­macy by pollicy, and flattery of a bloody Empe­rour; and this (saith Platina) was magnâ cum con­tentione, with great contention. Neither did Bo­niface enjoy this Title many monthes, nor Phoeae ­escape the heavy hand of God; for he was af­terwards slaine by Heraclius, Quo quis pec­cat, eo punitur. as Mauritius was by him.

From Phocas you ascend to your first Progeni­tors, [Page 228]the Kings of the Gentiles, wherein I shewed the originall of your Papall Supremacy, not that your Popes did lineally succeede them, but that they did exceede them farre in Tyranny. But the Pope useth to stile himselfe 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, learne of me, for I am lowly and meeke, made likewise this promise to him that would follow his lesson,Matth. 20.25. He that humbleth himselfe shall be exalted. Howsoever, it is not the title of ser­vus servorum, that makes him Christs disciple, or a universall Bishop; for in that he succeedeth ra­ther Canaan then Boniface: but he must follow Christs precept, and his example: his precept was,Luke 22.27. That none of his Apostles should reigne as Lord over his Brethren: his example was, I am among you, as hee that serveth. Neither is it the title which he assumes unto himselfe, that makes him humble; neither doe his Proselites & follow­ers so much undervalue him as a servant: For saith Gerson, Gers. de potest. Eccles. consider. 12. Fawning, deceitfull flattery, whisper­eth into the eares of ecclesiasticall persons, especially of the Pope, in a shamelesse manner, saying; as there is no power but of God, so there is none, either Temporall or Ecclesiasticall, Imperiall, or Regall, but from the Pope, in whose thigh Christ hath writ­ten, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, of whose power to dispute is sacrilegious boldnesse, to whom no man may say, sir, why doe you so? though he alter, [Page 229]overturne, waste, and confound all States, rules, and possessions of men: let me be judged a lyar (saith he) if these things be not found written by them that seeme wise in their owno eyes, and if some Topes have not given credit to such lying and flattering words. You see then, the Popes owne 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 Popes power, and Tyrannicall usurpation, some­times under the vaile 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 (privie) reason, that is (saith he) lest the Soveraignty of honour exhibited unto him, Iuel and Har­ding. should in his owne conceit lift him higher, then the degree of humane condition; to that purpose (saith he) see­meth the stoole of easement at his creation, to be set before him to temper the highnesse of that vocation, with the base consideration of humane infirmities and necessities. That is to say, that he may re­member himselfe in the midst of all his glory to be but a man; when as in truth, it is recorded, that the Porphirie stoole serveth to put the Pope in remembrance of his virility,Vt sedentis ge­nitalia abuiti­mo diacono at­trectentur [...]sa bellicas. that the world may know he is no woman. Howsoever it seemes the title of servant is not sufficient to teach him humility, without the stoole of easement; (and a stoole of easement is no sweete badge of his hu­mility.) But this is as common to others as to [Page 230]himselfe; and therefore by that way of Hamilitie, he will not merit a Superioritie.

But (say you) because hee must carry himselfe like a Servant, must he not therefore feed the lambs, and sheepe of Christ?] God forbid. But Saint Ber­nard, who otherwise maintained the Popes Su­premacie, told us about 500 yeares since, that the Bishops of Rome, as well as other Bishops, who had the charge of Gods Church, were not Teachers, Bernard ad Eug. lib. 2. de Confiderat. but Deceivers; they were not Feeders, but Beguilers; they were not Pralates, but Pilates. And certainly, if his whole Prerogative hang up­on feeding the flocke, his Superioritie 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 owne ends.August. in Iohn, Tract. 123. And (saith Saint Austine) Whosoever they be that feed the sheepe, to the end to make them theirs, and not Christs, they love them­selves and not Christ; for desire either of glorie, or of rule, or of gaine.

For a Conclusion, the Popes humilitie is no other,2 Thes. 2. then that which Antichrist professeth, Ad­vancing himselfe above all that is worshipped, or called God: no other then Dioclesian the persecu­ting Emperour used, commanding by Proclama­tion,Alexander ab Alexandro. That all should fall downe and kisse his feet. And as for his feeding of Christs sheepe, 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 Bishopricke of [Page 231]Rome, and Saints Peters Patrimonie, though very great and royall, laid his greedy hands on other mens flocks, replenished with milke and wooll, and usur­ped the right of bestowing Bishopricks, and livings Ecclesiasticall throughout all Christendome: Cap. 13. he rai­sed his Cardinals, as complices of his Pompe, from Clergy-men of low estate to the Peeres of Princes, and inriched 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 foure hundred, or five hundred, or more, and those not small or leane ones, but even the best and fattest. Nay more, instead of feeding the lambes and sheepe of Christ,Cap. 19, 20. Hee filled the house of God with dumb dogs, and evill beasts, even from the highest Prelates to the basest hedge-Priests, Cap. 3, 4, 5, 9. and all to maintaine 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 himselfe a Servant, (as you pretend) why doth hee take upon him to be Lord Paramount? If hee be a servant, who shall be his master that shall teach him obedience? Your booke of Ceremonies tels us,Liber Cerem. 3. cap. 2. that The Pope him­selfe giveth no manner of reverence to any man a­live, neither openly by standing up, or by bowing downe, or by uncovering his head. Neither is hee a servant to the Emperour; for as soone as he seeth the Pope, he worshippeth him with bare head, Idem, l. 1. Sect. 5. c. 3. touch­ing the ground with his knee. Againe, when he com­meth to the foot of the Popes Throne, hee kneeleth [Page 232]downe. Last of all, when hee commeth to the Popes feet, hee kisseth them (devoutly) in the reverence of our Saviour. This is a part o [...] the Emperors duty, and the greatest Grandee upon earth must yield to this humble Servant of Servants. This is that Servant of Servants, that set the Imperiall crown upon the Emperors head, Henry the sixt, (not with his hand, but with his foot) and casting it off againe with the same foot, said, I have power to make Emperors, Celestinus 3 us. and to unmake them againe 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 dispossest him of his King­dome.Adrian 2us. this is that Servant of Servants, that did correct the Emperor Frederick, for holding the left stirrop of his horse, when hee should have held the right.Clemens 5us. luel, pag. 379. This is that Servant of Servants, that caused Franciscus Dandalus the Embassador of Venice, to come before him tied in iron chains, and to wallow under his Table with dogs, whilst his Holinesse sate at supper. This is that Servant of Servants, Innocentius 3us. who caused King Iohn to kneele downe 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 Iohn, the Popes vassall, and England his Iade. 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 dayes to be nigh at hand) is now manifested to the world.

From the Popes Supremacie, you proceed to [Page 233]the worship of Images; and then you cry out,Pag. 96. Here againe the Knight giveth more ample testi­mony of his notorious naughtie dealing. Well, what is this grievous accusation? Why, when he said the Heretikes had the picture of Christ made, as they said, by Pilat; why I say, could not hee have gone on with Irenaeus? Thus you.

Let mee tell you, I have omitted nothing ma­teriall 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 my selfe and the Reader with impertinencies. Let us goe on with Irenaeus; they crowne 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 doe. Then you triumph be­fore the conquest, in a vaunting fashion, Doth not this answer you, Sir Humphrey? Doe you not here find a difference betweene their worship and ours? betweene Idolatry and Religion? &c. This is too too grosse for such a subtile Knight as you are.

To passe by your idle words, I must tell you plainly, this doth not answer mee. For the Car­pocratrans (I confesse) 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 Here­tikes crowned the Philosophers Images.] It is true; [Page 234] and so was Marcellina reckoned, and detested as an Heretike 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, Shee her selfe, Aug. de Heres. heres. 7. saith Saint Austine, was of Carpo­crates Sect, and worshipped the Images of Jesu, Paul, Homer, and Pythagoras, with bowing her selfe, 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 Heretikes called Gnostici, be­sides all this, have Images painted with colours, and some of gold and silver, which they say, are the Images of Jesu; and made in the time of Pon­tius Pilat, when Christ was conversant amongst them. Iren. lib. 1. cap. 24. And so doth Irenaeus also witnesse, they all restraining, and adjudging it to be Heresie and Idolatrie, to cense, and bow to the Image, even of Paul, or Christs. But doe you not find a difference (say you) betweene 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 worke of Gods hands, be flat Idolatrie, how inexcusable is it to worship the worke of mens hands, and the shadowes of Creatures re­presented by art, and applied by mans vaine con­ceit [Page 235]to resemble the Creatour? And in this re­spect, Saint Austine 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 hee) worship those things that be not at all, but are fained by the vanitie of your deceitfull 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 thinke it to be the Image of God. And doe not you the like, when you worship the picture of Christ in wood, or any other metall,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 Calfe, knew wherof it was made: neither could there be such a Calfe amongst them, to thinke it was a true God. Tertullian up braideth the Pagans, That in their owne 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, &c. and left a remembrance of their workes, 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 beene 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, brasse, or [Page 236]gold, to be God, wee grant it; for otherwise it were a ridiculous opinion; for who but a starke foole did ever account them for gods? But in conclusion, they joyne hands with you. These (say you) are the services unto the gods, or else certaine resem­blances of the gods. I will come neerer unto you. It is the voice of the Heathen man in Clemens, Clem. Recog­nit. ad Iacob. lib. 5. We worship the Images which we may see, in the honor of that God which cannot be seen. You may reade the like excuse of a Heathen man in Saint Austine: I worship neither the Image, nor the devill, but by a Corporall figure, Aug. in Psal. 113. Concion. 2. I behold the signe of that which I ought to worship. Now change but the name of Pagan into Papist, and these sayings will fully agree with your men: and therefore, if it be flat Idolatry in them that know not God, the greater sinne lyeth at your Churches doore, who joyne with Pagans and Idolaters, which otherwise pro­fesse to know him, and worship him as hee ought to be worshipped, in spirit and truth. The diffe­rence onely betwixt you and them, is this: They worshipped the Images of the heathen Philoso­phers, aswelas of Iesus; 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 Neighbours wife, (because God hath for­bidden it) Clemens saith, hee would have replied (as you doe) 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 [Page 237]Idolatrous worship, savour of one and the same spirit, and therefore (to use part of your owne words) This doctrine is too grosse for so subtile a Ie­suit as you are.

To conclude, you would know how our Do­ctrine against Images, doth succeed the second Com­mandement? Here you quarrell 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 owne 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 signifie, A graven Image, or the likenesse of any thing. Take for a Conclusion, that friendly ad­monition which Origen sometimes gave to Celsus the Pagan,Communis sen­sus cogitare nos cogit, &c. Orig contra Celsum, l. 3. Common sense doth will men to thinke that God is not delighted with honour of Images made by men, to represent his likenesse, or any signi­fication of him: yea, who (saith hee) that hath his right wits, will not laugh at him, who after those excellent and Philosophicall disputations concerning God, or the gods, doth looke to Images, Ibid. l. 7. and either offereth prayers unto them, or by the contemplation thereof, as of some visible signe, 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 shewed was derived from the Manichees, &c. You to excuse the mat­ter, [Page 238]say, That before there were Manichees in the world, the blessed Sacrament was administred 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 Heretikes, hearken to Leo Bishop of Rome; Leo, Serm. 4. de Quadrages. The Manichees, to cover their infidelitie, 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 shunne to drinke the blood of our Redemp­tion, which I would have your devoutnesse (speaking to the people) learne; 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 Lay-men also; and calleth the forbearing the Lords blood, a Sacrilegious sleight. Against these Heretikes also, wrote another Bishop of Rome in the same age,Grat. de Conse­crat. Dist. 2. Comperimus. namely, Pope Gelasius: We have intelligence (saith hee) that certaine men, re­ceiving only a portion of the sanctified Body, abstain from the Cup of the sacred blood, who, for that it ap­peareth they be intangled 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 thinke you of your halfe Communion, [Page 239]you that brag so much of the antiquitie 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 forbad the use of one kind, so now it for­biddeth the use of both, and may againe give way when it shall seeme convenient for the use of both kinds. Thus you.

It seemes 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 thinke in­deed you could be content to joyne 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 Councell, for an Article of Faith? And is it in your Churches power to alter, and dispense with Articles of Faith at her pleasure?Bulla Pij (4) Act. 6. & Con­cil. Trid Sess. 13 Surely this Confession proves, that your Church can create new Arti­cles of Beleefe, which elsewhere you deny; or else this is no Article of Faith, being contrary to the practise of the first and best ages; and by con­sequent, your infallible Pope and Councell, are guilty of Error and Sacrilege in a high degree.

For a conclusiō of this point, you say the words, Drinke yee all of this, (from whence we draw our succession in Doctrine) were spoken to the Apo­stles, and in them to Priests, not to the Laitie.

By this reason who seeth not, but you may as­well take the Bread from the Lay people as the Cup, for that also was given onely to the Apo­stles? but if the Cup were proper for the Priests onely, why doe you deny it to your Non-conficient Priests? doe they stand in the place of Lay people? Nay more, were not all Non-conficients at the time of Christs 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. Chrysostome) where the Priests differ no­thing from the people, Chrys. 18. in 2. Corinth. as when we must receive the dreadfull mysteries; for it is not here, as it was in the old Law, where the Priest eates one part, and the people another, neither was it lawfull 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 passe by innumerable authorities of the Ancients, which you know are full in our behalfe, I will shut up this haereticall point of doctrine (for such is the foundation of it) with a testimony of your owne side.Gerard. Lori­chius de Missa publica proro­ganda. p. mihi. There are some false Catholikes that feare 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 spake, drinke yee all of this, onely to the Apostles; but the words of the Masse be these, Take and eate yee all of this: Here I would know of them whether this were spoken [Page 241]onely to the Apostles: then must lay men abstaine likewise from the Element of bread; which to say, is an haeresie, yea, a pestilent and detestable blasphemy. It is therefore consequent that both these words. (Eate yee, Drinke yee) were spoken to the whole Church.

Thus your Ancient Bishop of Rome termed your halfe Communion a Sacriledge, and this latter Author of your owne, termes it an haeresie, and a pestilent Blasphemy; and this may serve to prove your descent from the Haeretikes the Mani­chees in this point.

From your halfe Communion, you proceede 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 Catholike faith by excesse, that is, honour­ing Angels more then their due.

And this is your very case, for you doe not one­ly 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 [Page 242]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 doctrinall de­termination flatly to adore them; and whereas they did worship them with a religious honour, (as a custome learned from the Heathen Philoso­phers) you receive it as a Dogmaticall resolution of your Faith, delivered by your Trent Fathers; and surely in this if there be any excesse in the worship, it is in your selves.

Againe, 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 Lawes, 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 Catholike faith. Observe then what was the Chatholike doctrine of those times; Origen returnes his answer in the name of all true belee­vers,Idem Ibid. Away with Celsus councell, saying, that we must pray to Angels, and let us not so much as afford any little audience to it. Againe, St. Chrysostome was living in the fourth age, when Apostrophes began to be used to Saints and Angels, yet hee telleth us, it was the Devills doing to draw men unto the calling upon Angels; These (saith hee) be the inchantments of the Devils, though he be an Angell, Chrys. in 1. Cor. Homil. 1. though an Archangell, though they be Che­rubins, [Page 243]endure it not; For, neither will those powers themselves admit it, but reject it, when they see their Lord dishonored; 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, shewing,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 Iesus Christ: and accordingly, they de­creed it with a curse, Christians ought not to forsake the Church of God, and depart 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 himselfe to this priuie Idolatry, let him be accursed. Merlin Edit. 1530. fol. 68. Crab Edit. 1538. fol. 216. This Canon makes so plainely against your Church doctrine, that both Merlin and Crabbe (as I have shewed) 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 himselfe and the Catholike Christians of his time, Wee doe not adore or worship the Re­liques of Martyrs, no nor the Sunne, nor Moone, nor Angels, nor Archangels, nor Cherubins, nor Se raphins, nor any name that is named in this world, or in the world to come, lest we should serve the crea­ture, rather then 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 [Page 244](with them) from the Catholike faith by excesse; Wherefore I will conclude this Invocation, with that memorable passage of St. Austin, August. lib. Confess. 10. c. 42. Whom should I finde that might reconcile me unto thee? should I have gone unto the Angels, with what prayer? with what Sacraments? Many endeavouring to returne unto thee, and not being able to doe it by themselves, as I heare, have tried these things, and have fallen into the desire of curious visions, and were accounted worthy of illusions.

From your Angell-like or Angelicall prede­cessors, you proceede to the Cathari or Puritans. These were Novations (say you) who out of pride and selfe conceits, as if they were more cleane and ho­ly, did condemne Catholikes. And doe not your Cloister Monkes so conceive of themselves, who beleeve they doe more then God commanded, and that they can supererrogate; and doe they not condemne the Reformed Catholikes as the Novatians did? To come neerer 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 Puritans, by this very ground they prove themselves to be impure; for whosoever pronounceth himselfe to be pure, doth therein absolutely condemne himselfe to be impure.

Againe, 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 doe not finde it in Epiphanius. It is true, [Page 245]neither did I cite him for it, but I cited Saint Au­stin in the Margent, which you wittingly omitted.Aug. ep. 74. Yet both Authors declare the Haeretikes to bee 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 shewes that the Tatiani had two proper markes of your Church; for their first Leader, Tatianus accoun­ted of Marriage, as whoredome and corruption, and forbad the eating of meates. St. Austin like­wise tells us that the Manichees did permit their hearers to eate 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 Mo­nasticke 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 certaine women used to offer to the blessed Virgin; I say againe, they were your first Leaders, and parti­cularly for this reason, which you alledge to ex­cuse your selves, Because they did exceede the mea­sure of honor due to our blessed Lady. Pag. 99. And as touch­ing the Antidico-Marianitae (with which haeresie you charge us) they were such who out of malice to the blessed Virgin, being puffed up with pride or envy (saith Epiphanius) would possesse men,Epiph. haeres. 78 p. mihi. 244. [Page 246]that after the birth of our Saviour, Ioseph knew Marie, which never Protestant to my knowledge, ever taught, or thought. Therefore by way of prevention, you put this as a scandall upon our Church, to excuse your owne; But the truth is, we ascribe honour of preheminence unto that glorious person, before all other vessells of bles­sednesse; we proclaime it with the Angel Ga­briel that she was highly favoured, and blessed a­mong women; Luke 1.28. but withall we testifie with Epi­phanius, Christ said unto her, woman, what have I to doe with thee? my hower is not yet come; lest any man should thinke our Lady was of greater ex­cellency, Epiph. l. 3. hae­res. 79. contr. Collyridianos. he called her woman, as it were prophecying of the kinds and sects of haeresies that were to come into the world; lest any man having too great an opi­nion of that Holy Saint, should fall into this haeresie and into the dotage of the same. And as touching her perpetuall virginity, that golden saying of St. Hierome against Helvidius we unfainedly professe and testifie with heart and voice,Hleron. contrà Helvidium. That God was borne of a Virgin, we beleeve because we reade it; That Mary had Matrimoniall company with her husband after her delivery, we doe not beleeve, be­cause we reade it not. And to make good my asser­tion, that you tread in the steps of those haeretikes, which did exceede the measure of honor due unto our Lady, first looke upon Epiphanius, who opposeth this haeresie, he tells us, Although Mary be beau­tifull, Epiph. l. 3. hae­res. 79. and holy, and honourable, yet is shee not to be adored; For these women worshipping St. Mary, [Page 247] renew againe the Sacrifice of Wine mingled in the honour of the Goddesse Fortune, and prepare a Ta­ble for the Devill, 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 Queene of Heaven. Therefore let such women be rebuked by the Prophet Ieremie, and let them no more trouble the world, and let them not say, we worship the Queene of Heaven.

Here we see, the words which were spoken of the Heathenish Idolls, 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. Vshers an­swer to a shal­ling. p. mihi. (437.) who was living almost 200. yeares since, tells us, That it is for an ornament of an earthly Kingdome, that it should have both a King and a Queene, and therefore when any King hath not a wife, his sub­jects often request him to take one. Hereupon the eternall King and Omnipotent Emperour minding to adorne the Kingdome of Heaven above, did frame the Blessed Virgin, to the end that he might make her the Lady and Empresse of his Kingdome and Empire, that the Prophecy of David may be verified, saying unto her in the Psalme, upon thy right hand did sit the Queene in clothing of Gold. He tells us further, that your Pope Sixtus the fourth, gran­ted an Indulgence of twelve thousand yeares for every time, that a man in the state of grace should repeate this short Salutation of the Virgin, Haile [Page 248]most holy Mary, the Mother of God (the Queene of Heaven) the Gate of Paradise, the Lady of the world; thou art a singular and p [...]re Virgin, thou didst receive Christ without sinne, thou didst beare the Creator and Saviour of the world: Deliver mee from all evill, and pray for my sinnes. Amen.

Looke upon Gregory the Great, printed at Ant­werpe, Apud Iohannem Keerbergium. 1615. Tom. 1. p. mihi 490. Anno 1615. and there you shall find the Miter of Pope Sylvester the first, who was living Anno 314. with the picture of the blessed Virgin, and Christ in her armes, figured with this Motto, Ave Regina Coeli; Haile Queene of Heaven. And this was in the same age, wherein Epipha­nius complaines of the womens custome in his dayes, Wee worship the Queene of Heaven.

Lastly,Bellar. in Praef. de Eccles. Mi­litante. Bellarmine himselfe doth terme her (Regina Coeli) the Queene of Heaven: which at­tribute is rebuked, and forbidden by Hieremie, saith that ancient Father, and in his dayes con­demned for a Heresie.Constituta quippe est super omnem creatu­ram, et quicue­que Iesu curuat genu, matriquo­que primus sup­plicat, & filij gloriam cum matre non tam communem i [...] ­di [...]o quam ean­dem. Arnold. Carnotens. tract. de lau­dibus Virginis. And as touching the ex­cessive honour (which you complaine of) that the Heretikes gave unto our Lady, I verily beleeve, if your Churches Magnificats be compared with theirs, they will be found to exceed them farre. For first, the same Author testifies, That shee is constituted over every Creature; and whosoever boweth his knee unto JESVS, doth fall downe 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 [Page 249]the Queene of Heaven, and to make her equall to him, whom she her selfe termed her Saviour and Redeemer; but your Schooleman Bonaventure goes in a high straine, and in one of his Orizons prescribed to her, hee saith, O Empresse, Iure Matris impera tuo di­lectiss [...]mo filio, nostro Iesu 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 Iesus Christ, (or as wee may reade in the 15th Psalme of your Ladies Psalter) Incline the countenance of thy Son upon us, compell him by thy prayers, to have mercie upon us sinners. But that which is most remarka­ble, the Psalmes 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. Preserve mee ô Lady, for in thee have I put my trust. Blessed are they whose hearts doe love thee, ô Virgin Mary, their sinnes by thee shall mercifully be washed away. Have mercie upon mee, ô Lady, have mercie upon mee, because my heart is prepared to search out thy will, and in the shadow of thy wings will I rest. Give the King thy Iudgements, ô Lord, and thy mercie to the Queene his Mother. O come let us sing unto our Lady, let us make a joyfull noise to Mary our Queene, 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 law­full to speake it, thou in some respect didst greater [Page 250]things to God, then God himselfe 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 speake that, which out of thy humility thou hast past in silence. For thou onely didst sing, Hee that is mighty hath done to mee great things; but I doe sing and say, That thou hast done greater things to him that is mighty.

Now I appeale to your selfe, and to all your fellow-Jesuites, whether your Hyperdulia to the blessed Virgin be not transcendent, or (to use your owne words) doth not exceed the measure of honour due unto our Lady? And consequently, whether in this particular, upon your owne con­fession, you are not descended from the Collyri­dian Heretikes, your first parents?

This is so apparently true, that you know no way to free your selves from the guilt of Heresie, but by waving the question, telling us, The line should be drawne 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 Heretikes, or your Church, had a perpetuall suc­cession in person and doctrine; but to shew, How neere 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 heare your answer? This is so false, and so apparently false, as that it is not to be doubted, but hee that shall averre it, will make no soruple of any lie, how lewd soever. Thus you.

Good words, and found proofes would better become men of your profession. If you affirme [Page 251]that you have a Lineall Succession, the proofe lyes on your side: and when I shall see it as plain­ly proved, as spoken, I shall readily confesse 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 firme agree­ment of succession in Faith. For by that reason, our Queene Elizabeth of blessed memorie, suc­ceeded Queene Mary in Faith; and consequent­ly, our Faith must be good by your owne con­fession. By that reason, Ahaz and Manasses, that shut up the doore of the Temple, succeeded Da­vid in the Faith. By that reason, Pope Liberius the Arrian, succeeded Iulius a Catholike Bishop, in the Faith. By that reason, your Cardinall Poole succeeded Bishop Cranmer our Protestant Martyr, in the Faith. This (most firme Argument) therefore (as you call it) is but weake and infirme; 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 your selfe confesse, 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 owne Gene­brard confesseth, that there were fifty Popes suc­ceeding [Page 252]one another, rather Apostaticall, than Apostolicall. Cardinall Bellarmine in his Chro­nologie, tels us of six and twentie Schismes in the Papacie, wherein it was questionable betwixt the Popes and Antipopes, who were the true succes­sors of Peter. Your Cardinall Baronius tels us, that base Harlots beare all the sway at Rome,Baron. An. 912. and gave Bishopricks at their pleasures, and intruded their Paramours into Peters chaire, false Popes, whose names are written in the Catalogue of Popes, onely to note and designe the times. It is not then your Ca­talogue of Popes (which you so much brag of) that can free you from Heresie, or make good your succession in the Faith: and therefore I will conclude as I first began; The pedigree of the Romish Faith is drawne downe from the ancient Heretikes, and the Protestant Faith from Christ and his Apostles.

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

  • 1. That I allege but three Authors, Adrian, Coster, and Harding; and them falsly, or impertinently, for three severall points of the Protestant Faith, none for the universality of it in generall, as the title promiseth.
  • 2. That it is not sufficient to name some in the Ro­man Church, who held some of our opinions, but [Page 253]that I must shew a distinct companie from the Ro­man, making a Church.
  • 3. That it is not to purpose, to shew the Antiquitie and Vniversality of those points wherin we agree with you, but in those other points wherein wee disagree.
  • 4. That if it were granted, the Protestant Church in former ages lay hid in the bosome 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 Antiquitie, and Vniversalitie of our Religion, by and with the consenting testimonies of the Romane Church: you tell mee, It is a bold and unlikely adventure, and it is shamelesse and im­pudent.

These words be like a house full of smoake 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 Vniver­salitie and Antiquitie of his Church. And is this so grievous an accusation? Surely, I thought there was none so ignorant or impudent, as to denie both the Vniversalitie and Antiquitie of three Creeds; two Sacraments instituted by Christ; the two and twentie books of Canoni­call Scriptures; of the first foure Generall Coun­cels; of the Apostolike Traditions; of the An­cient Liturgies; of the Ordination of Priests and Deacons. These are our Tenets, and these [Page 254]were the particular Instances which I made: and to bring Authors for the proofe of these, as if we made a doubt of that which all true Christians did generally receive and beleeve, I say with St. Austin, Insolentissimae dementiae. Aug. It were a signe of most insolent madnesse.

But admit I should produce some Authors for proofe of this generall beleefe, would their Au­thoritie free me from your termes of Shamelesse, and impudent adventure? Certainly no: for (say you) If hee should have one, two, or three, or ten men, it would not be sufficient for him, unlesse hee have the Authoritie of the Catholike Church, or Church of Rome.

To cite many Authors, or to bring none, then is all alike to you; for in your doome, nothing will free mee from the name, and punishment due to Heresie, but the authoritie of the Church: and yet in this, you have granted mee more than I could expect; for you have given mee liberty to take my authoritie from the Church, so it be from the Catholike, or the Roman. And hereby you have made your Roman Church distinct from the Catholike, which is most true; which, both you your selfe, and most of your fellow Jesuits have made all one, and confirmed by the title of (Roman Catholike) in all your writings.

