IF M. Doctor had contended, pondere argu­mentorum, and not multitudine, with sound ar­guments, and not with a multitude; he might happily haue perswaded some to his religion: whereas now by reason of the weaknes of his reasons, he hath rather hindred many from the same, then moooued any vnto it. That which is commonly said of pictures, hath a fit place in this worke of do­ctor Hill, Picturae eminus, non comminus videndae, pictures are faire a farre off, but if the eye draw neare them, there is no shew of them.

Before I come to the matter, I will examine the title of his booke, in which he hath placed a peece of holy Scripture, taken out of S. Peter, 1. Pe [...]. 3. who willeth all men to be readie to giue an answer of that hope which is in them: what then is become of the vnfolden faith of Papists, who will haue simple men to answer, that they beleeue as the Church beleeueth? S. Peter speaketh of the hope that is in them, not out of them, in themselues, not in another. In a word, to say they beleeue as the Church beleeueth, is an answer fit for all heretikes. Furthermore, out of this place of S. Peter, we ga­ther that Christian men haue a hope in them, yet Pope Iohn the 23. denied the immortalitie of the soule. Bellarmine had rather discredit the Councill of Constance, in which this is reported, then confesse an errour. There is one thing yet to be touched in his answer vnto the coppie of a letter, in which he protesteth his loy­altie to our late gracious Queene Elizabeth. May we trust him? If I should demaund of him, whether he alloweth the Bull of Pius Quintus or no, it may be I should pose him. The Papists teach that the Pope may depose Princes, and yet they will be good sub­iects. [Page 2] If he answereth that he is not a Papist in this point: where is his Vnitie, of which he vaunteth in one of his reasons? Parrie con­fessed that euery word in Doctor Allens booke was a warrant to a prepared minde. Do [...]t. Bill. 704. It taught that Kings may be excommunicated, depriued, and violently handled: it prooueth that all warre vnder­taken for Religion is honourable. Thus M. Doctor you see we haue cause to doubt of your loyaltie, but I leaue that to God Al­mightie who searcheth the hearts of all men, and come to your Reasons.

In answering your arguments I purpose to draw them to syl­logismes, your first argument hath in it this syllogisme.

• They which make the prophesies of Christ to be false, hold a false religion:
• But the Protestants make the prophesies of Christ to be false:
• Ergo they hold a false religion.

I denie the assumption, which you prooue out of the 12. of Iohn, where Christ foretelleth that he will draw all men vnto him; but by the Protestants doctrine Christ hath not done so. Ergo.

I denie the assumption againe, for exposition of which place of holy writ, in hunc locum. I produce Augustine, who writeth thus. Quae omnia? nisi ex quibus Ille eijcitur foras. non autem dixit omnes, sed omnia, non enim omnium est sides. What all but those out of which Sathan is cast? he said not all men, but all things, for all men haue not faith. Againe Augustine writeth thus. Aut si omnia, ipsi homines intelligendi sunt, omnia praedestinata ad salutem possumus dicere. If by all things all men are meant, we may vnderstand all the predestinate vnto saluation.

Your other Scriptures foretell the calling of the Gentiles, which we confesse. To proceede in this argument, was not Christ true in his promise, when as Act. 1.15. the Church was but about a hundred and twentie soules? here is no great number, and yet this small number was in a chamber. In the 13. of the Reuel. v. 3. the whole earth wondered at the beast, yet is Christ true in his promise. In your Apologie of English fugitiues, thus you shall finde it written. The whole world did runne from Christ after Iulian to plaine Paganisme, after Valens to Arrianisme. The Rhe­mists vpon the second of the Thessalonians, acknowledge a re­uolt from the Church. Nazianzen in his oration of Cyprian saith, that Cyprianus in temporibus Decij solus è Christianis est relictus. S. [Page 3] Cyprian in Decius his time was the onely Christian. Th [...]oph. lib. 1. cap. 16. Read Aug. in 128 psal. and Te [...]tul e [...]hor. ad Ca [...]i & Pa­ci [...]nus in part. ad po [...]ni. The Arrian Emperour speaketh thus vnto Liberius, Quota pars tu es orbis ter­rarum; qui solus facis cum homine scelerato, & orbis terrarum, & mun­di [...]otius pacem dissoluis? What part of the world art thou that one­ly takest part with the wicked man, and dissoluest the peace of the whole earth? Liberius answereth, Non diminuitur solitudine mea verbum sidei, nam & olim tres soli fuere qui edicto resisterent. In that I am left alone, the word of faith is not diminished, for in times past, there were three onely which resisted the kings edict. Thus euery man may see Christ true in his promise, though the church be not alwaies glorious in outward appearance. I will now retort the ar­gument vpon the Papists themselues;

• They which hold that the faith of Christ may be wholly ex­tinguished, make the promises of Christ vntrue:
• But the Papist holdeth that the faith of Christ may be whol­ly extinguished. Ergo.

The assumption is auouched by Dominicus Asote, who saith, Lib. 3. d [...] Pap [...]. cap. 17. as te­stifieth Bellarmine himselfe, that extinct a fide per discessionem ab A­postolica sede, totus mundus vanus erit, the faith beeing extinguished by a departure from the Apostolicall See, the whole world shall be vaine. I may speake therefore of this Doctor, as Tullie doth to one, Ea in alterum ne dicas, quae cum tibi responsa sunt, erubescas: vtter not these things against another, which when they are answered, will make thee ashamed. Now I come to vntruths which are a­uouched in this chapter. First, he chargeth vs that we affirme, that almost all nations haue beene in Lucifer his thraldome vntill this our age in which Luther came to expell Lucifer. Secondly he af­firmeth that in our countrey of England, it is most manifest, that all were Papists without exception, frō the first christening there­of vntill this age of king Henrie the eight. M. Doctor, haue you lost your forehead? was Iohn Wickliff a Papist? I perswade my selfe you dare not affirme it. Againe, this land receiued the faith in the Apostles time, as witnesseth Tertullian in his book against the Iewes. But the Apostles preached not Poperie. Did the Apostles teach the halfe communion? who but blind would affirme it? A­gaine, in Pope Gregories time, this land differed in ceremonies, & in celebration of the Masse from Rome, as 2. 2. 93 quaest, art. 1. arg. 3. Aquinas teacheth: who list to read more of this point, may be referred vnto D. Fulks ouerthrow of Stapletons fortresse. Thus I haue answered this first [Page 4] cauill of the Doctor against our religion, for I passe by the title that he giueth to Lucifer calling him the master deuill. The diffe­rence of deuills I leaue to Papists to set forth, who are sometimes too familiar with them, Tasc. temp. as Silvester, who was made Pope by the helpe of the deuill.

Luther his speach concerning the restoring of the Gospel, must be vnderstood comparatiuely: the Gospel was before his time, but it was not, in tanta luce, in such brightnes, as it hath beene since, and I trust it shall more and more increase ingratijs Papistarum, whether the Papists will or no. They may presse the truth, but they shall neuer oppresse it: they may vaunt of veritie, but they must winne the cause by force of arguments.

A man may maruell that any who would perswade to religion, should make so simple an argument as this.

• They which are called Catholikes are the true Church:
• But the Papists are called Catholikes:
• Ergo they are the true Church.

The proposition is false. Salvianus in the beginning of his 4. booke of prouidence, speaketh excellently of this point. Nomen sine officio nihil est. nam sicut ait quidam in scriptis suis, quid est princi­patus, sine meritorum sublimitate, nisi honoris titulus sine nomine. A name without the dutie is nothing, for as one faith in his writings, what is principalitie without sublimitie of good works, but a bare title of honour. For the further handling of this matter, we will consider what Catholike is. Vincentius Lyrinensis thus descri­beth this word Catholike. Quod ab omnibus creditum est, Catholicum est: that which is beleeued of all men is Catholike. Is Poperie then Catholike, which is not beleeued of all men? I will name some o­pinions and prooue them not to be credited of all, and I will be­ginne with the worshipping of Images, which I will prooue not to be Catholike. Minutius Foelix in his Octauius speaketh thus, Cruces nec colimus, nec optamus, we neither worship, nor wish for Crosses Againe in the same treatise, it is demanded of Christians, Cur nullas aras habent, templa nulla, nulla nota simulachra? why they haue no altars, no temples, no images? The Councell of Eliberis [Page 5] in Spaine, haue in plaine words banished them out of Churches. Placuit picturas in Ecclesiis esse non debere, ne quod colitur aut adora­tur, in parietibus depingatur. We haue decreed that pictures ought not to be in the Churches, least that which is worshipped or ado­red, be painted on walls. Sigebert in the yeare of our Lord 755. writeth, that Constantinus Jmperator Constantinopoli synodum trecen­torum triginta Episcoporum congregat; in qua edicto promulgato, de I­maginibus Dei & sanctorum eius deponendis, Ecclesiam Dei nimis scan­dalizat. Constantine the Emperour gathered a Councell at Con­stantinople of 330. Bishops in which, publishing an edict against the Images of God and the Saints, he doth too much scandalize the Church. Thus it appeareth that worshipping of Images is not Catholike.

Secondly the Papists teach, that the Church is built vpon vpon Peters person. Is this Catholike doctrine? Ionas in his se­cond booke of Images speaketh thus of this point, Multi & penè omnes, Petram, super quam aedificatur Ecclesia fidem intelligunt beati Petri, quae communis est totius sanctae Ecclesiae, videlicet eam quae paulò ante promissionem hanc praecesserat, id est, tu es Christus filius Dei vivi. Many and almost all vnderstand by the Rocke, on which the Church is built, the faith of blessed Peter, which is common to all the holy Church, namely that which a little before was precedent to this promise, that is to say, Thou art Christ the sonne of the li­uing God.

Thirdly the Papists teach, that the virgin Marie was no sinner: is this catholike doctrine? Read Aquinas in his third part, the 27. quaest. the 4. art. and his answer to the third argument, where reie­cting Chrysostomes authoritie, he saith, that excessit in illis verbis, his words are too broad, yet many yeares after Chrysostome was this doctrine held. in 22. Math. Theophilact writeth that Marie was ambitio­sula, tanto sibi filio subdito, somewhat ambitious, hauing such a sonne vnder her.

Fourthly the Papists teach, that Ministers may not haue wiues: is this catholike? many hundred yeares after Christ, Priests were married. In the yeare of our Lord 1074. Hildebrand (as Lamber­tus Schafuaburgensis reporteth) decreed that, Habentes aut dimit­tant, aut deponantur, they which had wiues must either dismisse them or be deposed: therefore, saith the forenamed writer, Aduer­sus hoc decretum infremunt tota factio Clericorum, the whole compa­nie [Page 6] of the Cleargie stormed against this decree. The same is also re­ported by Sigebert, saying that Gregorie vxorates Sacerdotes à di­vino officio removit novo exemplo, remooued from diuine seruice the married Priests by a new example. What should I speake of prayer in a strange tongue, of concealing the Scriptures from the people, of summoning of Councells by the Pope? These with many other opinions, might I shew to be against diuinitie taught in the ancient Church. Pacianus thus describeth Catholike, that it is Obedientia omnium mandatorum, scilicet Dei: an obedience vnto all Gods commandements. Now let vs see whether you teach o­bedience vnto Gods commandements or no? to let passe Idola­trie and other sinnes, M. Perk. ex Molano. See more of this point in the Reason of doctrine. I come to swearing. The Papists teach that they may sweare that they haue not beene at Masse, when they haue beene there. This is nothing but to prophane an oath as A­quinas testifieth, in his 2. 2. 89. quaest. art. 7. and answer to the 4. ar­gument, saying, Quacun (que) arte verborum quis iuret, Deus tamen qui conscientiae testis est, ita hoc accipit, sicut ille cui iuratur intelligit: with what cunning soeuer a man doth sweare, God who is the witnesse of conscience, doth take it as he meaneth, to whō a man sweareth.

Let vs now heare the reason why the name Catholike prooueth a Church; because they that are so named, haue on their side Scriptures, Fathers, Councells, and Martyrs: (for of miracles we shall speake hereafter.) This proud bragge I vtterly denie: & con­cerning Scriptures, I say with Salvianus in his 5. booke of proui­dence, that Nos tantùm Scripturas plenas habemus, qui eas vel in fonte suo bibimus, vel certè de purissimo fonte haustas: we onely haue the Scriptures fully perfect, which either drinke them in their foun­taine, or translated out of a most pure fountaine. Touching Fa­thers, by that which hath bin said afore, it appeareth that they are not all on their side. What should I speake of the famous Martyrs in Queene Maries daies, which died in the religion now taught in England? Thus therefore I returne the argument:

• They which are falsly called Catholikes, are not the true church:
• But the Papists are falsly called Catholikes:
• Ergo they are not the true church.

Concerning the name of Protestants, we doe not hold our selues content with it, although it be not so bad as the name of Pa­pists: and touching the names of Calvinists, and Zwinglians, they are names invented, as Athanasians and Omousians were, by the [Page 7] old heretikes. But whereas he giueth some allowance to the name of Papists, it may not be tollerated, for why may they not as well be called Petrians? and therefore I say with Nazianzen, [...], In dic. Christs. I will not be named of men, beeing borne of God: In Psal. 44. and with Au­gustine, Sumus Christiani, non Petriani, we are Christians, not Petri­ans. I cannot let passe his ignorance in saying, that all heretikes haue alwaies taken their names of some one, who began that here­sie. For (not to take exception against his speach) by the first au­thors of heresie, as Nestorius, Pelagius, euery meane diuine know­eth that many heretikes haue their names of their heresie, not of their author, as Apostolici, Cathari, and others. If the Lutherans haue changed the word Catholike in the Creede, draw your penne against them, and not against the church of England. But it is a pe­rilous matter for some of our translations to say, for an heretike, a man that is the author of sects. His owne men so translate the word here­sie, Act. 24. chap. & 28. chap. A great matter to english a greeke word. Thankes be to God, that you haue no other cauills against our translations. I hope such pelting will driue men from Pope­rie. Your saying out of Hierome galleth your selues, and prooueth you to be sectaries, as beeing named Dominicans, Franciscans, Ie­suits, and with diuers other names. Therfore please not your selues any longer with a bare name, without the subiect matter: for that is like a pearle in the snowt of a swine.

Hauing answered two of the Doctors reasons, I come to han­dle the third, in which he vaunteth of vnitie after this manner. The Catholike religion hath varietie of doctrine, with diuersitie of manners, yet euer kept vnitie in such a peaceable manner, as neuer any disagreed in any point of doctrine.

Blush M. Doctor at this notorious vntruth, I haue in my dis­swasiue from Poperie gathered 20. contradictions betwixt Papists in matters of faith: and to giue you a tast of your vnitie, I will set downe your harmonie about Antichrist. Some Papists hold Ma­homet to be Antichrist, Bellarmine in his 3. booke de Rom. Pont. cap. 3. This is denied by other, because, say they, Antichrist shall be one singular man.

Secondly some Papists teach, that Antichrist shall arise of the tribe of Dan: cap. 11. yet Bellarmine confesseth that this opinion is not certaine, because no scripture conuinceth it.

Thirdly the Papists teach, that Antichrist shall raigne but three yeares and an halfe, yet Hentenius confuteth this opinion.

Fourthly some Papists teach, that Antichrist shall vtterly extin­guish the faith, as I prooued before. Bellarmine denieth this not without cause.

Fifthly the Rhemists say, that it may well be that Antichrist shall sit at Rome. Bellarmine will haue him to sit at Ierusalem. I will not follow any more contradictions about this opinion, but come to their vnitie in Idolatrie.

Catharine affirmeth the commandement which concerneth I­mages to be temporall and positiue: is not this goodly diuinitie? others denie it. Caietan confoundeth an Idol and an Image, Bel­larmine cannot beare this doctrine. Aquinas will haue the crosse of Christ to be worshipped with diuine honour, others renounce Aquinas in this point. Alphonsus de Castro counteth Serenus and Epiphanius enemies to Images, Bellarmine confuteth Alphonsus his opinion. Abulensis and Peresius teach, that Images of God are not to be made: Bellarmine like an Idolater alloweth Images of God himselfe. Augustine speaketh plainly against this diuelish diuinitie. Nulla Imago Dei coli debet nisi illa quae hoc est, quod ipse, nec ipsa pro illo, Epist. 1 [...]9. sed cum illo: No image of God must be worshipped, but that which is God, and that not for God, but with God. By these contrarieties euery man may see the popish harmonie. Now I reduce the Argument into a syllogisme.

• Where vnitie is, there is the Church:
• But the Papists haue vnitie. Ergo.

The proposition and assumption are both false: and whereas he would prooue the proposition out of the 4. of the Acts, and 17. of S. Iohn, we must know that an vnitie in true doctrine is there commended, and praied for. Si vultis, saith Augustine, vivere de spiritu sancto, c [...]6. serm. de temp. tenete charitatem, amate veritatem, desiderate vnita­tem, vt perveniatis ad aeternitatem. If you will liue according to the holy spirit, then imbrace loue, make much of truth, and desire vni­tie, that you may come to eternitie. Vnitie therefore in veritie must bring vs to eternitie. But in sadnes is there no Church where there are dissentions? [...] book tripar. hist. 12. chap. Themistius wrote to Valens that he should not be cruell to Christians for difference in Ecclesiasticall opinions, for amongst the Pagans there were more then three hundred sects. Will you M. Doctor, cut off the Church of Corinth from [Page 9] the bodie of the Church, because of dissentions? What shall be­come of Paul and Barnabas, Cyprian and Cornelius, Epiphanius and Chrysostome, with diuers others? And to stay thy minde, Christian Reader, touching this point of dissentions, I desire thee first to consider, that all men haue not the same measure of the spirit, and therefore there must needes be contentions. God his gifts are diuers, to one man he giueth greater knowledge then to another: therefore Paul saith, when perfection of knowledge commeth, there shall be an vnitie in opinions, which is not to be looked for in this vale of miserie. Secondly, vaine-glorie, the mother of mischieuous contentions, is not wholly driuen out of men that liue in the Church: I would to God it were, for then many broyles would haue an ende. Maruell not then, gentle Reader, though there be varietie of opinions. I might inlarge these reasons and annex moe, but I desire breuitie. The Doctor here to amplifie our diuisions without all conscience, chargeth vs with the heresies of Anabap­tists, Adamites, Striblerians, and many other, which we condemne to the pit of hell. But for a testimonie of our vnitie let our hea­uenly harmonie of Confessions be read, in which a man may see our consent to be greater then the Papists would wish. The scornefull name of Parlimentarie religion, I leaue to God to re­uenge: (if Queene Marie might receiue the Pope by Parliament, why might not Queene Elizabeth doe as much for Christ?)

And thus I retort the argument:

• Where there are diuisions, there is no Church:
• But amongst Papists are diuisions. Ergo.

In the ende of this reason he concludeth with a manifest vn­truth, saying, that all decrees of lawfull Councells and of Popes doe agree in points of doctrine one with another. Good God! what dare not this man affirme? I passe by Councells, and come to Popes. Pope Nicholas auoucheth that Baptisme may be gi­uen and ministred onely in the name of Christ: which is a false o­pinion, as Bellarmine himselfe confesseth. Pope Pelagius contra­riwise decreed that it ought to be ministred in the name of the blessed Trinitie. Aquinas 3. par. quaest. 66. art. 6. In epist. 1. ad Cor. cap. 7. But let Erasmus speake concerning this matter: Qui sit, how commeth it to passe, saith he, that the decrees of this Pope fight with the decrees of that Pope. That I say nothing of Formosus, doe not the decrees of Iohn the 22. and Nicholas fight one against another? what should [Page 10] I speake of Innocentius, and Coelestinus, Pelagius, and Gregories decrees, one contrarie to another? By these examples appeareth the Doctors vanitie.

In this fourth reason the framer of it according to his custome, beginneth with an vntruth, saying, that all countries which euer beleeued in Christ, were first conuerted to his faith, by such as ei­ther were precisely sent, or at least wise had their authoritie from the Pope. The Apostles which receiued authoritie from Christ himselfe, not from Peter, conuerted many countries. That the A­postles receiued authoritie from Christ himselfe, the scriptures are plaine: in the 20. of Iohn our Sauiour saith, As the father hath sent me, so send I you: what can be more plaine? Paul saith of himselfe, that he was an Apostle neither of men, nor by men, but by Iesus Christ. How many countries did Paul conuert? Concerning this land I spake something before. Read Theodoret his 4. booke and 3. chap. where he reckneth England amongst the Christian lands. Chrysostome as the same writer testifieth, comparavit viros aemula­tores Apostolicorum laborum, eos (que) ad Scythias misit, prouided men followers of the Apostles labours, and sent them to the Scythians. The Indians were conuerted by Frumentinus, whome Athanasi­us ordained Bishop, as the same author testifieth in his 1. booke and 12. chap. The people of Iberia were conuerted per captivam mulierem, by a woman that was a captiue, Ruff. lib. 1. cap. 10. by all which cleare and pregnant proofes euery man may see the bold­nes of the authors assertion. But now I come to reduce his reason into a syllogisme:

• They which take paines in conuersion of countries, hold the true religion:
• But the Papists take paines in conuersion of countries: ergo.

I denie the proposition, and say to the Papists, as our blessed Sauiour spake to the Pharisies: Math. 23. woe be to you Papists, for ye com­passe sea and land to make one of your profession, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell. Heretikes haue laboured to conuert, or rather to peruert men. Paul in the 2. Tim. 3.13. affirmeth, that euill men shall waxe worse and worse, deceiuing [Page 11] and beeing deceiued. The Arrians peruerted many kingdomes, Read Sigebert in his chap. de reg­no Gothorum. as witnes Theodoret, and others writers. As touching the conuersi­on of the west Indians, if things be true that are reported; Sadeel. con. are. pos. in novo illo orbe amplius decies centena millia barbarorum aut fame aut gladio perierunt: in the new found world aboue tenne hundred thou­sand haue perished either by famine or by sword. If our Sauiour Christ had saide, Goe kill all nations, when he saide, Goe teach all nations, he had fitted the Papists humour. What Gregorie spent in founding Seminaries to restore Catholike religion, I know not, but this I am sure of, that Papists haue taken paines in contriuing of treasons here in England. But to returne to the Indies: The people there liued not onely without all manner of knowledge of God, but also wilde and naked without any ciuill gouernement: Iuel. 42. pag. beeing in this miserable estate, some worshipped the sunne, some familiar deuills: what maruell then if they were easily ledde into any religion, especially carrying such a shew of apparrell and o­ther ceremonies? But doe not the Protestants take paines in win­ning of soules vnto God? Calvine, not to speake of others, read almost two hundred lectures euery yeare, and preached aboue two hundred sermons. Who conuerted England, Scotland, Ire­land, and other countries from Antichrist to Christ, from the Masse to the Messias, from Images to the seruice of the liuing God? did not poore Luther, Zwinglius, Oecolampadius, and o­ther Protestants the ministers of England, labour in their owne charges preaching in season, and out of season? God is as well glorified in the conuersion of a soule here as in other countries. But doe the Papists now labour in conuerting of soules? in times past it was not so; hodie proh dolor, saith Aeneas Sylvius, Lib. 1. de ge [...]. con. Basil. now alas he is a rare Prelate which doth not preferre temporall things be­fore spirituall things. Againe, Nos ignavia nostra nimia vitae cupi­ditate, Christianam religionem ex toto orbe in angulum redegimus: we by our lasinesse and great desire of life haue drawne religion out of the world into a corner of the same. Clemangis in his booke which he wrote of the corrupt state of the Church, speaketh thus: Multò aequanimiùs ferunt decem millium animarum iacturam, quàm decem solidorum. Pontifices suas traditiones divinis longè mandatis an­teponunt: they had rather loose ten thousand soules then tenne shil­lings: the Popes preferre their traditions farre before Gods com­mandements. Thus then I returne the argument:

• [Page 12]They which esteeme money, more then the soules of men, are not the true Church:
• But the Papists esteeme money more then the soules of men. Ergo.

Whether M. Calvin sent ministers or no into new found lands I know not, neither am I priuie to the successe they had. Ezekiel was sent to the Iewes, that they might know that there had beene a Prophet amongst them; the fault is not in the doctrine, but in the men who resist the same. I will not dispute whether a wicked man may be a meanes to winne soules, as a good master bestoweth a good almes by the ministerie of an euill seruant: so also the mer­cifull Lord may call one to repentance, by the meanes of another, though he be an vnpenitent person. The Doctors rayling vpon Luther, Calvin, and Peter Martyr, calling his wife fustilugges, fit­teth the spirit of a Papist. If Peter Martyrs lawfull wife deserueth the name of fustilugges, what name doe the popish priests concu­bines deserue? In that our Ministers trauell not without their wiues, 1. Cor. [...]. I answer with Paul, Haue we not power to lead about a sister a wife? Beza his epistles and pistols are but words to fill vp pages, and to wast paper. But haue not the Protestants for-gone any worldly wealth, to spread abroad religion, why are they then exi­les, and haue witnessed their religion with their blood. In a word, Poperie gaineth more by wealth and armes, then by conscience, and if it gaineth any soundly it is by some reliques of truth which remaineth with them.

That the Church which the Messias was to plant, must be di­spersed throughout all nations, and kingdomes, as the holy Pro­phets most plainly foreshewed, we acknowledge: neither needed the Doctor to haue produced so many testimonies. I may well say of the Doctor, as did Aristippus of Dyonisius his liberalitie: Tutò Dyonisius, inquit, liberalis est his enim qui multis indigent, pauca mittit, Platoni verò qui nihil accipit, plurima. Dyonisius, saith Ari­stippus, maintaineth all his liberalitie well enough, for to the nee­die he sendeth fewe things, but to Plato which lacketh nothing, [Page 13] many gifts. Euen so the Doctor in needelesse matters heapeth vp many testimonies: but in matters of question, he hath no proofe, but bold assertions. If he had prooued that these prophesies are verified in no religion, but onely in the religion, which now the Papists hold, he had done well; but hic labor, hoc opus, this is such paines as would make the Doctor sweat. As the Prophets foretold the largenes of Christs religion, 2. Thes [...]. [...]. so Paul prophesied of an Aposta­sie from the same: as the Rhemists confesse, and as the same men write vpon the 12. of the Rev. where S. Iohn foresheweth that the Church shall flie into the wildernes, that now in England, The Church Catholike. (be­cause it hath no publicke state or regiment, nor open free exer­cise of functions) may be said to be fled into the desart. so say I of our Church in the raigne of Antichrist. And thus I conclude:

• As the Papists Church is now in England, though not visible, so was the Protestants in Antichrists raigne:
• But the Papists Church is now in England. Ergo.

The proposition is manifest by S. Iohn, who foretelleth the flight of the Church into the wildernes. Let Reinerus speake, Catal. test. [...]ec. who was a popish inquisitour, he saith that the poore men of Lyons were more pernitious to the Romish Church, then all other sects, for three causes: first because it hath beene of longer continuance: for some say that it hath endured since the time of Sylvester, others say it hath endured since the Apostles time. The second cause is, because it is more generall: for there is almost no land in which this sect doth not creepe. The third cause is, for that all other sects doe bring in an horrour with their heinousnes of their blasphe­mies against God. This sect of the Leonists hath a great shewe of godlines, because they liue iustly before men, and beleeue all things well concerning God, and all the articles which are contai­ned in the Creede, they blaspheme and hate onely the Church of Rome. This is the testimonie of a cruell enemie and persecutor of them: whereby euery man may see the Church to haue conti­nued maugre Antichrist. These men are knowne to haue conti­nued in Bohemia, Calabria, Piemont, and other places. Their faith is printed in the booke called Fasciculus rerum expetendarum, where who listeth may read the same. But now I reduce his argu­ment into a syllogisme:

• They which haue the largest scope are the true Church:
• But the Papists haue the largest scope. Ergo.

