A Defence of the Appendix. OR A REPLY TO CERTAIN AUTHORITIES alleged in Answer to a Catalogue of Catholic Professors, called, An Appendix to the Antidote.  
WHEREIN Also the Book fond entitled, The Fisher catched in his own Net, is censured. And the sleights of D. Featly, and D. White in shifting off the Catalogue of their own Professors, which they undertook to show, are plainly discovered.  
By L. D.  
To the R t. Worshipful Sir Humphrey Lind.  Eccles 7. v. 30. 
Solummodo hoc inveni, quod fecerit Deus hominem rectum; Et ipse se infinitis miscuerit quaestionibus.  
Permissu Superiorum. M.DC.XXIIII.   

TO THE RIGHT WORSHIPFUL Sir Humphrey Lind.  
SIR It may be you will take it unkindly to see unawares yourself and your papers thus in print. But I was moved to do it by due consideration of that which followeth. I received them not as secret, neither do I think you gave them to be concealed. You wrote against a printed Catalogue of Catholic Professors, whereof a dear friend of mine is the Author, given you upon a former Conference which yourself procured between some other of my Friends and your Doctors, concerning a Protestant Catalogue; which Conference though privately intended, was afterwards victoriously printed. Wherefore writing them as you did, against such a Book, and upon such an occasion, you might easily think they would be answered; and it is not strange they should come to be printed. As the great opinion which others had of your deep learning, and your own profession of your great skill and reading in the Fathers, made me diligently to peruse those authorities alleged by you: so having well examined them, I thought myself diverse ways obliged to give a large & full Reply unto them. And being as you are most extremely, and most vehemently distant in opinion from me; no marvel, if to be better understood, I speak so loud that all the Land may hear me. And for the same cause you must pardon me, if I rather choose to expose both you & myself to the judgement of others, then having taken some little pains in this matter to make you the only judge of my labours. The old Master Bugs being carried away with Ecce in Penetralibus, thinketh to have found the Messiah in your study, and was wholly transported with those chosen places, and selected authorities contained in your papers; which tending to no less than the loss of his soul, merited great compassion: the like may happen to others which deserveth prevention. Your own Doctors have already adorned the Pageant of their victory with the publication of your Names: Unto you is given the driving on of the Chariot: and the old Master Bugs is led in Triumph. Some perchance have been taken in the net of the Title, and may be freed again by the net of Christ; which therefore should not hang in the Rivers of private papers, when the other flieth in the air, but should be cast into the Sea of the wide World, to gather and draw together all kind of fishes. In this net the Fishers themselves are happily taken, and all they that are not taken, are lost for ever. The other of the Heretics is but a net to catch flies, which though cunningly wrought, must in time be swept away together with the Spiders. They have printed against us, and renewed an old Decree against our printing: if no Reply should be made, some of them would think, that now they might lie by Proclamation. What greater sign of falsehood, than having told your own tale to seek to stop the mouths of your Adversaries with old Statutes? But the State never intended to make a Law against God, his Word will not be tied. All Princes should serve it, and all printing Presses must be subject unto it. Therefore no marvel, if the taking of one Press do set two more on work, and that your Doctors by seeking to suppress the Truth, do press it forward. You know then what moved me to diuulge your papers giving the Fathers their due. I have told you your own, but sparingly; and if you knew my hart, you would see, and confess that I had done it friendly, Believe, and you shall understand, Believe the Fathers and you shall understand the Fathers, He that heareth not the visible universal Church, is no better than a Heathen, and believeth neither Church nor Fathers: but the unlearned not knowing the doctrine of the Church and the unstable forsaking that which they have known, as they pervert the Scriptures, so also they preuert the Fathers to their own damnation: from the which I beseech God deliver you, praying you likewise to think no otherwise of me, then as of  
Your unfeigned Friend, and servant in Christ. L. D.   

THE AUTHORITIES ALLEGED BY Sir Humphrey Lind, against the Appendix.  

Of Miracles.  
EPIPHANIUS convinceth not Ebion of false belief, because neither he nor any of his faction had the gift of working Miracles, but because Ebion likened himself to Christ for his Circumcision, and for his Birth: and he answers him, he could not be like to God, for that he was but a mortal Man, and was not able to raise Lazarus out of the grave, nor heal the sick etc. If he would be likened to Christ, he bid him to do those things; the which things, if he had required at Epiphanius hands, I think no man but would have doubted of the performance of them.—  
— Read the place at large, and you shall find it hath no such meaning, as is here alleged.  
Miracles were necessary before the world believed, to induce it to believe, and he that seeketh to be confirmed by wonders now, is to be wondered at most of all himself, in refusing to believe what all the world believeth besides himself. De Civit. Dei, lib. 22. cap. 8. in principio.  
showed to be falsified.  
Now we for our parts, say not, that we must be believed, that we are in the Church of Christ, because Optatus or Ambrose hath commended this wherein we are, or else because that in all places of the world where our Communion is frequented, there are so many Miracles wrought of healing diseases etc. For all these things that are done in the Catholic Church, are approved in as much as they are done in the Catholic: And not that it is therefore Catholic, because such things are done there. August. de unitat. Eccles. cap. 16.  
Tertullian. They will say (saith he) to excuse themselves for having followed Heresy: that their Doctors have confirmed the Faith of their Doctrine: that they have raised up the dead, restored the sick, foretold things to come, so as they were worthily taken for Apostles. As if (saith he) this were not written, that many should come working great Miracles, to fortify the deceitfulness of their corrupt preaching. De Praescrip. cap. 44.  
S. Hierome. The Galathians had the gift of Healing, and of Prophecy, and yet they were ensnared by the false Prophets; and it is to be observed, that powers and signs are seen to be wrought in those that hold not the Truth of the Gospel, which may be said against the Heretics, that think their Faith is sufficiently proved if they have wrought any Miracle, who in the day of judgement, shall deserve to hear this saying: I know you not, depart from me. In Epist. ad Galat. cap. 3.  
S. Augustine. Let no man sell you fables. Pontius hath wrought a Miracle. Donatus hath prayed, and God hath answered him from Heaven. First, either they are deceived, or so deceive. In joan. tract. 13. Et cont. Faustum Manichaum. lib. 13. cap. 5. Et de Civit. Dei, lib. 20. cap. 19  
Answered, Sect. 5.   

Of justification by Faith only.  
THis is the work of God, that he which believeth in Christ, should be saved without works; freely (by Grace only) receiving the pardon of his sins. Amb. cap. 1. in Corinth.  
What is the Law of Faith? Even to be saved by Grace. Hear the Apostle showeth the goodness of God, who not only saveth us, but also justifieth and glorifieth us, using no works hereunto, but requiring (Faith only.) Chrys. Hom. 7. Rom. 3.  
Basil. This is true and perfect rejoicing in God, when a man is not lifted up with his own righteousness, but knoweth himself to be void of true righteousness, and to be justified by (Faith only) in Christ. Homil. de humil.  
Theodoret. We have not believed of our own accord, but being called we came; and being come, he exacteth not purity & innocency of life at our hands, but by (Faith only) he forgave our sins. Coment. 2. Eph.  
Bernard. Whosoever is touched with his sins, and hungreth after rightneousnes: Let him believe in God, that justifieth sinners, and being justified by (Faith only) he shall have peace with God. Cant. Serm. 22.  
Answered, Sect. 6.   

Of .  
BEllarmine. Man before all Grace, hath , not to things moral and natural, but even to the works of piety, and things supernatural. De Grat. & lib. Arbit. l. 6. cap. ultim.  
Basil. There is nothing left in thee O man, to be proud off, who must mortify all that is thy own, and seek for life to come in Christ, the first fruits whereof we have already attained in Christ; owing all, even that we live, to the Grace and gift of God. For it is God that giveth both the Will, and the Deed, according to his good pleasure. Basil. conc. de humil.  
Bernard. To will, is in us by , but not to perform nor will. I say, not to will either good or evil, but only to will; for, To will good, is a gift of Grace, to will evil, is a defect.  maketh us wellwilling, from  we have power to will, but to will well cometh of grace. De Grat. & lib. Arb.  
Augustine. It is certain that we are willing when we are so, but it is he that maketh us so, of whom it is said, It is God that worketh the will in us: It is certain that we work when we do so, but it is he that giveth us this working power, by adding unto our will, most effectual strength, as if he said, I will make you work. De bono persever. cap. 13.  
False cited, and shown to be falsified.  
Idem. Except God first make us to be willing, and then work with us being willing, we shall never bring to pass any good work. De Grat. & lib. Arbit cap. 16.  
Idem. We must confess, that we have , both to good and evil, but in doing evil, every man, just and unjust is free, but in doing good, none can be free, in Will & Act, unless he be freed by him that said; If the Son free you, you are truly freed. De Corrept. & Gra. cap. 1.  
Augustine. We will, but it is God that worketh in us to will; we work, but it is God that worketh in us to work, according to his good pleasure. This is behooveful for us both to believe and speak. This is a true Doctrine, that our Confession may be humble and lowly, and that God may have the whole: we live more in safety, if we give all unto God, rather than if we commit ourselves, partly to ourselves, and partly to him. August. de bono persever. lib. 3. cap. 6.  
False cited.  
Augustine. Fare be it from the Children of promise, that they should say: Behold, without thee we can prepare our own hearts; let none so think but those that are proud defenders of their own Freewill, and forsakers of the Catholic Faith: for as no man can begin any good without God, so no man can perfect good without God. Contr. duas Epistol. Pelag. lib. 2.  
Augustine. Why do we presume too much of the power of Nature? It is wounded, maimed, vexed, and lost: let us confess it freely, and not defend it falsely; therefore let us seek God's Grace, not to form, but to reform it thereby. De Natur. & Grat. cap. 35.  
False cited.  
Non volentis, neque currentis, sed miscrentis est Dei, ut totum Deo detur, qui hominis voluntatem bonam & praeparat adiwandam, & adiwat praeparatam. August. Enchir. ad Laurent. cap. 32.  
Answered, Sect. 7.   

Of the Sacrament.  
CYprian. The Bread which our Lord gave to his Disciples, not in Shape, but in Substance or Nature, changed by the Omnipotency, of the Word, is made Flesh.  
1. The words of Cyprian are, Panis non effigy, sed natura mutatus etc. which you have translated in Substance or Nature: where there is no word of Substance in Cyprian.  
2. The Chapter of Coena Domini, where this place is urged, is none of Cyprians. Extat inter opera Cypriani Sermo de Coena Domini, qui Cypriani Episcopi Carthaginensis esse non videtur (inquit Bellarminus) lib. 2. Euchar. cap. 9 Author Sermonis de Coena Domini, non est Cyprianus, sed aliquis posterior. Bellarm. lib. de Euchar. 4. cap. 26. Author Sermonis de Coena Domini, est ignotus, inquit Garetius. De veritate Corporis Christi. fol. 181.  
Cyprian. The Lord in his last Supper wherein he did participate with his Apostles, gave Bread and Wine with his own hands: but he gave his Body to be crucified on the Cross, to the hands of his soldiers etc.  diversa nomina vel species ad unam reducerentur essentiam, & significantia & significata ijsdem vocabulis censerentur. De Vnctione Chrismatis.  
showed to be falsified.  
Whereunto you add, pag 47. in the Margin. Tertullian; Hoc est corpus meum, hoc est figura corporis mei. count. Marci. lib. 4. Aug. Christus figuram Corporis sui Discipulis commendavit. In Psal. 3. Ambros. de Sacram. lib. 4. cap. 5. Hier. ad verb. jovin. lib. 2. Aug. in Levit. quaest. 57 Gelasius count. Eutichem. Aug. de Doctr. Christian. lib. 3. cap. 16. It is a figure commanding us to lay up in our Remembrance, that his Flesh was crucified and wounded for us.  
Answered Sect. 8. & sequent.    

A DEFENCE OF THE APPENDIX. TO THE RIGHT Worshipful Sir Humphrey Lind.  