This being granted, I proceed to the rest of your exceptions. In this Section (say you) he brin­geth onely three Catholike Authors, Adrian, Coste­rus, and Harding, but no word for Antiquitie, or universalitie. Thus you.

Hee that shall reade my Section in Via tuta, with this your Answer, must needs confesse that you deale not fairly, nor ingeniously with mee: for sometimes you leape from the beginning of a Chapter to the end, then you returne againe to the beginning, being willing to conceale 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 discerne mine from yours: but most usuall 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 confesse the Antiquitie, and Vniversalitie of our Religion long before Luther, I instanced in our three Creeds, and the rest before named. One while you cry out of my impudencie, that I cite no Authors; another while, that if I did cite them, they would not serve my turne: but you never mention either the Creeds, or Scriptures, or Councels, or any of the points which you well knew had Antiquitie, and Vniversalitie in the name and opinion of all Christians. After that, you flie to the later end of my Section, and there you tell mee, I cite but three Authors, and yet none prove the Antiquitie or Vniversalitie of our Faith. Then you goe backe againe, and you tell the Reader, I say nothing here of the mans notable cunning and falshood, in making him beleeve, as if we did excuse our selves in those things whereof they accuse us.

If such extravagant excursions and reproches you call a Reply, or a Catholike Answer, I will lay my finger on my mouth, and say with your Cardinall, Qui decipi vult, decipiatur.

Briefely, the substance of my Assertion was this: The three Creeds, the Canonicall Scriptures, the Apostolike Traditions, the foure first generall Councels, and the rest were so generally received in the bosome of the Roman Church, that for that reason it might seeme a senselesse question, to de­mand where our Church was before Luther.

Next I shewed 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 Vniversality; then I shewed 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 owne men: And I instanced in three Authors be­fore mentioned, for three severall 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. Humphry put­teth it, to wit if the consecrated Bread be Christ, but if it be rightly consecrated.

And doe not you still by Adrians confession [Page 257]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 Priests intention. Take it therefore which way you will, yet my assertion stands true; we condemne 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 condemne us for adoring Christs, rent body in the Heavens: and however the Priests doe 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 truely the body of Christ; And this is that Pope Adrian hath delivered by your owne confession, and therefore they are not to be cleered from Idola­try, because they intended to worship one God, (as indeede 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: Cathar. Annot. in Caiet. p. mihi 134. For God and Christ is not adored simply, but as he is existing under the formes of bread and wine. If therefore he be not there, but it be found that Divine worship is given to a creature insteede 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 [Page 258]in it the Divinity, whom they called the soule 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 certaine and safe then you can be. First, your owne Bellarmine tels us,Bell. de Iusti­fic. l. 3. c. 8. that none can be certaine by the certainity of faith that he doth receive a true Sacrament. No man (saith Andreas Vega) can beleeve assuredly, that he receiveth the least part of the Sacrament, Vega l. 9. de Iustific. c. 17. and this is so surely to be credited, as it is apparant 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 condemne your adoration, and resolve to let you know from your owne 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 onely 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 generall is uncertaine and dangerous; so likewise there are many other wayes, which may easily occasion this Idolatry; and therefore you cannot deny us to be in the more certaine and safe way. As for instance Io­hannes de Burgo, who was Chancellor of Cam­bridge about (200.) yeares since, gives us to un­derstand that a Priest may faile in his intention [Page 259]many wayes. As for example,Pupilla Oculi c. 3. & 5. &c. 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 alters the nature of wine; if the wine be changed into vinegar, and therefore cannot serve for consecration; If there be thirteene cakes upon the Table, and the Priest for his consecration determine onely 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 minde it not, in all and every of these wayes, there is nothing Consecrated, and consequently the people giving divine honour to the Sacrament all Bread or Cup, commit flat Idolatry.

When I heare the Apostle proclaime to all Christians, that he which doubteth is condemned al­ready; I cannot chuse but pitty the state and con­dition of that miserable man, who hath a doubt­full, perplexed, and uncertaine faith, who taketh all upon trust, and upon the report, sometimes of an Hypocrite, sometimes of a malitious 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 foure or five hundred soules were an Infidell, but a formall Hyppocrite, and in absolving the Penitent, baptizing of children, and Consecrating the Eucharist, had an intention not to doe that which the Church doth, it must be said that the children are damned, the penitent not absolved, and that all remaine without the fruite of the Com­munion.

Now let the Reader judge which doctrine is most certaine and safe, either that of your Church which may occasion flat Idolatry in the worship­er, 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 feare or perill 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 agree­eth with you in all other? Then you tell a story of the Popes Bull against Luther.

You quarrell with your owne shadow, for I had no relation at all to your Pope, nor made any instance of him more then in a Marginall Note; but since you stand so much upon the justification of his Doctrine, hearken 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 Stewes at Rome. I confesse in this particular you may chal­lenge him wholly for your owne; But whereas you say he detested Luthers doctrine as most wicked and damnable, you might have added likewise, he wished a reformation of his owne, and withall taught that doctrine for which you condemne both Luther and all his adherents for Haeretikes.History of Trent. l. 1. pag. 25. 26. & 30. First, witnesse his Nu tio Francisco Chiericato, who had Commission from his Holi­nesse, ‘To ackowledge that the confusion of the [Page 261]Church, was caused especially by the sinnes of Priests and Prelats, confessing that some abho­minations, some yeares since, were committed even in the Holy See, that there were many abuses in spirituall things, so that it may be said, that the infirmity is passed from the head, to the members, from the Popes, to the inferi­our Pelates; And lastly, he resolves himselfe that he would use all diligence that the Church of Rome should be first reformed; and the rather, because hee 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, hee himselfe publisheth, that he heard it related of his Predecessor, Pope Iohn the 22th. That hee would have induced the Vniversitie of Paris to beleeve, that the soules of the righteous doe not see God face to face; and that no man should take his degree in Divinitie, unlesse hee should first sweare to maintaine that perstiferous. He­resie, and perpetually to cleave unto it. And that you may be assured hee was not wholly yours, hee affirmeth for certaine, one Position which would confound all Poperie,Adrian in 4. de Sacram. Confir. sub finem. (viz.) That the Pope may erre, even in things touching the Faith, and avouch that which is Heresie y his determina­tion, or decree. And thus your Pope Adrian com­plaines of many abominable things in his owne Church: he tels us, his Predecessor was reputed a Heretike: he confesseth, that both himselfe, and all his Successors after him, were in possi­bilitie [Page 262]of erring, even in matters of Faith: and it is very probable in his erring opinion, hee began to erect that most noble Brothell-house in his owne See. And thus much touching the Margi­nall note of Pope Adrian.

Your second exception is touching Costerus, occasioned by these words, Wee 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 lye.

Let the Reader judge, whether this modestie of yours deserve an Anser, or whether this say­ing of Costerus may not be termed, an Excuse. Howbeit (say you) this custome came in, not so much by the commandement of the Bishop, as by the peoples use and practise.] Well, take it as you would have it; yet, I say, his meaning must bee understood not at all by the Commandement of the Bishops, for that which is done by Command cannot bee said to have crept in. But the truth is, under colour of quarrelling with words, and giving me the lye, you seeke to dazle the eyes of your Rea­der, and when you omit the weightier things of your Church, then you question, Where is Co­sterus testimony for Antiquitie, Vniversalitie, Certaintie, and Safetie, when as you know well this testimony was not cited for that ende; And thus you straine at a Gnat, and swallow a Camell. [Page 263]Let us heare the rest of your verball discourse.

Since you are so shamelesse as to say, That we doe not condemne you for receiving in both kinds, Looke into the Councell of Trent, and see whether you doe not finde a heavy curse, &c. Thus you.

And are you sure that your Councell hath suf­ficiently cursed us, For following Christs example, and receiving in both kinds; for those were my very words, Following Christs example: (which you altogether omitted.) ‘If therefore we have altered any part of Christs Institution, I say againe, Curse on in Gods 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 heare your Councels? The Councell of Trent (say you) layes a heavie curse against any that shall say, that all and every of the Faithfull ought, by the precept of God, or necessitie of salvation, to receive both kinds.

This cursing Councell toucheth not my Asser­tion: for this Canon speaketh of the Precept of Christ, whereas I spake of his Example onely.Bell. de Euch, [...]. cap. 7. and for proofe of this, wee have Bellarmines te­stimony as well as ours: It is not to be doubted, but that is best, and sittest to be practised, which Christ himselfe hath done. And therefore my Assertion still stands good, (viz) You doe not condemne us for following Christs example.

Touching the Councell of Constance, it con­demnes not our receiving in both kinds, but pre­vents the condemnation of her owne. They de­creed their halfe Communion with this Caution,Concil. Con­stant. Sess. 13. that If any should obstinately maintaine that it was unlawfull, or erronious, to receive in one kind, hee ought to be punished, and driven out as an Heretike. And howsoever you would seeme to condemne our Assertion, yet you condemne not our practise as unlawfull; for the Councell of Basil, not twen­tie yeares after your Decree in the Councell 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 Iuel, of Private Masse, stands not to justifie his solitary, or private Masse, but rather excuseth it in this manner;Iuels Articles of Private Masse. pag. That it is through their owne default and negligence, whereof the godly and faithfull people, have sithence 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 poore Pedan­ticall observation; for to spend many lines about such toyes and trifling words, and to passe by the maine sinew & strength of the Citation; this is to confesse in plaine termes, that you cannot justifie your doctrine: and the rather it appeares in this particular point, wherein Master Harding doth not onely condemne the people for their neglect, but excuseth hereby your Churches ordinance in [Page 265]generall, as being not guilty of the coldnesse of the people. Nay more, hee plainly intimates the Antiquitie, and Vniversalitie of our Doctrine in these words;Iuel. 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, hee freely expresseth his thoughts, and liking of our Communion of Priest and People, saying; It were to be wished, Iuel 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 hee gives a reason for it,Idem, Divis. 25. p. mihi, 45. Because it would be more commendable, and more godly on the Churches part. And thus much touching your three Authors, whom (say you) I have so egregi­ously belyed.

Touching your worshipping of Images, I re­ferre it to his proper Section. And whereas wee charge you with flat Idolatrie in the adoration of the Sacrament, of Reliques, of Images, and the like; howsoever, I say, you excuse your selves with the manner of your adoration, yet (to our endlesse comfort be it spoken) you cannot charge us in the Positive Doctrine of our Church; no, not with the least suspition of Idolatrie. This I told you before, and (blessed be God) you have not wherewith to charge us in your Reply. But [Page 266]you say, It is far greater evill for you to be truly char­ged with Heresie, than for us to be charged with Ido­latrie: yet neither you, nor all your fellow-Jesuits could ever prove us guilty of either. But what may wee thinke 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 Heretikes by your Councels, ac­knowledged Heretikes by the Popes themselves, and condemned of Heresie by your best learned Divines. Your worship of Images and Saints, concludes in flat Idolatrie; and in particular (by the Doctrine of your owne Church) the adora­tion of the Sacramentall Bread and Cup, (for want of a right intention) becomes an Idoll 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 Idolatrie, I say, after this conclusion, you flye backe 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 your selves; 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 farre from shewing it, that you cunningly suppressed these words, and not so much as mentioned them: and thus, one while suppressing the point in question; [Page 267]other whiles, by declining the true state of the question, you shew your wit is better than your cause, and declare your Sophistrie to be better than your Divinitie.

But to follow you backe againe, you say, Wee must shew you a companie of men in former times distinct from yours.

It were no difficult matter, to shew you many that did seperate both from you, and the errours of your Church in former Ages. The Waldenses were a distinct companie of Beleevers, and sepa­rate from your Church above 500. yeares since: Reinerius the Inquisitor confesseth upon their ex­amination, that hee found they had in one Dio­cese, one and forty Schooles, in another, ten;B. pp. Tom. 13. Reiner. contrà Wald. cap. 3. p. mihi, 299. and withall, reckons up forty Churches by name in Lombardy, in Province in France, and other Kingdomes; he protesteth that amongst all Sects, There was none more pernitious 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 yeares after Christ) others say, from the time of the Apostles. Secondly, because it is more Vniversall, for there is scarse any Country, wherein this Sect hath not crept. Thirdly, whereas all other sorts blaspheme God, this Sect hath a great shew of godlinesse: for they live justly before men, they be­leeve all rightly concerning God, and the Articles of the Creed; onely they speake evill of the Church of Rome, and hate it; and by this meanes draw mul­titudes [Page 268]to their beliefe after them. Thus if you re­quire Antiquity for their Doctrine, they derive it either from Christ, or from Sylvester, 300. yeares after Christ; if Vniversality, all Coun­tries were filled with their Doctrine; if good life, they lived well before men, and beleeved 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 Husse in Bohemia, and ga­thered strength at the comming of Luther, especial­ly in the Caparienses, who professed a Religion a­greeing almost in all things with Martin Luther: But withall he ingeniously professeth that Cardi­nall Sadolet did examine them, and found many things malitiously fained against them.

Poplinerius saith, that about the yeare 1100. these men did publish their doctrine differing but a little from the Protestants, Poplin. Hist. Franc. l. 1. Bb. Vsher de statu. Eccl. c. 8. p. 209. not onely 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 doe 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 yeare 1198. autho­rised [Page 269]certaine Monkes, who had the full power of the Inquisition in their hands, to deliver the people by thousands into the Magistrats hands, and the Magistrats to the Executioners.Histor. of the Wald. c. 3. St. Do­minick who instituted the order of the begging Monkes, called Dominicans was a great persecu­tor of them and their doctrine. The Mother of this Monke saith your Martyrologe, Martyrologe in the life of St. Dominick P. (mihi) 556. before he was yet borne, dreamed that shee was delivered of a whelpe, with a firebrand in his mouth, with which he set the whole world on fire; and your learned Do­ctors have interpreted this dreame, that Domi­nick should be that dogge that should vomit out the fire which should consume the Haeretikes. your infallible Pope likewise tells us, that he saw in his sleepe 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 doe great good to the Catholike faith. And howsoever these reports may passe for dreames, yet this dog behaved himselfe so worthily in the persecution of those Christians, that from that time forward, the Monkes of his Order have bin alwayes im­ployed in the Inquisition.Histor. Wald. c. 2. But herein we may admire the great mercy and goodnesse of God unto this separate Church, that notwithstanding this grievous persecution, it was recorded by George Morell, at that time a Pastor amongst the Waldenses, that there were then remaining accor­ding to common report, above eight hundred [Page 270]thousand persons that made profession of the same faith. And thus breefely I have given you one company of men in former times distinct from yours. If we looke beyond those times; the Greeke Church was likewise separate from yours above eight hundred yeares agoe, and dif­fered in the points of Transubstantiation, of Pur­gatory, of private Masse, of Prayer in an unknowne tongue, of Marriage of Priests, of the Communion in both kindes, and the Popes Supremacy, I say in all these they separated from your Church; and this Church, if you require Antiquity, is before Rome in time; if Vniversality, she hath larger bounds, and multitudes of people, most of the Patriarchs, seven universall Councels, the Greeke tongue wherein the New Testament was written, inso much as your Bishop of Bitonto was not asha­med publikely to professe, 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 knowne haeresie) it may seeme rather that this is an aspersion laid upon them then any just exception;Concil. Florent. Sess. 35. For at the Councell of Florence, a­bout 200. yeares sithence, 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 principall points of our doctrine, the Greeke Patriarch congratulates with the re­formed [Page 271]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 rejoyce with many others, but especially in this, that in many things your doctrine is agreeable to our Church. For a conclusion, the Muscovites, Armenians, Aegyp­tians, Aethiopians, and divers other countries and Nations (all members of the Greeke Church) taught our doctrine from the Apostles time to ours. This is so true an evidence in our behalfe, 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 Schismatikes. So that all Chur­ches (be they never so Catholike and Ancient) if they subscribe not to the now Roman faith, are either Schismaticall or Haereticall.

Thus I have briefely shewed you two sorts of Christians, who were distinct from you, and yet lived in the Communion of the Catholike Church. I shewed you others also which lived and died in the bosome of the Roman Church, but as farre 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 prevayling 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 inferre from Tertullian, That us out of the mild, fat, and profitable Olive, Tertull. de prae­scrip. c. 36. the sower bastard Olive grow­eth; so have errors fructified out of the true Church, but became wild by untruth and lying, degenerating from the graine of truth, and so not yours; and this doth fully answer the matter (say you.) Surely if you compare the true and fruitfull Olive to your selves, 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 indeede can it be granted to you, without a sinne 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 haeresies 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 owne 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 your selves, and returne into your owne bosome.

From the Communion with your Church, you question the Antiquity and Vniversality of those points wherein you differ from us; and you would [Page 273]have me shew the deniall of them to have beene an­tiently and universally taught. Pag. 121.

Your demand to the first is unreasonable; For it is sufficient for us, that we professe that Faith which was once given to the Saints; besides, those new Articles which you thrust upon the Church, are wholly yours, and the proofe lies on your part to make good, as being properly your owne: on the other side, to shew the deniall of them to have bin anciently taught is unsensible; for the explicite deniall of them could not be taught till such Articles were offered and obtruded to us, but the implicite deniall we prove by the positive do­ctrines of the Ancient Fathers, which is incom­patible with your new additions and corrup­tions.

From the Doctrine in generall, 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 talke 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 your selfe, and the interpretation to the Reader, because you say I cannot translate Latin.

Some truth or modesty I should gladly heare from you; but this is such an impudent Calumny, as Bellarmine himselfe would have beene ashamed [Page 274]to have heard it fall from the Pen of any learned Papalin; heare therefore what your owne men confesse of Calvin and others, and what we pro­fesse in the name of our Church. Your F. Kelli­son saith of Calvin, Kellis. Surney. lib. 4. cap. 5. p. mihi, 229. That if hee did meane as hee speaketh, hee would not dispute with him, but would shake hands with him, as with a Catholike. And then hee repeats Calvins words; I say that in the Mysterie of the Supper, by the signe of Bread and Wine, is Christ truly delivered, yea, and his Body and his Blood. And a little before those words, hee giveth the reason; Because, saith he, Christs words, [This is my Body] are so plaine, that unlesse a man will call God a deceiver, hee can never be so bold as to say, that hee setteth before us an emptie Signe. This is likewise Bellarmines confession of him;Bell, de Euch. lib. 1. cap. 1. Non ergo vacuum & inane signum, It is no vaine and empty signe. Thus you see your fellowes and you agree like Harpe and Harrow; you say it is an empty peece of Bread, they answer in Calvins behalfe and ours, that it is not an empty signe: Idem ibid. c. 8. Nay, saith Bellarmine, both Calvin and Oecolampadius, and Peter Martyr, doe teach the Bread is called Christs Body figuratively, as being a signe or figure of his body, but they adde withall, it is no bare (and empty) figure, but such as doth truely convey unto them the things signified thereby; Bilson in the difference be­twixt Subjecti­on, and Christi­stian Rebellion. Part. 4. p. mihi, 779. for which truthes 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 forbid (saith our learned Bilson) wee should [Page 275]deny that the flesh and blood of Christ are truly pre­sent, and truly received of the Faithfull, at the Lords Table. It is the Doctrine that wee teach others, and wherewith wee comfort our selves. Wee never doubted but the Truth was present with the Signe, and the Spirit with the Sacrament, (as Cy­prian saith) Wee knew there could not follow an ope­ration, if there were not a presence before.

Neither doe I thinke you are ignorant of this, but that you have inured your selfe to falsities and reproaches. For it is apparently true, that the question in these dayes, is not of the truth of the presence, but of the manner: that is, whe­ther it be to the Teeth and the Belly, or Soule and Faith of the Receiver. And therupon our learned and Reverend B. Andrews returned his Answer to Bellarmine; Wee beleeve the presence, Wee beleeve, 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 doe not unadvisedly define; nay more, wee doe not scrupulously inquire, no more than wee doe in Baptisme, how the blood of Christ cleanseth us.

From the Sacraments; you procceed to our two and twentie Bookes of Canonicall Scripture, and indeed wee allow but two and twentie. But will any Catholike (say you) allow this to have been Catholike Doctrine?

Yes, without doubt,(Scil.) Orig. in Expo­sit. Psal. 1. many good Catholikes did follow the Hebrew Canon of the Iewes, which (saith Origen) compriseth but two and twentie bookes of the old Testament, accor­ding [Page 276]to the number of the letters among them.

Melito, Bellar. de verbo Dei. l. 1. c. 20. Bishop of Sardis, was a Catholike, and (saith Bellarmine) hee did follow the Hebrew Ca­non of the Iewes.

Hilary, Hilar. in Pro­log. in Psal. explanat. Bishop of Poictiers, was a Catholike, and he told us, The old Testament was contained in two and twentie bookes, according to the number of the Hebrew letters.

St. Cyril, Cyril. Catechis. 4. Bishop of Hierusalem, was a Catho­like, and hee gave us the like Lesson; Peruse the two and twentie books of the old Testament, but med­dle not with the Apochrypha.

Athanasius, Anthanas. in Synops. Bishop of Alexandria, was a Ca­tholike, and affirmes, that the Christians had a definite number of books comprehended in the Canon, which were two and twentie, equall to the number of the Hebrew letters.

Ruffinus was a Catholike,Bellar. de verbo Dei. l. 1. c. 20. and Bellarmine con­fesseth hee did follow the Hebrew Canon, which conteined our two and twentie books.

Gregory Nazianzen was a Catholike,Naz. Carm. Iamb. ad Se­leucum. Iamb. 3. and hee shewed to Seleucus, a Catalogue of the Canoni­call bookes, and hee cites the bookes in order from Genesis to Malachie, the last of the Prophets; and leaveth out all the Apochrypha.

The Fathers of the Councell of Laodicea were Catholikes:Concil. Laod. cap. 59. and in the 59th Canon, they allow onely those two and twenty bookes for Canoni­call, which wee receive.

There are others whom you terme Catholikes; as namely, Damascene, Hugo de Sancto Victore, [Page 277]Lyranus, Hugo Cardinalis, Tostatus, Waldensis, Driedo, and Cajetan: all which differ from your Tenet of the Apochryphall bookes which are ca­nonized by your Trent Councell (such agree­ment is there amongst your best learned, touch­ing the greatest point of your Beleefe) and yet forsooth your Church cannot be depraved.

But here is one thing (say you) which giveth mee much cause of wonder; which is, that you talke of Traditions, as distinct from Scripture. I ever tooke you to be so fallen out with them, that you made the deniall of them a fundament all point of your Re­ligion, that you would not indure the word Tradi­tion; but alwaies translated, or rather falsified it into Ordinances. Thus you.

It is a true saying of the Heathen Orator;Cicero. Hee who once goeth beyond the bounds of Modestie, had need to be lustily impudent. I protest, I onely ter­med your Additions, Traditions; and you que­stion our Church, for false translating of the word. And cannot wee indure the word Tradi­tions? Doe not we allow of all the Apostolicall Traditions, which agree unto the Scriptures? Nay more, doe wee not translate the word Tra­ditions in the Scripture, when the Text will beare it according to the Greeke originall? Looke up­on the fifteenth of Matthew, Matth. 15. v. 2, 3, 6. and in three seve­rall verses, 2, 3, 6. wee use the word Tradition. Looke upon the seventh of Marke, Marke 7. v. 3, 8, 9, 13. and in foure severall places of that chapter, you shall find likewise, wee translate Traditions. Looke upon [Page 278]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 joyned with your Rhemish Testament, you shall find the word Traditions. How may your Prose­lytes beleeve you another time, when you say, Wee alwaies translate it, or rather falsifie it into Ordinances?

For a conclusion of this Section; you say, that the three Creeds, the two Sacraments, the foure Generall Councels, the two and twenty books of Canonicall 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 devill had sowed the Tares amongst the good Corne. But I would not have you over­much confident of that neither; for originally wee had them from the Church Catholike, be­fore there was a Roman. For, the Gospell 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 Poperie, 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 Gospell 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 Greeke Church, but by neither was the Faith preached and restored; which your present Church now teacheth, and maintaineth at this day.

And lastly, if wee had the three Creeds, the two Sacraments, the 22. bookes of Canonicall Scripture, and the first foure Generall Councels from you, then you cannot deny that we teach the Ancient Faith, first given to the Saints; and that we had a Church visible long before Luthers dayes, (for those Tenents 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 Beleefe, which for the greater part, were ever taught and received in the bosom of your owne Church. To shut up all your bitter Aspersions, of Corrupting, of Falsifying, of Ly­ing, of Lynding, and I know not what reproches, cast upon me in these first (8) Sections; I will shut up all, I say, which hitherto hath beene delivered by you, with that answer of Socrates to his accu­sers, before the Judges:Plato in Apolo­gia Socratis. My Lords (saith hee) in what sort your affections have been stirred with mine accusers eloquence which you heard them speake, I cannot tell. But well I wot, for mine owne part, I my selfe, whom it toucheth most, was almost perswaded to beleeve, that what they said was true, yea although it were against my selfe; so handsomly they can tell their tale, and so likely, and so smoothly they convey their maters: every word they spake, had appearance of Truth, and yet in good sooth, they have scarsely uttered one word of Truth.

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

  • Chap. 9. Alphab. 1.
    • Sect. 1. Of Iustification by Faith onely. 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 unknowne tongue. pa. 145
    • Sect. 7. Of the Worship of Images. pa. 176
    • Sect. 8. Of Indulgences. Alphab. 2. pag. 8.
  • Chap. 10. Of the certaintie of the Protestant, and uncer­taintie of the Romish Faith. pag. 44
  • Chap. 11. Of the greater safetie 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 Authours tongues, by the Roman Indices Expurgatory. pa. 92
  • Chap. 14. Of the perfection and perspicuitie 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 Iustification. 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 affirme the Romane a true Church. pag. 148
  • Chap. 18. Concerning the Confession on all sides for the Safetie of the Protestant Religion. pa. 154
  • A Sermon preached at the Funerall of the Right Worship­full Sir Humphrey Lynde, at Cobham in Surrey. p. 171

Errata in the second Part.

PAge 5. lin. 7. reade authors. in marg. l. 15. reade gloriamur, p. 17 l 8. r. eat ye, p. 22. l. 8. in mar. r. fieri, p. 40 l. 1. dele 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. dele visible. p. 203. l. 6. r. Miracles. l. 14. wonders shew. p. 218. l. 6. dele the.

Alphab. 2. pag. 39. l 12. in mar. r. hic. p. 51. l. 5. add hee. 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. dores. 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.

Spectacles Chap. 9. Sect. 1.

THE Knight faileth in the proofe of his first point of Iustification, producing but one only place out of a booke intituled, Ordo bapti­zandi & visitandi, and that of no speciall good anthoritie, as hee al­ledgeth it out of Cassander and Author placed in the first Classis in the first index librorum prohibi­torum; and even in that which he alledgeth, there is nothing that doth not very well stand being rightly under stood with the Catholique faith which wee now professe,L. 1. de Iustific. c. 7. prop 3. for there is nothing but that which was shewed before out of Bellarmine, to wit, that in regard of the uncertaintie of our owne ju­stice that is, whether wee bee just or no, and for the perill of vaine-glory it is most safe to put our whole confidence in the sole mercy and benignitie of God; Which word sole, doth import confidence [Page 2]in that, and in nothing else with which it may stand very well, that men in the favour and grace of God may doe workes meritorious of encrease of grace and glory, which is the controversie betweene us and heretiques.

The Hammer.