The proposition beseemeth an Ethnicke better then a Christian: might not the heathen haue made the same against Christ? The Pharisies argue indeede after the same manner, Ioh. 7. Doth any of the Rulers beleeue in Christ? so the Papists say, Doe any Popes, Cardinalls, embrace Luthers doctrine? In the 1. King. 22. there are foure hundred Prophets against Michaiah, yet Michaiah had the truth. In the third of Daniel three onely resisted the Kings e­dict. Esa. 1.9. The Prophet Esai affirmeth, that except the Lord had reser­ued a remnant, they had bin as Sodom and Gomorrah. Elias com­plaineth that he was left alone. In the daies of Achab, the altar of God was remooued and an idolatrous altar by the high Priests consent was set vp. 1. king. 16. and chap. 17.19. it is said that Iudah did not keepe the Lords commandements, but walked in the er­rours of Israel. Likewise Manasses and Amon built an idolatrous altar, 2. king. 21.4, 5. and 22. v. might not they haue made the same argument? Lib. de bre. vitae. Well saith Seneca, Non tam benè cum rebus humanis agi­tur, vt meliora pluribus placeant, argumentum pessimi turba est: It is not so well with humane affaires, that most men like the best things; the multitude is an argument of the worst. Bellarmine hath this ingenious confession, Si sola vna provincia retineret veram fidem, adhuc verè & propriè, diceretur Ecclesia Catholica. If onely one Prouince should retaine the faith, yet that Prouince should be the true Church. Therefore largenesse of dominion is not a note of the true Church. But it is worthie to be noted, first that this Doctour reckneth the largenesse of the Romane religion but for a thousand yeares: for space then of sixe hundred yeares our Church had large dominion: antiquitie then is with vs. Verily, if our Church was ample for sixe hundred yeares, I make no doubt of our religion: and indeede the largenesse which the Prophets foretold was verified of the Apostolicall Church, and by conse­quent of ours. Let the Scriptures iudge whether we teach the same doctrnie, that the Apostles did or no. I would not haue the Doctour to thinke that for a thousand yeares we had no church: for that we alwaies had a Church, I prooued before out of their owne writers. Images were reiected by many Bishops seauen hundred yeares after Christ: Ministers were likewise married, as I shewed before, for a thousand yeares. And not to name many o­ther points of doctrine, Bellarmine prooueth the seauen Sacra­ments out of Peter Lombard: is not this goodly doctrine which [Page 15] can bring no better authors for it then the master of sentences? Barnard denieth merits, Bellarmine answereth that he did it of hu­militie: at sancti, humiles esse debent, non mendaces; Saints must be humble, not liars. In the yeare of our Lord, one thousand, one hundred and seauen, the poore men of Leodium prooued Pope Paschal to be Antichrist: In epist. ad Pas. Hactenus interpretabar (say they) ideo ve­luisse Petrum per Babilonem, significare Romam, quia tunc temporis Roma confusa erat Idololatria & omni spurcitie, at nunc dolor meus interpretatur, quod Petrus prophetico spiritu dicens, ecclesiam in Ba­bilone collectam praedicit confusionem dissentionis, qua hodie scinditur ec­clesia. I was wont to interpret that Peter by Babylon, would signi­fie Rome, because Rome at that time was confused with idolatrie and filthinesse, but now my sorrow doth interpret vnto me, that Peter calling the Church gathered togither in Babylon, foresaw by the spirit of prophesie the confusion of dissention wherewith the Church at this day is rent in pieces. And in the yeare of our Lord 1240. Cran [...]. lib. [...]. Met. 18. many preachers in high Germanie did freely preach against the Pope. Crantzius a man who greatly fauoured the Pope, saith thus of them: Quidam pulsatis campanis & conuocatis baronibus terrarum, certaine ringing the bells and calling the Ba­rons of the countries, are affirmed to preach publikely, that the Pope was an heretike, his Bishops and Prelates Symonists and heretikes. Bertrame eight hundred yeares after Christ was an ene­mie vnto Transubstantiation: but you haue purged him to your perpetuall shame, as testifieth your Index expurgatorius: the title is, vt liber Bertrami, how the booke of Bertrame beeing amended may be tolerated. But let it be graunted that the truth of doctrine was not publike for many yeares, yet might there be a Church. For at the comming of our Sauiour Christ the Pharisies had the gouernement and were blinde guides, yet was there a Church, and a number of chosen people, as Ioseph, Ma­rie, Simon, and Anna. In Elias time when religion was cor­rupt, the Lord had thousands which neuer bowed their knees to Baal.

But I returne the argument:

• Largenes of dominion is a note of the Church:
• But for many hundred yeares after Christ, our Church had largenes of dominion.
• Ergo.

Secondly the Doctor fearing least our Church should flourish and dilate it selfe, affirmeth that the Church is now old, & to make her flourish in her old age is to make her a monster. Verily we ac­knowledge that shee flourished in her young age, (if these titles of young and old may be attributed to her:) but shall not the Church flourish in her old age, as you speake, M. Doctour? what then is become of largenes of dominion? If largenes of dominion be a note of the true Church, then it shall be alwaies ample and large. Indeede thankes be to God, our Church now is ample, as testifie England, Scotland, Denmarke, Suetia, Saxonie, Helvetia, and o­ther countries, and therefore the Doctour varieth in this point. But that Antichrist shall be reuealed, and the Church increase, it is plaine out of the 2. Thess. 2. where Paul prophesieth, that the Lord shall consume him with the spirit of his mouth. This to be done we see it daily with our eyes, for by the preaching of the Gospel Antichrist is continually lessened. Moreouer in this reason the Doctour affirmeth, that persecution of any moment is not against Papists, but onely in England. The persecution of Papists in England is for treason, as their owne writings testifie. The title of the booke is this, Important cōsiderations which ought to mooue all true Catholikes to acknowledge that the proceedings of her Maiestie since the beginning of her highnes raigne, haue bin both mild and mercifull. The Rhemists are contrarie to this Doctour, for they writing vpon the 20. of the Rev. affirme Catholikes to be persecuted not onely in England, but also in Scotland, Flaunders, and other places: thus well heretikes agree amongst themselues. To be briefe: the Papists are so persecuted, that they are benè habi­ti, well liking as all men know, and haue affluentiam honorum, store of goods. But the Doctour desireth to be told whether against all learned Physitians, and against all Lawyers, one or two of later yeares are to be credited. I answer, if they haue the truth on their sides, they are. Might not Michaiah haue beene posed with this question, who was but one against foure hundred prophets? Did not Paphnutius stand vp in the Councell of Nice, and teach that a heauie yoke should not be laid on those which were dedicated to the ministerie. Here was one against that famous Councell. This question might well haue beene demaunded of Eugenius, who would not obey the Councell of Basill. 1 [...]00. de gest. conc. Ba. Aeneas Silvius writeth thus, Neque in Concilio dignitas patrum, sed ratio spectanda est, in a [Page 17] Councell the dignitie of men is not to be regarded, but reasons. And againe, Non ergo cuiusvis Episcopi mendacium quamvis ditissimi, veritati praeponam pauperis praesbyteri. I will not preferre Bishops vntruths, before an Elders truth, though one be rich and the other very poore. What should I speake of Athanasius condemned in the Councell of Millan? Panormitane is plaine, Whi [...]ak. 34. p. cont. Dur. Plus credendum est vel simplici Laico scripturam proferenti, quàm toti simul Concilio. A lay-man is more to be beleeued, alleadging scripture, then a whole Councell. Hierome translated the scriptures according to the Hebrew, whereas before the authoritie of the 70. Ann. 39 [...]. interpreters was currant: yet saith Sigebert, praevaluit authoritas Hebraica veritatis: the authoritie of the Hebrew truth preuailed. Hieroms act was a­gainst inveteratum vsum Ecclesiae, the auncient custome of the Church. Whereas he calleth Luther a loose Apostata, and M. Calvin a soare backt priest for Sodomie, I doubt not, but that for such slaunders of these men, good men shall more and more ab­horre poperie. And for thy satisfying, Christian Reader, I desire thee to read that which Erasmus hath written concerning Luther: and that which is printed by Beza concerning Calvins life. Sodo­mie is too common among Papists, as witnesseth Picus Mirandu­la in his oration to Leo the tenth, in these words, Sacrae aedes ac tem­pla lenonibus ac calamytis commissa: Churches and temples are com­mitted to bauds, and boies abused contrarie to nature. With Picus agreeth Mantuan,

The Church lands are giuen to common lesters, the sacred altars allotted to wantons, the temples of Saints to boies prouided for filthie lusts. Lastly whereas he faith, that if he should refuse the Catholike Romane religion, his Ancetours would vse such spee­ches as these; doest thou condemne all our doings? doest thou send vs all to hell? &c. I answer that God hath not referred vs from his word to our fathers: Walke not in the precepts of your fathers, Ezek. 20. neither obserue their manners, nor defile your selues with their Idols, saith the Lord. We condemne not our fathers, except they con­demned thēselues. Dei iudicia occulia, sed semper iusta, Gods iudge­ments are secret, but alwaies iust. If our fathers held the foundati­on, (as I hope many did) they might be saued. Ignosci potest simplici­ter erranti: he that erreth of ignorance, sinneth lesse then he to [Page 18] whome knowledge is reuealed. I conclude with Cyprian, Si solus Christus audiendus, if onely Christ must be heard, we must not re­gard what any before vs hath thought meete, but what Christ himselfe hath done: for a man must not follow custome, but Gods truth. And with Prudentius, who answereth Symmachus his ob­iection, Nobis sequendi sunt parentes, we must follow our fathers. frustrà igitur solitis prava observatio inhaeres, in vaine dost thou cleaue to custome ô wicked obedience.

M. Doctour, Noli illud tàm confidenter affirmare, quod socij tui falsum esse docuerunt: auouch not that so boldly which your fel­lowes haue taught to be false. True miracles say you, were neuer wrought but by them, which were of the true religion: for that they are done onely by the power of God. The Rhemists vpon the 9. of Marke are of another minde: for thus they write; Mira­cles are wrought sometimes by the name of Iesus, whatsoeuer the man be, when it is for the proofe of truth, or for the glorie of God: insomuch that Iulian the Apostata himselfe did driue away deuills with the signe of the crosse, as Gregorie Nazianzen writeth, orat. in Iulian. Theodo. lib. 3. cap. 3. hist. and so heretikes may doe mi­racles among the heathen. If miracles may be done by heretikes, they are then not alwaies done by those which are of the true reli­gion, except heretikes be of the true religion. Thus your owne men, M. Doctour, driue you to the wall. Socrates in his 7. booke and 17. chap. reporteth a miracle done by Paulus a Novatian Bi­shop: Iudaeus quidam veteratus Christianam fidem simulans, saepius baptizatus fuit, per quam fallaciam multas pecunias corrasit: a certaine Iewe beeing an olde deceiuer and counterfeiting Christian religi­on, was diuers times baptized, by which deceit he gathered much money: in the ende when he should be baptized by Paulus, Vni­uersa aqua divina quadam virtute quae oculis cerni non poterat subitò exhausta est. all the water by Gods power which could not be seene, suddenly vanished away. Here you see a Novatian bishop did a miracle. And so men if they should credit miracles without true doctrine might be drawne to heresie. Thomas your Angeli­call doctour in his first part and 114. quest. art. 4. teacheth, that dae­mones [Page 19] possunt vera miracula facere ad seducendum: the deuills may doe true miracles to seduce: and he prooueth it out of Augustine, who writeth that Magicis artibus sunt plerun (que) miracula similia illis miraculis quae sunt per dei servos: miracles are done by Magicke, e­uen such as Gods seruants doe. In the same place he answereth the vulgar argument which is this, then they are not effectuall to confirme faith. Read his answer your selfe M. Doctour, at your owne leisure. Where you say miracles are done onely by the pow­er of God: if you speake exactly of miracles, I ioyne with you: for as the same Aquinas teacheth in his 110. quest. that is properly a miracle which is done praetor ordinem totius naturae creatae, aboue all power that is created. When God worketh such miracles by false prophets and heretikes, he doth it to trie men, as Moses speaketh in the 13. of Deut. If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreames, and giue thee a signe or a wonder, and the signe come to passe, thou shalt not hearken vnto the words of the prophet: for the Lord your God prooueth you, to know whether you loue the Lord your God with all your heart or no. Out of this place it is plaine that God will trie his seruants, sometimes by wonders, and therfore they are not alwaies done to confirme true religion. In the Questions that goe vnder Iustins name, the author thus propoundeth the question, [...], if heretikes worke wonders, as curing of diseases, casting out of deuills, how commeth it to passe that they should not be confirmed in their errours? he answereth: as God causeth the sunne to shine vpon the good and bad, not to confirme them in their wickednes, but to make a way to his righteous iudgements: so he doth in heretikes that worke wonders. Hence I gather that the Lord doth prepare a way for his will, when false prophets worke any wonders. But I reduce his reason into a syllogisme:

• That religion which hath miracles is the true religion:
• But the Romane religion hath miracles: Ergo.

I denie the proposition, for I haue prooued it false by sundrie te­stimonies. I will now annexe Tertullian his speech, who writeth thus; Adijcient praetereà multa de authoritate cuiusque haeretici, illos maximè doctrinae suae fidem confirmasse, mortuos suscitasse, De prae. debiles re­formasse, futura significasse, quasi nec hoc scriptum sit, venturos mul­tos qui virtutes maximas aederent, ad fallaciam muniendam corrup­tae praedicationis. Furthermore they will alleadge for the au­thoritie of Heretikes, that they haue especially confirmed [Page 20] their doctrine by raising of the dead, by restoring the weake, by foretelling future things: as if it were not written that many should come working wonders to confirme their corrupt preaching. In Gratian I finde this sentence, 2. part causa. 1. Non melius debet credi propter miracu­la, nam communia sunt & bonis & malis: men are not the better to be credited for miracles, because they are common to good and bad: many of the auncient miracles we acknowledge. This Doctor numbreth some in Tertullians time and in others: but let him shew the Romane faith to be wholly the same as then it was. Miracles might then be needefull to conuert Pagans, and Iewes, amongst whome Christians were dispersed, but the popish miracles are fained things, Lib. 5. as testifieth Pabrugenius, Heu quas non nugas quae non miracula fingunt, vt vulgus fallant optata (que) praemia carpant! what mi­racles doe they not faine for reward? Lyra writeth thus vpon the 14. of Dan. Aliquando fit in Ecclesia maxima deceptio populi in miraculis fictis à sacerdotibus, vel eis adhaerentibus, propter lucrum temporale, & talia sunt extirpanda à bonis praelatis, sicut ista miracula extirpata sunt à Daniele. Sometime euen in the Church the people is shamefully deceiued with fained miracles, wrought either by their priests, or by their companions for lucres sake, and good Pre­lates are to abandon such as Daniel did. These testimonies may suffice any man not beeing vttered by a Calvinist, as they cal them, but by some of their owne coate. Iuel. ex Cop. What should I speake of making barren weomen beare by holy water, and driuing mise out of the countrey by the same. Eras. pere ergo. The milke of the Virgin Marie, and the blood of harts are not yet forgotten: the transportation of the vir­gin Maries house, Gomarus 16 p. is monstrous to remember. The author repor­teth that venienti domicilio arbores obvias velut venerabundas incli­nasse: trees did meete it, and bowing downe did worship it. Grego­rius Turonensis reporteth, Lib. 9. cap. 6. that one in stead of Saints reliques, had sacculum magnum plenum de radicibus diuersarum herbarum, & den­tes talpae, & ossa muruum, & vngues vrsinos: a great sacke full of rootes, of diuers hearbs, and there were also teeth of moules, and the bones of mise and beares clawes. But I take no pleasure in hea­ping together this trash, and therefore I come to Augustines au­thorities alleadged by this Doctor. The first is not in the 17. cap. but in the 16. de vtil. creden. where he saith, that miracula nos movent, miracles mooue vs: but he speaketh of Christ miracles, as it is manifest to­wards the ende of the chap. homines illius temporis aquam in vinum [Page 21] conuersam viderunt, the men of these times did see water turned in­to wine. In the second place he saith, that ista vincula rectè hominem credentem tenent in ecclesia catholica, Con. epist. f [...]n, cap. 5. these bands doe by right hold a beleeuer in the Church, speaking of miracles and other things. I answer first that Augustine speaketh of ancient miracles, for he saith, tenet me authoritas miraculis inchoata, authoritie begunne by miracles doth hold me in. Secondly I answer, that Augustine doth preferre truth before miracles: in the same place he confes­seth that veritas est illis omnibus praeponenda, truth is to be preferred before all those things. Now I returne the argument:

• They which haue true miracles, are the true Church:
• But the Protestants haue true miracles. Ergo.

For the proofe of the assumption, we produce the Apostles mira­cles, by which that doctrine which we maintaine, was confirmed many hundred yeares agoe. If our doctrine be not conteined in the scriptures, let it be disprooued by the same. But because the Doctour saith out of Augustine that he is bound in the Church by the bond of miracles, I would it might please him a little to li­sten vnto S. Augustine writing thus; de Vni eccle. cap. 16. Non dicat ideò verum esse quia illa & illa mirabilia fecit Donatus vel Pontius, &c. Let no man say it is true because Donatus or Pontius hath done these or these mira­cles, or because men at the memorie of the dead doe pray and are heard, or because these or these things doe happen there: or because this our brother or that our sister saw such a vision wa­king, or dreamed such or such a vision sleeping. In in the same cap. Augustine speaketh thus, quaecun (que) talia, such things whatsoeuer are to be approoued, because they are done in the Catholike Church, yet it is not made knowne by them. Belsee his reports of Luther and Calvin we reiect: and touching our Gospel it is not altogether without miracles in these daies. your Idols are fallen. quisquis adhuc prodigia, vt credat, inquirit, The world be­leeuing. whosoeuer seeketh for wonders, that he might beleeue, is himselfe a wonder. Take heede therefore M. Doctour, least you make your selfe a miracle, that will not beleeue without miracles.

Cytharaedus ridiculus chorda qui semper oberrat eadem. This Do­ctour [Page 22] harpeth alwaies vpon one string: he is not contented with Miracles, but now he commeth to Visions, and confidently affir­meth that visions and the gift of prophesie were neuer found to be but in the true Church: yet Aquinas in his 2. 2. 172. quest. art 6. teacheth, that prophetae daemonum aliquando verum praedicant, the de­uills prophets sometimes foretell the truth: yea he auoucheth, that propheta daemonum non semper loquuntur ex revelatione daemonum, sed interdum ex inspiratione divina: that the deuills prophets did not al­waies speake by reuelation from the deuill, but sometime by inspi­ration from God: and this he prooueth by Balaam his example, vnto whome the Lord spake, as it is in the 22. of Numb. The Sy­billes as the Doctour himselfe confesseth, prophesied for the con­firmation of right religion, yet were they Ethnicks, and liued a­mongst them. Who dare say, that the Church were with the hea­then, because of the Sybilles? But I draw this argument into a syl­logisme:

• They which haue visions, and the gift of prophesie, are the Church:
• But the Papists haue visions and the gift of prophesie. Ergo.

Aquinas as you haue heard, M. Doctour, denieth your propositi­on, and whereas you would prooue the same, because S. Paul, S. Peter, and S. Iohn stand vpon Reuelations, behold now your dou­ble follie. First you thus conclude: the Church had visions, there­fore it onely hath visions: which is as good as if a man should con­clude; the Church teacheth the Trinitie, ergo no heretikes teach the same. Secondly the Church had visions, therefore it shall al­waies haue visions: who will graunt you this consequence? S. Au­gustine saith, 3. booke, de bap. cap. 10. that miracles were ad ecclesiae primordia dilatanda, to enlarge the beginnings of the Church: so were visions to last for a time. I returne the argument:

• They which haue visions, and the gift of prophesie, are the true Church:
• But the Protestants haue visions:
• Ergo they are the true Church.

The Assumption is prooued by S. Pauls, Saint Peters, and Saint Iohns visions: our doctrine is the same with theirs. Saint Iohn heard a voice from heauen, saying, Blessed are the dead, for they rest from their labours: so say we, therfore there is no purgatorie paines for them after this life. The Scriptures teach that the sufferings of [Page 23] Christ are a perfect and full satisfaction for our sinnes: so say we, and therefore there remaineth not any part of Gods iustice to be satisfied by vs. But let vs see what visions the Papists haue, and what a dangerous thing it is to stand vpon visions. Bellarmine in his 2. booke of purgatorie and 7. chap. alleadgeth a vision out of Beda, to prooue besides hell, purgatorie, and heauen, a fourth place, namely, pratum florentissimum dilucidissimum, as it were a most goodly meadow. And in the same booke and 4. chap. he sheweth that Dyonisius the Carthusian, and Michael Baius by vi­sions would prooue, that the soules in purgatorie were not certen of their saluation, which opinion he confuteth. Thus you see out of your owne writers what credit is to be giuen to visions: by such counterfaiting meanes we may prooue any thing. I say therefore with Augustine, Removeantur ista vel figmenta, mendacium homi­num, vel portenta fallacium spirituum: Away with these fained things of lying men, or monsters of lying spirits. And now M. Do­ctour, to argue vpon your owne graunts both of miracles and vi­sions. You say, that the heathen had prophesies to confirme right religion: graunt you then that you haue some few which works both true miracles and see true visions, it is not to confirme your erroneous doctrine, but to confirme that truth of doctrine which is held in your Church: for all them you are a corrupt Church: yet there are some reliques of true doctrine remaining, and so by sequele of your owne speech these things may come to passe to confirme that true doctrine which is amōgst you. Heretikes haue held some true opinions that there heresies might be the better bolstered out. You hold the Trinitie, and some other points of re­ligion: it may be then that if there be any miracles or visions a­mongst you, it is to confirme the reliques of that truth which re­maineth with you. Thus I haue argued vpon your owne wordes and graunt. But for my part I hold with Chrysostome, 49. hom. in op [...]. imper. that nunc nulla probatio esse potest vorae ecclesiae, there can be now no proofe of the true Church but onely by the Scriptures. He giueth a reason of his speach, quia, saith he, qua propria sunt in veritate, ca hareses habent in schismate, habent ecclesias, habent scripturas diuinas, habent Epis­copos, caeterosque ordines clericorum, habent baptismum, habent Eu­charistiam, caetera (que) omnia: because those things which are pe­culiar to truth, heresies haue in their schisme, they haue Chur­ches, they haue Scriptures, they haue Bishoppes, and other [Page 24] cleargie orders, they haue baptisme, the Eucharist, and all other things. He proceedeth affirming that the church was in times past knowne by miracles, but now they are either ended or els in grea­ter number with false Christians, yea he auerreth that a man might know by the liues of men, which was the true Church: but now Christians were worse then either hereticks or Ethnicks. If this worke were written by an Arrian, as some say, yet there is no cause to condemne this excellent sentence, prooued by so weightie rea­sons.

We haue finished by Gods assistance seuen Reasons, some of which as the Doctour seemeth to graunt are nothing worth with­out Scripture, and therefore he saith that they teach not any do­ctrine but such as is deriued out of the holy Bible. If you would abide by this confession, you would not hold so many vnwritten opinions as you doe. For adoration of Images, for the halfe com­munion, for the Popes not erring, for the lent fast, with other points of Poperie, what scripture is there? It is one of your prin­ciples, Cens. Colon. that traditiones ecclesiae non scriptae credendae ac seruandae sunt, vnwritten traditions are to be beleeued and kept. Hence I con­clude after this manner:

• They which hold opinions by vnwritten traditions, deriue not all their opinions out of the scriptures:
• But the Papists hold some opinions by vnwritten traditi­ons. Ergo.

But good M. Doctour, are we driuen to denie certaine parts of Gods holy Bible, for the maintaining of our opinions, and are the Manichees our predecessours? take heede least by auouching vntruths, you doe vastare conscientiam, make shipwracke of con­science. If Luther reiected the epist. of S. Iames, what is that to vs? Caietane will haue it to be minoris authoritatis quam caeteras, Bell. lib. 1. cap. 17. 2. booke. 23. of lesse authoritie then the other epistles. Eusebius saith, sciendum est eam esse adulterinam, we must know that it is a bastard epistle. Euseb. 3.22. cap. Now I reduce your argument into a syllogisme:

• They which refuse bookes of Scripture, frame that bible to their opinions:
• [Page 25]But the Protestants refuse bookes of Scripture. Ergo.

I denie the assumption, which is set downe without any proofe: and for the disproofe of the same, I will not content my selfe with a few fathers, but will produce a cloud of witnesses, that the Papists may see their proud bragge of fathers. Origen at Eusebius spea­keth thus, Euseb. hist. 6. booke 24. Hand ignorandum fieret esse veteris testamenti libros sicut Hebraei tradunt viginti duos, qui etiam numerus apudeos est literarum. We must vnderstand that there are 22. bookes of the old Testa­ment, as the Hebrewes doe teach, which also is the number of let­ters. Hence I gather, that if the Canonicall bookes answer the he­brew letters, then there are but 22. otherwise there should be more then the letters are. Melito numbreth the same bookes which we doe, excepting the booke of Wisdome, as witnesseth Eusebius. 4. book 25. Cyril of Ierusalem in his 4. catechisme exhorteth the Catechume­nes to read 22. bookes, but that he reckneth Baruck with Ieremie he reckneth the same which we doe, and directly warneth vs vt cum Apocryphis nihil habeamus negotij, that we haue nothing to doe with Apocryphal bookes, for saith he, multò prudentiores te; & reli­giosiores fuerint Apostoli, & primi Episcopi veritatis duces, qui nobis eas tradiderunt: the Apostles and first Bishops were wiser and more religious then thy selfe, they deliuered these scriptures to vs. Leontius in his 2. action of sects, agreeth with these authors say­ing, that veteris scripturae libri sunt viginti duo, there are 22. bookes of the old testament. Innilius reiecteth the Machabees from diuine scripture, quoniam apud Hebraeos super hac differentia recipiebantur libri Canonici, sicut Hieronymus alij (que) testantur; because with the Iewes the canonicall bookes were receiued with this difference, as Ierome and other writers witnesse. He reiecteth Iob and some o­ther bookes which are Canonicall by his owne reason, namely be­cause they were of that authoritie with the Iewes. Amphilochius differeth not from the aboue named writer, after that he hath set downe the same number which we doe, excepting the booke of Wisdome, which yet it may be but put in for verse, because he reckneth but three of Salomon; after I say he concludeth thus, hic verissimus divinitus datarum est scripturarum Canon, this is the most true Canon of the diuine scriptures. Ruffinus in his expo­sition vpon the Creede, saith that he will describe the Canonicall bookes of the olde testament, which he doth after our order in England, and acknowledgeth that non Canonicos libros legi volue­runt [Page 26] in ecclesiis, sed non proferri ad authoritatem ex his fidei confirman­dā: they wil haue the books that are not Canonicall to be read in Churches, but not to be aleadged to confirme a matter of faith. I will not produce the testimonies of Hierome, Epiphanius, Nazi­anzen, Athanasius, and others, because they are obvious to euery one: neither will I conuince the Doctour by his owne writers, as Caietan, Hugo, and Arias Montanus. Iosephus is worthie to be heard, who plainly teacheth, that duo solum & viginti libri fide digni esse creduntur, Euseb. 3. lib. hist. [...]0. onely 22. bookes are to be credited. By this cloud of witnesses I hope, Christian Reader, thou maist see the vanitie of Papists, who doe nothing but crepare patres, patres, crie the fathers they are on their side. I returne the Argument:

• They which adde bookes to diuine scriptures, draw the ho­ly Bible to their fancies:
• But the Papists adde whole bookes to diuine scriptures: Ergo:

Where he saith that the Catholikes follow the bible, I will not stand vpon that famous corruption of the Hebrew psalter by an English Papist, to iustifie their vulgar latin text, but come to one place out of which they would gather purgatorie. Where it is said, that a certaine sinne shall not be forgiuen neither in this world, Math. 11. nor in the world to come: we expound it by Marke, who saith it shall neuer be forgiuen: the Papist saith, Matthew must not be expoū ­ded by Marke, because he is shorter: but is he not plainer? How absurd is it to expound these words, [...]ell. lib. 1. de in­to. cap. 4. [he hath neuer forgiuenes] to this sense? whereas to expound the words of Matthew by Marke, hath an excellent construction. Thus euery man may see who draw the scriptures to their fancies, whether Papists or Prote­stants.

Whether the Church of God hath euer bin accustomed when any heresie did spring vp therein to gather a Councell of Bishops, Prelates, and other learned men, I will not stand to dispute: If your meaning be, M. Doctour, that nothing is heresie but that which is condemned by a Councell, Lib. 4. cont. d [...]s epist. Pelag. in fi­ne. I vtterly renounce your vaine conceit. Let Augustine speake, Aut verò congregatione synodi [Page 27] opus erat vt aperta pernicies damnaretur, quasi nulla haeresis aliquando nisi Synodi congregatione damnata sit, cum potius rarissimae inveniantur propter quas damnandas necessitas talis extiterit, multo (que) sint atque in­comparabiliter plures, quae vbi extiterunt illic improbari damnari (que) meruerunt, atque indè per caeteras terras devitandae innotescere potue­runt. Was it necessarie a Councell should be gathered to con­demne open mischiefes, as if no heresie had beene condemned without a Councell, whereas very few are found for the condem­ning of which, there hath bin such necessitie, and there are without comparison moe which deserued to be condemned, where they did spring vp, that being so condēned they might be made known vnto other countries. Out of this testimonie I gather these two things, first that it may be an heresie, though not condemned by a Councell: secondly I gather, that in Augustines time there were few heresies for the condemning of which Councells were gathe­red together. To proceede. You say whosoeuer were condemned by Councells confirmed by the See Apostolicall, were euer dee­med and indeede were heretikes. What say you to Cyprian, De vnico lap. cap. 14. whom as Augustine reporteth, Stephanus Bishop of Rome, censuit ex­communicandum esse, deemed to be excommunicated? 8. book. 4 chap. Bellar. lib. 2. de con. cap. 5. Eusebius saith, that scripsit vniuersis conterminis gentibus, he wrote to all coun­tries that were neare, that he would not communicate with them, because they did rebaptize heretikes. Was Cyprian either an he­retike, or of that minde that whatsoeuer the Pope did condemne, was heresie? why did he not then yeild to Stephanus who was Pope? For I thinke you meane by the See Apostolike, the Pope; otherwise you condemne Eugenius, who saide, as Aeneas Sylvius reporteth, that tantum aebest vt generalibus Concilijs debeat obedire, vt se dicat tunc maximè mereri cum concilij decreta contemnit; It is so farre from him that he should obey generall Councells, that he doth then best deserue, when he doth contemne the decrees of the same. But I reduce your Argument into a syllogisme:

• They which are condemned by the Councell of Trent are heretikes:
• But the Protestants are condēned by the Councell of Trent:
• Ergo they are heretikes.