Section I. The Fisher freed, and the Catcher catcht. In reference to the first point of the Appendix, showing the continual Visibility of the Catholic Church.  
YOur own Doctors in your own house professed, as you know, The true Church must be able to name Professors in all Ages; & made it the very ground of their Argument, in that Dispute. Wherefore in all reason, before you went about to answer the Book, which you received of the Catalogue of our Professors, you should have given another, or referred us to some book of an other of yours. And that so much the more, because hitherto such a Catalogue on your side hath been held impossible to be found, made, or produced. And having been evermore demanded and required for a hundred years together, could never as yet be seen nor obtained.  
Certainly, those your Champions which were chosen by yourself, and with great expectation undertook to do it, when they came to the Trial, performed nothing; and all that they did, was but cunningly to avoid the Question, given in these express terms.  
Whether the Protestant Church was in all Ages visible, especially in the Ages before Luther; and whether the Names of such visible Protestants in all Ages can be showed, and proved out of good Authors?  
Wherein every man may see, there was nothing else demanded, but a plain Catalogue or Table, of the Names of your Professors in all Ages proved by good Authors. According whereunto, they received also another paper before the meeting, which there was publicly read, that each party should produce their Catalogues out of good Authors, and then interchangeably by terms defend them. But this Table or Catalogue of the names of our Professors seemed a Lion in the way of your Doctors, which therefore they durst not come near nor behold, but sought by diverse strains to eschew it, and to turn the eyes and ears of the audience from their expectation of it.  
As first they sought to make two Questions of the Question propounded; and flying the latter part, instead of showing the visibility of their Church, they would have proved it à Priori (as they termed it) without showing their visible Pastors, which was the point demanded.  
Secondly, they deride their Adversaries, for demanding the Names of their Professors, as if they had impertinently called for a Buttery Book, of the Names of those, that ever were admitted into the Church of Christ; irregiously comparing the Histories of the Church wherein the Names of her Bishops, Martyrs, and other holy Men, were carefully recorded, to Buttery Books of Names. And for the same cause calling their Adversary's Nominals, they boasted themselves to be Reals; as if their Adversaries had demanded, no Men, but only Names of Men: or as if the Professors of the true Faith, like Knights Errants, or those of the round Table, had been no real Men at all, but only names; which is as much to say, as that the Histories of the Church were mere fables.  
Thirdly, they sought to flinch by propounding sundry times, diverse other Questions to be disputed. Which was, as it were, to put up many Hares before the Hounds, thereby to conceal the Kennel of that Fox which was then hunted.  
Fourthly, they endeavoured to divert the Question, from proving themselves the true Church, by naming the visible Professors thereof in all Ages, which was the thing demanded; to prove the same by assuming they held the truth, that is to say, in every particular Controversy; as for Example, in denying of Transubstantiation, Merits of Works and the like. Which was as plaine a Transition, as if in case the Question had been about Transubstantiation, their Adversaries should have gone about to prove it, by proving themselves to be the true Church that held it. For both these kind of proofs by a remote Medium do evidently transfer the Question; the one from a general to a particular point, which was your Doctor's fault: the other from a particular to a general, as in the other Example.  
Fiftly, being called upon by the Hearers, and especially by the Protestants themselves, which were ten to one, and confided much in their own cause, to give the Names of their Professors in all Ages; they named only Christ and his Apostles, with others, one or two more of the first Age alone. Which according to the question undertaken, they should have proved to be Protetestants, by naming Protestants that succeeded them in all Ages following; but seeking evermore to avoid that Rock, they would have stayed there, and before they went any further, urged to prove the Professors of the first Age to be Protestants, not by naming their Successors, but by examining their Doctrine; Which again had been to divert from the matter, and to run from the general point than in Question, to all particular Controversies.  
Sixtly; Therefore when none of these devices could satisfy the expectation of the Hearers, fearing as it seemed, lest, according to the words of the Question and plain intention of that meeting, they should have been urged again by the Hearers, to set down a full Catalogue of all Ages, as once before they were importuned to do, they suddenly broke off, and so departed.  
Seaventhly; My L. of Warwick imagining perchance that this proceeded not so much from lack of ability, as from want of due preparation, on their behalf promised a Catalogue within 2. or 3. days, which though sought again by letter, never yet appeared.  
Eightly; The Answerers themselves repaired the next day to your own house, again offering to deliver their Catalogue with one hand, so they might receive yours with the other. Which another standing by, whom they also took to be a Protestant Minister, affirmed to be very reasonable and indifferent. But you answered, You knew their mind for that point, and that they would never do it, before the Names of the first Age were tried, and so of the rest in order.  
Ninthly; a printed Catalogue was sent to yourself in particular, hoping it might serve as an engine to importune, and as it were to extort another from you, or from your Doctors. But all in vain, which maketh many much to fear, that this Catalogue of your Professors, will never be produced, and consequently that your Church, cannot possible be the true Church of Christ.  
And now no marvel if some of the Hearers, when they saw the Book of The Fisher catched in his own Net, written as it were in triumph of your victory in that Dispute, compared it to those other Puritan Books, which have been lately printed of the great victories of the Protestants in their Wars against the Catholics beyond the Seas: whereas in truth, not the Catholics, but the Protestants themselves, have been always notoriously vanquished and overthrown. And presuming it came forth from his own fingers that hath the principal part therein, they spare not to say, that it better deserved to be called, The feats, and lies of Doctor Featlye, than the other Title; which in falsehood well agreeing with the Book itself in that respect alone, might justly seem a fit lace or facing for it. For besides the sundry shifts and slights of the Doctors contained in it, they accuse it also of many gross untruths without end or number; in relating things out of due place and order, to their own advantage; in daubing and amplifying the speeches of D. Featly with much addition, and substraction of matter: As for Example.  
1. That M. Bugs, the old Gentleman, who first desired the former Dispute, was sick, and solicited in his sickness by some Papists about him to forsake his Religion: And that it was feared he would have fallen from his Faith, if he had not recovered of his sickness: which is altogether false.  
2. That he was much confirmed in his Religion, by hearing the former Disputation: which unless he did extremely forget himself (having often said the contrary) is also false.  
3. That you Sir Humphrey, found M. Fisher by chance in Drury Lane; whereas you know, you came of purpose to offer him a friendly Conference with D. White.  
4. That M. Fisher having written the Question, added under his own hand, he would answer upon it negatively, As challenging and expecting Opposers; which was false, for he was first asked by yourself, whether he would oppose or answer: whereupon he wrote he would answer.  
5. That you Sir Humphrey, told M. Bugs, if M. Fisher would come with four, or six at the most, they should be admitted for his sake, whereas it was expressly agreed on, that D. White and M. Fisher, should only bring an Assistant, four Witnesses, and a Writer, and no more, with each of them, and that the matter should be kept secret, thereby to make the meeting very private. Which M. Fisher duly observed, but when he came he found the house full of Protestants contrary to former agreement.  
6. That D. White and D. Featly, being invited by you to Dinner, and staying a while after Dinner, had notice given them (as it were by chance) that some jesuits were in the next room, ready to confer with them, and that the Doctors were at last persuaded to have some Conference with them. As if forsooth they had never heard of the meeting before; when the truth is, that some days before, D. White had received the Question, and undertook to oppose against it, though afterward for more security he used D. Featly for his Champion, and both of them came thither of purpose, to make good the former challenge.  
7. The Question was falsely and sophistically printed, by putting into the midst thereof the figure of (2) in favour of the Opposer, who sought to make it a double Question.  
8. Before the Disputation began, D. Featly having propounded many other points of Controversy to divert the Question, That M. Sweet should answer they were scholastical points not fundamental. Which was not so; only he affirmed they were nothing to the purpose. Which he was moved the rather to say, because a little before he had desired two things of the Auditory. 1. That all bitter speeches might be forborn. And 2. that nothing might be heard or spoken which was beside the Question.  
9 That M. Fisher being charged to have slandered Doctor White in a former Conference, answered nothing: which is false, for he stood up, and solemnly protested upon his Conscience, that he never slandered him.  
10. And again, that being charged to answer upon his Conscience, whether he believed Christ and his Apostles taught the Protestant faith, he refused to answer. Which is merely false. It is true, that D. Featly before he began to dispute, conjured M. Fisher after an insolent manner, to answer according to his conscience, which M. Fisher accepted, and wished him to do the like.  
I omit many other such Feats, which the Hearers when they read, affirmed to be plain Lies, from whom soever they proceeded. If the Doctors according to their undertaking, had given a sufficient and full Catalogue of their Professors in all Ages, The Fisher had been taken indeed in his own Net, and caught in the Question which himself propounded; but contrarily having taken more upon them than they were able to perform, and not being able to set down the Catalogue, which according to the issue of the Question was then expected, the Doctors themselves were manifestly taken in the Net of the Fisher. Wherein, by professing as they did, that, The true Church must be able to Name Professors in all Ages, they have so entangled themselves, that howsoever they may dance in this Net to their own shame and confusion, they can never get out, until they name them.  
And now to come home again to yourself (endeavouring in the mean time as you do to overthrew the succession of their Church, and not being able to show another of yours) what do you get, or what do you seek thereby, but only the ruin and demolishment, both of your Church and theirs, leaving no true Church upon the earth, which cannot subsist without a visible succession of Professors to be named in all Ages, as you and your Doctors have urged? And by consequence, for want of such a visible Church, you leave no true Faith at all, nor true Religion in the world. And who is a Natural, but he that denies it?  
Wherefore to conclude this Section, your Doctors with a great deal of noise, having filled the air with nothing but smoke. If now their Adversaries should turn their own Ordinance against them and reason thus, it is not your valour that would be able to defend them.  
The Church that is Catholic as it ought to be, or the Church whose faith is Eternal, or the Church of Christ and his Apostles, must be able to name Successors in all Ages. But the Protestant Church is not able to name the Professors of their Faith, nor the Successors therein, to Christ and his Apostles in all Ages. Ergo, the Protestant Church is not Catholic as it ought to be, nor the Church whose Faith is eternal, nor the Church of Christ and his Apostles. The Mayor is their own, and publicly produced by them. The Minor cannot be denied until the Names be showed. Wherefore until this Fort be built, how can you defend them, or where will you hide them from the power of this Gun-shot? And yet as this work is plainly impossible to be raised or performed, so it is no less impossible, that the Protestants should be found the true Church, & by Consequence, that any may be saved remaining in it.   

Section II. In reference to a second point of the Appendix, showing their Conversions in all Ages.  
HAD you given us such another Catalogue of your Professors, as you received of theirs, to make your party good against them, you should have showed the like Conversions of Heathen Nations to the Faith of Christ by your Ministers in all Ages; as that Book hath showed, by their Apostolical Preachers. And that especially after those times wherein you pretend their Church was fallen, and the spirit of God was departed from them. As for Example, in the third Age were converted Donaldus King of Scotland, his Wife, Children, and Nobility. The Court of the Prince of Arabia, pag. 20. In the fourth Age, the Bessites, Dacians, Geteses, and Scythians, pag. 26. In the fifth Age, the Saracens, the Scots, the Irish, pag. 32. In the sixth Age, the Pictes, the Goths, the Bavarians, the English, pag. 36. 38. In the seaventh Age, diverse Swevians, the Westphalians, and many of our Nation, People of Teisterbandia, of Westphalia, of Holland, the King and Queen of Persia, with forty thousand Percians, pag. 42 44. In the eight Age, Saxons, Borucluatians, the Frisians, the Hassits, the Thuringians, the Cattis, the Erphordians, two Saxon Dukes, pag. 48. In the ninth Age, the Danes, Swethens, and people of Aquitania, the whole Island of the Rugians, the Bulgarians, the Ruthens, or Russians, pag. 52. 54. In the tenth Age, Worzivous the last Pagan Duke in Bohemia, the King of Norway, the Polonians, the Sclavonians, and Hungarians, Heraldus King of the Danes, and Sueno his Son, pag. 60. In the eleventh Age, the Prussians, the Vindians, also Pannonians and Transylvanians, the lapsed Hungarians, pag. 64. 68 In the twelfe Age, the Pomeranians, the people of Norway, Magnus' King of the Goths, pag. 70. 72. In the thirteenth Age, the Livonians, the Lituanians, innumerable Tartarians, pag. 76. 78. In the fourtenth Age, the Canary Islands, the Chumans, the Lipnensians, Bosnians, Patrinians, and other Sclavonian Nations, pag. 84. In the fifteenth Age, Samogessians, the Kingdoms of Bentomine, Guinaea, Angola, and Congo, Zerra jacob Emperor of the Abissyns, pag. 90. In the sixteenth Age, the Kingdom of Manicongo in Africa, the Kings of Amanguntium and Bungo, innumerable Indians, japonians, Brasilians, and other Western and Oriental people, more Countries and Kingdoms than all Christendom before. In the seaventeenth Age, the King of Sarra Leaena in the East Indies, with his Brethren and Children, besides many other in China, japonia, Persia, and other Nations.  
This Argument taken from the great increase of fruit which continueth, and abideth among them, joan. 15. 16. and from the wonderful propagation of their Religion, not only in the first five hundred years after Christ, but also much more in the Ages following to this present time; is surely a most forcible and strong persuasion, that they alone among all other sorts of Christians, are the company, and people whom God had blessed. Have Idolaters been chosen and preserved by Almighty God, before his own Servants, to persuade in the force of his word innumerable people from time to time, to renounce and tread under their feet the Ancient Gods of their Forefathers, in whom they so much confided; and to receive him for their true and only God, who whipped and crowned with thorns, was nailed to a Cross in the sight of the world, and so died? Have all these several Countries and Kingdoms, so extremely different in climates, in tongues, in affections, in customs, and in natures been voluntarily reduced to the unity of one and and the same Faith in Christ, and to the obedience of one Pastor under Christ, by the followers of Antichrist? Have the limbs of the Devil reform the savage, brutish, and wicked manners of so many People and Nations, changing their hearts, and bringing them upon their knees, to serve their Creator, with piety and humility, and in exercise of all kind of virtue?  
Then I must needs confess, it seemeth unto me, that either God himself must be in love with Idolatry, or Christ himself must become Antichrist, or the Devil himself having forsaken his malice, is now changed to be a servant of Christ. Neither do I see how possibly you can deny these innumerable Nations to have been converted by the true Church, recommended unto us in holy Scripture, unless we deny both Church and Scripture. For by these Conversions of Nations in all Ages, your Adversaries do manifestly prove themselves to be that Church which must in the end convert all Nations, and was therefore surnamed Catholic or Universal. And thereby it cannot be denied they make it most apparent (the promises thereof in the Law, Gen. 22.17. Gal. 3. In the Psalms, 2. & 71.6. & 21. & 28. In the Prophets, Isa. 2.2. & 11. & 60. & 61. & 62. Hier. 33. Ezech. 33.22. Dan. 2.44. etc. In the old and new Testament, Matth. 24.14. & 28.19. Luc. 24.47. being so evidently performed by them) that they alone are the spiritual seed of Abraham, Rom. 4.13. Gal. 3. The inheritance of the Son of God, Psalm. 2. & 47. The Mountain on the top of Mountains, Isa. 60.12. The Mountain filling the world, Dan. 2.44. The glorious City, Psal. 86. whose gates must be always open, that the strength of the Gentiles & their Kings may be brought unto it: and the Nation and Kingdom, that will not serve it, must perish, Isa. 60.11.12. That blessed Company Isa. 61.9. whom our Saviour promised to assist all days, or every day, teaching and baptising all Nations unto the end of the world. Matth. 28. & 24. Hear again (as in the end the former Section) if they should argue Syllogistically against your Doctors in this manner, though you had the strength of Hercules, I think you would hardly be able to defend them. That Church which converted Nations in all Ages, is the true Church of Christ and his Apostles, recommended unto us, in holy Scripture. But the Catholic, and not the Protestant Church, hath converted Nations in all Ages. Ergo, the Catholic, and not the Protestant Church, is the true Church of Christ and his Apostles, recommended unto us in holy Scripture.   