AS David cut off Goliahs head with his owne Sword,a Eras. Apoph. Laconum. and Brasidas ranne through his Antagonist with his owne Speare, and Iustine 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 owne 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 cōmitte, hac solâ te to­tum contege: si dixerit tibi quod meruisti damnationem, dic, Domine, mortem, D. no­stri Iesu Chri­sti obtendo in­ter me, & ma­la merita mea ipsius (que) 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 owne Poets: so doth the Knight here in a litigious case, of greatest moment, convince the Iesuite out of his owne evidence a booke intitu­led, The forme and order of baptizing and visi­ting the sicke; printed and reprinted, and practi­sed for many hundred yeares without any check, or controle. In this booke the Priest is directed to put this question to the sick; Dost thou beleeve that thou canst not be saved but by the death of Christ? the sicke person answereth; I be­leeve; then the Priest goeth on saying, Goe too there­fore as long as thy soule remaines in thee, place thy whole confidence in this death only, have confi­dence in no other thing, commit thy selfe wholly to [Page 3]this death, with this alone cover thy selfe wholly, if hee say unto thee, thou hast deserved damnati­on, say Lord, I set the death of our Lord lesus Christ betwixt mee 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 speake more expressely for the renouncing all merit, and relying upon Christ wholly and solely for justification and salvation? Yet our Spectacle-maker by a false glosse, as it were, a false glasse, would make us beleeve, that the author of the Liturgie cast his eyes another way, and that this allegation ma­keth nothing for us.

First, he excepteth against this Authour as a single witnesse, you produce, saith he, but one only place out of one authour, &c. I answer as the Lio­nesse doth in the fable to the aemulous beast twitting her,c Aesop. Fab. that whereas other females had many young ones at once, shee had but one, ac pol leonem in quit; but, saith shee, that one is a Lion of more worth then twenty whelpes: so I grant, that in this place hee 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 Liturgie and Catechismes, and con­fessions might bee penned by one man: yet atfer they are generally received, and approved, and passe currant for many ages, they carry the au­thoritie of many, yea the whole Church; and [Page 4]howsoever the Iesuite would intimate that the Authour was an anonymus, yet hee might have learned from their greatHosius Conf. Petricon. c. 73 Sed & An­selmus Cantu­ar. Interrogat quasdam prae­scripsisse dici­tur infirmis in extremis con­stitutis. Cardinall Hosius that hee was the famous Archbishop of Canter­burie. Neither is ther any reason to make scruple thereof, for it hath beene anciently printed with his Workes, and passed under his name, and both the style and the doctrine in it is very con­formable to that wee 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 worthie to bee compared with the glorie which shall bee revea­led in us, if a man, saith he,Si homo mille annis serviret Deo etiam fer­ventissimè, non mereretur ex condigno dimi­dium diem esse in regno caelo­rum. should serve God a thousand yeares, and that most fervently, he should not deserve of condignity to bee halfe a day in the kingdome of heaven. Neither is Cassanders te­stimonie of this booke (at which the Iesuite gives so many a flert) to be sleighted, for he was a man of eminent note, and in high esteeme a­mong the learned of his age, hee was a favou­rite of two great Emperours, and lived and died in good reputation, as appeareth by the sundrie encomiums before his Workes; as also the E­pitaph on his Tombe. As for the setting him in the first Classis of prohibited bookes, no whit ecclipseth the glorie, but rather enobleth him, for that Index is a kind of Ecclesiasticall ostra­cisme, by which the Romanists banish as farre as their power stretcheth, the most eminent Au­thours, and most free and ingenuous professors [Page 5]of the truth. AsTertul in A­pologet. c. 5. consulite com­mentarios ve­stros illic repe­rietis primum Neronem in hanc Sectam Romae orientē 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 holinesse of the Christian Religion from the barbarous decree of wicked Nero against the professours thereof; it must needs, saith hee, bee singular good which that damned monster condemnes: so if any man peruse the Authours censured, and the passages expunged in the Index expurgatorious, he shall find them to be of speciall note, and singular use. Albeit the Inquisitors pretend that they change not, nor blot out any thing, but onely where manifest errour is crept in, and that since the yeare 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. yeares out of the Doctours of their owne Church, what maketh most against their er­rours and superstitions. Yea, but saith the Ie­suite, this supposed booke of Anselme hath beene printed, and reprinted by heretiques, and therefore may well fall under the Inquisitions censure; so hath Ignatius, Cyprian, Theodoret, and Ambrose, and Austine; yea and the originalls of the old and new Testament, and must they therefore come under their file, and bee sub­ject to their Index correction? AsIohn 18.23. Christ spake to the high Priests servant; If I have spo­ken ill, beare witnesse of the ill, if well, why smitest thou mee? So say wee of these bookes printed and reprinted by those whom hee tearmes here­tiques, [Page 6]because they impugne his errours and he­resies, if they have printed ought amisse declare it: if not, why doe you prohibit or correct their impressions?

Well (saith he) for all this, if the worst come to the worst, if this Authour prove to be S. An­selme and his words Gospell, the Knight gaines nothing by it, or we lose, for though it bee the sa­fest way to cast anchour at the last in the bottome of Gods mercie, and put our whole confidence in Christs merits, it doth not from hence follow, but that men may doe workes meritorious of increase of grace and glory. First, why doth he lispe here, and not speake plaine out the Romish tenet which is that our Workes doe merit not only in­crease of grace and glorie, but remission of sinnes, and Concil. Trid. Sess. 6. c. 32. Si quis dixerit hominis justi­ficati opera non verè mereri augmentū gra­tiae & vitam aeternam, & ipfius vitae ae­ternae, si tamen in gratià deces­serit, consecu­tionem, Ana­thema sit. eternall life? Next, I would faine 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 workes which is S. Anselmes judgement will not beare scale in Gods ballance, weigh downe super-excellens pondus gloriae, a super-excellent weight of glorie? Certainly the Spectacle-maker put in a burning glasse into his Spectacles which hath much impaired his eye-sight, or else hee could not but reade S. Anselmes words in this place, in which he renounceth all merit, and that in most direct and expresse tearmes, I be­leeve that none can bee saved by his owne merits, Vid loc. sup. cit. p. 4. or by any other meanes, but by the merit of Christs [Page 7]passion. I set the death of Christ betwixt 'mee 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 sinne in administring the Sacrament of Baptisme without those Ceremonies which were used in the Church from the Apostles times.


Elfrick was not the Authour of the Homilie and Epistles,2 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 severall places.

The difference of Catholique Authours about things not defined by the Church maketh nothing for Protestants,3 because they vertually retract all such opinions by submitting their writings to the censure of the Catholique Church.

Cajetan is falsely alledged by putting in the word supposed, and Transubstantiation:4 he denied not the bread to bee transubstantiated into Christs body, though hee conceived that those words, This is my body, doe not sufficiently prove the reall pre­sence [Page 8]of our Saviours body for which he is worthily censured by Suarez and the whole schoole of Di­vines.

Biel affirmeth that it is expresly delivered in holy Scriptures,5 that the body of Christ is contai­ned under the species of bread, &c. Which former words the Knight leaveth out, because they made clearely against him, and in the latter set downe by the Knight, he denieth not that Transubstantiation may bee proved out of Scriptures, but that it may be proved expresly, that is in expresse tearmes or so many words.

Alliaco his opinion maketh nothing for the Knight being a Calvinist,6 though hee seeme to fa­vour the Lutherans tenet: and though hee thought the Doctrine of consubstantiation to be more possi­ble and easie, yet therein hee preferred the judge­ment of the Church before his owne.

B. Fisher denieth not that the reall presence can be proved out of Scripture; 7 for the fourth chapter of the booke cited by the Knight, is employed in the proofe 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 bloud of Christ.

Durand B. of Maundy doth not deny Transub­stantiation to bee wrougnt by vertue of the words,8 This is my body; For though in the first place hee saith that Christ then made the bread his body when he blessed it, yet hee after addeth that wee doe [Page 9]blesse, illâ virtute quam Christus indidit verbis, Durand. rat. c. 41. n. 14. by that power which Christ hath giuen to the words.

Odo Cameracensis calleth the very forme of Consecration,9 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 joyned alwayes with that benedi­ction and thankesgiving, used both by our Saviour in the institution of this holy Sacrament, and now by the Priest in the Catholique Church, in the Con­secration of the same.

Christopherus de capite fontium is put in the Roman Index of prohibited bookes,10 and in the words cited out of him by the Knight, there is a grosse historicall errour in this that hee saith, that in that opinion of his, both the Councell of Trent, and all Writers did agree till the late time of Caie­tan, as if Caietan were since the Councell of Trent; and in citing this place, the Knight is against him­selfe, for whereas hee maketh Cardinall 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 onely Cajetan.

Salmeron relateth it indeed to bee the opinions of some Graecians that Christ did not consecrate by those words, This is my body, 11 but by his bene­diction: but this opinion of theirs is condemned by him as Chamier saith expressely in the [Page 10]place coted by the Knight, l. 6. de Eucha. c. 7.

Bellarmine in the place alledged saith nothing,12 but what is granted by all Papists,De Euchar. l. 3. c. 23. to wit, that though the words of Consecration in the plaine con­naturall and obvious sense inferre Transubstan­tiation: yet because in the judgement of some learned men, they may have another sense, which proveth only the reall presence, it is not altogether improbable, that without the authority of the Church, they cannot inforce a man to beleeve Tran­substantiation out of them.

Alfonsus à Castro affirmeth that of Transub­stantiation there is rare mention in the ancient Fa­thers:13 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 shew, that though there bee not much mention in ancient Wri­ters of a thing, or plaine testimonie 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, 14 saying Transubstantiation of late was determined in the Councell of Lateran is only this, that whereas the words of Consecration may bee understood of the reall presence of our blessed Saviours body either by Transubstantiation, or otherwise; so the sub­stance of bread doe remaine: the Church hath de­termined the words are to be understood in the for­mer sence. And moreover Yribarne saith, that [Page 11]Transubstantiation was not from the beginning de substantiâ fidei, because it had not beene so plainely delivered, nor determined in any Councell, till Gre­gorie the 7 his time wherein it was first determined against Berengarius.

It is not the reall presence whereof either S. Au­stine or Maldonate speaketh,15 but how they that eate Manna have died, and they that eate the body of our Lord shall live according to our Saviours say­ing, which is a cleane different thing.

Gregorie de Valentia having brought two or three severall and substantiall answers to a place al­ledged out of Theodoret concludeth somewhat roundly with the heretiques in this manner,16 that if no other answer will serve the turne, but that they will still stand wrangling; that it is no marvell that one or two (hee meaneth Theodoret and Gelasius) might erre in this point, and that Bellarmine Sua­rez, and others answer the place otherwise, to whom hee remitteth the Knight.

Cusanus speaketh not of ancient Fathers,17 but of certaine ancient Divines, whose names and errours are set downe in our late Schoole-men: and this Cardinall himselfe in the place alledged by the Knight declareth his beliefe of Transubstantiation.Excit. l. 6.

The Waldenses agree not with Protestants in the point of the Sacrament; 18 for they had Masse but once a yeare, 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,19 that the substance of the Bread and Wine remaineth in the Sacrament, but the materiall part only, and hee acknowledgeth that all other Schoole-men were herein against him.

Gaufridus and Hostiensis, 20 though they recount three opinions concerning the presence of Christs body in the blessed Sacrament, of which the one saith, the bread is the body of Christ, another, that the Bread doth not remaine, but is changed into Christs body; a third, that the bread doth remaine, 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, 21 speake either of the word Transubstantiation, or of the proofe thereof by de­termining that sense of Scripture, or if they meane otherwise the matter is not great. For one single Au­thour, or two contradicted by others, carry little credit in matter of beliefe.

Erasmus is not an Authour to be answered or na­med as the Knight hath beene often told.


The Hammer.

AS Nugno wrote of an Argument of Suarez the Iesuite,In 3. p. Tho q. 61. insolubile est argumentū Suarez propter intricationem & obscuritatem non diffi­cultatem. that it was in a manner insoluble, not in regard of the difficultie of the matter, but in regard of the intricacie and obscuritie in the manner of propounding it: so this Section may be truly said to bee uncapeable of a cleare and di­stinct [Page 13]answer thereunto, not in regard of any dif­ficultie in the matter it selfe; for there is nothing contained in it, but Crambe 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 hee might not be caught, for which cause I have beene enforced to leave the order, or rather disorder in his Paragraphes, and cull out of the whole Section here and there, what hee materially answereth to the Knights allegations, and reduce it to the numbers following, where­unto I purpose to referre my ensuing animad­versions.

To the first Exception.1 Whereas hee taxeth the Protestants for leaving out ceremonies in Baptisme used in the Church, since the Apostles time, hee shamefully abuseth his re [...]der, for hee speaketh not of the signe of the Crosse, or of Godfathers and Godmothers, which ceremonies and custome of the ancient Church hee knoweth that we retaine: but of Salt and spittle, or baptis­mall chrisme, which can never be proved to have beene used in the Apostles time, or many hun­dred yeares after. Of the most ancient of them, to wit, Chrisme he himselfe else-where, Apolog. c. 2.Pag. 57. acknowledgeth that it began but about Con­stantines time (as Aurelius the Sorbonist obser­veth in his booke intituled Vindiciae censurae, wherein the Iesuite is trimmed, as such a shave­ling deserveth.)

To the second concerning Elfrick. That Ael­frick was not the Authour of the Homilies wee acknowledge, neither doth this any whit dero­gate from their authoritie, but adde rather. For the more ancient the Authour was, the more au­thoritie the Sermons carry. Now it appeareth out of an ancient Manuscript, that these Homi­lies were extant in Latine before the dayes of Ael­frick, In Bib. Bodeli­anâ, Oxon. who was commanded by the Archbishop of Yorke Wolstanus to translate them into Eng­lish, which after hee had faithfully done, the Bi­shops at a Synod commanded them to bee read to the people on Easter day before they received the Communion. As for the shamefull corrup­tion hee objecteth to the Knight by false transla­ting the Homilies in five places, I cannot suffici­ently pitty the grosse stupidity and blindnesse of the objecter. Hee who hath made a paire of Spectacles for the Knight, had need to have a Festrawe made for himselfe to spell withall; for here hee most absurdly and ridiculously mista­keth a Collation for a Translation, and Bertram for Aelfrick. Doctor Vsher now Primate of Ar­math, whom the Knight here followed step by step, maketh a kind of parallel betweene the words of Bertram, and divers passages in the Ho­milies and Epistles translated by Aelfrick, to shew the conformitie of the doctrine in both. This parallel by this blind buzzard is taken for a translation,Cic. Phil. 2. Viste, asine, literas doceam, saith Tully to Anthony, non opus est verbis sed fustibus: yea [Page 15]but the Authour of this Homilie is so farre from condemning Transubstantiation, that hee pro­fessedly teacheth it in these words,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, & sa [...]gui [...]e [...] cō ­vertere prae­valuit. As there­fore a little before hee suffered, hee could change the substance of Bread, and the creature of Wine into his proper Body, which was to suffer, and into his Bloud which was there extant to bee afterwards shed, so in the Desert hee was able to change Manna and water into his owne body and bloud. I answer, this passage hee doth well to whet like a sharpe knife to cut the throat of Transubstantiation. For let it be granted according to the doctrine of [...]lfrick and Bertram, that Christ so turned the Bread into his Body at his last supper, as hee tur­ned Manna and water into his owne flesh in the wildernesse, what will hereupon insue? but that the conversion or change which is made in the elements is not reall, and corporall, but spirituall and sacramentall, as that was in the Desert: of which the Apostle speaketh, the 1 Cor. 10.4 spirituall rock followed them, and that rock waes Christ. When Manna fell, and the rock was strucken, Christ was not incarnate, nor many hundred yeares after: how then could the Manna, or the water bee real­ly and properly turned into his flesh and bloud? Moreover, howsoever hee 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 faithfull, the body in which Christ suffered, was borne of the flesh of Mary, and consisted of bloud and bone, but the [Page 16]other is gathered of many cornes without hloud and bone, (by saying) that the difference which Aelfrick sheweth betweene Christ on the Crosse and Christ on the Sacrament is in his manner of be­ing, not in the being it selfe, not denying him to bee really in both: yet the later words which containe an inference upon the former: therefore there is nothing to bee understood in the Sacrament bodily, but spiritually: admit of no colourable evasion, for if nothing bee 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 substantiall change of the bread into Christs very body, or the Wine into his bloud really and corporally.

To the third.3 The difference betweene Papists of most eminent note concerning the words, by vertue whereof they teach Transubstantiation is effected, maketh much against the doctrine it selfe, and by consequence quite overthroweth it. For thus we argue against them out of this their difference: If the bread bee turned into Christs body, then either by the words of benediction before hee brake the bread, or gave it, &c. or by the very words of Consecration, viz. hoc est corpus meum. But hee neither changed the bread into his Body by the one, nor by the other; Ergo, hee changed it not at all. Not by the pre­cedent benediction, as Aquinas and Bellarmine prove. For till the last instant of the prolation of [Page 17]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 hee had blessed the Bread, This is my body, unlesse by blessing it he had made it his body before. If when Christ said Take yee 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 eate the substance of Bread, which to say is to deny the article of Transubstantiation. Neither can the Iesuite heale this sore by his vertuall salve, in saying, that those men above alledged, who impugne the prsent tenent of the Schooles con­cerning the words of Consecration, in which the es­sence of the Sacrament consisteth vertually retracted such opinions, because they submitted their writings to the censure of the Catholique Church: for so wee may say with better reason, that what they held against us, they vertually retracted by submitting their judgement to the Catholique Church, which we can easily prove not to bee the particular Ro­man, but the Universall, 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,4 Cajetan is truly alledged by the Knight; for though neither the words Transub­stantiation, [Page 18]nor supposed are in him, yet the sence of them is to be found in him; for as both Suarez and Flood himselfe acknowledgeth (p. 147.) Cajetan said, that these words, This is my body, doe not sufficiently prove the reall presence of our Sa­viours body without the presupposed authoritie of the Church; and if in his judgement they prove not so much as the reall presence of Christs bo­dy in the Sacrament, much lesse 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, hee 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 stomack is so bad, that it turneth sweet and wholsome meate into choler;

Nectar cui fiet acetum
& vaticani perfida vappa cadi.

To the fifth.5 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 scriptur 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 bee noted, that though it bee expressely deli­vered in Scripture, that the body of Christ is truly contained under the forme or species of Bread, and received by the faithfull, yet it is not found in the canon of the Bible, how the body of Christ is there, [Page 19]whether by conversion of any thing into it or whether it beginneth to be there without conuersion, 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 owne mouth, and therefore taking Biel for such, hee maketh use of his testimonie against the Ro­man Church in point of Transubstantiation. Which is very direct and expresse, and the Ie­suites answer is very weake and unsufficient there­unto, to wit, that hee denieth only that Transub­stantiation is found in Scripture in expresse words. For first Biel saith not non invenitur expressum, but non invenitur; It is not found in Scripture, whe­ther Christs body be there by conversion of any thing into it. Now many things are found in Scrip­ture, as the Trinity of persons, the eternall gene­ration of the Sonne, the procession of the holy Ghost from the Father and the Sonne, the number and nature of Sacraments: which yet are not set downe in expresse words. Second­ly, it is evident out of the former words of Biel, that hee accounted those things expressely to be delivered in Scriptures, which yet are not set downe in expresse words: for hee saith that it is expresly 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 wee should admit then of Flood his glosse up­on Biel, Transubstantiation is not found in Scrip­ture, [Page 20]that is, is not found expressely: Yet our Argument from Biels testimonie is no way dis­abled thereby, because it appeareth out of Biels owne words, that hee holdeth that to bee expresly delivered in Scriptures, which is either expressed in word, or sence; the reall presence, he saith is expresse, not in the letter or forme of words in the text, yet in the sence: but so saith he, is not Transubstantiation; the apparant oppositi­on betweene the members of his sentence shew­eth that what hee beleeved of the reall presence, hee beleeved not of Transubstantiation, but the former he beleeved could bee proved out of Scripture, though not in expresse words yet in sence: therefore the later hee beleeved could not be proved so much as in sense, much lesse in ex­presse words.

To the sixt.6 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 witnesse; for hee 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, &c. his words are that (the conversion of bread into Christs body) cannot evidently bee proved out of Scripture, and that that manner or meaning which supposeth the substance of bread still to remaine in the Sacra­ment is possible, neither is it contrary to reason, or to the authoritie of the Scripture; nay it is more easie to bee understood, and more reasonable then that which saith, the substance doth leave the accidents. [Page 21]If this bee not as Flood will have it so much as in shew for the Knight, I am sure it is both in shew and substance against the Trent faith: for if it bee granted that Consubstantiation is not contrarie 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 Christs body be not repugnant to the authoritie of Scripture, nor the meaning of Christs words, then doe not these words, This is my body signifie, or make Transubstantiation which necessarily a­bolisheth the substance of Bread, and putteth in place thereof the substance of Christs bodie. If Consubstantiation bee more easily to bee un­derstood, and more agreeable to right reason in Alliacoes judgement then Transubstantiation: it is evident but for feare of his Cardinalls cap, hee would have simply avowed the former, and renounced the latter.

To the seventh.7 Take Roffensis his words at the best, the Iesuite is at a great losse: admit hee said no more then I.R. here confesseth that no man can bee 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 grosse Idolatours, adoring a piece of bread for Christ. Secondly, that none is able to prove that Christ is really and substantially offered in your [Page 22]Masse: for if it cannot bee proved that he is there corporally present, as Roffenfis confesseth, and you be are him out in it: it cannot bee proved that hee is corporally offered, restat ita (que) ut missas, missas faciatis; Roff. cont. Luth captiv. Bab. c. 4 ne (que) ullum positū 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 dismisse your misses, or Masses. For what can they availe the living, or the dead, if nothing but meere accidents and shewes of Bread and Wine bee offered, which are meere nothing. Wee may yet gather farther upon Roffensis his words, if it cannot bee proved by any Scripture, that Christs body and bloud are present in the Roman masse: it cannot bee proved that they are present in any Masse, unlesse it bee granted that the Roman masses are of a worser condition then others: if not in any masse, much lesse must Papists say in any Sacrament without the Masse. What then be­commeth of the maine and most reall article of the Trent faith, which hath cost the reall effusion of so much Christian bloud, I meane the reall and carnall presence of Christ in the Sacrament. To Roffenfis I.R. should have added Cajetan, and so hee might have had a parreiall of Cardinalls, for the Knight alledged him, and his words are most expresse, not only against the proofe of Transubstantiation,Caje. in 3. p. Tho. g. 75. dico autem ab ecclesiâcum non appareat ex E­vangelio coa­ctivum ali­uod ad intel­lg [...]dum haec verba propriè quod evangeli­um non expli­cavit expressè ab ecclesia ac­cepimus, viz. conversionem panis in corpus. but also of the corporall pre­sence of Christ (as out of the words hoc est corpus meum.) The Cardinalls words are, that which the Gospell hath not expressed wee have received from the Church, to wit, the conversion of the bread into the body of Christ, I say from the Church, be­cause [Page 23]there appeares nothing out of the Gospell that can enforce a man to beleeve that the words, This is my body, are to bee taken properly. How doth this Flood swell in pride, that to so great a Cardinal, so profound a Schoole-man, so eminent a Do­ctour, so divine a Commentatour, so golden a Writer (all which titles are given by the Roman Church to Cajetan) he vouchsafeth not a looke. But indeed he held a Wolfe by the eares, and was in a quandarie what to doe, whether to keepe his holt, or to let him goe: if hee had taken notice of his testimonie against the Roman Church, ei­ther hee must have disparaged the Cardinall, or given his Trent faith a grievous wound.

To the eight.8 Durand his words are plaine e­nough to prove that the conversion of bread into the body of Christ, is wrought by the vertue of Christs benediction before hee uttered the words,Benedixit be­nedictione cae­lesti, & vir­tute verbi qua convertitur pa­nis in substan­tiam corporis Christi. Dur. rat. c. 41. This is my body, hee blessed, saith hee, the bread by his heavenly benediction, and by vertue of the Word, whereby the Brend is turned into the sub­stance of Christs body. Yea but faith Flood, hee ad­deth, Wee blesse, ex illa virtute quam Christus indidit verbis, wee blesse by that power or vertue 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 [Page 24]the conversion to bee wrought by them, but to prove Christs body to be truly there.

To the ninth.9 Though the forme of Conse­cration may be called a Benediction for the rea­sons alledged 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 certaine that Odo Cameracensis distinguisheth the one from the other, and ascribeth the conversi­on of bread into Christs body to the vertue of the precedent benediction, and not of the subse­quent Consecration, Christ blessed the bread, hee made it his Body, that which before was Bread by his blessing is made flesh; for hee would not have said after hee had blessed it, This is my Body, un­lesse by blessing it hee had made it his Body. Yea, but Flood threatneth to bring a place out of Odo expresly 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 Bloud 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 hee saith Benedictione factus est caro, by blessing it became flesh, and that before hee ut­tered the words, This is my Body; which in Odo his apprehension as wee heard before, could not bee true: unlelesse bread had beene turned into Christs body, before he pronounced them.

To the tenth.10 I.R. Here Iohannes de Rivis, or Iohn of the Flood speaketh very disgracefully of his [Page 25]Father Christopher us de capite fontium, Christopher of the head of the Fountaines: Nay, to a most re­verend Father, the Archbishop of Caesarea; for the Archbishop of Caesaerea his booke, saith hee, De correctione Theologiae scholasticae; I doe not so much as looke into him, but remit it to the Roman Index, where you shall find this booke by you here cited forbidden, and even the arrogancie of the title sheweth 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 hee is hard followed casts dung in abun­dance on the pursuer, and brayeth hideously; so doth I.R. cast filth, and raile downe right, when he is so hard pressed with a testimonie that he hath nothing to reply. The Roman Index Prohibitorum librorum is to Flood like the Philosophers pons asinorum in all extremities hee flieth to it. But what is this Index to us? hee might as well al­ledge the Turkes Alcharon against the Knight. This Index of prohibited bookes deserveth not only a prohibition, but a purging by fire. For in the first ranke we find the holy Bibles translated into vulgar languages to bee set, and after them most of the prime and Classick Writers, almost in all professions. There is nothing so easie as to prohibit this or any other booke: but unlesse our Adversariee back this Papall prohibition with detection of errours and heresies contained in such bookes, and a solid confutation thereof; this tyrannicall Prohibition of the workes of Au­thours wil prove an evident conviction, that they forcibly smother that truth, the light whereof [Page 26]dazleth their eyes. Yea, but saith Flood, there is a grosse historicall errour, in that he saith, that in that opinion of his, both the Councell of Trent, and all the Writers did agree till the late time of Cajetan, as if Cajetan were since the Coun­cell of Trent. No historicall errour at all in the Archbishop, but a frivolous cavill in Flood. For hee saith not that the Councell of Trent was be­fore Cajetan, but that the Councell of Trent, and all Writers (before it also) did agree till the late time of Cajetan. Yea, but the Knight maketh Cardinall 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 contra­rie, that all are for him but only Cajetan. A ridi­culous sophisme, ex ignoratione Elenthi: the Knight alledgeth both Cardinall Cajetan, and the Archbishop of Caesarea against the words of Con­secration, but not ad idem, not to prove the same conclusion: hee alledgeth 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. us (que) ad 63. nisi prius quàm ista verba di­ceret Christus corpus suum ex pane factum e­rat, ista pro­posito non fuis­set vera, hoe est corpus me­um, &c. Fol. 23. and this hee proveth against all Pa­pists strongly after this manner; Vnlesse before Christ uttered those words, this is my body, his body had beene made of bread, this Proposition had not beene true, This is my body, for when Christ [Page 27]said, take ye, eate yee, if at that time the Bread by benediction were not changed, it will follow that Christ did command his Disciples to take and eate the substance of bread, and so wee must denie 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 certaine that these words were no part of the Consecration; And this hee proveth to bee the o­pinion of all the ancient Fathers by name of Iu­stine Martyr, Dionysius, S. Austine, Hesichius, S. Ierome, Gregorie, Ambrose, Rupert, Alquine, Bernard, Seotus, Landulph, Peter de Aquila, Pel­bert, and others.

