THE 1. MOTIVE. That the priuate Spirit is the chiefe supporter of Protestancy.

THE affected, strange, and exor­bitant course we Protestants hould (I yet range my selfe with my for­mer Brethren, according to my ac­customed dialect) in determining of doubts in Religiō is able to cause the learnedest of vs, to fluctuate and wauer in our already ietled iudgmentes. We all know, it is our own head Theoreme, that the Scripture alone (& but [Page 2]such as our selues admit for Canonicall) is to iudge of all arising Controuersyes in fayth and the priuate spi­rit to iudge of the sense of the Scripture: Which priuate spirit (being but a meere intentionall and vnreall name) our owne D. In Cō ­trou. 1. q. [...] c. 3. & 11. Whitaker thus speciously en­titles: An inward perswasion of the truth, from the Holy Ghost, in the secret closes of the belieuers hart. Thus by recurring to Scripture alone, we reiect all Apo­stolicall Traditions, all definitions of the Church, and the most ancient practise thereof; by erecting the priuat spirit, we make our selues sole Lords of the Scripture: A poore refuge (God knowes) discoue­ring in a cleare and impartiall eye the feeblenes of our owne cause; since in so doing, we being but parties, constitute our selues as Iudges, daring in the closure of all, to iudge euen our owne Iudges.

Thus for example, if our Aduersaryes the Ca­tholikes, in iustifying the articles of their fayth, doe vrge any passage of the Machabees, Ecclesiasticus, Toby &c. acknowledged for Canonicall Scripture by S. Augustin De do­ctrin. Chri­stian. l. 2. c. [...]. & the third Councell Can. 47. of Cartha­ge; this Priuate spirit, in lieu of further answere, peremptorily discanoneth all these Bookes, vnder the tecture, that they were Doctor VVhitak. in his an­swer to M. Reynold [...] [...]efutation. p. 22. & 23. Calu. lib. 1. Insti [...]. c. 7. §. 1. & 2. not first written in He­brew, and that the Maiesty and voyce of God appeareth not in them: Strangely inferred; as though the Spirit of God ought seruily to be tyed to any one tongue; or because in the silly weenings of this spirit the Maie­sty & voyce of God speaketh not in the sayd Books, therefore they are indeed wholy depriued thereof.

If our Aduersaryes, proceeding further, do [Page 3]insist, for proofe of any dogmaticall point, in the plaine wordes of confessed Scripture, as for proofe of Apostolicall Traditions (whereby this phantasy of the Scripture being sole iudge is impugned) in that passage 2. Thes. 2. of the Apostle: Hold fast the tradi­tions, which you haue receaued (siue per sermonem, siue per Epistol [...]m nostram) either by word, or by our Epistle; the Priuate spirit (as it were, with it Mercuryes rod) heere chaseth away the most obuious and familiar construction, obtruding this Scholia vpon the text: That Kem­ [...]. in [...] Conc. [...] ­dent. the Apostle first deliuered those things by speach, which after he left written in his Epistle: Absured; since the dis [...]unctiue particle (siue) implyeth an Antithesis or opposition of the things deliuered by speach, and the thinges written.

If they fortify the plaine and literall sense of the forsayd Text with the answerable Constitutiōs and Canons of most ancient generall Councels, as of that of the second of Nice: Si Act. [...]. [...]om. 4. quis traditionē Ecclesiae siue scripto fiue consuetudine valentem non cu­rauerit, Anathema sit; the Spirit spurneth heere at, auerring, that So D. VVh [...]ak. l. de Co [...]il. con [...]a Bel­lar [...]. q. [...]. generall Councells may erre. And that as So Peter Martyr. l. de votis p. 476. longe, as we insist in generall Councels, so long we shall continue in the Papists errours. Thus hoping that the splendour of the whole Church of Christ, being once obscured, it selfe may shyne forth with more lustre; so the least starre discouereth it light, through absence of a greater light.

If our Aduersaryes produce the testimonyes, but of priuate Fathers in warrant of Traditions, as of Lib. contra Do­nat. Quae vn [...]uersa tenet [...]ccle­sia ab Apo­st [...]lis prae­cepta, benè creduntur, quanquàm scriptanon reperiantur Augustine, Lib. 2. epist. [...]. Cypri [...]n, and the like: O what [Page 4]indignity is it, to this all-controuling Spirit, which euen dronke with a selfe cōplacency, can with one puff of his breath blow away the force of all their authorityes, by saying: Gods Luth. tom. 2. cont. Reg Angl fol. 344. word is aboue all; the diuine Maiesty maketh for me, in so much as I re­gard not, if a thousand Augustines, a thousand Cypri­ans stood against me: vanting further of it selfe: Non sinam ipsos Angelos de mea doctrina iudicare.

Lastly if they put vs in mind, how it hath been euer the proper Scene of heretiks to enamel & varnish the deformed face of their Heresyes, with the misap­plyed texts of Gods sacred Word: Haereses Aug i [...] hom. 9. tract. 18. in Ioan. sumunt originem quando Scripturae bonae intelliguntur non bene. Thus did the Ioan. 14. & 18. & 17. 1. Cor. 18. 1 Tim 2. & Act. 2. Arians, the Ioan. 1. & 2. Eutichians, the Philip. 2. Haebr. 7 Matth. 27. Ioan. 12. Nestorians, all which for number were able to vye text for text in defence of their blasphemyes against Gods Church; a course anciently so much vsed, as that S. Augustine Contra Maximin. Arian. l. 1. introduceth the Heretikes of his dayes, prouoking their aduersaryes only to the Scripture. The Spirit replyes, that indeed those He­retikes and such others pressed Scripture, but wrōg­fully; since they vsed not prayer, nor conference of places, nor had knowledge in the tongues, all which the true Spirit, as conducing meanes, doth enioy.

For besides, (s) D. Rey­nolds in his C [...]nfer. p. 83. & 84. that these interuenient meanes euen in the censure of D. Whitaker VVhi­tak. Media interpretandi loca obscura, sunt incerta, dubia, & ambigua: ergo fie­rinon potest, quin & ipsa etiam interpretatio fit incerta: si i [...]certa, tum potest esse falsa. lib. 2. de Eccies. contr. Bellarm. controu. i. quest. 4. include a doubt­fulles of Iudgment, in the interpretation of Scrip­ture, [Page 5]vnder what show of Reason can we perswade others, that our selus do practise in a higher measure, these meanes, then the forsayd acknowledged Here­tikes did? Or why should any man giue a more cer­taine and indubious assent to our spirits, then to the Spirits of those other, or of our Aduersaryes?

But to draw to a more inward and particuler fight heerein. Luther and Caluin enioyed this Priuate spirit (as thēselues do vaunt.) Furthermore this Spirit (supposing it to be the gift of the holy Ghost) is infallible. This graunted, what vnlucky constel­lation then reigned, when of these few wordes, Hoc est corp is meum, the Spirits of Luther, Caluin, & their Schollers haue deliuered more different constructi­ons, then there are wordes in this short sentence; and such constructions, as one is incompatible with another; so as if not all, at least some of necessity, must be false. In like sort in these two wordes of the Creed, Descendit ad inferos, what contrary senses of them are giuen by the Protestants, all enioying (in their owne iudgments) the infallibility of this A­pocalypticall and reuealing spirit? It is needles to parti­cularize their seuerall and contrary interpretations giuen of the two former sentences: Their own Boo­ke-warrs The differēt do­ctrines a­mong Pro­testants, concerning these two points and others, and all warran­ted by the interpreta­tion of the Priuate spirit, haue occasioned aboue three hundred bookes to haue beene written by the Prote­stants one against an­other, of which Hos­pinian (a Protestāt) & the year­ly Catalo­gue of Frāckford make men­tion. waged by Protestants against the Pro­testants, and vndertaken with sharpned pens in great hostility of style, originally for the mainte­nance of the different doctrines rysing through their misinterpretation of the former Text, proclaimes the truth of this to the world. Thus, suppose a man to be once possest (or, if you will, obsest) with this [Page 6]lying Spirit, how easily can he ventilate strange and irreconciliable doctrines? Heere then I vrge: Is this spirit of God? How can it then broach contrary and repugnant doctrines? Since his Church is one Rom. 12. Cant. 6. Ioan. 10. body, one spouse, one sheepfould. Is it not? Why then should I longer perseuere in that Religion, which sucketh it venome from so false a spirit? Non Tertu▪ l. de Baptis. i­dem Deus est nobis & illis, nec vnus Christus.

But what? Do our owne writings really stand thus chargeable in defence of this all iudging Spirit? or is it but my vniust aspersion cast vpon my Bre­threns wronged Pennes? Read, and then cen­sure.

One of vs comes forth vpon the stage (for the eye of the World is the stage of mans actiōs) thus saying: The D. Bil­son in his true diferē ­ce between Christian subiection, & vnch i­stian rebel­lion. people must be discerners and iudges of what is taught. Another, That Luth. tom. 2. VVittem. fol. 375. the sleep is to iudge, whe­ther the Pastours propound to them the voyce of Christ, or of strangers. A third (to passe ouer the Brethren In their Ap­pology to the vniuer­sityes. of Amsterdam, the branches and descendents of the Church of Geneua) acteth his part more liuely, thus pronouncing of the priuiledge heerin, euen of any left-handed, vnlearned, and mechanicall fellow: The VVhi­tak. de sa­cra Scrip­tura p. 519. vnlearned in the exposition of the Scripture is to demaund the opinion of the learned, and to read the Commentaryes of Interpreters; Sed videndum interim est, ne nimis illis tribuant &c. sed cautè semper (belike for feare of sinning in humblenes of mind) at (que) it a, vt c [...]rum interim libertatem retincant. Where is Hu­mility? Where is the 2. Cor. 10. Apostles precept of capti­uating our iudgements? But it is exiled, and in it [Page 7]roome are stept in, this Spirits assuming Pryde, and blushles Ignorance: The irreconciliable doctrines it broacheth, bewray it Ignorance, it controule of all authority, it Pride.

The difficulty of the Scriptures I will heere passe ouer with a gentle touch (for I affect breuity) though the consideration of their abstrusnes more fully displayeth the vanity of this Priuate spirit, euer venditating the facility of thē. For what can be foūd in any writinges to occasion misconstruction which heere is not found? The sense? Where humane wri­tings haue commonly but one sense, the Scripture in many places (besides the literall) is inuested with To wit sensu [...] A­legorious, Tropolo­gi [...]us, & Anogogi­ous. three. The Style? It is heere most plaine, yet most profound; familiar, yet perswading; vnaffe­cted, yet vnimitable; for the most part literall, yet sparsedly fraught with Schems, Figures, & Allegoryes. The Subiect? It is heere supernaturall, transcending all reach of mans Reason: Since heere we learne (to omit all other misteryes of fayth recorded in Gods sacred Writ) that Omnipotency was once Luc. 2. she wraped him in swadling cloaths. weake; Eternity Luke ibid. when eight dayes were accō ­plished, that they should circumcise the child. yong; Omnipresency Matt: 28. He is not heere, for he is ri­sen. confined; Infi­nitenes Luc. 2. And Iesus increased in wisedom, age, and grace. increasing; Wisedome Marc: 13. of that day and houre knoweth no man, &c. neither the sonne himselfe. ignorant; the Word Iohn 19. But Iesus gaue him no answere. silent; and finally the Lord of heauen and earth, poore Luc. 9. The birds haue nests &c. but the sonne of Man hath not whereon to lay his head. and despicable: so iust reason had S. Ambrose to say: Mare Epist. 44. ad Constantium. est Scriptura diuina, ha­hens inse sensus profundos and so little reason our Brethren to vse for their Mot: Ad Beza. see D. Bancrofts suruey pag. 219. verbum Deipro­uoco.

[Page 8]But to resume my former heads: Since then this reuealing spirit is not afraid to expunge out of the sacred Canon of Scripture such bookes as A­pocriphall, wherin it owne Religion is euidently im­pugned; since it alloweth only such expositions of confessed Scripture, as best sort to the supporting of it owne errours; since it betrampleth all authorityes of Councells, and Fathers, who expound Gods word differently from it: Since it hath beene the custome of all Heretikes, to withdraw themselues to the weake retyre of only Scripture, and their owne spirit interpreting the Scripture (thus making a cir­cular motion, where from point to point there is a true progression, but from the first point no progres­sion at all:) since this Spirit engēdreth contrarieties in doctrine in the enioyers of it, through ech mans misconstruction of Scripture: Since the Scripture it selfe is of that abstruse sublimity, as that Man with­out Gods directing grace, cannot lay any true leuell thereto: To conclude, since the exorbitancy, pride, and petulancy of this Spirit is such, as it expecteth in the end, that all men should receaue from it (as from a second Moyses) the tables of our Euangeli­call Law, Non Tert. de Orat. agnosei poterit à Spiritu sancto spi­ritus inquinatus: What then remaineth, but that my selfe carefull of my saluation, should for euer after become iealous of the truth of that Religion, which I find to be seated vpon those groundes (and only those grounds) which euery heresy promiscuously challengeth to it selfe? And that, relying on Gods holy visible Church, vpon which he hath Matt. 18. [...]. Tim. 3. entay­led [Page 9]his spirit of Truth, I may interpose her infallible authority, as an Isthmos, or firmeland, to stop the entercourse of the two mayne Oceans; I meane, the Scriptures abysmall profoundity, and this Priuate spirits floating and boundles vncertainty.

But inough of this subiect, of which (as po­tentially inuoluing all other Controuersyes within it selfe) I haue drawne, I confesse, for my fuller sa­tisfaction, certaine notes in some few scattered Pa­pers.

THE II. MOTIVE That the Prophesyes of Scripture confirme the Catholike Religion, and refute Protestancy.

PROPHESYES are diuine, and infallible Predictions of thinges fu­ture: future in respect of vs, who measure all actions with the yard of Tyme; but present in the eyes of God, with whome there is neither tyme past, nor tyme to come; both being confoun­ded in the depth of his owne Eternity: Infallible, as proceeding only from him, who by his power dis­poseth all thinges, as shall best please him; by his Prescience forseeth distinctly all things so disposed, as things present in the cleare glasse of his own essence; And by his Will, vouchsafeth, that men shall war­rant the certainty of his foreknowledge: Prescientia Dei Tert. l. 2 contr. Marcion. tot habet testes, quot fecit Prophetas.

Now of the Prophesyes recorded in the old Te­stament, I will take into my consideratiō only two; The inditers of which (according to the iudgment [Page 11]of In Psal 3 [...]. conc. 2. S. Augustine) as foreseeing Controuersyes and doubts in fayth to come, spake more clearely of the Church then of Christ himselfe; The first shall concerne the propagation of the Church of Christ, and the conuerting of Kinges heathen, and kingdomes to it faith: touching which I will insist in those places of Scripture, whose true sense and interpretation is ac­knowledged for such, both by the Catholikes, and by our Protestants Priuate spirit: the alleadging of which texts is the more forcible, since the confessed sense of Scripture is the soule (as it were) which in­formeth the body of the Letter.

Of this first point the Prophet I say thus spea­keth: The 60. Iles shall waite for thee (meaning the Church) their Kinges shall minister vnto thee, and thy gates shalbe continually open; neither day nor night shall they be shut, that men may bring to thee the riches of the Gentils &c. And againe speaking of, and to the Church, he further thus sayth: Thou Ibid. shalt sucke the milke of the Gentils, and the breasts of Kinges: Kings shalbe thy noursing Fathers, and Queenes thy Mothers: And further: Enlarge 54. the place of thy tents, spread out the curtaines of thy habitation; for thou shalt increase on the right hand, and on the left; thy seed shall possesse the Gentils, and inhabite the desolate Cittyes. To the truth of which conuersions of Heathen Kinges and Countreyes to the fayth of Christ, the Kingly Pro­phet speaking in the person of God to the Church, thus accordeth: I Psalm. 2. will giue thee the Heathens for thy inheritance, and the ends of the earth for thy pesses­sion.

[Page 12]That these places (besides diuers others) are vnderstood of the enlargment of Christs Church, and the conuersions of Kingdomes and Nations vn­to it, is warranted by the marginall annotations of our own English Frin­ted in the yeare 1576. Bibles, & no lesse agreeable to the particuler iudgments of Vpon Ieremy. Oecolampadius (that learned Protestant,) D. Whitguift In his defence p. 466. late Archbi­shop of Canterbury, D. In his answere M. VVil­liam Rey­nolds. Whitaker▪ and all other graue Writers.

The next point, which heere presenteth it selfe to be wayghed, is to consider, whether the foresayd predictions of the dilatation of the fayth of Christ, and conuerting to it Kinges, and kingdomes haue beene accomplished in the Protestants Church, or in the Catholike and Roman Church; for the clea­ring of which point, we will begin with the tymes from Luthers first change of Religion, and so ascend by degrees to the age of the Apostles; in the discoue­ry whereof we are to recurre to Ecclesiasticall Wri­ters: And thus the ground of beliefe touching this point, is heere remoued from Scripture to man; & yet man is heere belieued (to wit in relating whe­ther the true or false fayth was then taught and brought in) by reason of the Scripture. And first that these Conuersions & propagation of the Church any tyme for the space of these last thousand yeares, euen vp to the dayes of Boniface the third and Grego­ry Bishops of Rome, were not performed in the Pro­testant Church, is ouer euident from all Ecclesiasti­call historyes and records, and from the voluntary confessions of learned Protestants; so as to find the [Page 13]cōtrary in any approued Authors, we may wel make the subiect of our desire, but not of our expectation. And first for Historyes, we Protestants cannot pro­duce any one authenticall history or narration (not­withstāding some late effectles attempts of our own Nation in that nature, being still in labour of that which I feare, will neuer be borne) intimating so much; And which is more the Protestant Ecclesia­sticall Writers do euen particulerly set downe and relate the conuersion of many Countryes made by catholiks, euen to their own mayn preiudice heerin.

But the better to enleuen our discourse with examples, where I will omit the subiecting of many vast Countryes to the sweet yoake of Christ, made in our owne dayes by the Iesuits, whose very name to vs is vngrateful; but Quis Tertul. aduerjus gentes. nominis reatus? Quae vocabulerum accusatio? Osiander (a learned Protestant) in his booke of Ecclesiasticall history, faythfully relateth the Conuersions of many Countreyes. Of which? Of the Cent. 9.10.11.12.13 14.15. Danes, the Morauians, the Polonians, the Sclauonians, the Bulgares, the Hunnes, the Normans, the Bohemians, the Swecians, the Nor­uegians, the Liuonians, the Saxons, the Rugy, & Tu­sanes. By whome (sayth he) were they conuerted? By the Bishops of Rome liuing in those seuerall ages. To what fayth? To the now Catholike, or (as he tearmes it) papisticall fayth. In like sort our Century writers Cent. 8.9.10.11. discoursing vpon the same subiect, affirm that the Countryes of Germany, of the Vandals, the Bulgarians, Sclauonians, Danes, Morauians▪ Hungari­ans, & Noruegians were first reduced to Christiani­ty [Page 14]by the Church of Rome, professing then by their owne acknowledgments the same religion, which at this present it doth. Thus hath Rome Christian sub­iected to it more Nations and Kingdome; by a pea­ceable and sweet force of Religion, then euer Rome Heathen did by warre. And heere we are to note (a consideration not to be neglected) that as these and other Protestants do confesse, that all the Con­uersions of the foresayd Countryes were made by Papists; (D. Lib. de Eccles. contra Bellarm. §.336. Whitaker therefore styling them impure and corrupt conuersions) so not one of the sayd Protestants, or any other, though writing elaborat­ly of this subiect, would euer ascribe the conuerting of any of these, or any other one Heathen King or Nation, to the Protestants labours. But leauing these last thousands yeares, let vs ascend higher to the next three hundred yeares, ariuing from the tyme of Boniface the third, vp vnto the dayes of Constantin the first Christian Emperour. During the space of which three hundred years, no Countryes or King­domes were conuerted at all to Christian religion, either by Catholikes or by any others; most Na­tions (in respect of Religion) lying then wholy wast and incultiuated. The truth of which point is euen demonstrable; seeing in these ages there were no Kinges, who professed Christian religion, the Em­perours of the East & West only excepted: Among whome some were bastard Christians, as being brā ­ded with Valēs, Constanti­us, Con­stans. Arianisme; others Iulian. Apostata's, so en­ioying but an abortiue fayth, since it wombe be­came it graue.

[Page 15]Now concerning the tyme it selfe of Constantin, it is so irrefragably true, that neither himselfe, nor any Countrey by his meanes was conuerted to our Protestant religion, Cent. 4, as that our Magdeburgenses re­cording the state of the Church in his tyme, doe charge Constantine with all the Catholike pointes of religiō at this day professed by the Church of Rome, styling them, The errours of Constantine, & of h [...] age.

Lastly to rise higher in tymes, to wit, from the tymes of Constantine, to that of Christ our Saui­our [...]it is aboundantly testifyed by all Historiogra­phers, that the Church of God was so straitned and shut vp on all sides, and in such violent persecutions (though otherwise glad to sweat vnder such a burdē) as that it had no meanes to enlarge it selfe, by con­uerting to it Kinges and kingdomes; and if it had at that tyme conuerted any, yet the question would then follow, whether such a Conuersion had beene made to the Protestant, or to the Roman Church. But the luculency of this former point appeareth, both from the writings of the Protestāt In the booke fly­ied, Dispu­tationes &c. Deuines of Wittemberge, & from the testimony of our home-brother D. Barlow In his defence of the articles of the Pro­testant re­ligion p. 24 thus discoursing heereof: In the primitiue nonage of the Church, this promise of Kings allegiance thereunto, was not so fully accomplished, be­cause in those dayes that Prophesy of our Sauiour was ra­ther verifyed: You shall be brought before Kinges for my names sake by them to be persecuted euen vnto death &c.

But now to reflect vpon this our Argument or Motiue: Is the Protestant Church the true Church of Christ? Then hath it conuerted many Kinges & [Page 16]Kingdomes vnto the fayth of Christ▪ Let any par­ticularize (if he can) the Countreyes and Tymes, which, and when. Hath not the Protestant Church conuerted any Kingdomes and Nations to the fayth of Christ? Then it selfe is not the true Church of Christ; since the Prophesyes of Gods sacred Write are infallible: Non Tert. aduers. Gnost. licuisset aliter euenire, quàm e­dixit, nec ipse aliter edixisset, quàm euenire voluisset. Which Prophesyes, as being already actually accō ­plished by the Catholike Church, in subiecting to it diuers true Kinges indeed; so the full consideration of them hath much preuayled (for his intended in­corporating into the Church) with one poore King in name.