I denie the proposition: for it is against all reason, that they which are parties, that are partiall, that are accused should be the onely iudges. Augustine saith, Solis Canonicis scriptis debeo sine vlla [Page 28] recusatione consensum; I ought to consent onely to the Canonicall scriptures without any refusall. De n [...]t. & grat. [...]. Nicolaus de Clemangijs writeth, that Ecclesia quando (que) contraria determinat, the Church doth some­times determine contraries. in Fas. v [...]ta ex. Againe, Trita regula est ecclesia militans & fallit & fallitur; it is an old rule the Church militant doth de­ceiue and is deceiued. Gregorie his speach who saith, that he doth reuerence the foure first Councells as the foure Gospels, de alijs suspitionem in animis hominum relinquit, leaueth a suspition in the minds of men of other Councels. Saith the same man, the councell of Neocaesaria condemned second marriages: this is not confessed by Bellarmine in his tractate of councells, least he should graunt that Councells may erre. But in his first booke of marriage and 17. chap. he writeth, that Concilium tractat de secundis nuptijs, qua contrabuntur mortua priore vxore: the Councell doth entreat of second marriages, which are made the former wife beeing dead. Hence I thus conclude: That Councell which condemneth se­cond marriages, erreth: but this Councell condemneth second marriages: ergo. And touching your Tridentine conuenticle, why doe not your men stand to the decrees of the same? Arias Mon­tanus reiecteth the bookes from the bodie of the holy bible, which we doe. Catharin teacheth, that a man may be certen of grace: yet these opinions are condemned in your chapter of Trent, if we be­leeue Bellarmine. Againe, if your chapter of Trent teacheth right­ly of originall sinne, why doth the same Catharin teach, that it is nothing els but Adams actuall transgression, and disobedience. Noli esse tam iniustus: be not so vnequall M. Doctour, to binde vs with your councell of Trent, when your owne men dissent from the same. Where you say, that we shall vtterly vanish away, be­cause we haue no head to gather a generall Councell, I acknow­ledge you to be a false and no true prophet. We see the fall of Ba­bylon daily more and more, and the madnesse of them that seeke to vphold her daily more and more manifest. You say also that we receiue fixe Councells: [...]hem. Act. 15. yet your fellows maruell that we attribute much to the foure first and nothing to the rest: it were good for you to agree amongst your selues before you charge vs with er­rour. Lastly, the libertie of our Gospel is such as Gods word doth teach, 1 [...]. epist. ego, saith Augustine, solis eis scripturarum libris; I haue learned to giue this reuerence and honour onely to the canonicall Scriptures, that no author of them can erre.

The Doctour in the beginning of this chap. proijcit ampullos. casteth out loftie and arrogant words, after this manner. The Ca­tholike Romane religion is most plainly taught by all the ancient Fathers of the first, second, third, fourth, fift, and sixt hundred yeares, and hath beene euer without controuersie taught of the fa­thers of euery age since vntill this day. This proud bragge I haue disprooued before by many testimonies, and now by Gods helpe, I will make it manifest to boyes. Theophilus Alexandrinus is plaine against traditions: in his 2. paschal sermon he writeth thus; Daemoniaci est spiritus instinctus aeliquid extra scripturarum authorita­tem putare divinum: it is the instinct of a deuillish spirit to thinke any thing diuine without authoritie of scriptures: what spirits then haue Papists but deuillish spirits, who fight for their trash of traditions. Caesarius is as plaine, for reading of the Scriptures in his 20. homilie he taketh away the excuse commonly vsed for not reading the same. Nemo dicat non mihi vacat legere; Let no man say I am not at leisure to read the Scriptures. Inanis & invtilis est excu­satio ista; this excuse is vaine and vnprofitable. Marke the Eremite hath written a booke against those which thinke to be iustified by works: in which booke this notable sentence is extant; Regnum coelorū non est merces operū sed gratia domini fidelibus servis praepara­ta; the kingdome of heauen is not the wages of workes, but the grace of God prepared for faithfull seruants. In his booke de bap­tisme, of baptisme, he teacheth the same. Mandata ipsa non tellunt peccatum hoc enim per solam crucem factum est, sed donata nobis liber­tatis limites custodiunt; The commandements take not away finne, for that is done onely by the crosse, but they keepe the lists of the libertie that is giuen vs. G [...]l. de [...] n [...]t in Christ. ad­vers. Eutych. & Nest. fol. 2 [...] Gelasius is direct against Transubstantia­tion: Sacramenta quae suminus corporis & sanguinis Christi divina res est, propter quod & per cadem divinae efficimur consortes naturae, & tamen esse non definit substantia vel panis vel vini. The sacraments which we receiue of the bodie and blood of Christ are a diuine thing, therefore by them we are made partakers of the diuine na­ture, yet for all that ceaseth not the substance of bread and wine to be. Gelasius writeth against Eutyches, who affirmed that Christ [...] humane nature was turned into his Godhead: this opinion is thus [Page 30] refuted. As the bread and wine after consecration are changed in­to the bodie and blood of Christ, so is his humane nature turned into his diuine after ascension. But the bread and wine are not changed in substance. Ergo. Thus by your doctrine of Transub­stantiation you make the auncient Churches argument worth no­thing. I will adioyne the testimonie of Cyril of Ierusalem, because saith Bellarmine (testimonium huius vel solum sufficere debet) his te­stimonie alone ought to suffice. Mista in his 4. Catechisme, thus he speaketh; Ne ergo consideres panem nudum, & vinum nudum; corpus enim est & sanguis Christi: consider not bare bread and wine, for it is the bodie and blood of Christ. ergo it is still bread, but not bare bread. Againe in his 3. Catechisme, he is as plaine: Quemadmodum panis Eucharistiae post Spiritus sancti invocationem non amplius est communis panis, sed est corpus Christi: sic & sanctum hoc vnguentum, non amplius est vnguentum nudum atque commune, postquam iam consecratum est, sed est charisma Christi: As the bread of the Eucharist after the inuocation of the holy Ghost, is no more common bread, but it is the bodie of Christ, so is this holy oynt­ment no more bare oyntment, nor common oyntment after it is consecrated, but it is the gratious gift of Christ. Here is no more Transubstantiation in the one then in the other. Likewise in his first Catechisme, he writeth after the same manner; Quemadmo­dum enim panis & vinum eucharistia antè sacram inuocationem ado­randae trinitatis, panis erat, & vinum merum, sic & cibi ciusmodi pom­pae Sathanae suapte natura puri sunt sed invocatione daemonum impuri efficiuntur: euen as the bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the inuocation of the adored Trinitie was bare bread and wine: so such meates Sathans pomps were pure of their owne nature, but by inuocation of the deuills they are become impure. Loe what is become of your Transubstantiation! Augustine con­demneth worshippers of pictures, Novi multos esse sepulchrorum & picturarum adoratores; I know, saith he, there are many that a­dore sepulchres and pictures. Bellarmine in his first answers to this place, commeth in with his fortasses, peraduenture: in his last answer he confesseth that he wrote this booke when he was first conuerted. Here then it is manifest that Augustine condemneth worshippers of pictures. Lactantius in his 6. booke, 3. chap. ac­knowledgeth but two waies, duae sunt viae, vna, quae in coelem ferat, altera qua ad inferes deprimat; there are two waies, one which go­eth [Page 31] to heauen, and the other which tendeth to hell. The testimo­nie which Bellarmine alleadgeth out of him for purgatorie, spea­keth of a fire to purge the righteous after the last iudgement, when Popish purgatorie shall haue an ende, as Bellarmine proo­ueth in his 2. booke and 19. chap. Theophilact condemneth your halfe communion, saying, that tremendus hic calix cunctis pari con­ditione est traditus; this fearefull cuppe is equally giuen to all. The testimonies of fathers in this point are many and pregnant. Paschasius thus expoundeth the words of Christ, bibite ex hoc om­nes, id est tam ministri, quàm reliqui credentes, Drinke ye all of this as well ministers as others. Bellarmine confesseth, Lib. 2. de miss. cap. 9. that nusquam expressè legimus à veteribus oblatum sacrificium sine communione a­licuius, vel aliquorum, praeter ipsum, sacerdotem; we neuer read ex­pressely, that the sacrifice was offered of auncient men, without the communion of some besides the priest. Loe what friends the fathers are to your priuate Masse! 28. cap. Walfridus Strabo writeth thus; Fatendum est illam esse legitimam Missam cui intersunt sa­cerdos, respondens, offerens atque communicans, sicut ipsa conceptio precum euidenti ratione demonstrat; we must confesse that to be a lawfull Masse at which the priest, the answerer, and the commu­nicant are present; euen as the conceiuing of praiers doth prooue by euident reason. Therefore your priuate Masse is vnlawfull. Vealrichus Bishop of Augusta, anno 978. wrote in the defence of the mar­riage of Ministers: Bellarmine prooueth this epistle to be fai­ned: be it so, yet did no Lutherane coyne it. And whereas he will haue but one of this name, it is false. For Complicatio Chronolo­gica confesseth there are two, and that anib [...] were sancti, both were holy. I will not contend about this matter, it sufficieth that some taught this doctrine. But why doe I labour to shew that the fa­thers doe not teach all points of Poperie? let their owne Index expurgatorius speake, Quanquam librum istum vz. Bertrami non magni aestimemus momenti, saith the Papist. ita (que) non magnopere laboraturi sumus si vel nusquam sit vel intercidat, attamen cum in alijs ca [...]bolicis veteribus plurimos feramus errores, & extenuemus, excusemus, excogitato commento persaepè negemus & commodamijs sensum affingamus dum opponuntur in disputationibus & conflictionibus cum adversarijs, non videmus cur non candem aequitatem & diligentem recognitionem mere­atur Bertr [...]s: Although we make no great account of this [Page 32] booke, namely Bertrams, and therefore we would not greatly care if either it were extant or vtterly lost; and seeing that in other an­cient Catholike writers we beare very many errours, and extenuate them, excuse them, and very oftentimes by deuising some preuie shift we denie them and doe faine some commodious sense vnto them when they are opposed against vs in disputations or in con­flicts with the aduersaries, we doe not see why Bertrame doth not deserue the same equitie and diligent recognition. This their owne testimonie may suffice to prooue that the fathers are not theirs, and that the Papists are void of all truth and honestie. What Cau­saeus a French Protestant and Luther haue written touching Dy­onisius, I know not, but this I am assured of that this Demus was not S. Pauls scholler. Bellarmine in his 2. booke de confess. cap. 7. writeth to this effect, that his booke est dubius vel supposititius, is ei­ther doubtfull or fained. The same thing is not denied by the Ca­techisme of Colon. pag. 119. Gregorius & Dyonisius, saith Picus Mirandula, discordant circa ordines angelorum; Gregorie and Dyonisius disa­gree about the order of angels. If Gregorie dissenteth from him, why may not Luther doe so? Who so desireth to read more of this Dyonisius may be referred to Erasmus and Valla. That the Protestants raile at the fathers it must be numbred amongst the Doctours vntruths: but by Protestants this man meaneth the Pu­ritans forsooth; although this odious name of Puritanes agreeth better to Papists, August. haeres. 38. who doe so stand vpon their puritie, because they can keepe all Gods commandements. Yet know not I any so called, that raile at all the fathers. But here it is to be noted euen by his owne confession, that the Protestant defend the fathers against the Puritanes: therefore they raile not at them. Thus M. Doctour you hardly know what you write, you are so egerly carried against the Protestants: somewhat ye would say, but yet know not well how to vtter your minde. We acknowledge the fathers to haue had excellent wits, to haue studied and praied continually; yet doe we not deifie them, neither doe we account their writings canoni­call scripture, as Augustine speaketh of Cyprian, lib. 2. cont. Cres. cap. 32. Where you call the Protestants foolish, vnstudied, vnlear­ned, prophane, and arrogant fellowes, you bewray your vaine spi­rit: Ʋascula inania maximè tinniunt, the emptiest vessells make the greatest sound. Of your learning we shall speake more hereaf­ter; in the meane time I would haue you to know, that constat plu­res [Page 33] Papa [...] adeò illiteratos fuisse, vt Grammaticam penitus ignorarent; Alphon. l. 1. c. 4. it is certenly knowne that sundrie Popes haue bin so vnlearned, that they neuer vnderstood their Grammar. You say further that Protestants are giuen to lust, ambition, gluttonie, and couetousnes. If for Protestants you had named Papists it had bin a true saying. For as your owne man Coster confesseth, Plari (que) Catholici feris ac bellumis moribus blasphemiae causam prabent infidelibus; many Catho­likes or Papists beeing of sauage and beastly manners and behaui­our doe cause Infidels to blaspheme. But more also of this in another place. If the Centuriators and Calvine haue noted some errours in some of the fathers, it is no more then Papists haue done. The Rhemists renounceth Augustines exposition vpon the 16. of Matthew. Bellarmine in his first booke de sancto beat. and 6. chap. saith that Iustinus, Epiphanius, Ireneus, and Oecume­nius, cannot be defended. Againe Ambrose, Hilarie, and Nissen, are reiected of him, cap. 4. lib. 2. de rel. To proceede, he holdeth that Adam was not deceiued, Lib. 3. de Amiss. grat. cap. 7. yet communis patrum sententia id vi­detur habere, vt Adam fuerit seductus; the fathers common opinion seemeth to be that Adam was seduced. Hierome agreeth not with the fathers concerning the buriall of Adam. Bell. lib. 3. de amiss. grat. cap. 12. Theodoret expoundeth some places of scripture as the Pelagians-doe. Bellar. lib. 4. de amiss. grat. cap. 9. The fathers before Pelaguis did not accurately handle the doctrine of prede­stination. Bellar. lib. 2. de grat. & lib. arb. c. 11. Lastly, not to be too tedious, cap. 14. eiusdem lib. he saith, that patres cum ad populum verba facerent, ea dicebant quae vtiliora videbantur ad excitandos ho­mines ad bona opera. The fathers when they did speake to the peo­ple vttered those things which were most profitable to stirre vp the people to good workes. For thy further satisfaction, Christi­an Reader, I desire thee but to read Bellarmines exposition of the Lords praier, and tell me how the fathers doe agree euen in ex­pounding that one praier. Their diuersitie also in expounding this article, He sitteth on the right hand of God, is worthie to be conside­red. Bellar. lib. 3. de Incar. cap. 15. M. Doctour Humfrie his spech of that famous and reuerend Bishop Iewell beeing iniurious to himselfe, is vttered in respect of his great paines, and not to detract from the truth of his challenge, if you can confute his booke set vpon it; if you cannot, neuer hereafter bragge of the fathers. For indeede it is no small meanes to confirme the Protestants in their [Page 30] [...] [Page 31] [...] [Page 32] [...] [Page 33] [...] [Page 34] cause, that his bookes haue not beene answered in so long a time: you crie the fathers, the fathers are on your sides, and yet haue not satisfied M. Iewel his challenge in many yeares. I reduce your ar­gument into a syllogisme:

• They which condemne the fathers of errors, hold a false re­ligion:
• But the Protestants condemne the fathers of errors. Ergo.

To this argument let Augustine answer; Si divinarum scripturarum, earum scilicet quae in Ecclesiae canonicae nominantur perspicua aliquid firmatur authoritate sine vlla dubitatione credendum est, [...]pist. 112. alijs verò te­stibus vel testimonijs quibus aliquid credendum esse suadetur, tibi crede­re vel non credere liceat; if any thing be confirmed by euident au­thoritie of those Scriptures which are called Canonicall in the Church, we must beleeue it without any doubting, but other wit­nesses or testimonies by which some thing to be beleeued is per­swaded, thou maist beleeue or not beleeue. I might abound with his testimonies, I will adioyne one other. Neque quorumlibet dispu­tationes quamvis catholicorum & laudatorum hominum velut scriptu­ras habere debemus, epist. 1 [...]1. vt nobis non liceat, salva honorificentia, quae illis debetur hominibus, aliquid in corum scriptis improbare aut respondere. We ought not to account any mens disputations (although ca­tholike and laudable men) as the scriptures, as if it were not lawfull for vs the honour which is due vnto them reserued, to disalow and reiect something in their writings. Picus Mirandula in his Apolo­gie prooueth that, in dictis sanctorum extra canonem bibliae, non est in­fallibilis veritas; in the sayings of Saints without the canon of the bible, there is not infallible truth. The Papists themselues refuse the fathers. Pucichius saith, Mihi non placet Augustini ea de re de­finitio, I [...]l. 548. I like not S. Augustines determination of that point, namely originall sinne. Epiphanius is reiected for breaking images by D. Harding. Cyprian is condemned by Duraeus, because he tea­cheth that onely Christ is to be heard. But that we may see all the fathers to be on your side, M. Doctour, produce I pray if you can their testimonies, to prooue that the Pope cannot erre; that he may depose Princes, that he must summon Councells, and that he is aboue the same, or that the virgin Marie was not conceiued in original sinne. I haue desired to see these points prooued by all the fathers, if you can doe it you shall doe more then your owne men haue done. By these new opinions we may gather, that Po­perie [Page 35] did beginne by degrees, and hath encreased to this height. These doctrines although they concerne the head of your church are so weakely prooued by the fathers, that a man would imagine you doe not hold these things but in scoffing manner: if you doe seriously hold them, prooue them seriously, and not with ridicu­lous authorities.

That it appertaineth to the Church to trie and to discerne Spi­rits, as also to determine and to decide doubts, we confesse, M. D. Trie all things, saith Paul: 1 Thess 5. 1. Ioh. 4. and S. Iohn commandeth vs to prooue the Spirits. But the question is, whether you are the Church or no? Quid ergo facturi sumus? what shall we doe? I answer with Augustine propounding this question, cap. 2. de vnitat. that we must seeke the Church of Christ in his word, qui veritas est, & optimè novit corpus suum, who is truth, & best knoweth his bodie. Where you say that we cannot otherwise but receiue the scriptures vpon the catholike Romane churches credit, and also three Creedes and some articles of beleefe, as the holy Ghost to proceede from the Father and the Sonne, and many tearmes, as person, Trinitie, consubstantiall, Sa­craments; I will answer these points seuerally. And first I desire to know what reason you haue to make a particular church, (as the Romane church) Catholike. The Romane church, if it were a true church, is but a part of the catholike church. It is Catholike saith Augustine, because it is per totum, through the whole world. de vnit. cap. 5. Cyril in his 18. chap. among many reasons of the name, giueth this, Quia per vniversum sit orbem terrarum diffusa; because it is diffused tho­rough the whole world. Is it all one to say, I beleeue the Catholike Church, and to say, I beleeue the Romane church? To leaue this matter, and to come to your speech, that it is not possible to know the Bible which is vsed amongst Christians, to be the true word of God indeede, but vpon the Romane churches credit. First, such idle questions the olde heretikes the Manichees demanded of S. Augustine, to whome S. Augustine answered, Lib. 32. cap 21. cont. Faust. Man. Si quaeratis à nobis vnde nos sciamus Apostolorum esse istas literas, breuiter vobis responde­mus, inde nos scire, vnde & vos scitis, illas literas esse Manichaei: If you demand of vs how we know that these be the Apostles writings, we shape you this short answer; as you know that your writings [Page 36] are of the heretike Manichee. Secondly, I would know how you can prooue any church to be the church but by the Scrip­tures; if you cannot prooue the church but by the Scriptures, then the Authoritie of the church dependeth vpon them, and not è con­tra. Thirdly, we receiue not the Scriptures vpon the Romane churches credit, for then we should haue receiued also the bookes which are Apocrypha, as well as the true Canon of the bible: for the Romane church doth receiue them. Fourthly, we receiue the Scriptures from the Scriptures themselues. Many men by the hea­uenly maiestie of the Scriptures are mooued to receiue them be­fore they know which is the true church. Gonarus con. Cost. Iustin Martyr saith, that Christs words haue in th [...] feare to perswade. in di­alogo cum Try. Mantuan de pat. l. 3. c. 2. saith thus, Firmiter scripturas ideo credimus, quòd diuinam inspiratio­nem intra accipimus; we steadfastly beleeue the scriptures, because we haue receiued an inward inspiration from God. He that will despise the Scriptures, will despise the Church. He that will not beleeue there is a God because the Scriptures teach it, will not be­leeue it because the Church teacheth the same. The Scriptures were credited before the Romane church was ens or in rerum na­tura. The Apostles beleeued the Gospel of our Sauiour Christ, before he wrought any miracle, because it was testified by the scriptures. Ioh. 1.46. Adam and others beleeued without the church. Our Sauiour Christ preached, Repent and beleeue the Go­spel, which some did without the Church. Eusebius in his third booke and 21. chap. writeth that the Gospels of Thomas and o­thers were reiected, because that phraseos character à consuetudine Apostolica variat, & ipsa sententia & propositum eorum, quae in illis adferuntur, plurimum à veritate rectae doctrinae discrepant; the style doth varie from the Apostolicall manner, and the matter and the intent of those things which are alleadged in them doe much dif­fer from the truth of right doctrine. The consent of Scriptures, the miracles and prophesies, with many other arguments, draw a man to credit the same; yea the deadly hatred which the world beareth vnto them, perswadeth not a little. Sacris Scripturis (saith Bellarmine) nihil est notius, Lib. 1. cap. 2. de v [...]. D [...]i. nihil certius; there is nothing more knowne and certaine then the Scriptures. Read Bellarmine your selfe, M. Doctor, that he may satisfie you in this point. But if we beleeue the Scriptures by the Church, doth not the church teach vs to beleeue by the scriptures? how can the church rightly per­swade vs to beleeue, but by preaching and producing of scrip­tures? [Page 37] Ergo the scriptures are of much more force, then the bare name of a church. For propter quod vnumquod (que) tale est illud magis tale; if the church induceth vs to beleeue, then the scriptures doe much more, because the church doth it by the scriptures. The church is an excellent meanes ordained of God to bring men to beleefe, neither doe we contemne the authoritie thereof. The Sa­maritans beleeued by the testimonie of a woman, Io [...]. 4. but afterward they beleeued because of Christ himselfe: so the Church may bring one to beleeue, but afterward to beleeue for the word it selfe. The testimonie of Augustine is fraudulently alleadged by you: his word is commoveret, for he saith; As there were many things which held him in the faith, so if he were an infidel, he would not beleeue the Gospel, vnlesse the authoritie of the church with other things did mooue him. ergo not onely the church: and he speaketh, if he were an infidell, as the wordes going before doe plainly manifest; Si invenies aliquem, if thou shouldest finde any which yet doth not beleeue the Gospel: what wouldest thou doe, saying to thee I doe not beleeue? then immediatly followeth your sentence, I would not beleeue vnlesse, &c. Nicholaus Clenangis is worthie to be heard concerning this testimonie of Augustine, Disp. super G [...]. con. Mirum sane prima specie satis videtur, at the first fight it is maruell that he should preferre the authoritie of the church, being a stran­ger in the earth, before the authoritie of the Gospel, seeing the Church may be deceiued in many things, and the Gospel cannot. Afterward he giueth the reason of Augustines speach; because the Manichees did reiect Scriptures at their pleasures. To stand yet somewhat longer in this testimonie: Con. lib. 5 c. 1 [...]. Augustine was mooued to beleeue by Ambrose: is Ambrose his authoritie therefore equall to the scriptures? God forbid: whosoeuer listeth to read the 5. chap of the 6. booke of his Confessions, shall finde that he did be­leeue the Scriptures for themselues. In his 14. chap. of the booke cited by the Doctor, he writeth thus; Quid putas faciendum, nisi vt eos relinquamus, qui nos invitant certa cognoscere, & postea imperant vt incerta credamus, & eos sequamur qui nos invitant prius credere, quod nondum valemus intueri, vt ipsa side valentiore facti, quod credimus intelligere mereamur, non iam hominibus sed ipso Deo intrinsecus men­tem nostram firmante, atque illuminante? what haue we to doe but to forsake them, that inuite vs to know certaine things, and afterwards command vs to beleeue vncertaine things, and to follow thē which [Page 38] inuite vs, first to beleeue that which yet we are not able to behold, that beeing made stronger through faith, we may attaine to vn­derstand that we beleeue now, not men, but God himselfe, con­firming and lightning our minde inwardly. The spirit of God therefore must cause vs to beleeue, otherwise we shall wauer and stagger. To conclude this point, many borne in heresie and schisme haue bin mooued by heretikes to beleeue the Scriptures, is heresie therfore equal to the scriptures? nothing lesse. The three Creedes we receiue, because the doctrine is contained in the scrip­tures: but you doe not receiue Athanasius his Creede, for he ma­keth but two places, vitam aeternam, & ignem aeternum. Omnes ho­mines resurgent cum corporibus suis, & reddituri sunt de factis pre­prijs rationem, & qui benè egerunt ibunt in vitam aeternam, qui verò malè in ignem aeternum. All men shall rise with their owne bodies, and shall giue an account of their deedes, and they which haue done well, shall goe into life euerlasting, & they which haue done euill, into euerlasting fire. You teach that Infants vnbaptized shall be in a brimme of hell, and not in the fire of hell. Thus if you had bin wise, M. Doctor, you would haue bin silent concerning these Creeds. If I should shew your contrarieties to the Apostles creed, I should be ouerlong. That the holy Ghost doth proceede from the Father and the Sonne, Lib. 2. de Christ. cap. 22. Bellarmine prooueth plentifully out of the Scriptures. What an ignorant Doctor is this, that cannot see this mysterie prooued in holy Scripture? Touching the tearmes, as person, Trinitie, consubstantiall, Sacraments, what if they be not in Scriptures? the heauenly doctrine signified by the words is con­tained in scriptures. If these wordes were necessarie to saluation, then men were damned before they were inuented, which I thinke the Doctor will not grant: for many beleeued the things, although the names were not extant. Augustine calleth the bookes of To­bie, and other, Canonical, because they were read to edification: for I hope you will not oppose his authoritie to so many Fathers, as I haue before produced. In the place by you cited; he will haue those books which are receiued of all Churches, preferred before those which some Churches receiue not: hence it is manifest, that he maketh not all of equall authoritie. Lib. 2 con. gaud. cap. 23. Elswhere he will haue the bookes of Machabees read, so it be non inutiliter & sobriè, not vn­profitably and soberly. Why doth he giue this caution to these bookes, if they were of like authoritie? And in his booke de praed. [Page 39] Sanct. c. 14. he confesseth when he did produce a testimonie out of the booke of Wisdome, that the brethren did reiect it, & there he contendeth not much for it. If it had bin Canonicall, he should not haue so remissely pleaded for it. Thus it appeareth why he calleth these books canonical. Where you say that no heretike can charge the Church with adding or diminishing one iot from the Scrip­tures; we must admire Gods prouidence and his loue towards his church: he preserueth the Scriptures though men would take thē out of the world. But if you meane that the church of Rome hath not altered the holy Scriptures, you must know that the Papists hold the Hebrew and the Greeke text to be corrupt, and haue e­stablished a Latin translation, differing farre from the Hebrew and Greeke: and is not this to alter the scriptures? If I should shew the corruptions of that trāslation, I should be very tedious. I will name one: in the 1. of the Hebr. it is said, Christ hath purged our sinnes by himselfe: these words [by himselfe] are cleane stricken out of their Rhemists translation; what an intollerable corruption is this? But I will conclude the matter in a syllogisme:

• They which establish a corrupt translation, alter the scrip­tures, or at least a iot of the same:
• But the Papist establish a corrupt translation: Ergo.