To the eleventh.11 The Knight alledgeth not Salmerons opinion, but his relation of the opini­on of other men: and although his credit bee cracked with Protestants, yet it is whole with Flood and his fellow Iesuits: as Chamierus on the contrarie, his credit is good with Protestants, though none with Pontificians.P. 162. Yea but saith Flood, Chamier discovereth the Knights bad dea­ling, I would faine know how, or wherein; first how? by the spirit of prophesie? or by some letter sent to the Knight after Chamier his death; for Chamier was dead many yeares 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 Iesuite concerning the Graecians in these [Page 28]words, seeing the benediction of the Lord is not superfluous or vaine, nor gave hee simply bread; it followeth that when hee gave it, the transmutati­on was made, and those words, This is my Body, did demonstrate what was contained in the bread. What fault findeth hee in this allegation? If the Greekes had no such opinion, or Salmeron rela­teth no such thing, the blame must light between Salmeron and Chamier; howsoever the Knight is free. For hee truly quoteth Chamier, neither dare Flood say that Chamier misquoteth Salme­ron; P. 161. For, saith hee, though I found not this place in him, yet I will not say but it may bee there. Let this Spectacle-maker put on a better paire of Spe­ctacles, and hee shall plainly reade the words al­ledged out of Salmeron in the place quoted by Chamier. Cie. Orat. pro Rosc. Ameri­no. The geese in the Capitoll, if they gagled without cause, were to be beate for it: and the dogges to have their legges broken, if they barked when there was no suspition of a theefe approaching; Some such like punishment they deserve in Tullies judgement, who lay foule a­spersions upon others without any colour of proofe or semblance of truth.

To the twelfth.12 At the Knights allegation out of Bellarmine, Flood here nibleth, but can no where fasten his tooth, hee excepteth at the chan­ging of the singular number into the plurall, and translating Scriptures for Scripture, and the most learned and acute men, such as Scotus for most learned and acute men. It seemeth this Iesuite is [Page 29]descended of the race of Domitian; Sueton in Do­mitian. whose grea­test exercise was all day to strike at flies with a sharpe iron bodkin: reade Scriptures in the plu­rall, or Scripture in the singular or most acute, Bellar. de Eu­char. l. 3. c. 23. Dicit Scotus non extare lo­cū uilum 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 protervū: 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 expresse (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 bee so plaine as to enforce a man not refractorie to beleeve it; yet it may bee doubted whether that text, viz. Hoc est corpus meum bee cleare enough to enforce it, seeing most learned and acute men, such as Scotus was, thought otherwise. If it may bee justly doubted whether the text, This is my body, inferre Tran­substantiation, why doe 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 preferre their opinion be­fore the judgement of Flood and others, neither so learned nor so acute.

To the thirteenth.13 L. 8 con. haeres. verb. indulg. de transubslā ­tiatione panis in corpus Chri­slirara in anti­quis scriptori­bus mentio ra­ra, &c. The Knight regarded not at what Alfonsus à Castro aimed, but hee tooke up his arrow where hee found it, and shooteth it against your Trent doctrine. Of the Transubstan­tiation, saith hee, of the bread into Christs body, [Page 30]there is rarely or seldome any mention made in an­cient Writers: What doth I. R. answer hereunto? Alfonsus (saith hee) saith true, and the Knight most false. For though of Transubstantiation there bee no mention, yet of the conversion of the bread into Christs body there is most fre­quent mention;P. 164. Reade my riddle, wats this? rare mention of Transubstantiation, but not rare mention of the conversion of the bread into Christs body, pugnantia te loqui non vides? Is not this a flat contradiction? I would faine know, what diffe­rence there is betweene Transubstantiation, and the conversion of the substance of Bread, into the substance of Christs body in the Sacrament. Neither can the Iesuite free himselfe here from uttering an evident contradiction in the same sen­tence, by saying that Alfonsus speaketh of the word Transubstantiation, not of the thing it selfe. For Alfonsus there speaketh of things not of words, as Flood himselfe confesseth in the same page five lines after, saying, that Alfonsus his drift in that place is to shew, that though there bee not much mention in ancient Writers of a thing, or plaine testimonie 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 it selfe; and of this thing or point (hee saith) there is rare or seldome mention in ancient Writers.

To the fourteenth.14 Neither Scotus nor Yri­barne speake of the interpretation of the words, This is my body, Bellar. l. 3. de Euch. c. 23. unum addit Scotus, &c. quod ante La­teranense con­cilium Tran­substantiatio non fuit dag­ma fidei. Yrib. in 4. dist. 11. q. 3. disp. 42. in primi­tivâ 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 quaecun (que), 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 Ambrosius. nor of the manner of the delive­rie of the doctrine of Transubstantiation in for­mer times, but de dogmate fidei, of a doctrine of faith, which they expresly denie Transubstantia­tion to have beene, and what they say, may bee confirmed by Flood his owne answer in this place. For if Transubstantiation in former ages was not plainly delivered, as hee confesseth, p. 167. it could not bee then dogma fidei, or de substantiâ fidei, any doctrine of faith. For all do­ctrines of faith are plainly and evidently set downe in holy Scriptures, as S. Austine and S. Chrysostome joyntly teach. As for the pas­sage alledged by Scotus out of S. Ambrose it is ful­ly answered, & retorted by Andrew Rivet, Mr. Ga­taker, and others; Whereunto I thinke fit to adde nothing, but that Scotus in the place alledged speaketh not confidently of S. Ambrose, that hee held the doctrine of Transubstantiation: but that in words he seemed to favour that opinion.

To the fifteenth.15 Albeit S. Austine in the place alledged by the Knight speaketh not expresly a­gainst your carnall presence, yet by consequence hee quite overthroweth it; for if the unbeleeving Iewes in the Desert, and Iudas in the new Testa­ment [Page 32]died spiritually, after they had received the Sacrament: it followeth that neither the one, nor the other in S. Austines judgement received Christs true flesh, which whosoever eateth shall live for ever. Againe, 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 Iesuite, with due reverence bee it spoken to S. Austines authoritie, Maldonat his interpretation is more sutable to the text, and discourse of our Saviour in the whole chapter then that of S. Austines. And with due reverence bee it spoken here, Flood and Maldonat two Ie­suites like Mules in the Latine proverbe, Mutuum scabunt, scratch and claw one the other; But let a­ny man examine the interpretation of Maldonat, and that other of S. Austins, and apply them, both to the words of Christ, and his maine scope and drift in that sixt Chapter, and hee will find S. Austins discourse in that tractate to bee pure gold; and Maldonate his glosse to be drosse or Al­cumie stuffe, which will not indure the fire.

To the sixteenth.16 Gregorie de Valentia conclu­deth not roundly with heretiques, 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 himselfe bring o­ther substantiall answers to those Fathers. Very substantiall answers indeed, that by substance are understood accidents like to the glosse in the Ca­non [Page 33]law, statuimus, id est, abrogamus, & quo magis id est, quo minùs. The words of Theodoret are, that the mysticall signes after Consecration doe not goe out of their proper nature, but continue in their former substance, shape and figure, and may be seene and felt as before. How doth the Iesuite thinke you, expound these words?P. 175. Theodoret speaketh not (saith he) of the substance of bread, as if that did remaine, but hee only saith that the ac­cidents remaine in their owne substance, that is their owne entitie, nature or being, which to them is not accidentall, and therefore may be tearmed their substance; for it is plaine that accidents have a cer­taine being of their owne, different from that of their subject wherein they inhere, or rest. I grant that it is plaine they have: but it is as plaine or rather plainer, that Theodoret in that place by sabstantia understandeth no such thing. For in this very Dialogue hee exactly distinguisheth be­tweene substance and accidents, and telleth us that by ( [...]) or substance, hee meanes not ac­cidents, but substance properly so taken, saying,Theod. Dial. 2. c. 22. wee call a body a substance, but health and sicknesse an accident. Besides that which hee here calleth signum mysticum, hee in this very Dialogue tear­meth 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 [Page 34]without a subject can bee felt? Againe, it is evident and confessed by all, that accidents properly so called have not shape or figure. For that implies thrt the accidents should bee one thing, and shape and figure another, whereas shape and figure are meere accidents themselves. Last­ly, if Theodoret had thought that the substance of bread and wine ceaseth, and is changed into the very body and bloud of Christ: and that the ac­cidents thereof only remained; Theodoret ahd not taken the heretique in his owne net, by retor­ting a similitude drawne from the Sacrament up­on him; but the Heretique 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 Symbolls after Consecration: but the sa­cred Symbolls are so changed, that in the Eucharist there remaineth only the outward shape and forme of bread, and not the reall substance; therefore Christs body after his Ascension is so changed, that the shape and forme of flesh remaineth, and not the very na­ture and substance. Of this see more in the Romish Fisher held in his owne 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 remaine the same, not the sub­stance of the bread, for that was before, neither is that said to bee heleeved, much lesse adored. I an­swer briefly; of bread that was before common, a holy Sacrament of Christs body and bloud is made, and beleeved and reverenced as a most [Page 35]sacred mysterie: as when Waxe is made a seale, or bullion the Kings coyne, or money:The [...]d ibid non mutans [...] rum sed [...]u­rae adijceers graetiam. the sub­stance is not changed, but the use, significancie or efficacie: so in the Sacrament according to the mind of Theodoret there is a change made, but accidentall only, not substantiall.

To the seventeenth.17 Cardinall Cusanus is not produced by the Knight, as a witnesse speaking plaine against Transubstantiation: but as lisping something to that purpose, not as maintaining professedly Consubstantiation: for that had not beene safe for him, the Roman Church from whom hee held his Cardinals hat determining the contrarie:Excit. lib. 6. si quis intellige­ret panem non transubstanti­ari, sed super­vestiri nobiliori substātiā. 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 bee 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 contrarie with a note of heresie, and not said some ancient Divines: but some old heretiques thought, that the words, This is my body, implyed not Transubstantiation, but rather a kind of Con­substantiation. As for that errour of the Printer in the marginall quotation at which the Iesuite glanceth, as if the Knight had mistaken libros ex­citationum, for exercitiorum or exercitationum. I answer, the errour 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 [Page 36]partium ex Carnalibus integra suffragia tule­rit, Plat. in vit. Clement. San­der. l. 1. de scbism. Aug. Or in Garnets Apologie by Eud. Iohann. 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 bookes of the Cardinall are no other then the exercise of his readers patience, or at the best of his owne wit or imagination.

To the eighteenth.18 For Wickliff and the Wal­denses, the Knight insisted not upon their testi­monie, though well hee might; (for they were most eminent professours of the truth, and most free from those foule aspersions which their sworne enemies, and bloudy persecutors cast upon them) because his purpose was in this chap­ter, as hee professeth in the title, vos vestris gla­dijs jugulare, to cut your throat with your owne swords, and condemne you out of your owne mouth, as Christ doth the evill servant in the Gospell. 'Tis true, Wickliffe was condemned for an heretique in the Councell of Constance many yeares after his death, and barbarous inhumani­tie was also exercised upon his bones. Yet will it follow no more from hence that Wickliffe was an heretique, then that Ieremie was a false Pro­phet, or Christ and his Apostles false teachers, because they were condemned by councells of Priests. And of all Councells that of Constance carries the least credit, because it is not only con­demned by all the reformed Churches, but by the Roman Church her selfe, and the Decrees [Page 37]thereof repealed in later Councells. Touching the Waldenses what the Iesuite here writeth of them hee confirmeth by no testimonie, and the contrarie may be demonstrated out of Orthwinus Gratius, Histoire des Vaudois. and the Historie and confession of the Waldenses lately set forth out of authenticall re­cords in French.

To the nineteenth.19 The Iesuits answer to Durand concerning the materiall part of bread remaining in the Sacrament, but not the substance, imply­ing that the materiall part of Bread, and the sub­stance are different things is not materiall nor true. For though the materiall part of any substance be a distinct thing, both from the forme & the com­positum: yet is it a substance, and hath accidents inherent in it. For according to the axiome of the metaphysickes, ex non substantijs non fit sub­stantia, a substance or substantiall 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 bee sub­stantiall, unlesse the parts of which it consisteth be substances. Durand therefore affirming that the materiall 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 he­reticall: [Page 38]if he taught not that the whole substance was converted, hee 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 Iesuite addeth to salve the matter, that he acknowledgeth all others to bee against him in this point,Durand. in 4. sent. dist. 11. q. 1. let him put on his Spectacles and reade the place againe, and hee 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.20 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 remaine, but is changed, yet they no way condemne the third opinion, viz. the sub­stance of bread remaines, and is together with tho body of Christ. For as Durand well noteth, they call it an opinion, not an errour, or an heresie; nei­ther doe they say it is to bee reproved, but let it passe without any censure, which they would not have done, if they had held Transubstantiation to be a doctrine de fide to be beleeved of all upon paine of damnation.

To the twentie one.21 Cutbert Tunstall was a Bi­shop, [Page 39]and in great esteeme among all the learned in his time,In his Epi­taph in Lam­beth Chancell 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 bee filli­ped off, and sleighted by a priest and Iesuit de face vulgi, by saying that the matter is not great, whether Tunstall said, that for which hee is alled­ged or no, because one single Author or two con­tradicted by others carrieth no credit. For I find not that hee is contradicted by any. His words are these, of the manner and meanes of the reall presence, either by Transubstantiation, or otherwise perhaps it had beene bettter to leave every man that would bee curious to his owne conjecture, as before the Councell 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 doe wee find that any in his dayes or since before Flood taxed this Bishop for this his opinion.

To the twentie two.22 None more sleight men of worth then those who want it. Erasmus will live both in his owne workes, and in the wri­tings of the ancient Fathers, and other Classick Authours corrected and set forth by him, when a thousand Floods, and Leomelij, and Daniels a Iesu shall bee buried in perpetuall oblivion. Erasmus was in great esteeme with Archbishop Waram, and Sir Thomas Moore Lord Chancellor [Page 40]of England, and of divers Bishops, yea and Car­dinalls also beyond the Sea, and what Tully spake of Aristotle may bee truly said of him,A golden ri­ver. A hellish lake. there is in his writings, aureum slumen: but in the Iesuit his adversarie, lacus averni.

Concerning private Masses, Spectacles Paragraph 3. à pag. 187. vs (que) ad 199.

OVR Saviours words take yee, 1 eate ye, make nothing against private Masse, for Christ there spake to all his Apostles who did all eate: 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 Pauls words where hee inviteth Christians to imitate him,2 are meant of chastening the body, fa­sting and praying, and the like, in which Protestants follow him not, and if the words bee extended to the Sacrament, Catholike Priests imitate S. Paul there­in, because they are readie to communicate with all such as come worthily to receive, but the Knight must prove that S. Paul would not say Masse, un­lesse others would communicate with him, or that he teacheth that other Priests must not.

Where S. Paul 1 Cor. 11. 3 commandeth the people [Page 41]to tarrie one for another when they came together to cate hee speaketh to the people, who made the suppers called Agape, as is plaine by the text wherein bee reprehendeth the Abuses that were committed, as that some did exceed, others did want, some were drunke, some went away hungry, which could not pertaine 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,4 and also a­mong our selves, as members of the same body, and though it doe 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 remaine among us members, though every one among us doe not receive every day: so it may also remaine betweene us and the Priest, though hee say Masse, and wee 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 Catholique Doctours cited by the Knight say indeed,5 that it was the practise of the primitive Church to communicate every day with the Priest, but they say not that it was of necessitie so to doe; nay some of them as Bellarmine and Durand prove manifestly that there was no such necessitie or dependence of the Priests celebrating upon the peoples communicating, that they might not cele­brate [Page 42]unlesse the people did communicate. For S. Chrysostome saith of himselfe that hee celebra­ted every day, though there were no body to partici­pate with him.

The Councell of Nants forbidding Priests to ce­lebrate alone,6 speaketh only of not saying Masse all alone, without one or two to answer; to whom the Priest may seeme to speake, when hee saith, Domi­nus vobiscum, and the like; but whats this to say­ing Masse without some body to communicate with him?

The Councell of Trent doth not blesse and curse out of the same mouth,7 or approve or condemne the same thing, when it commendeth sacramentall com­munion of the people together with the Priest, and yet condemneth those who say private Masses are unlawfull. For it is one thing for the Councell to wish that the people would communicate, because to heare Masse and receive withall will be more profi­table: an other to say, that if there bee no body to communicate, such a Masse is unlawfull, or that the Priest must not say Masse.

The Hammer.

THe Iesuits answer to this Section of the Knight, wherein hee impugneth private Masse by foure texts of Scripture, two Ca­nons of Councells, and twelve pregnant Con­fessions of Romish Doctours, consisteth partly of [Page 43]sophismes, and partly of sarcasmes, to both which I purpose to returne a short and smart an­swer, first by refuting his sophismes, and after by retorting his sarcasmes.

To the first sophisticall answer I replie.1 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 containe in them an institution of a Sacrament to bee 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 yee eate this bread, and drinke this cup, ye shew the Lords death till he come. This the Apo­stles in their persons alone could not fulfill, for they lived not till Christs second comming: they must of necessitie therefore bee extended to all that in succeeding ages should bee present at the Lords Supper, who are as much bound by this precept of Christ to communicate with the Priest, or dispencer of the Sacrament, as the A­postles were to communicate with Christ him­selfe, when hee first in his owne person admini­stred it; otherwise if the precepts Take, eate, doe this in remembrance of mee appertained to the A­postles only, what warrant hath any Priest now to consecrate the elements? or administer the Sacrament? nay, what command have any faith­full at all to receive the Communion? Yea but saith the Iesuit, if not only the Apostles and their successors, but all the faithfull are here enjoyned [Page 44]to eate: it would follow that whensoever the Sa­crament is administred, 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 eate, this is my body ought to communicate;De eccles. ob­serv. sciendum juxta antiquos patres quod so­li cōmunican­tes divinis my­sterijs inter es­se consueve­rint. Orat. de conse­crat. dist. 2. per­actâ consecra­tione omnes communicent nisi malint ec­clesiasticis care­re liminibus. and this was the custome of the ancient Church as Micrologus teacheth, Wee 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 depart ite, Missa est: and wee find an ancient Canon of the Roman Church attri­buted to Gelasius, enjoyning all under paine of ex­communication that are present after the Consecra­tionis finished, to participate of the blessed Sacra­ment.

To the second.2 The precept of the Apostle, bee ye followers of mee as I am of Christ, 1 Co. 11.1. is generall, and reacheth as well to acts of pietie, as charitie. As non est distinguendum ubi lex non distinguit, so non est restringendum ubi lex non re­stringit; as wee may not distinguish where the law doth not distinguish: so we must not restraine where the law hath no restriction. The Iesuite himselfe saith, that S. Pauls imitation is directed to all, if to all, then to Priests; and againe hee saith, these words come in very fitly to prove that in all things that appertaine unto salvation wee should [Page 45]seeke to imitate S. Paul as hee doth Christ. And I hope the Iesuit holdeth the worthy receiving of the Sacrament a matter of salvation. I am sure the Apostle saith, 1 Cor. 11. Hee that eateth and drinketh unwerthily, eateth and drinketh damnati­on to himselfe. But what need wee dispute this point any further? sith the Apostle after hee had delivered this precept in the beginning of the chapter, in pursuit thereof at the 23 verse instan­ceth in the Sacrament it selfe, saying, What I re­ceived of the Lord, that I delivered unto you, that the Lord Iesus the same night hee was betrayed tooke bread &c. Surely if wee are to follow the Apo­stle in the performance of morall duties, much more of religious, and this the Iesuit in the end is compelled to grant, and therefore addeth for his further answer, that Catholique Priests doe imitate S. Paul in the administration of the Sacrament, be­cause they are ready to communicate with all such as come worthily to receive. Catholique Priests, that is in his language Romanists imitate S. Paul in their Masse; wherein? and how? he administred a Sacrament, they offer a sacrifice: hee prayed in a knowne tongue, they in the Latine unknowne 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 eate, and drinke, but eateth and drinketh all himselfe: hee speaketh of breaking of bread, they breake none [Page 46]at all: hee commandeth every one to examine him­selfe, and so to eate of that bread, and drinke of that cup, ver. 28. They forbid the Laytie 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 doe in ours, who are therefore so stiled, 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 bee 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 doe. I answer, that although S. Paul in this place speaketh of no such thing, neither can his words reasonably bee stretched to the chastening and beating downe of his body to bring it in sub­jection, because hee addeth, as I am of Christ bee ye followers of mee as I am of Christ. Now wee reade not that Christ beate his owne body, or needed to endeavour to bring it into subjection, which was alwayes 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 hee meaneth not whipping or scourging, which Papists receive by tradition from the here­tiques called flagellantes or the whippers: nor was his fasting an abstinence from flesh and fee­ding [Page 47]on the daintiest fish, and powring downe the sweetest and strongest wines,Act. 28.33. Ye have conti­nued fasting, having taken nothing, wher­fore I pray you to take some meate, for this is for your health. but an afflicting his body by watching, continuall labour, and fasting from all kind of sustenance, and such fasts not only private Christians among us keepe often, but our whole Church in publike calamities by the command of supreame authoritie religiously observeth, and hath reaped singular benefits thereby.

To the third. That the precept of S. Paul, 3 to tary one for another when they came to eate, apper­taineth to the Sacrament is evident,1 Cor. 11.20. first by that hee calleth it the Lords supper which they came together to eate, when yee come together in one place, this is not to cate the Lords Supper. Now that by the Lords 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 Catechisme of the Councell of Trent expresly affirme. 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 reproofe 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 eate ta­ry one for another, and if any man hunger let him eate at home, that ye come not together to condemna­tion. [Page 48]Yea but saith the Iesuit,Apostolus 1 Cor. 11. & Chrysostomus, hom 1. de coena dom. quamsanè appellationem tanquā à vete­ribus patribus usurpatā com­memorat quo (que) 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 drunke, and some went away hungrie, which could not pertaine 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 quantitie, as they could not bee distempered thereby: neither doth the Apostle taxe these abuses at the Lords Supper, but in their owne supper which they tooke before, v. 21. their disorders in these hee sharply reproves, not only as breaches of the Morall law, and acts of intemperance, but also as prophanation of the Sacrament, to which they ought to have come with a holy preparation be­fore. Yea but saith the Iesuit, 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 bee 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 bee so decently, or solemnly celebrated, as it ought. Now if the Apostle as the Iesuit will have it, re­quireth [Page 49]the people to tary one for another, before they began their feasts called Agapae; how much more thinke you would hee require this dutie of expecting one the other before they began the Lords Supper? which is one of the chiefest and most publike Act and service, whereby we pro­fesse, and expresse the Communion of Saints. The neglect of the former dutie in not staying for their guests at their Agapae, could bee at the most but a discourtesie or incivilitie; 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 eate tarie one for a­nother, and if any man hunger, let him eate at home that you come not together to condemnation.

To the fourth. The text of the Apostle,4 the cup of blessing, which wee blesse, 1 Cor. 10.16: is it not the Communi­on of the bloud of Christ? the Bread which wee breake, is it not the Communion of the body of Christ, for wee being many are one bread and one body, be­cause wee are all partakers of that one bread, is per­tinently alledged by the Knight against private Masse, which is a communion without communi­cants; much like to Caesars monument,Philippica. 1. which the Oratour fitly tearmeth insepultam sepulturam, an unburied buriall. 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 bee communicated to none? How are the people made one bread, and one body by it, if they partake [Page 50]not of it. I grant the union betweene the head and members, and Priest and people may re­maine though the Priest say Masse, and the peo­ple receive not: as likewise it may remaine though the Priest say no Masse, nor communicate him­selfe, because, there are other meanes of this Communion besides the Sacrament: yet because this Sacrament was ordained principally to con­firme this union, and communion, and from thence taketh its name, they who impropriate a common, and of a publike communion make a pri­vate Masse, 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 bee done in private Masses wherein the Priest communicateth alone. For that represen­teth rather a distinction and separation of the Priest from the people, then an union. Yea but (saith the Iesuit) 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, ought to receive together; and this the Apostles words strongly enforce, wee being many are one bread and one body, 1 Cor. 10.17. because wee are all partakers of that one bread, marke it, all partakers of one bread, and therefore all one [Page 51]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.5 By the Iurie of twelve men true and honest in the Iesuits account, (for they all li­ved and died in the communion of the Church of Rome) all Priests that say, (I cannot say cele­brate) private Masses are cast as transgressours of the traditions and customes of the primitive Church; Nay farther as novelists and innova­tors. For they all testifie and that joyntly, that the practise of the primitive Church is for our pub­like Communion, and against their private Mas­ses, true saith the Iesuit, they testifie concerning the practise of the primitive Church, but they affirme not that the contrary practise was unlawfull: the people then did communicate ordinarily with the Priest, but there was no necessitie so to doe. Admit this answer were true, that the verdict of this Iurie passed for the practise and manner of the primitive Church, not for any Canon or precept so to doe: yet the Knight hath the better of the cause. For they all prove that for which hee produceth them, viz. that by the confession of our Adversaries antiquitie is for us in this point, and that there was a Church celebrating the Lords Supper as we doe, 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 uni­forme [Page 52]practise of the primitive Church ought to sway more with all religious Christians,De sacrific. Miss. Dur. rat. l. 4. c. 53. in primi­tivâ 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. Iustin. in 1 Cor. 10. olim quod nunc etiam Graeci usur­pant, ex uno eo­dem (que) pane cō ­secrato deliba­tae particulae singulis tribue­bantur ut me­lius unio & conjunctio cum Christo at (que) a­pertiùs signifi­caretur. then any novell constitution or practise of any later Church whatsoever. If wee had nothing but their practise, that alone were of great moment. Yet wee have more, I meane their judgement. For sith whatsoever is not of faith is sinne, especi­ally in actions of this nature, their constant and uniforme practise in this kind, may serve as a de­monstration to any sober-minded man, that what they did, they thought most agreeable to Christs institution. But the Witnesses depose farther, for some come home to the point of unlawfulnesse of private Masses. Albeit Cocleus saith no more then that anciently the Priests and people did com­municate together; and Durandus, that all that were present at the celebration of the Masse did every day communicate. And Bellichus and Micro­logus, and Tholosanus, and Innocentius the Third, that in the infancie 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. Iustinian addeth to the pra­ctise of the primitive Church, the present practise of the Greeke Church backing them both with a good reason, In ancient times, saith hee, which the Greeke Church useth at this day of one loafe of bread Consecrated, divers parts were distributed to each communicant, that by this their Communion their [Page 53]union with Christ might bee 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 pri­mitivâ ecclesiâ populus com­municabat quolibet die. Cassand. de so­litar. miss. pro­priè communio dici non potest nisi plures de eodem sacrifi­cio participant. Ioan citat Cassand. con­sult de solit. miss. res ipsa clamat tam in Graecâ quàm in Latinâ eccle­siâ non solùm sacerdotes sa­crificantes, sed & reliques presbyteros, di­aconos, nec non & reliquam plebem aut sal­tem aliquam plebis partem communicàsse, quod quomodo cessaverit mi­randū est, &c. 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 drawne from the name of this Sacrament yet farther a­gainst private Masses, it cannot bee said properly a Communion, but where some people are partakers of the same sacrifice with the Priest. And lastly Io­hannes Hoffmisterus not only speaketh plainly, but cryeth out against your private Masses, The thing it selfe doth speake and cry alowd, that both in the Greeke and the Latine 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 cu­stome ceased it is to bee wondered, and wee ought to endeavour that it may bee restored againe in the Church. Yea but saith the Iesuit, Bellarmine and Durand prove by manifest authoritie, that in the Easterne Church in the time of S. Ambrose, S. Austine and Chrysostome, the people did com­municate but once a yeare: and yet S. Chrysostome even there where hee complaineth of the peoples coldnesse, saith of himselfe, that hee celebrated every day, though there were none to commu­nicate with him. I answer, that the publike and solemne time at which all were bound to com­municate in the Easterne Church, was but once a yeare, to wit at Easter: yet did the people in those [Page 54]dayes both at other times, and especially when they lay on their death-bed, receive the Com­munion: which was therefore called Viaticum morientium. As for S. Chrysostome; 'tis true that he much complaineth of the backwardnesse of the people in comming to the Communion, and professeth for his owne part, that hee neglected not his dutie to ce­lebrate the holy Sacrament, though hee were much discouraged therein by the paucitie and raritie of those, who presented themselves at the Lords 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 bee at some time especially on the weeke dayes, none of the people did communicate with him: yet al­wayes some of the Clergie, who assisted that acti­on communicated with him; and therefore the Iesuits inference, that by our doctrine the Priest must not say Masse once in seven yeares, unlesse the people bee so devout as to receive with him, is most absurd. For in all Colledges, and Cathedrall Churches, the Priests and Deacons communi­cate every moneth at the least, though none of the people sometimes receive with them. But in parish Churches it were a prophanation and a meere mockerie to administer the Communion without some of the people, to say, Take, eate, and drinke you all of this, when there is none to eate or drinke but the Priest himselfe, none, I say, neither Layk nor Clergie man.