To reply heere and say, that these Prophesyes are to be full filled not before, but after the preaching of Luthers Ghospell, is controlled by the iudgment of all learned men, and by experience it selfe; since it is certaine (I must confesse to the preiudice of our Ghospell) that neither Luther, nor his schollers, nor his party haue as yet first conuerted any one King­dome, Nation, Citty, Village, or House from heath­nish insidelity to the fayth of Christ: Therefore we must conclude with D. Whitaker Lib. 7. contra Duraeum pag. 472. ingenuously thus confessing: Whatsoeuer the ancient Prophets haue foretould of the enlargment, amplitude, and glory of the Church, the same to haue beene already performed is most euident out of historyes; so true is that: Lex est Enan­gelium praedictum, [...]uangelium lex completa.

The other branch of Prophesyes, wherein I heere will insist, for [...]el, that in the Church of Christ, [Page 17]there shal alwayes be found Pastours and Doctours, and a continuall administration of the Word and Sacraments; the spirituall conduits, whereby Gods grace is deriued into mans soule; or the subordinate wheeles of his diuine Maiesty, by which the soule is moued and directed to gaine it owne saluation. To this effect are alleadged those wordes out of the Ephes. 4. Apostle (a text, which for it clearenes is able to cō ­ment it Comment) to wit, that Christ hath placed in his Church Pastours and Doctours to the consumation of Saints, till we all meet in the vnity of Fayth; that is, as our D. In his answere to a counter­feit Catho­like. Fulke truely expoundeth for euer Caluin Instit. 4. c▪ 3.64 himselfe concluding from hence in these words: The Church cannot at any tyme want Pastours and Do­ctours. Now that these Pastours and Doctours must not in their offices and dutyes be silent, is not only witnessed by the Holy Isa. 62. Ghost, but also (besides the nature of their function requiring it) acknow­ledged by vs Protestants. And therfore D. Fulke well sayth: Truth Vbi su­pra. cannot be continued in the world, but by the Ministery of the Pastours and Doctours In like sort touching the continuall administration of the Sacraments, the same is more particulerly euicted from the cleare wordes of our Sauiour, and S. Paul, seeing by the help of them, we shal show 1. Cor. 11. the Lords death vntill be come A point so euident, that it lyeth out of the way of all Contradiction; and therefore we Protestants in plaine wordes mantaine, That the absence Doctor VViles in his Synop­sis pag. 1. of the Sacraments doth make a nullity of the Church. And againe, in D. Wh [...]takers Centra Du [...]a [...]m l. 3. p. 249. phrase. That the administration of the word and Sacraments being pre­sent, [Page 18]doth constitute a Church; being absent doth subuert it: and againe, as the same Doctour Vbi supra pag. 260. styleth them, that they are Ecclesiae essentiales proprietates. Thus do we and Catholikes ioyntly teach, that not at some­tymes only the Church of Christ (being his inteme­rate & immaculat spouse) is to enioy Pastours & Do­ctours, and the vse of the word and Sacraments; at other tymes to be wholy destitute of them (ague-like hauing thus accesses and remittings;) but that at all tymes, in all ages, in al seasons, the Church without any interruption is to continue in it full Orbe, by e­uer enioying the foresayd meanes of mans saluation.

Now this being the true and confessed sense of all sides of the former Prophesyes; We are to ex­amine, if in the Protestant Church the administra­tion of the word and Sacraments haue for any ages, or yeares beene interrupted; since such an interrup­tion being once proued, it then ineuitably followeth that the Protestant Church is not that true Church of Christ, which is delineated and descrybed in the former wordes by the Apostle. To euict this, our Aduersaryes the Catholikes, do instance in the last hundred years before Luther vrging, that if any such administration of the Word & Sacraments had been in that age, some one history or other would haue mentioned the Pastours and Doctors of those dayes. But all historyes and relations of that age (say they) are most silent therein. What answere can we giue heereto? To produce any one Historiographer of that age, but intimating so much, we are not able. Shall we then say (as some of vs haue not beene a­shamed [Page 19]to suggest) that the Pope did determinately cause all such narrations both of former tymes, and of that age aboue instanced, concerning Protestan­cy to be suppressed, thereby to bury in obliuion all memory of Protestant Religion? It is a phantasy, it is a dreame.

The personall faults and vices of some Popes are So was Gregory the sea [...]ēth wrote a­gainst by B [...]nno Benedictus 3. by the Councell of Constance. Eug [...]nius 4. by the Councel of Basil, and s [...]m others. recorded in Historyes yet to be read. Is it then probable, that the Popes were so solicitous to extinguish all remembrance of the Protestant Payth, and yet content to suffer the lesse warrantable liues of themselues and their Predecessours, to be recorded for all posterity? Againe in the Canons of the Coū ­cells of euery age, there is frequent mention made of particuler heresyes (which then embroyled the Church) condemned by the sayd Councells: Can we then thinke it possible (to speake morally, not metaphisically) that the Pope, and the Councells should be so distracted in iudgment, as carefully to register all other impugned Heresyes; and on the o­ther side, as carefully to suppresse all arysing opini­ons of Protestancy? It is improbable, it is absurd. Lastly, (besides that the particuler subiect of all Ec­clesiasticall historyes in the relation of new doctrins recorded in the sayd historyes) are not the writinges of Husse, Wykcliffe, and others (wherin they first dis­gorged forth some few pointes of Protestancy) yet extant euen to these dayes? So transparent in a cleare eye the former answere is Or shall we secondly la­bour to euade our Aduersaryes, pressing vs, by clay­ming Waldo, VVikcliffe, Husse, and such others for pa­stours [Page 20]of the Protestants Church in their tymes? Durum telum necessitas: our challenging of them ry­seth from our extreme want and penury. It is most cleare, that the foresayd men were no true Prote­stants; since not only they euer retained most of the points of Catholike religion, comparting with vs Protestants only in three or foure articles; but also they broached diuers errours vniustify able in our owne, and our Aduersaryes iudgments, with which their owne writinges do still vpbraid them: So much haue some of vs Pox Act. & Mon. pag. 618. & p. 85. & di­uers other Protestāts. wronged the reputed honour of our owne Church, by pretending those former Heterogeneous and mongrill Sectaryes to be true mē ­bers therof. Againe suppose them to be entyre Prote­stāts, it but iustifyeth the being of Protestāt Doctors & Pastours only for their own tymes, we not being able to instāce the like for diuers ages before them. But sooner shall the seas ebbing and flowing forsake the moones course, then the true Church of Christ be depriued, but for one age, yeare, or day, of her Pastours, and an answerable administration of the Word and Sacraments.

Or shall we say, that in the age aboue instanced as also in many other ages before, there were Pa­stours and Doctours of the Protestant Church; not­withstanding by reason of the tyranny of the Pope, they were latent and vnknowne? How inexplica­ble, or rather contraditory is this? Did those Pa­stours conceale their owne fayth through seare of persecution (the strongest pulse, which beateth in weakest mindes) ioyning in outward show with the [Page 21]supposed Idolatry of the Church of Rome? Then were they dissemblers, forsakers of their owne Reli­gion, and no good members of the Church: Ore Rom. 10. fit confessi [...] ad salutem. Did they openly professe (not­withstanding the imaginary rage of their enemyes) their fayth, and exercise the Word & the Sacramēts? Then by so doing they were made most eminent: for what Church is better known, thē that Church, which liueth vnder the hatches of persecution, re­sembling the Sunne, which is best subiect to the eye, in it lowest descent? Or what man can for his reli­gion be persecuted, which is not knowne? Eye­witnesses heereof are those Countryes, wherein the Catholike religion at this day suffereth pressures & tribulations.

But to draw towards an end; the doctrine of the Churches inuisibility, mantayned by many of vs Protestants, is a Supersedeas to all our former an­sweres: since it irrefragably euicteth the want of Pastours and Doctours, and consequently an inter­ruption of the Word and Sacraments, except we wil misapply to the Pastours and Doctours, those words of Tacitus: Eo ipso praefulgebant quod non visebantur. For if the Protestant fayth for many ages was abso­lutly extinct, and no such religion was then mantay­ned in any Countrey; then followeth it, that there were neither men in the world to preach the Word, and minister the Sacraments according to that re­ligion, nor any to heare it preached, or receaue thē ministred. Touching the doctrine of the inuisiblity of the Protestant Church for many ages, we do find [Page 22]our Brother D. Parkins In his exposition of the Creed. And Lut. ep. ad Ar­gentin. sayth Chri­stum à no­bis primò vulgatum audemus gloriari. thus to write: During the space of nine hundred yeares, the Popish heresy hath spred it selfe ouer the whole earth. And further: For many hundred yeares our Church was not visible to the world: an vniuersall apostasy ouerspreading the whole face of the earth▪ With whome accordeth D. In his answere to a counter­feit Catho­lik pag. 16. Fulke saying: From the tyme of Boniface the third, which was Anno Domini 607. the Church became inuisible, and fled into the wildernes, there to remaine a long season. But M. Napper In his treatise v­pon the Reuelatiō. pag. [...]8. ryseth higher teaching, That between the years of Christ 300. and 316. the Antichristian and Pa­pisticall raigue began, raigning [...]niuersally without any debatable contradiction one thousand two hundred & six­ty yeares. M. Brocard Vpon the Reuela­tion p. 110. affirmeth, that during the second and third age after Christ, the true temple of God, and light of the Ghospell was obscured by the Roman An­tichrist himselfe. But Sebastianus In epi­stola de a­brogandis in vniuersū on. nibus statutis Ecclesiasti­cis. Francus (other­wise a learned Protestant) stretcheth farre further saying: For certaine, through this worke of Antichrist, the externall Church togeather with the fayth and Sacra­ments, vanished away presently after the Apostles depar­ture; and that for these fourteene hundred yeares the Church hath not beene external and visible: with whom conspireth D. In his answere to a counter­feit Catho­like p. [...]5, Fulke, in these wordes: The true Church decayed immediatly after the Apostles tyme. A strange and inconsiderate assertion, thus to insimu­late and charge the tymes next to the Apostles; since (besides the Scripture Isa 2▪ Miche as 4 Psalm. 19. Matth. 5. witnessing in many pla­ces, a continuall visibility of the Church, and true fayth at all tymes) it was Gods good pleasure, that [Page 23]his Church concerning true fayth and doctrine, should (contrary to the course of other things) en­ioy her greatest strength and force in her greatest infancy. But to the point. From all these testimonyes may be inferred, that if the Protestants Church was for so many ages inuisible, and that the true fayth and Sacraments thereof were vanished away for so long a tyme, then during the length of so many ages there were no Doctours to preach the Protestants fayth, nor Pastours to minister their Sacramentes; (though the same euer to haue beene in the Catholik Church, the Protestants forsayd testimonyes do ne­cessarily and implicitely witnes) and consequently that the aboue alleadged Prophesy, touching the continuance of Pastours & Doctours in the Church of Christ, at all tymes till the end of the world, is not accomplished in the Protestant Church.

Thus farre heerof: only for greater perspicui­ty, I will wind vp the two different parts of all the foresayd. Prophesyes, in this ensuing argument. Then thus.

It is prophesyed of the true Church of Christ, that she must conuert heathen Kinges, Kingdomes, and Nations vnto her fayth and Religion: A [...] also that she must in all tymes, and ages without interruption, entoy a­flours and Doctours, and an administration of the word and Sacraments.

But by the confessions of our learned Brethren the Prote­stants, the Protestant Church hath neuer as yet con­uerted to it any one Heathen King, kingdome, Na­tion: & for many ages togeather (by the Protestāts like [Page 24]acknowledgments) it hath wanted Doctours and Pa­stours [...]preach the Protestants fayth, and to minis [...]er the word and Sacraments.

Therefore the Protestant Church is not that true Church of Christ, which is figured out in those foresayd Pro­phesyes.

The inference I vrge, this I presse, in this I make my station: It is drawne from acknowledged Scrip­ture on all sides; and from the acknowledged sense of the sayd Scripture on all sides. Let any learned Protestant, or all the learned Protestants liuing, sin­cerely and plainely, without subtile euading and de­clyning the point vrged, giue any satisfactory answ­ere heereto, and I will indisputably become recreant in my fayth. The demonstration is vnauoydable, & such, as that seueral markable Protestāts, one way not cōfessing (out of their implacable hatred) the former Prophesies to be fullfilled in the Catholike Church; another, seeing by al proofe of historyes whatsoeuer, that they haue not beene performed in the Protestāt Church, 1. (s) Dauid George, Professour at Basil. did from hence conclude (a thought hor­rible to be entertained) that the Christian Religion (as wanting the accomplishments of the foresaid Prophesyes) was a false Religion, 2. Beruardin Ochine, a man highly commēded by cali [...]n l. de scan­dalis pag. 111. ou [...] Sauiour a se­ducer, and themselues thereupon sinally became (s) Iewes. I execrate a Iew; therefore, seeing there is no other Medium, I will dye heerein a Roman Ca­tholike. 3. Neuserus, chiefe Pastour of [...]eide [...]hergc. 4. Almanus a Zuinglion: all which throught the reasons aboue touched, forsooke the Christian fayth See of these & some others, Conradus Schluffelburg in his Theolog. Calu. and Osiander Cent.

THE III. MOTIVE. That generall Councells, confirming Catholike Religion, are reiected by Protestants.

IT is certaine, that the spirituall Enemy of mans soule (though ha­ting Order, yet) in impugning the Truth, obserueth order. For after his reiecting of Canonicall Scrip­ture, and expounding falsly (by his Ministers) confessed scripture, he next maketh vi­olent incursions vpon sacred Oecumenicall Coun­cels: they being in matters of fayth the highest Iud­gements vpon earth; whose semences are aboue all appeale; and whose testimonyes I hould, as so many sealing arguments. Therefore I much grieued, to find the first and chiefest of our Religion, peremp­torily to sindicate and censure (next to that of the Apostles) the first and chiefest generall Councell; (I meane Luther, the Nicen) styling it [...]uth. l. de Concil. decrees, f [...]enum, stramen, ligna, stipula &c. But no meruaile, since so long as we continue in condemning the ar­ticles [Page 34]of Catholike religion; so long are we forced to breake with those Primitiue generall Synods. To exemplify in some few for the truths sake (though it be more hard to erect a truth by proofes, then to confute an errour:) Who is so Alphabeticall & yong a Controuersist, but he knoweth, that the doctrine of Peters Primacy, and his successours is confirmed in the Canons of the second generall Epist. ad Damal. quae exstat apud The­odor. Councell of Constantinople, and the third of Apud Eugagrium lib. hist. c. 4. Ephesus? In the one by plainely acknowledging the doctrine; in the other by deposing Nestorius, by the authority of the Sea of Rome? That Apostolicall traditions are war­ranted by the first & second Nicen Councel? the first condēning the In actis eiusdem Concii. heresy of Arius (besydes by Scrip­ture) euen by force of Traditions; the other Epst. Cyrill. ad Nestor. by teaching in expresse wordes the doctrine of Tradi­tions? That Baptisme (wherein man is borne, but not borne the sonne of Adam) euen by force and vertue of the Sacrament it selfe, taketh away sinne, is euident out of the first of Cap. de Baptism. Nice, and the first of In symbol. Constantinople? That vowed Virgins, & Monks are to be in the Church of Christ, and that such can­not marry, is decreed by the Councell of Can. 16. Ca [...]e­don? Lastly that appeales to Rome (which implicitly inuolues the Primacy of that Sea) were ratifyed by the Councell of Can. 7. Sardis? Thus much for instance (though the same might be iustifyed in many other Catholike articles) where I haue restrained my proofes only to generall Councels, and such as were celebrated within the first fiue hundred yeares, after the diuine Maiesty vouchsafed for our good, to em­base [Page 35]himselfe by putting vpon the poore ragges of our humanity.

But heere I must needs take leaue to cast a more fixed eye vpon the dignity of generall Councels (ab­stracting them from all priority and laternes of time) since then, our owne Brethren absolutly reiecting all such Councells, as subiect to errour, will needes as­cribe that respect to their owne Priuate spirit, which by all reasons both diuine and humane, hath beene euer due to generall Councells; vnto which perhaps they haue beene sooner moued, partly through the infelicity Many synods of Protestāts haue been, but with­out any good euent (not any one yet suc­ceeding we.) as that at Maspur­ge anno 1529. at Smal [...]ald, at Mull rū, at Mont­belgard, at Heidelberg at Alde­burge, at Herizburg at Ham­burge, at Tubinge, and finally (besydes de­uers o­thers) this last at Dort. of their owne so many Prouinciall (at most but Nationall) Conuenticles in Germany and els where, as yet neuer hauing good successe. I hould it therefore not impertinent to display in some par­ticulers, the aduantages betweene a generall Coun­cell, and any Sectaryes priuate iudgment; where (no doubt) we shall find, that as easily may the low­est shrubs compare in height with the Cedars of Liba­nus, as the sentence of any Priuate man (who lyke a mastles ship is tossed with euery wind of Innouatiō) contend in authority with a generall Councel. Thus then. If an Oecumenicall Councell, indicted & confirmed by lawfull authority; representing the Maiesty of Gods Church, as being the supreme Tri­bunall So doth Augustin tearme a generall Councell ep. 162. thereof; assured by promise where tow or three are gathered togeather in my name &c. Matt. 18. of Christ his assisting presence; warranted with the first ex­ample of that kind, by the blessed Act 15 Apostle; high­ly reuerenced and magnifyed by the ancient Aug. vbisupra [...] & l. de Bapt. 6.18. Athan ep. ad Epictet. Basil ep. 78. Ambr. ep 32. Leo epist. 53. Hieron. l. contra Luciferian. &c. Fa­thers; [Page 36]acknowledged for the only meanes of deter­mining Controuersy by some of our learnedest Pro­testants Doct. Bilson in his perpe­tuali go­uernement pag. 174. D. Couell in his mo­dest exami­nat. pag. 110. and ethers.; consisting of seueral of hundreds of most venerable Prelates, conspicuous for vertue, ready­nes in the Scripture, variety of tongues, and infini­tenes of reading; gathered from the most remote & opposite regions of Christendome; and therefore the lesse probable vpon their such sudden meeting, ioyntly to imbrace any one point of Innouation; battering dayly vpon their knees, at the eares of Al­mighty God, with most humble and feruerous pray­er, seconded with austere fasting; and all this, to the end, that it would vouchsafe his diuine Goodnes, so to guide and sterne this reuerend Assembly with his holy spirit, as what expositions it giues of the Scripture, or what otherwise it determines for vn­doubted fayth, may be agreable to his sacred Word, and Truth.

Now, notwithstanding all this, if such a celebri­ous concourse and confluence of Pastours (being the Mart or Rendeuous for the tyme of Vertue and Learning) shall so fayle therein, as that they may, and haue, sundry tymes, most fowly erred (as our supercilious & contumacious Sectaryes D. VVhitak. l. de Conc. contr. Bel­larm. q. 6. D. Fulke in his an­swere to a counterfait Catholike pag. 35. D. VVi­let in his syaopfis p. 29 [...]. auouch) in their constructions of Scripture, and resolutions of fayth; though all such their decrees be otherwise warranted with a iudiciall conference of Scripture, the generall practise of the Church, and the conspi­ring testimonyes of all Antiquity: If this (I say) may happen (the best meanes thus producing the worst effects) what shall we then conceaue of an [Page 73]obscure Syr Iohn (a man engendred in the slyme of pride and ignorance) who in some pointes euer subdiuideth himselfe from the rest of his brethren (thus being resolued from whome to flye, but not whome to follow) so as he is truely condemned of heresy, euen by the lying mouth of Heresy: A man but competent in learning, sometymes of a disedi­fying life, not hauing any warrant from God for his proceeding, nor president from his holy church; yea one, to whome God flatly denyeth No prophesy of s [...]riptur is of any priuate in­terpretatiō 2. Pet. c. 1. this pre­sumed certainty of his expounding his word, and determining which is true fayth; and further, of whose spirit we are commanded to Dearly beloued, be­lieue not e­uery spirit, but try the spirits. 1. Ioan. c. 4. to doubt; & (which is more) of whose seducing we are most cautelously These thinges I haue writ­ten vnto you concer­ning those which de­ceaue you. Ioan. 1. c. 2. premonished. Now if this man being in his Pulpit vpon the Lordes day, in the presence of his ignorant (yet censuring) and psalming Audi­tory (a fit Pathmos for his ensuing Reuelations) & there opening the Bible (for thus falshood is forced to begge countenance from truth) and vndertaking to expound some text or other, for the establishing of his late appearing fayth (though contrary to the iudgment of all ancient Councells) affirming him selfe to be secured by special Euthysiasmes and illumi­nations from God, for the better iudging the point controuerted, rysing from his owne explication of Scripture. Which being done, what assurance may we haue of the truth of this his al-defyning spirit? and is there not reason to expect more errours, then sen­tences to drop from this mans mouth? And what stupor then and dulnes is it to allow to such an one, [Page 38]that infalibility of spirit, which himselfe denyeth to a generall Councell? Yet such is the forward blind­nes of our enchanted Nouellists heerin, who man­taine So teach D. VVhitik lib. de Con­cil. contra Bellar q 6. Peter Mar tyr lib. de votis. D. Fulke in his answere to a counterfaite Catholike pag. 80. & 90. D. VVillet in his synops pag. [...]0. And Beza in his Preface of the new Testament anno 1587. thus saith. Euen in the best tymes the ambition, ignorance, and lewdnes of Bishops was such, as that the blind may easily perceaue; how Satan was president in their assemblyes or Councels. Thus Beza of the Councells euen of the Primitiue Church. that many vertuous and learned men ga­thered togeather, for the disquisition of Truth, must necessarily erre; one sole, one lateborne, obscure, il­literate, irreligious Scripturist cannot erre: O Galat. c. 3 [...] in­sensati Galatae, quis vos fascinauit &c.

THE IIII. MOTIVE. That the Fathers of the Primitiue Church (as Patrons of Papistry) are reiected by the Protestants.

INTERROGA generationem pristinam, & diligenter inuestiga pa­trum memoriam; hesterni quippe su­mus, saith the Mirrour Ioc. [...] 8. of Pa­tience: To which words old Vin­centius Lyrinensis Ad­uer. baeres. twelue hun­dred yeares since, thus subscribeth: If any new que­stion do arise, we are to recurre to the iudgments of the holy Fathers. Which rule if it were strong in those Primitiue tymes, how much more forcible should it be (though the accession of so many hundreds of yeares since passed) with vs, who are but Hodierni?

The ancient Fathers (we know) haue diuer­sly trauelled in the subiect of Christian Religion; some of them in their Commentaryes, others in their Homilyes, Sermons, and Catechismes: Others [Page 40]againe in their Catalogue of condemned Heresyes and their Epistles; and some in all these, making the intended sense of the holy Ghost in the Scripture, & the doctrine thence deduced, the Center or quies­cent Poynt, in all their Motions or Labours.