Section III. In reference to a third point of the Appendix, showing their Religion to have been confirmed by Miracles in all Ages.  
HAd you given us a view of so many Nations reduced to the Faith of Christ by your Professors as he hath named converted by theirs, that your Church might not appear altogether inferior to theirs, you should have showed some points of your Religion confirmed by Miracles against them, as that Book hath declared many points of theirs in all Ages, miraculously authorized, and as it were subscribed by the hand of God against you; & those so evidently testified not only by Ancient Histories, but also by the holy Fathers themselves, not liable to any exception, in the first five hundred years & downwards, as they seem to enforce all good Christians to believe them.  
As for Example, in the second Age, Narcissus Bishop of Jerusalem, turned water into Oil for the use of the Church, Eusebius lib. 6. Cap. 8. & 9 S. Balbina and her Father restored to health by touching the Chains wherewith with Pope Alexander was bound, Baron. An. 132. n. 2. Cures wrought by the Bodies and Sepulchers of Martyrs. justin. quast. 28.  
In the third Age, the Miracles of S. Gregory the wonder-worker, & some of them wrought by the sign of the Cross, Nissen. in vita Greg. Thou. And S. Basil. de Sp. Sanct. cap. 29. Also Miracles confirming the Eucharist, & Real Presence. Cyp. ser. de Lapsis. Also S. Cecily shown to Valerian the Angel Guardian of her virginity. Metaphrastes and Surius in her life.  
In the fourth Age, a sick Woman cured, and a dead Body restored to life, by the wood of the Holy Cross, when it was first found out by Queen Helen. Ruffin. Hist. lib. 10. Cap. 7. & 8. & Sever. Sulpit. Hist. sacra lib. 2. Paul. Epist. 11. Niceph. lib. 8. The same miraculously multiplied to satisfy the devotion of all Christians throughout the world. Paul. Ep. 11. Cyr. catech. 10. Many other Miracles wrought by Relics, Chrys. orat. count. Gentes. By holy-Water, Epiph. haer. 30. By adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, Naz. orat. 11. By prayers to our Lady, Nazian. in S. Cyp. By the merits of Martyrs. Ambros. serm. 91.  
In the fifth Age, many Miracles wrought by Relics of S. Stephen, Aug. lib. 22. de Civit. cap. 8. By the sign of the Cross, Constantinus lib. 1. cap 22. apud Surium, Tomo 4. by S. German. Also Miracles wrought by S. Hierome, lying on his death bed, and after his decease, the blind, deaf, dumb, and sick were cured: some by touching, some by kissing his Corpses, Eusebius Cremon. Ep. de morte eius.  
In the sixth Age, Miracles wrought to confirm the Sacrifice of the Mass, S. Greg. l. 4. Dial. cap. 57 and Real Presence, evag. lib. 4. Hist. cap. 35. joan. Diac. lib. 2. de vita S. Greg. cap. 41. To confirm the honour and invocation of Saints, Procop orat. de Edificat. justin. Euag. loco ●it. Greg. de Myrac. S. Martini l. 2. cap. 5. 6. 7. The use of Images in Processions, and how by one of our Blessed Ladies, painted by S. Luke, a contagious Pestilence was dispelled in Rome, Ciac. in Greg. 1. From another Image stabbed by a jew, issued blood, Greg. Turon. de glor. Mart. cap. 22. Sigeb. ann. 560. Holy Oil flowed from a Cross, and from an Image of our Blessed Lady, curing many diseases. Baron. ann. 564. Thus the Author of the Catalogue you received; And the like Miracles he showeth in the rest of the succeeding Ages. As many more he might have added aswell in the first five hundred years as after, but that he thought it not necessary, and therefore spared the labour to recollect them.  
Which miraculous attestations, we must either believe, and by consequence must also confess those points of Religion confirmed by them, or else we shall not only condemn all Christian Antiquity of lying, and believing of lies, but must likewise reject all evidence of credibility founded upon human testimony; which is no less then to destroy the very foundations both of Church, and Commonwealth, and all Society. Wherefore to bind this Burden also on your back, that it may sit the closer, I will wind it up in this manner. That Church whose Doctrine hath been confirmed by Miracles in all Ages, is the true Church of Christ and his Apostles. But such is the Doctrine of the Catholic, and not of the Protestant Church. Ergo, the Catholic, and not the Protestant Church, is the true Church of Christ and his Apostles.   

Section FOUR In reference to a fourth point of the Appendix, showing the Doctrine of the Protestants to have been censured, and condemned by the Fathers in all Ages.  
HAd you likewise confirmed your Doctrine by such divine Authority, you should have showed some one point of their Religion censured by any of the Fathers, or condemned by any lawful Counsel, as that Book quoteth above twenty of yours notoriously opposed and condemned by them.  
As for Example; justification by Faith only, and Denial of justice by Works; condemned in Simon Magus, Iren. lib. 1. cap. 20. Extrinsecall justice by imputation only; in the Gnostickes, Iren. lib. 1. cap. 5. That no sin can hurt them that are endued with Faith; in Eunomius, Epiph. haer. 76. Aug. haer. 64. That sin abideth in the regenerate; condemned in Proclus, Epiph. haer. 64. That Baptism doth not wash away sin; condemned in the Messalians, Theod lib. 4. haer. fab. Neglect of the ceremonies of Baptism; condemned in Novatus, Euseb. lib. 6. Of holy Chrism and the seal of our Lord (which is the sign of the Cross so called) condemned in Novatus and his Disciples, Theod. lib. 3. haer. fab. Derisions of Exorcisms, and Exufflations in Baptism; condemned in the Pelagians, August. de Nat. & concupis. lib. 2. cap. 29. The Absolution of Priests not available, and the abolishment of Confession; condemned in Novatus and his Disciples, Socrat. lib. 4. cap. 23. Cornel. apud Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 43. Theod. lib. 3. haer. fab. Pacian. lib. adverse. eos. Denial of enjoined Penance; in the Audians, Theod. l. 4. haer. fab.  
Denial of the Real Presence; condemned in judas Iscariot, Claud. Xanct. Rep. 2. de Eucha. cap. 14. Chrys. hom. 46. in joan. 6. In the Simonians and Saturnians, Theod. Dial. 3. condemned likewise by Iren. l. 4. cap. 34. post medium. Impugning the reservation of the B. Sacrament; condemned in the Anthropomorphites, Cyr. ad Calosyr. Denial of Oblations, and Prayers for the Dead; condemned in Aerius, Aug. haer. 53 Epiph. haer. 65. Denial of Freewill; condemned in Simon Magus, Clem. Roman. Recog. lib. 3. In the Manichees, Aug. lib. cont. Fortunat. Manic. Ordination and Predestination to sin, and by consequence, that God is the Author of sin; condemned in the Predestinate, Sigeb. 415. Geneb. in Zosimo. condemned likewise in Simon Magus, Vin. Lirin. adu. prop. haeret. novitat. cap. 34. And in Florinus, Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 20. That Saints are not to be invocated; condemned in Vigilantius, Hier. cont. Vigil. cap. 2. & 3. The Images of Christ and his Saints not to be worshipped; condemned in Xenaias; Niceph. lib. 16. cap. 27. Worship of Saints Relics to be Idolatry; condemned in Eustachius, Socrat. l. 2 cap. 33. and condemned likewise in Vigilantius, Hier. 161.  
Impugnation of single life, and vowed Chastity, and that Marriage is equal to Virginity; condemned in Heluidius, and jovinian, Hier. cont. Heluid. & jovin. Disallowance of prescript Fasts; condemned in Aerius, Epip. haer. 75. August. haer. 53. and in Eustachius, Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 33. No difference of Merits in Heaven; condemned in jovinian, Hier. lib. 2. adverse. jovin. Good use of Riches, preferred before Evangelicall Poverty; condemned in Vigilantius. S. Thom. opusc. 17.  
Denial of one Chief Pastor in Earth; condemned in Novatus, Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 43. Denial of unwritten Traditions; condemned in the Valentinians, Tertul. lib. de Praesc. & hist. Eccles. lib. 5. cap. 16. lib. 3. cap. 36. That the visible Catholic Church, might remain in one part, and perish in the rest of the world; condemned in the Donatists, Aug. count. lit. Petil. l. 2. cap. 108. & lib. de Vnitat. Eccles. cap. 2. & per totum librum.  
Thus the Author of the Catalogue; whereunto if I should add out of the Protestant Apology page 74. and page 127. and pag. 207. how insolently and impiously the most and best learned Protestant-writers do likewise censure, and condemn the Fathers of the first five hundred years, I know you would be ashamed to read them. But this may suffice, to give the Reader just occasion to admire the little conscience of your late English Doctors, in challenging the Fathers of the first five hundred years, wherein if their Adversaries might come to an indifferent and equal trial with them, the very Titles of the Father's Books against them, were sufficient to overthrew them. Only in this place I will give the Reader this short Notandum: for the which if he desire sincerely to know and believe the Doctrine of the Fathers, he shall have cause to thank me. When any of the holy Fathers, do censure any point of Doctrine, taxing it of Heresy, or noteth it as the particular opinion of some Heretic, or reproveth it very much, or wondereth at it, especially if it be such a thing as every learned Man may easily know, or was necessary to be taught, and that no other Father did therein oppose himself against him; It is an evident Testimony, that his Doctrine therein was the general Doctrine of the Church at that time; and aught to be so received of the Ages that follow. Wherefore the Author of that Book, having showed so many points of your Doctrine to have been so notoriously censured and condemned by the Ancient Fathers of the first five hundred years in the Hetetikes of those times, besides many other points and some of those also condemned by Fathers and Counsels in after Ages (whereunto you have not answered a word) it is for aught I can see, or perceive, a clear demonstration, that the Fathers of those times were theirs, and that, either your Professors were none at all, or no other than those, that were condemned by them.  
Thus, all things with them are infallibly certain, easy to be known, and most conspicuous. They follow the stream and current of that Doctrine, which, by many known Successions of holy and learned Men, Martyrs, and Bishops, as it were by so many Channels, they derive from Christ and his Apostles. They follow the fame and greatness of that Church, which by converting Countries and Nations in all Ages, is become eminent and apparent above all other sorts of Christians, like a City upon a Hill, above the Moale-hills; or like the Little Stone in Daniel, which growing to be a Mountain, filleth the world with its greatness. They follow the security of those Letters-Patents which the hand of God hath signed with his own Seal, and commended to the world, by Attestation of many Miracles in confirmation of their Doctrine. And lastly they follow the infallible and powerful Authority of that Body, which by Censures of Doctors, & Decrees of Counsels from time to time hath ever confounded all those that opposed themselves against it; While you in the mean time, without any lineal Descente from those whom you pretend to have been your Ancestors; without the Progeny of any Gentills converted by you; without any warrant of God's hand, or sentence of his judges for you, do still remain in the darkness of your invisible Church, tossed in the Sea of Error, with every wind of new Doctrine, not knowing certainly whom to follow, nor what to believe, until at the last, even the wisest of you being weary of seeking, and desperate of finding that which they seek, come to hold all opinions probable, which is in effect to believe nothing.  
Good Sir, had you produced such a Succession, such conversions of Nations, such Miracles and Censures, in the defence of your Church, as that Book hath showed in confirmation of theirs, all zealous Protestants had been bound to have fallen at your feet, and to have honoured you for ever. But now, on the other side, against such weighty and massy matters, such clear and convincing proofs as these, not being able to give in evidence so much as one Professor in every Age, nor in any Age the conversion of any Nation, or the testimony of any Miracle, or the Censure of any one Father in favour of your Religion; who seethe not, that instead of reason there is nothing but passion on your part; and certainly for the honour of your cause, it were better to hold your peace, then reply so weakly in a matter of such importance.  
For besides all that hath been said against many other most express Sentences of the Ancient Fathers, in those very points which you have chosen to touch; you have only produced a few dribbling Authorities, as it were on the Buy, some falsely translated, and some falsely cited, and some in respect of other express words against you, plainly falsified; that, not to accuse you of a bad Conscience, though you make profession to be much versed in the Fathers, yet the Reader must needs think, you never saw, or read so much as those few places which yourself have cited, but only took them by retail from others. And howsoever, though they were admitted and taken as you give them up; yet in my poor opinion, they either touch not your Adversaries at all, or being a little considered, make rather with them, then against them. Which showeth great want of judgement in you: and I verily think, if you will be pleased to examine them with me, I shall make you see it. Wherefore as in the former Section, so that you may know in this also, how far you are chargeable, I give you the sum of your account in this manner. The Doctrine of that Church which was condemned by the Fathers of the first five hundred years, was condemned by Christ and his Apostles. But the Doctrine of the Protestant Church, was condemned by the Fathers of the first 500 years, as the most and best learned Protestants themselves have also confessed. Ergo, the Doctrine of the Protestant Church, was likewise condemned by Christ and his Apostles.   