To the sixt.6 The Canon of the Councell of [Page 55] Nants is mounted against solitarie Masses; and what are solitarie Masses but private Masses? the Fathers in that Councell account it a ridiculous superstition in a Priest, to say, the Lord bee with you, and lift up your hearts, and wee give thankes unto the Lord, or let us pray, when there is none to make answer,Concil Nan. c. 30. & Cas­sand. p. 83. or present whom hee inviteth to pray with him; and is it not altogether as ab­surd and ridiculous for the Priest to say as hee doth in all private Masses, Take, eate, De myster. missae, c. 15. piè credendum est quòd Ange­li dei comites assistant oran­tibus. and drinke yee all of this, when there is none to eate or drinke with him? Neither will Innocentius evasion serve the turne, that wee are piously to beleeve that though there are no men present, yet that the Angels ac­companie them that pray; for neither can the An­gels joyne in such formes of prayer as are used, looke upon our infirmities, and deliver us from for­nication and other deadly sinnes: neither is it a­greeable to sound Divinitie or Philosophie to bid Angels that are spirits receive the body and bloud of our Saviour. Here for want of better an­swer the Iesuit picketh a quarrell with the Knight for not citing the Councell of Nants out of any originall but out of Cassander, Flood. p. 197. beyond whom and one or two more such fellowes, saith he, it seemeth his learning did not stretch. I will repay him in his owne coyne. For the Iesuit himselfe citeth not the Councell of Nants out of any originall but out of Bellarmine and Burchard, beyond whom, P. 197, l. 27. and one or two more such fellowes, it seemeth his lear­ning did not stretch. Is it no disparagement for [Page 56] Flood a professor in Divinitie, and writer of Con­troversies to cite a Canon of a Councell out of Bellarmine his fellow-Iesuit, and is it a disparage­ment for a Knight no professed Divine, to cite a Canon of a Councell out of Cassander a most learned Doctour, and great Antiquarie in high esteeme when hee lived in the Roman Church? If the Iesuit answer that hee could not cite the originall, because that Decree is not now extant in any Councell of Nants that wee have, with one and the same answer hee justifieth the Knight as well as himselfe. It is no argument of Ignorance, but rather of faithfulnesse and since­ritie when a man cannot come to the sight of a record himselfe to transcribe it out of others ver­batim, who have seene it and avouch them for it.

To the seventh.7 The Councell of Trent like Satyrus in the Poet bloweth out of the same mouth hot and cold; 3. V. 11. or like the fountaine in S. Iames, 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 Councell accurseth them who say private Masses are unlawfull, and yet wisheth that there might bee no private Masses. It is true that it is one thing to wish that the people would communicate because to heare Masse and receive withall, will bee more profitable: another to say, if there bee none to communicate the Priest must not say Masse, or that such Masse is unlawfull, yet there is such affinitie betweene these two sayings, that a good argument may bee drawne from the one to the other. For hee that wisheth a reforma­tion [Page 57]in private Masses, or (which is all one) that of private Masses they were made publike Com­munions, consequently acknowledgeth that pri­vate Masses are faultie, or defective: and if faulty so farre as they are faulty, unlawfull.

And thus the indifferent reader may see that the water of this Flood wants ashes and soap to bee mingled with it, lavat enim non perluit, for it washeth but scowreth not, nor fetcheth out foule staines in the Masse-priests linnen.

Having refuted his sophismes,Loemel. spong feles unguen­torum fragran­tiâ, & Tigres pulsu tympano­rum in rabiens aguntur. I come now to retort his Sarcasmes. Tigers if they heare a drum grow madde: in this section the Knight sounded an alarum, and caused the drum to beate hard, at the sound whereof the Iesuit his adversarie after the manner of the Tiger groweth starke madde, and snappeth at every one hee meeteth. First hee falleth upon the Knight for creating a Cardinall, to wit, Hugo de S. Victore, Flood p. 188. of his owne free goodnesse to make up the number of his Bishops and Cardinals. I answer for the knight, that he created no super­numerall Cardinall: for he would not usurpe up­on the Poges priviledge; but committed a small errour 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 Cardi­nals hat in the margent, yet hee 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 [Page 58]that the people in the primitive Church did com­municate every day.) But admit the Knight mi­stooke Hago de S. Victore, for Hugo Cardinalis, as Bellarmine confesseth, that many learned men of his owne side mistooke Anselmus Laudunensis, for Cantuariensis; yet Flood should have pardo­ned or let passe and overseene this small over­sight, because wee tooke him at a worse fault in the like kind in examining his last Section, where­in as I there shewed hee grosly mistaketh Bertram for Elfrick, and a collation of two Authours for a translation of one.

Loripedem rectus derideat Aethiopem albus. Eras. Adag. after this hee jeareth at the Knight for saying that the Councell of Trent wished well to our doctrine,P. 189. What, saith hee, have you Masses Sir Humfrey? take heed it may cost you money: an In­former that should heare this might catch you by the backe, and bring you in for so many hundred markes as you have received bits of bread in your Church, which truly might prove a deere ordinarie for you. The Orator said well,Cic. pre Coel. nihil tam volucre quàm ma­ledictam, nothing is so easily cast out as a contu­melious word, and I may adde nothing so easily returned backe. The Knight no where saith that wee have any Masses in our Church, but only that the Councell of Trent wisheth well to pub­like Communions wherein the people communi­cate with the Priest, which are not certainly your private Masses: but admit hee had said wee have Masses in our Church, hee might very well have [Page 59]defended this speech by my Lord of Duresme his distinction of Christ his Masse, Tho. Mor. e­pisc. Dunelm. l. nitit. Christ his Masse. and the Pope his Masse. Wee have Christ his masse 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 drie Masses, and wet Masses, for low Masses and high Masses; the ordinarie was but a groat for the one, and a tester for the other, but now it is raised; and so to speake in the Iesuits language the Priests Masses prove a Deere ordinarie for the Laitie. After this madde Tiger hath left the Knight, hee fastens his teeth upon our Communion Table, calling it an emptie Communion, nothing but a morsell of bread, P. 190. and a sup of wine, and a prettie service and good-fellow Communion. P. 199. Flood is the same full and fa­sting, in jeast and in earnest, for in both hee con­tradicts himselfe, which discouereth an idle and addle braine. If our Communion bee emptie and nothing but a morsell of bread, and a sup of wine what good-fellowship can there bee in it? But in good earnest how can the Iesuit call ours an emp­tie Communion, which is every way full, and ful­ler then theirs, both for the signes, and the things signified? for the signes, we have the substance of Bread and Wine, they nothing but hungrie acci­dents and shewes, a bit of quantity, and a morsell of colours, and a soppe of figures; neither have the Laitie among them so much as a sup of the conse­crated cup. For the thing signified we teach that [Page 60]all communicants by faith feed on the very body and bloud of Christ, and all that so feed partake of all the benefits of Christs passion: they teach that Infidels and reprobates eate Christs body, and reape no benefit at all by it. As for his good-fellow Communion, let him take it to himselfe, for Aquinas noteth, that sometimes their Priests are overseene by drinking the liquor in the Consecrated cup, Missal. in cau­tel. si in casu gulae Euchari­stiam evomue­rit. and the cautels of the Masse appoint what is to bee done in case the Priest being drunke before cast up the host. As for our Communion there can bee no excesse, or as hee tearmeth it good-fellowship in it. For the people have warning a weeke at least before to prepare themselves, and they receive alwayes fasting before, and the quan­titie is so smal that it cannot distemper any, which this bone Compaignion could not bee ignorant of: But it seemeth hee tooke a cup of vinum Theolo­gicum in the Taverne before hee set pen to paper in this section. For besidemanifold contradictions before noted, hee tearmeth 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 appeares by the argument of the Section, and the title he putteth throughout, is Private Masse. Nay which is a most certaine demonstration of his distemper; when hee wrote this Section hee forgot that hee was a Priest, and reckoneth himselfe among the Laitie, saying, [Page 61] the union may remaine betweene us and the Priest, P. 197. l. 1. though he say Masse, and wee not receive.

Concerning the 7. Sacraments, Spectacles, paragraph. 4. a pag. 199. us (que) ad 242.

THe Knight unjustly chargeth Bel­larmine for laying a foundation of Atheisme,1 Concil. Trid. Sess. 7. can. 1. Bell. de effect. sacram. l. 2. c. 25. si tollamus authoritatem praesentis eccle­siae, & praesen­tis concilij, in dubiū revocari poterunt omni­um aliorum cō ­ciliorum decre­ta & tota fi­des christiana. 1 Eliz. 1. in saying that if wee should take away the credit of the Roman Church and Councell of Trent (which decreeth the precise number of 7. Sacraments;) the Decrees of other Councels, nay even Christian faith it selfe might be called in question, for if such a generall Councell may erre, the Church may erre; if the Church may erre, the faith which that Church teacheth may faile, and consequently there can bee no certaintie. S. Gregorie the great, did often say, and write, that hee did hold the 4, first Councels in the same honour that hee did the 4. Gospels, which is the same, as to say they could as little erre as the 4. Gospels. And the Parliament lawes of England give as great authoritie to those 4. first Councels, as S. Gregorie doth, acknowledging that for heresie, whatsoever is condemned for such by any of them, which is in other words to acknowledge them for a Rule of faith, [Page 62]and consequently of infallible authoritie: neither can any thing be said more against the present Church, and present Councell of Trent, then against the Church of that time, and the Councels of those times.

The Knight impertinently alledgeth the testimo­nies of S. Paul, 2 You know that I have withdrawne nothing that was profita­ble v. 27. I have not shrunke to de­clare unto you the whole counsell of God. Acts 20.20. and Bellarmine l. 4. d. verb. Dei. All those things are written by the A­postle, which are necessarie 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 Bellarmines saying helpe any thing, because though those things which are necessarie in generall for all to know, which are but few bee written, there bee yet many more not written, which are necessarie to bee knowne by some in the Church.

The Knight in praying that the Anathema de­creed by the Councell of Trent might fall upon his head,3 if any Papist could shew the number of seven Sacraments to have beene the beliefe of the Church for a thousand yeares after Christ, is too forward to draw malediction upon himselfe; it will come fast enough to his cost. It is an heavier thing then 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 roote out the foundations.

The Knights definition of a Sacrament,4 to wit, that it is a seale witnessing to our consciences, that [Page 63]Gods promises are true is senselesse, and without ground, largely refuted by Bellarmine, Bell. l. 1. de sac. in genere. c. 14.16. and proved to bee most absurd. For how can the Sacraments bee seales to give us assurance of his words, when all the assurance wee 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 seales and Sacraments then one? if there may bee more, why not seven as well as two? Againe, how doe wee see the promises of God in the Sacra­ments? these are but foolish fancies bred in here­ticall braines, and so to be contemned.

The Knights Argument against five of our Sa­craments,5 that in them the element is not joyned to the Word, or they have not their institution from Christ, or they bee not visible signes of invisible sa­ving grace, is frivolous. For confirmation and ex­treame Vnction have the element, and the Word, to wit, oyle and the forme: 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 almes-deedes, are the outward element: in Matrimonie the bodyes of a man or woman are as much an outward element, as water in baptisme: and though Matrimonie might bee a naturall contract before the Gospell, yet was it exalted to the dignitie of a Sacrament by Christ, and though it bee an holy thing as order is, yet as or­der is forbidden to all women, so upon good reason Mariage is forbidden to all Priests: because it is good, [Page 64]but of an inferiour ranke, and not so agreeable to the high estate of Priest-hood.

That S. Ambrose, 6 Austine, Chrysostome, and Bede Aug. in Iohan. tract. 15 de la­tere in cruce pendentis lan­ceâ percusso, sacramenta ec­clesiae proflux­erunt. teaching, that out of Christs side came the Sa­craments of the Church prove no more two then 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 expresse mention of the Sacrament of confirmation,7 L. 2. de sacram. c. 24. and of penance, as Bel­larmine sheweth: who also yeeldeth a reason why S. Ambrose in his bookes de Sacramentis mentio­neth no more but three Sacraments, because his in­tent in that worke is only to instruct the catechu­menie in those things which are to bee done at the time of Baptisme. For hee neither writeth to the be­leevers of his age, but only to some beginners, as is manifest by the title of one of his bookes: neither doth he there speake of the Sacraments which the Church hath taught and declared, but of the Sacra­ments which those beginners that hee spake to, had newly received.

S. Austine in those places where hee speaketh of two Sacraments restraineth not the number to two only.8 Respice ad mu­nera ecclesiae, munus sacra­mentorum in baptismo in Eucharisliâ, et caeteris sanctis sacramentis. For in his first Sermon upon the 103. psalme, hee saith, cast thine eyes upon the gifts, or offices of the Church in Baptisme, the Eucharist, and the rest of the holy Sacraments: and in his Epistle 118. having brought in the two Sacraments, Baptisme, and the Lords Supper, he addeth this generall clause, [Page 65]and if there bee any thing else commended in cano­nicall Scriptures. Neither doth the place the Knight citeth out of the third booke de doctrinâ christianâ availe him any thing; for it is plaine by the word sicuti, that he bringeth in Baptisme, and the Lords Supper for example only, which doth no way re­straine the number. Besides, his word in this place is not sacraments as the Knight citeth him, but signa signes, which is therefore a corruption of the Knights.

S. Cyprian de ablutione pedum, 9 reckoneth but five Sacraments, not that hee 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 speake of more in that place: his scope being only to speake of such Sacraments as had relation to our Saviours last Supper, and by ablutio pedum, that Authour meaneth the sacrament of penance, as ap­peareth by the words following, for this, O most be­nigne Lord, thou didst wash thy Disciples feet, be­cause after Baptisme which may not be iterated, thou hast procured another laver which must never bee intermitted.

S Isidore in his sixt booke of Etymologies cited by the Knight, 10 doth not so much as intend to speake of any Sacrament at all, but his only intent is to treat of the names of certaine feasts, as the title of the chapter sheweth, to wit, of feasts and their names. Among which he putteth Christs Supper. Moreover, to shew that S. Isidore held more then the three Sa­craments the Knight speaketh of, in his second booke de Ecclesiast. offic. c. 16. & l. 23. c. 19. he mentio­neth [Page 66]two more, Penance and Matrimonie.

Alexander hales in the place alledged by the Knight saith not,11 that there are no more then foure Sacraments, but on the contrarie concludes, Par. 4. q, 5. n. 7. art. 2. that there bee neither more nor fewer then seven Sacraments; tis true indeed that Hales was of opinion that the forme and matter which wee now use in the Sacrament of confirmation were not appointed by our Saviour but by the Church in the Councell, at Melda: but this Hales saith, sine praejudicio, that is with leave, not stifly nor arro­gantly maintaining his owne opinion.

Hugo de Sancto victore excludeth not Penance from being a Sacrament.12 For in his 23. chapter hee calleth Penance the second board after shipwrack,C. 12. Septem sunt principa­lia ecclesiae sa­cramenta, &c. and saith, that if any man endanger his cleansing, which he hath received by Baptisme, he may arise, and scape by Penance. Moreover, the same Hu­go in his Glasse of the mysteries of the Church saith, that there are seven prinoipall Sacraments of the Church, whereof five are called generall, be­cause they belong unto all, to wit, Baptisme, Confir­mation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreame vnction; and two speciall, to wit, Matrimonie and Order.

Although Bellarmine denieth that Extreame Vnction can be deduced out of the last of S. Marke: 13 and Cajetan out of the first of S. Iames, and al­though Hugo, and Peter Lomberd, and Bonaven­ture, and Alenfis, and Altisiodorensis denie it to bee instituted by Christ: yet none of them all denie it to be a Sacrament.

Bessarion the Cardinall saith not that there are but two Sacraments; 14 for he was a great man in the Councell of Florence, wherein seven Sacraments are precisely taught: but that we find these two Sacraments expresly delivered, and that wee find none other, and none of the rest so delivered, that is, so plainly.

Soto, though he denieth that ordination of Bi­shops,15 is truly and properly a Sacrament: yet hee denieth not the Sacrament of order in the Church.

Durand saith indeed that Matrimonie is not ae Sacrament univocally,16 agreeing with the other six: but all acknowledge it to bee an errour in him, and Divines of his owne time did note it for such, though the matter then were not so clearely defined.

Cajetan saith indeed, that the prudent reader cannot inferre out of the words of S. Paul, 17 Ephes. 5. hoc est magnum Sacramentum, that Matrimonie is a Sacrament: yet hee denieth it not to bee a Sacra­ment.18 For though it bee 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 bee deduced out of tradition.

Canus telleth us that the Divines speake so un­certainly of the matter and forme of Matrimonie, that hee should bee accounted an unwise man, who in so great differences of opinion, would take upon him to establish any thing certainly: yet hee denieth not Matrimonie to be a Sacrament. For these are his words, if the Lutherans argue that Mariage admi­nistred with sacred Ceremonies, sacred matter, sa­cred [Page 68]forme, and by a sacred Minister, as it hath e­ver beene administred 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 Catho­lique answer confidently, let bim defend stoutly, let him gainsay securely.

Vasquez doth not say, that Matrimonie is not a Sacrament properly so taken:19 but that S. Austine speaking of Matrimonie 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 Catholique Divines.

Bellarmine saith,20 that the Sacraments signifie 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 worke in our soules; another thing to come, to wit, eteruall life. The signification of these three things is most apparant in Baptisme, and the Eucharist: but not so apparant in the rest. Thus farre the Knight quoteth Bellarmine, but leaveth out that which followeth, tamen certum est impli­citè illa omnia significari; but it is certaine that the rest of the Sacraments signifie all these things at least implicitly.

The Hammer.

ALthough the Iesuit was very angrie when hee wrote this Paragraph, as appeareth by his snarling at every passage almost: yet in his discretion hee 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. Austine, as also to the refutation of the popish arguments for their sep­tenarie number of Sacraments, from incongru­ous and ridiculous congruities, hee replieth not a word, and three of their prime Schoole-men, Durand, Vasques, and Cajetan, hee lets shift for themselves, defend them he neither will nor can; yet for all this hee puts up as if hee had done wonders in this Paragraph, and filleth up the de­fect of solid answers with bragges, and swelling words of vanitie; ‘Bullatis vndi (que) nugis pagina turgescit.’But these bubbles wee shall see will dissolve of themselves, in the particular answer to his twen­tie severall exceptions against the Knights dis­course.

To the first.1 The Iesuit in this Paragraph thinketh that hee discourseth very profoundly, for page 201. he saith, the Knight is not capable of it; whereas his chanel here is so shallow, that any child instructed in his Catechisme, may wade [Page 70]thorow it. Without an infallible rule, saith he, there can be no certaine beliefe in God. An extreame ve­ritie, without an unerring Pope no certaine rule of faith, an extreame falsitie: the Iesait cannot see Christ for the Pope, nor the Scripture for the Trent Canons. Let him remove them out of the way; and if hee have an eye of faith, hee may clearly see both, and in them an infallible rule of faith, and certaine meanes to learne true beliefe in God. The occasion of this discourse of the Iesuit was the Knight charging Cardinall Bellar­mine for laying a foundation of Atheisme in say­ing that if we should take away the credit of the Roman Church and Councell of Trent, the Christian faith it selfe might bee called in questi­on. The charge lieth heavie upon the Cardinall. For to disparage the selfe-sufficiencie 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 Iesuit seeketh to cover the nakednesse of the Cardinall with these fig leaves, If agener all Councell may erre, the Church may erne; if the Church may erre, the faith which that Church teacheth may faile, and consequently there can bee no certaintie. How easily are these leaves plucked away, and torne in pieces. 1. Though such a Councell as the Councell of Trent, con­sisting of a few Bishops swaied by the Italian fa­ction may erre, it would not from thence follow, [Page 71]that the whole representative Church might erre. 2. Though the whole representative Church in a free and generall Councell lawfully called might erre, yet many millions in the Catholique Church may hold the orthodox beliefe, and con­sequently the faith of the Church not totally faile. Yea but saith the Iesuit, take away the infal­libilitie of the Church there is no rule of faith. This assertion of his is open blasphemie, as if God would not bee true, though all men were found liars: though the Roman Church and Pope erre a thousand times, yet the rule of faith remaineth unvariable in the holy Scriptures. Yea but S. Gre­gorie equalizeth the foure first generall Councels to the Gospel, and saith in effect, that they could as little erre as the 4. Gospels, and that upon the deniall of their authoritie the Christian faith might be shaken as well as by the deniall of the Gospels: and the like authoritie giveth your Parliament unto them. I answer, S. Gregorie e­qualizeth the foure first generall Councels to the foure Gospels, not in respect of authoritie, but in respect of the veritie of the articles defined in them: he saith not, they could as little erre, but they did as little erre, in their decisions, or to speake more properly that their doctrine was as true as Gospell, because the determinations in those first generall Councels against Heretiques are evidently deduced out of holy Scriptures. Our Parliament alluding to the words of S. Gregorie speaketh in the same sense, as hee doth. Yea but [Page 72]saith the Iesuit, your Parliament lawes acknow­ledge that for heresie whatsoever is condemned for such in any of those Councels, which is in other words to acknowledge them for a rule of faith, and consequently to bee of infallible au­thoritie, and to joyne them in the same ranke with the Canonicall Seriptures. Idem jungat Vulpes; by the like reason the Iesuit might say we joyne the booke of Articles of Religion, and Homilies in the same ranke with the Canonicall Scriptures, because we condemne for heretiques all that obstinatly maintaine any doctrine repug­nant to them: which wee doe not, because we hold the Decrees of a provinciall Synod, to bee of in fallible authoritie: but because wee are able to prove all the Articles there established, to be con­sonant to the holy Scriptures. Yea, but further saith the Iesuit in the same statute,P. 203. you give power to the Court of Parliament, with the assent of the Clergie in their Convocation to adjudge or deter­mine a matter to be heresie, 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 heresie out of Gods 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 maine difference betweene these two, (which yet the Iesuit here confoundeth as if they were co­incident) to declare faith, and to bee the rule of [Page 73]faith every Iudge 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 heresie: yet the y are not Itrow the Rule of popish faith, every meater in the market declareth that such or such is the measure of corne and graine: yet is not every, or any corne-meater the Winchester standerd. 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 Iesuits phrase upon himselfe, hee is not capable it seemes of this discourse which yet every market-woman or boy is. Well, let the authoritie of generall Councels bee great in the Church, and of the foure first Councels greatest of all, quid hoc ad Rombum? what maketh this for the infallibilitie of the Trent conventicle? much saith the Iesuit every way, for what, saith hee, can you say more against the present Church, and present Councell of Trent, then against the Church and Councels 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 wee have already said? After hee hath taken away the legall exceptions made against this conventicle by the Authour of the historie of the Councell of Trent, and of the litterae missivae, and Iewel his Treatise affixed to that Historie, and Chemnisius his Examen, and Doctor Bowles his latine Sermon preached to the Convocation, and lately printed: after hee hath [Page 74]proved which hee will never bee able, that the Assemblie at Trent was a free and generall Coun­cell, and called by lawfull authoritie, and all the proceedings in it according to ancient Canons: yet it will still fall as short of the Councell of Nice in authoritie, as in antiquitie: that consisted of most eminent, learned, and holy Bishops and Confessors: this for the most part of hungrie ani­mals depending on the Popes trencher as Dudi­thius a Bishop present at that Councell declareth at large in his letter set before the Historie of the Councell of Trent, to which I referre the reader.

To the second.2 The testimonies alledged by the Knight for the sufficiencie of holy Scriptures are ponderous, and weightie, and the Iesuits ex­ceptions to them are sleight, vaine, and frivolous. To the testimonie out of the Acts, I have kept backe nothing that was profitable unto you, and I am pure from the bloud of all men, Act. 20.20.27 for I have not shunned to declare unto you all the Councell of God, hee 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 hee heard from his Father hee made knowne unto them, Iohn 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 hee confirmed unto them by testimonie of Scripture. For S. Luke saith Acts 17.2. that S. Paul as his manner was, reasoned with them out of the Scriptures opening [Page 75]and alledging that Iesus whom hee preached unto them was Christ, and they that received the word with all readinesse of mind searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so: Act. 24.14. and again I con­fesse that after that way which they call heresie, so worship I the God of my fathers, beleeving all things which are written in the Law, and the Prophets. If the Iesuit had read the verse immediatly fol­lowing, testifying to the Iewes and Greekes repen­tance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Iesus Christ: hee could not but have seene the absurdi­tie 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 Iesus Christ are written almost in every Sermon of the Prophets, and chapter of the E­vangelists. What hee addeth for confirmation of his answer, (from the example of our Saviour, who made knowne to his Disciples whatsoever hee 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 wee give credit to a relation in Eusebius of a letter written by him to King Ab­garus) yet hee commanded his Apostles to write those things which they had heard and seene, what thou seest write it in a booke, 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 Cal vin well rendereth the words privatae impulsionis, of private impulsion or motion: for the prophecie [Page 76]came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the holy Ghost: and therefore Irenaeus saith expresly,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. eccl. 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 bee a pillar and foundation of our faith: and S. Austine affirmeth, that what Christ would have knowne of his words and deeds as needfull to our salvation, that hee gave in charge to his Apostles to set downe in writing. If this suffice not, I will stop the mouth of this Iesuit with the free confession of a greater Iesuit then hee, Gregorie of Valence in his eight booke 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 choyce to write, or not to write, or to write at another time, or to write in other words then they did. To the testimonie of Bel­larmine the Iesuit gives as sleight an answer as to the former out of S. Luke, whereunto I need to reply nothing, because in a case so cleere wee need not the Cardinals confession, having such expresse testimonie of Scripture and Fa­thers, as namely of Esay, to the law and to the te­stimonie, if they speake not according to this word, Deut. 4.2. Cursed is e­very one that continueth not in all things which are written in the booke of the law to doe them. And Moses wrote this law, and deli­vered it to the Priests which bare the Arke. Gal. 1.8. 2 Tim. 3.15. it is because there is no light in them, of Moyses, yee shall not adde unto the words which I command you (which to bee spoken of the written law is apparant by comparing this text with Galathians [Page 77]3.10. and Deuteronomie 31.9.) And the words of Christ, Iohn 5.39. search the Scriptures, for in them you thinke you have eternall life. And of S. Iohn his beloved Disciple, Iohn 20.31. these things are written that yee might beleeve that Iesus Christ is the Sonne of God, and that beleeving 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 yee 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. Austine expoundeth it praeterquam quod in Scripturis lega­libus & Evangelicis accepist is, if any preach unto you any Gospell beside that which is contained in the writings of the Law and the Gospell, let him bee ac­cursed. And, thou hast knowne the Scriptures from a child which are able to make thee wise unto salva­tion through faith which is in Christ Iesus, for all Scripture is given by Divine inspiration, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproofe, for correction, for instruction and righteosnesse, that the man of God may bee perfect throughly furnished to all good workes. And of Tertullian, I adore the fulnesse of Scriptures; let Hermogenes prove what hee saith out of Scriptures, or otherwise let him feare the woe denounced against all such as adde any thing there­unto, or take there-from. And of S. Cyprian; our brother Steven will have nothing to bee 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 bee kept, for God himselfe witnesseth that wee ought to observe those things that are written. And of [Page 78] 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 [...]. Ierom. 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. Iohan. l. 1.2. c. 68, ea conscripta sunt quae scribentes Sufficere put drunt ad mores dogmata (que). Vincen. Lyrin. advers. Haeres. hic requirat aliquis cum sit perfectus scripturae canon sibi (que) ad omnia sat is super (que) 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. Chry­sostome, all things that are needfull are manifestly set downe in holy Scriptures; And againe, in the ho­ly Scriptures wee have a most exact ballance and rule of all things. And of S. Ierome, who maketh the Scripture a two edged sword cutting heresies on both sides, both in the excesse, and in the defect, We beleeve, saith he, because were ade in Scriptures, we beleeve not what were ade not. And of S. Austine, among those things which are openly set downe in Scriptures, all such things are to bee found as ap­pertaine to faith and manners. And so of S. Cyril, all things which Christ spake and did are not writ­ten, but all are written which the writers of the Gos­pell thought to bee 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 Schoole-men Gabriel Biel, The Scripture a­lone teacheth us what we ought to beleeve and to hope for what things are to bee done, and what to bee [Page 79]shunned, and all other things that are necessarie to salvation. And of William Pepin, Dom. 2. advent sala haec scriptur adocet perfectè & planè quid cre­dendum, &c. The holy Scripture alone teacheth per­fectly and plainely, what wee ought to beleeve as the articles of our Creed, what wee ought to doe, as all divine precepts what wee ought to desire as hea­venly joyes, what we ought to feare; as eternall tor­ments. And of Scotus; In prim. sent. prol. q. 2. sacra scriptura suffi­cienter conti­net doctrinam necessariam viatori. The holy Scripture suffl­ciently containes doctrine necessarie for away faring man, that is in his travell to heaven. Howbeit, because Cardinall Bellarmine beareth downe all before him, the more to convince this Iesuit, and nonplus all Papists, I will examine what the Knight alledgeth out of him to our present pur­pose; All thing, are written, saith he, by the A­postles, which are necessarie for all men to know: If all things which are necessarie for all men to know, then all things which are necessarie for all Priests, Bishops, Cardinals, yea and the Pope him­selfe to know, unlesse the Iesuit will prove them to bee no men. Assuredly the Apostles and the Fathers assembled at Nice and Constantinople set not downe a different Creed for the Priest, and for the people, but one for all Christians. Yet I grant, that as the measures of the sanctuarie were double to the common; so the learning of a Priest ought to bee 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 [Page 80]other: yet nothing is required of them as necessa­rie to salvation, which may not bee drawne out of holy Scriptures, in which are contained all the treasures of wisdome 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 quo (que) 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 id (que) 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 worke, that is, as S. Chrysostome and Oecumenius expound it, ful­ly accurately, and exactly instructed. And for ever to seale the Iesuits mouth; thus much Gregorie the thirteenth Pope of Rome in his letters to Phi­lip King of Spaine, freely confesseth thus expati­ating in the praises of holy Writ, as for Theologie which is the prime Philosophie or metaphysick in these bookes (speaking of the Bible) all the my ste­ries of our religion, and divine knowledge are un­folded, and as for that part which is tearmed mo­rall; from hence all precepts to all vertues are ga­thered, and on these two parts depend all the course or meanes of our salvation and happinesse.