Their Laborious Industry herein, our Bre­thren at the first seeme to prize, granting, that in the mynes of the Fathers wrytings, there is to be found much golden Ore; yet such, as must after be purged and refyned in the fyar of their owne pri­uate iudgments from all drosse of supposed Errours, before it can receaue the print and stampe (they say) of true Euangedical doctryne (yea) of Innoua­tion and Nouellisme.

Thus do we teach, that their wrytings may be profitably tasted of, if so they be taken with the true Correctiue of our owne contronling liberty. But if our Brethren be further vrged, whether they will hum­bly imbrace such peculiar doctryns, as the Fathers did ioyntly teach, then they more openly dismaske themselues, disclayming from them, as from man­tayners of Papistry. To manifest this in all Articles controuerted at this present, Breuitye preuents: foure of the cheifest shall serue for instance; And those foure fathers of the Church, which haue ob­tayned by a priuiledge, and [...], that title (I meane, Ambrose, Ierome [...]ugustin & Gregory) shall be therein cheifly produced teaching the said doctrynes, euen by the acknowledgment of vs Pro­testants.

And first to begin with the doctryne of Prayer [Page 41]for the dead, & to retaile heer some particular cōfessi­ons of our own; do I not find D. Fulke In his confuta [...]iō of purga­tory p. 78. (to vse his owne words) thus speaking, Ambrose allowed prayer for the dead; and further, Ibidem p. 104. Ierome allowed prayer for the dead; And yet further, Vbi supra pag. [...]49. Augustin blyndly defen­ded it. And which is more, our said Doctour Fulke thus further verbally saith: Ibidem pag. 362. Augustin, Ierome, and agreat many more do witnes, that Sacrifice for the dead is a Tradition of the Apostles. To be short in ex­am. part. 3. pag. 9 [...]. & 107. Kemnitius accordeth with D. Fulk heerin, affirming that prayer for the dead was taught (besydes by others) by Am­brose, Ierome, and Augustin.

Touching the reall Presence (in the which, Voca­tur Aug. tract. 26. in Iom. caro, quod non capit caro) and it being a true Sacrifice, Antony de Adamo (no obscure Protestant) thus In his Anatomy of the Ma [...] fol. 221. writeth: The booke of Sacraments ascrybed to Ambrose, affirmes the opinion of Christs bodily presence in the Sacrament. The like we find auerred of Ambrose, by our Brethren the C [...]nt. 4. c. 4. col. 205. Centurists. Kem­nitius speaking of certaine sentences of Ambrose, Au­gustine, and other, contayning the adoration of the Sacrament (which necessarily includeth the Reall Presence) thus sayth: In Exam. part. 2. p. 91. my iudgement, they con­taine the adoration of the Sacrament. Againe: Ierome with many other Fathers is reprehēded for teaching the reseruation of the Sacrament, by Ibid. pag. 102. Kemnitius, and by Lib. against Heskins, Sanders &c. p. 458. D. Fulke (to vse the Doctours wordes) for giuing admonition to marryed persons before the tyme of Communion, to abstaine from company of their wyues, (who tearmeth it popish diuinity) both which points in regard of the reuerence therein exhibited, proba­bly [Page 42]imply the doctrine of the Reall presence. Caluin Lib. de vera Eccle. reformat Extat in tract theo­log. Calu. giueth this Theta, or marke of condemnation, v­pon the writings of Augustin, Ambrose, and others in these wordes: They forged a sacrifice in the Lords supper, without his commandment; and so adulterated the supper by adding of Sacrifice. They also expounded the sacrifice of Malachy, Lib. de abrogand in vniuers. statut. Ecclestast. and the oblation of Melchisedech to be a figure of the sacrifice of the Masse.

Finally the doctrine of the Real presence was so cōmon to al the Fathers of the Primitiue Church, that Sebastianus Francus thus writeth: Presently after the Apostles dayes, all thinges were strangely turned; the supper of the Lord being transformed into a sacrifice. And Adamus Francisci (another of our censuring & Lynx­eyed brethren) thus plainely confesseth: In Margarita Theolog. pag. 236. Papista­rum Commentum &c. The Papists inuention touching Transubstantiation crept earely into the Church. Con­cerning Prayer [...]o Saints D Fulke with an irrepara­ble preiudice to his cause, thus sayth: l In his Reioynder to Br [...]flow pag. 5. confesse, that Ambrose, Augustine and Hierome held inuocation of Saints to be lawfull. And the same doth Exam. part. 3. p. 200. Kemni­tius acknowledge of these three forsayd Fathers, a point so euident, that D. Whi [...]guift thus writeth: Almost In his defence a­gainst the reply of Cart­wright. all the Bishops and Writers of the Greeke Church, and Latin also, were spotted with the doctrines of inuocation of Saints, merit of workes &c and such like: and the like sentence doth D. Couel giue, both of the Greeke and Latin Fathers, touching the inno­cation of Saints, and the other foresayd doctrines: so agreeing heereto is another such confession of D. Fulke saying, Many A­gainst the Rhemist Testament. in 2. 1. of the ancient Fathers held that [Page 43]Saints departed pray for vs. Lastly touching the do­ctrine or Vowes (inu [...]suing within it selfe the do­ctrine of [...]uangelicall Councells) Kemnitius Exam. part. 3. p. 41. al­lead geth the seuerall sentences of Augustin, [...]mbrose, and Hierome, iustifying the sayd doctrine, and then he after reiecteth them all, thus concluding of the Fathers in generall: Non ignoramus &c. We wel know that the Fathers allowed the vowes of perpetuall Chasti­ty, and that they acknowledged them to be oblegatory.

Now touching the Authority of S. Gregory, in all the foresaid Poynts, we haue reserued the con­fessions of them to this last place; both because he liued many years after the other fathers; as also in that his iudgment in all the said Articles is made ma­nifest by two acknowledgments; the one of D. Hū ­frey the other of the Centurists, D. Humfrey In Ie­suitis. p. 2. rat. 5. p. [...]. spea­king of the sayth first planted in our Countrey by Gregory and Augustin, whom he sent, thus answe­reth himselfe: In Ecclesiam quid inu [...]exerun Gregarius & Augustinus? intulerun onus Caeremonia [...]ū &c pur­getorium &c. oblationē salutaris hostiae, preces pro mor­tuis, Transubstantiationem &c. The Century See the alphabeti­call table of the fixt Century at the word Gregory. Wry­ters agreeing heereto, witnes that Gregory preached in England by the sending of Augustine hither, the doctrynes of prayer for the dead, the Reall Presen­ce, Inuocation of Saintes, the vowes of Chastity, besydes al the other Articles of the Roman Religion mantayned at this day.

Thus far cheifly of these foure poynts of the Catholyke Religion, taught (besydes by others) by the former foure pillars of Gods Church, euen by [Page 44]the free and vncoacted acknowledgmēts of such of our Brethren, as are of no vulgar note or ranke, but most accomplished with all good litera [...]re.

And heere though my intended breuity suf­fereth me only to run ouer some few points, taught by the Fathers, who are reiected by vs; yet I will somewhat enlarge my selfe in the Article of the Sa­crifice of the Masse; as being one of the cheifest poynts, controuerted betwene our Aduersaryes & vs, and contayning in it selfe the dayly worship of God. And heere it is manifest, that throughout all the ages of the Primitiue Church (without excepti­on of any) it was generally taught by the Fathers of euery such age; & yet are those Fathers for this very doctrine reiected by vs Protestants. And to begin at the end of the first fiue hundred yeares, and so to as­cend, for after that tyme [...]ill Luthers dayes, it is grā ­ted by most Protestants, that the Masse reygned in all the Churches of the West part of the World; which point is further proued from our owne ac­knowledged doctrine of the inuisibility of the Pro­testant Church, during all that tyme.

First then Anno Domini 501. Symmachus Cent. 6. c. 10. c [...]. 664. was Bishop of Rome, of whome our Centurists thus speake: Notas Antichristi Symmachus hab [...]is: Missā enim in forman redegit: that is, Sym [...] had the notes of Antichrist, for he reduced the Masse into a forme. Before Symmachus was the Councell of Car [...]hage, (whereat S. Augustine was present) of which Coū ­cell Pelargus (a Protestant) thus speaketh: Haec In his schola sidei tract. de Concil. p. 3. Synodus carthaginensis intercessionē, & Missam pro de­functis [Page 45]iniunxit. This Synod of Carthage did ordaine in­tercession of prayers, and Masse for the dead. Ambrose liued in the yeare 370. of whome the Cent. 4. cap. 4. col. 295. Centurists thus: Ambrosius locutionibus vtitur, quibus ante cum ex Patribus nemo vsus est, vt Missam facere, offerre Sacrifi­cium. Ambrose did vse certaine speaches, the which no Father before him did vse; as to say Masse, to offer vp Sacrifice. Gregory Nissen in the yeare 340. whome Andreas Lib. 1. de opisie. Miss [...] sect. 104. Crast [...]uius (a Protestant) thus reprehen­deth: Nyssenus ille ait, cùm dedit Christus discipulis suis corpus suum ad comedendum &c. iam latenter, ineffa biliter, & inuisibiliter corpus immolatum erat. Gregory Nissen sayth, That when Christ gaue to his disciples his body to eate &c. that then his body was immolated and offerd vp latently, ineffably, and inuisibly. Cyrill of Hierusalem (one of the Greeke Church) liued Anno 320. whome Histor. Sacram. p. 167. Hospinianus (a Protestant) thus spe­keth of: Quoad Cyrillum Hierosolymitanum attinet, dicit ille quidem pro sui temporis consu [...]tu [...]ine, sacrificium Altaris maximum iuuamen esse animarum. Concerning Cyrill of Hierusalem, he sayth indeed (according to the vse of his tyme) that the sacrificé of the Altar is a great help to soules. Cyprian liued Anno 240. him the Cent. 30. c. 4 Col. 33. Magdeburgenses, or Centurists thus charge: Sacerdo­tem Cyprianus inquit vice Christi fungi, & Deo Patri sa­crificium offerri; and heereupon they reproue In the alphabeti. table of the third en­tury vnder the letter S Cyprian of superstition. In like sort, D. A­gainst Hes­kins, S [...]n­ders p. 10 [...]. Fulke thus confesseth of Cyprian: It is granted, that Cyprian thought the bread and wyne brought forth by Melchise­dech, to be a sigure of the Sacrament, and that heerein Melchisdech resembled the Priesthood of Christ.

[Page 46]Terfullian liued Anno 220. whom thus Luke Cent. 3. l. c. 9. O­siander accuseth: Te [...]tullianus approbaui [...] oblationes pro­defunctis: Tertullian aid allow of oblations for the dead, (meaning the oblation of the sacrifice of Masse) who also for this his sayd doctrine, is with other Fathers thus reprehended by D. In his confutatiō of Purga­tory p. 302. Vide p. 103. & [...]3. Fulke: Tertullian, Cypri­an, Augustine, Hierome, and a great many more, doe witnesse, that sacrifice for the dead is a Tradition of the Apostles. Irenaeus liued in the yeare 170. whom the Centurists thus censure: De Cent [...] c 4. col. [...]3. oblatione Irenaeus l. 4. cap. 23. satis videtur lequi incommode cùm ait, Nou [...] Testamenti nouam Christus docuit oblationem, quam Ec­clesia ab Apostolis accipiens in vntuersomundo offers Deo. Irenaeus in lib. 4. cap. 23. s [...]meth to speake in conueni­ently inough of oblation or sacrifice, when he sayth, that Christ hath taught a new oblation in the new Testament, the which the Church receauing from the Apostles offe­reth to God throughout the whole world Of this Fa­ther De ve­ra Eccles. resorm. ex­ [...]ant in tract. the­olog. p 389 Caluin thus writeth: Obijciunt locum Mala­chia de missae sacrificio ab Irenae exponi & breuiter res­ponsum est: ita ridiculè, vt nos dissentire cogat ratio & verit as. The Papists doe obiect to vs, that the place of Malachy is expounded by Irenaeus of the sacrifice of the Masse; but the answere is at hand to wit, it is so ridicu­lously expounded, as that all reason and truth force vs to dissent from him.

Ignatius (the Apostles scholler) liued Anno whome the Centurists thus censure: Cent. 2 c 4. col. 63. Quaedā ambigua & incommodè dicta, in quibusdam occurrunt [...], vt in epistola [...]gnatij ad Smirnenses: non licet (inquit Ignatius) sine Episcopo neq offerre, ne (que) sacrificium im­m [...]lare. [Page 47]There are certaine doubtfull and inconuenient sayings, which do occurre in diuers places, as in Ignatius his epistle ad Smirnenses, where he sayth it is not law­full without a Bishop, to immolate or offer vp Sacrifice; which very wordes of Ignatius the sayd Centurists Cent. 2. c. 10. col. 107. elswheresty le to be, periculosa & quasi errorum se­mina. And thus farre for truth of the sacrifice of the Masse, from the end of the first foure hundred years euen vp to the dayes of the Apostles, though all such testimonyes be reiected by vs Protestants. A truth so euident that Caluin Lib. 4. instit. c. 18. sect. [...] thus confesseth: Veteres il­los video &c. I doe see, that the ancient Fathers did wrest the memory of the Lords supper otherwyse then was agreeing to the institution of the Lord. Since the Fathers supper did beare the show and face of a renewed oblation &c. they imitating more neerely the Iewes manner of sa­crifycing, then either Christ did ordaine, or the nature of the Ghospell would suffer. Caluin In om­nes Pauli epist. in Heb. c. 7. pag. [...]2 [...]. further charging them: That they adulterated the supper of the Lord, by adding sacrifice vnto it. And Hospinian Histor. sacram l. 1. c. 6 p. 20. thus further acknowledgeth: I am tum primo illo saculovi uentibus adhuc Apostolis &c. Euen in the very first age (the Apostles being aliue) the Diuell endeauoured to de­ceaue more about this Sacrament, then about Baptisme; withdrawing men from the first forme therof. To whom Sebastianus Iu epist. de abrogā ­dis in vni­uers omni­bus statut. Ecclesiast. Francus thus accordeth: Statim post Apostolos omniae inuersa sunt &c. Coena Domini in sa­crificium transformatu est. Thus farre of the Masse.

But if we proceed further in a more large & ample manner, touching the whole body of Catho­like Religion, taught by the Fathers in generall, we [Page 48]shall rest amazed to see, what a corrent and inunda­tion of our Brethrens sharp censures do ouerflow the writings of all the Ancient Fathers.

Sortably heerto (to omit the depressing spea­ches of Luther, touching particuler Fathers, saying, Cyprian I [...] col­loquijs mensal. c. de Patribus Eccles. & lib. de ser [...]o arbitrio. is a weake Denine; I hould Origen long since accursed; Basil is of no Worth, he is wholy a Monke; In the Writinges of Hierome, there is not one Word of true sayth in Christ, and perfect Religion; Tertullian is but superstitious, & other such base refuse of Inuectiues) do we not find Luther Luth. [...] supra. to conclude thus against al the Fathers without exception: The Apology of Phi­lip Melancthon doth farre excell all the Doctours of the Church, and exceed euen Augustine himselfe. And yet further with greater acerbity in these wordes: The Fathers Luth. lib. de seruo at bitrio printed an. 1 [...]1 pag. 434. of so many ages haue beene plainely blind, and most i [...]norant in the Scriptures; they haue erred al [...] their life tyme; & vnles they were amended before their deaths, they were neither Saints, nor pertayning to the Church. See how Apostasy is the Daughter and Mother of Pryde.

But to proceed further, the Archbishop of Canterbary, though more mild, yet most boldly, thus censureth In his defence of the answer to the ad­monition p 472. & 473. the Fathers: The doctrine taught and professed by our Bishops at this day, is more per­fect and sounder then it commonly was in any age, af­ter the Aposties &c. With which sharp censure B [...] In ep. theolog. ep. 1. thus iumpeth: If we compa a our [...]y [...]es, with the tymes next to the Apostles, my iudgment is, that those tymes had plus conscientiae scientiae minus; and we, sci­entiae plus, conscientiae min [...].

[Page 49] Melancthon (as loath to be flow in so chari­table an act) thus In 1. Cor. c. 3. wryteth: Presently from the be­ginning of the Church, the ancient Fathers obscured the doctrine concerning Iustification of sayth, increased Ce­remonyes, and deuised peculiar worships. D. Humfrey chargeth D. Iewell with great inconsideration in ap­pealing to the Fathers, saying: He In vita lewel. prin­ted at Lā ­don pag. 212. gaue the Pa­pists too large a scope, was iniurious to himselfe, and in a manner spoyled himselfe, and his Church. I will con­clude this Scene (full of scurility and vn worthy cri­minations) with Doctour Whitakers Contra Dur [...]um l. 6. pag. 413. saying: Ex Patrum erroribus ille Pontificiae religionis cento consequutus est. The religion of the Papists is a pat­ched cloath of the Fathers errours sowed togeather. Add for the close of all, our owne doctryne of the inuisibility of the Church for many ages together, euen in those Primitiue tymes: for if the Protestant Church during those tymes by our owne frequent Confessions, was latent and inuisible, (as aboue is showed) then followeth it, that the Fathers of those ages in their wrytings and Commentaryes mantayned not the Protestant, but the Catholyke and Roman Religion.

But heere (notwithstanding our absolute disclayming from the Fathers in generall) I will annexe (as an Appendix) one obseruation concer­ning particulerly Origen, Tertullian, and Cyprian (Fathers of great Antiquity, learning, and Iudg­ment.) It is this: These three Fathers erred in cer­taine points; Origen in teaching, that the Deuills should in the end be saued; Cyprian in Rebaptiza­tion, [Page 50] Tetullian in denying second Mariages. All these three were written against for these their errours by See August. against O­rigen in baeres. 43. against Tertul. in haeres [...]6. against Cyprian in tom. 3. de Baptism. l. 2. c. 7. Vide Hier. in l. contr. Iounianū, & Vigil. Vide Epi­phan. l. de haeresibus. Augustine, Ierome, and other acknow­ledge mantayners of the Roman Religion. Now heer Ivrge, Augustine & Ierome (as is aboue sho­wed) are charged by our Brethren, as Patrones of Papistry; if then Origen, Tertullian, and Cyprian had dissented from Augustin, Ierome, and other Fa­thers in those Catholyke poynts, wherewith wee truely charge them; no doubt, but Augustine, and Ierome, in their Catalogues of Heresyes, would as well haue registed other their opinions for heresyes, in which Origen, Tertullian, & Cyprian dissented from them, as they did register their three former Here­syes: But no such censure or condemnation do we fynd in their wrytings: from which we may infal­libly conclude, that what Articles of the present Roman and Catholike Religion were mantayned by Augustine, Ierome, and others of those ages, wryting of the heresyes of their tymes; the same were also taught by the foresaid Origen, Tertullia, & Cyprian Thus much of these three Fathers, in whom (by the way) we may glosse, how dangerous it is, to shut our sight against the radiant beames of the Churches authority: so the eye suddenly comming out from a great light, presently seeth worse.

And heere I am to certify the Reader, that some few testimonyes (among many others) of our owne Brethren, alleadged in this treatise, I did fynd produced in certaine Catholyke Books; but at the first reading of them, I rested much doubtfull of the [Page 51]ingenuous, playne, and true alledging of them, till by my owne perusall of our said Brethrens bookes, I found them most sincerely vrged. Which serious disquisition & search of myne (I grant) first inuited me, to spend the more tyme and labour after in the reading of all our Protestant Wryters of any emi­nency: And therefore what authorityes of Pro­testants are in these Motiues insisted vpon by me (I except not one) I do iustify them, not as borrowed from any Catholike wryter (for I hould that course vnworthy a Man of my Place) but as from my owne most diligent and laborious reading of the Protestant Bookes themselues.

But to returne. We haue aboue euidently pro­ued, that the auncient Fathers were supporters and defenders of the Roman Religion, and that in their writings they do transmit and commend ouer the same to all posterity. Can we thinke, they iusti­fyed a false fayth, they being the Churches Senti­nells in those times? Vpon thy walls Isa. 6 [...]. O Ierusa [...]em, I haue set watches for euer. Or shall we dreame (the Church of Christ being then in her greatest purity) that vpon her Altar the Arke of Truth could be com­patible with the Dagon of Heresy? It is repugnant to Gods Prouidence, repugnant to his Matth. 16. Promise. And doubtlesse, if the Fathers fayth were false, and Protestancy the true Fayth, I may iustly say (all collaterall respects weighed) that heere Falshood is much honored with probabilityes, and Truth dis­countenanced with Vnlykely hoods. But for my selfe in particular (my body daily hasting to it graue [Page 52]through it languishing sicknes) the question is, Whether during this short remnant of Tyme, I should longer consociate my selfe in fayth and Reli­gion with my former Brethren the Protestants, or subscrybe to the Cristalline and cleare iudgments heerein of the Auncient Fathers. But the election is already made: And in these few leaues (so my leaues shall not be without fruit, that is, my desyres with­out effect) I do protest to God and the world, that I haue, and do renounce all Innouation of doctryne, heeretofore imbraced by me; and do with all resig­nation of mynd submit my iudgment, to the iudg­ments of those Primitiue, reuerend, vertuous, and learned Fathers; whose voluminous Wrytings (I grant) for some yeares past, haue had an influence and soueraignty ouer my Vnderstanding.

THE V. MOTIVE. That the articles of Protestancy are particulerly condemned for Heresyes, by the auncient Fathers. And that all Protestants ori­ginally came out of the Catholyke Church.

IALLOVV well the proceeding of Theodosius Sozo­men. l. 7. histor. cap. 12. the Emperour, who, for his better suppressing of the arrising Heresyes of his dayes, was accustomed to de­maund of their cheife Patrones, whether they thought, the auncient Fathers, liuing and sterning Gods Church, before those new doctrines first appeared, were orthodoxall in their fayth, or no? To which question, when they gaue their assent, by reputing the said Fathers for such, he thus concluded: Examinemus ergo doxtri­nam vestram ad illorum scripta, & si cum illis consenserit, retineamus; sin winus, abijciatur. The lyke course I [Page 54]hould to be obserued in triall of our Protestant doctrin: But I much feare the euent, & this for two different reasons: The one, in that I fynd (as aboue is showed) our owne brethren openly to breake with the cheifest Fathers of the primitiue Church, reputing them, as so many supporters of Papistry: The other, because many articles of our Protestant religion newly springing vp in those tymes (thus the Gospell (d) teacheth vs, Matt. 13. that the Cokcle was presently sowne after the good seede) haue beene condemned for Heresyes by Irenaeus, Ierome, [...]pipha­nius, Augustine, and other Fathers in their Catalo­gues of Heresyes, and other their wrytings. I do not speake this of euery article of Protestancy, since I grant some haue taken their first being from out owne sensuality; lyke vnto certayne weeds, which grow rather out of the Lust of the earth, then from any formal seed. Now these Fathers, since they were learned, could not but know; since they were pious and godly, would not but confesse the said then arysing doctrines to be crosse to the generall profes­sed Religion of their owne, and former tymes. And it cannot be as yet, nor hath beene (by way of reta­liation) answered, that any one of them, were euer reprehended for ranging that opinion in the Cata­logue of heresyes, which was not then generally ac­cepted for heresy.