Section V Miracles defended to be a sufficient Testimony of Truth, and the Doctrine of the Fathers therein declared.  
WHerefore to begin, as you do, with Miracles, most certain it is, that no true Miracle can be wrought, but only by him, Qui facit mirabilia magna solus; and therefore whensoever any true Miracle is showed, or sufficiently testified unto us, in confirmation of any point of Doctrine; it is an evident proof of the truth thereof. For a Miracle in that case, is the Testimony of God, who speaketh by works, as men by words (saith S. Aug. Epist. 49. quaest. 6.) and is the subscription (as it were) of his hand and seal unto it. And certainly if Miracles were no sufficient proofs of true Doctrine, they would never have been called, Signs and Testimonies in holy Scripture. God would not have given Moses' power of working Miracles. Exod. 4. That the People of Israel might believe he had appeared unto him. Our Saviour would not have said, the jews had not sinned in not receiving him, if he had not done those works which no man else had done before him. joan. 15. And in vain should he have promised, that Signs should follow those that believed, and have cooperated and confirmed the Doctrine of the Apostles by them. Neither could he in justice have commanded the world upon pain of damnation, to believe a thing so incredible, as that Christ being Crucified, was risen again in his own flesh, and ascended into Heaven, if many other Miracles which the Apostles wrought in confirmation thereof, had not made it evidently credible, as S. Austen disputeth in his book de Civit. Dei lib. 22. cap. 7. and in the former Epist. 49. quaest. 6. albeit he well observed, that this kind of proof was ever loudly and extremely laughed at, by the wicked Pagans: yet most true it is, which there he also affirmeth, that we should not believe, Christ to be risen again from the Dead, if the Faith of Christians did fear in this point of Miracles, the laughter of Pagans.  
Wherefore to answer those places of the Fathers which you object, not only against so many of their own Testimonies alleged by your Adversary, but also against Scripture, and against Christian belief itself, grounded upon Miracles as hath been noted; you must further understand, that the world having been once persuaded by miraculous operations and works of wonder to believe the Doctrine of the Apostles with this firm promise, that it should always remain with them and their Successors, the visible Pastors of the Catholic Church, universally spread over all the world; it ought not to believe any other Doctrine, or any other Miracles pretended to be done in opposition to that Doctrine which by continual Tradition hath been received from them. For as there can be no after-word of God, contrary to that which was first preached; so there can be no latter Miracles contrary to the testimony of those, by which the world first believed; but rather as S. Paul saith, If an Angel from Heaven should preach otherwise then we have received, we should hold him accursed. This made Tertullian in the Book you cite de Praesc. cap. 44. to protest against all Miracles supposed to be done against the Tradition of the Church; whereof S. Augustine in his Book de unit. Eccles. objected by you, giveth the reason yet more plainly, showing that the Catholic amplitude or universality of the Church, by conversions of Nations in all Ages, doth more evidently prove it to be the true Church of Christ, than any other work which is done therein; for it is more manifest to sense and human reason, that the clear Prophecies of the true Church in holy Scripture are fulfiled and accomplished only in the Catholic Church, which accordingly in all Ages doth visibly spread itself over all the world, than it can possibly appear, that any work of admiration is truly a Miracle surpassing the force of Nature, or power of the Devil; whereof it followeth, that the true Church is more manifestly known by the accomplishment of those promises, then by the wondrous effects of any Miracles; and that Miracles do not so well, and clearly prove any Church to be Catholic, as the Church being visibly Catholic, doth manifest those Miracles to be true, which are approved by it.  
Whereof it followeth again, that all Miracles which are done against it, or against the unity thereof, are as firmly and constantly to be rejected. Which is it that he also teacheth, lib. 13. cont. Faust. cap. 5. and Tract. 13. in joan. and lib. 22. de Civitat. Dei, cap. 8. objected by you. And here by the way I beseech you to note, how much Saint Ansten esteemeth the former Argument of the conversions of Nations in all Ages, according to the promises thereof in holy Scripture, which he maketh such an evident mark, and such an infallible proof of the true Church, that he preferreth it before Miracles. And for the same cause, lib. 22. de Civit. Dei, cap. 8. he spareth not to say: That he who seeketh to be confirmed by Wonders now, is himself to be wondered at, in refusing to believe, that which all the world (or the visible Church through the world) believeth. Which yourself also having observed, you may wonder at yourself, both in refusing to believe, what you know the visible Catholic Church, for a thousand years, through the world, believed, and (wherein I also wonder myself) at your not observing, that S. Augustine doth wonder at you in that very place, wherein you suppose he agreed with you, as by and by I shall make it appear.  
Add in the mean time to that which hath been said, that the Miracles whereunto the holy Fathers, alleged by you, forbidden us to give credit, as unto Arguments not sufficient to prove the Truth of Religion, were either Miracles in appearance only, and such wherewith Heretics might easily be deceived, or so deceive, as S. Augustine speaketh in the former place upon joan: not such as might reasonably induce any prudent man to believe them. As Dreams, and Visions, and exauditions of Prayers, like unto those of the Donatists, against whom wrote Saint Augustine lib. de Vnit. Eccl. cap. 16. Or such as were Testimonies of the justice and mercy of God in general, and not of Doctrine in particular, as were those whereof S. Hierome speaketh: Or finally such as being wrought by wicked men, exceeded not the power of the Devil, as S. Augustine observeth, lib. 20. de Civit. Dei cap. 19 & Tract. 13. in joan. Or were not sufficiently testified, but rather said then proved, which Tertullian lib. de Praeser. derideth and saith, that the power of Heretics was nothing like, but rather contrary, to the power of the Apostles; for their virtue was not to raise the Dead, but rather to kill the living, literally fulfiled in Caluin, Bolsec. in vita Caluini, who pretending by his prayer to raise a counterfeit dead man, being then truly alive, was thought to be the cause, that he was instantly slain, either by God, or the Devil. In the same sense also Epiph. lib. 1. de haer. cap. 30. urgeth Ebion, to raise some dead man etc. assuring himself that he could not do any true Miracle, by means of his false Faith, yea though he called upon the name of Christ. Not so the Miracles alleged by your Adversary, which having been wrought and believed, and most authentically testified by so many most holy, most prudent, and learned Witnesses, in confirmation of that Doctrine which is professed against you, need no more to fear the laughter of Protestants, them the Miracles of former times, as S. Austen saith, had cause to fear the laughter of Pagans. And such as believe them not, may justly fear to be condemned as Pagans, for believing nothing. To deny therefore this Doctrine of Miracles, seemeth no less impious, then to deny Christianity itself: and to affirm that miracles have ceased since the time of the Apostles, were no less unreasonable, then to reject all humane Testimonies, and in particular the Authority of S. Augustine himself, in those very places objected by you.  
For in that very place of S. Aug. de Civit. Dei, lib. 22. cap. 8. which you allege against Miracles, That they were necessary before the world believed, to induce it to believe: And, That he that seeketh to be confirmed by wonders now, is himself to be wondered at, in refusing to believe that which all the world (or the visible Catholic Church through the world) believeth: which being well considered, maketh little for you. In that very place (I say) you could not choose but read these other words directly against you; That now also Miracles are wrought in his Name, either by his Sacraments, or by the prayers, and memories of his Saints; together with the relation of many Miracles done in his own time, and of those in particular wrought by the Relics of S. Stephen, which though not necessary after the World had once believed, as S. Austen there disputeth; yet God in his mercy hath ever showed them in all Ages, as well to confound the obstinate that would not believe the visible universal Church, as also to confirm those in their Faith, that already believed. In this place therefore you have plainly falsified the sense of the Author, either very fraudulently, or very ignorantly, choose you whether.   

Section VI Merits of Works defended, according to the Doctrine of the Fathers: and Sir Humphrey answered.  
IN the next place against the Merit of Works, you object many places of the Fathers, but none to the purpose. You know full well, that the Catholics distinguish between works that go before Faith, & works that follow. Works going before Faith, and proceeding only from the light of Nature, or from the knowledge of the law of Moses (called therefore by S. Paul Rom. 3. The works of the Law) your Adversaries do all hold, neither to save, nor to be needful to saluatio; according whereunto S. Paul also saith; That a Man is justified by Faith, without the works of the Law. But that works following a lively Faith, form with Charity, and proceeding from it, do justify, and are needful to salvation, your Adversary proveth not only by express Scripture, james cap. 2. Ye see then how that of works a man is justified, and not of Faith only: But also by the like Testimonies of all the holy Fathers, noting and condemning the contrary opinion of the Protestants as heretical, in Simon Magus, in the Gnostickes, and in Eunomius, as hath been showed. And further he allegeth S. Aug. de fide & oper. cap. 14. testifying of the Apostles themselves, that because this opinion of Faith only, sprung up in those days, by perverting the words of S. Paul's Epistle before related, the Epistles of S. Peter, S. john, S. james, and S. jude, were principally written, ut vehementer astruant, vehemently to urge, and contest that Faith without works doth profit nothing. Against all which manifest proofs, you bring only some Authorityes of the Fathers, showing that our own works and righteousness (as Basil. hom. de Humil.) or works of the Law, going before Faith (as S. Chrysos. with S. Paul. Hom. 7. in 3. ad Rom.) and before Sin pardoned (as S. Ambrose) and forgiven (as Theodoret comment. 2. S. Bernard in Cant. Ser. 22.) do not justify, but only Faith without them; which is nothing to the purpose because therein your Adversary agreeth with you. But you bring not a word to prove that works following Faith do not justify, nor are needful to Salvation; which opinion of yours, your Adversary hath showed to have been often times condemned by the Apostles themselves, & by the Ancient Fathers in other Heretics that have gone before you.   