3. To the third. What Dominicus Banes wrote of certaine 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 bee truly applyed to the Bishops assembled at Trent, who are so free in casting their thunder-bolts of anathemaes against all that differ from them in judgement, that the learned and judicious ac­count divers of their Canons no better then Pot­guns. As arrowes that are shot bolt upright fall [Page 81]downe upon their heads that shoot them, unlesse they carfully looke to it: so causelesse curses fall alwayes upon the cursers themselves, and hurt none else. This made the Knight so much sleight the bruta fulmina of your Trent Councell. Yea but saith the Iesuit, It is a heavie 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 shee is tearmed the mother of fornications and abominati­ons of the earth; but shee is none of our mother, Ierusalem, or to speake more properly the catho­like christian Church is our mother, the Roman Church must speake us very faire; if wee owne her for a sister, even this sheweth her to bee no Mother, that shee is ever cursing us: the true Mother would by no meanes suffer her child to bee divided. This cruell Stepdame not only suf­fereth those whom shee would have taken for her children to be cut in sunder, but her selfe as much as in her lieth by her curses, divideth them from God, and all the members of Christs mysticall body, yet wee spare to apply the words of the Psalmist unto her; shee loved not blessing, and therefore it shall bee farre from her; Ps. 109.17.18 shee delighteth in cursing, and therefore shall it enter like oyle into her bowels, and like water into her bones. Howso­ever wee are not scared with the bugbeare, the Iesuit goeth about to fright us withall; Maledi­ctio matris eradicat fundamenta, the curse of a Mo­ther doth roote out the foundation; For first the [Page 82]booke out of which he citeth this text is not Ca­nonicall. Next we denie that the text any way concerneth us, who are blessed and not cursed by our Mother the true Catholike Church; as for the Roman Church shee can in no sence bee tear­med our mother. For we had Christian Religion in this Island, before there was any Church at Rome at all, as I have else-where proved at large. Lastly, the text the Iesuit alledgeth is falsly translated,Ecclesiasticus 3.11. he should have rendred the Greeke thus; A Mother in dishonour or defamed, is a reproach to her chil­dren, such a Mother wee grant the Church to be a reproach to all her children.

To the fourth.4 The number of Sacraments we prove two manner of wayes, first [...], 2 [...]; first by demonstrating our two; secondly, by refuting the five they adde there unto. Howsoever the Iesuit here as also Baylie the antagonist of Ri­vet insult upon us, as if it were unpossible to prove the precisenumber of two Sacraments and no more, because neither the name, nor the num­ber of Sacraments is any where set downe in ter­minis in Scripture: yet they shall find that wee faile not in proofes 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 drawne first from the name, secondly from the definition of Sacra­ments, thirdly from the example of Christ, fourthly from the end of the Sacraments, fiftly from the testimonies of the ancient Doctours of the Church.

1. From the name, Sacramentum is derived from the verbe sacrare, to consecrate, and signi­fieth a holy thing, a holy Rite whereby wee are consecrated unto God. Now it is evident that by Baptisme wee give our names to Christ, wee take our militare sacramentum, to fight under his banner, and that thereby wee are sanctified and consecrated to his service: the like wee may ob­serve in the Lords Supper, wherein wee offer our bodies and soules, as a holy and lively sacrifice un­to God, we are incorporated into Christs body, and made one bread and one body, because wee partake of one bread, the bread which we breake; Is it not the Communion of the body of Christ? the Cup of blessing which wee blesse, is it not the Communion of the bloud of Christ? In the rest which our Ad­versaries tearme Sacraments, there cannot bee given the like reason of the name. For by them wee neither put on Christ, as in Baptisme: nor are made members of his mysticall Body, as by the Lords Supper.

2. From the definition of Sacraments; every Sacrament of the New Testament is a seale of the new Covenant.Rom. 4.11. Now it is agreed on all parts that he only hath authoritie to seale the charter, in whose authoritie it is to grant it. But wee find that Christ in the New Testament set only two seales, Baptisme, the Institution whereof wee have, Teach all nations baptizing them, Math. 28.19. in the name of the Father, and of the Sonne, and of the holy Ghost; and the Lords Supper, the institution [Page 84]whereof wee have, bee tooke bread and brake it, saying, Luk 22.19. this is my Body, doe this in remembrance of mee. In these Sacraments wee have all the con­ditions required, first an outward and visible sign, in Baptisme water, in the Eucharist bread and wine. Secondly, an Analogie or correspon­dencie betweene the signe and the thing signified, betweene Water which washeth the body, and the spirit which washeth the soule; betweene bread and wine which nourisheth the body, and Christs body and bloud which nourisheth the soule. Thirdly, a promise of sanctifying and sa­ving grace, to all that use the outward rite accor­ding to our Lords institution: the promise annex­ed to Baptisme wee find,Mar. 16.16. Mtch. 26.28. Hee that beleeveth and is baptized, shall be saved; to the Eucharist wee find, this is the bloud of the new Testament, which is shed for you, Iohn 6.51. and for many, for the remission of sinnes, and if any one eate of this bread hee shall live for ever. When our adversaries shall prove in each of their five supernumerarie sacraments, these three conditions wee will subscribe to their whole number of seven, till then wee content ourselves with our two.

3. From the example of Christ.2 Christ our head consecrated in his owne person all those holy rites, which hee instituted for his owne members.Mat. 3.15. This Christ himselfe intimateth, when being repelled by S. Iohn from his baptisme, say­ing, I had need to bee baptized of thee, and com­mest thou to mee? He answered, Suffer it to bee so [Page 85]now, for thus it becommeth us to fulfill all righte­ousnesse. And S. Austine saith therefore Christ would bee baptized, 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 hee would doe that which hee commanded all others to doe, that as a good master hee 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 hee participated himselfe: of Baptisme, Math. 3.16. And Iesus when he was baptized, went up straight way out of the water: of the Eucharift; Matth. 26.29. I will not drinke hence-forth of this fruit of the vine, un­till the day when I drinke it new with you in my Fa­thers kingdome. Which words necessarily imply that before hee uttered them, hee had drunke of the cup which hee gave to them, saying, Drinke yee all of this.

4. From the end of the Sacraments.4 We need but two things to instate us in grace, remission of our sinnes, and ablution; no more to maintaine us in our christian life, but birth, apparell, food and physick: 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: wee are bred by the one, wee are fed by the other: wee are clothed by the one, wee are healed by the other.

5. From the testimonies of the ancient Do­ctours 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? Sacrū 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. Christs side was strucken, as the Gospell speaketh, and presently there issued out of it water and bloud, which are the [Page 86]two twin Sacraments of the Church, water whereby the Spouse is purified, and bloud wherewith shee is en­dowed. S. Isidore, the Sacraments are Baptisme and Chrisme, the body and bloud of Christ. Rupertus, which and how many are the chiefe Sacraments of our salvation? Hee answers two, holy Baptisme and the holy Eucharist of the body and bloud of Christ, the double gift of the holy Ghost. Paschasius, the Catholique Sacraments of the Christian Church, are Baptisme and the body and bloud of Christ. Fulbertus, the way of Christian religion is to be­leeve the Trinitie and veritie of the Deitie, and to know the cause of his Baptisme, and in whom the two Sacraments of our life are contained. Of all these arguments brought by Protestants the Iesuit could not be ignorant. Yet hee glaunceth only at one of them, to wit, the second which he would make us beleeve to bee an absurd begging the point in question; How can, saith he, Sacraments bee Seales 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 fallacie called petitio Principij. As S. Austine spake of the Pharisees, Quid aliud eructarent quàm quo pleni erant, What other things should these Pharisees belch out, then that wherewith they were full: wee may in like manner aske, what could wee expect for the Ie­suit to belch out against the Knight, then that which he is full of himselfe, sophismes and falla­cies. That which hee pretends to find in the Knights argument every man may see in his, to [Page 87]wit, a beggarly fallacie called homonymia. For the Word may be taken either largely for the whole Scripture, and in that sense wee 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 wee prove out of the Apostle, against whom I trust the Iesuit dare not argue; what Circumcisi­on was to Abraham and the Iewes, that Baptisme succeeding in the place thereof, is to vs: but Cir­cuncision was a Seale to them of the righteousnesse of faith promised to Abraham and his posteritie: Rom. 4.11. therefore in like manner Baptisme is a seale unto us of the like promise. What Bellarmine urgeth against our definition of a Sacrament to whom the Iesuit sendeth us, is refuted at large by Mo­lineus Daneus, Rivetus, Willet, and Chamier, to whom in like manner I remand the Iesuit, who here desiring, as it seemed, to bee catechised as­keth, what promises are sealed by the Sacra­ments? I answer, of regeneration and com­munion with Christ. His second quaere is, what need more seales then one? or if more, why not seven as well as two? I answer, Christ might adde as many Seales as hee pleased, but in the new Te­stament hee hath put but two, neither need wee 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 Iesuit concerning the King, what need he more Seales then one? or if he would have more, why not seven as well as two? [Page 88]I know how hee would answer, that the King might affix as many seales to his patents, and other grants as hee pleaseth: but quia frustra fit per plur a quod fieri potest per pauciora, because two seales are sufficient, the Privie seale, and the broad seale: therefore his Majestie useth no other. Which answer of his cuts the wind-pipe of his owne objection. His last question is a blind one, how may wee see, saith he, the promises of God in the Sacraments? S. Ambrose and S. Austine will tell him by the eye of faith, Magis videtur, saith S. Ambrose, quod non videtur, that is more or bet­ter seene, which is not seene with bodily eyes; Sa­craments, saith S. Austine, are visible words, be­cause what words represent to the eares, that Sacra­ments represent to their eyes, which are anointed with the eye-salve of the spirit. In the Word we heare, the bloud of Christ clenseth us from our sinnes, in the Sacrament of Baptisme we see it af­ter a sort in the washing of our body with wa­ter: in the Word wee heare Christs bloud 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 wee heare, that Christ is the bread of life, which nourisheth our soules to eternall life: In the Sacrament after a sort wee see it by feeding on the Consecrated elements of Bread and Wine, whereby our body is nourished, and our tempo­rall life maintained and preserved.

To the fift.5 In the former Paragraph we han­dled [Page 89]those Arguments which the Logicians tearme Dicticall, [...]. in this we are to make good our Elencticall; in the former we proved positively two Sacraments in this privatively we are to ex­clude, and casheere all that the Church of Rome hath added to these two which deviseth Sacra­ments upon so weake grounds, and detorteth Scripture in such sort for the maintenance of them, that a learned Divine wisheth, that as for the remedie of other sinnes, so there were a Sa­crament instituted as a speciall remedie against audacious inventions in this kind, and deprava­tions of holy Scripture to convince them. For of an Epiphonema this is a great mysterie, Ephes. 5.32. they have made a Sacrament, the sacrament of Matrimo­nie: of a promise, whose sinnes yee remit, Iohn 20.23. they are remitted; they have made a second Sacrament the sacrament of Penance: of an enumeration of the Governours and Ministers of the Church, Ephes. 4.11. And hee gave some, Apostles: some Prophets: some, Pastours 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 anoynting them with oyle in the name of the Lord; a fift Sacrament, the sacrament of Extreame Vnction. A child can­not be bishopped; a single partie contracted; a Priest or Deacon ordained; a penitent reconciled; a dying [Page 90]man dismissed in peace, without a sacrament, the sacrament of Extreame Vnction. If they take Sacrament in a large sense, for every divine My­sterie, holy Ordinance, or sacred Rite, they may find as well seventeene 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 signe or element representing and applying unto us some invisible sanctifying and saving grace; I wish the Iesuit might but practise one of their Sacraments, that is, doe penance so long till hee found in Scripture that, and the other foure Sa­craments which they have added to the two Insti­tuted by Christ. To begin with them in order, and give Order the first place, wee acknowledge the ordination of Priests and Deacons by Bi­shops to be de jure divino, and we beleeve where they are done according to Christs Institution, that grace is ordinarily given to the party ordai­ned, but not sacramentall 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 soule of the ordained. Besides, this Sacrament of order is out of order. For it hath no element added to the sanctified forme 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 [Page 91]on all sides, that as in the Sacraments of the old Law, so of the New, the elements must not bee confounded. Neither doth Christ any where command that in the ordination of Bishops, or Priests, such a Rite or Ceremonie should be used: neither doth the Host or Chalice signifie 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 signe of an invisible grace; no Seale of the new Co­venant. For the Patent, Chalice, and Bible, they are not, as before was said, any sacramentall signes of divine grace, but only ensignes and tokens of their severall offices and functions, or instru­ments that are to bee used in their ministration besides, every one of these orders is conferred by words and Ceremoniss cleane 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 bee neere doubled. Bellarmines 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 turne, 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 Aposto­licall tradition, not as a Sacrament of Divine In­stitution. For where doth Christ command that those who have heene baptized, should bee after confirmed by a Bishop? Where is an element or forme of words prescribed by Christ as in Bap­tisme and the Lords Supper? The Iesuit answe­reth that the element in this Sacrament is chrisme, or oyle, but this cannot be: as well because in di­vers Sacraments there ought to bee divers ele­ments, and therefore sith Chrisme and oyle is the element in Extreame Unction, which taketh the name from thence, it cannot bee the matter or element in Confirmation. Accedit verbum ad ele­mentum, saith S. Austine, & 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 Greeke Oratour spake of the evill lawes enacted in his time,Aristor. Rbet. l. 2. [...], the lawes need a law to mend them: so we may say of this Sacrament of Confirmation, it needeth confirmation and better proofe for it, then 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 forme of words prescribed by Christ: no visible signe of invisible grace. No [Page 93](saith Flood) is not the true sorrow of heart decla­red by humble confession, together with prayer, fa­sting, and Almes-deeds, an outward element, or thing to bee perceived by sense? I answer, that eve­ry thing perceived by sense, is not presently an element in a Sacrament, it must bee as the Schooles out of S. Austine define a visible signe of invisible grace. Confession and prayer are in­deed audible, but not visible: Fasting and Almes­deedes are visible, but visible workes of pietie and charitie, not visible elements in the Sacra­ments: they are morall duties, not sacramentall Rites. For what correspondencie is betweene these, and absolution or remission of sinnes? how doth Fasting or Almes exhibit to the eye this invisible grace? Contrition of the heart of which hee speaketh, is no visible or sensible signe, Confession is sensible, but not vi­sible, nor ordained as the elements are in Sacra­ments to signifie the grace of God, but to aske it: the sacred signes ought to be administred by the Priest, but Confession is made by the penitent, the same may be said of corporall satisfactions which are accomplished by the sinner, and com­monly in his house by fastings, or whippings, or abroad by pilgrimages, whereas sacred signes are to bee administred by the hands of the Priest, and ordinarily in the Church; Absolution also cannot bee a sacred signe of the grace of God, seeing that if it bee good and available, it is the grace of God; besides this Absolution, is not an [Page 94]element, nor a visible signe of an invisible grace, for the words are not seene: 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 bee a sacrament, for it is significantly the grace of God. In all Sacraments the Word must bee joyned to the element; but here they will have the Word to bee 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 Councell, and the Roman Catechisme come to assigne the matter of this Sacrament, they doe 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 Matrimonie, it is a holy ordinance of God, but more ancient then the New Testa­ment, and therefore can be no seale of it: it was instituted by God in Paradise, not by Christ in the Gospell: yea but (saith the Iesuit) though it were before a naturall contract, yet might it not be exalted by Christ to the dignitie of a Sacra­ment? I answer, the Iesuit must not dispute what Christ might doe, but what hee did; When hee proveth out of the Evangelists or Apostles, that Christ exalted it to the dignitie of a Sacrament, wee will hold it in that high esteeme, but this hee can never doe: for none of the Evangelists relate that hee altered the Law, or nature of Matrimo­nie: [Page 95]but only that hee confirmed it, and honou­red it with his presence, and the first Miracle which hee wrought. Other exaltation wee find not in the Gospell; And as S. Ierome speaketh in the like kind, quia non legimus, non credimus, be­cause wee reade it not, wee beleeve it not.

Our second exception against the Sacrament of Matrimonie is, that in it there is no outward element sanctified by the Word of promise. To this the Iesnit answereth; the bodies of men and women, are they not as much as an outward ele­ment? Yes surely as much in quantitie and more too:Bell. l. 1. de matrim. c. 6. Si matrimonium consideretur. Vt jam factum & celebratum conjugati sunt materiale Synbolum & externū cujus re fut at. vid. apud Chamie­rum Panistrat. Cathol. de sacr. l. 4, c. 27. but none ever before this Iesuit and his Ma­ster Bellarmine maketh mens bodies outward ele­ments in any Sacrament: the bodies of men and their soules are either the Ministers, or receivers in every Sacrament, not the elements or materi­all parts thereof. The element in every Sacra­ment hath the denomination of the whole, as when wee say the sacrament of Circumcision, of the Passeover, of bread and wine: but who ever heard of the sacrament of men and womens bo­dies. Our third exception against the sacrament of Matrimonie is that if it bee a sacrament con­ferring grace, as they teach, ex opere operato, why doe they deprive Priests of it? and make them take a solemne vow against it? The Iesuit answe­reth, that though Mariagebee a holy thing, as Order also is, yet as Order is forbidden to all women, so upon good reason Mariage is forbidden all Priests. Tis true, I grant that all holy things in them­selves [Page 96]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 speake in the Church; 1 Cor. 14.34 and it seemeth to bee against the law of nature, that the weaker and more ignoble sex should be appointed to in­struct and governe the stronger and more noble: but there is not the like reason in Order and Ma­trimonie.Heb. 13.4. For the Scripture saith, Mariage is ho­nourable among all, but not that the order of Priesthood is commendable in all men. Much lesse women, yet the Iesuit saith, that upon good reason Mariage 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 bee agreeable to the most sa­cred function, that a holy Rite conferring grace should not bee agreeable to a religious life. If Marriage were any disparagement to the holinesse 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 hee were married, and brought up children,Sozom. Eccles. hist. l. 1. c. 11. Chrys. in Gen. 5.22. vet that hee was nothing thereby [...] hindered or disparaged in his sa­cred function, and S. Chrysostome in his Homi­lie upon those words, Enoch walked with God, noteth it that it is said twice for failing, Enoch walked with God, and begat sonnes and daughters to teach us that marriage is no impeachment to ho­linesse, or the highest degree of perfection, whereby [Page 97]wee are said to walke with God. To shut up this point concerning Matrimonie, Cardinal Bellar­mine teacheth us, that the seven Sacraments an­wer seven Vertues; Baptisme answereth to Faith, Confirmation to Hope, the Eucharist to Chari­tie, Penance to Iustice, Extreame Vnction to For­titude, and Matrimonie to continence or tempe­rance; if so, then certainly Matrimonie is most a­greeable to the office of a Bishop or Priest;1 Tim. 3.2. For a Bishop must hee continent and modest, and as it there followeth, the husband of one wife; and unlesse the rules of Logick faile, if Matrimonie hold correspondencie with temperance, the prohibiti­on thereof, and forced single life must needs an­swer to intemperance, as the testimonie of all ages proveth it.

For Extreame Vnction the lagge of all their Sacraments little or nothing can bee said. For it wanteth all the three conditions requisite to a Sa­crament: it hath neither element, nor forme of words prescribed by Christ, nor any promise of saving & sanctifying grace. The Apostles indeed used oile, but as a medicine to heale the body, not as a sacrament to cure the soule. As the Apostles used oyle, 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, wherby the sick were mi­raculously cured, is ceased long agoe; if the Iesuit will not give eare to us, let him yet yeeld so much [Page 98]respect to Cardinall 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, Iames 5.14.15. let him call for the Elders of the Church, and let them pray over him, anoyn­ting him with oyle in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up, and if hee have committed sins they shall bee forgiven him. Cajet. com. in hunc locum neque ex ver­bīs, neque ex effectu, verba baec loquuntur de Sacramen­tali Vnctione, seu sacramento Extremae Vn­ctionis sed ma­gis de Vnctione quam instituit Dominus Iesus 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 Vnction is ri­tu alienumest. On these words thus Cajetan inferreth, it cannot bee gathered either from the words, nor from the effect here mentioned, that the Apostle speaketh of sacramentall or Ex. treame Vnction, but rather of that anoynting which Christ appointed in the Gospell to bee 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 hee attributeth to this anoynting is the ease or raising of the sick; of remission of sinnes he speaks but conditionally, where as Extreame Vnction is gi­ven to none but at the point of death, and directly tendeth to remission of sinnes as the forme impor­teth. Adde hereunto that S. Iames commandeth many Elders to be sent for, both to pray and anoynt the sick, which is not done in Extreame Vn­ction.

To the sixt.6 The Knight having shot two ar­rowes out of S. Austines quiver, the one with a head, the other without, yet sharpe pointed: the Iesuit quite concealeth the one, and endeavours to blunt the other. The former hee drew out of S. Austine his treatise de symbole ad catechumenos, where speaking of Baptisme and the Lords Sup­per, he saith, haec sunt Ecclesiae gemina Sacramen­ta, these are the two twin Sacraments of the Church. De latere in cruce pen­dentis lanceâ percusso sa­cramenta Ec­clesiae profluxe­runt. to this the Iesuit answereth, negry quidem. To the other taken out of the 15. tract vpon S. Iohn, that out of the side of Christ the Sacraments of the Churchissued, he would seeme to answer some­thing. First he quarrelleth at the quotation, say­ing, I doe not thinke 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 Iesuits good friend Card.De Sacram. in gen. l. 2. c. 27. Amb. l. 10. in Luc. & Bed. c. 19. Ioh. in­telligunt per sanguinem qui è latere efflux­it redemption is pretium, & per aquam baptismum. Bellarmine citeth them both, his words are, Ambrose in his tenth booke upon S. Luke, and Bede in his comment upon the 19. of S. Iohn understand by blood which issued out of our Saviours side the price of our re­demption by water Baptisme. Next the Iesuit en­deavoureth to untwist this triple cord, by saying that these three Fathers speake of Sacraments is­suing out of Christs side, but no way restraine the number to two. Whereunto I reply, that though the word Sacramenta for the number may bee as well said of seven as two Sacraments: yet where S. Austine alludeth to the same text of [Page 100]Scripture, and falleth upon the same conceite, he restraineth the number to two, saying, there issued out of Christs side water and blood, quae sunt Ec­clesiae gemina Sacramenta. Now I would faine know of the Iesuit where ever hee read gemina to signifie seven, or more then two? Were the Dioscuri which are commonly knowne by the name of gemini seven, or two only, to wit, Ca­stor and Pollax? As for S. Ambrose and Bede though they say not totidem verbis, that the two Sacraments of the Church issued out of Christs side, as S. Austine doth: yet they can bee under­stood of no more then two Sacraments: for there were but two things which issued out of our Saviours side, to wit, water and blood, whereby they understand Baptisme and the Lords Supper. Had there issued out of our Saviours side, toge­ther with water and blood Chrisme or balsamum, or had a rib beene taken from thence, the Iesuit might have some colour to draw more Sacra­ments out of it: but now sith the Text saith there issued onely two things, water and blood; and the Fathers say the Sacraments of the Church are thereby meant: it is most apparant that by Sacra­menta they meant those two only: which they there name in expresse words, Baptisme and the price of our redemption, that is Christs blood in the Eucharist.

To the seventh. The authoritie of S. Ambrose is as a thorne in the Iesuits eye, for it cannot but bee a great prejudice to their cause, that so lear­ned [Page 101]a Bishop as S. Ambrose, writing six bookes professedly of the Sacraments omitteth the Ro­mish five, and spendeth his whole discourse upon our two. If the Church in his time beleeved or administred seven Sacraments, hee 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 treate of the ele­ments, or the parts of the world which are foure, or of the Pleiades 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 thorne, 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 sheweth.) For first S. Ambrose hath no booke of that title, viz. An instruction to them who are to bee catechized, or are beginners in Chri­stianitie. The title of that booke is De ijs qui ini­tiantur, of those who are initiated or entred into ho­ly mysteries. Secondly, this is not the title of any of the six bookes de sacramentis alledged by the Knight, but of another tractate. Thirdly, admit that S. Ambrose, as S. Austine and Cyrill wrote to the Catechumeni, and intended a Catechisme: yet they were to name all the Sacraments unto them, as all Divines usually doe in their Catechismes: because the Sacraments are alwayes handled a­mong the grounds, and principles of Christian religion. And though the Catechumeni are not presently admitted unto all, yet they are to learne [Page 102]what they are, that they may bee the better pre­pared in due time to receive them. Fourthly, it is evidently untrue (which the Iesuit saith) that S. Ambrose writeth not to the beleevers of that age, but only to some beginners. The very front of his booke proves the Iesuit to bee frontlesse. For S. Ambrose his first words are, I will begin to speake of the Sacraments which wee have recei­ved, &c. In Christiano enim viro prima est fides, for the first thing in a Christian man is faith. And as hee writeth to all beleevers not beginners on­ly, so hee speaketh also of the chiefe Sacraments of the New Testament, and not of those only which the catechumeni received, as is apparant out of the fourth chapter of the first booke De sacra­mentis. Wherein hee 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 then those of the Iewes; and hee instanceth especially in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. Lastly, the Iesuit in this answer apparantly contradicteth himselfe, first, saying that S. Ambrose intent in that Worke was only to instruct the catechumeni in those things that were to be done in the time of Baptisme, 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 adbuc se habere in potestate putent. that he writeth of the Sacraments whereby they were so initiated which are three, Baptisme, Confirmation, and the Eucha­rist. So true is Budaeus his observation, That lyes dash one with the other, and truth breakes out of [Page 103]the mouth of the lyar ere hee is aware. Who ever heard of the Eucharist to bee administred in the time of Baptisme, or that the Eucharist was administred at all to the punies or catechumeni whilest they were such, certainly if the catecu­meni or younger beginners, to whom hee saith S. Ambrose wrote, were capable of the doctrine of the Eucharist, containing in it the highest myste­ries of Christianitie, they were much more capa­ble of Penance, Matrimonie, and Extreame Un­ction, which are easie to bee understood by any novice in Christian religion.