Let vs exemplify in some: The Arians (besides their greater blasphemyes) taught, that all vnwrit­ten Lib. 1. c. a. contra Matrimin. &. l. vlc. Traditions were to be reiected; they fur­ther perpetrated many sacriledges Atha. in apoleg. pro fuga. against the [Page 55]Sacraments, Altars, Priests, and religious or profes­sed persons. And do not we Protestants bring them vpon the stage againe, acting their parts in our wri­tings and deportments?

The Aeri [...]ns (to vse S. [...]ib. de Haeres. c. 33. Augustines wordes) thought it vnlawfull, orare, vel offerre promortuis, to pray or offer vp sacrifice for the dead, or to obserue set dayes of fast; and heereupon they were condem­ned for eating flesh in Lent. See how we Caluinists are lineally proseminated & sprung from the loines of Aerius, so fully we do reintegrate his heresyes.

The heretike Hier. l. 1. & 2. contr. Io­uinian. & Aug. lib. de haeres. cap. 82. Iouinian taught, that Fasting was not meritorious; that Virginity was not to be preferred before Wedlocke; and that a man once ha­uing true fayth, could not sinne. Either we Calui­nists are heerein Posthumi to Iouinian, or Iouinian by preuention of tyme was an anti-dated Caluinist: the difference is but small.

The (o) Eunomians maintayned, Aug. l. de haeres. cap. 54. that no sinne could be hurtfull to one hauing fayth. Wil you haue this doctrine deliuered in Luthers Lib. de capt. Ba­bilon. c. de Euchar. wordes? Tam diues est Christianus, vt non possit perire, etiamsi velit, quamtumq, malè viuat, nisi nolit credere: so conspirin­gly we iumpe togeather in imbracing this confident presumption; which (as I may tearme it) is no bet­ter, then Hope out of it wits.

The Manichees depriued man of freewill, ac­cording to that of S. Augustine: Peccatorum Lib de haeres c. 46. origi­nē non tribuunt Manichaei libero arbitrio. Now Luther and Lib. de seruo arbit. Caluin Lib. 2. Insi [...]t. c. 2.3. & 4. are so precipitate and headlong in this doctrine, that neither of them can brooks the [Page 56]name or sound of the word, Freewill: yet heerin they dissent from the Manichees; in that they, by taking away freewill, ascribed all sins & wickednes to that God (which they tearmed an euill God) as to the first cause; whereas our men will needes impute the perpetrating of the greatest sinnes whatsoeuer, to that God, which they acknowledge for good.

The Donatists Aug. l. 1. contra Petilian. cap 51. & 61. & l. 3. cap. 40. most implacably hated the Bishop of Rome, calling his feate, Cathedram pestilentiae; (the very dialect of vs Protestants) they most cruelly persecuted Monkes and Religious men; they brake downe Altars, sould their sacred chali­ces, and contumeliously cast out of the Churches holy Oyle. Finally they taught the Church of Christ to consist only of the Aug. lib. de vni­ [...]al. c. 12. Iust; so consequently (as not knowing, who are truely Iust) making it to be inuisible: How punctually do we run, one and the same lyne of doctrine with these men? And in this last point we ouerrunne them, since we auerre, that the Church for many hundred yeares togeather remayned inuisible; so making it to consist of cer­taine aery and imaginary Inuisibility. O phantasy! The word Matt. 7. of God styleth him a foole, that buil­deth his house vpon the sands; what is he then to be reputed, who erecteth the house of God (which is his Church) in the ayre; since an aery foundation is lesse firme, then a sandy?

But to proceed. Ecclesiasticall Primacy, as claymed by ciuill Magistrates, was condemned in the Emperours Constantius, and Valentinian, as wit­nesse Athanasius In [...]p. ad so [...]itar. vitam a­gentes. and Ambrose. Such respect did [Page 57]Antiquity giue to spirituall iurisdiction, euer aduan­cing it in matters Ecclesiasticall aboue the temporal, euen where both these powers did concurre & meet in one and the same person. Epist. 32. And therefore by ana­logy, that saying of one was good, though intricate, to wit, The Prophet Dauid was in higher fauour with God, then King Dauid.

The deniall of the reall Theod. dialog. 3. presence (in which sacred banquet, as one Father sayth: Idem est conuiua & conuiuium; idem comedens & qui comeditur) was condemned in the old Heretikes of S. Ignatius his tyme; they further affirming Hier. epist. ad Hedibi. us. no true visible sa­crifice to be in the Church of Christ. The same was in like sort condemned by the Manichees: Aug. tom. 6. contra ad­uersar. leg. & prophe. c. 19. And wherein do they differ from vs Caluinists, and Sacra­mentaryes?

Vigilantius (as S. Hierome Lib. contra Vi­gilantium. witnesseth) taught that it was not conuenient to forsake the world, & enter into Religion; that the reliques of Saints are not to be worshipped; that the prayers of the dead could not be heard for others (which implicitly fru­strateth the Prayers of Saints:) And that Church­men were bound to lead about with them a sister in the 1. Cor. 9. Lord: [...]. I meane they ought to be marryed. And is not all this good Protestancy? thus we preferring heerein Vigilantius a branded he­retike, before S. Hierome an Orthoxall Father.

I passe ouer for hast, how Proclus the Heretike was condemned by Epiphanius Haeres. 64. for maintaining concupiscence to be a mortall sinne after Baptisme, with whome agreeth Art. 2. & 31. Luther. How the Pelagians [Page 58]were condemned by S. Hierome Lib. 2. contra Pelag. for teaching e­uery sinne to be mortall: How Xena as Persa played the Iconomachist, in impugning all worship due to the Images of Christ, and his Saints, as appeareth out of Lib. 16. c. 27. Nicephorus: How the deniall of the possibi­lity of the Commandments was condemned in cer­taine old Heretikes by In ex­plicat. Symboli ad Damas. Hierome, and De tē poreserm. 91. Augustin: And finally (to pretermit many other points) how Probianus the heretike denyed all reuerend estimati­on due to the Crosse, and was therefore Tripar. histor. lib. 2. c. 19. highly taxed.

Now in the recitall of the condemnation of all these former Articles, we are to obserue, that no ge­nerall profession of all these pointes was made in those dayes; but that only particuler Heretikes, then maintained such or such particuler errours; though they all be now ingrossed, or (as it were) incorpora­ted togeather in vs Protestants: So as it may be truly sayd, that the mishappen Embryo of Protestancy was first conceaued by those ancient Heretikes, after borne or brought forth by Luther; and lastly recea­ued it further growth and strength from Caluin; though not to wrong Luther, we must confesse that he was more remisse in the defence of some pointes, then either those old Sect-maisters, or we are; we resembling heerin those children, who are more like to the grand Father, then to the Father.

But what? Is there no other association be­tweene vs and those former old heretikes, then to maintaine the opinions maintayned by them? (though this entercourse of friendship carryeth a [Page 59]mayne blemish to our new pretended Ghospell.) There is. And it is this: We are not ashamed (in our conflicts with the Catholikes) to take from the sayd Heretikes those particuler arguments and obiections which they in those former tymes vsed against the then Roman fayth. I am loath to be tedious, & two or three example; shall at this present serue. Thus did Faustus the heretike (and thus do we at this pre­sent) vrge that Text in 1. Tim. cap. 4. viz. (In the la­ter dayes there shall come some, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstaine from certaine meates.) against abstinence and single life: The alleadging of which text for both these points, is recorded and condem­ned by S. [...]ib. 10. c. 4. contra Faustum Manich. & l. cont. duas epist. Pelag. Augustine. Thus the vrging (as in res­pect of the Sacrament) the grosse and carnall eating of human flesh (which very obiectiō we now make) by the sayd old heretiks is registred and condemned by Iustinus In col­loquio cum Tri [...]hone, & Euseb. l. hist 5. c. 1. Martyr. Finally (to remember my intended breuity) thus the old obiecting of many points of the presene Roman Religion to be taken from the Gentills as D. Reynolds Lib. de Rom. Eccl. idololatr. p. 168 248. & 381. Kemnitius Exam. part. 3. p. 83. & others do now vrge) is related and condemned by Cont [...] [...]austum l. 20. cap. 11. Augustine, and Lib. 2. contra lo­uini n. Hierome. So dishonourable a warre we wage against the Church of Rome; as not being content to reuiue the opinions & doctrine first taught by certaine stigmaticall and registred he­retikes in the tyme of the Primitiue Church; but al­so to borrow from the sayd heretikes their very wea­pon [...] and other their supplyes, for our better man­taining and iustifying of this warre.

Thus farre to euict, that the Roman Religion [Page 60]is more auncient, then Protestancy (and conse­quently it true, and the other false; since God is more auncient then the deuill, and Truth then fal­shood.) There remayneth yet another Way (in which I will heere a little insist) though not much beaten and tracted, yet securely leading to the desig­ned marke: And therefore I hope it deserueth the iudicious Readers intense & serious consideration.

The sacred Scripture (Gods holy language) describeth certaine Innouatours in doctryne (and in them, all such others) in these few words 1. loā. c. 2. Exierunt ex nobis, They went out of vs: meaning heerby, that those Men departed from the knowne society of Christians of that tyme, and consequen­tly imbraced another religion lesse auncient. These words contayne a stampe or Character impressed v­pon Innouation, to distinguish it from Antiquity. Wherunto wel accordeth that sentence of Optatus: Cont. Donat. l. 1. Videndum est, quis in radice cum toto orbe manserit, quis foras exiérit; and more literally that of Tract 3. in epist. Ioan. Au­gustin: Omnes Haeretici, omnes Scismatici ex nobis exi­erunt, idest, ex Ecclesia exeunt: intending heerby, that whosoeuer maketh choyce of any new sect or doctryne, the same Man either in himselfe, or in his predecessours in doctryne, did depart from a more generall society of men, houlding a more auncient fayth, then that, which by him is chosen. From which ground the two wordes: Haeresis & Apostata, tooke their Ecclesiasticall signification; the one sig­nyfying a separation or choyce; the other a Man going out, or reuolting from.

[Page 61]Heer now I prouoke my own Brethren (how learned soeuer) to make good two things: The one, to show from what cōpany or Church more ancient, they catholiks departed. The other, to nominate any one Sect-mayster of Protestancy, who was not ori­ginally a Catholyke, & retayning other points of the said Religion, departed from this more ancient Cō ­munity of fayth, by forging som one heresy or other.

Concerning the first, it is not sufficient for our Brethren (vnder their reducing of the matter to the scripture interpreted by the priuate Spirit (be­ing but an idle circulation and maze of dispute) to affirme, that the Catholykes haue departed from the auncient fayth first instituted by Christ, except withall they show some certaine Community of Christians, more auncient then the Catholyks, from whome they departed; the Catholiques by by this meanes taking vpon them a certaine name of the first stampers of their doctryne (as the Mani­chies, the Donatists, the Iouinians, and all others haue done) or from the doctryne it selfe. But hic labor, hoc opus est: Our Brethren can neuer do it: Neither in my reading haue I found any one Protestant (how conuersant soeuer in Ecclesiasticall historyes) ei­ther to attempt to proue this poynt (though most materiall) or but once to vrge it against the Catho­lyks: so dangerously he forsaw, it might be retorted vpon himselfe, and his Religion. Concerning the second: Our Brethren cannot name any one Pro­testant, euen from the first fiue hundred yeares or afore to the dayes of Luther (a compasse of tyme, [Page 62]contayning at least a thousand yeares) which was not originally a Catholyke; himselfe being afore a member of the Catholike Church, and going out of it, by dogmatizing some few new doctrynes, still beleeuing the rest of the articles of Catholike Reli­gion. The Precedents of the Hussies, Wicleffists, and Waldenses may cleare this poynt; all which (suppo­sing them for the tyme to be Protestāts) are reduced (as the streame to the fountayne, and the branch to the tree) to a knowne Catholyke beginning; to wit, to Husse, Wicleffe and Waldo; who by our owne acknowledgment were borne and baptized in the Roman Church; themselues after leaping out of it, by mantayning and broaching some one new do­ctryne or other, not allowed by the Church of Rome, according to that of Adue. Marcionē. Tertull. Haereses pro­dierunt ex nobis, non nostrae.

If then the matter standeth thus, that our Brethren (notwithstanding their most diligent perusing of all Ecclesiasticall wryters, whose pro­iected labour is to relate al occurents of the Church) cannot shew any visible society of Men, professing the crue Christian fayth, from which (as more auncient) the present Roman Religion euer depar­ted or went out; And that on the contrary part, out Aduersaryes are able to proue, that euen from the first fiue hundred yeares till Luthers dayes, not any one Man can be suggested, or put forth for a Pro­testant, who was not originally a Catholyke, and no Protestant, departing from the Catholyks by his after making choyce of some Innouation in do­ctryne: [Page 63]If then (I say) this be so, what inference more irrefragable can be made, or what mathemati­call demonstration more counincing, then that the Catholyke fayth was more auncient, then Prote­testancy? that being the Matt. 13. good seed, which was first sowne, though hindred by an after casting into the ground of some tares of Nouelli [...]me and Heresy. And thus farre of this poynt; the which once more I commend to the diligent perusall of a cleare Iudgment. The force of which Argument more easely inuadeth a vulgar Vnderstanding, by forging this supposall.

Imagine then two great familyes or Hou­ses, the one in the first tymes of all, comming out of the other (but whether not confessed) both standing in this competency of Antiquity: If heere the heyre of the one should not only prouoke and will the other, to show by good euidence, when any of this heyres ancestours desceded out of the others family, he not being able by sufficient wrytings to proue any such descent; but withall would engage him­selfe to manifest by most auncient and vndoubted Records, that all the other parents in their first An­cestours were primitiuely descended from out his owne House: And vpon such their descent, and other circumstantiall occasions, had their names first changed: Now this heyre thus vndertaking, and thus performing, followeth it not most euidently, that his house is the more auncient, it being indeed the stem, and the other but the branch? Our Case heerein is the same, both (in respect of the poynt questioned) being cast in one Mould.

THE VI. MOTIVE, That true Miracles haue been wrought for proofe of the Catholyke Religion; but not any for Protestancy.

SVCH is the benigne and merci­full proceeding of God with Man (humbling himselfe, in a certaine māner, to the weaknes of our Na­ture) as that he expecteth not, true fayth and doctrine at it first promulgation, should vnder any penalty of punish­ment, be beleiued, except the truth of it were then fortifyed, and warranted with some strange and great Miracles. Thus he thought good, in the vnse­archeable and abysmall depth of his wisdome, to or­dayne a necessity of Miracles to the confirmation of euery true new doctryne, and extraordinary mission for the preaching thereof: Both the Testaments af­ford plentifull proofe herein. In the old, we reade, that when Moyses was sent by God to the People, [Page 65]and said to God: They Exod. 4. People will not beleiue me, nor heare my voyce; God thereupon instantly gaue him power to worke miracles, to the end (as God said) that the People may beleiue, that the Lord appea­red vnto thee: a poynt so euident, that in our English Bibles, our owne marginall Note to this place is thus: Prin­ted anno 1 [...]76. This power to worke miracles, was to confirme his doctryne, and to assure him of his Vocation. In the New, the words of our Sauiour to his Apostles pro­clayme the lyke truth, saying: As Mate. 10. you go, preach, heale the sicke, clense the leprous, raise vp the dead, cast out the deuills &c. And heereupon our Lord Iesus in another place thus speaketh of himselfe: If Ioan. 15. I had not done the works, which no other Man did, they had not sinned. To conclude, S. Marke sealeth vp his Gospell with the lyke words touching the Apostles, saying: They Mar. v [...]. preached euery where, and the Lord wrought with them, and confirmed the word with signes, that followed.

Now, from these sacred texts of Scripture ry­seth this Resultancy; to wit, What Church enioyeth this guyft of Miracles, the same is the true Church (since true Miracles are wrought only by the power of God, though not allwayes by good men, yet euer to a good end:) And what Church wanteth this priuiledge, especially in the first planting of a new Religion, or in an extraordinary Mission or vocation of Ministers, the same is not to be reputed the true Church of God, but the Conuenticle of Satan; which later poynt is acknowledged for true [Page 66]euen by vs Muscu­lus thus writeth in loc. com. Vocatio, quae immi­diatè est a Christo &c. babe­bat sua sig­na, vnde cognosci potuis, de quibus me­minit Marcus E­uangelista cap. vis. Amandue Pol [...]us in partis. theolog. l. [...]. p. 308. Ministro­rum extra­ordinariè vocatorū [...] ­tiam dona extraordi­ [...]aria fuere nēpe Pro­phetia, do­ [...]um edendi miracula. Vide D. Sauaria in defens. tract. coutra respons. Bezae cap. 2. p. 38. Luth. in loc. com. class. 4. c. 20 [...] Bullinger aduers. Anabapt. lib. 3. cap. 7. saying: Si dicitis vos instar Aposto­lorum peculiarem vocationem bab [...]re, probate eam signis & miraculis. Protestāts: thus are we cōtent to lend a hand, for the drawing out of that sword, which our Aduersaryes after do sheath in our owne sides; for if I can proue, that in the Catholike and Roman Church, there hath beene in all ages the patration of true Miracles, and that neuer any one hath beene performed by vs Protestants (notwithstanding our vndertaking to plant a new Religion, and chal­lenging to our selues an extraordinary vocation) what can be more irrefragably concluded, but that the Catholike Church is that true Church, where­unto our Sauiour hath tyed this glorious guift; and that our Protestant Church is but a false and late e­rected synagogue? According to that of S. Augustine Culmen Lib. de [...] ­tilitate cred [...]di cap. 17. authoritatis obtinuit Ecclesia Catholica, Hae­reticis Miraculorum maiestate damnatis. And first to examine vs Protestants touching this point; where, as forseeing and acknowledging our want of mira­cles, it will not be sufficient for vs by way of preuē ­tion to say; That since the doctrine now taught by vs, was confirmed in the beginning by the Apostles and Martyrs with infinite miracles; therefore it is not to be expected, that we should worke any mira­cle for the second warranting of it. This (I say) is but a subtill & subterfugious declyning of the point; for seeing our doctrine is confessed by vs, to be re­pugnant to all Antiquity (as appeareth from our [Page 67]reiecting of the ancient Fathers) & seeing we ven­dicate to our selues, an extraordinary vocation, as not being sent by ordinary Pastours, but immediat­ly Doctor Fulke a­gainst Sta­pl. Marti. &c. p. 2. thus wry­teth: The Protestāts, that prea­ched these last dayes, had like­wise extra­ordinary calling. Thesame is affirmed by Caluin In­stit. l. 4. c. 3. sect. 4. by Philip Mornay in his treatise of the Church, translated, & printed anno 160 [...]. by Beza in epist. The­olog. epist. from God, as we are forced to teach; therfore we are obliged to make good this our doctrine, vo­cation, and mission, by some supernaturall and di­uine testimonyes, that is, by exhibiting of miracles.

Now, how farre we Protestants are distant from the working of any such stupendious actions, will appeare from the liberall acknowledgments of our want therein. And first, as confessing so much, D. Sutcliffe thus writeth: We In his examen of Doctour Kellisons Suruey printed 1606. pag. 8. do not practise Mira­cles; nor do we teach, that the doctrine of Truth is to be confirmed with miracles. To whose iudgment D. Fulke accordeth in these wordes: It A­gainst the Rhemish Testament in Apocal. cap. 13. is knowne that Cal­uin and the rest, whome the Papists call Archeretikes, do worke no miracles. A point so euident, that through our owne want of miracles, we peremptorily teach and mantaine, that all true Miracles haue ceased e­uer since the Apostles tymes.

And yet heere I cannot pretermit to note, how in the life of Caluin, written by Hierome Bolsecus, it is certainely affirmed and recorded for true, that Caluin (emulous of the Catholike Church for wor­king miracles) contracted with a poore man of his owne Religion, to counterfeite himselfe dead, that he for confirmation of his owne doctrine and voca­tion [Page 68]might seeme to raise him to life▪ But Caluin in the presence of many, began no sooner to call the poore supposed dead man to life, but that instant­ly (through Gods iust iudgement) he became dead indeed, and so was buryed. And thus though Cal­uin neuer wrought any miracle, yet God vouchsafed to exhibite this miracle for his greater confusion: So as those wordes of Tertullian may well be heere verifyed: Apostoli Lib. de praescript. de mortuis suscitabant; Haeretici de viuis mortuos faciunt.

Now, that the Catholike Church euer enioy­ed this priuiledge and honour of working miracles, (and this often in proofe of some Catholike point or other) I thus proue. And first, to begin with the tyme of the Primitiue Church, and for tast of some particulers: I find in proofe of the Reall presence in the Sacrament, S. Chrysostome De sa­cerd. l. 6. c. 4. thus to record of one: A certaine venerable and aged man was vouch­safed by God, to be made worthy of a vision, which was, that during that tyme (meaning of celebrating the sacri­fice of the Masse) he did see whole multituds of Angells to descend suddenly downe, being cloathed with shyning ve­stements, and standing round about the Altar, and bow­ing downe their heades in such sort, as if one should behold souldiers bearing themselues in the presence of their King. Thus far S. Chrysostome.

Touching the vertue of the signe of the Crosse, In vita Hilarionis Hierome, In vi­ta Anto­nij. Athanasius, H [...]r. 30. Epiphanius, and Hist l. 5. cap. 21. Theodoret, do make so ample relation of many miracles done by it, as that D. In his answere to Iohn Bur­ges p. 138. Couell speaking thereof, thus writeth: No man can deny, but that God, [Page 69]after the death of his sonne, manifested his power to the amazement of the world in this contemptible signe, being the instrument of many Miracles.

Touching the Image of Christ, Eusebius thus writeth: The Hist. l. 7. c. [...]. image of Christ was erected by that wo­man; whome Christ cured of the fluxe; and an vnusuall herbe did grow at the bottome thereof; which after it growing vp, and once touching the garment of the Image, had power to cure all diseases. Thus Eusebius.