Section VII.  defended: and Sir Humphrey answered.  
IN the Controversy of , you seem first to suppose your Adversaries believe, that Man hath  to perform supernatural acts and works of Piety without Grace, and then you proceed to dispute against them. How can you imagine, they are so absurd as to think by the power of Nature alone to do that which they themselves confess to be above the power of Nature, wherein there appeareth not only a great deal of passion in you, (which hangs like to a Cloud between the Eye of your mind, and the light of truth) but also (as it seemeth) great want of conscience.  
For you know they hold, that without grace, it is impossible either to believe, or to do any other act which may avail, or so much as dispose to Salvation. This also you know to be the Doctrine of Bellarmine every where in that whole Book, out of which you seem to cite his words in a contrary sense: and the words that immediately follow in the very place you cite, do plainly show, that against your Conscience you falsify his meaning. His words are these: A Man before all grace hath , not only to natural and moral works, but also to works of piety and supernatural, as you faithfully cite them: but than it followeth, Thus S. Augustine teacheth, l. de Spiritu & litera, cap. 33. where he saith; That  is a natural and middle power, which may be inclined to faith, and infidelity. Thus Bellarmine; whereby it is manifest his meaning to be, that by Grace,  is not made, or given unto us, but that we have the power thereof by Nature, which afterward by Grace is inclined and strengthened to do those things which by the force of Nature, without Grace, we are not able so much, as to will, or to think, much less to perform or perfect; according whereunto, in the same place, he citeth also S. August. de Praedest. Sanctorum, cap. 5. teaching, that the Posse, or power to have Faith and Charity, is in man by Nature. And in the same Book, cap. 11. he allegeth S. Augustine again Epist. 49. quaest. 2. to the same purpose, saying:  is not taken away, because it is helped (by Grace;) but because it is helped, therefore it is not taken away. If it be given by Nature, and not taken away by Grace, most certain it is, that still we have it. In this sense therefore, your Adversaries not only affirming, that we have Freewill by Nature, but also teaching that it is so excited and strengthened by Grace, as we cannot so much as think, much less accomplish or perform any supernatural act without it; they would easily grant with S. Basil, con. de Hum. that we own all, even that we live, to the Grace and gift of God; but that you falsely translate it. They grant with S. Bernard de Gratia & lib. Arbit. That to will Good, is a gift of Grace. And with S. Augustine. That it is God, who maketh that we work, by adding to our will most efficacious strength. That unless he make us willing, and then work with us, we shall never bring to pass any good work. And again with S. Augustine de correp. & great. cap. 1. That though we have  to do good, yet none can be free in will and act to do it, that is to say, perfectly, or in actu secundo, as the Scholmen speak, unless he be freed by the grace of God. And again: That all is to be given to God, not the first part unto ourselves, & the rest unto God, as the Pelagians did, against whom S. Augustine disputeth, but all unto God, and unto our selves nothing that is not of God. And again, That without God we cannot prepare our own hearts. And again, That God's grace doth not form, but reform our Nature, by giving it the grace wherewith it was first form. And finally, Ench. ad Laurent. cap. 32. That of his mercy he prepareth our will to be helped, and helpeth it being prepared. Whereby (condemning your Adversaries as you do, and yet either not knowing what they hold, or maliciously mistaking their meaning) you may see at the last, that with a great deal of labour, for want of a little learning, if not for want of Charity, you have rather confirmed, then censured their Doctrine.  
But now that we have no  to any act at all, in such manner, as it lieth not in our power to do it, or not to do it; and that all things are done necessarily, though willingly, because all things are done by the inevitable decree of God, being the point you should have proved; none of the Fathers you allege, either thought or said, but have condemned it for Heresy and Error in Simon Magus, and in the Manichees: yea, and because it followeth from hence, that God is the Author of sin, even for more than Heresy, in Florinus, ut refert Euseb. l. 5. cap. 20. Hear again I must friendly admonish you, that negligently or ignorantly being deceived by others, you have falsely quoted S. Augustine de great. & lib. Arbit. c. 16. Except God first make us willing etc. And again, de Nat. & Grat. cap. 35. Why do we presume so much etc. which words with the rest that follow, are not to be found in those place: neither if they were, would they make any thing for you, as yourself will judge by that which hath been said. And again you allege S. Augustine lib. 13. de bono persever. cap. 6. there being but one single Book of that Argument, and in that Chapter, those words are not found which you have there alleged. You cite him also, count. duas Epist. Pelag. lib. 2. which second Book having 10. Chapters, you quote no Chapter. Will your Reader impute so many imperfect and false quotations only to the error of your pen, and not rather to your ignorance, or want of due perusal?  
But how will you defend yourself, in alleging these other words out of S. Austen: It is certain that we work, when we do so, but it is he that giveth us this working power, by adding unto our will, most effectual strength; as if he had said, I will make you work. Whereby you will make your Reader believe, that according unto S. Austen we have no power of  by Nature, but that God giveth it, by adding his Grace; which is not so: for S. Austen doth not say, It is he that giveth us this working power, by adding strength to our will as you allege, but that, He maketh us to work, by adding strength to our will (or which is all one) to the power of our will; which therefore proveth, that we have power of will by Nature, though not sufficiently able to do any supernatural act, before he add the strength of his Grace unto it. Again you find not in S. Augustine these other words of yours: as if he said, I will make you work; but they are by you fraudulently foisted in, to cut off, & conceal the words that follow. For whereas Pelagius, to prove that we are able by Nature without Grace to keep the Commandments objected out of Ecclesiasticus: Si volueris, seruabis mandata, if thou wilt, thou shalt keep the Commandments: S. Augustine answereth, he knew as well as Pelagius, that they that will, shall be able to keep them, yet not by Nature as he would have it, but by Grace, holding it for certain, that we are able to keep them, but so as that God is he who worketh in us both to will and to perform them. The words of S. Augustine are these that follow: It is certain, that we will when we work, but it is he that maketh us to will, of whom it is said; It is God that worketh in us ●o will; It is certain that we work when we work, but he maketh that we may be able to work, giving most efficacious strength unto our will, who said; I will make them walk in my justifications, and to keep my judgements, and to do them. Which last words you partly changed, and partly omitted, to conceal the Doctrine of S. Augustine, and his proofs out of Scripture, showing that by Grace we are able to keep the Commandments, which the Protestants have ever held impossible. Lastly as if you meant not to be discovered, you cite the former words out of his Book. De bono persever. lib. 13. cap. 6. which are only to be found in De Grat. & lib. Arbit. cap. 16. Let this be ignorance in you, which in another were plain forgery.   

Section VIII. S. Cyprian falsely alleged by Sir Humphrey, against the Real Presence.  
FInally concerning the B. Sacraments, you only tax one Authority cited by your Adversary out of S. Cyprian in his Sermon Of the supper of our Lord, and allege another against it out of the same Author, in his Sermon Of the Unction of Chrism, which Chrism (as it is there recorded) was usually made at that time upon holy Thursday of Oil and Balsamum (as now also it is accustomed) for the use of the Church in Baptism, and other Sacraments: So hard it is for one of you to allege any thing out of the Fathers, which one way or other doth not make against you. The words alleged by your Adversary are these: The Bread which our Lord gave to his Disciples, being changed not in shape, but in Nature, by the omnipotency of the Word, is made flesh. A place so plain for Transubstantiation, or change of substance in the Sacrament, that when I read it, it makes me blush at the boldness of those Divines who dare to avouch that Transubstantiation was never known before the Council of Lateran. Now in this sentence, (forgetting the beam in your own eye) you seek a mote in the eye of your Brother, accusing him, because to be understood, he translated the word which signifieth Nature, to signify Substance, or Nature. If you were as good a Philosopher, as you pretend to be a great Divine, you could not be ignorant that these three words, Nature, Substance, and Essence, are all equivalente, signifying the same thing in diverse considerations; that which is called Nature in order to motion, is called Substance in relation to the Accidents, and Essence in reference to the definition of it. And I pray you Sir, there being nothing in Bread but shape and substance, he who saith, That Bread being changed, not in shape, but in Nature, by the omnipotency of the Word, is made Flesh, what doth he affirm, but that it is changed in substance?  
Secondly, you accuse him for alleging those words out of Cyprian, which Bellarmine himself lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 9 holdeth to be none of Cyprians; Wherein you must give me leave to tell you, that yourself much more deserve to be accused. For first, albeit Bellarmine doth say, he thinketh that Sermon de Coena Domini, not to be S. Cyprians, yet he addeth immediately in the same place, that it is, The Sermon of some ancient, most holy, and most learned Man, as the Adversaries (meaning Protestant's) do confess; which words (that you might with more show elevate, and avoid the former Authority) were fraudulently concealed by you. It is the work of some learned Man of that Age, saith Erasmus in his annotations upon the works of S. Cyprian, In time not much inferior to Cyprian, saith Fulke, in 1. Corinth. cap. 11. Wherefore do we reverence the Authority of S. Cyprian, but because he was an Ancient, holy, and learned Father? If therefore the Author of this Sermon, was a most holy and learned Man, as Bellarmine saith the Protestants themselves confess, and of the same Age with S. Cyprian, or in time not much inferior unto him, as I have showed that the Protestants themselves do likewise witness, why should any Protestant reject him?  
Besides, though Bellarmine thinketh this Sermon to be none of Cyprians, yet many other Divines of great name Cypriano tribuunt, do judge it to be the work of S. Cyprian, as well for the likeness of the stolen, as for the dignity of the matter, saith Gaulortius a learned Protestant in his annotations thereupon. Why then may not your Adversary follow herein, the judgement of many other great Divines? In fine, your Adversary may allege for himself in this matter, the testimony of S. Augustine count Donat. lib. 4. cap 22. his words are these: From that Thief to whom, not being baptised, it was said, This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise; the same S. Cyprian took no sleight document, that passion (or death, or Martyrdom) doth sometime supply the place of Baptism. According whereunto both in sense and words in the same Sermon de Coena Domini, it is said (and therefore according to S. Augustine, by S. Cyprian) That our Lord etc. deferred not his benefit, but with the same speedy Indulgence he gave presently aswell a document, as also an example thereof, saying unto the Thief; This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise. He had his condemnation and punishment for robery, but his contrition of hart changed his pain into Martyrdom, and his blood into Baptism. Why now may not your Adversary cite that Sermon as Saint Cyprians, which Saint Augustine himself so long a go alleged under the name of Cyprian?  
First, therefore herein you deserve both blame and shame, insimulating your Adversary of fraud for misalleaging S. Cyprian by the testimony of Bellarmine, and fraudulently concealing those words of Bellarmine in the same place; which even the testimonies of Protestants themselves do show the words alleged by your Adversary out of Cyprian, to be of no less Authority, than the words of Cyprian.  
Secondly, you deserve the more blame herein, because you allege against it another place out of S. Cyprian, which according to the opinion of Bellarmine in the same place, in the same Chapter, is none of Cyprians. And plain it is, that the Sermon of the Supper of our Lord, alleged by your Adversary, and the other of Chrism alleged by yourself, are both the Sermons of the same Author; for the whole Book containing 12. Sermons, is entitled, Of the Cardinal works of Christ, and dedicated to Pope Cornelius the Martyr, who lived in the time of Cyprian: And therefore he that denyeth the one, hath no reason to affirm the other to be the work of Cyprian. How then out of the same mouth could you breathe both hot and cold? And how out of the same Bellarmine could you prove the Sermon alleged by your Adversary to be none of Cyprians, and affirm against Bellarmine the other alleged by yourself, to be the work of Cyprian?  
Thirdly, the like foul fraud committed by you appeareth yet more grossly in the words which you cite out of the same Author, who when you take him to be with you, is Cyprian, but not Cyprian when he speaketh against you. The words of the Author are these: Our Lord therefore at that Table wherein he made his last Feast to his Apostles, with his own hands, gave Bread and Wine: but at the Cross he gave his Body to be wounded by the hands of his Enemy; that sincere verity, and true sincerity (being more secretly imprinted in the Apostles) might expound to Nations, how the Wine and the Bread was Flesh and Blood: and after what manner t● causes agreed with their effects: That diverse shapes might: brought to one Essence, and the things signifying, and the things signified, might be called (and known) by the same names. Thus S. Cyprian. But not thus Sir Humphrey, for having alleged the words which seemed to make for him, he gave Bread and Wine to his Apostles, but his Body to his Enemies, he chopped off with an etc. the words following, That sincere verity, and true sincerity, (being more secretly imprinted in the Apostles) might expound to Nations, how the Wine and Bread was flesh and Blood: which as every man may see, are expressly against him, and serve to expound the meaning of the Author in the rest of that Sentence; which though otherwise being a little obscure, yet being a little considered, may be thus explained. Our Lord said to his Apostles, This is my body, which shall be given for you, when at the table he gave to them visibly Bread and Wine, but at the Cross he visibly gave his own Body; that his Apostles thereby might visibly see, he had given them invisibly his own Body; because he gave them the same Body into their own hands, which was given for them, into the hands of their Enemies. 1. That the sincere verity, and true sincerity hereof, being thus secretly imprinted in the hearts of the Apostles, they might confidently expound to all Nations, how the Bread and Wine of that table, was truly and sincerely Flesh and Blood. 2. How the causes agreed with their effects, & the words of our Saviour, which were the causes going before, agreed with their effects, both at the Table, and at the Cross, that followed after. 3. How under diverse ●hapes of Bread and Wine at the Table, was contained but one & the same Essence, because the same shapes remaining, the Natures of Bread and Wine, by the omnipotency of the Word, were changed, o● reduced into the Nature of his Body; as before you have heard ●ut of his former sermon. 4. How the things signifying (which were the shapes of Bread and Wine remaining) and the things signified (which were the Body and Blood of our Saviour) came both to 〈◊〉 called by the same names, because the one did signify, exhibit, and cocaine the other. By all which it appeareth (the Author having his right brought back again, and his own breath being restored again unto him, which you had thought to steal and smother) that he plainly confesseth the Bread and Wine to be Flesh and Blood, and that the Nature of the one being changed into the Nature of the other, they are both reduced into one Essence; which is the same Doctrine, that your Adversary professeth, and maintaineth against you.  
Your Adversaries affirm, the Bread to be made a Sacrament and the Body of Christ, by the words of Consecration, for the which cause they not only adore it before they receive it, but also they have ever held, that it might be lawfully given to Infants, and that which remains thereof they are wont to reserve to be given afterward to the sick, or to others that come to receive, as occasion requireth. You Protestant's affirm on the other side, that it becometh a Sacrament, and a Seal of the Body of Christ unto you, without any change in the thing, by the lively Faith of the Receivers; and consequently you give it not to Infants, because they cannot receive it with that Faith which makes it a Sacrament: and that also which remaineth thereof, after the whole Action, you take to be no better then common Bread, and so you use it. As custom is the best interpreter of the law, so the practice of the Church is the best interpreter of her own Doctrine. Wherefore to know what S. Cyprian with the Church of God in the second Age after Christ believed at that time, concerning this point of the B. Sacrament, there can be no surer way, then to examine what is practised in communicating the same to Infants, and in reserving of it, to be taken as need required. Which S. Cyprian in his sermon De Lapsis, his own undoubted work, hath not obscurely recorded: for he relateth (Teste meipso) & sacrificantibus nobis; myself being witness, and we ourselves offering sacrifice, that an Infant having been fed with a sopp of wine before an Idol, and being afterward brought to Church, was much tormented during the time of the Sacrifice, and when it's turn came to receive, it resisted so vehemently, that the Deacon was fain perforce to open its mouth, and to power in somewhat of the Sacrament that was in the Chalice; but (saith S. Cyprian) The drink sanctified into the Blood of Christ, broke out of her polluted bowels etc. In which Sermon he likewise testifieth: That a certain Woman when she would with unworthy hands have opened her coffer, wherein was reserved the Holy Thing of our Lord, there sprung up fire from thence, wherewith she was so terrified, that she durst not touch it. And, That another defiled Person presuming to receive with others, could not eat, nor touch the Holy Thing of God, for in his opened hands (instead thereof) he found Ashes. By Document whereof (saith S. Cyprian) it is showed, that the Lord doth departed when he is denied. By which Documents of reserving the Eucharist, and giving it to Infants, they (who will not be obstinate) may also learn out of S. Cyprian, that the Eucharist after the words of Consecration, was believed to be really the Body of Christ, and not figuratively by Faith only, to him that doth worthily so receive it. Wherefore to conclude this Dispute, concerning the Testimony of S. Cyprian for Transubstantiation, and Real Presence, as it was false that your Doctors claimed him in the former Conference, so being plain against them in this point, besides many other of no less importance, it was fond done of you, to say they claimed him.   