And indeede I cannot sufficiently wonder at them who establish their Latine translation eo nomine, because it is Hieroms, and yet will not allow, his translations of the Psalmes: what dealing with the Scriptures is this? he hath corrected that translation of the Psalmes which they vse, and yet they haue defied it. You further demand, why we should trust the Church of Rome rather in this then in other things? I answer, first that (as I haue prooued) we trust not the Church of Rome but the scriptures themselues: secondly it is a ridiculous consequent, We beleeue the church of Rome in this point, ergo we must doe so in all other. To make your follie manifest vnto you selfe, M. D. you beleeue the church of England in some points, will you doe so in all? I would it were so. That we haue had nothing to doe with the Bible for a thousand yeares, and that we haue robbed the Church of many bookes, are dete­stable vntruths. But I pray you, Syr, were not the scriptures preser­ued in the Greeke church as well as in the Romish church? did not the Iewes keepe the scriptures? and yet (to vse your phrase) our Sa­uiour wrested thē out of their hands, not as iust, but as vniust pos­sessours [Page 40] of them. The Pharisies might haue vsed the same speech to our Sauiour Christ, that the Doctor doth to vs. He hath three other questions in this chapter. The first is, how we relying onely vpon scripture can shew certainly which bookes be scripture, and which not? This question I haue at large answered in this chap­ter, and therefore I will not repeat my answer. Secondly he would know of the vnlearned Protestant, how he knoweth the translati­ons to be true? I answer, that it is not necessarie to know euery thing to be truly translated. The spirit of God speaking in the scriptures, certifieth the conscience of the vnlearned, that the scrip­tures in the English tongue are the scriptures. The third question it, why we beleeue our owne iudgements rather the Luthers or Calvins? I answer, we beleeue their iudgements that bring best proofes out of Scriptures. But M. Doctor, because you haue po­sed vs with so many questions, now I will pose you with one like­wise. Why doe you receiue your latin translation, rather vpon this Popes authoritie, then vpon that Popes authoritie? Pope Sixtus saith, [...]ead M. Iames. before the Vatican edition their vulgar latin translation was schismatis occasio, the occasion of heresie. Now Pope Clements e­dition is approoued, farre differing from Sixtus edition. What certaintie then haue Papists, who will take the scriptures now vp­on this, now vpon that Popes warrant? But I reduce your argu­ment into a syllogisme:

• They which haue no certaine triall of truth, are not the Church:
• But the Protestants haue no certaine triall. Ergo.

I denie the assumption, for we haue the scriptures which are the infallible rule of truth. Our Sauiour Christ vanquished the deuill by the scriptures. The Bereans tried the Apostles doctrine by the scriptures: Lib. 2. denupt. cap. [...]. and may not we so doe? S. Augustine writeth thus: I­sta controuersia iudicem riquirit, this controuersie requireth a iudge: who shall be iudge? he answereth, Christ; Iudicet Christus, let Christ be iudge. He doth name neither Pope, nor Romish church. For, as he saith in another place, Scriptura est eminentissima autho­ritatis, [...] Civit. l. 11. c. 3. the scriptures are of a most soueraigne and peerelesse au­thoritie. Lib. 5. Optatus disputing whether the baptized are to be rebap­tized, is worthie to be heard; Quarendi sunt (saith he) aliqui huius controuersiae indices; si Christiani de viraque parte dari non possunt. quia stuaijs veritas impeditur, de foris quarendus est index: si l'aga [...], [Page 41] non potest nosse Christiana secreta, si Iudans, inimiens est Christiani bap­tismatis, ergo in terris haec de re nullum poterit reperiri iudicium, de coe­lo quaerendus, sed vt quid pu [...]samus ad coelum cum habemus hîc in E­uangelio testamentum? inquam, quia hoc loco recte possunt terrena coe­lestibus comparari. Some iudges for this controuersie are to be fought for: if Christians, they cannot be had on both sides, be­cause by part-taking the truth is hindred: we must seek abroad for a iudge; if he be a Pagan, he knoweth not Christian secrets; if a Iewe, he is an enemie to Christian baptisme: in earth there can be found no iudgement: a iudge from heauen must be required. But why doe we knocke at heauen, when we haue in the Gospel a te­stament? because in this place, earthly things may be fitly cōpared to heauenly things. I maruell, M. Doctor, that your vanting vpon all the Fathers, light not vpon this Father, who is, as you call them, a plaine Calvinist. But I returne your argument:

• They which haue no certaine triall of the truth, are not the Church:
• But the Papist haue no certaine triall of the truth. Ergo.

The assumption is manifest, because they relie vpon Popes that may erre. Marellinus sacrificed to idols, Liberius was an Arrian. And more then this, some Iudas might creepe into the office, as your Rhemists confesse. Some Popes they will not appeale to Councells, as it it manifest by the Councell of Basil. And M. Do­ctor, in a word, what certaintie haue you, or can you haue, if there happen to be a schisme amongst the Popes? The 22. schisme con­tinued 40. yeares, as it is recorded in Fascic. Temp. and vntill Mar­tin the 5. it was not manifest who was Pope. You blaspheme the Scriptures; Turrian calleth them a Delphian sword made for want. The Censure of Colen saith, that it is veluti nasus caereus, a nose of waxe. O Antichristian Prelates, the Lord rebuke you for these your blasphemies against his holy Bible! What triall of truth you haue, I hope I haue made plaine to your owne conscience, M. Doctor. In the ende of this chapter you call vs boat-swanes, ad­mitting no iudge, and say we haue no meanes to rest vntill we end in Atheisme. That this name of boat-swanes may returne vpon your head, I pray you consider how M. Harding pleadeth for your Pope to be head of the church, because the Prophet Hose prophesieth that the children of Israel and Iudah shall haue one head. Out vpon you, Antichristian heretikes, that euer you should [Page 42] thus abuse the holy Bible touching Atheisme, whēce did Machia­uell spring? Caius constantly auoucheth Italie to be the very foū ­taine of Atheists. I conclude this reason with the saying of Picus Mirandula, Magna profecto insania est Euangelio non credere, cuius veritatem sanguis martyrum clamat, Apostolicae resonant voces, prodi­gia probant, ratio confirmat, mundus testatur, elemēta loquūtur, Daemo­nes confitentur: sed longe maior insania, si de Euangelij veritate non du­bitas, viuere tamen, quasi de eius falsitate non dubitares. It is exceeding madnesse not to credit the Gospel, the truth whereof the blood of Martyrs doth crie, the Apostolicall words doe sound, miracles do prooue, reason doth confirme, the world doeth witnesse, the ele­ments doe vtter, the deuils confesse: but it is farre greater folly if thou doubtest not of the trueth of the Gospell, so to liue as if thou madest no question but it were false.

De faece hauris, you drawe of your dregges M. Doctor, when you will beate vs downe with the bare club of custome. Custome in ciuill affaires may preuaile much, but in diuinity it is not worth a rush, except it be ioyned with trueth. Prudentius answereth Sym­machus making this defence, Suus cui (que) mos, suus cui (que) ritus est. Eue­ry one hath his manner and rite.

Why doest thou obiect vnto me Custome? when a diuers opi­nion hath changed the decrees of Father and people: now also how often doeth it auaile to depart from custome, and by a newe manner to condemne the olde habits? Morosa moris retentio res est aequè turbulenta ac nouitas, A wayward retaining of a Custome, is as turbulent a thing as noueltie Balsamon vpon Photius saith that ae­quitate exigente mutamus consuctudinem, Tom. 6. when equitie requireth it, we change custome. And againe, Ʋidi non scriptam consuetudinem fuisse infirmatam, I haue seene an vnwritten custome to haue beene [Page 43] infringed. But saith the Doctor, the vse and custome of the church hath beene alwaies an infallible rule to direct and order things by. First the Doctor beggeth that which is a question, taking the Ro­mish Church to be the true Church. We denie it: prooue it be­fore you plead custome. Secondly the Church in times past did giue the Eucharist vnto Infants; was this an infallible rule, M. Doctor, to giue the Sacrament of the bodie and blood of Christ vnto children? if you denie that the Church did so, you may be confounded with infinite testimonies of authors. Augustine in his first booke de peccato mort. cap. 20. is plaine, vpon which place Erasmus hath made this marginall note, Lib. 1. cap. 2. cont. Iulian. Nunc parvulis non datur Eucharistia, now the Eucharist is not giuen to little ones. Innocen­tius Pope of Rome, as the same father testifieth, Definiuit parvulos nisi manducaverint carnem filij hominis, vitam prorsus habere non posse; that Infants cannot haue eternall life except they eate the flesh of the sonne of man. I could produce your owne men, who acknow­ledge that the Church did vse to giue the Sacrament to Infants. By which I conclude, that the Church is not an infallible rule to di­rect vnto truth. The Apostle Paul doth not onely fight with cu­stome, but vseth many other arguments and that in indifferent matters, as your Rhemists write, therefore you abuse the place to establish a custome, to confirme matters of moment, when the A­postle entreateth of indifferencie. Secondly I would you could truly say that you are the Church, as Paul did: you are departed from the Apostolicall Church. But heare what Theophylact wri­teth vpon tnat place; Ad verecundiam Auditores haec dicta compel­lunt, ne quid praeter Apostolorum consuetudinem factitent; these say­ings driue the auditors to shame, that they should not doe any thing besides the Apostles custome. Bring vs therefore the Apo­stles practise, and you shall cause vs to yeild to it. But that which he cannot obtaine by Paul, he would prooue by Augustine, who auoucheth that it is strange madnesse to dispute of that which the vniuersall Church practiseth. Secondly he prooueth that Infants are borne in sinne, because the Church doth baptize them. To the first testimony I answer, that Aug. speaketh of ceremonies, as whe­ther a man must fast before the cōmunion or no: & such like. Se­condly I answer, that Papists must prooue their ceremonies to be vsed of the whole Church, as also that they be the Church. The originall of their ceremonie is set down in their writers, as in Bucch. [Page 44] & others. To the second argumēt I answer that we haue infallible testimonies out of scripture to proue that infant are borne in sin, besides the custom of the church which baptizeth them. And now because you haue obiected a place out of the 5. part of the 18. E­pistle, heare what he the same S. Augustine writeth in the first part. I would haue you (saith he) to know that the Lord hath made vs subiect to a light yoke, and that he hath ioyned together the socie­tie of the new people with Sacraments, in number the fewest, in obseruation the easiest in signification most excellent, such as is Baptisme consecrated in the name of the trinitie, and the Commu­nication of his bodie and blood, and if any other be contained in the Canonicall Scriptures. If S. Augustine had knowne your sea­uen Sacraments, he would neuer haue come in with Si quid aliud, if any other. Immediately after he will haue such ceremonies in the Vniuersall Church, as are instituted by the Apostles, or by gene­rall Councels: are all yours such? The ceremonies of particular Churches are variable, as Augustine himselfe confesseth. In his hundreth and nineteenth epistle and 19. part, he would haue these particular burthens cut off, complaining that the estate of the Iews is more tollerable, beeing subiect to ceremonies of God, then of Christians subiect to humane praesumptions. If it was thus in Au­gustines time, what is it now? To reduce your argument into a syl­logisme, thus you dispute:

• They which may plead Custome haue the trueth,
• But the Papists may plead custome.
• Ergo: They haue the trueth.

I denie the proposition, and saie with Hildebarte, that it is Per­tinacia, [...]. Epist. consuetudinem praeferre veritati, Obstinacie it is to preferre custome before the trueth. This he prooueth by many testimo­nies out of Augustine and Cyprian, which for breuitie I wil omit. That we haue taken away the sacrifice of the Church it is senslesse vntruth, for that sacrifice which Gods word approoueth we im­brace from our hearts. But we are charged with great malepertnes for altering the masse, placing in stead thereof chapters psalmes ill translated, and ballads called Geneua psalmes, with railing sermōs. If we had placed their golden legende of lies, it may be we should haue heard nothing, the Psalmes are Dauids psalmes, and if there be any imperfections in our translations, there are moe in theirs, our sermons are not railing, except that be railing which disgra­ceth [Page 45] errour. Erasmus complaineth of Papists, that Quorumlibet somnia, imo mulier cularum deliramenta leguntur inter diuinas Scriptu­ras, Euery fooles dreames, yea very mad womens doting fancies are read with holy Scriptures. Yet we are malepert, because we read and sing Dauids Psalmes. Their Popes may adde to the masse what they will, and we may not alter any thing without sausines. Your masse hath beene by little and little increased, as Walfridus Strabo euidently sheweth, and yet you boldly say it hath continu­ed through all generations. The Apostles did consecrate onely adioyning praier to the same. Bellar. lib. 4. cap. 13. de Eucharist. which he prooueth out of Gregorie. But in his second booke de Missa and 19. Read Fulbertus of varietie of or­ders, in his epist. to. 3. lib. chap. it is wonderfull to see howe he would elude this testimonie, and saith plainely that some denie it, yet afterwards he recalleth himselfe. It sufficeth to haue shewed, that their seruice hath not, as this Doctour dreameth, continued through all gene­rations. Can. 12. In the Miletan Councel there is a decree that no praiers be made in the Church, but such as are approoued in a Synode, Ne fortè aliquid sid compositum contra fidem, least there be any thing composed against the faith. Ergo, there was not one vniforme or­der in praier, the diuersitie of Liturgies, as Basil, Chrysostome, and others doe shewe likewise, what varietie hath beene in the Church concerning the seruice thereof? Nay the very Church of Rome at this day doeth not compell all to obserue the Canon of the Ro­mane masse as necessarie, as I can prooue by their owne writers. Micrologus saith, cap. 12. that one Scholasticus did compose the Canon of the masse, in his 13. chapter he reciteth superfluities in the Ca­non thereof, and findeth faulte with the mention of the birth of Christ in it, seeeing we should Anunciare illius mortem, shewe his death. Now M. Doctor, goe and accuse Micrologus of malepert­nes. To conclude this point of custome, what say you M. Doctor to the feast of the conception of the virgin Marie which is cele­brated in you [...] Church, as though shee was not concerned in sin, is this infallibly to direct vnto trueth? your owne conscience telleth you the contrarie: how many testimonies might I produce to prooue her conception in sinne? and yet a feast is kept to the con­trarie.

The Doctor in this chapter giueth the Papist no small blowe, [Page 46] who teach that the sincere preaching of the word of God is no note of the Church. Here he will needes haue that Church whose doctrine tendeth to mortification and holinesse of life to be the true Church, and contrariwise that congregation which teacheth the cōtrarie to be a false Church. Hence I gather that true doctrine is a note to discerne the Church: for if that be the true Church which teacheth holy doctrine; then holy doctrine is onely in the church, for if it be not inseperable from the same it cannot marke and chalke the Church. Now by holy doctrine, Christian reader, I meane not that which may haue a shew of holinesse in the opinion of men, but that which gods word alloweth. The Pharisie may fast and make great shew of pietie. The Montanists had three lents in the yeare: the false Apostles did teach doctrine which had a shewe of wisdome, Coloss. 2.15. in voluntarie worship and humblenes of mind, and in not sparing the bodie: out of which we gather that pretended pie­tie and holines must not be made a note to discerne a Church, but such holines of doctrine as Gods word doth allow, for indeed that onely is holy, and all other doctrine is prophane, whatsoeuer shew it may haue with men. The Doctor to prooue his opinion saith, that the church is called holy, because it professeth and teacheth nothing but that which is holy. Who would thinke that a Doctor could be ignorant in his creed? The church is called holy because it is washed in the blood of Christ, and sanctified by his spirit. The Apostle sheweth that the Church hath no wrinckle, Eph. 5.27. which is as much as if he had called it holy. That this is so, it is plain, because the triumphāt church is holy, & yet teacheth no doctrine: & this triumphant church is vnderstood in the creed as wel as the militant; witnes the Papists themselues who teach also that it is cal­led holy because it is consecrate to God. But graunt him that the Church is therefore called holy, because it teacheth holy doctrine; doeth the Church of Rome teach such doctrine? let vs see whether it be so or noe: here he will not compare liues, and yet he saith that Catholikes liue like Saints. What Saints Catholikes are I haue she­wed before; to omit this then, & to come to his grounds. He proo­ueth their holinesse of doctrine, because Priests may not marrie. This is so farre from beeing holy doctrine, that it is deuillish do­ctrine, as I will make plaine to your conscience M. Doctor. The Apostles were married, Euseb. l. 3. 27. for Petrus & Philippus liheris procreandis operam dederunt: Peter and Philip did beget children. Philemon, [Page 47] if we beleeue Bellarmine was a Bishop, and he had his wife Ap­phia, as Chrysostome witnesseth. The Councell of Ancyra, Lib. 1. de. Chr. c 27. can. 10, decreeth after this manner: Diaconi quicun (que) cum ordinantur, &c. Deacons whatsoeuer they be, if in their ordinatiō they protest that they cānot containe, if they marrie after, let thē remaine in the ministerie: ergo marriage is not a prophaning of orders. If this Councell will not suffice; Irenaeus I hope will, who auoucheth that a Deacon had speciosam vxorem, a beutifull wife. Lib. 1. cap. 9. Lib. 2. de gest. con. Basil. Aeneas Syl­uius writeth thus. Id quod de vxore dicitur nihil pendo, cùm non so­lum qui vxorem habuit, sed vxorem adhuc habens queat assumi. That which is obiected concerning a wife I regard not, seeing not one­ly he which had, but also he which hath one may be Pope, I let passe the historie of Paphnutius, Tempore cap. 14. l. 6. mentioned by Socrates and o­thers.

Basilius was Ecclesiae Ancyranae Presbyter, & Eupsychius Cappa­dociae: Basil was priest of Ancyra and Eupsychius of Cappado­cia, they ended their liues in Martyrdome, and yet Eupsychius had lately taken a wife, & was but euen as a Bridegrome, Chaerae­mon a Bishoppe fledde in persecution with his wife. Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 41. l. 5. 21. Socrates writeth that many bishops, Dum Episcopatum gerunt etiam libe­ros ex vxore legitima procreant, whiles they are Bishops doe beget children of their lawfull wiues. Spiridion was a Bishop, and had a daughter Irene. But heare what Bellarmine writeth: he proo­ueth that single life is not annexed vnto orders by diuine right, and therefore saith that Si liceat Sacerdotibus iure diuino habere vx­ores, quas ante ordinationem duxerant, cur quaeso etiam non licuisset, Decaeli sacer, e­tiam post ordinationem ducere. If Priests by Gods word might re­taine their wiues, which they had before ordination, why I pray you was it not lawefull to marrie after ordination also. Nowe I haue prooued that Priests did retaine their wiues which they had before ordination: ergo.

But M. Doctor if it be so holy doctrine to denie Priests lawfull marriage, then what shall we say of Popes who giue dispensation in this point? you knowe what your men write, the Pope dispen­seth against the Apostle, is not this good diuinitie, to teach that the Pope may dispense against holy doctrine? but you like the Donatists, as it seemeth; hold that Quod volumus sanctum est, that which we will is holy. Your Inkchorne tearmes in which you flourish after this maner, that the Protestants wiuing & rewiuing, [Page 48] tricke and trimme vp themselues to please the eies of their sweete hearts with their starched ruffes, fine monsaches, trimme tuscabo­nians, may be doubled vpon your selues, who vse all these with many moe vanities, as curling the haire, to please your Concubines and harlots. Inde est (saith Bernard) quem quotidie vides meretricius nitor, Serm. 33 in Cant. histrionicus habitus, regius apparatus, inde aurum in franis, in sel­lis, in calcaribus: Thence is it as thou maiest daily see, that they be trimmed like whoores, attyred like plaiers, serued like Princes: thence is it that they were gold in their bridles, saddles, & spurs. This hath no Lutheran vttered but deuote Bernard himselfe con­cerning the Romish maners, and that you may know the fruits of this your doctrine, heare what Aeneas Syluius saith, in the place before quoted, Plures saluarentur in sacerdotio coniugato, qui nunc in sterili Presbiterio damnantur: Many might be saued in married Priesthood. which now are condemned in barren Priesthood. Pa­normitan also saith, that ex lege continentiae, by the lawe of conti­nencie Priests are defiled with vnlawfull copulation; but because I desire breuitie, I referre you to Gildas, the title of his booke i [...] Acris inuectio in Ecclesiasticum ordinem: a sharpe inuectiue against the Ecclesiasticall order.

Thus M. Doctour, it had bin good for you to haue concealed this prophane doctrine of your impure priesthood. You say fur­ther, that the Romane religion teacheth restitution of goods wrongfully gotten; so doe we teach and say with Augustine, Non remittitur peccatum nisi restituatur ablatum; the sinne is not forgi­uen without restitution: and therefore you slaunder vs most de­testably, saying that we leaue all at large to our followers. To pro­ceede, the cathohke Romane religion teacheth obseruation of vowes and promises; so doe we, of lawfull vowes and promises, but otherwise we say, in turpi voto muta decretum, in malis promissis rescinde fidem, in a filthie vow change thy purpose, in wicked pro­mises disanull thy faith. So doth Aquinas teach in his 2. 2. 88. quest. art. 10. in these words: Potest contigere, It may happen, that a vow be simply euill, or vnprofitable, or a hindrance of a greater good, and then it may be changed. But you like filthie heretikes hold, that it is a greater euill to marrie after a vow, then to commit for­nication. Bellar. lib. 2. de Mo. cap. 34. and your Rhemists hold that it is the worst fornication. 1. Cor. 7. Turpis, saith Hosuis, Philippo vide­tur hac oratio, p [...]. 412. Catholicis autem honestissima, these words vnto Phi­lip [Page 49] Melancthon seeme shamefull, but vnto the Catholikes they seeme most honest: what words will some say? namely these, that it is better for vowed persons to commit fornication, or to haue a concubine, then to marrie. For your credit sake hereafter M. Do­ctor, neuer come in with your doctrine of vowes: I hope men by considering it will abhorre Poperie. But we are not yet come to an ende of this their doctrine. The catholike Romane religion teacheth abstinence and fasting, which mortifieth our bodies and enricheth our countrey: so doe we, and doe abstaine not onely from flesh but from fish when we fast, and from wine with all o­ther delicates: and for the enriching of our countrey, there are lawes made to prohibit the eating of flesh on certaine daies and at certaine times. But we differ from the Papists in these points: first they teach, that religious fasting consisteth in choice of meates, as abstinence from flesh, cheese, egges; but we teach, that it consist­eth in abstinence from all kind of meats. It is well knowne that Popish fasting is feasting, and many had rather be fed with wine, and spices, and delicates, then with flesh. Secondly we teach, that we must fast to humble our selues, to tame the flesh, and for other respects; but they teach that they fast to merit and to deserue at Gods hands: nowe Christian Reader iudge which side holdeth most truely and soundly concerning fasting. Some Papists write that we must abstaine from flesh and eate fish, because God cur­sed not the waters: is not this to make flesh an vncleane thing? and so by consequent they resemble the old heretickes which condē ­ned the creatures as vncleane. The auntient Christians when they fasted, had but one meale a day, and that at night: our Papists haue two, a dinner and a supper: Bell. de I [...]iu. but M. Doctor whether is this to fast or no? to gorge your selues with eating fish and drinking wine in bowles. Wine inflameth concupiscence as well as flesh. The auntient Church did not restraine fasting to certaine meates, as you may see in Tertullian his booke, adversus Psychichos, Take heed, therefore least you take part with Montanus in restraining to certain meats & times. Spiridion did sell flesh in lent to be eatē, [...]cause to the cleane all things are cleane. Out of this historie marke these things. First, that to fast is sine omni cibo permanere, to be without all meate. Secondly the guest did refuse flesh because he was a Christian. Spiridion faith therfore he ought to eate. What can be more direct against Popish fasting? The Papists say men [Page 50] are no Christians if they eate flesh in lent: Spiridion saith, because they are Christians, therefore they ought to eate flesh. Alcibiades liuing sparingly was admonished by God that he should vse all creatures. Euseb. l. 5. c. 3. Possid. in vita August. cap. 22. Augustine had alwaies wine, because euery creature is sanctified by the word and praier. By the same reason flesh is san­ctified as well as wine. A Christian may say with Augustine, Non ego immunditiam obsonij timeo, sed immunditiam cupiditatis; I feare not the impuritie of the creature, but the impuritie of my appetite. Take heede also least you take part with Eustathius in this point, as you doe in marriage. So lib. 2. cap. 31. For he did eschew the companie of a Priest that had a wife, and taught that men must abstaine from meates. I will not speake of your doctrine of meriting by fasting, onely this I say, that if Popish fasting be right fasting, many can be content to enioy no other feasting. To haue most daintie cates, fish and wine, pleaseth the mouthes of many men as well as flesh, To leaue this and to come to other points. The Catholik Romane religion, Who raise rents in England like vnto Papists? yea it may be proo­ued by examples that there be Ro­m [...]ne Chatholikes as hard dealers as any other. saith the Doctour, forbiddeth Landlords to raise their rents, except vrgent occasion driue them so to doe. And we teach, that oppression is peccatum clamans, non amans, a crying and not a louing sinne: and therefore it is false which you say, that we teach the Landlord to doe what he list with his owne: the landlord must doe as he would men should doe vnto him; he must deale with his tennants as considering himselfe to be a tennant. The same Ca­tholike Romane religion teacheth marriage to be indissoluble; so doe we, excepting the case of adulterie: and your doctrine cau­seth many to fall into that foule sinne; for the offending person knowing that the innocent person may not marrie againe, careth not to commit that sinne if libertie were graunted the occasion is taken away. Secondly, you make no difference betwixt the inno­cent person, and the person offending; is not this good diuinitie? The Grecians also teach as we teach in this point; so doth Eras­mus and your owne men Caietane and Catherine. Thus M. Do­ctor, you care not to accuse your owne champions of prophane doctrine. I passe by other testimonies, because I will answer brief­ly. libr. de Ma. c. 14. Bellarmine writeth thus; Sola fornicatio directè oppenitur fidei coniugali, & sustantiae ipsius matrimonij: Onely fornication is dire [...] ­ly opposite to the marriage couenant and to the substance of ma­trimonie. Great reason then is there surely that this sinne should dissolue marriage. Doth not that dissolue a thing which ouer­throweth [Page 51] the substance of it? And how they prouided for the inno­cent partie, let his word iudge, which punisheth the adulterer with death: if the adulterer ought to be so punished, there can be no question but marriage may be dissolued.

Hitherto the Doctor hath had but badde successe for his holy doctrine, let vs see if his successe be better hereafter. The Catho­like Romane religion, saith he, teacheth that all laws of magistrates which be not expresly against the word of God, doe binde the subiects in conscience: the greater therefore is your sinne, because you care not to murder Princes. But what if the Pope giueth a dispensation? then you may doe what you list. O holy and heauē ­ly doctrine. Our doctrine concerning magistrates lawes is this, that the authoritie in generall is to be regarded for conscience, be­cause it is Gods ordinance. But euery lawe doeth not binde Con­science, but those which are diuine, beeing immutable. And this doctrine is taught by your man Gerson, as witnesseth Bellarmine. There are no men that haue giuen greater obedience to magi­strates, then Protestāts, as the world can testifie. The Papists bring the Magistrates into contempt. The Emperour must lead the Popes horse. Coster glorieth that Pipin king of Fraunce, 43. p. doing re­uerence to the Pope did lead the Popes horse: if Emperours must lead the Popes horse and kisse his toe, who bring Magistrates to contempt, the Pope or the protestants? Henrie the fourth bare­footed, fasting from morning to night, waited for the Popes sen­tence three daies. If this be not to contemne Magistrates, I knowe not what is. In the booke of ceremonies the Emperour is appoin­ted wonderfull seruilitie but I leaue this contempt of Magistrates and come to veniall sinnes, and concupiscence. A man may won­der that we should be charged with vnholy doctrine because we teach euery sinne to deserue damnation. The greater the sinne is, the more men should abstaine from it: therefore on the contrarie, the lesser it is, the lesse regard is had of it. By our doctrine then mē regard sinne more then by the Papists doctrine; because we teach no sinne to be small: iudge therefore indifferent reader, which is most holy doctrine. Hierom saith, Nescio an leue aliquod peccatum. ad Co. I knowe not whether we may tearme any sinne small which is cō ­mitted against God or no. But the Papists care not to call sinnes veniall and small, though committed against an infinite God. To enlarge this doctrine a litle, their owne men, namely Gerson, and [Page 52] the bishop of Rochester teach as we teach. Bellarmine vseth strōg reasons against this wicked doctrine. Bellar. l. 1. de a­mist. gra. c. 1. No punishment is so euill as any sinne can be. Ergo no sinne is veniall. A man must rather be annihilated then he must commit any sinne, how then can sinne be veniall of it owne nature. Thus your owne schoole resolueth a­gainst your doctrine. The scripture is plaine, Cursed is euery one that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the lawe to doe them. 3. Gala. If man be accursed for euery sinne, then eue­ry sinne deserues death: but man is accursed for euery sinne. Ergo, Augustine writeth excellent well of this point, Leuia multa faci­unt vnum graue, Tract. 1. in epist. Ioh. multae guttae implent flumen, multa grana faciunt massam: Many small sinnes make one great, and many drops make a flood, many cornes make a heape. Take head therefore M. Do­ctor of your small sinnes, least admitting them, you haue a masse of corruption. Theodorus Abucara speaketh as plainely as any Protestant, In lib. Pa. Peccati nullus expers est, nisi Christus Dominus. I am vero omne peccatum vel tantillum mortem infert. No man excepting Christ our Lord is without sinne: Nowe the least sinne deserueth death. Touching concupiscence, we teach with the Apostle that it is sinne, and by this doctrine men must of necessitie be mooued to striue more against it then if it were no sinne. Howe say you M. Doctor, wil you not striue more against that thing which is sinne, then against that which is no sinne? if you will not, the greater is your shame, and your conscience is the more dissolute. Concer­ning the reward of good and bad life in the world to come, we teach it with you, but yet we denie the merit of eternall life. Opera sunt via regni non causa regnandi, saith Bernard, Good workes are the way to the kingdome of heauen, de lib. arb. they are not the cause of it. Tota spes mea, saith Augustine, est in morte Domini mei, mors eius me­ritum meum, in anual. 22. refugium meum. My whole hope is onely in the death of my Lord: his death is my merit and refuge. And againe, Meritum meum miseratio Domini, My desert is the Lords mercie, Besides these authorities M. Doctor, if reasons will satisfie you why we denie merits, take these.