To the eight.8 That it may appeare what was the judgement of S. Austine in this maine point of difference, betweene the Reformed and the Ro­man Church, I will weigh what is brought on both sides, first what the Iesuit alledgeth for se­ven: and then what the Knight for two. S. Au­stine having written divers Catechisticall trea­tises, in which hee had occasion to name and handle the Sacraments: yet no where defineth the number of them to bee seven, neither nameth all of them either joyntly or severally: this the Iesuit knowing well enough, bringeth no one testimonie for the proofe of their seven Sacra­ments out of him, but forceth only some senten­ces to prove out of them that hee held more then two, as namely out of his first Sermon upon the 103. Psalme, Cast thine eyes upon the gifts or of­fices of the Church in Baptisme, the Eucharist, and the rest of the holy Sacraments, and Epist. 118. [Page 104]having brought in two Sacraments, Baptisme and the Lords Supper, hee addeth such a generall clause, and if there bee any thing else commended in holy Scriptures; which words of his import that hee held more sacraments then Baptisme and the Lords Supper, in that very sense wherein those two by him named are called Sacraments. I answer, S. Austine 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 Iesuit insisteth upon: it impor­teth only a generical convenience and similitude not a specificall; and so wee acknowledge that there are many sacred rites in the Church, which agree with Baptisme and the Lords Supper in the genericall notion of Sacraments: but not in the specificall as the word Sacrament is taken for a peculiar seale of the New Testament, having thereunto annexed a promise of justifying grace. Now let us weigh what the Knight alledgeth out of S. Austine 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 easie, in signification most excel­lent, as is the Sacrament of Baptisme and the Lords Supper. To disappoint this testimonie, the Iesuit first layeth corruption and falsification to the Knights charge, because S. Austines words are signa pauca, not sacramenta. Which is nothing but a meere cavill, for signa and sacramenta are in [Page 105] S. Austine no other then synonima, by signa hee can meane no other then 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 Iesuit, for it is plaine by the word sicut, that hee bringeth in Baptisme and the Lords Supper for example only, and doth not re­straine the signa to these two. It is not plaine, for sicut bringeth in an example be it one, or more, neither can wee from thence inferre that there are more. For S. Iohn speaking of our Saviour saith, vidimus gloriam ejus sicut unigeniti filij Dei, Wee beheld the glorie as of the only begotten Sonne of the Father. Will the Iesuit from thence inferre that God had more only begotten sonnes? but to expound S. Austine out of himselfe those signes or Sacraments which here hee calls a few, in his 118. Epistle hee tearmes most few (Sacrament is numero paucissimis) surely seven Sacraments are not numero paucissima, fewest in number, but two are so: and therefore in his booke De symbolo ad catechumenos, he tearmeth them gemina Ecclesiae sacramenta; which passage the Iesuit taketh no notice of, because hee could give no answer at all unto it, yet hee setteth a good face upon the matter saying, this may suffice for such testimo­nies as were alledged out of S. Austine. Of all the Roman Captaines I cannot liken him fitter to a­ny then to Terentius Varro, who though hee fought so unhappily against Hanniball at Cannae, that hee lost 40000. men upon the place, yet hee [Page 106]seemed to bee little daunted therewith, and the Roman Senat sent him publike thankes, quòd de republicâ non desperâsset, that hee despaired not of the Common-wealth.

To the ninth.9 The authour of the treatise De ablutione pedum, who was farre later then S. Cy­prian, mentioneth indeed five sacraments which are more then two, yet lesse then seven, and for those five hee nameth, it is evident hee intended not that they were Sacraments in a strict sense. For one of them is ablutio pedum, which if it bee a Sacrament in the proper sense, then hath the Ie­suit an eighth sacrament as himselfe is sapientum octavus. Not so, saith hee, for ablutio pedum which that Authour meaneth is the sacrament of Penance. Then belike Peter and the Apostles did Penance whilest Christ washed their feet. Al­though there may lie hid some mysterie in that ablution,L. 2. de sac. c. 24. and therefore it may bee tearmed a Sa­crament in a large sense, as Bellarmine expoundeth that authour. Yet our Lord himselfe revealeth unto us no other mysterie, nor maketh any other inference from it then a patterne of humilitie,Ioh. 13, 14. If I your Lord and Master have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one anothers feet. Yea but (saith Flood,) the authour speaketh of another Laver after Baptisme, and what can that bee other then Penance? He speaketh of another laver, not of another Sacrament, which laver is no other then the laver of penitent teares. But dicis causa, let ablutio pedum be Penance, yet wee have but foure [Page 107]Sacraments mentioned by this Author, what be­commeth of the other three? To this hee answe­reth that the Authour mentioned not them because his scope was in that place to speake of such Sacraments as had relation to our Saviours last Supper. A ridiculous evasion, for what relation hath Bap­tisme, or Penance, or Confirmation, or order to our Lords Supper? But the Iesuit like a Lawyer that hath taken his fee of his Client, thought himselfe bound in conscience to speake some­thing in behalfe of this Authour, 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 Iesuit in his answer to S. Isi­dore bewrayes extreame negligence. For the Knight quoting S. Isidore at large in his sixt 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 immediatly following, to wit, the 19. according to the later edition of S. Isidore (but in the 18. according to the former) the testimonie alledged by the Knight is found in expresse words, and Baptisme, Chrisme, and the Lords Supper reckoned by him for the Sacraments of the Church there, without ad­dition of any other; If hee had held seven sacra­ments, questionlesse in that place hee would have named all, or at least the major part of them. The Iesuit applieth a plaister to this sore, to wit, that else-where the same Father mentioneth Penance [Page 108]and Matrimonie. But the plaister is too narrow, and the salve of no vertue at all. First, it is too narrow, for though Penance and Matrimonie be added to Baptisme, Chrisme and the Lords Sup­per, we have yet but foure (or if we take Chrisme not for a Ceremonie used in Baptisme but a di­stinct Sacrament from it) at the most, but five: wee are still out of our reckoning, wee heare no­thing of Order and Extreame Vnction. Second­ly, as the plaister is too narrow, so the salve spread on it is of no vertue at all. For though S. Isidore compareth Penance to Baptifme in respect of the effect thereof, viz. washing away of sinne, yet he maketh not thereby Penance a Sacrament. Whatsoever washeth away sinne is not therefore a Sacrament,Acts 15.9. Faith purifieth the heart, as the Apo­stle speaketh;Luk. 11.41. and Christ himselfe saith, doe Almes, and all things shall bee cleane unto you; Yet doth it not from thence follow, that either Faith or Charitie are Sacraments. For Matrimo­nie he saith indeed there are three boones or good things in it, or as the Iesuit translateth the words, three goods of it, fides, proles & sacramentum, faith, issue, and a Sacrament, but by sacrament there hee understandeth the great mysterie of the union of Christ with his Church, whereof Ma­trimonie is a signe, and hee 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 Latine interpreter translateth sacramentum, as hee doth also the sacrament of the woman, and as strongly might they conclude out [Page 109]of him, that the Whore of Babylon is an eight Sa­crament, as Matrimonie 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 booke of Homilies Mariage is called a Sacrament as all sacred Rites may in a large sense. The Iesuit should have proved according to his undertaking pag. 202. that Mariage is a Sacrament in a strict sense, but his proofes are as his honesty is at large.

To the eleventh. Hallensis lived in a darke age, yet in this point hee saw some light through a chinke, whereby he discovered that three of their supposed Sacraments, to wit, Order, Penance,11 and Matrimonie had their being before the New Testament,Part. 4. q. 5. memb. 2. and consequently were not to bee said properly the Sacraments of the new Law: and hee giveth us also a sufficient reason to ex­clude the fourth, to wit, Confirmation; because as hee teacheth, the forme and matter thereof were not appointed by our Saviour, but by the Church in a Councell held at Melda. Yea but saith the Iesuit hee addeth, fine praejudicio dicendum, let this bee spoken with leave, adding, let us heare but such a word from the Knights mouth, and hee shall see the matter will soone bee ended. For answer whereun­to I say, first, that the words of Hallensis, sine praejudicio, no whit prejudice the truth of his as­sertion: but only shew the modestie of the man. Next, for the Knight, whosoever peruseth his Booke with the Preface, shall find that hee spea­keth farre more modestly and submissively then Hallensis here doth,Part. 4. q. 5. memb. 7. art. 2 Sed tumor Iesuitae non capit illius modum. What Hallensis concludeth that [Page 110]there be neither more nor fewer then 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 Iesuit so expound Hallensis he maketh him contradict himselfe, and so utter­ly disableth his testimonie. For all Sacraments properly so called of the new Law must be insti­tuted by Christ, the authour of the new Law, which Hallensis denieth of Confirmation. A­gaine, they must have their being by the new Law, not before which hee affirmeth of three of the seven Sacraments as I shewed before.

To the twelfth.12 Wheresoever the Knight ma­keth mention of Hugo, the Iesuit maketh an hi­deous noise like an hue and cry, you say, saith the Iesuit, P. 231. of Hugo, that hee 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 wagge it, you know what I meane, &c. The Knight knoweth well what you meane, and also what manner of men they are, who hold up their finger in such sort, viz. fooles or mad-men, utrum horum mavult accipi­at. Is it a matter that deserveth such hooting to al­ledge Hugo de sancto victore out of Master Perkins in his Problemes a most learned worke, against which never a Papist yet durst quatch. How ma­ny hundred testimonies doe Bellarmine and Baro­nius, and this Iesuit alledge at the second hand? Were the allegation false, Master Perkins must [Page 111]beare the blame, who misquoted Hugo, not the Knight, who rightly alledgeth Master Perkins, but the Iesuit neither doth nor can disprove the allegation, but out of another booke of Hugo he alledgeth a passage for seven Sacraments, which yet as I shall shew hereafter may well stand with that which Master Perkins alledgeth out of him against Penance. But before I expound Hugo, I wish the reader to observe in the Iesuit, how true that is which the Naturalists relate concerning Serpents, that the more venemous they are,Plin. l. 8. c. 23. Aspidi hebetes oculi dati, eos (que) non in fronte sed in tempori­bus habet. the shorter sighted they are. Hee who odiously and malitiously chargeth the Knight with a false quo­tation in this very place falsly quoteth the same Authour himselfe. For the words hee alledgeth out of him, to wit, that there are seven principall Sacraments of the Church, are not found in the booke he quoteth, viz. speculum de myst. 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 Iesuits negligence, nor helpeth at all his cause. For he that saith there are seven principall Sacraments, implieth that there are more then seven, though lesse principall. Either Hugo taketh the word Sacrament in a large or strict sence: if in a large, he contradicteth not us; if in a strict sence, he contradicteth the Iesuit and the Trent Fathers, for they teach there are no more then seven Sacraments, whether principall, or not principall. Hugo reckoning seven as prin­cipall tacitly admitteth other as lesse principall. [Page 112]Yet the Iesuit singeth an Iôpoean to himselfe, and most insolently insulteth upon the Knight, P. 231. say­ing, Bcause you may lesse doubt of Penance, whereof for thus abusing your authour and reader you de­serve no small part, he hath a particular [...] hapter, wherein hee calleth it as wee doe with S. Ierome the second board after shipwrack, and saith that if a man endanger his clensing which hee hath received, by Baptisme he may rise and escape by Penance. How say you to this Sir Humfrey? have I not just cause to tell you your owne? Agreed, suum cui (que) let the Iesuit tell the Knight, and I will tell the Iesuit his owne; the Knight neither holdeth with the do­ctrine of Merit, nor the sacrament of Penance; the Iesuit who holdeth both may by his beliefe merit their holy sacrament of Penance, for egre­giously abusing Hugo de Sancto Victore, and S. Ie­rome 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 hee calleth Penance as wee doe with S. Ierome, the second boord after shipwracke, Ergo, Penance is a Sacrament of the new Law; doth he not deserve for concluding so absurdly, to have the character of his owne sacrament in­delebly imprinted upon his flesh?

To the thirteenth.13 The Knight alledgeth not Bellarmine nor Hugo, nor Peter Lombard, nor Bo­naventure, nor Hallensis, nor Altisiodorensis, nor Suarez himselfe; as if they expresly and in direct tearmes denied Extreame Unction to bee a sacra­ment: [Page 113]this they doe not, neither as things stood with some of them might doe safely, the Roman Church having defined the contrarie. Yet so great is the force of truth, that what in words they affirme 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 hee, have denied that this Sacrament was instituted by Christ, whence it followeth by plaine consequence that it is no true Sacrament. Yea but saith Flood, if those Schoole-men had lived in this age, they would have said that Christ did institute it. Whereunto I answer, that all Iudgements pro­ceed ex allegatis & probatis, not allegandis & pro­bandis upon things alledged, and proved not upon things to be alledged 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 Catholiques, as they tearme them, sub­mit not at this day to all the Decrees of that Councell: much lesse may it bee thought that those ancient and acute schoole Divines, who bare the greatest sway in their times, would have suffered themselves to baffled by the pretence of a pettie Councell, 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 downe in Scripture, the former pillar the ancient Schoole­men take from Extreame Unction: the later Bel­larmine [Page 114]and Cajetan, how then can it stand? The Iesuit answereth upon a third pillar unwritten tra­dition. But this I have proved before to be a weak and rotten one: and to speake the truth it serveth Papists as pons Asinorum did the ancient Logi­cians to which they fly for shelter, when all other helpe faileth them. Albeit they bragge much of Scripture, yet upon examination of particulars it will appeare, that their new Trent Creed consi­sting of twelve supernumerarie 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 faine know of them how they prove to be Gods 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 bee Gods word by tradition, then they prove idem per i­dem the same thing by it selfe, and build their faith upon a sillie sophisme called petitio príncipij, the begging the maine point in question.

To the fourteenth.14 In the allegation of Car­dinal Bessario the Iesuit chargeth the Knight with ambiguous translation,P. 225. and so placing the words, that they may have a double sence, the one to deceive the simple, and the other to excuse him­selfe against the objections of the learned: and for this he pronounceth a woe against him, vae [Page 115]peccatori terra [...] ingredienti duabus vijs, Woe to the sinner going on the earth two wayes: 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 hee saw two Sunnes, when yet there was but one in the skie: so the Iesuit in a fit of frantick malice, ima­gined the Knight to goe two wayes whereas hee goeth but one, and that a faire and streight way, for he setteth the Latine words of the Cardinall without any adition or detraction in the mar­gent, haec duo sola sacramenta in Evangelijs ma­nifestè tradita legimus, and hee translateth them faithfully: wee reade that these two Sacraments only were delivered us plainly in Scriptures; hee rende­reth not the words we reade plainly in Scriptures, that there were two only Sacraments delivered unto us, which had beene a misplacing of Bessa­rions words, and mis-interpretation of his mea­ning, bu wee reade that these two only were plainly delivered in the Gospell; there is no more ambi­guitie in the translation then in the originall, which though it denieth not that other Sacra­ments may bee delivered in the Gospell, 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 paine of damna­tion to be beleeved; for as I proved before out of S. Austine, and S. Chrysostome, all things that con­cerne faith and manners, and are necessarie to sal­vation are plainly delivered in holy Scriptures.

To the fifteenth.15 Some Papistsas Flood con­fesseth [Page 116]denie the foure inferiour Orders to be Sa­craments,P. 234. and Soto denieth the superiour, 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 alledged more for the one then the other? and if the ordination of Priests be no sacrament, much lesse Deacons, or subdea­cons or Acolytes or Exorcists. Whether there be the same character imprinted in the ordination of Bishops, and Priests, it is not materiall to our present question, for if it be the same, then it fol­loweth according to the doctrine of the Schooles, that they are one and the selfe-same Sacrament: if a diverse character bee imptinted by the one, and by the other, then are they two distinct Sacraments. If they are the same Sacra­ments, then Soto denying the one, consequently denieth the other to bee a Sacrament: if they are distinct Sacraments, then there are eight Sacra­ments. Yea but saith the Iesuit, Whither there bee a new character in a Bishop, or the same extended is no matter of faith, and therefore wee are not to dispute with you of it, but keepe you off at the staffes end, or rather out of doores: when you are once ad­mitted into the Catholique Church, wee may admit you to speake of a Schoole-point or else not. Wee know well that yee are loath that we should heare of your differences among your selves: but the fire of contention cannot bee kept within the [Page 117]walls of your Schooles, quis enim celaverit ig­nem? Lumine qui semper proditur ipse suo, it breaketh out, and if ye looke not to it, it will set on fire the whole fabrick of your Romish Babel. Meane while the Iesuit giveth us great incou­ragement to desire to bee admitted into the Ro­man Church, because then forsooth wee shall have leave to tread the endlesse mazes of scholasti­call disputes.

To the sixteenth. If Soto come short,16 Durand commeth home to the point in question, for hee affirmeth that which is alledged by the Knight, and confessed by the Iesuit, that Matrimonie is not a Sacrament univocally, if not univocally, not truly and properly, but equivocally or analogical­ly. Yea but saith the Iesuit, all acknowledge it for anerror in Durand: hee saith all, but hee 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 Councell of Trent, they are but a faction in the Church, nor is their authoritie more to be urged against the Doctours of the reformed Churches, then the authoritie of the Doctours 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 looke. For the definition of the Church in the Councel of Florence, which the Iesuit toucheth upon, it is of little or no authoritie, because that Councell [Page 118]was not general, nor called by lawfull authoritie, but by the schismaticall Pope Eugenius the fourth, who was deposed by a generall Councell held at Basil.

To the seventeenth.17 Because the Iesuit is for­bidden by the Popes law to tast of the fruits of Matrimonie, at which it seemes his mouth waters, hee 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 bee a Sacrament. Out of the words of S. Paul Ephesians the fift, hee 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 returne fies; fie for shame that they should bind all their followers under paine of a heavie curse to beleeve this Sa­crament of Matrimonie, and yet know not where to ground this their beliefe, upon Scrip­ture or tradition. If it may be proved to bee 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 er­rour. The Iesuit holdeth a Wolfe by the eare: hee dares neither hold with Cajetan, nor against him: but puts the matter off with an iff. If it cannot be proved to bee a Sacrament out of that passage, as Cajetan affirmeth, yet it may bee out of other texts. What texts? why doth he not name them? it is a signe hee feareth his coyne is counterfeit, that [Page 119]hee 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 lesse appearance will stand them in any stead, and therefore for his last refuge he flyeth to unwritten traditions, as the old Dunces as I noted before, ad pontem asinorum.

To the eighteenth.18 Canus puts a strong sharpe weapon in our hands to wound your Trent do­ctrine concerning Matrimonie,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 withall for­biddeth us to strike with it, as the Iesuit Flood tel­leth us, as if we were at his beck, and might not use our weapons as wee list. But let him know, though he be so foolish as to give advantage, wee will not bee so childish as to leave it. If that bee true which he writeth, that the Divines of Rome write so uncertainly of the matter and forme of Matrimonie, that it were folly in any to goe about to reconcile these differences, and determine any thing certaine in the point: we will inferre upon him that it is likewise folly to define Matrimonie to be a Sacrament, for if the matter and forme of Matrimonie bee so unknowne as hee saith, the genus of it must needs be unknowne. For the ge­nus as Porphyrie teacheth, is taken from the matter, L. de praedicab. c. de genere. and answereth thereunto as the difference is taken from the forme. If the genus be uncertaine, how can it bee an article of faith, that matrimonium is species sacramenti. The whole nature of a thing [Page 120]consisteth of matter and forme, which if it bee unknowne, the specificall essence is unknowne, and if the specificall essence be unknowne, how can it be ranked in his predicament under its pro­per genus? What Papist soever therefore defineth Matrimonie, and putteth it under a Sacrament as the proper genus, Canus putteth the foole upon him take it off when you can.

To the nineteenth.19 Vasquez giveth the Iesuits cause not so light a blow (as hee imagineth) in saying that where S. Austine calleth Matrimo­nie a sacrament, hee taketh the word Sacrament in a large sense, and not in the strict and proper: for if S. Austine bee so to be understood, he held not Matrimonie a sacrament properly so called, but in a large sence onely, and if that were his judgement, we have a great advantage of our Ad­versaries in the cause, for S. Austine carrieth a great stroake, not only because hee is held the a­cutest of all the ancient Fathers, and father of all the Schoolemen: but especially, because the Pope in the Canon law professeth Augustinum sequimur in disputationibus, Wee follow for the most part, saith Pope Gelasius, S. Ierome in the interpretation of Scripture, S. Gregorie in matter of moralitie, but S. Austine in point of controversie. Yea but saith Flood, this is but Vasquez his pri­vate and singular opinion concerning S. Austine. Neither doth the Knight otherwayes urge it then as the singular opinion of a singularly learned Iesuit enforced by evidence of truth, to give over [Page 121]their chiefest hold of antiquitie in this point the authoritie of S. Austine. Well, be it so saith Flood, Vasquez is so farre for you, yet we have an Oliver for a Rowland, Bellarmine for Vasquez; for this opinion of Vasquez, is contradicted by other Ca­tholique Divines, and by Bellarmine in particular. Where is then the unitie our Adversaries so much bragge of? two of the greatest Champions of the Pope Vasquez and Bellarmine strive about S. Austine, and the one refelleth the reasons of the other, so that it seemeth our popish Divines are as ill resolved about the proofe of their doctrine, as I shewed before out of Canus, that they were in a wood concerning the doctrine it selfe. More­over I adde, that though Bellarmine may goe in equipage with Vasquez: yet Vasquez against them more disparageth their cause, then Bellarmine for them helpeth it. For a testimonie from an ene­mie is of more force for us, then the testimonie of a friend, or rather sworne vassall to the Roman Church can be for them.

To the twentieth.20 Sithence signification is of the essence of the Sacrament, and Bellarmine will have this signification necessarily to containe in it three things, the Passion of Christ, sanctifying grace, and eternall life. And whereas farther he confesseth that the signification of these three things is most apparant in Baptisme and the Lords Supper. The Knight strongly concludeth out of him that our doctrine concerning two Sacra­ments is more certaine and evident, then theirs [Page 122]concerning seven, and consequently that our be­leefe is safer in this point then theirs. As for that which the Iesuit addeth out of Bellarmine, that the rest of the Sacraments signifie all these things at least implicitly were it true, yet wee had the better of the cause. For our two Sacraments, as it is confessed, signifie these things plainly and evi­dently; theirs obscurely and implicitly; but in­deed it is not true that they signifie or represent those things at all. For what representation is there betweene imposition of hands in orders, or joyning of hands in Matrimonie, or confessing sinnes in penance, or chrisme in Confirmation, or oylein Extreame Unction, and the Passion of Christ, and eternall life? What the Iesuit addeth for conclusion, that the rest of the Knights secti­on is nothing but such foolish stuffe as hee is wont to talke, without rime or reason, needeth no other answer then this that the Knight indeed from p. 157. to 161. taketh an inventorie of a great deale of foolish stuffe, 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 ranke of S. Peters successors, Tyrabosc. pat: Ven. vid. Gen­tilet examen concil. Trid. l. 4. and that which is added; make the people sit downe, signifieth that salvation must bee offered to them, by teaching them the seven Sacraments. Againe, there are seven Vertues, seven mortall sinnes, seven Planets, the Lord rested the seventh day, seven [Page 123]dayes thou shalt eate unleavened bread; Balak effered seven Bulls, and seven Rams; and in the Apocalips wee reade of seven Candlesticks, seven Seales, 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. Austine speaketh, are they not rather dreames of the seven Sleepers? or as Epictetus spake of arguments against the truth,Ex Hnmfr. in Vit. Iuelli. Haec sunt infernorum somniorum Phantasmata.

Concerning the Communion in both kindes. Spectacles, chap. 9. Section 5. a pag. 242. us (que) ad 259.

THe Knight in alledging the Coun­cell of Constance touching Com­munion,1 in one kind translateth the Latine falsly and absurdly. I con­fesse that under one kind only all and whole Christ, and the true Sa­craments are received, as if the Councell had said, omnis & totus Christus, whereas the words are, totus at (que) integer Christus, that is, whole and en­tire Christ.

In bringing this Decree,2 hee hath brought a staffe [Page 124]to beate himselfe withall, for the non obstante which hee would joyne with Christs Institution in both kindes, as if the Councell forbid it in both kindes, notwithstanding Christ did so institute it, is not so joyned in the Councell, but otherwise thus; Though Christ did Institute this venerable Sacrament after supper, and administred it in both kinds, yet not­withstanding this, the approved custome of the Church hath observed, and doth observe, that this Sacrament is not to bee Consecrated after Supper, nor to bee received by the faithfull but fasting; which Decree I suppose the Knight will not con­demne.

This was no new thing begun by that Councell,3 but it being growne to bee a generall practise to com­municate in one kind, which also from the beginning was somewhat practised, and certaine heretiques arising, and condemning the practise and beliefe of the whole Church; this Councell condemned them, and commanded the former custome to bee still re­tained.

Though Christ did institute the Sacrament in both kindes,4 yet it is lawfull to receive in one: neither doth the Councell decree any thing against Christs Precept by establishing the Communion in one kind, for Christ may institute a thing without comman­ding it. For example, hee did institute Mariage, yet commanded not every man to marry.

The Councell of Trent doth not any way contra­dict Christs institution or practise as the Knight would have it:5 but inferreth only thus much, though [Page 125]Christ did institute and deliver the blessed Sacra­ment to his Apostles in both kindes in the last Supper, yet is Christ contained whole and entire in one kind, and a true Sacrament received, wherein saith hee, I would faine see, what opposition the subtiltie of the Knights wit can find? what reason can hee 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, Drinke yee all of this, 6 and doe this in remembrance of mee were spoken and apper­taine only to the Apostles, and in them to Priests, as appeareth more plainly by S. Mark, who sheweth all which our Srviour meant of when hee said, Drinke yee all of this, for saith S. Marke, and they did drinke all.

Though Christ at his last Supper did institute a Sacrament in both kindes,7 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 thinke hee did his two Disciples at Emmaus.

The Knight needeth not to produce ten or eleven Authours to prove it to have been the practise of the primitive Church,8 to communicate in both kinds: for that would have beene granted him without all that labour: but hee should have proved that the practise 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 practise in the use, and administration of the Sacrament.

Bellarmine bringeth six severall Rites or pra­ctises of the ancient Church which Protestants can­not deny,9 evidently convincing the frequent use of one kind.

The Nazarites among the first Christians in Ie­rusalem did communicate in one kind,10 for they were forbid to drinke wine, or even eate a grape or reisin.

The Knight in alleging Tapperus against the Communion in one kind,11 leaveth out the principall verbe, and one halfe of the sentence answering the former, which of it selfe was imperfect, which was the Authours absolute judgement and determination for the whole sentence of Tapper, art. 16. is this, it were more convenient if wee regard the Sacrament, and the perfection thereof to have the Communion under both kindes, then under one: for this were more agreeable to the Institution thereof, and to the integritie of a corporall 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 wee may avoide all irreverence, it is lesse con­venient, and no way expedient for the Church, that the Christian people should communicate in both kindes.