Concerning Prayer to Saints, S. lib. de ciuit. Dei 22. cap. 8. Augustin relating of a holy woman, called Palladia, being di­seased, and praying to S. Steuen before his tombe or monument, thus writeth: Adsanctum Martyrem ora­re perexerat; quae mox vt cancellos attigit, collapsa velut ad somnum, sana surrexit: that is, She comming to pray to the holy Martyr, and touching the cancels or borders of his monument, fell (as it were) into a sleep or slumber; but waking, she found her selfe cured of her sicknes. Thus Augustine, who reporteth this miracle to be done in the presence of himselfe, and diuers others.

Touching the honouring the Reliques of Saints bodyes, S. Augustine relateth, how at the dead bodyes of Geruasius and Protasius (which were many yeares after found incorrupted) a blind man receaued his sight: A miracle (sayth Augustine) done at Millan, Lib. 9. Confess. c. 7. &. 8. when I was there, many people being witnesses thereof. S Augustine also Lib. de ciuit. Dei 22. c. 8▪ mentioneth, how ten infirme people were in the sight of himselfe and many hun­dreds more, being eyewitnesses therof, miraculous­ly cured, at the Monument of S. Steuen.

To be short, the working of miracles at the [Page 70]monuments of Saints was so frequent in S. Austines dayes, that thus he Aug. vbi supra. writeth: It would require ma­ny bookes to set downe the miracles of healings & curings done only at the monument or tombe of S. Steuen: A ve­rity so irrefragable, and acknowledged by all men of those tymes, that D. Contra Duraeum l. 10. pag. 8 [...]6, Whitaker thus confesseth of this point saying: I doe not thinke those miracles vaine, which are reported to haue beene done at the monu­ments of Saints.

Touching the many Miracles performed by Monkes (who confessedly being Catholiks in Reli­gion, could not worke any one true Miracle, if their Religion were false) read Histo. l. 4. c. 13. & lib. 6.28. Zozomene, In vita Hilarion. Iereme In his Theoph. Theodoret, and Viz. Socrates hist. lib. 4. c. 18. Euagrius hist. lib. 6. cap. 22. others (besydes our owne Centurists) by diuers of which Miracles, men were raised from death to lyfe; others were cured of dis­eases by Prayer; the raging and inundation of the Sea was suddenly stayed, and the lyke.

But to omit for breuity other infinite Mi­racles, recorded by the Fathers of the Primitiue Church (many of them being exhibited in proofe of the Catholyke fayth; and all of them performed by men, that professed the Catholyke fayth;) we will descend to these later ages, Cent. 4. col. 493 by degrees euen to our dayes. And first for the space of thirteene hun­dred yeares next after Christ, we will content our selues in that behalfe (besydes that, which is all­ready deliuered) with the testimonyes and ackno­ledgments of the Magdeburgenses our Brethren, who out of the most approued and authorized Cronicles and wryters, do record the miracles of euery age [Page 71]successiuely; making the thirteenth chapter of euery Century, the subiect thereof. To whose wrytings concerning so many ages, for greater expedition, they being earnest Protestants and enemyes to the Roman Religion, I referre the Reader, as to so many impartiall witnesses.

In the fourteenth age, many were eminent for working of miracles, but especially S. Nicolaus Tolentinas, S. Catharine of Siena, and S. Bernardinus; as Antoninus In [...] part. histo. tit. 23. & 24. relateth. In the fyfteenth age, S. Vincentius was celebrious for Miracles, as also S. An­tonius, whose lyfe may be read in Surius.

And lastly to arryue to this our owne age; It is most certaine that S. Franciscus Vide Surium. de Paula wrought diuers most stupēdious miracles; also that See the booke of the life of Xauerius. Xaucrius the Iesuite, in the conuersion of the East Indians, did worke the lyke; for the more precise examina­tion of whose Miracles by oath, See Abraham Hart well his booke heerof, ser­uant to the Archbi­shop of Cā ­terbury. the King of Por­tugall did send forth a Commission to his Viceroy there, dated in Aprill 1556. the which were so eui­dently true, that D. Whitaker Lib. de Eccles. cōt. Bellar. p. 353. acknowledging thē, calleth them Antichristian Miracles. Againe the Mi­racles done in Congo in Afrike vpon it Conuersion to the present Roman Religion, are diuulged by Protestant (g) Wryters.

But we will come neare at home, and will somwhat insist in the many astonishing Miracles wrought these late yeares in the low Countryes at Sichem; of which forty (or aboue) are recorded by the learned and eminent man In his booke enti­tuled: Di­ua Siche­miensis, siue Aspri­collis, then being a Protestāt▪ Iustus Lipsius, then liuing in those Countryes; one of too great iudg­ment [Page 72]to giue credit (much lesse to diuulge in print) euery fabulous wonder, which might come to his eares (and a man, with whom in my yonger eares I haue had entercourse by letters:) Therefore we may morally assure our selues, that he would not record any one, for miracle, but such (and so him­selfe affirmeth) as either by his own knowledg were warranted for true, himselfe seeing and speaking with the partyes vpon whome the miracles were wrought; or by the testimonyes of many Oaths, taken before the Magistrats in those places. The consideration of which Miracles, fortifyed with all probabiltyes of truth whatsoeuer (especially, ei­ther all, or most of them consisting in supernatu­rally curing, without any physick, incurable disea­ses) hath, and doth still, much preuayle with me; and the more in regard of that great considence of truth, which the forsaid Iustus Lipsius showeth in his relation of them, for thus he wryteth: Vbi supra p. 1. & 5. Ecce in oculis & auribus omnium gesta: ecce concursu, plausu, fructu gentium celebrata: quae sides potest esse in rebus hu­manis, si hac non est? and againe: Miracula Sichemi­ensi in agro euenere, item (que) eueniunt, a bitris his sensi­bus: Nos [...]idemus, nos audimus quis profestus abnuet? in so much that in respect of his owne reuerence gi­uen to the place of Sichem, (where these miracles were wrought) he Vbi supra p [...]6. mentioneth, that himself made a pilgrimage to it. But inough of Sichem; and thus far concerning the glorious guyft of working Miracles, promised by our Sauiour euer to be in his Church; neuer practized as yet by any one Protestāt; [Page 73]but in all ages peculiar to the Catholyke Church; and all this by the playne confessions of vs Pro­testants.

Now, what can we iustly reply, or oppose a­gainst the Miracles wrought by the members of the Catholyke Church? To deny the working of all such Miracles, were to denye all Ecclesiasticall re­cords & testimonyes, and indeed to take away by the same ground all authority of history, either ec­clesiasticall or prophane. Therefore if we will but ascry be as much credit to the wrytings of Zozomene. Augustin, Ierome Chrysostom, Theodoret, Eusebius, & others of those primitiue tymes, recording the mi­acles of their dayes; as we commonly giue to the Commentaries of Caesar, or to the Lyues of Liuy, or any other auncient prophane Authentical Authour, we must be forced to acknowledge, that such mira­cles were really wrought, and no forged lyes. Againe touching the particuler miracles of Sichem (diuulged by Lipsius, as is said,) it is knowne, that in Brahant, and all other Prouinces now vnder the Archduke, neare adioyning to Sichem, there are many Protestants at this day; how chanceth it then, that amonge so many Miracles there said to be done, no one Protestant would take exception against any one of them, as not done at all, or otherwyse but effected by confederacy of partyes, and by de­ceite? Which one poynt (considering, how vigilāt we Protestants are to take aduantage of our Aduer­l [...]ryes proceedings) mightily strenghneth the cer­tainty and truth of the said Miracles, Neither for [Page 74]the disgracing of all Miracles in generall, as meer forgeryes, is it sufficient to alleadge some one or two (perhaps) supposed to be Miracles, and yet found after to be but feygned; for if any one Miracle (a­mong so many hundreds, as are related by graue Authours) be true, supposing for the tyme, all the rest to be false; that one Miracle irrefragably and demonstratiuely proueth the truth of Catholyke Religion; since God concurreth to the working of Miracles only with those of a true foyth, or to con­firme true Faith.

Againe, by the former Reason, we should reiect all the bookes of holy Scripture; seeing there were some other counterfeyted Bookes, obtruded for Scripture, being meerely forged vnder the A­postles names, as Hist. l. 3. c. [...] ▪ Eusebius Cone. Aduers. leg. & Proph. l. 1. c. 20. Augustin Hist. l. 7. c. 19. Zo­zomen do witnes.

Or secondly, shall we, confessing the matter of fact of miracles, (as granting them to be truly done) yet seeke to ascry be the doing of them to the power of the Deuill, tearming them Antichristiā Wonders, and lying signes, as Osiander Cent, 10.11.12. &c. and the Centurists Cent. 4. col. 1445. & Cent. 5. col. 148 [...]. &c. do style them? Do we not blush thus in our answere to conspire and compart with the Pharisces, in condemning the Miracles of our Lord and Sauiou: this Man Matth. 1. casteth not out Deuills, but by Beelzebub the Prince of Deuills? But against this se­cond refuge; First it cannot be applyed to those in­finite Miracles, recorded in confirmation of diuers Catholyke poynts, by Zozomen, Augustin, Ierome and othes (as aboue in part is showed) since those [Page 75]Miracles were wrought in the Primitiue Church, and longe before Antichrist his comming, euen ac­cording to our owne doctrine of Antichrist, first reigne; who commonly teach, that he came not before the first six So doth teach D. Fulke in his answer to a coun­terfets Gae­tholike p. 30. D. VVillet in his Symops. p. D. Down­ham in his treatise of Antichrist l. 2. p. 4. & others hundred yeares, placing his first comming in Boniface the third, Anno Domini 607. Secondly, Antichrists miracles are no true mira­cles, but such (as our owne learned Visinus truly teacheth) As, the order of Nature olserued, may be effected by the deceite of Men, or Diuels. But instantly to cure diseases, without any secondary humane meanes whatsoeuer; or vpon the suddayn to stay the naturall flowing (x) of the Sea, and the lyke (where Omnipotency is necessarily requyred, to su­spend the working of that, which Omnipotency first ordayned) is both supra and contra Naturam; and therefore can be accomplished only by his power, who is able at his pleasure to disioynt the est ablished course of Nature. In Cō ­ment. Ca­tech p. 28. And yet euen of these kyndes of Miracles there are aboundant testimonyes of appro­ned Authours, that they were performed in the Catholyke Church, throughout all ages of the said Church. Thus we see, Euag. l. 4. now weake our former enasion is. And therefore I cannot but commiserate our owne D. Whitaker, who foreseeing all other former answeres to be defectiue; betaketh himselfe to this last despayring refuge; to wit, that Lib. de Ecces. p. 48. God doth giue power of working true Miracles vnto false, teachers, not to confirme their false Opinions, but to tempt those, vnto whom they are sent. Omisery and feeble­nes of Nouelisme in doctryne, which is forced [Page 76](through it owne pouerty) to sustentate & support it selfe for the tyme, by mantayning assertions, re­pugnant to the prouidence and charity of God to­wardes man, and to all light of naturall reason: for heere the Doctour acknowledgeth them to be true miracles, and wrought only by God, and yet only exhibited for temptation of others. And thus, if we belieue that doctrine, which is accompanyed with true miracles, wrought by God alone, may we not well say (supposing the doctrine to be false) with one writer, Domine, Rich. de sancto Vic [...]. l. 1. de Trinit. e. r. si errorest quod credimus, à te deceptisumus? And with this I heere end, agreeing in part with S. Augustine, whome as (among other reasons) Miracles did (as himselfe Tom. a. contra epist. Ma­nich. c. 4. affirmeth) iustly hould within the Catholike Churches besome; so the forces of miracles (among other Motiues) hath first reduced me to the sayd Churches bosom; since indeed I can repute it, little lesse then a miracle, that a man of iudgment and reading, should incor­porate himselfe into any other Church, then which is honoured and confirmed with mir [...]cles.

THE VII. MOTIVE. Absurdityes in the Protestants Religion.

IT is most true, that our Protestānt Fayth is not inuolued with such obscurityes, perplexing the iudge­ment of Man, as we find to be in the Catholike fayth (where, in some points insteed of discourse, the vnderstanding yealdeth an vnexamined & hum­ble assent; & where reasons of credibility first vrged concerning fayth, cause vs in the end to expect no reasons for proof of fayth, laudo Ter [...]. de Corona m [...]litis. fidē quae antea cre­dit, quam didicit,) the primitiue cause of the disparity heerof being, in that the Protestant fayth ( eloquar an sileam? but my tonguescornes any longer to betray the truth) is indeed a meere Negatiue fayth, consi­sting for the most part in annihilating & destroy­ing the positine assertions of the Catholikes. Which being so, what then can be more easy to the Vnder­standing, then to conceane, that such or such a thing or point not? Since so the vnderstanding is only [Page 78]exercised; like the eare iudging of silence, or the eye of darknes. Neuer the lesse if we take into our consi­deration, diuers of the Protestants positions, we shal find included therein (in lieu of high Misteryes) such reall contrariety in sense, and grosse absurdityes in the immediate & ineuitable illations from them, as that they impugne all naturall light; and so a man beginning to giue assent thereto, ceaseth to be him­selfe, that is, a Creature indued with reason.

I will exemplify this in some few for a tast; & I will only passe them ouer with a gentle pen, ra­ther intimating them to the Reader, then displaying them at large. And first touching the actuall fayth (for habituall with them is not sufficient) which So Luther te­acheth lib. de captiu. Babil. c. de Baptis. See further of this Ar­ti [...]le agre­ing with Luther, Kenmiti [...] [...]n 2. part, a [...]am. Con­ [...]il. Trid. ad Ca [...]on. [...]. and the Centurists, Cent. [...]. c 4. col 63. and Cent. 5. c. [...]. col. 517. Luther and others exact of infants, at the tyme they are baptized; and this by force and mediation of the words pronounced by the Minister. Now what iud­gement can giue assent heereto? To wit, that fayth can be wrought by certaine wordes, and yet the party belieuing, not to hear or vnderstād the words: fides ex auditu. If Infants vnderstand the wordes of Baptisme, why do they resist (what they can) their baptising, by wayling and other motions of the bo­dy? Or how can their vnwillingnes therof be excu­sed from sacriledge? And thus their Baptisme wa­sheth not away, but contracteth new blemishes. Poore Innocents, who know not whether they liue or no, and yet they must be presumed actually to know the misteryes of fayth: since otherwise in the cold seuerity of these our men they cannot be saued: strange, harse, and incridible! Not, the late inuested [Page 79]soule departing from it body baptized, is assured of it saluation; since it is free from originall sinne, as enioying the benesit of this sacred mistery, where the ablution of the body is the abstersiō of the soule; Caro Tert. l [...]de resier­rect. carn. abluitur, vt anima emaculetur, free from a­ctuall, as wanting reason, wherby it otherwise might worke against reason.

In our doctrine of Iustification do we Ita Luth in art. 10.11, 12. Mela [...]ct. in locis ti­tul. de fide. Caluiu. in Antid. Concil. Trident. sess. 6. Kemuit. in exam. Concil. Trident. sess. 6. not teach, that sinne is remitted by a sole speciall fayth, by the which a sinner thinketh himselfe to be iust? Which graunting, we graunt, that the truth of the thing depends vpon the opinion (though later) had thereof, and not the opinion (as in reason it should) vpon the truth of the matter. Which is no lesse, thē to grant, that thinges subsequent in nature, can ex­ist in priority of being, before thinges precedent in nature; or that the effect (still remayning the effect) can produce it cause.

Further I doe heere vrge: When I begin to be­lieue, that I am iust? Either I am thus Iust, or not Iust. If iust; then I am not iustifyed by that fayth, by the which I belieue I am iust; because this fayth (as is sayd) is later then my iustice. If vniust; then this fayth of myne, by which I belieue I am iust, is false; therefore it is no diuine and supernaturall fayth. Fi­nally, if by this fayth of myne I am iust, then doe I want all sinne; If I haue no sinne, I cannot without committing sinne, repeate that sentence in our Lords prayer: Dimitte nobis debita nostxa, forgiue vs our sinnes. For it is a sinne to aske remission of sinnes, when it is certaine, that I haue no sins to be remit­ted: [Page 80]See what absurdityes, Iustification by fayth en­gendreth.

Concerning that heathnish and impious do­ctrine, which teacheth, that God is the authour of sinne (for howsoeuer we verbally disclaime from it, yet do our positiōs Luther sayth, God worketh the wicked worke in the wicked. and againe, Nulliest in mani [...]quip­piam [...]ogi tare mali aut boni, fed [...]mnia de necessi tate abso­luta veni­t [...]nt. In assertio­n bas dam­nat. per Leonem. art. 36. Beza saith, God ex [...]y­teth the wicked wil of one th [...]ef to kill an­other. In his display of Popish practis. p. 202. D. VVil­let, God not only permitteth, but leadeth into temptation with an actiue power, and not permissieuly. In Sy­nops. papism. pag. [...] [...]ngiius sayth, God moueth the thi fe to kill &c. and the thief is enforrel to sinne. Tom. 1. d prouidentia. fol. 306. necessarily include the same:) Now what can be more dissonant from all probabi­lity of Truth, or further from winning an assent in our vnderstanding, then to belieue, that who redee­med vs by death from sinne, should thirst after our eternal death, by forcibly incyting vs to sinne? That who by his sacred Word most vehemently disswades vs from offending him by our wickednes, should (not withstanding such his perswasiue disswasions) will vs to perseuere in our wickednes? That who in this life temporally chastizeth vs, thereby to draw vs from all enormous courses, should most effectual­ly worke in vs a resolution still to lye groueling in the mudd of such enormityes? To be short, that he whose nature is euen goodnes it selfe, should be the fountaine, from whence all euill & impiety receaues it emanation and flowing; thus most desiring that which he most hateth. And heere when we are char­ged by our Adoersaryes with whole shot of Texts of E cles. 2 & 14 Toby [...]. Psal. 3.943.36, 7 [...] besides infinite others, in both the old & new Testament. Scripture, prohibiting sinne, as the soule of all euill, threatning most dreadfull punishments for the perpetrating thereof; and promising most honou­rable [Page 81]and mutificent rewardes for the auoyding of the same; then doe we labour to diuert the forces thereof, by interposing an idle and intentionall di­stinction of a double Of this double will in God, Calu. instis l. 1. c. thus saith. Non capi­mus, quo­modo fiers velis Deus quod face­re vetat., Will in God (whereby in­deed we distinguish God from Iustice and Mercy:) The one his secret and concealed Will; the other his [...]e [...]ea [...]ed Will in the Scriptur, impugning his concea­led will: As if God were a deluder of men, speaking one thing, yet intending another: thus profering his lip-fauours of grace, and rewardes for the auoy­ding of sinne, but inwardly resolued to impell man irresistably thereto, and after to punish him eternal­ly for the same; so iniurious it is to God, and repu­gnant to the naturall light of our Vnderstanding, to a [...]ribe any other Will vnto him (whose loue heere towardes man, is increased through mans hate tow­ards sinne, thus Hate engendring Loue) then an vn­leauened and pure intention, desirous only of our relinquishing of sinne, and of our soules saluation: Nolo Ezech. 18., mortem peccatoris, sed magis vt conuertatur & vinat. Since otherwise it would follow, that by sin­ning against his Commandments (a strange duty consisting in breach of dutye) we performed his will and Commandement: such exhorbitancyes in sense this our doctrine exhaleth forth.

Touching the Pope being Antichrist: do we not mantaine, that the Pope is that Antichrist, which is foretould in Gods holy 2. These 2. write? And do we not withall confesse, that during the tyme of his reigne, till Luthers Luther in epist. ad Argentina. Christum [...] nobis pri­mo vulga­tum aude­ [...]is glori­ [...]. See the testi­monyes a­boue tou­ching the inuisibility of the Church. reuolt, our Church was altogeather vnknowne and latent; so as further we [Page 82]acknowledge, that for the space of many hundred years, the Papacy D. Field in his book of the Church l. [...]. c. 6. sayth, The Church when Lu­ther began was that apparent Church, wherein Luther, & the rest wer baptized, [...]eceaued their Christiani­ty, ordina­tion, and power of Ministry. osiander [...]p [...]som. [...]ent. 16. p. 1073. Ec­clesia, quae sub Papa­ [...]u fuit, [...]obuit mi­nisterium Euangelij, sacra bibli­a, Baptis­mum, Coe­nam Domini &c. And Luther in loc. comm. class. 1. sayth: In medijs furoribus &c. Euen in the middest of the furours of the Dragon and the Lyon, there did re­maine Baptisme, the Eucharist, the power of the Keyes▪ holy Scripture &c. Thus Luther. alone enioyed the safe keeping of the Scriptures, and an auaylable administration of the Sacraments. Now heere I would demand of our Inuisibilists, how these two assertions can stand togeather; to wit, the Pope is Antichrist, & the Pope (so being) preserued for so many ages the Scripturer incorrupted, and administrated the Sacraments pro­fitably? Which if they can, then can Israell be found in Babylon, and participation be betweene Christ & Belial; then must Antichrist only preserue the means for the descryall of Antichrist; and he who is falshood it selfe, be (by our owne inference) columna & fir­mamentum veritatis: Then can heauenly musick [...] (for at least in part the Pope expounded the Scrip­tures truly) proceed from the Dragons voyce, and medicinable phisicke be drunke out of that cup, which shall inebriate the Kings of earth; then must our soules saluation (for without the vse of the Sa­craments it cannot be obtayned) be wrought by our soules chiefest enemy, and Heauen be purchased by the mediation of the Man 2. Thess. vbi supra., of sinne, and sonne of pocalyps (thus is Antichrist become Christs setuantes best supporter) keep safe those records, wherby those many hundred thousandes Apocalyp. 14. of Christs Virgins, make their clayme to the inestimable reward, allot­ted [Page 83]for their vowed chastity. As easily may we be­lieue, that the Arke and the Idol Dagon could be pla­ced togeather; or dreame with Copernicus, that the heauens stand still, and the earth moues. Neither wil that extrauagant answere giuen by some of Doctor VVhitak. lide Eccles. p 165. so sayth. And Beza epist. Theo. ep. 1. Volui [...] Deus in papatu ser­uare Eccle­siam, et fi papatus nō est Ecciesia vs, when we are demanded to reconeyle these points, auayle vs at all.

The Church was in the Papacy; the Papacy was in the Church; and yet the Papacy was not the Church.

O Delphick, and Aenigmatical! or other childish, idle, and false! since, if we belieue S. Augustine: Nihil prodest esse in Ecclesia, nisi sis cum Ecclesia.