Whosoeuer meriteth must perfectly fulfil the lawe: but no mā in this life can perfectly fulfill the lawe, ergo no man can merit. Secondly, where there is merit, there is no mercie, for gratia non est vllo modo gratia, nisi sit omni modo gratuita. Grace is not grace ex­cept it be euery way free: but the reward is of mercie. Ergo.

Thirdly, where there is merit there may be confidence in me­rits, but no man must put his confidence but in God. Ergo. To this syllogisme I will annexe Augustines speech. Lib. de pec. mo [...] 14 cap. Quisquis ergo ausus fuerit dicere iustifico te, consequens est, vt dicat etiam crede in me, quod nemo sanctorum recte dicere potest. Whosoeuer can say I iustifie thee, may by consequent say beleeue in me, which none of the Saints can rightly say. If then we iustifie our selues, we may beleeue in our selues, which speech all Christians doe abhorre.

Fourthly, where there is merit, there the reward is due by iu­stice to the worke, but by iustice it is not due, saue onely in re­spect of Gods promise; ergo, If you will see the assumption proo­ued, read Aquinas, 1. 2. 114. quaest. where he saith, that Deus est de­bitor sibi non nobis. God is debter to himselfe and not to vs. Read al­so Bernard de lib. arb. and heare Augustine writing thus, Debitor factus est, he is made a debter by promising. Now to produce your owne men, as Scotus and diuers others, I hold it needlesse, yet let the Catechisme of Colon speake. Quis tam stupidus est, &c. Who is so sottish as to thinke our good workes to be worthy of eternall life? Thus merits are reiected by reason and by sundrie authorities: therefore he slaundereth vs in saying, that we giue the people oc­casion to be negligent in doing of good, and little or nothing fear­full to euill. Nowe we are come to auricular confession. The Catholike Romane religion teacheth confession to a priest, of all deadly sinnes which we can remember, vnder paine of damnation, which restraineth the people from sinne, and causeth them particularly to be well instructed and counsel­led. But the Protestant taking that away setteth open a dore to all wickednes and loosenes of life, as also to ignorance. To answer this latter speech: first, no man can be ignorant, that shutteth not his eyes, how we condemne loosenes of life, and how we crie for knowledge. We desire and beseech the people to read the bible; we catechize and instruct them, we examine them also before the communion, doe we then open a dore to ignorance? Some Pa­pists haue said that ignorance is the mother of deuotion, and I am sure that knowledge aboundeth now more then euer it did in Po­perie. As for auricular confession, Iuel. 27. ait. we say it is neither commanded by Christ, nor necessarie to saluation. The Papists to maintaine their doctrine, make their priest is iudges, and yet the master of sen­tences witnesseth, Lib. 4. that omnes Sacerdotes non habent scientiam discer­nendi; [Page 54] all Priests haue not knowledge to discerne. What wretched iudges then are Popish priests which haue not knowledge? But suppose them to haue knowledge, can they discerne the heart? Augustine demandeth, [...]n. 3. vnde sciunt an verum dicam? how doe they know whether I speake truth or no? seeing no man knoweth what is in man, but the spirit of man. But if confession be so necessarie, why did Nectarius take away confession, and leaue it to euery mans conscience, how he would come to the communion? A certaine noble woman confessed particularly her sinnes to the Priest, Socrat. l. 5. cap. 18. and because a Deacon had slept with her this confession of sinnes was taken away. Is confession of sinnes for this one fact was taken away, what iust cause was there to alter Popish auricular confession, let the world iudge. Not to be long in this point, set a­part abuses in confession, and we doe not denie it. If any be trou­bled in his minde for his sinnes, let him seeke a skilfull physitian. Otherwise we say with Chrysostome, Homil. 31. ad Hebr. Non dico tibi vt te prodas in publicū, ne (que) vt te accuses apud alios, sed obedire te volo prophetae dicēti, revela domino viā tuā. I wil not aduise thee to betray thy self opēly, nor to accuse thy selfe before others, but I coūsel thee to obey the Prophet, saying, Opē thy way vnto the Lord. And again, Si confū ­deris dicere alicui quia peccasti dicito ea quotidie in anima; if thou art a­shamed to tell thy sins to any, speake thē in thy soule. Satisfaction depending vpon confession, is in the next place to be handled. The Catholike Romane religion, saith the Doctor, teacheth satis­faction to be done either in this life or in Purgatorie, and vpon consideration of this they builded so many goodly Churches, ho­spitals, &c. In few words the doctor hath condemed, all their glo­rious workes, as beeing done for wrong endes. We acknowledge the satisfaction of Christ to be our onely satisfaction for sinne: and say with S. Iohn, If any man sinne, he hath an Aduocate with the Fa­ther Iesus Christ, and he is the propitiation for our sinnes. Maxius saith, that Christi passio nobis sufficit ad salutem, Serm. 3. Christs passion is sufficient to saluation. And Bellarm. in his 2. booke de iustificat. and 5. chap. writeth thus; Nihil frequentius omnis scriptura testatur, quam Christi passionem & mortem, plenam atque perfectam satisfactionem fuisse pro peccatis; The whole Scripture doth witnes nothing more often then that the suffering and death of Christ are a full and perfect satisfaction for our sinnes. If man might satisfie for sinne, he might be called a redeemer and a Sauiour, which is horrible to heare of. [Page 55] Neither doth this our doctrine robbe the poore of their almes, children of their education, and the sicke of their reliefe, and ma­keth men vnwilling to doe any good at all. The Doctor except he be blind may see, that men build Colledges and hospitalls, and relieue the poore, though they doe it not to satisfie for their sinnes: but his confession is to be accepted that faith, their building and giuing of almes is to satisfie: by which he disgraceth all their workes. From satisfaction he commeth to freewill, saying, that their doctrine causeth the people to endeauour to doe good, and flee from all euill, the Protestant taking it away discourageth men vtterly from doing good workes: for who will goe about a thing which is not in his power? What could Pelagius haue said more? M. Doctor, is it in our power to doe good vnto saluation or no without grace? answer directly. Our Sauiour Christ saith, Without me ye can doe nothing. Augustine writeth, lib. 1. Retract. c. 15. that voluntas in tantum est libera, in quantum est liberata; our will is so farre free, as it is freed. To set downe our doctrine briefly. We say with the same father 3. Hyp. esse fatemur liberum arbitrium omnibus hominibus non per quod sit idoneum, qua ad Deum pertinent sine Deo, aut inchoare aut cer­te peragere: we confesse that all men haue freewill, not that it is a­ble either to beginne or to perfect those things which belong vn­to God, without God, but onely in the works of this life whether they be good or euill. To shut vp the matter: doth Cyprian with­draw men from doing good, when he saith, Dei est omne quod possu­mus, all is of God that we doe? Now we must speake of the Masse: the Catholike Romane religion teacheth the holy Masse to be a sacrifice in which the true bodie and blood of Christ is of­fered vp, which maketh the people so deuout and reuerent. I an­swer, first what if the Priest haue no intent to consecrate, what then is become of your sacrifice? secondly we knowledge no bodily sacrifice for sinne, but onely Christ on the crosse. And that I make plaine by the Apostles reasons. Where there is no remissi­on of sinne, there is no more offering for sinne: Heb. 10. but by Christs passion there is perfect remission of sinnes: ergo. Againe, Christ died but once, ergo he offered himselfe but once. Ireneus writeth thus; Oportet not oblationem Deo facere, we must offer to God, Lib. 4. cap. 34. and in all things yeild thankes to the maker, with a pure minde, vnfai­ned faith, steadfast hope, and feruent loue, offering the first fruits of his creatures. And this oblation the Church onely sacrificeth [Page 52] [...] [Page 53] [...] [Page 54] [...] [Page 55] [...] [Page 56] in puritie, offering to God of his creatures with thanksgiuing. Where is your sacrifice of the very bodie and blood of Christ, if the Church sacrificed onely the sacrifice of thanksgiuing? Not to heape other testimonies, I pray you tell me, M. Doctor, resolutely and with infallible arguments in which part of the Masse this sa­crifice consisteth? Bellarmine is his 1. booke de Missa, and 27. chap. maketh many propositions, and faith; some thinke thus, and some thus: it were therefore good for you to be certaine your selues, before you obtrude this sacrifice vpon the people to stirre them to deuotion. Now let euery man iudge of this your syllo­gisme:

• They which teach holy doctrine are the true Church:
• But the Papists teach holy doctrine: ergo.

To make a briefe of that which hath beene handled, he char­geth vs with vnholy doctrine, because we approoue ministers marriage; yet his owne man Panormitan doth the same. Bell. lib. 1. de. cler. cap. 19.

Againe, he chargeth vs with vnholy doctrine, because we al­low marriage to the innocent partie after a iust diuorce: yet his owne men teach at we teach. Caietan and Catharin.

Thirdly, he chargeth vs with the same crime, because we teach that all magistrates lawes binde not the conscience, yet his owne fellowe Gerson holdeth as we holde.

Fourthly, he chargeth vs with the same crime, because we teach euery sinne to deserue eternall damnation, which doctrine his owne men haue taught as I haue prooued. These doctrines might haue serued to haue returned this vntruth vpon his head, but let vs further see into their doctrine.

It is not lawfull for the faithfull to marrie with infidells, for Paul saith, 1. Cor. 6. be not yoked with infidells: yet the Pope may dispence in this point. Bellar. lib. 1. de Mat. cap. 23. who gaue the Pope leaue thus to play with Gods word?

Secondly, God forbiddeth diuerse degrees of kindred, yet the Pope despenseth with them, if Gods word bee holy the Popes doctrine is prophane and sheweth him to be Antichrist sitting in the Temple as God.

Thirdly, subdeacons may not marry, yet the Pope dispensed with them Greg. lib. 1. Epist. Cap. 42.

Fourthly, God commandeth the children to honour Parents, [Page 57] but the papists teach that they may enter into the state of Monkes and Nunnes without the parents consent. Bellar. lib. 2. de. me. 36 cap.

Fiftly, the Pope should honour the magistrate as beeing his fa­ther, but the Emperour kisseth is toe.

Sixtly, the Papistes allowe stewes, and one calleth them a ne­nessarie euill. God saith, Deut. 23.27. There shall be not whore of the daughters of Israel.

Seauenthly, the Papists teach, that the Seriptures are not to be read of all men, a doctrine tending to ignorance and prophane life.

Eightly, the Papists say, that the passions of Saints are ioyned to Christs passion to make vp the treasure of the Church: a most bla­sphemous doctrine against Christs sufferings which are of infinit valour. Bell. lib. de Indulg.

Ninthly, the Papists teach, that Saints may be called our redee­mers after a certaine respect, though not simply. Bellarm. eodem lib. if there were nothing but this one thing in Poperie, a man should euer detest the same.

Tenthly, the Papists teach, that it is better to commit fornicati­on then to marrie after a vow, as I prooued, which is most filthie and odious doctrine.

11. The Papists teach, that in this life and after death the Pope may giue pardons: which is a most dissolute doctrine, as is the doctrine of purgatorie. Giue good store of gold and siluer, and thou shalt haue pardon: alas, what will not a man giue for the re­demption of his soule?

12. The Papists teach, that some sinnes deserue not death of their own nature, which maketh men to commit these smal sinnes, whereas the greatnes of sinne terrifieth men from it. Thus M. Do­ctor, behold your holy doctrine: and now I returne your speach: if the Papists doctrine open the right way to heauen, then is the way to heauen most pleasant and delightfull to flesh and blood, and consequently most easie to be walked.

Although this reason, with the rest following, hath no sub­stance, [Page 58] but many vaine words, yet I will examine it with the others that followe. Pope Boniface robbed the Church and [...]ed to Ierusalem Fas. Tmp. pag. 70. Albertus robbed the Church by Papall authority. [...]n. 90 [...].. Whether Tarltons father spoiled the Church, as the Doctor reporteth. I am ignorant: but if you thus dispute M. Do­ctor, Tarletons father solde the lead off the parish Church. Ergo the religion in England is a false religion. Tarleton himselfe I am sure had more wit then you: you are beholding to his father for this fact, for otherwise as it seemeth you had wanted matter to fill vp your chapter: as for the destroying of Abbeis, Monasteries, Nunries, Chauntries, Altars, you might admire the iust iudgment of God vpon such places, which beeing abused to Idolatrie, and to filthie lust, whordome, and Sodomie, are changed to other v­ses: your owne prelates also in king Henrie his daies, committed Abbey lands to the Princes disposition. And if you thinke it car­nall libertie to possesse any such Church goods, you may doe well to perswade a number of your fauorites, to renounce the possessi­on of their Abbey lands, and to restore them to the Church. If you refuse so to doe, (I will say no more,) you are libertines your selues by your own verdict. Who first annexed parsonages to ab­beyes but Papists? and this thing hath not a little maimed Gods Church. Who first exacted first fruits but the couetous Pope? read M. Doctor Fasciculum rerum expetendarum, what orations are there against them. If your Abbeyes be spoiled blame your selues, for Iulian the Cardinall writing to Eugenius saith, iusto Dei Iudi­cio fiet, quòd quia nolumus dimittere Concilium fieri, perdemus tempora­litatem nostram, & vtinaus non corpora & animas. By the iust iudge­ment of God it shall come to passe, because we will not suffer a Councell, that we shall leese our temporalities, and I would to god we might not leese our bodies and soules. Touching first fruits saith the Author of the oration against them, that exorbitanter fa­ctum fuerat & contra ius & iustitiam, in oppressionem praelaturarum, ecclesiarum (que), manasteriorum, & beneficiorum, & etiam personarum quibus contigerat. It was exorbitantly done against right and equi­tie, to the oppression of Praelacies, Churches, Monasteries, Bene­fices, and also the persons to whome it happened. If some Luthe­rane (as you call them) had thus written, you might haue discredi­ted it, but now you haue no cause so to doe. No maruaile then if others followed the Popes example. If these testimonies will not suffice, call to minde the popes confession, namely Adrians, that Omne malum à Curia Romana processit. All wickednesse procee­ded [Page 59] from the Romane Court. Thus you haue gained little by this your preface to negatiue doctrine. I might answer this reason one­ly with the like, namely that the Papists standeth vpon meere ne­gatiues, as these, I denie Christ to be the onely king, Priest, and Prophet of his Church; I denie that onely God is to be called vp­on; I denie the Scriptures to containe sufficient doctrine vnto sal­uation; I denie we are saued onely by Christ: thus I might pro­ceede and shew that your religion standeth vpon destructiues. But I will giue you arguments for the opinions which we hold. And to beginne with Baptisme, with which you likewise beginne: you hold it to be simply necessarie vnto saluation, we denie it, af­firming that Gods grace is not tied to the Sacraments, but that he may dispense it as it pleaseth him. The theefe vpon the crosse was saued without baptisme: ergo it is not simply necessarie. Valenti­nian died without baptisme, as Ambrose reporteth, and yet he doubted not of his saluation. And if it be necessarie simply vnto saluation, it is by this place in the 3. of Iohn, No man can enter into the kingdome of heauen, except he be borne of water and of the spirit: but this place doth not prooue a simple necessitie, for Bellarmine teacheth, that baptisme was not necessarie simply before the passi­on of Christ: therefore this place prooueth it not. We say there­fore with Bernard, Non carere baptisme, seà contemnere, capitale est, epist. 77. not the want, but the contempt of baptisme is damnable. In the Church of Thessalie, as Socrates writeth, they did baptize onely at Easter, ob quam causam, saith he, Lib. 5. cap 20. omnes paucis admodum exceptis abs (que) baptismate moriebantur: for which cause all excepting a fewe died without baptisme. Would the Church of Thessalie haue done thus, if it had thought baptisme simply necessarie vnto saluation? If you obiect Augustines authoritie, I answer first that he thought the Eucharist necessarie also, as I prooued before: and if he erred in one, why might he not erre in the other? secondly the same man saith, tunc invisibiliter impletur, cum misteriū baptismi, Lib. 4. cap. 2 [...]. non contemptus religionis, sed articulus necessitatis excludit; then it is inuisibly fulfil­led, when the point of necessitie doth exclude baptisme, and not contempt of religion. S. Augustine therefore did vrge baptisme to be necessarie against the Pelagians, who thought it superfluous, and not against those that were preuented with ineuitable necessi­tie. The contempt therefore is damnable, and not the want of bap­tisme. I might also oppose Ʋincentius iudgement to that of Augu­stine, [Page 60] if he be of another minde, but I let it alone. Catharin the Pa­pist assigneth neither heauen nor hell to infants, but a third place; and so sheweth himselfe a flat Pelagian, as I might shew: but I re­ferre the reader to August. serm. 14. de ver. Apost. lib. 1. de poena mor. cap. 28. To be briefe, it is admirable to consider the varietie of po­pish opinions about this point. Bellar. lib. 6. de amiss. grat. cap. 1. A­gree amongst your selues you that teach so seuerally concerning Infants, before you come to charge the Protestants doctrine with bare negatiues. Next to baptisme, we must speake of inherent Iu­stice, which we doe not denie to be in men: for this inherent righ­teousnes is sanctification: but we teach this inherent righteousnes to be imperfect, and cleaue onely to the righteousnes of Christ: whose righteousnes is the very thing that causeth a man to stand righteous before God, and to be accepted to life euerlasting. This doctrine I maruell you dare once barke against, being so holy and so comfortable as it is. I will giue you reasons of it. In the 3. to the Rom. we are saide to be iustified freely by his grace, through the re­demption which is in Iesus Christ, whome God hath set forth to be a re­conciliation through faith in his blood. By grace here, Bellarmine will haue inherent grace vnderstood, because the fauour of God is suf­ficiently set forth by the word freely, as though to fortifie and am­plifie a matter one thing may not be vttered in diuers wordes? which I might plentifully prooue. Secondly, saith he, the word [by] cannot be applied to the fauour of God, but to the formall cause, or meritorious cause, or instrumentall cause: this is likewise false as I might shew by some examples: but let this be graunted, that by grace is not meant the fauour of God in this place, Paul ex­poundeth himselfe, saying, through the redemption which is in Iesus Christ. And to retort Bellarmine his reason: if by the fauour of God we must vnderstand inherent righteousnes, then the Apostle needed not to haue added, through faith: because faith is a part of inherent righteousnes. Hence I thus conclude: if we are iustified formally and meritoriously by the redemption which is in Iesus Christ, then are we not iustified by inherent iustice: but we are iu­stified formally and meritoriously by the redemption that is in Christ: ergo.

In the same chapter we are said to be iustified without workes, some answer works ceremoniall are to be vnderstood; this answer Bellarmine refuteth because the Apostle speaketh simply without [Page 61] the workes of the law. What works doth Bellarmine vnderstand? workes that goe before faith? But by his owne reason we must vnderstand all works, for the Apostle speaketh simply not restrai­ning his speach to Moses his law or to workes going before faith. Againe, such workes are excluded as we may boast in, but we may boast in the works which follow faith especially, seeing they pro­ceede partly of our selues, and not onely of grace, as the Papists teach. Augustine is worthie to be heard, speaking against Pelagi­us, vpon the like place of scripture; Non ait ex praeteritis operibus, De praedest & gra. cap. 7. sed cum generaliter dixerit non ex operibus, ibi & praeterita intelligi voluit & futura; he saith not of workes which are past, but seeing he speaketh generally of works, he will haue both workes that are past and to come vnderstood. So say I to the Papist, the Apostle speaketh generally, why shouldest thou then restraine his speach to works that are past? I let passe the arguments taken out of the 4. chap. which are many, and come to the place in the 2. of the Cor. the 5. chap. where Paul writeth that Christ was made sinne for vs, that we might be made the righteousnes of God in him. As Christ was made a sinner, so are we made righteous: but Christ was made a sinner by imputation: ergo we are made righteous by imputation. To this text semblably suteth Augustine. Ipse ergo peccatum, cap. 41. vt nos iustitia, he was made sinne, that we might be made iustice: not our iustice but Gods iustice, neither in vs, but in him. Againe, 3. tract. in Ioh. om­nes qui per Christum iustificati, iusti non in se sed in illo, all that are in­stified in Christ, are righteous in him, not in themselues. Lastly for breuitie sake, I thus dispute. That righteousnes which must an­swer Gods iustice must be pure and perfect: but ours is impure: ergo. Augustine saith, 19 lib. de civ. c. 17. our righteousnesis such that it consisteth rather of remission of sinnes, then of perfection of vertues: ergo it is not perfect. Optatus speaketh thus, Onely Christ is perfect, lib. 2. caete­ri omnes semiperfecti sumus; all other of vs are but halfe perfect. The testimonies of Fathers are many in this case, I conclude with Bernard: 61 in Cant. The righteousnes of Christ is not a short cloake which cannot couer two. Thus I haue giuen you a few reasons why we cleaue onely to the righteousnes of our blessed Sauiour Christ. I desire you, M. Doctor, as you loue the saluation of your soule, that you cleaue onely to it, and leaue your stained righteousnes: for your conscience t [...]lleth you that your inherent righteousnes is im­perfect. Quantaelibet fuisse virtutis antiquos praedices iustor, non eos [Page 62] salvos fecit nisi fides mediatoris. What vertues soeuer you preach that the auncient iust men had, nothing saued them but faith in the Mediatour, Lib. 1. cont. Pe­lag. cap. 21. saith Augustine. Except therefore you be better then the righteous men, Abraham, Noe, & others, onely faith in Christ must bring you to saluation. Concerning workes of preparation, if by them you vnderstand workes by which God bringeth vs to repentance, as hearing Gods word, afflictions, with other things, we doe not denie them: but if you vnderstand workes, which de­serue fauour of congruitie, we reiect them, as some of your owne men doe giue vs leaue to doe that which is done by your selues; and indeede who can thinke that he to whome damnation is due should merit and deserue Gods grace? this is madde diuinitie. Augustine saith, [...]. Psal. Nihil boni fecisti & datur tibi remissio peccatorum, attenduntur opera tua, & inueniuntur omnia mala. Thou hast done no good and remission of sinne is giuen thee, thy workes are con­sidered, they are found all euill. To be short, saith the same father, Miseretur Deus. God of his great goodnesse hath mercie, and he bardeneth without any iniquitie, [...] that neither he which is deliue­red might boast of his owne merits, neither he which is condem­ned might complaine but of his owne deserts, for onely grace di­scerneth those that are saued from those that are damned. Nowe M. Doctor plead you merits and deserts, I for my part will cleaue onely to grace. From workes of preparation we are to descend to good workes and free will, but of these I haue spoken before, and therefore I will not repeat the matters handled, but come to the keeping of Gods commandements, which we denie can be done in that perfection as the lawe requireth, for there is no man that sinneth not, and to say as the Papists say, is plaine Pelagianisme, fa­cilia dicis (saith Hierom) thou saiest Gods commandement are ea­sie, Ad C [...]. and yet thou canst alleadge none that hath fulfilled them all. Augustines testimonies are pregnant in this point, wherefore to leaue it, as also humane lawes, and to speake of the seauen Sacra­ments. The Papists make not onely 7. Sacraments, but many moe. For as they make orders one of the seauen, so doe they make di­uers Sacraments in orders: as namely the order of Bishops one sa­crament, the order of Priesthood another, and the order of Dea­conship another, as Bellarmine sheweth. Hence it is plaine that they make about seauen sacraments, yea they make inferior or­ders also a Sacrament, and so they haue exceedingly multiplied the [Page 63] number of sacraments: but we make but two, and this number I prooued before out of Augustine; besides the Sacraments did flowe out of Christs side, but onely blood and water did issue out of Christs side, ergo, there are but two. Water signifieth Baptisme, and blood the Eucharist: touching the proofe of this, that the sa­craments did flowe out of Christs fide, read Bellarmine, lib. 1. de Sacr. cap. 15. To proceede: August. in 8. tract. in Iob. in a Sacrament there must be a word of institution and an outward element: Accedat verbum ad clementum & fiat Sacramentum, Let the word come to the element and so it shall be a Sacrament. But onely Baptisme and the supper of the Lord, hath an outward element, and the word of institution: ergo. I will not adioyne the testimonies of Fathers, neither shewe that Durand denieth matrimonie to be a Sacrament after the Sacra­ments. The Doctor nameth Priesthood of which I haue spoken, as also of the single life of the Cleargie. But concerning Priesthood I would know whether his Priests are after Aarons order, or after Melchizedechs. Aarons order is ceased, Melchizedechs order is peculiar to Christ, what Priesthood then would you haue M. Doctor? And whereas you say that we denie pennance, contritiō, and the perpetuall virginitie of the Virgin Marie, with trimming vp of Churches, ceremonies, and singing, it is false; for we teach godly sorrow to be necessarie vnto saluation, and do not denie the perpetual virginitie of the virgin Marie, neither do we condemne moderate trimming vp of churches & ceremonies: as for satisfacti­on and the reall presence, I haue handled them before: as also wor­shipping of Images, and the visibilitie of the Church. I will speake of praier vnto Saints, which as yet I haue not spoken of. If we must pray vnto Saints, we must beleeue in them, for to whomsoeuer we pray we must beleeue in him; but we must not beleeue in Saints: ergo. If you answer that we may beleeue in Saints, heare what the Fathers write. Vemantius saith, Vbi prepostio (In) ponitur, To. 2. ibi diuinitas approbatur: Whersoeuer the preposition [in] is, there the Diuinitie is approoued. To Vemantius agreeth Paschasius, T [...]. 9. Credimus Eccle­siam quasi regenerationis matrem, non in Ecclesiam credimus, quasi salu­tis vxorem. We beleeue the holy Church as the mother of regene­ration, but we beleeue not in the Church, as the author of saluatiō. Bellarm. prooueth the Deitie of Christ, because we must beleeue in him: to beleeue then in Saints is to make them Gods. Nazian­zene also prooueth the Deitie of the holy Ghost, because we be­leeue [Page 64] in the holy Ghost. Furthermore to whomesoeuer we must pray, we must call him Father, but we must not call any Saint Fa­ther: ergo. The proposition is manifest out of the Lords praier, which is a perfect patterne of praier: Ep. 121. for as saith Augustine, Quā ­libet alia verba dicamus, nihil aliud dicimus quàm in ista oratione do­minica positum est, si rectè & congruentur oramus. Although we vtter other wordes, yet we say no other thing then is contained in the Lords praier: if we pray conueniently and aright. Thirdly, to whomsoeuer we must pray, he must knowe the heart, but onely God knoweth the heart, ergo. Theophylact vpon the 19. of Math. writeth, that ex hoc quòd cogitationes resciuit, ostendit se Deum Chri­stus, Christ by this thing did shewe himselfe God, because he knew their thoughts. Now M. Doctor iudge whether you haue not vt­tered a most wretched speech, that a horse if he could speak, might be as good a Protestant as the best of them all. We come not in with bare negatiues, but with sound arguments, which if you can answere, I reduce your argument into a syllogisme:

• They which stand vpon bare negatiues, are of a false religion:
• But the Protestants stand vpon bare negatiues. ergo.

The assumption as I haue shewed is vtterly false. And M. Do­ctor I would knowe whether you owne men stand vpon bare negatiues or no. We teach many points as I haue prooued, which the Papists hold themselues: if we stand vpon hare destructiues; then doe they also. Charge not vs then M. Doctor with bare ne­gatiues, except you will disgrace your own men.