Section IX. S. Augustine falsely alleged by Sir Humphrey, against the Real Presence.  
Finally against the Real Presence you object other places of the Fathers, affirming the Sacrament to be a figure of Christ's body, which your Adversaries deny not. For they define all Sacraments to be signs and figures, according whereunto they also hold, that as the Sacrament of the Eucharist is a figure, in respect of the Shape or external accidents thereof, so it is the Body of Christ, in respect of the thing contained in them.  
But now that the Eucharist is only a figure, or that it is not the Body of Christ, which you should have proved against them, or else you prove nothing, none of the places alleged by you do show; neither is it possible in all the Fathers to find so much as one place, that doth sufficiently prove it. While they in the mean time (besides many most express Scriptures, Matt. 26. Marc. 14. Luc. 22. joan. 6. 1. Cor. 11. confuting also your principal obeiction, that the Body of Christ cannot be in two places, Act. 9.5.22.8.23.11. 1. Cor. 15.8.) They, I say, on the other side produce so many superabundant Authorities from the Fathers & Counsels in all Ages, convincing the holy Eucharist to be the Body of Christ, that I must needs say, they have discovered more boldness (if not impudence) than learning or conscience, who either in books or in Pulpits have pretended to show, that the Fathers in this point are plainly against them. To make this appear, it may suffice at this time, briefly to set down the belief only of those Fathers in particular, which yourself in your papers have produced for you, Tertullian, S. Austen, S. Ambrose, S. Hierome and Gelasius, showing, how evidently they teach the contrary Doctrine aswell in their writing elsewhere, as in those very places which yourself have cited. First therefore let us begin with Saint Augustine; who in his Works making often mention of the Sacrament, giveth us these particulars of his Doctrine therein; That before the words of Consecration, that which was offered is called Bread; but after the words of Christ have been pronounced, now it is not called Bread, but it is called the Body, Serm. 28. de verb. Domini. That if Children had never seen the likeness of those things, but only when it is offered, and given in the Celebration of the Sacrament, and that it should be told unto them with most grave Authority whose Body and Blood it is, they would believe nothing else, but that our Lord had never appeared to the eyes of Men, save only in that likeness, lib. ●. de Trin. cap. 10. That Children were wont to receive it, apud Bedan. in 1. Cor. 10. Who have not the mouth of Faith to receive it. That it pleased the Holy Ghost, & was universally observed that our Lord's body enter into the mouth of a Christian before other meats, in the honour of so great a Sacrament, Epist. 118. cap. 6. which must needs be meant of the mouth of the Body. That we receive with our hart and mouth the Mediator of God and Man jesus Christ, Man giving us his Flesh to be eaten, and his Blood to be drunk, although it seem more horrible to eat Man's flesh, then to kill it, and to drink Man's blood then to spill it, lib. 2. cont. Aduersaer. legi● & Prophet. That we do not eat dead flesh dilaniated, and cut in pieces, as the Capharnaites understood it; for this indeed were horrible, and would profit nothing; but we eat the flesh of Christ, as it is living flesh, vegetated with his Spirit, which is Christ himself entirely as he is now in Heaven, Tract. 27. in joan. & 63 That no man eateth that Flesh, before he adore it, in Psalm. 93. That the rich men of this World coming to the Table of Christ do receive his Body and Blood, which though they adore, yet are not filled with it, because they do not imitate it, eating him that is poor, but contemning poverty, Epist. 120. ad Honoratum. That the Apostles did eat the Bread which was their Lord, Panem Dominum; though judas did eat but the Bread of our Lord, Panem Domini, Tract. 59 in joan. For our Saviour was not truly his Lord, because judas was not truly his servant; And if at the day of judgement he should say, Domine, Domine, our Lord would answer, I know thee not.  
Protestants may well say with judas, that they eat the Bread of our Lord, if our Lord did ordain it to be a figure of his Body, but they cannot say with the Apostles, that they eat the Bread which is their Lord, because they deny it to be their Lord's Body. That judas Iscariot received That (saith he) which the faithful know, the price of our Redemption, Epist. 162. ad Glor. That our Saviour did literally bear himself in his own hands when he gave it, Conc. 1. in Psalm. 33. That Bishops and Presbyters in the Church of Christ, are properly Priests, de Ciuit Dei, lib. 20. cap. 10. Which doth infer, that properly also there are Priests and Sacrifices, & that Christian Priests do properly offer Sacrifice upon Altars. Wherefore making often mention of MASS, Serm. 91. de Tempore, & Serm. 251. he saith likewise, that our Saviour changed the Sacrifice according to the order of Aaron, and did institute a Sacrifice of his own Body and Blood, according to the order of Melchisedech, in Psalm. 32. & in Psalm. 39 & lib. 17. the Ciuit, Dei, cap. 20. That he prayed God, to give him contrition & a fountain of tears, when he assisted at the holy Altar, to offer that marvelous & heavenly Sacrifice, which Christ the immaculate Priest did institute and command to be offered, in Manuali. That a Priest of his offered the Sacrifice of the Body of Christ in a house infested with wicked spirits, which was thereby freed, lib. 22. de Ciu. Dei, cap. 8. That he desired all Priests (whom he called his Brothers, and his Masters) who should read his Book of Confessions, to remember his Mother at the Altar, where the also desired to be remembered after her death, lib 9 Confess. cap. 13. That it is not to be doubted, the dead are helped thereby, because the universal Church receiving it from the Fathers, observed that it should be offered for those, who departed this life in the communion of Christ's Body, Serm. 32. de verbis Apostoli. He reckoneth it amongst the Heresies of Aerius, that he denied Oblations and Prayers for the Dead, Haer. 53. Can any Catholic at this day, or Bellarmine himself if he were now alive, more fully declare his own Doctrine in this point of the Real Presence, and of the Sacrifice of the Mass; then doth S. Augustine against you? though in other things you may retain some difficulties, yet in this me thinks you should freely acknowledge, that you are wholly convinced.  
Finally, upon Leviticus, quaest. 57 in the very place which yourself have cited, where there is nothing that may found for you, but only that the figure is sometimes said to be the thing figured, (which as I take, it is only in those cases, where it is known and presupposed to be a figure) he demandeth why the people should be so much forbidden from the Blood of the Sacrifice of the old Law, when as none were forbidden to take for their nourishment, the Blood of this one Sacrifice, which was signified by all the former; but all that desired life, were rather exhorted to drink it.  
Now therefore hereupon, might not your Adversaries deeply charge you, that you had egregiously abused S. Augustine, and plainly perverted his meaning?   

Section X. S. Ambrose falsely alleged by Sir Humphrey, against the Real Presence.  
LEt us now come to S. Ambrose, who converted S. Augustine, that we may see how the Master & the Scholar agree together; he maketh mention of the MASS, and that himself said MASS, Epist. ad Sororem Marcellinam. He repeateth a great part of the Canon of the MASS, which is now used: We offer unto thee this immaculate Host; this reasonable Host; this unbloody Host; this holy Bread, and Cup of life everlasting etc. And we pray thee to receive this Oblation as thou didst vouchsafe to receive the gifts of thy servant Abel the just, and the Sacrifice of our great Father Abraham, and that which the high Priest Melchisedech did offer unto thee, lib. 4. de Sacramentis, cap. 6. He saith: We daily adore the Flesh of Christ in the Mysteries (that is to say, in the MASS, or Sacrifice) lib. 3. the Spirit. Sanct. cap. 12. He maketh his prayer unto that Bread, to heal his infirmity, to come into his hart, to cleanse both his flesh and his spirit from all that defileth, in his prayer preparatory before Mass. And in his Book De Mysterijs init. cap. 9 he objecteth in this manner; Perchance thou wilt say, I see another thing, how dost thou affirm unto me, that I receive the Body of Christ? Whereunto he answereth: How many Examples have we to prove it, not to be that which Nature hath form, but that which Benediction hath consecrated: And that Benediction is of greater power than Nature, because by it, even Nature itself, is changed? And then declaring many Miracles wrought by Moses, Helias, and Helizaeus, he concludeth: If human benediction were able to change Nature, what shall we say of Divine Consecration? If the speech of Helias was able to bring Fire from the Heavens; Shall not the speech of Christ be able to change the forms of the Elements? If the word of Christ were able to make of nothing that which was not, can it not change the things that are, into that which they were not? For it is no less matter to give new Natures unto things, then to change their Natures. And a little after he saith: It is manifest that a Virgin brought forth against the ordinary course of Nature, and the Body which we (Priests DO MAKE) is of the Virgin: What dost thou require the order of Nature (to be observed) in the Body of Christ, who was borne of a Virgin against the order of Nature? Can the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, or change of Nature in the Sacrament, be more avouched, or better proved by any modern Papist? Who likewise lib. 6. de Sacram. cap. 1. thinketh it no blasphemy to say, as he doth, That as our Lord jesus Christ is the true Son of God, not as man by grace (or by Faith) but as the Son of the substance of his Father: so (as he himself hath said) it is true Flesh which we receive; That is to say, not by grace, or by Faith only, but in Truth, and in Substance.  
Finally in the place which you cite for yourself, lib. 4. cap. 5. de Sacram. (where there is nothing to be found in your favour) he hath these express words. Therefore before Consecration, it is Bread; but after the words of Christ come to it, it is the Body of Christ. And before the words of Christ, it is a Cup full of Wine and Water; when the words of Christ have wrought, than it is made the Blood which redeemed the People. To conclude, our Lord jesus testifieth unto us, that we receive his Body and Blood; Ought we to doubt of his Faith and Testimony? Hear if I had concealed the name of S. Ambrose, would not the Reader think, the man had lived in our time, that wrore so forcibly and vehemently against you?  
Finally, in the former Chapter of the same Book he saith again: The bread, is bread before the words of the Sacrament, but after the words of Consecration, of Bread is made the flesh of Christ. And again in the same little Chapter, as if by often repeating the same thing he meant to vex or confound every obstinate Protestant that should read it, he saith: Therefore, that I may answer thee; It was not the Body of Christ before Consecration, but after Consecration, I say unto thee, it is the Body of Christ. And again a little after, repeating the same again, as if he had now convinced his Readers, he concludeth: You have therefore learned; that our Bread is made the Body of Christ, and that Wine & Water is put into the Chalice, but is made Blood by the Consecration of the heavenly Word: But it may be thou wilt say, I see not the form of Blood. But it hath the likeness; for as thou hast received the likeness of death, so thou drinkest also the likeness of Blood, and not the visible form of Blood, that there might be no horror of Blood; and yet the price of our Redemption, which is the Blood of Christ, might work in us. Thou hast learned therefore, that thou receauest the Body of Christ. Which you also might have learned, if you had read him yourself, and not trusted others that read him for no other purpose, but only to wrest his words against his meaning.   