Lastly diuers of vs Protestants (I do not say all) do implye in our writings, that a man may haue [...]luation in any religion, so he hould the funda­mentall points of the Trinity, the Incarnation, that Christ suffered for vs &c. This is euident from the testimonyes of such of our Protestant Brethren, as acknowledge the Lutherans, who dissent from them in the doctrine of the Reall presence, and the Puri­ [...]ns differing also from them in seuerall articles of fayth, for members of the Church: Yea our Bro­ther, M. D. In his treatise of the kingdō of Israel, and the Church. p. 94. Morton (I infinitly meruaile, he would euer suffer such wordes to fall from his pen) teacheth, that the very Arians may be saued; for [...]us he writeth: The Churches of the Ariās are to be ac­counted the Church of God: because they hould the foun­dation of the Ghospell, which is fayth in Iesus Christ, the son of God & Sauiour of the world: where by the way I note, that it is strange he should be so seuere tow­ardes [Page 84]Catholiks (if reports be true) being so indul­gent to the very Arians. To this sentence D. In his answere to a counter­feite Ca­tholik [...] p [...]9. Fulk seemeth well to agree, saying: The true Church vnder the Emperours Constantine, Constans, and Valens, was greatly infected with the heresyes of Arius. Thus in his iudgements, an Arian is a member of the true Church, and consequently in state of saluation. But our foresayd D. Vbisu­pra p. 91. Morton comprehendeth al sects and heresyes whatsoeuer within the compasse of Gods Church (and consequently of saluation) if so they belieue in Christ; for thus he writeth: Where­soeuer a company of men do ioyntly and publikely, by wor­shipping the true God in Christ, professe the substance of Christian Religion, which is fayth in Iesus Christ the son of God, and Sauiour of the world, there is a true Church, notwithstanding any corruption whatsoeuer. Where we are to note the last wordes, notwithstanding any cor­ruption whatsoeuer. Good God! how different is this man (as heereafter I will show) from the iudgment of the ancient Fathers, and practise of the Primitiue Church?

But to proceed, this most pernicious (yet plausible) doctrine, being the Prodromus, and fore­runner of Libertinisme, originally springeth from the Priuate Spirit; since this spirit giueth reynes to euery Man to beleiue, what it selfe best suggesteth.

But since the Canker heereof is secretly spred into the harts of many men at this day; I will therfore rest the longer in discouering the absurdity and falshood thereof, by stirring a litle the earth a­bout the roote of it; it being indeed a fayth cōsisting [Page 85]in a wast of fayth, and a Religion resting in the de­nyall of the necessity of any one Religion.

And first it is certaine, that without fayth a Man cānot be saued: sine Hebr. 11. fide impossibile est placere Deo. And again qui Marc. 16. non crediderit, condemnabitur. Withall it is as certaine, that this fayth (according to that: Ephes. 4. vna fides, vnum baptisma) ought to be One, True, and Supernatural: for if it be not One and True, it saueth not Man, but seduceth him, since Truth is One, and Errour, various and multiplicious. Now heere I vrge, that one fayth cannot be in seue­rall Sects; seeing these Sectes teach poynts not only in themselues disparate and different, but contradi­ctory and meerly repugnant.

Furthermore, that that fayth, which saueth man, must be entyre and true in all poynts, is confirmed by other two irrefragable Reasons. The first alto­gether insisted vpon by S. Thomas [...]n [...]. distinct. 23. & 22 q. 5. art. 5. and all cheife Schoolemen, is this: True Christian fayth, as being a supernaturall and infused Vertue, hath a necessary reference to two thinges; the first is that, which Deuynes heere call, Prima Veritas reuelans, which is God reuealing all truths of fayth, to the Church; the second the authority of the Church, which God heere vseth as a meanes, by the which he propoū ­deth the said truths to be beleiued: So as no true su­pernaturall fayth can be produced but where these two concurre. The first of these is called by the Deuines: Obiectum formale of fayth; the second, A­mussis, Regula, or the Propounder of the articles of fayth.

[Page 86]Now from hence it proceedeth, that whosoe­uer denyeth any one Truth, propounded by the Church (to whom God reuealeth it) doth not be­leiue any other Article with a true fayth; Since the authority of the Church doth indifferently and alyke propound all Articles to be beleiued; There­fore who beleiueth the Article of the Trinity, or the Resurrection of the body, through the Authority of the Church, propounding them to be beleiued; will also beleiue Freewill, Prayer to Saints &c. and any other poynt; seeing these are no lesse propounded by the Church to be beleiued, as reuealed by God, then the former are. Thus it is euident, that who beleiueth one article of true Christian fayth, and be­leiueth not another; this Man beleiueth not any one article, by reason of the authority of Gods Church (and consequently, hath no true superna­turall fayth at all, which is auaileable to Saluation) but beleiueth it, in regard only of the probability of the point in his Iudgment; and thus it is not Beleife, but Opinion only in such a Man. For seeing the same credit and affiance is euer to be giuen in all things, to the same authority; whosoeuer doth not beleiue the said authority in any one poynt, doth not (as is said) beleiue it in any other; from whence it followeth, that the authority of God & his Church is equally contemned in the denyall of the smallest articles, as of praying to Saints, Purgatory &c. as in the greatest articles of the Trinity, Incarnation, or any other sublime and high mystery.

The second Reason: It is peculiar to Vertues [Page 87]Theologicall, and Infused, to be obliterated and ex­tinguished by one only contrary Act. Thus for ex­ample, one mortall Sinne wholy taketh away Cha­rity and Grace; One act of desperation the vertue of Hope; the same may be exemplifyed in the vertues of Pēnance, Religion, and others. Now heere by the same reason I inferre, that one Heresy (I meane an obstinate mātayning of any one errour in fayth, how small soeuer, against the authority of Gods Church) depriueth a man of true fayth, which (as other Vertues aboue are) is supernaturall, theologi­call, and infused.

In this next place, we will see, how the iudg­ments of auncient Fathers do approue the former doctryne. Two or three for instance shall serue. And first, that light of the Latin Church, I meane, S. Augustine Lib. 18. de ciuil. Dei c. 91. doth thus pensill forth an Heretyke: Qui in Ecclesia Christi aliquid prauuns sapiunt, si correpti, vt sanum rectum (que) sapiant, resistant contu naciter, Hae­retici fiunt; & foras exeuntes, habentur in exercentibus Haereticis. That is, Who beleiueth any wronge or false thing in the Church of God, and being admo­nished to beleiue the truth, do resist contumaciou­sly, they become Heretyks; and departing out of the Church, they are reputed for open and willfull Heretyks.

S. Ambrose thus answerably wryteth; Lib. [...]. in Luc. [...] 9. Negat Chri­stū, qui non omnia quae Christi sunt cōfitetur he denyeth Christ, who beleiueth not all poynts or articles concerning Christ. Thus who denyeth Lymbus Patrum, denieth that Christ descended therinto, and consequenly he [Page 88]denyeth Christ. Finally S. Gregory Orat. [...]7. Nazianzene thus elegantly conspireth heerto: Vnum vnicohaeret, & ex ijs quaedam verè aurea & salutaris fit catena; ideo si vel vnum dogma auferatur, aut reddatur incertum tota catena disrumpetur. That is: One Article of fayth is so cohering with another, that of them all, there is made a goalden and healthfull chayne of fayth; so as if but one article be taken away, or made but doubtfull, the whole chayne becommeth broken. See the lyke agreeing testi­monyes in Apud Theod. l. 4. hist. c. 19. Basil, Lib. [...]. Apolog. contr. Ruf. Ierome, Lib. 1. epist. 6. ad Magnum. Cyprian, and In Sym. Athanasius.

The auncient Fathers mynd in this poynt is manifested (besydes by their particular Sentences) from the practize of the Primitiue Church against Heretikes; I meane from the perusall of the Catalo­gues of heeresyes written by them, as is euident out of the Catalogues of heresyes, and other such wry­tings composed by Irenaeus, Hierome, Epiphanius, Au­gustine, Theodoret, Philastrius and others; in all which we shall find diuers condemned and branded for ex­presse Heretickes, for their willfull maintayning (in our iudgments) but small errours; though otherwise they belieued al the chiefe points of Christian fayth, as the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the like. For proofe wherof I will heere alleadg the wordes of S. Austine against the Pelagians; whom he absolutly & resolutly condemneth for Heretikes, for their belie­uing, that man could keep the law of God only by force of nature, without the force of Gods grace. His words are these: Nec Epist. 120. c. 37. tales sunt Pelagiani &c. Nei­ther are the Pelagians such men, as thou shouldest easily [Page 89]contemne them; for they liue continently; are laudable in good works; they beleiue not in a false Christ (as the Manichees do) &c. yet because they are ignorant of the iustice of God, endeauouring to make it their owne, they are Heretyks and cast out of the Church. And thus far for a touch of the practize of the ancient Church, and the Fathers lyke conspyring testimonyes heere­in; where I may remit the Reader, to what hath beene aboue alleadged, touching the condeminatiō (by the Primitiue Fathers) of our Protestant do­ctrynes Which auncient Fathers, as being learned and vertuous, neither would nor durst, register any for Heretyks, but those, who by the whole Church of God were reputed for Heretyks (as afore I haue [...]ted:) which point is made more euident, in that we do not fynd any one of the said Fathers (among so many) to be contradicted by any other orthodo­xall Father, for such his proceeding.

But to leaue humane authority, and to come to diuyne; if we looke into Gods sacred Word, it is cleare, that who maintayneth any one Heresy, the same hath no more true hope of his saluation, then a Heathen or a Publican: for we fynd our Sauiour to vse this commination: Qui Matt. 18. Ecclesiam non audi­ [...]it &c. He that will not heare the Church, let him be to thee, as a Heathen or Publican. Where we may obserue, that Christ said not, Who will not heare the Church in all things, but absolutely pronounced, Who will not heare the Church. If then a Sectary or Heretyke will not heare the authority of the Church, proposing such and such poynts (for example of Freewill, In­dulgences, [Page 90]Prayer for the dead &c.) to be beleiued, how shall he escape the Anathema heere threatned? And though these wordes immediatly be intended of fraternall correction; yet à fortiori, they are to be vnderstood of him who reiects the authority of the Church in matters of fayth Since this mans contēpt towards the Church is farre greater, & lesse pardo­nable. For who refuset [...] to obey the Church in one poynt, doth (as aboue is said) wholy and absolute­ly contemne all the authority of the Church.

Againe, we fynd the Apostle speaking of the works of the flesh (meaning those workes, which are committed by wicked men without the assistāce of the Holy Ghost) thus to wryte: Galat. [...]. The works of the flesh are Adultery, Fornication &c. Idolatry, Witchcraft Hatred, Debate, Emulations, Wrath, Contentions, Sedi­tions, Heresyes &c. they which do such things, shall not inherit the kyngdome of God: where we fynd the word Heresy particulerly set down in our English Bibles; though the latin word being Sectae, is more remisse, and therefore increaseth heere the force of our illati­on. Now from hence, I thus argue: As the Apostle doth in this place pronounce sentence of condem­nation against the Sinne of fornication, though but once committed; so also against but one sect or He­resy: Since he heere maketh no mention of the plu­rality of tymes, in committing any Sinne, nor of the number of Heresyes; before the workers and defen­dours of them can deserue damnation.

And thus farre of our Adiaphorists or Neutralls in fayth (for I can tearme them no better) who [Page 91]though they beleiue some articles, that are true, yet beleiue those truths falsly; as not relying vpon the grounds of beleife (to wit, God reuealing, and the Church propounding.) And indeed such men (if they be punctually examined (are found to beleiue no­thing, but their Sense, at most their Iudgment: So they giue credit to the matter, but not to the Au­thour; and so much euery man affoards to a discredi­ted and blemished witnes. Away then (among Christians) with this tepidity or cold indifferency in fayth, which is of that charitable disposition (forsooth) as to promise that to all others (I meane Saluation) of which it selfe is not capable. There­fore to conclude, my last Arrest and sentence heerin it; that indifferently to allow all Religion, is to take away all Religion; and that Neutralisme in fayth, fi­nally discargeth it selfe into Libertinisme in maners.

I will heere stay my Pen, passing ouer many other Positions of like nature, breathing such [...] and impossibilityes, which we mantayne. Only I say, as aboue I touched, that if we ballance them with the most abstruse difficultyes to be found in the Catholyke Religion (yea with those in the do­ctryne of the Reall Presence) we may conclude, that those more easely may become the Obiect of our be­leife (and so to be beleiued) then these, and other such lyke exorbitant, grosse, and absurd Assertions or Connexions of ours. Since those former only transcend Reason; these manifestly impugne Rea­son: By beleiuing the first, we forbeare to be Hea­thens; by beleiuing these other, we cease to be Men: [Page 92]Those do aduance and magnify in Man, the power of God; these obliterate and deface in him (by gi­uing assent thereto) the Image of God. To be short, those may be apprehended by the light of fayth; these are euen incompatible, with the light of our Vnderstanding.

THE VIII. MOTIVE. Deceites and sleights practised by Protestant VVryters.

I HAVE euer beene of mind, that matters of Religion are to be proceeded in with a fearefull and innocent pen; and that who ap­proacheth thereto, ought with Exod. cap. 3. Moyses to put their shooes off their feet, the place wherin they stand, being holy ground, that is, ought to cast off al imperfections of intended calumnyes, impostures, and other fraudes, in regard of the venerable subiect to be intreated of. I would to God, I could not iustly charge my owne brethren with faultines heerein, so exempting them out of the number of those, who (to vse the Prophets phrase) Dolosam Ose. 12. calumniam diligunt. But it falleth out far otherwise, to their dishonour and my griefe; since (if tryall be made) we shall find many Babylonians to dwell in our supposed Hierusalem.

[Page 94]Our owne fraudulent deportements in this great busines of Religion (great, in that it concerns our soules interminable weale or woe) haue much disedifyed me, begetting at the first in me a stagge­ring opinion, whether that can be Truth, which nee­deth such supporters of deceite and collusion. I will exemplify in diuers. And to omit our pretence of the Priuate spirit, for the auoyding of all authorityes, as already discouered aboue: The first kind of these shall concerne the English translation of our Bibles: The sleight consisteth in translating such texts, as mention Traditions, and merit of Workes. I will heer forbeare to show, how the Scripture Ioan. [...]ic. & 1. Thess. 2. commandeth vs, not to relye only vpon Scripture, or how our men haue borrowed our fayth heerein from the old Heretikes, Nestorius Vt ha­betur in sexto Sy­nodo act. 1. and Dioscorus, so as we re­ceaue by Tradition to reiect Traditions: The impo­sture only in translating it is, wherein I now dwell. Whereas then the new Testament maketh relation of good traditions and bad, wicked and Iewish tra­ditions, expressing them both by one and the same greeke word, to wit, [...], which properly si­gnifyeth Traditio: Now our English translations in such 1. Cor. 2. I pray you Bre­thren that you be mindfud of m [...], and as I haue de­liuered vn­to you, you k [...]ep my Ordināces. The l [...]ke translating of the word Ordinances is in 2. Thess. 2. texts, wherein are vnderstood good and profitable Traditions, doe translate insteed of the word Traditions, the word Ordinances. But where the texts speake of wicked Matth. 15 VVhy doe you transgresse the Com­mandmēts of God by your Traditions. and friuolous Tradi­tions, there they remember precisely to set downe in their translations the right word Traditions, and not the word Ordinances, or any other word in lieu of it, as may be seene in these Textes quoted. But this (I [Page 95]feare) was done, in dislike of Apostolical traditions, that so the ignorant Reader should neuer find the word tradition in Scripture in a good sense, but al­wayes in a bad and disallowed: Though now in our last translation (but not in any former) for the better plaistering of the matter, we put in the mar­gent of such texts speaking of godly Traditions, the word, Traditions.

The like course we take in translaring the greek word [...], signifying dignus, in english worthy; and the verbe [...], to be made worthy; for in those Texts Luc. 21. watch at al [...]ry [...]as praying, that you may be ac­counted worthy to stand befor the sonne of God. The like i [...] done in the Greeke verbe [...]. in Luc. 20. & 2. Thess. 1. which concerne merit of workes, where­in these forsayd wordes are vsed, we translate them to seeme to be worthy, and to seeme only to be made wor­thy, therby to weaken such texts for the prouing of merit of Workes: But in other Texts O how much forer punishment shall he be worthy, which tre­deth vnder foot the son of God not tou­ching the doctrine of merit, we can be content to translate the sayd wordes truely, that is, to be worthy, and to be worthy indeed. But alas! is Gods holy word so little fauourable to our Protestant fayth, that we must be forced thus to adulterate and corrupt it for the better sustayning of our cause?

The next sort of Collusions may be extended to our deceitfull setting downe the doctrine suppo­sedly maintayned by Catholikes; indeed obtruding vpon them certaine absurd Positions, from which they vtterly disclaime. And thus doe we no lesse charge them with belieuing of errours, then with not belieuing of our presumed truth.

To instance this. Touching the merit of works; Do we not vsually affirme in our Sermons & Books [Page 96]that the Papists doe so belieue to be saued by their owne workes without the passion of Christ, as that we hould their doctrine therein to be dishonourable to his Passion? We do. And yet the Councell Sess. 6. of Trent (wherein is contayned a summary of their fayth) teacheth that al good workes, which a Chri­stian can do, receaue their force, valew, and price from the Passion of our Sauiour; for otherwise it houlds them as no good workes; to which workes as proceeding only from the grace of God, the Ca­tholikes teach, our Sauiour Matt. 3 16. & 10 hath promised his reward: So confidently they affirme, that it is of the grace of God, that we concurre with the grace of God; and worthily, since as the soule informes the body, so Grace informes the Soule.

Touching the Catholikes praying to Saints; We charge them in great estuation and heate of wordes, that thereby they dishonour Christ his Pas­sion; making the Saints in praying to them their Re­deemers and Sauiours. When (God knoweth) all that the Catholikes do, is but to pray to them, that so the Saints (as being more gracious in the sight of God) would intercede for them: with no other in­tention, then S. Paul requested the Rom. [...]s I befeech you &c. striue with me by pray­ers to God for me. Romans 1. Thess. 5. Brethren pray for me. The like wordes he vseth to the He­brews c [...]5. Thessalonians, and Hebrews in his Epistles, that they would remember him in their prayers to God. And from hence doth grow, that most warrantable di­stinction of Mediatours, to wit, of Reaemption (of which kind the Catholikes, no lesse then we, ac­knowledge no other, then Christ alone) and of In­tercession, of which sort, euery vertuous and good [Page 97]man (much more, the Saints and Angells) may be (without any indignity to our Sauiour) one for ano­ther; since no prayers (euen by the Catholiks owne doctrine) are auailable, but such, as are founded in the beliefe in Christ, and in the vertue and force of his most deare and precious Passion: So willfully we mistake the doctrine of the Church of Rome heere­in.

Concerning Indulgences, How frequent are these and the like bold reproaches with vs? That the Paprsts teach, the Pope can giue aforehand pardon for any subiect to murther his King; that he can ab­solue one from the sinne, which heere after he is to comnit. What fooleryes are these? And how idly do we diuer berate the ayre in deliuering in our Sermōs such improbable or rather senseles assertions; they being indeed incompatible with common Reason? Do not the Catholikes owne bookes show; first, that the Pope can no more forgiue aforhand any one sinne, which heerafter is to be perpetrated, then he can create a new world; since the obiect of the Sa­crament of Pennance is a sinne already committed? Secondly, that the Pope cannot remit the guilt of sinne (I meane the punishment of damnation due to sinne) by meanes of any Indulgences; for it is their owne generall doctrine, that no man can be parta­ker of any Indulgence, but at the tyme of his recea­uing thereof, he must be in state of grace, to which state he is first brought by vertue of a sacramentall Confession, or (when that cannot be obtained) by force of a true and perfect Contrition? Thirdly and [Page 98]lastly, that the guilt of eternall damnation being a­fore remitted (as is sayd) by the sacrament of Con­fession, or (in want thereof) by perfect Contrition, there remaines a temporal punishment for the sayd sinnes afore remitted, for the satisfying of Gods iu­stice; which temporall punishment (as being the only obiect of Indulgences) the Catholikes hould, the Pope as Christs Vicar heere vpon earth, and dis­penser of his spirituall Treasure, can either-lessen or wholy take away (if so the party be capable thereof, in being at that instant in state of Grace, and per­forming the pennances enioyned vpon him) by ap­plying vnto him vpon iust occasions the superbun­dācy of Christs passion. In whose passiō for the more fully satisfying of all eternall (much more tempo­rall) punishment, the sheeding of one drop of bloud was sufficient to redeeme thousands of Worlds; since then (his Humanity being accompanyed with the Diuinity) Innocency did suffer for sinne, Iustice for offence, Health for infirmity, and finally God for Man. Thus, and no otherwise doe the Catholikes teach heerein, as is euident out of their chiestest Set heereof S. Thomas Aquinas 4. sent. d. 10. art. 5. Sotus 4. sent. d. [...] Caietan tom. 1. Bellar lib. de indulg. possim. wryters: Who (notwithstanding their defence of the doctrine of Indulgences) may (I feare) iustly charge vs Protestants with relying too much vpon a I lenary Indulgence (as I may tearme it) of a solifidian fayth.

The next point of this nature shalbe concer­ning Images; touching which our Eiconomachi, or impugners of the lawfull vse of them, do run into strange exhorbitancy of speaches; accusing Catho­likes, [Page 99]that they place a kind of diuinity or deity in I­mages, and that they pray to them (so wonderfully doth preiudice of opinion transport mens mindes & tongues.) When the Catholikes are charged heere­with (yea the most silly and ignorant women on their side) they answere, that for the images them­selues, they know, they are made of stone, wood, or such other matter; and that in regard of their sub­stances, they account them no better then stone, wood, or the like: They vse them (they say) not to pray to them (since this were no better, then a godles religion, or a deuout impiety) but only (besides a peculiar respect giuen vnto them, aboue other things made of like substances) to supply the wants of their [...]emory, that so their corporall eye being fixed vpon them, the eye of their vnderstanding, during the tyme of their deuotions, may be more intent vpon our Sauiours Passion, or the Saints represented in them. See heereof the second Councell of Act. 7. Nice, Epist. 119. S. Augustine, Lib. 7. epist. 107. S. Gregory, S. Thomas Suarez, & others.