Salomon giueth counsaile that an other should cōmend vs not we our selues yet this Doctor thirsteth so after praise that he com­mendeth the papists for learning, and condemneth the protestants for Idiotes I doe not willingly diminish the papists learning virtus in hoste laudanda vertue is to be commended in our enemies, yet now I am enforced to shew the Papists ignorance, and to defend the protestants knowledge; many Popes as I haue prooued haue beene so ignorant that they did not know their grammer. Pope Benedictus, saith Waltheramus Symonaicè Papatu Romano inuaso, cum esset rudit literarum, alterum ad vices Ecclesiastici officij exequen­das [Page 65] see [...] Papam consecrari fecit. Bennet getting the Popedome by symony, seeing he was vnlearned, caused another Pope to be con­secrated with him to doe ecclesiasticall duties. If I should repeat Popes arguments I might wast paper; touching monkes, they were so vnlearned, that it was growne a prouerbe, monacho indocti­or, more vnlearned then a monke, Doctor Fulke in Smith. & of Bishops Erasmus said that only England had learned Bishops. Bellarmine defendeth their latine translation, because in a councell it may come to passe that few vnderstand Greeke or Hebrew; thus ignorance must serue their turnes when it pleaseth them, the Papists plead for learning; and yet ignorance, must be an argument to defend their translatiō of the bible. The Rhemists also defend their vnlearned papists, as it is to be seene in their annotation vpon the 1. Epist. of Tim. 5. v. Who would now thinke that these mē should vaunte of learning▪ the papists were so learned that they deriue the word articles of actans, many such strange notations might I shew, Aquin. 2.2. if I delighted in this trash Ludouicus Viues faith, that they which were of the Domi­nican order, nec latine sciunt, neither know latine, Praefat in com. d [...] Ciuit. dei. neither haue at­tained to any good authour, beeing nourished and drowned vp to the eares in the sermons of Dormi secure, yea he saith that saeculum iam est literis excultissimum, now the world is exceeding learned, iudge then what it was heretofore, but that Christian reader, thou maist see, that this doctor eareth not how he extolleth the papists, and disgraceth the protestants, attend vnto his wordes. I pray you saith he what a learned clergie was their in Queene Maries time, in respect of these poore creatures that occupie nowe their pre­bends and sit in the sunneshine of their newe pretended Gospell with their wiues and children round about them. Were not one Tonstal, one Watson, one Christopherson for learning, one Fecknam, one Gardiner, one White for wisdome and learning to­gither, able to set to schoole all your ruffled Cleargie at this day? I liued not in Queene Maries time, to see the learned Cleargie that then was, neither will I detract any thing from the men here na­med, but this I say that one Peter Martyr hath aboundantly answe­red Gardiner: yea I dare say reuerend Iuell, Grindal, Pilkington, Whitgift, Hutton, Cooper, Pears, Matthew, Bilson, M. Humfrey, M. Fulke, M. Whitakers, with diuers others, were able ora Papista­rum obthurare, to stoppe the Papists mouthes. And concerning the Cleargie that now is, for learning, let those that were aliue in [Page 66] Queene Maries time iudge, thankes be to God it is knowne that knowledge aboundeth now farre more then euer it did in those times. The Priest in the daies of poperie is not forgotten that read Rundit for respondit, and bunpzas for baptizas. Concerning our pelting obiections taken out of Caluin and Beza, I say that if we should dispute so peltingly as the papists, we were worthy to be hissed at. I will set downe some popish arguments. There are sea­uen deadly sinnes: Bellar. lib. 2. de Lap. cap. 26. ergo, saith the papist, there are seauen Sacra­ments. Againe the number of seauen is mysticall: ergo there are seauen Sacraments I will not say what learned men euer broached such conclusions: but I come to other arguments, the wise men came to adore Christ, ergo we may adore holy persons, places and things; such shameles collections are fit for Papists, Dureus proo­ueth that the Iewes did inuocate Saints, because they thought that our Sauiour Christ called vpō Elias whē he cried Heli, Heli; what admirable learned men are the Papists? I might fill many sheetes with such popish arguments, but I leaue them and come to schoole diuinitie, the Catholike diuines saith the Doctor teach in their schooles more exactly all things which a man may knowe in this life, of God almightie, of his perfection, goodnesse, Infinitie. &c. which the protestants neuer beate their branes about, beeing so much occupied about woeing, wenching, and wiuing, taking vpon them to be Doctors of diuinitie and husbands also. The marriage of ministers troubleth the Doctor very much, for he harpeth euer vpon this string; but he cannot disgrace married mē, except he doeth disgrace the Apostles, who as I prooued were married. And if the Doctor had read that same famous learned protestant Zanchy, he would neuer haue written as he hath, for Zanchie hath written of Gods attributes, of the Trinitie, and of the Creation, so as I feare few papists can doe the like. But as for the schoolemen, they haue defiled Diuinitie with idle questions. Eras­mus hath set downe many of them: as whether God can pro­hibit euery good thing; whether he can make the world better thē he did, whether he can make of a harlotte a virging: whether the Ideas of all things are in Gods minde or noe: whether the Pope may abrogate the Apostles decrees: whether he can establish any thing that fighteth with the Gospell: whether he can commaund Angels, or take away purgatorie. These questions with many moe hath Erasmus witnessed to be disputed amongst papists, where [Page 67] you say, M. Doctor, that if any Protestant should appeare in Ca­tholike schooles, he durst not once open his mouth in matters of learning: you still continue your rayling spirit, and, as I hope, dis­grace your selfe, more then you are able to doe the Protestants learning. I will name you some that durst shew their faces in any popish schoole, both for knowledge in tongues, and arts. Iunius and Tremellius for learning in diuinitie may be matched with any Papist: and for arts, what say you, M. Doctor, to Ramus? whose learning the world can witnes. But, say you, this grosse ignorance of these new Gospellers is the cause that people doe remaine vt­terly void of the knowledge of mysteries, which they are bound to beleeue vpon paine of damnation. If you meane popish myste­ries, I answer, the people are not bound to know them. And what ignorance you keepe the people in, your practise sheweth: who take from them the Scriptures, which are the key of knowledge. They must not read the Scriptures, because holy things must not be giuen to dogges, they must haue their seruice in latin, and be taught by Images which you call Lay mens books. Yea your do­ctrine of vnfolden faith, that a simple man must beleeue as the Church beleeueth, may testifie what knowledge the Papists re­quire in the people. I will not speake of your dumme ministers which cannot barke: it is well knowne that your priests haue bin idols, and therefore the people in poperie could be little better. And indeede to me it is no small confirmation of the truth, that the Protestants require such knowledge in the people, whereas Papists rather hold them in ignorance. Not to be tedious, Hierom of Prage his learning is commended by Papists themselues, and schoole diuinitie is condemned by Langius a Papist. The Doctor further to amplifie our vnlearnednes speaketh thus: Take the most learned Doctor of them all, and set him to reason with an heathen or with an Atheist, and you shall see what goodly arguments he will make. Are you not once abashed thus to proceed in vntruths? Philip Morney lord of Plessis hath written so learnedly against Atheists, that I thinke fewe Papists can doe the like. Yet I would not haue you to thinke that it is necessarie to prooue the faith of the blessed Trinitie, and other points of diuinitie with naturall reasons. Read Aquinas in his first part and 32. quest. where you shall finde that, Sufficit defendere non esse impossibile quod praedicat fi­des; it sufficeth to defend that that is not impossible which faith [Page 68] teacheth. I admire with you the prouidence and goodnes of God towards his Church, in furnishing it with all kinds of learning and sciences, whereby it may maintaine it selfe against all sorts of ene­mies, be they Iewes, Turkes, or heretikes whatsoeuer: and I also doe not denie your disputations and resolutions of cases of con­science; but I denie that the Protestant doth not meddle with these things, but fraughteth his shippe onely with faith, and neuer beateth his braine about sinnes. These odious vntruths the world can controll: and for your schoole diuinitie, might not the hea­then Philosophers haue made the same argument against Christs Apostles, they might haue cried, loe a few rude ignorant men de­ceiue the world? so the Papists not vnlike the heathen, crie a fewe ignorant Lutherans seduce the people. The Apostles wanted your schoole tearmes, M. Doctor, yet it was the truth which they taught. But now I draw your reason into a syllogisme:

• Where there is greatest learning, there is truth:
• But with the Papists, not with the Protestants, there is grea­test learning: Ergo.

I answer, both propositions are false. Heretikes may be well lear­ned, Erasm. and yet the truth resteth not in their breasts. Valentius was vir pollens doctrina, i [...]xta & eloquentia; Valentius was both excel­lently learned, and wonderfull eloquent. Laicus simplex, a simple lay-man ouercame a Logician, and an vnlearned man openeth Christian religion vnto a Philosopher, Lib. 2. hist. saith the Tripartite histo­rie. But that you may see, M. Doctor, how in this obiection you resemble the old heretikes, heare Ireneus: Qui relinquunt praeconium Ecclesiae, Lib. 5. (saith he) imperitiam sanctorum praesbyterorum arguunt, non contemplantes, quanti pluris sit idiota religiosus, à blasphemo & impu­denti Sophista: Such as forsake the preaching of the Church, argue the vnskilfulnes of holy Elders, not considering how farre more worth a religious idiot is, then a blasphemous and impudent so­phister. Thus, Christian Reader, I haue made comparison of learning beeing thereunto forced. De lau. sui ipsius. The heathen man Plutarch al­loweth this: for, saith, he laudare seipsum potest criminis depellendi causa, a man may praise himselfe to driue away crimes. Paul main­tained his dignitie against false Apostles, so I haue maintained the Protestants learning against this slanderous and venemous mou­thed Doctor. My purpose is not to disgrace the learned Papists, I know some of them to be skilfull men in tongues and arts, and I [Page 69] feare many are so learned that they offend against their conscien­ces. Howsoeuer it be, let the Protestants be counted ignorant, and the Papists learned, the Protestants mauger the Pope himselfe will by Gods assistance maintaine their cause. And seeing M. Doctor you are so learned, I pray you answer M. Doctor Whitakers, and other mens workes, which haue beene written against poperie. Neuer bragge of learning vntill our mens workes against your religion be answered. And if you doe this, yet I would wish you to marke Augustines speach; Melior est in malis factis humilis con­fessio, quàm in bonis superba gloriatio, better is an humble confession in doing euill, then a proud vaunt in doing well: and take heede least as Seneca speaketh, you teach men disputare non vivere, to di­spute and not to liue. Learning and religion meete not alwaies in one subiect, they lodge not alwaies in one brest. To ende this point: a man may be learned and yet an heretike.

As in the former reason I haue beene compelled to make com­parison of learning, so here I am enforced to conferre liues. Al­though I would not haue religion measured by the life of any, yet to answer this mans vanitie, least he should be too proud of popish holinesse, I will out of good records set downe the liues of Papists. Before I doe this Christian reader, I must giue thee to vn­derstand, that thou maiest not measure religion by externall holi­nesse, as the Doctor himselfe confesseth; and therefore in the be­ginning of the chapter, he ouerthroweth the residue of the same, for to grant him his externall holinesse which he saith to be in the Catholikes, and not to denie their fastings and their praiers: all these things may be in hypocrites, as it is plaine Math. 6. The Pha­risies fasted and praied, and did other workes, yet was their do­ctrine erroneous, and so is the Papists. The Doctor confessed be­fore that they did vndertake fasting to satisfie, which ouerthrow­eth the fasting: for Christ hath perfectly answered Gods iustice for vs. Tertullian writeth excellently to this purpose. De pr [...]. Ex personis probamus fidem, an ex fide personas? doe we prooue the faith by men, or men by the faith? The Rhemists vpon the 7. of Math confesse that there may be extraordinarie zeale and holinesse in some here­tickes, [Page 70] which saying is sufficient to ouerthrowe this whole chapter of the Doctor. By these proofes it is manifest that we must not measure true religion by externall holinesse: and not to stay any longer in this point; Iudas betrayed our Sauiour Christ, yet he was a Preacher of the Gospel. But that the Papists may see their holinesse I will begin with their Popes, Fasciculus temporum saith of eight Popes togither, Non nisi scandolosa de his repperi. I find no­thing but scandalous matter of them. Stephanus the 6. cut off two of Formosus his fingers, and cast his hands into Tiberis. Boniface the 8. entred into the Popedome as a Foxe, raigned like a lyon, & died like a dogge. Of Boniface the 9. his time saith Largius, Italiā totam, maxime autem Romam, vitiorum vorago, &c. A gulfe of sin had almost swallowed vp all Italie, especially Rome. Nowe M. Doctor you haue an vniuersalitie of your holinesse, all Italy, and specially Rome drowned in sin. And because you speake of Simo­nie: Simonaica pestis, lethaliter omnia insererat, Simonie had inserted all things most deadly, saith the same Langius. Your Cardinalls were so proud that Caelestine the 5. decreed, Quòd nec Papa, nec Cardinales cum tanta pompa equis vterentur, sed asinis veherentur tā ­tùm. That neither the Pope nor Cardinals should vse horse with such a pompe, but they should be carried vpon asses. I doubt not but his lawe is now ouerthrowne. Palingenius describeth at large the notorious corruption of the Romane Cleargie. Sed tua preci­puè non intrent limina quisquam, Frater vel Monachus vel quauis leg [...] sacerdos.

Let no Frier, Monke, or Priest come within thy dores, take heed of them, no greater mischeife can be, these are the dregges of men, the fountaines of folly, the sinckes of sinne, wolues vnder lamb skinnes, seruing god for reward not for deuotion, deceiuing [Page 71] the simple with a false shewe of honestie, and vnder the shaddowe of religion hiding a thousand vnlawfull actes, a thousand hainous offences, committers of rapes, fornicators, abusers of boyes, slaues of gluttonie and luxurie, they sell heauenly things: these impostors and craftie foxes, chase farre from thee. It grieueth me to rake the dunghill of these loathsome Papists liues, yet if these testimonies will not suffice, heare Bernard. Quià tam notum saeculis, Lib. 4. ad Euge. quàm pro­teruia & fastus Romanorum gens insueta paci, tumultui assueta. What hath beene so famous as the frowardnesse and the haughtinesse of the Romans, a nation not acquainted with peace, accustomed to tumults. I am sparing in his testimonies, because I produced one of them before. Pope Adrian confessed as I haue shewed, that all mischeife came from Rome. I let passe the reformation of the Cleargie by Petrus de Alliac [...]. Picus Mirandula thus writeth. Inorat. ad Leo. A­pud pleros (que) religionis nostrae primores, aut nullus, aut certe exiguus Dei cultus, nulla bene vinendi ratio, at (que) institutio, nullus pudor, nulla mo­destia, nulla iustitia. Amongest the cheife of our religion, there is no seruice of God at all, or very small, no course of liuing wel, no mo­destie, no iustice. Read his oration vnto Leo the 10. Christian reader, if thou wilt see the monstrous liues of Papists. Antonius Cornelius saith to the Cleargie of Colon, that non decet tot scorta alere, it is an vnseemely thing to nourish so many whores. What should I speake of Nicholaus Clemanges his booke written of the corrupt state of the Church. It would make a man wonder to see the wofull estate of those times. Gildas his complaint of the nobili­tie and laitie of England is lamentable, Tom. 5. he saith that there was not onely fornication, but omnia vitia quae humanae naturae accidere so­lent, All vices which could happen vnto man: and concerning the Cleargie he testifieth, that it had sacerdotes multos impudentes, Ma­ny impudent priests, wolues readie to deuoure the soules of men. The reading of his inuectiues hath not a little affected me, for to behold what things he hath written would drawe teares out of a hard heart. Master Harding calleth stewes a necessarie euill. In 41 [...]. O notorious wickednesse! I am loath to shewe howe some Papists haue written, that no man is to be deposed for fornication except he continue in it. I onely say with Mantuan, Viuere qui sanctè cupi­tis, discedite Roma, omnia cum liceant, non licet esse bonum: you that wish to liue godly, depart from Rome, all things are there suffe­red saue godlinesse. Nowe I reduce your reason into a syllogisme.

• [Page 72]They which haue holinesse of life are the true Church.
• But the Papists haue holinesse of life. ergo.

I answer to the proposition, that there may be externall holines in a false religion, and so by consequent it is false, for the truth of the assumption, let the authors before cited determine the same. Augustine opposeth to the continencie of th [...] Manichees, the cō ­tinencie of Monkes, vpon which Erasmus hath this note, vtinam mundus nunc haberet tales, I would the world had such nowe, by which speech he sheweth what popish monkes were concerning the liues of protestants, I would that all which are professors were expressers. My purpose is not to defend the loosenes of their acti­ons, for my part I thinke that these loose liuers, are tanquam mate­ria prima, as fit to receiue popery as any other religion. I say ther­fore with Augustine, Lib. 2. de mo. Man. cap. 34. Nolite consectari turbas imperitorum, qui vel in ipsa religione superstitiosi sunt, vel ita libidiuibus dediti, vt obliti sunt, quicquid promiserunt Doe. Seeke not after the rude multitude, which are either superstitious in religion, or so giuen to lusts, that they haue forgotten their promise to God, but touching the true professors of the Gospel, they shall be found in trial alwaies as ho­nest as papists, where you say that loosenes issueth out of the bow­ells of our doctrine, and that our ministers are all naught, I doubt not but that God wil reward you accordingly for these your slan­derous wordes, 2. Cor. 10.18. Paul saith, not he which commendeth him selfe is approued, but he which God commendeth. We care not for your commendations Master Doctor, we desire to approoue our selues vnto God; it is your Doctrine that admitteth loosenes of life as I haue shewed, and now I will make it more plaine. The Popes pardons are a most licentious doctrine, Iohannes Papa tertius & vicesimus plenariam peccatorum remissionem indulsit his, qui ad tuendā ecclesiam arma induerant pope Iohn the 23. gaue a full pardon of sinnes to those that tooke armes to defend the Church. Who would not commit adulterie and other sinnes, if the pope can giue him a pardon of all his sinnes for taking so small paines as to defend the Church? Pope Boniface as it is to be seene in his Bull, giues plenissima veniam peccatorum, a most full pardon of all sinnes, surely if the pope for money will giue such pardon, he may haue catholikes good store. The doctrine of vowes is also a sinfull doctrine, as the wolrd can testifie: and to what end tendeth the popes forbidding of more degres in marriage then God hath, and [Page 73] dispencing with those which God hath forbidden, but to main­taine couetousnes? cōcerning the bloody tragedies raised in Fraūce although I loue not to meddle with such matters, yet knowe Christian reader that those of the reformed religion, in taking armes to defend the lawes and liberties of their countrie against priuate persons, haue done nothing but in the Kings seruice. The bloodie actes of Papists are notorious to the world. The rest of the Doctors railing in this chapter is not worthy a­ny aunswer. They pray forsooth whilest our ministers play, they fast whilest we feast. Againe (saith he) are not some of them hanged for robberies, for rapes, imprisoned for sor­cerie, and for other knaueries. Verily, M. Doctor, I doubt not but that you know many of your men to haue beene hanged for trea­sons, and that your owne conscience can tell you, that our godly ministers pray whilst your Cardinalls are in bedde with their har­lots. If the Vicar of Waram had his trull from coleman hedge, let him answer such a filthie fact himselfe, charge not our religion with his actions. I lament, M. Doctor, from my heart, the vsurie & symonie that is practised with many, as also the excessiue pride in apparrell, the traines, verdingalls, borders, periwingles, coro­nets, wyers and ruffes, which are spoken against by the syncere preachers of the Gospel, and I know none practise these more then Atheists or Papists: and it is vtterly false that it came in with our Gospel. The holy prophet Esai hath sharply rebuked this in­tollerable pride, as you may see in his 3. chap. will you therefore, M. Doctor say, that the doctrine of the holy prophet was naught, because pride did so abound in his time? I hope you will remem­ber your selfe. But Erasmus, say you, Epistles. condemneth sinnes in Euan­gelicall people; and so doe we in whome soeuer they are: as he condemneth sinnes in the Euangelicall people, so doth he com­mend Luther whome you say to haue ledde a brutish life. Hominis vita (saith he) magno omnium consensu probatur, iam id non leve praeiu­dicium est, tantam esse morum integritatem, vt nec hoste [...] reperiant, quid calumnientur. Luthers life is approoued by the consent of all men, and that is no small praeiudice, that his integritie is soe great, that the enemies cannot slaunder it. Touching his marriage, hee married not to please you, but to please God in holy matrimony. Augustine writeth of virgins which are sory for their vowe, Cap. 39. de sanct. virg. vt me­lius nuberent, quam vrerentur. That they should doe better to mar­rie, [Page 74] then to burne. and in his booke de bono vid 8. & 9. chap. hee teacheth that they which marrie after a vowe doe contract true matrimony, though therefore he maried a Nunne, yet was his marriage true whatsoeuer you bring from Iouinian his lawes, the Doctor (which I had allmost forgotten) demandeth what womā is married without touch of her honestie, yea saith he it is well if she had not a barne before. These questions Master Doctour touch your honeste neerely, for the world can controwle these vanites, as like wise other in the end of your chapter, where you say that if a Seminarie Priest turne to vs, he drinketh vp sinne, as the dogge lappeth vp water, but on the other side if any doe leaue the protestants, and become a Catholike, he doth leaue all his vi­ces. These vntruthes deserue not any answer, but graunt them to be true, yet is religion truth, whatsoeuer wickednes the men that professe it are giuen vnto. And whereas you haue spoken of pride; Laurentius Valla de Constat. donat. saith thus: Existimo, &c. I thinke the deuils would expresse the pride of the Cleargie, if they acted any plaies in the aire.

That the doctrine of the Romane Church hath euer remained without change, it is as false as it is true that in the Apostles time the Romans faith was reported through the world. To shew that the Romish Church hath swarued from that faith which the A­postles spake of, the Epistle it selfe is sufficient; who listeth to cō ­pare the doctrine which now the papists hold, with the holy doct­rine taught in that Epistle, shal see differences inough, to shew the time of the change and alteration is nedeles, for we see it with our eyes, but because the Doctor saith that noe man can prooue that euer any pope or byshop in any See, did at any time change in a­ny point of religion of his predecessor, I will name vnto him one poynte changed. Gregory would not be called vniuersall bishop, yet his successor Boniface was so called, heare you haue a pope which altereth a point in religion, August. 157. ep. Greg. l. 1. epist. 4 [...]. to giue you another point, pope Zozimus held that Nemo redemptus dici potest, nisi qui verè per pec­catum fuerit captivus. Mo man can be called redeemed, except he hath bin in trueth a captiue in sinne: yet Pope Sixtus taught the [Page 75] Virgin Marie not to be conceiued in sinne, ergo shee cannot be called redeemed. To touch some other charges. Gregorie saith, it was heard that the subdeacons of Sicilie should not be married, he gaue them leaue to marrie, although his predecessors had forbid­den it. Yet is this thing againe changed, for nowe subdeacons haue no wiues. Pope Vrban the 4. instituted the feast of the Lords bo­dy and the solemne Precession. What should I speake of Images and the peoples consent in election of ministers, that the people did giue voices, it is plaine by Bellarmines confession, lib. de Cleric. cap. 17. and that in Gregories time. By these fewe examples euery man may see a change, I will not produce any moe, because the Doctor named but one point. And why should we not thinke of a change in points of religion, seeing one Pope would change the acts of another? Stephanus did most cruelly persecute Formosus, and made all his ordinations voide: and saith Sigebert, Sigebert. Alia in eū horribilia dictu fecit. He did other horrible things to be named a­gainst him. Pope Iohn afterward confirmed Formosus his actes, then commeth Sergius and maketh all voide again, this saith Sige­bert is dictu nefas, a most horrible thing to be spoken of. Thus M. Doctor you may see alterations in Popes, if you wil but read your owne men. I could alleadge confessions out of Bellarmine himselfe, but I haue handled them in other places, and de­sire breuitie, I reduce your reasons into a syllogisme.

• They which alter some opinions are of a false religion.
• But some Protestants haue altered some opinions.
• Ergo:

I denie the proposition, for who can discommend this thing, that a man should vpon good grounds change his opinions. Nunquam, saith the Orator, praestantibus viris laudata est in vna sententia perpetua permansio. Excellent men neuer commend perpetuitie in one opinion. As constancie is good, so pertinacie is badde. You will giue the Poets leaue, malè tornatos incudi reddere versus: to renue bad verses, and will you not giue diuines leaue to change their opinions? praestat recurrere, quàm male currere, it is better to runne backe, then to runne a wrong way. Augu­stine an excellent Father, hath written bookes of Retra­ctions, yet Protestants may not alter any opinions, but they are by and by heretickes. Whitak. co [...]. Du. Luther desireth that his bookes may be reade cum multa miseratione, with much compassion be­cause [Page 76] he was once a Monke, no maruaile though he changed his opinions, seeing he was traind vp in blindnesse. And yet as the Doctor here himselfe sheweth, he came from condemning one errour in Poperie, vntill he condemned many. If Luther had chā ­ged his minde at his death, it had beene something, but seeing he continued constant against the Popish doctrine, it is a sure argu­ment of his setled minde against that religion, although he could not see all errours at the first. Maruaile not then M. Doctor, though by little and little he taught against your erroneous do­ctrines. Augustine saith that nemo nisi imprudens, quia mea errata re­prehendo, Lib. 1. Retract. me audebit reprehēdere. No man that is wise wil find fault with me, because I finde fault with my selfe. Touching the alterati­on of the Communion booke, we haue made no great alteration these fourtie yeares of it. And yet knowe we M. Doctor that cere­monies and matters of indifferencie may be changed so oft as the Church shall see cause. But say you, who so doeth obserue daiely the order thereof is a cold Protestant, or an Atheist for his labour. This sauoureth of your accustomed railing, and therefore deser­ueth no answere. As for the communion in leauened or vnleaue­ned bread, heare your angelicall Doctor Thomas, non est de neces­sitate Sacraments, Tertia. P [...]. 74. art. 4. quod sit azimus, vel fermentatus panis, quia in vtro (que) confici potest, conueniens autem est vt vnusquis (que) seruet ritum suae Eccle­sia. It is not of the necessitie of the Sacrament, that it should be ei­ther vnleauened or leauened bread, but it is conuenient that euery man obserue the rite of his church in the celebration of the Sacra­ment. That some in stead of wine, take in the communion nappie ale, it may be true in Papists, but I knowe no protesants that doe it: and as for placing the Communion table, and praying with a mans face either towards the south or north, be matters of indiffe­rencie. Walfridus Strabo writeth of this point thus, Ʋnusquis (que) su [...] sensu abundet, Let euery man abound in his owne sense. Yea he sheweth that the altars did not looke all one way: but there follo­weth a great matter concerning reuerend Iewel, who first gloried that Christs flocke was little, but afterwards vaunted much that our doctrine must needes be true, because it was spread so largely. As though this reuerend man might not auouch Christs flocke to be sometimes little, See S [...]c [...]. in his 5. booke. and sometimes to be large. But if this be such inconstancy, I pray you learne M. Doctor, that your selues were woont to prooue you to be the Church, because of vniuer­salitie. [Page 77] But nowe your Rhemists seeing Antichrists kingdome les­sended, will needs prooue your selues the Church, vpon the 20. of the [...]eue [...]. because of the small number. Thus is vnconstancie turned vpon your owne heades, for indeed it seemeth that you care not what you write, to discharge the Pope from beeing Antichrist. The same Rhemists will one while haue the reuolt, of which Paul speaketh, 2. Thessal. 2. chap. to be vnderstood from the Romane Empire, immediately they say it is very like to be from the Romane Church. O admi­rable constancie! What should I examplifie your inconstancie, howe Saints heare our praier; one whiles they heare them this way, another whiles that way. These you may read in Bellarmine himselfe the constancie of worshipping of your Images is vncō ­stant as I can prooue vnto you. Luther his change of opinions I haue answered before: the old prouerb may heare fitly be vsed, [...], no one man seeth all things: and [...], the second cogitations are best.

I will requite the Duke of Saxonie his speech, with another: it is reported (saith Gryneus) that he should say, Although I am not ig­norant that there haue both errours and abuses crept into the Church, yet I will not imbrace that Gospel which Luther preach­eth. Thus the man as I thinke, with whose saying you ende your chapter M. Doctor, hath done you more harme then good.

As the Prophets and Apostles and Christ himselfe foretolde, that in the later daies there should come false Prophets, so we find it by experience. Now let vs see whether the notes of false Pro­phets agree to your selues, or vnto vs. To prooue that they agree vnto vs, you frame this reason.

• They which come vnsent, are false prophets.
• But the Protestants come vnsent. ergo.

The assumption is prooued because we haue neither ordinary, or extraordinarie callings. Extraordinar [...]e calling we haue none, because we worke no miracles, that we haue no ordinarie calling it is plaine.