In the lawes of King Edward the sixt revived and confirmed by Queene Elizabeth, 12 it is ordained that the Communion bee delivered to the people un­der both kindes with this exception, unlesse necessi­tie otherwise require.


That it is not requisite that every article of faith [Page 127]have sufficient and expresse proofe of Scripture,Dial. 2. cont. Lucifer. etiam­si sacrae scrip­turae authori­tas non sub­esset, totius or­bis in hanc partem consen­sus instar prae­cepei obtinerct. for as S. Ierome teacheth, although the authoritie 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 Iesuit beginneth merrily with a fiddle, but endeth sadly, and every where answereth sorily. For to omit his omissi­on of some things that pincht him shrewdly, as namely, first that the Councell of Constance by reason the first Sessions judged the Councell above the Pope, is condemned, and rejected by the Councell of Florence and last Councell of Lateran; but for the last Sessions wherein the halfe Communion is e­stablished contrarie to Christs precept, and holy in­stitution, it is allowed by Pope Martine the fift, and rectived of all Catholiques; whereby it appeares that Papists are more tender of the Popes supremacie, then Christs 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 bee practised that Christ hath done. Now it is evident out of Scriptures, and confessed by the Fathers in the Councell of Constance and Trent, that Christ instituted and administred the Sacrament in both kindes: Lastly, that the Papists in this point apparantly contradict themselves, for they require antiquity, universality, and consent, as [Page 128]the proper markes of Catholique doctrine, and yet confesse that in this the practise of their Church is contrarie to the practise of the Primitive Church, nor was it ever received in the true Church, till a­bove a thousand yeares after Christ. Dichotomived. To let passe these his preteritions, all that hee saith in replie to other passages of the Knights may be dicotomi­zed into idle cavils, and sophisticall evasions, as shall appeare by the examination of each parti­cular,

To the first. The Iesuit as it should seeme tooke Ennius the Poet for his patterne, who as Horace observeth, Nunquam nisi potus ad arma prosiluit, &c. never undertooke the description of a warre, or set himselfe to write strong lines be­fore hee had comforted his heart with a cup of strong liquour. For if the French wine had not assaulted his Capitoll, as the Frenchmen did some­times the Roman: if a strong fume had not made his head so dizzie, that he thought all things be­fore him went round, hee would never in so seri­ous a subject as is the Sacrament of Christs blood use such light and comicall saracasmes as he doth; against this saith he, hee bringeth two pla­ces of Scripture, P. 243. and the practise of the Primitive Church, and so concludeth the antiquitie and uni­versalitie of his Church, this goeth round with a fiddle Sir Humfrey: if hee had a purpose to make sport to his reader in the merrie pin hee was set on, hee should rather have said you Creed Sir Humfrey goeth round with a crowd. But crowde [Page 129]or fiddle whether hee please to tearme the lear­ned discourse of the Knight, I hope it will prove like Davids Harpe, and conjure the evill spirit out of the Iesuit. To fall upon the particulars in order, whereas in the first place hee chargeth the Knight with false and absurd translation of the Decree of the Councell, rendering totus Chri­stus, all Christ, not whole Christ, and would make us beleeve that all can in no sense bee attri­buted to Christ; hee forgot that text of the Apo­stle that Christ is all in all. Surely it should seeme this Iesuit is descended from Pope Adrian, who was choaked with a fly, for what a silly fly choa­keth him here? The Knight to avoid a tautolo­gie in translating totus & integer Christus, whole and whole Christ, rendereth the word all and whole Christ, and what falsitie or absurditie is there in this? doth not every punie know that omnis in Latine, and all in English is often taken collectivè, as when wee say Lazarus was covered all over with sores, doe not the Papists themselves sometimes so render the word totus, as namely in those places, I have stretched my armes all the day long to a rebellious people? and all the day long have I beene punished, and all Scripture is given by di­vine inspiration, and is profitable for doctrine for reproofe, for correction, for instruction in righte­onsnesse that the man of God may bee perfect, throughly furnished to all good workes: In which passages it is most evident that all is taken for whole, and so the best interpreters render [...], [Page 130] tota scriptura, that is the whole Scripture.

To the second.2 The Knight in bringing the Decree of the Councell of Constance, hath not brought in a staffe to beate himselfe withall, but to beate all such Romish curres as barke at the light of the Sunne, I meane the cleare words of Christs institution,Sess. 13. Drinke you all of this. Yet saith that Councell to the Laitie, none of you drinke 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 wayes fol­lowes from the change of a circumstance to the change of a substantiall act: the Church may dispence with the one, not with the other. Wee argue not barely from the practise of Christ and his Apostles, but from their doctrine and pra­ctise. What Christ did and taught, as S. Cyprian soundly collects, must bee perpetually observed in the Church: but he taught and practised the Communion in both kindes, fecit & docuit, hee both did so, and taught us so to doe; but for the circumstances of time, number of Communi­cants, & gesture sitting or leaning, though at that time he used such circumstances: yet he cōmanded not us to use them, and therefore wee may admi­nister the Sacrament at another time, to a greater or lesser number then twelve, we may receive it also with another gesture then Christ or his Ap­stles [Page 131]used, because he no where tieth us to those circumstances, but wee may in no wise admini­ster or receive it in one kind, because he comman­deth us to communicate in both, saying, drinke ye all of this; and what though the Councell joyne not the word notwithstanding to Christs institu­tion in both kindes, but to his administring after supper: yet this no way excuseth the Fathers in it from confronting Christ, and abrogating his commandement by their wicked Decree: for notwithstanding Christs command, drinke you all of this; that Councell by a countermaund forbiddeth any Priest under a great penaltie to exhort the people to communicate in both kindes, or to teach that they ought so to doe.

To the third. If the Iesuits forehead had not beene made of the same metall which hee wor­shipeth in his images, hee 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 owne side. Never any before this Iesuit durst to say, that the halfe Communion was the beliefe, and practise of the whole Church before the Councell of Constance, for besides Salmeron, Arboreus, Aquinas, Tapperus, Alfonsus a Castro: the Councell of Constance, Bellarmine and Cassander alledged by the Knight, See grand Sa­crilcg. Sect. 17. I could adde Estius the Sorbonist, Ecchius the great adversarie of Luther, Suarez their accom­plished Iesuit, Soto their acutest Schoole-man, and Gregorie de Valentia, who of all other hath most [Page 132] [...] laboured in this argument, all not only affir­ming, but some of them also confirming that the Communion in both kindes was anciently, and universally administred to the people. It is well knowne that the Easterne Churches in Greece and Asia, and Southern in Africa, and Northerne in Muscovia have ever, and at this day doe admi­nister the Communion to the Laitie in both kindes: and in the Westerne and Roman Church it selfe for a thousand yeares after Christ and more, the Sacrament was delivered in both kindes to all the members of Christs Church, which is manifest saith Cassander, Cassand. con­sult. art. 22. by innumerable testimonies of anci­ent Writers, both Greeke and Latine. And when the new custome of communicating in one kinde began a little before the Councell 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 heretiques, as Flood would beare us in hand, but by good Catho­liques, as Soto a man farre before Flood ingenu­ously confesseth.

To the fourth.4 Albeit I grant there is some difference betweene an institution, or constituti­on, or command: yet our argument drawne from Christs institution in both kindes is of force a­gainst the Romish halfe. 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 speciall order or appoint­ment in matter of Ceremonie or Sacrament? was not the institution of Circumcision an expresse [Page 133]command to circumcise every male child? was not the institution of the Passeover a command for every familie to kill a Lambe, and eate it with sowre herbes? Was not the institution of Bap­tisme a command to Baptise all Nations in the name of the Father, Sonne and holy Ghost? Was not the institution of the Lords Supper by words imperative, Take, eate, doe this in remembrance of mee, and drinke yee all of this? Yea but the Iesuit instanceth in Mariage, which we acknowledge to be instituted by God, yet not commanded. I an­swer, all sacred Rites (and namely the ordination of Mariage) are injunctions and commands to the Church, or mankind in generall, though they bind not every particular person, but such onely as are qualified for them;Gen. 2.24. if crescite & multipli­camini, bee rather a benediction upon Mariage, then a command to marrie, yet certainly those words used in the Institution of Mariage, therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall bee one stesh, containe da direct command not to every man simply I grant, but to every one that hath not the gift of conti­nencie.1 Cor. 7.2. to avoide fornication, saith the Apostle, let every man have his owne wife, and let every wo­man have her owne husband. And againe, if they cannot containe let them marry, V. 9. for it is better to marry then to burne.

To the fist.5 There needs no subtiltie of wit to find out the opposition betweene the Decree of the Trent Councell and Christs institution; the [Page 134]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 kindes? If the Sacrament can no otherwise exhibit Christ unto us then by vertue of his Institution, how can wee be assured that whole Christ is communicated unto us, when we violate his institution administring the holy Communion but by halfes? the Sacrament exhibiteth nothing but what it signifieth, but the bread signifieth Christs body not his blood: the wine signifieth his blood, not his bodie; there­fore accordingly the one exhibiteth only his bo­dy, the other his bloud. Againe, if Christ bee whole in either kinde, then a man might receive whole Christ in drinking of the cup only, though he eate not at all of the bread, and consequently a man may without sinne at the Lords board drinke only of the Consecrated cup, and not eate of the bread which yet no Papist to my know­ledge ever durst affirme.

To the sixt.6 This evasion of the Iesuit 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 gene­rall answer of all Papists to the words of the in­stitution, Drinke you all of this, viz. (that by all in S. Mathew and S. Marke, Priests only are to be un­derstood.) First I note at this time the Apostles were not fully ordained Priests. For as yet [Page 135]Christ had not breathed on them, nor given them the power of remission of sinnes: next admit they were Priests, yet in the institution of this Sacrament they were non conficients, supplying the place of meere communicants, and therefore consequently whatsoever Christ commanded them, hee commanded all receivers after them. Thirdly, Christ commanded the same to drinke, to whom before hee said, Take, eate, this is my bo­dy; but the former words, take, eate, are spoken to the Laye-people as well as Priests, therefore the words drinke you all of this, are spoken to them also,Math. 9.6. those things which God hath joyned to­gether let no man put asunder. Fourthly, I would faine know of our Adversaries when Christ saith, This is the cup of the New Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sinnes, who are those many? will they say Priests only? have the Laytie no sinnes, or no remission of sinnes by Christ bloud? if they have, as all professe they have, why do they forbid them that which Christ expresly commandeth them, saying, Drinke ye all of this, for it is shed for you and for many. All worthy communicants are to drinke Christs bloud for whom it was shed, thus much Christs reason importeth; but it was shed for the Laytie as well as the Clergie, they therefore are alike to drinke it. If the Laytie expect life from Christ, they must drinke his bloud as well as eate his flesh,Iohn 6.53. for except a man eate the flesh of the Sonne of man, and drinke his bloud, hee hath no life in him. [Page 136]Lastly,1 Cor. 11.28. when the Apostle enjoyneth all to exa­mine themselves before they receive the holy Communion, I desire to bee informed by our Adversaries, whether this Precept of examinati­on concerneth not the Laytie especially? I know they will say it doth, because the people most need examination, that they may confesse their sinnes, and receive absolution for them before they presume to communicate: let them then reade what followeth in the same verse, and so let them eate of that bread, and drinke of that Cup, let a man examine himselfe, and so let him eate of that Bread, and drinke 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 eate of that Bread, and drinke of that Cup.

To the seventh.7 There is no force at all in the in­ference which the Iesuit 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 Inne: nei­ther reade wee of any preparation on the Apo­stles part, nor of any words of institution used then by Christ: neither could the Iesuit alledge any one Father, who saith that Christ at that time administred the Communion to those two Disci­ples in bread only. For it is well knowne to all [Page 137]that are acquainted with the language of Canaan, that breaking of bread in Scripture by a Syneodo­che is taken for making a meale, and it is very unlikely that the disciples travelling at that time of the yeare in so hot a countrey as Iudaea is, when they came to their Inne for a repast, should call for bread only and no drinke.

To the eighth.8 Though the Iesuit make many a bravado here, and else-where: yet upon the matter in granting to the Knight that the generall practise of the primitive Church was to com­municate in both kindes, he yeeldeth up the buck­lers. For the maine scope of the Knight in this and other Sections is to prove the visibilitie of our reformed Church in former ages by the con­fession of our Romish adversaries: this hee doth in the point of the Communion in both kindes abundantly in this Section, and the Iesuit cannot denie it; it followeth therefore that in this maine point of controversie betweene us and the Church of Rome, wee have antiquitie, universa­litie, and eminent visibilitie, and the Roman Church none of all: whereby any understanding reader may see that the Knight hath already wonne the day; Yet for the greater confusion of the Iesuit I adde that what the primitive Church did uniformly, they received it from the Apo­stles, and what the Apostles did joyntly, no doubt they did by the direction of the holy Ghost, according to our Lords will: and so their example amounteth to a Precept. Againe, the [Page 138]practise of the Catholique Church is the best expositour of Scripture, therefore the question being concerning the meaning of that text of Scripture, Drinke you all of this, whether they concerne the Laytie, or Clergie only, that must bee taken for the true exposition which the Ca­tholique Church by a constant and vniforme practise hath allowed. Lastly, either this practise of the Catholique Church was grounded upon some divine Precept, or it is a meere will-wor­ship which the Iesuit dare not say: if it be groun­ded upon any divine precept undoubtedly upon this, Drinke yee all of this, that is, as well Mini­sters as Laye people, as Paschasius commenteth up­on the words.

To the ninth.9 The arguments of Bellarmine drawne 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 himselfe by D. F. in his booke intituled the Grand sacri­ledge, cap. 14. accipe quomode das si tibi machera est, & nobis vervina est, if it be sufficient for him to ob­ject by proxe, why may not we answer by proxe?

To the tenth.10 To the instance in the Naza­rites, I answer first, that I read of no other Na­zarites since Christs time in the writings of the ancient Fathers, then certaine Heretiques so tear­med of the sect of Ebionites, who went about to cloath the Gospell with the beggarly rudiments [Page 139]of the Law, upon whom S. Austine passeth this verdict,L. De haeres. ad quod vult De­um dum vo­lunt Iudaei esse & Christiani nec Iudaeisunt, nec Christiani. that whilest they laboured to bee both Iewes and Christians, they became neither Iewes nor Christians, but a sect of heretiques, partly judai­zing, partly Christianizing. Secondly, if there were any Nazarites that sincerely imbraced the Gospell, questionlesse they communicated in both kindes: 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 corporall refection, not for their spirituall repast: or if their vow were absolutely against wine, yet Christs command, Drinke yee all of this, implied a dispensation for their Vow in that case. A private vow of any man must give place to a publike command of God: even now a dayes those who upon any great distemper of body or mind by wine, vow to abstaine from it, yet make no scruple of conscience to take a small quantitie of it physically for the recoverie of their health: how much more ought they to doe so notwithstanding their vow, if it bee pre­scribed by the heavenly physician for the cure and salvation of their soules?

To the eleventh.11 Concerning Tapperus the Knight no way misquoteth him though hee leave out some passges in him; for the truth is Tappe­rus halteth betweene two opinions, he speaketh some words plainly in the language of Canaan, and o­thers hee lispeth in the language of Ashdod, where he speaketh in the language of Canaan, as [Page 140]hee doth most plainly in those his words (if wee regard the Sacrament and perfection thereof, and the integritie of corporall refection, and the exam­ple of Christ, it were more convenient to have the Communion under both kindes) the Knight hearke­neth to him: but where hee 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 kindes) the Knight had reason to turne a deafe eare to him, for it is cosin germane to blasphemie to say that is ill and inconvenient, which Christ and his Apo­stles, and the whole Church in all places for more then a thousand yeares 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 runne madde with you.

To the twelfth.12 For the statute made in the dayes of that Phoenix of his age, King Edward the sixt, the meaning is, unlesse among the people there bee some that either by a naturall antipa­thie to wine or other infirmitie, cannot receive the Sacraments in both kindes, it is ordained that it be delivered to every one in both kindes, 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 reigne of this blessed Prince, fully ac­cord; For so wee reade Article the thirtieth, both parts of the Lords Sacrament by Christs ordi­nance [Page 141]and command ought to bee ministred to all Christian people alike.

To the thirteenth.13 That every article of faith ought to have sufficient proofe out of Scripture is proved by innumerable testimonies of antiqui­tie produced by Philip Morney in his Preface to his booke De Eucharistia, Bilson of Supremacie part the fourth Abbot against Bishop, chapter the seventh; and Laurentius de disp. Theolog: Neither doth S. Ierome any way contradict them or us, for wee beleeve that the consent of the whole Christian Church is an infallible argument of truth. Albeit wee teach that any particular Church, as namely the Roman or the French, or the Dutch or the Greeke Church may erre: yet we denie that the catholique Church universally hath ever erred, or can erre in matter of faith ne­cessarie to salvation: and further I adde for con­clusion, that as the words of S. Ierome alledged by the Iesuit make nothing against us, so if they bee applied to our present subject they make most strongly against him, being propounded after this manner. Although the authoritie of holy Scripture were wanting for the Communion in both kindes, (which is not so) yet the consent of the whole world, on this side testified by their uniforme practise confessed by Papists them­selves, ought to have the force of a divine Pre­cept, and so there would bee an end not only of this Section as the Iesuit speaketh, but of this whole Controversie.

Concerning Prayer in an un­knowne tongue. Spectacles, Sect. 6. a pag. 259. us (que) ad 283.

THe Knight falsly chargeth the Councell of Trent with approving prayer in the vulgar tongue:1 for though the Councell saith that the Masse containeth great instruction, yet it doth not say that it ought to bee in the vulgar tongue: nay contrarily it pronoun­ceth an anathema against any whosoever shall say that the Masse ought to bee celebrated in the vulgar tongue.

It hath beene the generall practise and custome in the Church of God,2 of having the Masse, and the publike office in Latine, all over the Latine and Westerne Church, both in Italie, Spaine, France, Germanie, England, Africa, and all other places, and so likewise in Greeke in the Graecian or Ea­sterne Church, though it were as large in extent, and had as much varietie of languages in it as the Latine Church hath.

Vniformitie which is fit to be used in such things and unitie of the Catholique Church is excellently declared,3 and also much maintained by this unitie of language in the Church office.

The use of vulgar tongues in the Masse or Church office would cause not only great confusion,4 but breed an infinite number of errours by many severall translations.

The use of vulgar language in such things would breed a great contempt of sacred things,5 with pro­phanenesse and irreligiositie, besides the danger of heresie, which commeth no way sooner then by mis­understanding of holy Scripture.

The place of Scripture alledged by the Knight concerning announcing our Lords death,6 is not un­derstood by words but by deeds, as is most plaine by the circumstances.

The text of S. Paul where he asketh how hee that understandeth not the prayers shall say Amen,7 is not of the publike prayers of the Church which no man can doubt of, either for the truth or goodnesse, and therefore he may confidently say Amen to them, but of private prayers made by private and Laye men extempore in an unknowne tongue.

Haymo requireth not that all that are present at Divine service should understand,8 but only that he that supplieth the place of the idiot or Laye-man in answering for the people, should bee so farre able to understand, as to answer Amen at the end of every prayer.

Iustinian the Emperour is ordinarily taxed for taking too much upon him in Ecclesiasticall matters:9 yet all that hee saith may bee well maintained with­out prejudice to the present practise of the Roman Church, for in the Decree alledged by the Knight, [Page 144]hee requireth nothing more, but that Bishops and Priests should pronounce distinctly and clearely that which according to the custome of the Easterne Church was to bee spoken aloud.

The Canon law capite quoniam in pleris (que) 10 re­quireth only that where divers Nations are mingled, that the Bishop of the Citie should substitute one in his roome to celebrate the divine Office, and admini­ster the Sacraments according to their ownerites and language: for indeed it is a matter of necessitie in administration of some Sacraments to use the vul­gar language, as in Mariage and Penance, but not so of other things.

Lyra, 11 Belithus, Gretzer, Harding, Cassander, and the rest of the Authours 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, Greeke, and La­tine dedicated on the crosse of Christ, were then most vulgar, none of them speake a word of any Precept.

There is no precept in the Scripture commanding prayers in a knowne tongue,12 or forbidding in an unknowne, whose authority or example can you bring for your selfe in this matter? name him if you can.

It was more needfull in the Primitive Church that the people should understand,13 because they were to answer the Priest, which now is not so as Bellarmine noteth, because that belongs only to the Clarke.

That the Knight contradicteth himselfe in one place,14 saying That the alteration of the Church ser­vice was occasioned by certaine Shepheards, who in [Page 145]the dayes 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 bloud, and for this prophane abuse were strucken dead by the hand of God. In another place hee 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 sixt Pope before Vitalian, by which computation the alte­ration must have beene fourescore, or a hundred yeares before Vitalian.

The Hammer.

AMong the knowne errours of the Roman Church, there is none more grosse or palpably absurd, then this concerning Prayers in an unknowne tongue; For as Velleius the Epicure in Tully, goeth about to maintaine by reason that it had beene better a man had not beene indued 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 speake understandingly for speech without un­derstanding, and that in the publike worship of God: to perswade civill men that in their prayers the Priest ought to bee a Barbarian to the people, and the people to the Priest; In a word, to enforce [Page 146]the people instead of offering the calves of their lippes to God, to offer to him the lippes of calves bel­lowing without understanding. The Knight therefore upon very just reason taketh the Church of Rome to taske for this unsufferable abuse, and undeniable aberration from the Primitive, and catholique 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 Iesuit maketh great brags that he will reckon with him for it; and reckon he doth according to his best skill in Arithmeticke, but to halves, for the Knight presseth the Roma­nists with the historie of the Councell of Trent, and the contradictions of their Bishops there, and other passages of moment which the Iesuit li­sently passeth by, being willing to charge him­selfe with no more then he thought he was faire­ly able to put off. What he saith either by way of objection against the practise of the reformed Churches, or in answer to our arguments shall be particularly discussed in my replie to his par­ticular heads.

To the first.1 The Knight saith not that the Councell of Trent approveth in expresse and di­rect words the practise of our Church,Concil. Trent. Sess. 22. c. 8. but that by consequence it doth so in saying the Masse containeth great instruction for the common people, and commanding that the Masse Priest, or some other should frequently expound or declare unto [Page 147]them the mysteries of the Masse: for if the Masse containe as the Councell saith great instruction for the people, and for that end ought to bee ex­pounded unto them, by the same reason it ought to be translated into the mother-tongue, and so read unto them; Unlesse 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. Pauls 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 bee read before the people for their instruction, and edification, ought to be delivered unto them in a language which they understand: but the Masse was writ­ten and appointed to beeread before the people for their edification and instruction (as the Councell agnizeth) therefore it ought to be ce­lebrated in a knowne 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 publique prayers which are made in the audi­ence of the people should bee said in a tongue com­mon to the Priest and people, then that they should bee said in Latine. The other in these words, The people that prayeth in an unknowne tongue wanteth that fruit which they might reape, if they under­stood those things which they pronounce with their lips, for they would in a speciall manner apply their [Page 148]mind to God, that they might obtaine of him those things which they pray for especially, and they would bee more edified by a godly feeling of those prayers which they utter with their mouth.

To the second.2 The generall practise and cu­stome of the Westerne Church, having their publike service in Latine, and of the Easterne Churches, having their service in Greeke, maketh for us, not against us. For the Latine service was generally understood in the Westerne Church, and the Greeke in the Easterne; 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 Imperiall lawes bare the sway, as namely in It alie, Spaine, France, Germanie, England, A­frica, and wheresoever the divine service was ce­lebrated in the Latine tongue, the people gene­rally understood the Latine. If the Iesuit speake of later times after the inundation of Gothes and Vandals, when the Latine tongue was corrupted and degenerated into severall languages, as Itali­an, Spanish, and French, in such sort, that the people in those parts underdood not the Latine: God stirred up in these Westerne 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 [Page 149]is worth the observation that Irenaeus teacheth,L. 5. c. 30. that the number 666. containeth the name latinus, and that in that very yeare of our Lord Pope Vi­talian commanded the Latine service generally to be received in the Westerne Church, though at that time in most parts few of the people un­derstood it.

To the third. We are not so much to regard uniformitie in the Church. service, as conformi­tie to the will and word of God, which requireth that all things in the Church bee done to edification, 1 Cor. 14.15, 16.26. that we pray with the spirit, and with understan­ding also, that the people joyne with the Priest in all parts, as well prayers as giving of thankes and te­stfie it by saying Amen, Which cannot be done if prayers be said in a tongue which people under­stand not. Moreover, as diversitie of instru­mentstuned together marreth not the musicke, but maketh it sweeter: so diversitie of languages, in which the same prayers are said, breeds no de­formitie at all, but uniformitie rather. Sith it is not the different sound of words, but of sense that makes a difference either in the beliefe or practice of the Church. There was never more unitie 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, Iewes [Page 150]and Proselites, Creets and Arabians, wee doe heare them speake in our tongues the wonderfull workes of God.

To the fourth,4 The diversitie of translations either of the Scriptures or the Church office breedeth no inconvenience at all, provided care betaken that the translations bee revised by the learned, and licenced by authoritie: nay on the contrarie the Church reapeth much benefit by it for languages have beene therby improved, and the Scriptures much opened. For oftentimes that which is obscure in the originall, is cleared in a good translation. An unknowne tongue is like a vaile before a beautifull picture, or a filme before the eye, which by a good translation is taken a­away. If it were either unlawfull or inconveni­ent to translate the holy Scriptures, or choyce parts of them in the Church Liturgie into vulgar languages; why did Severus translate them into the Syrian, S. Ierome into the Dalmatian, S. Chry­sostome into the Armenian, Vlphila into the Gothi­an, Methodius into the Slavonian? Bede into the British, and the Divines of Doway and Rhemes of late into the English?Aeneas Syl­bist. Bohem. c. 30. Nay, why did the Pope himselfe signe and subscribe unto the Petition of Cyrill, and Methodius Monkes sent to convert the flaves, and Dalmatians who in behalfe of their Converts, desired of his holinesse, 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 [Page 151]Scripture,Ps. 150. v. ult. Let every thing that hath breath praise the Lord, and let every tongue confesse unto him.

To the fift.5 If there were any force in the Ie­suits reason at all, it would prove that neither the Scriptures of the Old Testament should have beene delivered to the Iewes in the Hebrew, nor the New Testament to the Greekes in the Greek. For Hebrew was then the vulgar tongue of the Iewes, and the Greeke to the Gentiles, yet wee find that neither the writing the Old Testament in the Hebrew, nor the New in the Greeke, which were then the vulgar languages to those people, bred any contempt of sacred things with prophanesse and irreligiousnesse, but the cleane contrarie effects. The use of Scripture in a vulgar tongue is not the cause why any dise­steeme or undervalew it, but want of instruction in heavenly mysteries, and carelesse and superfi­ciall reading without searching into the bottome of the spirituall meaning, where Orient Pearles lie. A counrerfeit stone if it bee often handled is discovered to be false, and thereby looseth its va­lew, whereas a rich Diamond though it be worne every day on the finger, loseth nothing of the price, or valew of it. If the publike use of Scrip­tures would have derogated any thing from the worth and valew of it, God would never have commanded the children of Israel to rehearse the booke of the Law continually to their children, Deut. 6.7, 8, 9 to talke of it when they tarried in their house, and when they walked in the way, when they lay downe, [Page 152]and when they rose up, to bind the words of the law for a signe 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 seeke to improve their knowledge by concealing it, or at least impropriating it to some few: but God con­trariwise valeweth his wisdome by making it common. Earthly commodities the rarer the dearer, but heavenly Iewels the more common they are, the more pretious: of other liquour the lesse wee tast, the more we thirst after it, but hea­venly wisedome thus speaketh of her selfe, Hee that drinketh of me, the more he drinketh the more hee shall thirst. As the comfortable beames of the Sun which shineth daily upon us are not lesse valewed, then the raies of those starres that sel­dome appeare in our horizon: so the word of