Section XI. S. Hierome falsely alleged, by Sir Humphrey, against the Real Presence.  
NOW come we to S. Hierome, who thinketh it no blasphemy to say Epist. 1. ad Heliod. That Priests with their sacred Mouths do make the Body of Christ. And, Epist. ad Euag. That his Body and Blood is made at their prayer. And, in cap. 25. Matth. writeth as followeth: After the typical Passover was ended etc. he taketh Bread and passeth over to the Sacrament of the true Passover, that as Melchisedech the Priest of the most high God had done, offering Bread and Wine to prefigure him; he also might represent the truth of his Body and Blood. That is to say, as Melchisedech offered Bread and Wine to prefigure him; so he also taking Bread and wine, offered the truth of his Body and Blood to fulfil the figure. According whereunto, in Ps. 190. speaking to our Saviour he saith: As Melchisedech offereth Bread and Wine; so thou also offerest thy Body and Blood, the true Bread and the true Wine. In that sense, true Bread, as in Epist. ad Hedibiam, quaest. 2. he saith, that Moses gave no true Bread; And as our Saviour said, joan. 6. That his Father gave them true Bread from heaven. Where also S. Hierome hath these words: Let us hear the Bread which our Lord broke, to be the Body of our Lord and Saviour. And he adeth a little after. He sat at the Banquet, and was himself the Banquet; he the eater, and be that was eaten.  
Finally, lib. cont. Vigil. cap. 3. he reprehendeth Vigilantius, for speaking against Relics in this manner; Therefore (according to thy speech) the Bishop of Rome doth ill, who upon the Bones of Peter and Paul (which we call venerable, but thou esteemest most vile dust) doth offer Sacrifices to God, and maketh their Tombs to be the Altars of Christ. According whereunto in Proverb 11. he also saith; That after this life, small sins may be taken away, by pain, by prayers, and alms of others, and by celebrations of MASS.  
Lastly in his Book against jovinian, which you cite at random without any number, I find nothing but this that may any way please you: In the type of his Blood he offered not Water, but Wine, lib. 2. cap. 4. This testimony I find alleged by your Doctors as S. Hieroms, for their mere figurative or typical Presence; wherein they discover either ignorance or desire to deceive their Readers. For whosoever shall take the pains to peruse the place, will find the aforesaid words not to be S Hieroms but jovinians, whose discourse against Abstinence from flesh and wine, S. Hierome there sets down in that Heretic his own words, whereof these are a part, In the Type of his Blood he offered not water but wine. And S. Hierome afterward coming to answer this obeiction against drinking of water, and Abstinence from Flesh saith, that Christ never used wine nor dainties, excepto mysterio quo Typum suae passionis expressit, & pro probanda corporis veritate. Where the Saint terms the holy Eucharist a Type, not of the Body and Blood of Christ, as the Heretic did; but of his Passion, which is represented in the Mystery of the Mass, which is the ordinary Catholic Doctrine and phrase.  
Notwithstanding, seeing this Heretic, erred not against the Catholic Doctrine of the Real Presence, his words have a true sense, and make against you Protestants. For you deny, that in his last Supper, he offered any thing at all, and say, that only upon the Cross, he offered himself once for all, not only sufficiently by his Blood and Passion, Heb. 2. but also effectually, against Mal. 2. without any other clean oblation, for the application of the merit of his Passion unto us. This place therefore maketh not for you, neither is it any way against them though it were S. Hieroms, for they grant he offered Wine in type or figure of his Blood, but he offered also his Blood, answering the figure in Truth and Substance. As he was Priest after the order of Melchisedech, in Bread and Wine, he offered Bread and Wine in figure: As the offering of Melchisedech was a figure of his offering, he offered also his Body and Blood, which was the Truth or Substance of that figure. Which to be the meaning of S. Hierome, may sufficiently appear by that which hath been said, and these other words of his Epist. ad Marcellam, do make it yet to appear more plainly saying: Melchisedech in the Type of Christ offered Bread and Wine, and dedicated the Mystery of Christians, in the Body and Blood of our Saviour.   

Section XII. Tertullian and Gelasius falsely alleged by Sir Humphrey, against the Real Presence. And S. Ignatius absurdly claimed by the Protestant Doctors.  
THere remaineth behind of the Authors you allege, Tertullian and Gelasius. Tertullian is clear for them, who in his Book De resurrectione caruis, to prove that our flesh shall rise again and be saved, useth these words that follow: The flesh is washed, that the Soul may be cleansed. The flesh is anointed, that the Souls may be consecrated. The flesh is fed with the Body and Blood of Christ, that the Soul may be fattened. Though the Soul may feed on Christ by the metaphorical mouth of Faith; yet the flesh hath no such mouth to feed upon him, and if it had, being only fed metaphorically therewith, nothing would follow thereof, but that it might rise and be saved only metaphorically; and so Tertullian should have proved that which he there impugned. In fine, as the flesh is here said to be truly washed and anointed, so also it must be understood to be truly fed, and not to be fed by faith only, or in figure.  
Which Argument to prove the Resurrection, Tertullian seemeth to have learned of Irenaeus lib. 4. cont. Haer. cap. 34. whom also he calleth Omnium Doctrinarum cariosisim●m Exploratorem. lib. count. Valent. prope initium. And therefore because the Doctrine of Irenaeus in that place doth serve very well to confirm both the doctrine of Tertullian, and the Real Presence here in question, I will give you his whole discourse. Quomodo constabit ijs etc. (saith he of the Heretics against whom he wrote) How can they assure themselves, the Bread wherein thankes are given, to be the body of their Lord, and (the Cup to be) the Cup of his blood; if they do not confess him, to be the Son of him that made the world? And how again do they say that, that flesh must go into corruption, and not receive life, which is nourished by the body and blood of our Lord? Therefore either let them change their opinion, or let them cease to offer the things aforesaid. But our Dictrine agreeth with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist again confirmeth our Doctrine; for we offer (therein) unto him those things that are his, (because being the Son of God, he maketh them by his omnipotency his own Body & his own Blood) and consequently we teach the communication and unity of (his) Flesh, and of (his) Spirit (with us; (our flesh being fed with his Body and Blood, and receiving thereby his Spirit to live for ever.) For as the bread which cometh from the Earth, receiving the vocation (or word) of God, is now no more common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two things, the one earthly (coming from the earth) and the other Heavenly, (the Body and Blood of the Son of God:) so also our bodies receiving the Eucharist (by the communication and unity of his flesh with ours) are no more corruptible, having now the hope of Resurrection. So that according to these ancient Fathers; as we believe our Saviour to be the Son of God: so must we believe the Eucharist to be his Body and Blood. And as we believe the Resurrection of the Flesh: so must we believe that our flesh is fed with the flesh of Christ. And either you must change your opinion, or else, as now you have ceased to offer these things, and to feed your flesh with the body and blood of Christ; so you are also in danger to change your belief as well of the Divinity of Christ, as also of the Resurrection of your own bodies.  
But it may be, the place which yourself have cited, lib. 4. cont. Marcionem, out of the same Author, is no less with you than was the former against you: his words are these: Professing therefore that with a desire he desired to eat the Pasche as his own (for it was not seemly that God should desire to eat the Pasche of another) having taken the Bread, etc. he made it his own body, saying: This is my body; that is, the figure of my body. But the figure had not been, unless there were a true body. Whereof citing imperfectly, but half the Sentence: This is my body, This is the figure of my body, and changing that, into this, to make it sound more fully for you, you guilefully omit the other half; The bread which he took he made his body, saying, This is my body: which are evidently against you. The words also which you cite, wherein the Author seemeth to say, This is my body; that is to say, this is the figure of my body, and no more, your Adversaries do clearly show to have another meaning.  
First, because otherwise, he should not only teach that which is directly contrary to his former Doctrine in the place before alleged, but also should contradict himself in this very sentence: for according to our exposition he should not have said, that Christ took bread & made it his body, which is false, if it be only a figure of his body; but that he took bread, and made it the figure of his body, saying: This is my body, that is to say, the figure of my body, and consequently in the words that follow, he should have said, But it were not a figure unless there were a true body; and not as he doth, but there had not been a figure, if there were not a true body. For if the figure and the body were both at the same time, why should he say of the one, that it had been, and of the other, that it was?  
Secondly, your Adversaries therefore do say, the meaning of those words, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body, to be; This is my body, that is, the figure of my body in the law, now by me fulfiled; Or, This is my body, that is to say, this is the bread which was a figure in the Law signifying my body, and is now fulfiled by me; having relation to the words of the Prophet jeremy which a little after he citeth and expoundeth, and showeth to have been then fulfiled by our Saviour. As in the like sense S. john Baptist, for example, when he saw our Saviour might have said, This is the Messiah, that is to say, The Lamb of God which was the figure of the Messiah in the Law, to signify, that the Prophecy of the Lamb of God in Isa. 16. was then fulfiled in our Saviour.  
Therefore that Tertullian meant to say, This is my Body, that is to say, the figure of my Body, now fulfiled etc. your Adversaries do plainly prove. First, because it is evident that Tertullian in this place intended to show how our Saviour in his Pasche, fulfiled the law, against Martion, who being an Enemy of the Old Testament, contended that our Saviour came to dissolve it; and Tertullian argueth against him in this manner. The Bread of Christ in the law did signify the Body of Christ, which he proveth out of jeremy 11. saying: Come, let us put Wood on his Bread: that is (saith Tertullian) the Cross upon his Body. But our Saviour gave his Apostles, that Bread which he made his Body, saying, This is my Body, therefore he fulfiled the law, in giving that Body which the law figured in Bread, and was therefore called Bread in jeremy.  
In the same manner again he proveth, that giving his Blood in the form of Wine, he fulfiled the law, because he gave that which the law figured in Wine, and therefore Gen. 49. was called Wine, where it was prophesied of our Saviour; That he should wash his stole in Wine, that is, (saith Tertullian) his Flesh in blood; So saith Tertullian, he, qui tunc vinum in sanguine figuravit, who then made Wine a figure of his Blood, now consecrated his Blood in Wine.  
Secondly, your Adversaries prove the same, because Tertullian urgeth these former words, to prove also against Martion, that our Saviour had a true Body, and not the shadow or phantasm only of a Body as he contended. Which supposing that his Body was (as Tertullian speaketh) the figure of his Body then fulfiled; he proveth, because unto the figure of a Body to be Crucified, there must answer a true Body: for of a Phantasm (saith he) there can be no figure.  
Secondly he proveth the same, Because in the mention of the Cup, instituting his Testament signed with his Blood, he confirmed the substance of his Body. That is to say: he confirmed his Body to be no shadow, but a substance; for, saith he, the proof of Blood, is a proof of Flesh; and the proof of Flesh, is a proof of a true body. Wherefore having given Blood in his Testament, he gave also a true Body.  
These Arguments therefore have place, if according to the sense which your Adversaries make of the words of Tertullian, Our Saviour fulfiled the law, by giving that which was figured in the law. But if according to your exposition he gave only a figure of his Body and Blood; he gave not that which was figured in the law, as Tertullian himself expoundeth the law; for that which was figured in the law (saith Tertullian) was that Body which was to be crucified, & by consequence he fulfiled not the law: which notwithstanding was the Heresy of Martion, there condemned by Tertullian. And again, if our Saviour had given that which was only a figure of his Body, Tertullian could not have proved thereby, that our Saviour had a true Body answerable to the figure thereof, in the Prophet jeremy. For if there might have been a figure of a figure, there might have been also a figure of a Phantasm. And if in the mention of the Cup, he had not signed his Testament with true, but only with figurative Blood, his Testament had not been true, but only figurative; neither had he thereby confirmed, that his Body was a true Substance. For figurative Blood, could have proved but figurative flesh, and figurative flesh could have proved but a figurative Body.  
Add unto this, that if in your sense Tertullian hath said, This is my Body, that is, the figure of my Body: Martion might as well have said in like manner: This is my Body, that is to say, the shadow, or Phantasm of my Body. And so in effect, Tertullian had agreed with Martion, whose Heresy he there condemned; and had impugned the Truth of the Eucharist, which he there mentioned; for as Ignatius long before observed the Simonian and the Saturnian Heretics, did not admit Eucharists and Oblations, because they did not confess the Eucharist to be that flesh of our Saviour which suffered for our sins, Epist. ad Smyr. ut citatur à Theodoreto Dial. 3. Wherefore if Tertullian had not confessed the Eucharist to be the flesh of Christ, he must also have denied the Eucharist and the oblation thereof; and for the same reason the Protestants denying it to be the flesh of Christ, and consequently denying the oblation thereof, it is evident that they admit not the Eucharist of Ignatius, no more, than the Simonian and Saturnian Heretics have done before them; but instead of the Eucharist which was in his days, they have supposititiously brought in another of their own invention.  
This is that S. Ignatius Martyr, the disciple of S. john, thought to be that Boy, who was found to have the five Barley loaves and two fishes which our Saviour multiplied, that thereby the hearts of men might be the better disposed to believe the local multiplication of his own body in the dreadful Mystery. Even from thence he took a great devotion thereunto, and was even then ordained to be a witness of the admirable Doctrine thereof. I delight not, saith he, Epist. ad Rom. post med. in the nutriment of corruption, I desire the Bread of God, the Heavenly Bread, which is the Flesh of Christ the Son of God, and the drink which is his Blood, And as he had been fed with the bread, which was Christ's flesh while he lived, so when he came to dye, he desired that his flesh might be growned as in a Mill with the teeth of Lions, that he might be made clean bread for the mouth of our Saviour. Where also he saith: It is not lawful without a Bishop (that is to say, without orders received from a Bishop) to baptise, nor to immolate Sacrifice. And what Protestant Minister will take upon him, to immolate Sacrifice? Or what Protestant Bishop, either can or will give him power to do it? For which cause the Centurists, Cent. 2. cap. 4. affirm those words of his, to be incommodious, Col. 55. dangerous, and as it were the seeds of errors, Col. 167. Yet this is that Ignatius of the first Age, whom your Doctors with unspeakable boldness claimed to be theirs, as you know in the former Conference; and in their Book would make fools believe, that the Catholics when they heard him named, much rejoiced, taking him to be Ignatius Loyola, the founder of the Society of JESUS. But the truth is, your Doctors might aswell have claimed the latter as the former. For in his Religion be tried by Works, or Epistles that are extant, than your Authors disclaim from the former no less than from the later. Your M. Wotton being urged with the saying of Ignatius in the behalf of Merit, taken out of his Epistle to the Romans, undoubtedly his, as both S. Hierome and Eusebius acknowledge, yea S. Irenaeus (lib. 3. adverse. haeres. prope finem) doth allege a sentence of this Epistle yet to be found therein: being I say, pressed with this testimony, your Doctor in his defence of Perkins pag. 339. answereth in these words: I say plainly, this man's testimony is nothing worth, because he was of little judgement in Divinity. What more could he have said in contempt of the testimony of S. Ignatius of Loyola? But your Grand Master Caluin yet speaketh more plainly in his Institutions l. 1. c. 14. §. 44. Ignatium quòd obtendunt, nihil naenijs illis quae sub Ignatij nomine edita sunt, putidius. Whereas they produce the testimony of Ignatius, I say nothing is more rotten or corrupted (with Papistry) than those trifling Epistles that go under his name. If nothing be more rotten, that is, more Papistical, and contrary unto Protestants then the Doctrine of the writings we have of S. Ignatius the Apostles Disciple, then is he as much for us as S. Ignatius of Loyolae. And the same M. Caluin in his Book de participatione Christi in Coena, whereas Westphalus the Lutheran allegeth the testimony of Ignatius cited by Theodoret in his 3. Dialogue, out of his Epistle ad Smir●enses, where he chargeth the Menandrian Heretics with his Caluinian heretical Doctrine, Non confitentur Eucharistiam esse carnem Saluatoris nostri jesu Christi, they do not believe the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour jesus Christ; Caluin, I say, not without disdain frameth this answer: What ingenuity is this to cite the Epistle of Ignatius which even an ordinary (Friar or) Monk would hardly acknowledge as his own? They know that have read those toys that they contain nothing but tales of Lent, of Chrism, of Tapers, of Fasting, and festival days, which through superstition and ignorance crept into the Church after Ignatius his days. Thus Caluin speaks of the Epistle cited by Theodoret, by Eusebius, by S. Hierome, for the Epistle of Ignatius. So that as I said, if the Religion of S. Ignatius the Disciple of S. john, be tried by his writings, which all antiquity acknowledge as his, he is found, even by the confession of Protestants, as very a Papist as was S. Ignatius of Loyola, to wit, more than any ordinary Friar or Monk. What desperation then was it of Doctor Featly, & to what a Nonplus was he brought, when he was forced to give unto Ignatius and his writings the first place after the Apostles in the Catalogue of Caluinian Professors? For this Author can no more be coupled together with Caluin in the same Religion and Church, than light can agree with darkness, Christ with Beliall. Which (besides what hath been said) may appear in the Preface of his Epistle to the Romans, by the great Encomium he maketh of that Church, Quae praesidet in Regione Romanorum; which presidence must needs be understood of the Church of Rome above other Churches.  
Thirdly, to draw to an end of this point, Tertullian seemeth to prove, that our Saviour gave his true body, because he professed, That with a desire he desired to eat the Pasche as his own; for that it had been unseemly, that God should have longed after the flesh of the jewish Lamb (or quid alienum) or after any thing else that was another's. But if he had desired to eat bread with his Apostles, he had not desired to eat his own, but that of another; and it had been no less unseemly, that God should have longed to eat the bread of another with his Apostles, then to eat flesh of another with the jews.  
Lastly, if this sentence of Tertullian be obscure, it must be expounded by the other place before alleged, where he saith, without any ambiguity, that our flesh is fed with the body and blood of Christ. For it were against all reason that the plain words thereof should be expounded by this other place, which seemeth to contain two contrary senses, and therefore is often alleged by us against our Adversaries, and by our Adversaries against us.  
As concerning Gelasius count. Eutichem, the last Author that you allege; I will be content that Chemnitius a learned Lutheran, and as great an Enemy of Transubstantiation as yourself, be judge between us, whether that place doth favour it, or doth sound any way for it: his words are these Examen. part. 2. pag. 88 Gelasius saith, that the Wine and the Bread of the Eucharist, by the work of the holy Ghost, do pass (or convert) into the divine Substance of the Body and Blood of Christ; and verily these words do seem to sound very strongly for the establishing of Transubstantiation. For that which passeth into another substance, and that by the working of the holy Ghost, certainly doth seem, not to remain in his former Substance. If you had seen this place, or if passion had not blinded you, had it been possible you should have cited Gelasius against Transubstantiation, which by the judgement of such a professed Enemy thereof, doth make so strongly for it?   