I answer, that Luther, Zuinglius, and some others were ordai­ned [Page 78] Elders by your selues. And therefore they were called ordina­rily. According to your calling if they were Elders they might preach true doctrine, for I hope you ordained not them to preach false doctrine. If they lost their ordination because they renoun­ced poperie, then haue you lost yours much more, because you haue renounced Christs doctrine. But I thinke you will not say that they lost their ordination, because of your indelible character, the Sacraments which imprint this cannot be repealed, one of which you make Orders. But I would not haue you to thinke that we esteeme so much of your calling, as that we regard it beeing corrupt. The wicked asked Christ for his authoritie, Mat. 21. He that preacheth the Apostles doctrine hath authoritie enough: the estate of this church beeing corrupted so, that he cannot haue that calling which he would. He that is sent to preach may not hold his tongue, and tarrie till your Lord the Pope and his mitred fathers can intēd to consent. But you require miracles. I answer, that Iohn Bapt. did no miracle. Thom. 3. 3 [...]. quaest. art. 2. resp. ad. 2. giueth this reason. Si Iohannes signa fecisset, homines ex aequ [...] Iohanni & Christo attendissent. If Iohn had done any miracles, men would haue equal­ly attended to him and to Christ. It is sufficient that our doctrine is confirmed by Christs miracles. Further M. Doctor our preach­ers were called by the Christian Magistrates whose allowance they had, which to be warrantable your selues cannot denie. But why doe I followe this point any further? Coster a papist con­fesseth that, Quanquam pleri (que) haereticorum Episcopi, presbyteri, & do­ctores ex ordine munus & officium docendi acceperunt, nulli tamen fa­cultas data est noua decreta fabricandi, sed hoc tantùm candidè & sin­cerè tradendi, quod ei qui misit probatur. Although many Bishops, Elders, and Doctors of haeretickes, haue receiued orderly the dutie to teach, yet to no man is power giuen to make newe opinions, but sincerely to deliuer that which is approoued vn­to him that sent him. Wherefore you reiect our calling, prooue that we coyned newe opinions. Eus [...]b. l. 6. 1 [...]. cap. Origen taught before he was ordained Elder, when the Church was sound; Demetrius repre­hended Alexander Bishop of Hierusalem, and Theodistus of Caesarea for suffering him so to doe; but they defend themselues and shewe that it may be done, ad commodandum fratribus, to pro­fit the brethren. If this might be done in Constituta Ecclesia, in an established Church: bowe much more might it be suffered when [Page 79] as Ecclesia sit constituenda, the church is to be constituted. Thus ha­uing defended the calling of protestants, let vs see what notes of hereticks and false prophets the scriptures giue. Paul in the first of Tim. and 4. chap. giueth these notes of false Prophets, to forbidde marriages, and to command abstinence from meates. Where are these to be found at this day? in papists or protestants? in protestāts no man will affirme. The Manichees did not simply forbid mar­riage, neither condemned they simply meats. For Auditores qui appellantur apud Manichaeos, & carnibus vescuntur, & si voluerint vxores habent. Their hearers did eate flesh, and if they would had wiues. It remaineth then that these notes be found in Papists. An­other note of false prophets is to draw men to the seruice of idols, Deut. 13.2. Doth this agree any way to Protestants, who abandō all monuments of Idolatrie? to the Papists it agreeth, because they teach that the very wood of the Crosse is to be worshipped with diuine honour. Polidor Virgil. lib. 6. cap. 13. speaking of worship­ping Saints images, saith, Haec pars pietatis parum differt ab impieta­te, this pietie differeth little from impietie. The third note of false teachers is to despise Dominion as Iude speaketh, vers. 8. doth not the Pope so, who will not be subiect to the Emperour, no not to a generall Councell? as Witnesseth Eugenius who would not yeeld to the Councel of Basil. Yea the papists suborne traytours to mur­der their lawfull Prince, as their own writings prooue. The booke I haue named before.

The fourth note of false Apostles is to teach iustification by the works of the lawe, as it is manifest by the Epistle of Paul to the Galat. Doe we so, or the papists? neither can the papists answer that Paul excludeth the workes of nature onely, and not of grace. For Paul excludeth not onely the workes of nature, but the workes of the ceremoniall and morall lawe, as it is plaine. For who can ima­gine that the Galathians beeing instructed in Christ, would whol­ly exclude him from iustification, and seeke for iustification either by the works of nature, or by the ceremoniall law without Christ.

Fiftly, the false Prophets speake visions of their own hearts. Ierem. 23.16. so doe the papists deceiue people with lying visions & doctrines of men, as I haue proued. They teach that the Pope cannot erre, that he is aboue Councels; where hath the Lord euer taught these things in his word? Not to stād vpon any more notes of false Apostles & Prophets, I desire thee Christian Reader to [Page 80] iudge euen thine owne selfe, whether the scripture hath not set downe these notes, and whether they can any way agree to the Protestants or no.

The Protestants are here charged either to haue no consci­ence at all, or els if they haue any, it is seared with an hotte iron, be­cause they are lyars, slaunderers and reuilers. Yea they make lying their helpe. These M. Doctor are grieuous accusations: but before I haue done with you, I will turne them vpon your owne head, & it shall be manifest who are lyars, and who haue no conscience, whether Papists, or Protestants. I will first answer your lies which you heape vpon the Protestants. The first lie is, that Luther saith before his comming the Gospel lay in the dust, and was hidden vnder the bench. M. Doctor, satin sanus es, Are you sound: to charge all Protestants with Luthers sayings, shall one mans speech be the speech of all men? apage istas nugas, out vpon these follies. Luther had this meaning, that the Gospel lay in the dust from the time that Antichrist did sit in the temple of God vntil his time: and yet it did not so lie in the dust, but that many in those times renounced the Pope: his speech is comparatiue, in regard of the cleere knowledge that now is, it lay in the dust. Behold now what a lyar Luther is. The second lie is this, Protestants charge the Pa­pists with Idolatrie, yea they inculcate and dull the cares of the people, with often telling them of the Idolatrie of their elders. And why should we not doe so? for proofe of this, I will deale syllogi­stically.

• They which offer sacrifices vnto Images are Idolaters.
• But the papists offer sacrifices vnto Images, ergo.

The proposition is playne, because Sacrifice is due onely to God. Exod. 22.20.

The assumption is testified by Bellarmine. lib. 1, de sanct. Be [...]. cap. 13.

• We offer saith he sweete odours in the Church vnto Images.
• Secondly, they which put their hope in wood, are Idolaters.
• But the Papists put their hope in wood, ergo.

The assumption is prooued by Aquinas. 3. par. quaest. 15. art who saith that the Church praied to the very wood of the crosse thus. O Crosse our only hope create iustice in the Godly, & giue pardon to the guiltie.

• Thirdly they which dedicate Churches vnto Saints are Idola­ters.
• But Papists dedicate Churches to Saints, ergo.

The proposition is plaine out of Augustine lib 1. Read Lud. Vi [...]. i [...] 9. lib. de ciuit. cap. vlt. cont Maxim Arrian. Episc. cap. 11. where he prooueth that the holy Ghost is God, becaue he hath a temple, the assumption is plaine by Eras­mus annotations, who hath noted in the margent. Hoc nunc fit qui­buslibet Diuis. This is now done to some Saints. The Doctor him­selfe in his 20. chapter confesseth that parish churches are dedica­ted vnto Saints. When you haue answered these syllogismes M. Doctor, you shall haue more proofes of your Idolatrie. Bellar­mine ingeniously confesseth, that pictures of God are not deliue­red to the people without daunger, except they be instructed of their prelates, but the world knoweth that in diuers places of Po­pery, like Priest like People to haue bin, and Priests haue bin very Idols themselues.

The third lie is, that some protestants say that the Catholikes hould that Christ satisfied onely for originall sinnes, and that hee ordained the Masse for other sinnes which to be a manifest lie all the bookes written of this matter by Catholike diuines, doe plain­ly testifie. M. Doctor, for triall of this lie these are Canus his words concerning Catharine. Amborsij Chatharini deliratio patet, peccata ante Baptismum adonissa per crucis sacrificium remitti, 433. post baptismum vero, per sacrificium altaris. The dotage of Ambrose Catharine is manifest, that sinnes before baptisme are remitted by the sacrifice of the crosse; but sinnes after baptisme, by the sacrifice of the al­ter. Marke M. Doctor that your own man Canus chargeth Ca­tharine with dotage, in that he held, that sinnes onely committed before baptisme were remitted by the sacrifice of the crosse, thus the lie is turned vpon your selfe. Remember also that your schoole­men teach that Christ came principally to take away originall sin, and so doth Bellarmine also lib. 4. de Rom. pont. cap. 10. in fine.

The fourth lie is, the protestants assime that the Catholikes doe teach that by choyce of meats; and other humane constitutions, remission of sinnes is obtained, I doubt not but they which haue [Page 82] thus written could prooue their saying; but M. Doctor doe you not make fasting to consist in choice of meates? this you can not denie, Aquin 2.2.4 [...]. art. and yet you teach that fasting doth satisfie for sinnes, Ieiu­nium saith Aquinas, assumitur ad satisfaciendum pro peccatis. Fasting is taken vp, to satisfie for sinnes. If men by fasting doe satisfie for sinnes, then they obtaine remission of sinnes by it; but the first is true, ergo. Bellarmine hath prooued that fasting satisfieth for sinne and deserueth at Gods hands, and I thinke not but that many sim­ple people in popery, did thinke by abstaining from meate, and by obseruing of humane constitutions they could deserue at Gods handes, and satisfie for their sinnes. This some can testifie at this day.

The fifte lye toucheth the Sinalchadicall articles which I haue not seene, therefore I cannot say any thing to it, but I thinke that they could prooue there assertion; if they could not, let them ans­wer for themselues, yet thus much M. Doctor I say, that if the Sacrament giue grace ex opere operat [...], of the workes done with­out any thing in the partie receiuing them, so be it he put no hin­derance, how can it be but that contrition, confession and satis­faction must giue grace, and so by consequent make a man iust, though he had not faith, the censure of Colon prooueth that bap­tisme giueth grace to children by the worke done without any motion of the heart, and say they why should it not doe soe in men of yeares. If Baptisme doe soe, then doth pennance & so by conse­quent giueth grace without faith.

The sixte lye toucheth not any one Protestant, but all wee af­firme forsooth that Papists doe worship Saints in stead of Christ, and doe honour them as Gods, which is a grosse impudent lye as euery man knoweth, is this a lye M. Doctor? doe you not pray to the virgin Mary thus? Maria mater gratiae, mater misericordiae, tu nos ab hoste protege, & hora mortis suscipe. O Marie the mother of grace, the mother of Mercy defend vs from our enemies, and re­ceiue vs at the houre of death. What is this but to make her God? doe you not build Churches i [...] Saints? which is to make them Gods as I haue prooued, yea you pray to this Saint against the plague, to that Saint against the tooth ache, and so in other disea­ses, is not this meere heathenisme? did not the heathen so? wee should pray to God against all diseases. Furthermore you pray thus vnto Thomas, by the blood of Thomas which for thee hee [Page 83] did spend, make vs O Christ to clime whither Thomas did as­cend. Many such blasphemous praiers might I recite: and I answer that simple people haue made such Gods. I cannot let passe an intollerable prayer of some papists to the Virgin Marie. Roga pa­trem, iube natum. Intreat the father, command the sonne. And a­gaine Iure matris impera filio. By the right of a mother, command thy sonne, compel God to be merciful to sinners. Thus M. Doctor by consequent you make Saints Gods.

The seauenth lie concerneth M. Haddon, for answer of which I referre thee Christian Reader to M. Foxe a man of famous me­morie, who hath answered Osorius. That the Abbot of S. Albons couenanted for a concubine, ad purgandum renes, to purge the reines, a thing so notorious, that common lawyers can shewe it in record. Vide Iuellum, 559. The Bishop of Arentine hath a Florence euer of the Priest that keepeth a Con­cubin [...]. And the reuerend Bishop Iewel alleadgeth out of your Rubricke this sentence. Qui non habet vxorem, loco illius concubi­nam habere licet. It is lawefull for him that hath not a wise, in stead of her to haue a Concubine. What should I alleadge the common saying, as M. Harding calleth it. Si non castè, cautè. If not chast­ly, yet warily. Stewes in Rome are notorious to all the world: and one calleth them a necessarie euill. If the Pope for money suffereth Stewes, why should we not thinke that he will suffer Priests to haue Concubines for money, especially seeing that you hold that the Pope may dispense against the Apostle; yet he for­biddeth as you say Priests marriage. By these things euery man may see, what a lie it is to say that the Pope for money giueth Priests leaue to haue concubines, and thus haue I ended your lies, which as you say, the Protestants charge the Catholikes with. Marke Christian reader, first that some of them are but particular mens sayings, and therefore the whole church is not to be charged with them. Secondly, marke the number in so many writings of Protestants. Thirdly, marke the answer vnto them, and thou shalt finde many of them, if not all, no lies but trueths.

Before I set downe lies of Papists, I will answer the lies which some Protestants lay vpon the Fathers. Melancthon said of Augustine, that he taught originall sinne to be taken away in Baptisme, not that it was not any more, but that it was not imputed. Whereas Saint Augustine spoke not there of origi­nall sinne but of Concupiscence. M. Doctor are you so igno­rant that you know not original sin to be concupiscence? Aquinas [Page 84] in his 1. 2. quaest. 82. art. 3. defendeth this point, that originall sinne is concupiscence. If originall sinne be concupiscence, I hope by right conuersion in Logycke, concupiscence is originall sinne. If a man be a reasonable creature, then a reasonable creature is a man. And if concupiscence be taken away, then is originall sinne taken away, so as it is not imputed. Now M. Doctor vpon your owne doctrine, marke howe I conclude. If concupiscence be remitted in Baptisme, so as it is not imputed, then it was sinne before it was re­mitted; but it remaineth the same in the regenerate according to the substance of the thing. ergo: it is sinne in the regenerate. This ar­gument is plaine by Aquinas, who in 1. 2. quaest. 99. art. 5. teacheth that the first motions of sensualitie are not deadly sinnes in infi­dels, because the person doeth aggrauate the sinne: if the person doeth make the sinne greater, then is concupiscence sinne in the godly, because it was so in the vngodly. Neither can you answer that that saying is vnderstood of voluntarie sinnes, for the first motions are not so by your owne doctrine.

The second lie is, some Protestants say S. Bernard recanted Mo­nachisme at his latter ende, and why should not some thinke so, seeing he writeth thus? Fateor non sum dignus, nec proprijs possum me­ritis, regnum obtinere caelorum, caeterùm Dominus meus duplici iure il­lud possidens, haereditate patris, & merito passionis, altero ipse contentus, alterum mihi donat. I confesse I am not worthy, neither can I ob­taine the kingdome of heauen by mine owne merits, by my Lord possessing it by a double right, by his fathers inheritance, and the merit of his passion, beeing content with one of them himselfe, gi­ueth the other to me. I wish all Papists and Monkes for their sal­uation sake, were of Bernards minde, and I thinke this is to recant Monachisme, for Monkes looke for saluation by their merits and workes. Lib. 2. de grat. c. 15. I will set downe that excellent place of Luke, with Bellar­mines glosse vpon it. Feare not little flocke, it is your fathers pleasure to giue you a kingdome. Ʋerbum complacuit, & nomen pater, & vocu­bula illa, pusillus grex, indicant gratiam, non Justitiam. The word it pleaseth, the nowne father, and these words little floke, shewe grace, not iustice. Thus the kingdome of heauen is an inheritance giuen vs of our Father, not deserued by vs.

The last lie is, some Protestants affirme the Fathers to haue thought otherwise then they wrote: this is true of Papists. For the Rhemists beeing pressed with Chrysostomes authoritie, for the [Page 85] reading of Scriptures by Laymen, say, that he spake as e pulpit mā, and not as a teacher: belike pulpit men speake not that which they thinke. Let the Reader then iudge whether you say the Fathers spake as they thought or no. For further triall of this, I referre the Reader to that which I haue alleadged out of Bellarmine concer­ning the Fathers in the Reason of Fathers. Hierom in his apologie to Paumichius saith, that some things are spoken [...], alia [...], for exercise sake, and other things for opinions sake: ergo, the fathers spake not all things dogmatically, but some things rhetorically. Nazianzen also biddeth his chaire farewell. The rest of the chapter concerneth Luther, whose speeches haue beene somewhat vehement; but not knowing the reason which he might haue to vse such, I can neither absolue him, nor condemne him for them. I will now set downe popish lies. I begin with the Doctors, in the first chapter he saith, that in England it is manifest that all were Papists without exception, from the first christening there­of, vntil this age of King Henrie the eight. This as I haue proued, is a famous lie; witnesse Wickliffe who liued in England, and yet was he no papist.

The second lie is, that hereticks haue euer taken their names of some one who began that heresie: this is a lie, for some heretickes, as the Catharists, are called of their sect, and not of the author.

The third lie is in the third chapter, the Catholikes haue euer kept vnitie and concord in such a peaceable manner, as neuer any one in England, or Ireland dissented or disagreed in any point of doctrine, from him which liued in the vtmost parts of the East. This is such a lie as needeth no manifestation of it. Yet I will name one point more then I haue before. Hart. Some papists in England held that the Pope may depose Princes: others denie it.

The fourth lie is in the same chapter, where he saith that all de­crees of lawfull Councels, and Popes doe agree in all points of doctrine, one with another. This I haue prooued a lie.

Fiftly, in the 5. chapter he saith that all countreies which euer beleeued in Christ, were first cōuerted to his faith by such as were either precisely sent, or at the least wise had their authoritie from the Pope, who liued in the time in which they were conuerted. This I haue prooued a lie.

Sixtly, in the same chapter he saith, that Iesuites are executed in England onely in regard of their sacred function, which to be a [Page 86] lie, their owne bookes can testifie, besides the confession of Pa­pists.

Seauenthly, in the fift reason he belieth M. Caluin, calling him a Sere backt priest for Sodomie. For I will omit the lie of perse­cution onely in England in the same chapter.

Eightly, in the tenth chapter, he saith that Catholike Romane religion is taught by all the auntient Fathers, of the first, second, third, fourth, fift, and sixe hundred yeares.

Ninthly, in the 13. chap. he saith, that we meddle litle with resti­tution of goods, but leaue all at large to our followers, without re­straint of any such crime.

10. In the same chapter, he saith, the Protestant teacheth the landlord to doe what he listeth with his own.

11 In the same place he saith, that we teach not reward of good and bad life in the world to come: which all men can testifie to be a lie; although we disclaime the merit of good works, yet we teach the merit of sinne.

12 In the 14. Reason he saith, that we denie the perpetuall vir­ginitie of Marie, which is an vntruth.

In the 15. Reason he hath many lies, first that we haue nothing but a number of pelting obiections taken out of Caluins Institu­tions, or out of the Magdebursens, or some hereticall pamphlet. Secondly he saith, that we trouble our selues with nothing, but with the controuersies of this time. Thirdly, that Protestants doe scarce vnderstand the tearmes of learned sciences, which others doe fully possesse. Fourthly he saith, that the Clergie in Queene Maries time, was more learned then now it is.

Fiftly he saith, that the most learned Doctor of them all is vtter­ly ignorant of schoole diuinitie.

Sixtly he saith, that the Protestant neuer medleth with cases of conscience, but fraighteth his ship onely with faith, and neuer bea­teth his braine about sinnes.

In the sixteenth Reason he saith, that all the ministers nowe are naught, yea he asketh in the same chap. what woman is nowe mar­ried without touch of her honestie?

I will gather no moe lies, out of this Doctor, I will set downe some out of other Papists. The Rhemists vpon the sixt of Luke write, that Protestants are wont to say, All is very easie, which is a lie.

Againe say they, the Protestants thinke that to burne, is to be tempted onely, which is a lie. 1. Cor. 7.

Thirdly vpon the 9. chap. of the first epist. of Paul to the Cor. they say, that protestants will not haue men worke well in respect of reward at Gods hands: which is a lie.

I desire thee Christian reader to read the Rhemists annotatiōs, where thou shalt finde many slaunders, but I delight not in these things.

Bellarmine affirmeth that Caluin maketh God the author of fin: againe he saith, that Caluin holdeth that the saints departed are not blessed: he saith also, that he died calling vpon the deuill, which are monstrous lies.

Genebrard accuseth Caluin of errour, in saying that the sonne of God is God of himselfe. Bellarmine defendeth Caluine against Genebrard: nowe let euery man iudge of this syllogisme.

• They which are lyars are of a false religion;
• But the Papists are lyars: ergo.

Christian reader, I would not haue vsed this tearme of lying so often, but that I haue beene vrged by the Doctor. For railing I referre thee to M. Hardings workes, as also to Doctor Staple­tons writings against M. Doctor Whitakers, in which thou maist see the spirit of papists.

That the memorie of Gods benefits is carefully to be regarded, we denie not M. Doctor. The heathen haue condemned ingra­titude for a heynous sinne. Beneficii memoriam qui recipit, habere de­bet; he that receiueth a benefit, ought to remember it. The Atheni­ans made a lawe, that the vnthankefull person might be sued as well as a debter: this is so cleere as that no man can denie it: and I would it were as easie to perswade vnto thankefulnesse, as it is to speake of it. But I feare me it happeneth to the papist as it doth to the vsurer, who speaketh against vsurie, that he may practise it without suspition: for the papist inueyeth against ingratitude and vnthankefulnesse, least he should be argued of it. For this is to forget God, to breake his lawes. The Iewes in the 32. of Deut. [Page 88] are charged to haue forgotten God, and Dauid in the 106. psalme saith they made a calfe in Horeb, & worshipped the goldē image, they forgat God their Sauiour which had done great things in E­gypt. Yet did the Iewes make an image vnto God, Exod. 32. and worshipped God in the Image, for Aaron proclaimed an holy day vnto the Lord, and can any man imagine that Aaron should think an idol to be that God, which brought the people out of Egypt? He that was to be high Priest, would he thinke the worke of his hands to be God? Thus you with the Iewes in the very things which you say put you in remēbrance of God, forget God. Nowe I reduce your argument into a syllogisme.

• They that keepe feasts and Images to put them in remem­brance of God, are most mindfull of him;
• But so doe the Papists, and not Protestants. ergo.

I denie the proposition, and say, that this outward pompe is fit for the Whore of Babylon. We can remember god without these externall rites. The preaching of the Gospel crucifieth Christ be­fore our eies, the Sacraments ordained of God himselfe doe liuely set forth Christ, and the blessings of God within and without vs, and of euery side of vs are so many, that men can hardly forget him vnlesse they forget the earth that beareth them, the heauens that couer them, the day that guideth them, and the night that gi­ueth them rest. But that M. Doctor you may see howe well in this obiection you agree with the heathen, remember that Celsus ob­iecting to the Church the want of feasts, is answered by Origen, Festum est facere officium, a feast is to doe a dutie. Origen numbreth the feasts of Christians to be the Lords day, Easter and Pentecost. Hereby men may see what cause we haue to renounce poperie, which taketh part with the heathens in their obiections. Socrates in his 5. booke and 22. chapter, dischargeth festiuall daies of the Apostles institution. Apostolis propositum fuit, non vt leges de festis di­ebus sancirent, sed vt rectè viuendi rationis & pietatis nobis authores essent. The Apostles purpose was not to make lawes of feasts but to be authors of pietie and of godly life. Erasmus vpon the 10. of Math. writeth thus, Aetas Hieronimi praeter diem dominicum, paucis­sima nouerat festa, nunc feriarum ne (que) finis, ne (que) modus, quae cum primi­tus ad pietatis vacationem pauca essent institutae, nunc ad scelerum ex­clusionem tolli debebant, nisi sacerdotum auaritia suis rebus consuleret potius, quam verae religioni. Hieromes age besides the Lords day [Page 89] knewe fewe feasts, nowe there is no ende, nor measure of holidaies, which were first instituted but fewe for pietie, but now to exclude vice they ought to be taken away, but that the couetous priestes, doe rather prouide for themselues, then for true religion. The ori­ginall of your feasts may be read in Fascicul. Temp. and others. But I haue spoken of these feasts in another booke, and therefore I will not make any longer discourse of them. By these testimonies euery one may see what moment the obiection of feasts hath. Touching Organs they were instituted 600. Lib. 1. de yeares after Christ as Bellarmine confesseth, shall we thinke that Gods Church forgot him so long a time because it had no Organs? But if we will see whence this outward pompe had her beginning, let Bellarmine speake, lib. 4. de Eu. cap. 4. Creuit honor sanctissimi sacramenti, deuotio­ne interna decrescente, The honour of the Sacrament grewe, when inward deuotion ceased. If people then haue inward pietie and godlinesse, these outward ornaments are needlesse. Thus Bellar­mine dischargeth vs of vnthankefulnesse to God; and in fewe wordes giueth the reason of popish pompe. As for breaking of popish images in Churches, and Crosses in high waies, we hold it lawefull to destroy Idolatrie. Epiphannius, when he sawe a pi­cture in the Church, brake it, and saith it is an horrible wicked­nesse, and a sinne not to be suffered, It is pretty that the Doctor com­pares temples without images to [...]arnes withou [...] ha [...]: as hay is fit for beasts, so are Images fit for beastly men by his comparison. for any man to set vp any picture in the Church of Christians, yet the Papists store all their temples, & each corner of them with painted and carued images, as though without them religion were nothing worth. But M. D. I desire to knowe how the christians remembred Christ, when they had noe temples at all? you say that our Churches are like barnes, which men knowe to be a vntruth, yet the auncient chri­stians had noe temple at all, as Bellarmine confesseth. lib 3. de. Rom. Pont. cap. 13. Did they forget Christ when they praied in priuate families? take heed least you disgrace not the auncient chri­stians as well as the Protestants. Acams when he was accused for selling of holy vessells to the vse of the poore, answered that Deus noster nec disscis nec calicibus eget, quia non comedit nec bibit, our God needeth not cuppes, because he neither eateth nor drinketh, soe say I, our God needeth not your goulden Images and ornaments which indeede distract mens mindes praying, & doe not increase deuotion. Lactantius in his 2. booke and 4. chap. speaketh a­gainst the heathen after this manner. In vaine doe men adorne [Page 88] [...] [Page 89] [...] [Page 90] Gods with gould and pearles, as if they could take any plea­sure in these things: after he sheweth out of Persius that God de­lighteth in Iustice, and in holy soules; so say I to the Papists, God requireth not Images and festiuall daies at your handes, but he de­sireth inward holines. Now Christian reader marke the Doctors follies in this chapter. The first is this, God commanded the Iewes many feastes, all which were obserued to himselfe, ergo. Christi­ans may haue feastes dedicate vnto Saints. What a pitifull con­clusion is this? as though the Church might doe whatsoeuer God doth. Yea what a consequent is this, God ordained feastes vnto himselfe, therefore the Romane Church may ordeyne feasts vnto Saints. These arguments hange together like ropes of sande. Se­condly he cōfesseth that parrish churches were dedicated to saints, which is flat Idolatrie, for onely God must haue a temple and a church as I haue prooued. Thirdly he saith that by meanes of I­mages, pictures, & crosses, the most vnlearned amongst the peo­ple knowe more of the misteries of christian religion, then some of our ministers know. If this be so it is a horrible shame for mini­sters, for this I know, that some vnlerned people haue worship­ped Images, as gods, but indeed what is this, but to contemne gods wisome and ordinance, who hath not ordained Images to teach the people, but his word to instruct them. Take heed M. Doct­or of this horrible sinne, to make your selues wiser then God. Fourthly the Doctor saith that we haue noe more warrant for solemnizing of the sonday, then we haue for S. Lawrence his day, for other reason or warrant we haue none but the authoritie of the Roman church, fye, fye M. Doctor that you should thus bewray your ignorance. Bellarmine in his third booke de cul, Sanct. and 11. chap. prooueth the obseruation of the Lordes day, by the scriptures, if you can prooue the obseruation of S. Lawrance his day by the same warrant, you may doe well to shewe vs some of your arguments. Other things of lesse moment I let passe, because I labour for breuitie.