Finally, do we not diuulge, that the Pope, and his Church aduance themselus aboue the Scrip­ture, allowing for Scripture that, which is not; and altering at their pleasure the true sense of the scrip­ture, by obtruding vpon it, any sense of their owne. Good God! that men (otherwise learned and witty) should thus idly in their speaches and writinges ra­rell out the tyme working with such improbity of libour and toyle the [...]pyders webb, which is so easily swept away▪ Labor [...]ose nihil agunt (to say with Sene­ca.) [Page 100]The Pope and the Church thus far proceed: They declare only, what bookes be Scripture, or not Scripture, among many Apochriphal writings; and which construction of true Scripture (among many suggested senses thereof) is the intended meaning of the Holy Ghost. Thus they neither make nor vn­make Scripture, nor impose any sense vpon it, which afore it had not, but only declare, which afore it had. And thus by this meanes, they assume no more to themselues, then any priuate Protestant practi­seth by the help of his reuealing spirit. But what? Must it needes be inferred, that the Pope, and the Church for such their proceeding, seeke to be aboue the Scripture? Then may it be alike concluded that the Iudge is aboue the Law, since he expresseth, what is Law, and which is the true meaning of the Law-giuer therein. All that hence may be truely deduced, is this, viz. That the Pope and the Church is not aboue Scripture (which with all reuerence they affect) but aboue the Iudgments of priuate men expounding the Scripture.

But heere (to make an end of the Catholiks mistaken doctrines) I cannot, but call to mind, how I was seueral tyms accustomed to charge the Priests, and others of their Religion appearing before me, with the defence of the former absurdityes (though I confesse, I did then well know, what their learned men did hold therein:) And I do assure the Reader, that the Priestes, being expostulated heereof, did seeme halfe amazed at these my strange demandes. Yea one of the Priestes (a bold and resolute man) [Page 101]thus answered me: My Lord, if you demand of me and others in earnest, whether these senseles positions be our do Irines, it seemes, you know not, what the Catholik Church teacheth heerein; and then it is strang, his Ma­iesty should place you in seate of iudgment against vs, to punish vs for that Religiō, your selfe not knowing the do­ctrine, which the sayd religion teacheth. An answere blunt and without respect, yet not much to be dis­liked, since it is a wronge to truth, to be outfaced and depressed with calumnyes.

Towards the Auncient Fathers we haue seue­rall peculiar deportments; first we stryue to breake through their authorityes with sleighty euasions; this fayling, next to breake downe their authorityes by open disclayminges.

Thus in the former manner we proceed diuers wayes. First, when any place of a Father is obiected against vs, we endeauour (so loath we are to make an absolut departure from them, if possibly it could be auoyded) to interprete the Fathers words in some other sense, then they are vrged by our Aduersaryes or intended by the Fathers. Thus where Lib. 4. de Trinit. cap. [...] 4. Augustin, Lib. 6. desacerd. Chrysostome, In psal. 38. Ambrose, & Lib. 6. contra Parmenia­num. others, do teach, that the Sacrament of the Excharist contayneth in it selfe a true and proper sacrifice; Our Brethren in answere heereto, say these Fathers meaning only to be, that the prayer powred out by the faythfull at the tyme of the Communion are Spirituall Sacrifices. But this is but a shadow of an answeare, since the Fathers affirme literally, that the body and bloud of Christ (without the least intimation of any pray­ers) [Page 102]being offered vp in the celebration of the Eu­charist, is a proper and true sacrifice: Quid gratiùs offer­vi (saith V bi supra. Augustine) aut suscipi possit, quàm car [...] sacrificij nostri, corpus effectum sacerdotis nostri?

Next if the place of the obiected Father be so perspicuous, as that it will receaue no other tincture of Interpretation, then what the naturall colour of the sentence will properly beare; we then labour to oppose another Father against him in the said poynt; or (if possibly we can) the said Father aginst him­selfe, by vrgi [...]g some seeming contrary sentence our of him; & all this to disualew in the Readers eye the authority of the said Father. Thus where Basill is produced in defence of Traditiōs, D. Lib. de sacra scrip­tura p. 670 Whitaker answereth thereto (pretending some other contra­ry place out of Basill) saying: Basilius secumpugnat. After the same manner D. Whitaker V bi supra pag. 6.6. auoydeth S. Augustins authority touching Traditions, saying: Although Augustine in this place may seeme to fauour Traditions, yet in other places he defendeth earnestly the [...]erfection of the Scriptures: An vnworthy aspersion vpon the Fathers; as if they were of that wauering irresolution in their fayth, as to mantayne meere contrary doctrynes, at one and the same tyme.

Another sleight vsed by vs is, that if the Father vrged in defence of any Catholyke poynt, can be deprehended to haue maintayned any one ackno­ledged errour; then we vsually reiect the said Fa­thers authority in all poynts of Catholyke Religion. This chiefly taketh place in the produced testimo­nyes of Cyprian, Tertullian, and Origen, euery one of [Page 103]them mantayning their peculiar errour. This eua­sion is most weake, except we could proue, that these Fathers are condemned by the ioynt consent of other Fathers, for their houlding of Catholyke doctrynes (which is impossible to proue) as well, as they were written against by other Fathers, touching their acknowledged Errours.

Another of our Sleights or Subtiltyes toucheth Mission and Vocation of Ministers, which the Scrip­ture teacheth to be visible, according to those words of the Apostle: No Hebr [...] 5. man taketh to him the honour of Pryesthood, but he, that is called of God, as Aaron was; which calling in the Apostles tymes, was only by Imposition 2. Tim [...] 1. of Bishops hands. Now then when we are charged by our Aduersaries in the first plan­ting of Protestancy, to want this lawfull Vocation and Mission (since no man did either send vs, nor from any did we receaue this Imposition of hands) we to extricate and free our selues out of this Laby­rinth, haue excogitated out of the delicacy of our wit (or rather extreme Necessity) a new kynd of calling, honouring it with the title, of an Extra­ordinary, and immediate calling from God, Without any authority of man therein. And so our first broachers of Protestancy do challeng this to themselues (be­sydes, that our doctrine of the Inuisibility of the Church, potentially implyeth the same.) Answera­bly heerto Caluin thus saith: Quia So al­leadged to say, by Las­ciuius (a protestāt) in his book de Russar [...] ̄ &c. religi­ [...]n [...] p. 2 [...]. Papa tyrannide &c. Because through the tyranny of the Pope, the true order of ordination was interrupted, therefore in these dayes we haue neede of a new helpe; and this guyft is al­togeather [Page 104]extraordinary. Likewyse D. Fulke A­gainest Sta­pleton & Martiall. p. 2.: The Protestants, that first preached these last dayes, had like­wyse extraordinary calling. A sleight, inuented to free our selues from the authority of the visible Church of God, examining this our Vocation and Mission, and yet withall most vncertaine in it selfe; since euery Heretyke, stamping any new blasphe­myes whatsoeuer, may with the lyke indifferency and freedome, assume to himself this extraordinary Calling or Mission to preach his said blasphemyes▪

And thus far heerof: where we see, that with­out any example, since the Apostles tymes, till the dayes of Luther, we reduce the warrātablenes of our owne Callinge to the Ministery, to our owne bate and naked iustifying of it; as at other tymes, we presume to recall the authority of the Scripture, & the exposition of confessed Scripture, the testimo­nyes of the Fathers, and the continuall practise of the whole Church, to the ballance and examination of our owne priuate Spirit: Such a Fastus, & Magi­strality we do take to our selues, in laying the first & fundamentall stones of Protestancy.

But in the last place, when all other shews of answers are wanting, rhen we flatly & peremptori­ly reiect their authorityes, pronouncing them to be absolute mātayners of Papistry. Touching our sharp & seuere condemnations passed vpon them, both in particular and in generall, I referre the Reader to the former chapter, concerning our reiecting of the Fathers. But euen heer we show our selues not impo­liticke; and thus we varnish ouer our bad cause with [Page 105]this borrowed colour. When our Aduersaryes charge vs for reiecting the Fathers testimonyes in proofe of the present Roman Religion, our accu­stomed shift is, to turne the question controuerted, from the authority of the Father alleadged, to the authority of the Scripture; saying in such, and such a doctrine, the Papists relye vpon the Fathers, men subiect to errour; whereas we An­swerabey heereto Be­za thus sayth: If any shal op­pose against me the au­thority of the encient Fathers, I do appeale to the word of God So related by D. Ban­croft in his Suruey p. 219. Protestants in the same poynts rest vpon Scripture, (thus subtilly ma­king an Antithesis & opposition between the Scrip­ture and the Fathers.) And we appeale to all lear­ned men (say they) whether the Scripture is not to be preferred before the Fathers. This reason in a cle­are eye is transparent: for the Question heere is not, whether the Scripture is to be preferred before the Fathers; since the Catholyks grant, that the Scrip­ture, as being most diuyne, certaine, and infallible, is to ouerballance by infinite degrees all other wry­tings whatsoeuer; but the touch of the point heere controuerted is, whether the auncient Fathers vrging the Scripture are to be preferred before the Protestants vrging the Scripture; that is, whether the expositi­ons of the Fathers giuen vpon places of scripture in proofe of the Papists religion (as we call them) are to ouersway the contrary expositions of the same texts, giuen by our nouellizing Brethren And heere the question resteth.

But I will close this poynt touching the Fa­thers, with a cautelous and pregnant obseruation of our Brethren. Whereas we reiect the Fathers for maintayning the Papists religion; the articles of the [Page 106]same religion, as they are beleiued by our Aduersa­ryes, we This different ap [...]ellation is precisely obserued by Illyri [...]us, and the o­ther Cen­tury wry­ters, by D. VVhitak. and by di­uers other Protestāts vsually tearme, Heresyes, Idolatry, blasphemyes &c. therby to show, that the Papists are no members of Christs Church; the which very ar­ticles, being taught by the Fathers, we gently style them in the Fathers, naeuos, naeniae, and (at the most) e [...]rores, sears, blemishes and errours; to the end, to in­timate, that we do not separate our selues from that Church, in which the Fathers are. Deceitfully, and withall vnlearnedly; either Heresyes in all, or but blemishes and errours in all; since it is the do­ctryne, which denominates and giues appellation to the Man; not the Man to the doctryne.

Hitherto we haue taken in part a view of the seuerall sleights practized in our answeres to the Catholyks authorityes. Next we will call to mynde our lyke carriage houlden by vs, in impugning our Aduersaryes and their doctryne.

And first touching Councells or Definitions of the Pope; When we make show to produce either of these authorityes against the Catholykes, we commonly vrge some Prouinciall, or Nationall Councell, vnder the name of a generall Councell (the difference wherein an ignorant Reader doth not easily discouer;) Or els we produce some one or other Councell, which for number of Bishops assembled, may be tearmed Generall, yet Schis­maticall; that is, a Councell not celebrated and allowed by the cheife Pastours of Gods Church and thus we vrge the Councell of Constantinople, assembled against the doctrine touching Images, [Page 107] Anno Dom. 730. it being very numerous, but celebra­ted without the authority of the Pope or any Patri­arch, the Patriarch of Constantinople only excepted, who for assenting to the Councell, was depriued of his Patriarchship.

Sometymes againe we insist in the authority of a lawfull generall Councell, to proue the begin­ning of som poynt of our Aduersaryes doctrin, but then our vrging of it is commonly attended on with a wilfull mistaking: for the Councell doth but only first impose the name of the article, the doctryne it self being beleiued many ages before. Thus doth D. Lib 7. contra Duraeum pag 480. Whitaker (besyds diuers others of vs) alleadg the Councell of Lateran for bringing first in the do­ctrine of Transubstantion; Whereas this Coun­cell only imposed the name of Transubtantiation (as the Councell of Nice did the name of Tr [...]nity, the doctryne being receaued longe afore) the doctryne of Transubstantiation being generally many ages afore beleiued and taught by Cyrill Peter Martyr contra Gardiner. part. 4. p. 724., Cyprian The treatise at­tributed to Vrsinus called, Commone­factio cu­i [...]sdā The­ologi de sancta Coe­na p. 2.1., Eusebius Centu­rists Ceut. 4. col. 10. pag. 980. Emissenus, Centu­rists Cent. 5. col. 517. Chrysostome, & D. Humfrey Iesuit sm. part. 2. [...]at. 5. Gre­gory the great, euen by our owne Confessions.

When we obiect the Decree of any Pope, there­by to shew the first Institution of such a Catholyke poynt, we often make choyce of some Catholyke articles, where the Decree of the Pope toucheth only the execution or practise of the doctrine, afore partly intermitted through negligence, and not the doctryne it self. In this sort we fynd D Whitaker (who hath much dishonored his good parts by these vnworthy proceedings) to alledge Innocentius the [Page 108]third Pope of that name, saying Contr [...] Duraeum l. 7. p. 490. Innocentius the third was the first, that instituted an [...]icular Confession for necessary. Whereunto our Aduersaryes doe an­swere, that this Innocentius commanded, that the practise of Confession should be better and more often obserued; they further prouing euen by the confession of our owne Centurists, that Tertullian and Cyprian (who liued longe before Innocentius the third) did teach (to vse the Centurists Cent. 3. c. 6. c. 27. words) Confession euen of thoughts and lesser Sinnes. With the same fraud doth (e) D. Whitaker charge Pope Calixius, Lib 7. centra Duraeum pag. 480. with the first instituting of the fast of Lent, being in his tyme negligently obserued; the doctryne of which fast was so auncient, that Exam Coucil. Trid part. [...] pag. 89. Kemnitius thus writeth heerof: Ambrose Maximus, Taurinensis, Theophilus, Ierome, and others do affirme the fast of Lent to be an Apostolicall Tradition. Now the Collusion heere vsed in these examples, resteth in a willfull confounding of the first Institution of a thing, with a renouation of the practise of the said thing.

Againe, we sometymes obiect (thereby to in­timate an vncertainty of Catholike Religion) some canon or sentence decreed afore by a lawfull Coun­cell and true Pope, and after impugned by another lawfull Councell and true Pope. But this then (which the vulgar doth not obserue) doth concerne not matter of fayth and doctrine (which neuer fuf­fereth any alteration by Popes or Councells) but only matter of fact; the sentence whereof) though afore giuen) may without any impeachment of the [Page 109]Churches authority, vpon better and later infor­mation, be altered. Such were the alterable decrees of the Popes Formosus, and Stephanus the seauenth, in their seuerall Councells, grounded principally vpon matter of fact, & vsually obiected by vs against our Aduersaryes; of which point see Sigebert in his Chronicle.

Whereas our Aduersaryes (as aboue is deliue­red) show, that many of our Protestant doctrines were condemned for heresyes by Augustine, Hierem, Epiphanius, & others in those primitiue tymes. Now we by way of recrimination do confidently auouch the same of diuers Catholike articles, to wit, that euen in those dayes they were condemned for here­syes by the sayd Fathers: but how truely we auerre this (good Reader) obserue, and if thou be a Prote­stant, blush in thy brethrens behalfe. Two exam­ples shall serue for many.

Well then, D. In his Chalenge concerning the Roman Church p. 113. Sutcliffe, and D. In his answere to a counter­feit Cath. pag. 22. Fulke in­simulate the Catholikes with the heresy of the Colly­ridans, who according to Epiphanius were condem­ned (as these men say) for worshipping the Virgin Mary. But let Haeres. 79. Epiphanius heere explaine himselfe, his wordes are these: Hi qui hoc docent qui sunt, prae terquam mulieres? Who teach this, except they be women? So as this fect consisted only of women, of whome Epiphanius thus further writeth: Sellam Vbi supra. quadratam ornantes, panem proponunt, & offerunt in nomine Mariae &c. that is: These women ador­ning a square table, do set bread thereupon, and offer it in the name of Mary. Thus their errour consisted in [Page 110]instituting a feminin Priesthood, & in sacrifying to Mary, belieuing her to be a God. And thereupon E­piphanius in the very same place thus censureth heer­of: Deo ab aeter [...]o nullatenus Mulier sacrificauit &c. And againe: Neq Deus est Maria &c. & nemo in nomine eius offerat. How farre distant are the Catholikes from mantayning this Heresy, either in their do­ctrine or practise?

Againe for a second example. D. In his answere to a Counter­feit Cat [...]. pag. 22. Fulke thus speaketh to the Catholikes: Of the Heretikes Caiani, you haue learned to calvpō the Angels, he allead­ging Epiphanius for the same. But Epiphanius wordes are these farre different from D. Fulkes application: Non Haeres. 38. posse, aiunt, aliquos saluari nisi &c. The heretiks Caiani taught none could be saued, till they had gone through all sinnes; and committing thereupon wicked thinges and actions they called vpon the name of such, as were true Angells, and of such as were by them vntruly tearmed Angells; referrin to this Angell, and that An­gell (proprian actionem) their peculiar action; saying when they committed their wickednes: O tu Angele, vtor tuo opere O Angell, I now vse or execute thy worke &c. Thus their errour consisted not in calling vpon the Angells, but in calling both vpon true & false Angells, as making them Patrons of their wicked actions. Would any man thinke, we should wrong our owne reputation and honours in vsing these willfull and iniustifyable misapplications and for­geryes against the Catholikes? We are scholars, and should remember, that as learning beautifyeth the mind, so candor and integrity learning. And ther­fore [Page 111]it is strange to see D. Willet in his Tetrastyson Papiseni, D. Fulke, and D. Sutcliffe in their afore al­leadged bookes, thus to blo [...] paper in labouring (by these, and other such like detortions of the Fathers words) to perswade their Readers, that many arti­cles of Catholike Religion were condemned for he­resyes in those ancient tymes.

But to proceed to other passages of this our Scene, whereby we seeke thus to bleare the iudge­mentes of our credulous followers; The better to grace our Religion with the venerable title of Anti­quity, some of vs D? Pulk in his answere to a counter­feit Cat [...]. passim. M VVot­ion in his desence of D. Perkins pag. 500. touching [...]ou [...]nian. are not ashamed to insist in the former old registred heretiks of the primitiue church aboue rehearsed, vrging them for Protestants. But what gaine we heereby? For first not any one of them did hould more, then two or three points of Protestancy, in all others being Catholike. Againe such their points of Protestancy (though first broa­ched so long since) were instantly condemned by the whole Church of God: And who knoweth not that erring Antiquity is no better, then late appearing Innouation? I heere passe ouer our alleadging for these later ages (as partly aboue touched) of Waldo, Wicklifse, Husse, Polydor Virgil, Nilus, Cassander, and the like, for members of the Protestant Church; of which not any one was a perfect Protestant, both because euery one of them euer belieued most arti­cles of the Catholike Church, dissenting from it on­ly in two or three: as also in that diuers of them mantayned sundry grosse Where­of see their ow [...] books yet extant. and absurd doctrines, both in our, and the Catholikes iudgements, and this [Page 112]with great stifnes and pertinancy of will, which per­tinacy euer consummates & perfects an heresy. And thus by this their obstinancy contemning the autho­rity of Gods Church, they became (as I may tearme them) formall and positiue heretikes; though he­resy be but a priuation.

To proue, that Catholikes do disagree in mat­ters of Fayth, we obiect some differences among them, but such (if they be well obserued) doe not rest in the Conclusion it selfe of the doctrine belie­ued, but in the manner, or some other circumstance of the Conclusion or article of faith, which manner (except it be defy ned by the Church) may be dispu­ted of, and seuerally mantained without breach of fayth: Thus they all conspyre and agree in the [...] (as Schoolmen speake) though not in the [...]; which later point is commonly reduced and tryed by scholasticall diuinity. Thus for example, when Christ descended into Lymbus Patrum, to deliuer the soules of the Iust from thence: some few Catholiks mantaine, that he descended efficacioussy and ver­tually only; others (which is the more sound opini­on) that he descended in soule, and really. But all of them belieue, that there was a true Lymbus Patrum (which is the [...], or conclusion it selfe) from whence Christ deliuered the soules of the Patriarks. And I referre to any schollers iudgment this infe­rence: Some Papists do teach & belieue, that Christ did descend into Lymbus Patrum, only vertually or efficaci­ously; others (and this with farre greater consent) that he descended in soule, and really: Ergo, some of them doe [Page 113]belieue there was not a Lymbus Patrum, exorbitantly concluded.

To this Head may also be referred, how our Protestant D. Iew­ell in his Apology of the Church of England p. 96. D. Fulke in his an­swere to a counterfeit Catholike pag. 65. D. VVil­let in his Synops. p. 60. Doctours (they are not ashamed to vrge it, and yet I am halfe ashamed but to relate it) for proofe of disagreements in Catholyke Religion, haue obiected the diuers Religious Orders in the Church of Rome; to wit, that some are Bernardins other Franciscans and the lyke; some goe in blacke o­ther in graye or whyte; these doe eate flesh, those do not &c. These argumentes (as discouering our extreme penury of better stuff) were far more conueniently forborne, then insisted vpon, fince they proue no contrariety at all in matters of fayth (for they all beleiue the same articles of Catholyke Religion) but only do show, who were the first beginners of those Orders; and that some members of the Catholyke Church do liue in a more gentle and remisse, others in a more strict and seuere degree of deuotion and Vertue (lyke the Centurion and Zachaeus, who by different wayes honored Christ:) Neuertheles they all take the three essentiall Vowes (I meane, of Chastity, Pouerty, and Obedience) necessary to euery Religious Order; and by their first Institution, do spend much tyme in Prayer, which is the Winge of the Soule; much tyme in fasting and other corporall chastisements, the winges of Prayer; good Men, still mortifying both body and Soule; their Will be­ing indeed to deny their Will, and their freedome consisting in restraint of Liberty; comforting them­selues with that sentence of Augustin: Omnia inucnit [Page 114]an De [...], qui propter Deum [...]mnia relinquit. And thus far hereof.

Concerning the Markes of the Church, what stratagems of wit do we vse? Do we So teacheth D. VVhit­guift in his▪ defence of the an­swer p. 81. Calu. insti. c. 1 sect. [...]. D. VVhi­taker cont. Campian. rat. [...]. pag. 44. and o­thers. not man­tayne (as a Cardinall poynt of our Profession) that the true preaching of the Word, and administration of the Sacraments, are the only signes of the true Church, to distinguish it from all false Synagogues and hereticall Conuenticles? To what end are these erected by vs for Notes? To the end (forsooth) that our selues alone may be the sole iudges, which is the true Church. For we reiect all authority of Fathers, Councells, and practise of Gods Church in teaching, when, and where the Word is truly preached, and the Sacraments duly ministred; and in the closure of all we will suffer no other Iudgments, then our owne, to passe vpon these poyntes; though euery registred Heretyke may and will, with as great con­fidence in his owne Opinion, challenge these No­tes to his Church and Professours, as we do. And thus by these Meandrian wynding, we reduce the knowing, which is the true Church, vnto the graue Appeale, made to our owne Priuate Spirit (aboue discouered) within the vast Circumference whereof, this particuler Collusion (besydes many others) is contayned.