Section XIII. The Conclusion of this Treatise.  
THus much concerning the Authories of the Fathers alleged by you, partly false cited, which may be pardoned; partly falsified, which seemeth to touch your Honour; and all of them either wholly perverted, or far from the matter; which coming from a Knight showeth an excusable ignorance in this kind of learning: But against the substance of the book you received, as I have showed in the 4. first Sections of this Treatise, you have answered nothing. Now therefore, good Sir, if according to your Degree, you will do your own self Knights service, indeed set to your shoulders, and underprop your Church, as Atlas was feigned to support the heavens; for as you have heard and seen in the former Sections, it is so mainly battered with four such pieces of great Ordinance, that unless it be mightly sustained, the sound of them alone is sufficient to shake it down and overthrow it. 1. Their visible Succession in all Ages. 2. Their Conversions of Nations in all Ages. 3. Miracles in confirmation of their Doctrine in all Ages. 4. Censures of Fathers and Counsels, for the condemnation of yours, in all Ages.  
For 1. your Doctors did but beg the Question, when they made claim to Christ and his Apostles, and began at the wrong end, making that their Argument, which should have been their conclusion, & was to be proved, by nominating Protestants to succeed them in all Ages, and especially in the Ages before Luther, according to the words of the Question, which they undertook, to answer. What foul shame, and extreme confusion is it to your Cause, when being urged to name or bring forth but one Protestant in 500 or 1000 years, before Luther, you are either constrained to answer it is not necessary, or else supposing the ignorance of those that hear you, you are enforced to clothe your nakedness, with the rags of Wyckliffe & Waldo, and other such accursed Heretics; all of them holding some points with your Adversaries against you, and being for other gross heresies no less detested by them, then condemned by you. Rather let the bowels of Oxford Library be ripped up, and ransacked from end to end. Or else never leave digging, until you have wrought yourselves into those caves where Protestants lived for so many hundred years, to find some Volumes, some Commentaries, or some Records of the Acts and Jests of your Ancestors. If nothing can be found in Europe, recommend the matter to the East Indian Company, or to the Western Voyagers, to seek and search among furthest Nations, for Protestants, lineally descended from Christ & his Apostles; which being discovered, were better found then Ours of gold. For unless by some such means, the Professors of your Ghospels may be brought to light, your Church cannot long continue above ground, but the former Question alone, will suffice to conjure it down again into her ancient darkness.  
2. What can be more unworthy, than when Priests, jesuites, & other Religious men execute the commandment & commission of our Saviour in carrying his Gospel to the ends of the Earth, as their Ancestors have done in all Ages before them, thereby proving themselves their true Successors, whom our B. Saviour, according to his promise, Matt. 28. hath ever assisted, and will always accompany, Teaching and baptising all Nations, Omnibus diebus, usque ad consummationem saeculi, all days, or every day unto the end of the world: that your wived Ministers in the mean time, fattened with their benefices, should only execute their own malice in railing upon those laborious men, and depraving their Christian endeavours, thereby showing themselves to be that perverse and bastard generation, which instead of converting Infidels doth labour only to subvert believers; instead of planting the faith of Christ, only endeavour to extirpate that Faith, which they found to be already planted; & instead of sowing the first corn, only scatter cockle and darnel upon that corn which was first sowed by others. Rather set forth whole fleets of Ministers, with their numerous families both for the East, and for the West, to bring those miserable Nations unto the liberty and light of the Gospel, that have laid so long captive under the foul bondage and execrable Tyranny of the Prince of darkness. Then it would be quickly tried whether in those parts the devils would submit themselves, and fly before them: or, Whether like the stronger party Luc. 11.18. as hitherto in Virginia they have showed themselues, they would be able to keep in peace the souls and vessels which they have there so long possessed; until there come others stronger than your Ministers that may be able to bind them.  
3. What can be more impious, then whereas your Adversaries, like true Christians confirm their doctrine in all Ages by those signs & miraculous operations, which were promised to follow the true believers, Marc. 16.17. you on the other side should have nothing to answer, but only like jews and Pagans to laugh at them, and at the holy Fathers themselves that were so simple, as either to testify or to believe them. Rather join your hearts and your hands together, that once in your time, you may see a General Council from all Protestant Provinces meet together, where out of so many Religions sprung up amongst you, having chosen one by Lot to be generally professed, beseech him, who heareth all those that with a true Faith do call upon him, to confirm that chosen doctrine by some ostension in the Sun, or in the Moon, or with some such notorious sign from Heaven, as might no less exceed the former Miracles of the Papists then the wondrous works of Moses, confounded the magical practices of the Egyptian Sages.  
4. And lastly, what can be more void of shame and conscience, then to claim those Fathers of the first 500 years for yours, that have so impartially censured so many several points of your Doctrine in the Heretics of their times (for the which I refer me to the fourth Section of this Treatise) as he that considereth them, may justly esteem the body of your Religion to be almost nothing else, but only a confarcination or bundle of old Heresies, condemned by them. Rather join all in prayer, that if your Cause be true, as Almighty God vouchsafed in his own person, to justify job, against his friends; so that our Saviour would be pleased with a voice from Heaven, to justify you against the Fathers. But over Shoes, over Head and Ears, saith the Proverb; according whereunto, if being once entered into a bad cause, it be resolved, that still you must needs go forward; ceasing to falsify the words, and to pervert the meaning of those holy Fathers, lest God in his justice double your punishment, as you double your iniquity, hold yourselves to the Scripture alone, and to your own interpretation of Scripture (with M. Luther, and M. Caluin, and those learned Protestants of your own Nation for so many years together) not fearing to reject the Fathers that were but men, and directly refuting their errors▪ for in so doing, though you should want verity, yet God might be pleased at the length, to have mercy upon you for your sincerity.  
O Merciful God, the Author of all truth! If you be in the truth, why should you defend it by fraud and falsehood! And how can it stand with his good will and pleasure, that against so many powerful Arguments and evident demonstrations to the contrary, you should any longer thus contentiously hold it? And obstinately so continue to profess it?  
Certainly those 4. Considerations before remembered and reported more at large in the 4. first Sections of this Treatise, do make it so evident unto me, that theirs & not yours is the only true visible & universal Church ordained and founded by Christ and his Apostles, to teach the world; that I wonder in my hart how any learned Protestant can be so blind as not to see it, or so void of honesty, as not to confess it. Neither if I were now a Protestant should any thing withhold me from joining myself unto them, unless it were only in honour of that Religion wherein I was bred, to expect a little, Whether the foresaid Catalogue of the Names of your Professors in all Ages, and especially in the Ages before Luther, might be found and produced. The Question is now very happily set on foot; I hope it willbe sound followed; and it were to be wished, that no other Controversy might be embraced, before this, which is but matter of fact and the key of all the rest, be fully cleared. If Satisfaction may be given in this point, you may the better hope to be satisfied in the rest. But if not so much as one man can be produced in 500 years before Luther, that held not some main points of Popery against you, or some other gross errors condemned by you: if when Luther first began, not one Protestant can be named, that did not first fall from the Religion wherein he was bred, or which he had first received; then certainly it is not to be marvelled, if thousands and thousands ere it be long, do renounce & abandon (with prayer for those to come after them, whom they shall leave behind them) that upstart faith which was new when Luther began, and none at all before Luther.  
ALmighty God, inspire the hart of his Majesty, whom it importeth no less than ourselves, that whereas the Catholic Recusants were never as yet accused of heresy, according to form of Ecclesiastical justice, much less summoned and called to make their answer, or iuridically condemned; & that their Enemies formerly censured by General Counsels according to the Ancient Law and received custom of the Church, have notwithstanding, been hitherto admitted, not only as accusers, but also as witnesses and judges against them, whereby the people of the Land, being constrained to hear the one party, and restrained from hearing the other, have been morally compelled to love the one and hate the other, to magnify the one and detest the other; his Majesty would be pleased to grant unto all his loving subjects, for the salvation of their poor Souls committed to his charge, that now at the length they might be allowed both their ears, to hear both sides indifferently, to weigh and ponder both causes, and well to consider of both Religions. Left under the plausible name of spiritual liberty, they be cunningly held in miserable captivity: being flattered with the show of light, they be ensnared in double darkness: & being deluded with presumption of knowledge, they be bound and buried in most dreadful ignorance. A request so favourable both in the sight of God and Man, and so agreeable to the principles of Protestant Religion, as I think it can be ungrateful to none, who do wish unfeignedly, that only falsehood may be suppressed, and the truth maintained. For the which all those that sincerely desire to serve God uprightly, shallbe infinitely obliged to pray for his Majesty; not only as for their Gracious King, but also as for their deliverer from the thraldom of conscience wherein he found them, and for the Author of their chiefest liberty wherein he should place them.   
FINIS.