This chapter hath many wordes to little purpose, first Luther [Page 91] is charged to say that he could see into another mans heart or cō ­science: who will beleeue Luther should speake thus, except he meant he could doe it by plaine words and manifest deeds: & this M. Doctor you confesse your selfe may be done. I hope, if Luther saie that he could see into another mans conscience, he had no o­ther meaning but by plaine words and manifest deeds. Luther was not so sottish as you would beare men in hand, to make himselfe a God. But M. Doctor, if your reason be good, to prooue that some Protestants speake and write against their consciences, because they suspect others to doe so (for commonly a man thinketh o­thers to be as himselfe is) then you speake and write against your conscience, because you are suspitious, yea vpon ridiculous reasons and vntruths, you charge men to write against their consciences. This is your own reason and argument, and therefore cannot be denied. For proofe that you charge men to write against their cō ­sciences, onely vpon ridiculous reasons, let the reader iudge, I will set down your arguments. Luther confessed that he began against his conscience; ergo, he proceeded so. M. Doctor to admit your antecedent, who wil graunt your consequent? for, here you say that he proceeded so farre, as he thought that by desperate necessitie he must go on, and so compare him to Iulius Caesar. The truth is, he ended his life most heauenly, as M. Doctor Whitakers sheweth out of Melancthon and Sleidon. We will not credit your slaunderous writings of him, but the writings of the forenamed men. From Lu­ther, the Doctor commeth to Zwinglius, who is said to haue deni­ed secretly the reall presence, for many yeres before he brake off frō the Roman Church, but yet inwardly he dissembled his mind. What then if Zwinglius did thus, did he therefore proceed against his conscience, because he remained sometime in the Romane church, after he had seene the trueth of the Sacrament? What ho­nest man would shape such conclusions? If this be to proceede a­gainst conscience, Papists in England proceede against their con­sciences, for they continue in our Church, though they secretly dissemble their opinions: many examples hereof might be giuen. Touching Nemo the Anabaptiste, what haue we to doe with him? The Protestants haue most soundly confuted the sect of A­nabaptists, when Papists haue taken their ease. And Christian Reader, I desire thee to behould howe the Doctor dealeth, (whether against his owne conscience or no, I leaue to God) [Page 92] in charging vs with Anabaptists speeches, whereas we re­nounce such lewd sectaries, as he himselfe can testifie. Thomas Bell is (as I thinke) aliue, and therefore can answer for himselfe. Wherefore I leaue him, who hath learnedly written against Poperie: and come to Melancthon, who is charged to proceede against his conscience, because he was sad and gaue himselfe to weeping. O M. Doctor. howe doe you forget your selfe? is eue­ry one a sinner against his conscience that weepeth and sorrow­eth, and that cannot by and by be comforted? Dauid was many times heauie, and his soule had not alwaies comfort, yet was Dauid a man after Gods owne heart. Concerning Caro­lastadius, I will not say any thing, neither doe I regard what any Lutherane hath written of Zuinglius and Oecolampadius. As for Bucer, it is a lewde slaunder that he had no religion at all God wil be reuenged of you M. Doctor, for blaspheming his seruants af­ter this manner. Bishop Iuell is charged to shewe himselfe without God and conscience: he doth rent in peeces the text of Doctors, and inuerteth the sense of the same. If this reuerend Bishoppe had done thus, his enemies would haue found it, & no doubt M. Do­ctor you would haue noted some places, but seeing you haue no­ted no such corruptions, we account it a detestable lie. No no, your owne men change the words of Fathers. I will referre you to pla­ces, Bellarm. lib. 1. de grat. & lib. arbit. cap. 11. doeth shamefully corrupt Augustine, as I haue shewed in another worke, and in his 4. booke de amiss. gra. and 9. chap. he rendeth in peeces Hieroms saying. Againe in his 3. booke de cult. Sanct. cap. 9. he doeth horri­bly cite Eusebius. So doeth he also in his 1. booke, de Sanct. beat. cap. 13. Thus he dealeth not onely with Fathers, but with Caluin in his preface, de libero arbit. and his first booke de Sanct. beat, cap. 1. & 2. de iustif. cap. 8. Read these places your selfe M. Doctor, and compare them with the authors, and see who corrupt fathers. Many other testimonies I could produce, but I desire not to be te­dious. If you could alleadge so many corruptions out of reuerend Iuell, I thinke we should haue seene them. Thus I pray you con­sider your owne argument.

• They which corrupt Fathers, sinne against their conscience.
• But the Papists corrupt Fathers: ergo.

Pag. 10.The assumption is prooued by the testimonies alleadged, and to giue you one or two more; Duraeus citing Augustine leaueth [Page 93] out these words, Opera sequuntur iustificatum, non praecedunt iustifi­candum. Workes followe him that is iustified, they goe not before iustification. The Rhemists vpon the 19. of Mathew, peruert Au­gustine his words cleane contrarie to his meaning, affirming no man to be excluded from the gift of continencie: whereas Augu­stine his meaning is, that both the will to be chaste, and the power to fulfill that will is the gift of God Nowe I might followe your example of bitternes, seeing I haue giuen you so many corruptiōs, but I leaue this course, and desire you to remember your own ar­gument. I come to Papists who seeme to haue proceeded against their owne consciences. One Papist in England, as testifieth Arri­as Montanus, added to the 14. psalme, whole sentences, but this corruption was soone espied: this was done to prooue the He­brew text corrupt, and to iustifie the latine translation approoued of Papists. Who almost but bold Papists durst haue coyned scrip­ture? I thinke this is to proceede against conscience. Latomus a Papist blasphemed out of a pulpit, and was suddainly madde, and died in despaire. What should I speake of Franciscus Spira and o­thers? Hasinmullerus giueth many examples of papists who haue proceeded against their consciences. The blessed deaths of Lu­ther, Zwinglius, Oecolampadius, Caluin, Melancthon, Bullinger, Cranmer, Ridely, Bradford, Philpot, Iuell, Pilkington, Grindall, Dearing, and diuers other doe manifest that Protestants procee­ded not against their knowledge. To returne to Papists, out of the forenamed author, namely Hasinmullerus, euery one may behold the strange endes of these men. Stephanus Agricola beeing an A­postata, drowned himselfe in the sea. One Gaspare Franke con­fessed that he did, and wrote many things against his conscience. Turrian wished that he had neuer reade the Augustan confes­sion, &c. Sadel his workes; when I found these things to be true, to vse your wordes, I thought it better to adventure my selfe with Christians who haue quiet consciences, then with desperate Pa­pists who proceed against their consciences.

The Papists reuerence vnto God, and Christ is such, as was that of the Iewes, who platted a crown of thornes, and put it on Christs head, to make him a king: euen so the Papists make Christ a Sa­uiour, [Page 94] but they giue not the whole worke of saluation vnto him, which indeede is to dishonour Christ. But forsooth they pretende to honour his Saints; if they doe soe, let them not make them Saui­ours, for this in trueth is to dishonour them. The Saints honour consisteth not in false worshippe, but in giuing all glorie to God. That which Lactantius writeth of Angels is true of Saints. Nul­lum sibi honorem tribui volunt, quorum honor in Deo est. They wil haue no honour giuen to them, whose honour is in God. We ho­nour Saints, by praising God for their vertues, and by imitating them, but we make not their merits the treasure of the Church, neither doe we call vpon them. As for reuerence vnto holy water, pictures, crosses, images, I say with Esay, who required these things at your hands? The Doctor in truth hauing nothing to say against vs, raileth spitefully, saying, that we enter into Churches with no greater reuerence, then men enter into Tauerns: not contenting himselfe with this vnchristian lie, he proceedeth auouching, if any kneele, it is but vpon thornes, for full soone are they vp againe, and then with their hats vpon their heads they either iangle, or talke, or walke, as if they waited to see when the plaiers would come forth vpon a stage: or else these good fellowes goe to the alehouse, (where now and then they finde their minister drinking his mor­ning draught before he goe to his seruice) to drinke a pot or two of nappie ale, that thereby they may the better hold out seruice time. Christian Reader, to recite these reuiling speeches is to refute them, and they which frequent the alehouse with vs are Papists and Atheists, if any Protestants do so, I wish them to amend, whe­ther they be ministers or laiemen. Besides he hath many moe ray­ling words against the reuerend Bishops, as that Barons and no­ble men disdaine their companie: surely M. Doctor I blesse God that you haue no sound matter to obiect against the Protestants, but such vanities as the world can controll. Our Bishops and mi­nisters are as highly esteemed with true Christians, as Popish Pre­lates with their fauorites. Vertue and learning maketh a man reuerend, which, in many Popish Bishopps to be wanting, we see with our eies. But let vs nowe see howe the Papists reue­rence holy things, speaking of such, they vsually say, the holy bread, the holy Scriptures, the holy Gospell, and the holy An­gels: it is well that you doe not so alwaies, why then doe you blame the Protestants, who doe say the holy bible, and vse this [Page 95] word holy, whē it is to be applied vnto things that are so? if they do not alwaies so, you can not blame them, more then your selues, seeing this word is not alwaies added by you. Marke your reasons M. Doctor, and you shall finde them without this title holy. The Prophesies of the old Testament, Scriptures, Fathers; if this be such a hainous crime, not alwaies to adde this word holy, you are guiltie of it your selfe. As for the French men, I thinke they doe not well to call the Saints after this manner, Mounsieor S. Peter, Master Saint Peter, or my Lord S. Peter: for it is no tearme of ci­uill or temporall authoritie, but a religious and diuine honour in religion. God is our onely Lord and Master, and we will not giue saluation and redemption but onely vnto him. The comparison which the Doctor maketh of a countriman calling her Maiesties Nobles, Treasurer, Keeper, Admirall and so forth, is not worth a­ny answer, wherefore I leaue it and say with Bernard, Maria falso non eget honore, honora vitae integritatem. Marie needeth no false honour, honour her entire life. So say I, honour the saints by imitating their vertues, the honour that I desire to giue to saints is to followe their vertues.

This Chapter is duely to be considered, because we are said to differ little or nothing from olde Heretickes both in do­ctrine and deedes: if you could prooue this, then were the Protestants case very hard: but it shall be (God willing) made euident, that you resemble olde Heretickes and not Prote­stants.

The first heresie is, that we hold with Simon Magus; what monstrous impudencie is this M. Doctor to charge vs will Simō Magus his opinions? he held that men were saued by his grace, if they did acknowledge him the Sauiour of the world. Doe we teach any such thing? we ascribe saluation to no other but onely to Christ. If you had that conscience which you pretend, you would not thus abuse your selfe.

The second heresie is, we are Nouatians, because we renounce [Page 96] the Pope; I might crie out vpon these lewd and lowd lies. Noua­tius as Philastrius writeth, 34. chap. taught, Non esse fideli post Baptismum lo­cum aliquem paenitentiae. After baptisme there was no place of repē ­tance for the faithfull.

The third heresie is, that we denie freewill, with the Manichees: but the Manichees taught that sinne came not from freewill, but from a substance: which doctrine we renounce, and teach that we haue freewill to sinne. Lib. 1. c. 6. But you deale with vs as the Pelagians dealt with the auntient Church. For Faustus a Pelagian charged the Church with Manichisme, because it taught the will of man to be made sound by meere grace, and not of it selfe. Thus would you charge vs with Manichisme as proud Pelagians.

The fourth heresie is, that with Arrius we denie praier for the dead. I answer, if Arrius tooke away thankesgiuing for the dead, we hold not as he did; but if he denied praier for those that were in fained Purgatorie, we hold no such place. Philastrius chargeth him with condemning of marriage, and Augustine with Arria­nisme: these opinions we detest.

The fift heresie is, that we make no difference of sinnes with Io­uinian, neither doe we make virginitie any better then marriage. I answer that we teach a difference of sinnes, some to be greater, some to be smaller, but we disclaime the opinion of veniall sinnes. And if this be heresie, then as I haue prooued, both fathers, and some papists are heretickes. Touching virginitie we teach with Paul, 1. Cor. 7. that pure virginitie is to be preferred before mar­riage; although we hold that marriage is better then single life, where virginitie or chastitie are not kept, but counterfeited.

The sixt heresie is, that we despise all holy reliques of Saints with Vigilantius. I answer first, that Augustine, Philastrius, and o­ther, doe not reckon him amongst heretikes. It is not eftsoone heresy, if one man calleth it so. Hierom calleth Ruffinus an here­tike, yet M. Harding saith it is straunge so to doe. Secondly I an­swer that if Vigilantius would haue Saints reliques cast vpon the dunghill, we hould not with him; as for tending of tapers, and set­ting vp of waxe candles, Hierom imputeth it to the simplicitie of some laye men and deuoute women, that had zeale, but not accor­ding to knowledge. Thus you approoue that which Hierom ex­cuseth. Lastly S. Hierom is so hotte against Vigilantius, that E­rasmus is fayne to saie, Conuicijs debacchatur Hieronimus. Hierom [Page 97] raileth without measure.

The seuenth heresy is, that we denie with Eutyches the oblation of the sacrifice, and the hallowing Chrisme. But therefore are we not Eutichians who confounded Christes natures, and turned his humanitie into his Deitie; as for Pelagianisme, and Donatisme, we haue nothing to doe with them, for Pelagius denyed originall sinne, which we teach to be in infants; and the Donatists held the Catholike church to be onely in Aphrica, and to haue perished out of the whole world: we hould noe such thing. Nowe I haue finished the doctrine of the ould heretckes in which christian rea­der thou mayst behold the slaunderous tonge of the Doctor, who without conscience, when he could not charge vs truly with here­sy, hath inuented lies: for may part, these slaunders driue me more and more from Popery, and I beseech thee by thy saluation that they way preuaile so with thee. Hereafter I must speake of the deedes and manners of heretickes; first we are like to Paulus Sa­mosetanus, who desired great applause of his hearers; for proofe that he did so, Eusebius is cited, but there is no such thing in Euse­bius. If this be the manner of hereticks, then are Papists hereticks, who, as it is manifest by the Doctor, desire applause of men for learning, in so much that they breake out into their owne praises after a most insolent manner, as for the protestants they doe noe such thinge, and therefore they resemble not this hereticke, if hee did so. Secondly we are like to the Donatists who ouerthrew aul­tars; the trueth is Christian Reader, the altars which the Donatists destroied were not of stone as Popish altars are, but were tables of wood, such as we haue. S. Augustine maketh this plaine in his 50. epistle. Thus M. Doctor you see howe your owne quotations make against your selfe. By this testimonie we may learne what to thinke of the popish sacrifice; as for the Donatists refusing to come to Councels, we doe not so, but vnfainedly desire a free ge­nerall Councell, and haue giuen sufficient reasons, why we came not to the Councel of Trent. The crueltie of the Donatists to­wards the Catholikes, fitly agreeth to papists, who after a most sa­uadge manner haue murdered protestants, as the Lord wil one day make manifest to the world. As for Claudius de sanctis his te­stimonie we regard it not. The rest of the chapter concerneth the destroying of Idolatrie, and Luthers arrogancie, with other vaine matters, as disputing of women, and finding fault with priests [Page 98] liues, but I haue answered sufficiently concerning Idolatrie, and therefore it is a wicked slaunder, that we are like vnto Iulian the Apostat [...], as for the disputing of women, let Theodoret answer, who plainly testifieth that women did dispute of diuinitie. That which the doctor counteth a fault, Theodoret approoueth of, say­ing, thou maist see our opinions to be held of women and hand­maides: I wish that women were so cunning in religion that they could mildly and christianly dispute of the same. But there remai­neth a perilous matter; ould heritikes were inquisitiue and desi­rous to heare of the sinnes and faults of priests, and of other Eccle­siasticall persons: I will not stand to examine the trueth of this, whether heretickes were so inquisitiue or no, onely knowe Chri­stian Reader that this sauoreth of Manichisme, for the Manichees said, Lib. 2. de Ma [...]. as Augustine sheweth, non oportet omnino quaeri, &c. we must not inquire at all what men they are that professe the Manichees sect, but what the profession is. The papists would faine haue their wicked liues hidden from men, but they cannot, for as ignis tunica celari non potest, fire cannot be kept in the garment, so sinne cannot be concealed: in vaine therefore M. Doctor, you go about to haue your faults concealed, the more you desire this, the more men will enquire into your actions, because you giue iust cause so to doe. Thus hauing answered your accusation of heresie, I wil set downe no faine, dbut true heresies which you hould. Bellar. lib. 2. de purg. cap. 6. houldeth that it was true Samuell which ap­peared vnto Saul, this Philastrius maketh an heresie as it is plaine 26. haer. Where he prooueth that the soules of the righteous are in the hands of God. Secondly the prodiants did vse the booke of Syrach, Philastrius haer. post Christ. 9. soe did the papists as it is manifest, in so much that they make the booke canonicall scrip­ture. Thirdly the heritickes Angelici, did worship Angells. Au­gust. 38. haer. so doe the papists, as it is euident. Fourthly the he­ritickes called Apostolici, taught by practise a communitie of goods, so doe the Monkes, for they possesse not any thing. Fiftly, the Euthits would not labour with their hands, no more will the idle Monkes. Sixtly, the Pelagians taught that a man may fulfill the law of God, and so doe the Papists, yea they vse the Pelagians arguments and answers, as I haue prooued in other places. Sea­uenthly, the Pepulians permitted priesthood to women. August. 27. haeres. so doe the papists permit women to baptize. Eightly [Page 99] Carpocrates did worship the Images of Iesus and of Paul, Iren. lib. 1. cap. 24. so doe the Papists. Ninthly, the heretickes called A­pocryphi would not haue the Canonicall Scriptures onely to be read, but certaine Apocryphall workes. Philast. haeres. 40. So the Papists will haue Apocryphal bookes to confirme their opinions, and to be reade for proofe of them as I haue shewed. Yea they fly to traditions, which the heretickes before named might also haue iustified, if the Canonicall scriptures had not beene sufficient. Tenthly, the Manichees vsed but one part of the Communion, for they would not haue wine, so doe the Papists, as it is notorious to all men. I might mention many other heresies held by Papists, but I haue handled them in another worke, therefore I will not re­cite them here. Touching the manners of heretickes, if crueltie be a badge of heretickes, then are Papists rightly mustered amongest heretickes, for they haue most barbarously murdered many men, as I will shewe (God willing) in the next reason.

It is a heathen Principle, that Legem sibi ipsis indicunt innocentiae, continentiae, virtutum (que) omnium, qui ab altero rationem vitae reposcunt. They which require a reason of another mans life, make to them­selues a law of innocencie, continencie, & of all vertues. To accuse men of tumults, when they are themselues tumultuous, is intollera­ble. Quis tulerit Gracchos de seditione querentes? who can beare it that Gracchus should complaine of sedition? that Verres should speake against theft, and Milo against murther? who could thinke that Papists should speake against warres, cruelties, and outragi­ous tragedies, when they haue spilt exceeding much innocent blood? The Spanish inquisitions, and French Massacres, haue murdered men, women, and children by thousands. Phocas mur­dered Mauritius the Emperour, by whose meanes Boniface the Pope obtained that roome, and should be called the head of all Churches, as Gotfridus testifieth. Here Christian Reader thou maiest see that the Pope cam vp by murder. Pope Vrban the fixt bound fiue Cardinalls in a sacke and drowned them [Page 100] in the sea. He tooke the kingdome of Sicile from the Queene, and gaue it to others. Symachus and Laurentius did striue for the Popedome, which contention lasted; yeares, cum effusione san­guinis multorum tam clericorum, quàm laicorum. With the shedding of many mens blood, both of the cleargie & laietie. Alexander 2. & Codulus contended for the Popedome, which contention vs (que) ad homicidia prorupit, brake forth into murther, as witnesseth Sigebert. The histories are full of such examples: yet saith the Doctor the Catholike Romane religion, began with meekenesse, mildenesse, and with all quiet and peaceable meanes. Whereas the Protestants both haue begun and hold on their course with seditious tumults. That you may knowe your peaceable proceedings, heare what Wicellensis writeth concerning Hildebrande, Miscuit se plu­rimorum mortibus Christianorum, succendent vbi (que) incendia bello­rum, per totum pene Romanum imperium. He thrust himselfe into the deaths of many Christians, kindling warres almost through­out the whole Romane Empire. Iohn Hus was burned although he had safe conduct promised him. Certain men called cruciatores whē they should haue gone against the Turke, hauing the Popes indulgences defloured women, and murthered men to the num­ber of three score and ten thousand. Yea saith Landgius, Scribi non potest quanta crudelitate vsi sunt; It can not be vttered what crueltie they vsed. Concerning the troubles in Germanie, my purpose is not to speake of them, neither will I meddle with the warres in Fraunce, or Scotland. Diuers countres haue diuers gouernments, the tumults of any subiects against their soueraignes, as we doe not allow, so we may not condemne the poore afflicted Christians our neighbours, before we heare what they can say for themselues. I am a scholler & not a souldier, a diuine not a lawier. The circum­stances of forraine warres fewe knowe besides themselues, as also we know not the lawes of those lands, we will not therefore enter those acts which haue so many parts, precedents, causes concur­rents. From forraine common warres you come to England, and are very busie with king Henrie the 8. & king Edward the 6. prin­ces of famous memorie. It were best for you M. Doctor, to leaue kingdoms and studie diuinitie, you are so drownd in pollicie, that you forget diuinity, yet you can without teares recount summarily the troubles of this land. So you may doe in regard of Queene Maries times, when not onely Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbu­ry, [Page 101] Payne [...] Bishop of Winchester, Barloe of Bath, Tailor of Lin­colne, with diuers other both Archdeacons and Deacons, were put from their liuings, and wonderfull store of blood shed; these are the times that you should lament. Yet it is to be lamented that any should be so obstinate on popery, as to die in the same. As for Queene Elizabeths gratious gouernment, you are not ashamed al­so to controll it. Yet Papists themselues teach that it was both milde and mercifull: and had not her Maiestie cause to deale with Papists as shee did, when the Pope excommunicated her, and stir­red vp the Northen rebels her owne subiects to rebell against her: Doctor Saunders did thrust himselfe into the Irish warres against her Maiestie. If the Pope had so dealt with the king of Spaine, as he hath dealt with our late most renowmed Queene, would the king of Spaine haue taken it? When I weighed and considered these things with my selfe, I could not but dislike the Romish religion, accompanied with tumults, insurrections, ruines, desolations, and with all manner of tragicall miseries, and cleaue vnto this religion in England, which euer teacheth peace, as our writings shewe. But it may be M. Doctor your owne men will beare some credit with you. Cardinall Poole in his imagined oration to Charles the Em­perour, calling backe his Maiestie from the Turke, to leaue all o­ther affaires, and to bend his banners against England, and encou­raging the subiects of this realme boldly to rebell against their Prince, speaketh after this manner. English men are a people that oftentimes haue deposed their kings for lighter causes. This book as reuered Iuell testifieth was abroad, and might be seene; where­fore if peace wil preuaile with you, call to minde that you haue bin the firebrands fo sedition, the trueth is, you would force to re­ligion, but you would not be forced.

Euery man knoweth, or may knowe M. Doctor, that your tonge ouerreacheth when you say we can bring nothing to wit­nes our religiō, but only the scriptures. We haue produced the fa­thers of the primitiue Church to confirme the same; but if we haue the scriptures on our side, it is sufficient though all men were a­gainst [Page 102] vs, that Gods word is not contrarie it is most true, but that your practises are consonant to the same it is most false, as like­wise that we will admitte noe expositors of holy scriptures, but the scriptures themselues; that the scriptures expound them­selues in matters necessary to saluation, I thinke you will not de­nie your selfe Master Doctor, neither will you alwaies take the fathers expositions, Caietan confesseth that the sense of the scrip­tures is not tied to the Fathers exposition as I can shew, but you demaund why Luther confesseth that he could not denie the reall presence, because the wordes were so plaine, and why hath the text bin so tossed, that out of it alone there hath bin wronge foure score different opinions? I doubt you can hardly shewe so many opinions M. Doctor, but graunt it, yet a plaine text may not bee vnderstood of euery one, and if the text be so plaine as you would haue it, howe commeth it to passe that there are so many different opinions also among your selues? for you know not howe to ex­pound the word (this) as I haue prooued in an other worke. Sco­tus confesseth that before the Lateran councell transubstantiation was no matter of faith, ergo the wordes, this is my body, prooue it not. Lactantius crieth out after this manner, O quam difficilis est ig­norantibus veritas, quam facilis scientibus? O how hard is truth to the ignorante, but how easie to the skilfull? truth then may be ea­sie in it selfe, though difficult to some men. Vpon this vaine que­stion you haue made a foolish inference, that we haue noe witnes­ses at all of our newe inuented doctrine, but euery one his priuat fancy or conceit, whereas the catholike Roman religion hath all things in the world witnesses of it. This is a monstrous fable, are you able to prooue that all which are in heauen were the children of your church, and all that are in hell were enemies vnto it? to examine particulars: Ignatius you say was of your religion, be­cause in Ecclesiasticall affaires, he would not haue the king equall to the Bishop, and because he wrotte Ecclesiasticall traditions. To the first I answer, that the true Ignatius would not correct Salo­mons speech, Prou. 24. My sonne, saith Salomon, honour God and the king: but I say, honour God and the Bishop as high Priest: the true Ignatius was a man of greater religion, then that he would haue corrected the scripture, but any thing is good inough to patch vp poperie. To the second place I an­swer, that it beeing duely considered ouerthroweth the Papists [Page 103] opinion. For Ignatius thought it necessarie that the Traditions of the Apostles, that is, their doctrine, should be written for feare of corruption, what then is become of vnwritten traditions? For that this is the true meaning of Eusebius, Grynaeus sheweth. Eus. l. 5. c. 23. Next vnto Ignatius is Irenaeus placed, who is so farre from agni­zing the Papall authoritie, that he did Acriter Victorem reprehen­dere, sharpely reprooue Victor the Romane Bishop, because he excommunicated the Churches of Asia, for keeping the feast of Easter in a diuers manner from Rome. Would Irenaeus haue done this, if the Popes authoritie had beene vniuersall? As fo [...] Victor, if this be your argument, he excommunicated the Churches of Asia, ergo, he was a papist; you make a ridiculous reason. The next argument of Policarpus his going to Rome, is of the same moment; for who knoweth not that many mens aduise is vsed, who yet haue no authoritie ouer others? That Saint Cyprian, Syxtus, Laurence, with infinite others, doe wit­nesse the Romane religion I denie. Saint Cyprian is so farre from witnessing all points of poperie, that as I haue prooued, he is reiected of Papists. From men, the Doctor commeth to women, affirming thousands to haue defended their virgi­nitie against deuils, and men. What then, were they Papists therefore? To come to speciallities, Helen you say founde out the Crosse. Although that historie may be doubted of, yet Helen was no Papist, for shee did not worshippe the crosse, because that was an heathenish errour; if shee had beene a Papist shee would haue adored the crosse. But the Mother of Augustine, Saint Monica, was a papist, who after death re­quested that shee might haue Masse said for her: here if you meane popish Masse M. Doctor, you abuse your selfe most shamefully, for shee desired onely a memorie of her at the Communion. So had the Prophets and Apostles, which were not in your fained Purgatorie. By these fewe examples, you haue prooued Protestancie, then poperie; as for the rest which you name, Saint Paul the Eremit, and others, when you prooue them Papists, we will beleeue it. To your question, demanding whether there were any Saints in heauē, before this our age, which were not papists? I answer that there were, & therfore you speake impiously, to say that heauen was emptie, vntil Luther shooke off his hood, or if there were any they were Papists, who reuea­led [Page 204] these things vnto you M. Doctor. Take heede of the pride of Lucifer, who would ascend into heauen to know secrets, they belong not vnto you. The Apostles and Martyrs with thou­sands, (I doubt not) were in heauen, which I am sure were no Papists: witnes [...]e their writings. From heauen the Doctor com­meth to hell, I feare me without repentance, a fit place for him. This iolly fellowe, knoweth not onely matters in heauen, but al­so what is done in hell as it seemeth. The heathen persecu­tors are in hell for persecuting the Catholike Church I doubt not, but this Catholike Church is not the same with the Romish Church at this day, there is ample difference betwixt these. And that Constantine gaue great peace to the Church, Theod. lib. 1. c. 7. it is true also, but he was no Papist, for he saith that the holy Scriptures teach vs plainely all things which concerne diuine matters. Lastly that all Bishops vnder the cope of heauen were members of this Romish Church, is a notorious vntrueth. The Doctor to fill vp his reason numbreth many, but prooueth not that which he saith. The rest of the chapter is but a vaine flourish of words, in which I take no delight. To drawe his reason into a syllogisme is needlesse, because in deede it hath neither head nor foote. Amongest many vanities, in the ende of the chapter the Doctor saith, that he is a Papist, be­cause the Romish religion is the most beneficiall of all the rest. Christian Reader, I feare me that this indeed is the true cause why many are papists, namely their commodities. But this is sufficient to driue men from poperie, that in regard of preferment, by this Doctors confession, he is a Papist. M. Doctor I haue taken away your euidence for poperie, for baptisme bindeth no man to fal­shood. Wherefore I beseech you by your saluation, choose rather, with Moses, to suffer affliction, then to be the Popes white sonne, which, as it seemeth by your owne confession you doe, because the Romish Religion is most gainefull. Out vpon gaine against con­science, the Lord open your eies to see the trueth.