I haue beene ouer longe in reuealing our owne blemishes and scarrs, (so Light discouereth Shame) and indeed I greiue (as tendring my Bre­threns reputation) that so vnworthy a subiect should so longe arrest my Pen. Therefore I will close vp in [Page 115]few words diuers other sophistications & subtiltyes practized by vs, both in impugning and answering our Aduersaryes. As how we are accustomed to de­praue, either by adding to, or concealing part of the sentence, in the testimonyes of the Authors, produced by vs (I speake confidently, for vpon my owne knowledge, we Protestants rest inexcusable heerin:) As also how after the end of the authority produced in a different letter, we begin with some few short words of our owne, directly against Ca­tholyke Religion, causing them to be printed in the lyke different letter; that so the Reader through di­uersity of the letter, may take them for the words of the for mer alledged Authour; And if we be ex­postulated thereof, we then ascrybe it to the Printers ouersight.

And for the better preuenting of all discouery thereof (as also when we vrge some authorityes without corrupting the words, yet insisted vpon by vs, most differently from the Authours mynd) we often all [...]adg the Authours name only, but without any citation of the Booke, where such words are to be found; and if of the Booke, yet without noting the chapter of solio; or if with noting the folio, yet not shewing what edition (when their are diuers) we do follow, seeing the same sentence or authority in seuerall Editions is to be found in seuerall folios. Also I briefly passe ouer, how ambitiously and af­fectedly we fill the margents of our Bookes with numberles citations of Texts of Scripture, meerely impertinent for proofe of the poynt questioned, but [Page 116]seruing only to cast dust to the eyes of the ignorant; How in refuting our Aduersaryes Booke, when we seeme to answere to some obiected Authority or argument, we often giue slip to the authority or point produced, and either by degrees flye to the state of the Question (as though afore it were not acknowledged) or to the Scripture (the accustomed Ocean of Heretyks, wherein they may wander vp and downe at large) or to some by-circumstance, Hier. in epist. ad Paulinum, Sola Scrip­turarī [...] ars est, quam sibi passim omnes ven­dicant [...] bane gar­rut [...] anus, hanc dest­rus Senex, hane So­phista ver­bosus, hanc vniuersi praesumūt, lacerant, docent [...]n requam discunt. meerely accessory to the doubt there controuerted, or vse longe and extrauagant discourses & ambages of Words; and all this, to entertayne the Reader therewith, that so vnespyedly we may diuert the Readers eye and memory (being thus fixed vpon our digressions) from the Authority or Reason al­leadged. And finally how in our Answering, we still set down in our books only such passages of our Aduersaryes wrytings, whereunto we are able to giue best colour of answere; concealing the most materiall and forcing proofes and arguments of our Aduersaryes said Books; Or if pretending integrity, we do reprint our Aduersaryes Books at large, then we commonly make choyce of a very darke, and litle Character or letter for it, therby more easily to withdrawe the Readers eye from perusing it at full; our owne answere thereto being set downe, in a fayre, large, and pleasing letter or Print: So caute­lous and subtill we are in our proceedings heerin. But inough of this Subiect, and Syr Edwin In his relation of Religion. Sands his words (a man of great eminency among vs) shall seale vp all the Premisses of this chapter: The [Page 117]Protestant Wryters in relation of things, haue abused this present age, and preiudiced Posterity; Loue and Dislyke haue so dazled their eyes, that they cannot be beleiued. But heer I must take leaue to vse a kynd of introuersion vpon our former deportments. When I first noted diuers of these peculiar deliueryes of our owne Brethren, I confesse, I was moued to a ver­tuous anger. O how often (sweet Iesus) did I de­mand in silence of spirit: Can that Religion be true, which for the supporting of it self, is forced to flye to these Collusions and Deceits, as to it strongest Sanctuary? Must the light of the Ghospell be needs thus blemished (for it own maintenance) with such works of darknes? Cannot true fayth be preached and planted in Mens soules, but by such deceauable meanes? Yes. Different Centers haue euer in their Orbes different motions; and truth and falshood can­not run one and the same lyne of proceeding. Poore man then, that I am; haue I so many yeares in my sermons and speaches so much laboured to perswade to that Religion, which otherwyse, then by these base and ignoble meanes cannot be vpholden? But mercifull Lord looke vpon me with the eye of Pitty: I acknowledg my fault, and do confesse in the words of Ieremy, that perhaps euen from my tongue and pen at vnawares, calumniam sustinuerunt filij I­srael: Iere [...] cap. 50. The Catholyks and their religion I haue wron­ged and depraued: so iustly are thy owne words ve­rifyed in my weaknes: Quod natum Ioan. cap. 3. est ex carne, caro est: flesh and bloud were the motiues, which for some yeares past sealed vp my lips from deliuering and preaching the Truth.

THE IX. MOTIVE. That the doctrine of Catholike Religion, tendes directly to vertue; of Protestancy, to vice and Liberty.

THE Propheticall King deliuereth this Encomion or prayse of the king­dom of Christ, which is his church: That it is, Lex Psalm. 18. Domini immacula­ta, testimonium fidele, praeceptum Do­mini illucidum? Meaning heereby, that the doctrine of the Ghospell of Christ contay­neth nothing that is false, in respect of fayth, no­thing vniust or wicked, in regard of manners. The former point being in part already discussed, in this other I will a little insist, briefly running ouer some few articles both of the Catholike and Protestant Religion; and so will referre to the indifferent Rea­der, which is that fayth, which leadeth to the broad way Matt. 7. of destruction, and which to the narrow & strait Luc. 1 [...]. & Matth. 7. way of life.

And first touching our Protestant doctrine [Page 119]of Iustification by only fayth, what liberty breedeth it in mans soule? Since by it we are taught, that not­withstanding our perpetrating of the most facine­rous crimes, one naked act of fayth in belieuing, that Christ dyed for our sinnes, washeth away all our ordure and stench. This fayth assureth vs, that Confession of sinnes is needles; that all satisfaction and Almesdeeds are bootles; that instantly vpon our deaths (without suffering any temporall punish­ment in Purgatory) we flye vp to heauen: And all this because Christ hath suffered, and payed for vs all; so little we belieue that saying: Satisfactio Tert. l. de poeni­ [...]nt. Confessione disponitur, Confessio poenitentia nascitur, poenitentia Deus mitigatur. Now doth not this open the sluce to all licenciousnes? May not a man reply vpon this ground, that we need not either to pray or fast at all; since Christ hath prayed and fasted for vs?

Our doctrine of depriuing man of Freewill, how preiudiciall is it to a vertuous life? Since it deadeth and blunteth all our endeauours in seeking to liue vertuously: For it teacheth, (to deliuer it in Luthers Serm. de Moyse. wordes) That the ten Commandments ap­pertaine not vnto Christians; or in M. Foxe his phrase, That the ten Commandments were giuen vs, not to doe them, but to know our damnation, and to call for mercy to God. And heereupon one Thesis or Conclusion of our fayth is, The impossibility of keeping the Com­mandments, taught by vs all, and particulerly by D. Willet Synop. pa [...]ism. p. [...]. in these wordes: The law remayneth still impossible to be kept by vs, through the weaknes of our [Page 120]flesh: Neither doth God giue vs ability to keep it, but Christ hath fullfilled it for vs. Now if we want Free­will, to what end should we striue to obserue the Commandments by mortifying our passions, or by for bearing the actions prohibited by them? Or to what end are admonitions to vertue, or threats de­terring from vice to be vsed, either by God in his holy write, or by man in humane lawes? In like sort, this doctrine of want of Freewill teacheth vs, that we haue not the guift of Chastity: a doctrine most M. Perkins in his refor­med Cath. pag. 161. say [...]h: The vow of continen [...]y is not in the power of him, that voweth. dangerous to all men and women vnmar­ryed; and also to those in state of Wedlocke, when the one party either through absence or impotency cannot discharge the due of Mariage. And out of this puddle streamed that filth of Luthers wordes: It Tom. 5 VVit­temberg. s [...]rm, de Matrimo. is not in our power to be without a woman &c. It is as necessary as to eate drinke, purge, make cleane the nose &c. And againe: If the wife will not let the maid come. What flesh-diuinity is this? Thus doth our first Euangelicall Prophet (who vaunted euer much of the spirit) like a good peace-maker, ioyne those two thinges togeather (I meane the Spirit and the Flesh) which the Scripture Matt. 1 [...]. Rom. 8. Cala [...]. 1. euer deuydeth and opposeth.

Our doctrine of the diuision of sinnes, teacheth, that to the faythfull professours of the Ghospel, all sinnes (though in others most heinous and grieuous) are but Muscu­lus in loc. comm. de pe [...]cat. se [...]t, 5. and D. Pulke a­gainst the Rhemish Testament in epist. Ioan. veniall. Now what encouragement to sinne doth this doctrine affoard to all those, who are perswaded, they haue true fayth? Since by this their doctrine, commit they what sinnes they will; they [Page 121]learne their sinnes shall not be imputed vnto them. And heereto euen D. Whitaker De Eccles. cōt. Bellarm. contro. 2. quast. 5. p. 301. accordeth in these wordes: Si quis actum fidei habet, eipectata non nocent. Sinne doth not hurt him, who actually belieueth. And Luther: No In his Sermons englished, & printed anno 1578. pag. 126. worke is disallowed of God vnles the Authour thereof be disallowed. And M. Wetton. To In his answere to the late po­pish arti [...]ies pag. 91. & 41. the faythfull sinne is pardoned, as soone as it is committed, they hauing receaued forgiuenes of all their sinnes past, and to come: strange and dangerous asser­tions.

Our doctrine of Reprobation, teaching, that let one, who is reprobate, labour neuer so much to serue God in vertue and piety, neuertheles he shall not, nor cannot be saued, engendreth many terrours in the soule of man, and cannot, but discourage man from vertue and piety. In like sort our vndoubted certainty of saluation taught by vs, giueth to man a great liberty to sinne; since by this doctrine a vici­ous life (though contaminated with all kindes of flagitious enormityes) cannot preiudice him, who is assured of saluation. And which is more, this certainty of saluation we teach, euen during our voluntary committing of sinne; since otherwise if vpon the new committing of any sinne, the party should begin to be vncertaine of his saluation, then was his former certainty no true certainty at all. And hither tend those most dangerous wordes of Luther A Tom. 1. wittem. de captiu. Babyl. fol. 74. Christian man is so rich, that although be would, he cannot loose h s saluation by any sinne, how great soeuer, vnles he will not belieue. And those of D. Fulke: Dauid In the tower dis­pu [...]. with Edm. Cāp. the second dayes con­ference. [...]. b. euen when he committed adultery, [Page 122]was and remayned the child of God. What bellowes of Libertinisme are these our positions?

Concerning good Workes, how much doe we disparage them by our doctrine, since we teach, they cannot iustify man, nor merit any thing at Gods hands? Now who belieueth this, can he with any alacrity vndertake feriall and painefull works (they being otherwise crosse and repugnant to mans na­tural dispositiō?) therfore how dangerous are these and the like positions of our owne Brethren? viz. To hould Illiri­cus in prae­fat. ad Rom. that good workes are in respect, but of presence necessary to saluation (as some Protestants do hould) is a papisticall errour. Yea Illyricus Vid [...] Acta [...]ol loq. Alde­burgen. p. 120 sect. 11. further procee­ding, sayth thus: Good workes are not only not necessa­ry to saluation, but hurtfull to it, alleadging in defence of this monstrous opinion euen Luther. Tindall thus assenteth heereto: There Act. Mon. p. 1330. is no one worke better then another, as touching to please God; to make water, to wash dishes, to be a sower, or an Apostle, all is one to please God.

But to descend more particulerly to the doctrine of good workes: And first of Chastity, thus basely heereof doth Luther speake, saying: If we Tom. 5. VVittē. ad c. 7.1. Cor f. 107 respect the nature of Matrimony, and single life in themselues, Matrimony is as gould, and the spirituall state of single life, as dunge And D. Whitaker Contra Camp rat. 8. p 15 [...]. See also D. Fu [...]k a­gainst the Rh [...]mish Testament in 1. Cor. 7. de­presseth Virginity in these words, saying: Virginity is not smply good, but after a certaine manner: How much are the thousands of Virgins mentioned in the Apo­calips (who follow the Lambe, wheresoeuer he goeth) behoulden to these two good men?

[Page 123]Of Voluntary pouerty, we find D. Willer thus to auerre: He In his Synops. p. 245. is an enemy to the glory of God, that changeth his rich estate (wherein he may serue God) for a poore. Belike our Doctour was afraid to be perfect in following our Sauiour, by giuing his goodes to the Matt. 19. Poore.

Of Fasting, our sayd D. Synop. p. 24 [...]. Willet thus pro­nounceth: Neither is God better worshipped by eating, or not eating. And M. In his reformed Cathol. p. 220. Perkins: Lasting in it selfe is a thing indifferent as is eating and drinking. It is well, that these our Brethren were not Niniuites, since perhaps they would haue sought to appease Gods wrath, by eating and drinking rather, then by Ionas 4. fasting. But to the point. Seeing then by these our former doctrines, all good workes are bootles and vnnecessary; and any sinnes whatsoeuer not preiu­diciall to mans saluation (if so he can but belieue) I referre to all impartiall iudgmentes, whether in an euen libration and wayghing of the matter, these our positions tend not directly to the suppressing of Vertue, and aduancement of sinne and sensuality.

Now if we next cast our eyes vpon the Catholik positions, they do (in my iudgment) containe the very seed of all vertue and godly conuersation: since they teach Confession of sinnes (a thing vngrat­full to mans nature) & this to be accōpanyed with a true resolution (at least not to cōmit after the like, or otherwise improfitable. They teach restitution for iniuryes committed; set tymes of Fasting, and Pra­yer; they further propose to the Caedar of Libanus (I meane to those of the Church, who striue to ariue to [Page 124]the height and perfection of Christian vertue) Cha­stity, Obedience, and Pouerty. By Chastity, the professours thereof ouer-rule and beate downe all rebellious suggestions of the flesh; by Obedience, they curbe the inuate obstinacy and pride of man, wholy submitting themselues in their liues to their Supe­riours disposall; thus being become men meerely passiue, and in whome (as showing no reluctation therein) there is found no Reaction; by Pouerty, they renounce all superfluityes, and riches of the world fruitlesse for the most part, and through abuse, bar­renner then Want; following heerein the Councel of the 1. Ioan. 2. Euangelist in contemning the world: principles so peculiar to Catholikes, and so disclay­med from by vs Protestants, that one Iaco­bus Acō ­tius serm. 4. in c. 21. Lucae. of vs la­menteth thereat, thus saying: A serious and Christiā discipline is censured with vs, as a new Papacy, and a new Monachisme. And Syr Edwin In his relation of Religion. &c. Sands (a great Maister in Israel) through racke of truth, and his owne experience in trauell, is forced thus to con­fesse: Let the Protestants looke with the eye of Charity vpon those of the Papacy, and they shall find some excellent Orders of gouernement, some singular helps for increase of godlynes and deuotion, for the conquering of sinne, for the prositing in Vertue &c.

But setting a part the different doctrines of both sides, and comming to peruse the liues of both professions, we shall find no small disparity therein. Touching the Protestants, I will passe them ouer in silence, they being heeretofore (and yet are) my deare Brethren, whome I affect with all true Chri­stian [Page 125]Charity; referring ech man to his owne expe­rience of these dayes, and to Luthers iudgement of his tyme, saying: The In po­slida. E­uangel. Dom 1. Aduentus world groweth euery day worse, men are now more reuengefull, couetous, and licentious, then they were euer in the Papacy. Only I cannot for­beare my own, and others mens obseruation; which is, That men departing from the Catholike Church to vs, euer become worse in conuersation, then afore; and lea­uing vs to imbrace our Aduersaryes religion they instāt­ly begin a more reformed life. Touching the first, who more depraued in all licentiousnes and luxury, then our Renegades, or Protestant Ianisaryes (as I may tearme them) after they haue once forsaken the Catholike Church; they being descended from those, mentioned in Iob Cap. 15. Bibunt (quasi aquam) ini­quitatem: They euen meditate how to become ex­tremely vicious; and (as I may say) they hould it a sinne to be but second in any sinne, so much they affect all principality therein. Witnesses heereof are the reuolted Priests (the very scumm and improfi­table burdens of the earth.) Good God! what base, treacherous, and inhumane motions haue some of them made to me, for my imploying of their seruice! But I will stay my pen.

Concerning those, who leauing Protestan­cy, become Catholyks; Many, euen Protestants do obserue and confesse with me, that by such their change in fayth, they make a greater change in manners (the will thus expecting to partake of the Vnderstādings good) stil bettering their course of life, and regulating in part their former exorbitancyes. [Page 126]My self haue much marked this alteration, and one example I cannot without wronge passe ouer: It is this. One yeare in my Vice chancelouriship in Oxford (my deare mother, from whose brestes, I haue sucked my best milke) there was a Mayster of Arts, a man of reasonable yeares; in iudgment a most forward and earnest Protestant; of a delicate and choyce wit; good literature; a great spirit; but extremely dissolute, and loose in manners, as wholy giuen ouer to Sensuality. I wished him well for his good partes (though his tares did ouergrow his wheat) and for his friends behalfe. My many per­swasions for his change of lyfe, was but as seede sowne in a barren ground; in so much, as I was forced otherwyse to chastize him for his publike dis­orders. This Man leauing Oxford, trauelled beyond the Seas; there stayed some yeares; altered his iudg­ment in Religion; renewed his studyes; was made Priest; returned into England; was apprehended, and conuented before me, then B. of London At the first sight I remembred well the Man, and he me. I could him I was sorry to heare that he had changed Ierusalem for Babylon (I did meane Englād, for Rome, and the light of the Ghospel, for supposed blynd Superstition.) I talked with him in priuate: He denyed not his Priesthood: I vrged him, that his former bad Course of lyfe serued, as a disposi­tion to his now worse state. I profered him (if so h [...] would returne to the Truth) to procure (besydes his liberty) present competency of Meanes, and hereafter better aduancements; for I thought, such [Page 127]a man might be much seruiceable in our Church. He kyndly thanked me for my proffers. But I remem­ber, at my touching of his lyfe, he gushed out into abundance of teares, fully acknoledging his former enormous courses; and his teares ceasing, thus re­plyed: My Lord, (for this was his answere) it is to be feared, that I may say with some Ancients: perijssem si non perijssem, since the reflecting vpon the deformity and vglines of my owne former wic­ked courses, was occasionally a meanes for my change of Religion, and my incorporating into Gods Church, through his infinite mercy, who worketh good out of euill, as once he 2. Cor 1.4. did commād Light to shyne out of Darknes. Me thought I saw compunction & humility in his face (such a change there was betweene him, and his former selfe:) he tould me, for temporall benefits, he expected none; his enlargment he desyred so far forth, as therby he might more fully execute his Priesthood; saying he desyred no other haruest in this World, then to re­duce poore straying soules to the Catholik Church. But touching my motioning his reuolt in his fayth, his reply was, that if he had as many lyues, as there are stars in Heauen (a supernaturall and wonder­full resolution) he would lose them all, before he would change his religion. I enquyred of his cariage in prison, and I was informed, that, besides the affliction of the place (which might seeme suffici­ent) he vsed diuers voluntary austerityes. The end was, I not preuayling with him in my desyres, did hasten his banishement. But obseruing his different [Page 128]comportmentes at these two different tymes, how often thought I (for then I made no other constru­ction, though I graunt, since I haue giuen it ano­ther Comment) must it be the mishap of the Gospell of Christ, and the aduantage of Superstition, that a Man professing the true sayth, must engulfe him­self in all wickednes; and after comming from the light into the darknes of Errour, must instantly breath penitency of former sinnes, humility, cha­rity, and sanctity of lyfe? But inough of this Man.

As concerning other Priests in generall, my experience taken from their often appearance and conuiction before me, assureth my iudgment, that (abstracting from the Lawes of the Realme) they are good Men, greatly deuoted to vertue and piety, labouring (with exposall of their liues to imminent danger) to saue seduced Soules. And indeed it is aboue the leuell of Nature, to see most of them, Gen­tlemen by byrth, of liberall education, hauing o­therwise competency of meanes (yea some heyres to their parents whole Patrimony and state) thus to shake hands with the world, and all the pleasures thereof (so bearing a spirituall death, in a naturall lyfe) and ready only for the good of other soules, to become so many yonge Isaacs, expecting to be made sacrifices, if the Angell of mercy stay not the hand of the Law. Thus where some two or three of them (among many scores) through a base reuol­ting pusillanimity (commonly vshered afore with a secret vitious course) are glad to purchase an ig­noble [Page 129]lyfe with ouerthrow, the rest stand prepa­red to suffer a most happy death with Victory.

For the Lay-Catholykes, I know they are commonly of most tender Consciences. How many (besydes men) euen Women, yea Gentle­women and Ladyes of note, haue beene afore me? to whom I haue profered all kyndnes, if they would show but the least relenting in the smallest poynt of their Religion; but their resolution was so vnal­terable, that I was wont to muse thereat, and say to my selfe: see how weaknes remaynes firme and vnuanquished, when strength oftentymes doth fall and yeald. Besydes, how many young gentlewomen of good portions, and fitting for the World, do leaue for euer their Countrey & friends, only to cloyster themselues within a wall, and there to sper [...] all their dayes in Chastity, fasting, prayer and deuotion? Holy Iesus, forgiue me, for my hindering of diuers such, from taking this holy Course.

But to hasten to an end. Since the doctryne of Catholyks and Protestans are so different in na­ture; the one euen exhaling forth liberty and sen­suality; the other vertue, piety, and mortifica­tion; and since the lyke disparity would be found in their lyues, if due examination were made the­reof; what els, can I conclude, but that the Ca­tholyke Religion is the true Religion, and Pro­testancy but Errour & Innouation? Except I should mantayne (contrary to the prouidence, goodnes, & charity of God, and to all naturall Reason) that [Page 130]true fayth must needs be accompanyed with a bad lyfe, and false fayth with a good lyfe; as if Truth in do­ctryne had interleaged and couenanted with Vice, and Vertue with falshood and Errour, to deceaue Mankynd.

THE X. MOTIVE. That Luther and Caluin are cheife Patrones of Arianisme; and therefore in other poynts of fayth are not to be followed.

NVM QVID Matt 6 7. colligunt de spinis vuas aut de tribulis ficus? saith our Blessed Sauiour. By which words I am taught, that Truth in par­ticuler doctrynes, hardly taketh it flowing and emanation from those Men, who are transcendently euil, either in their liues, or in their mayntenance of any execrable blasphemyes. Since then I fynd Luther and Caluin (the two cheife Corner-stones in the edifice of our Protestant Church) maynely in their wry­tings to impugne the sacred Mystery of the holy Tri­nity (the most supreme and Cardinall poynt of Christian Religion,) I cannot easily be induced any longer to imbrace and entertayne other dog­maticall poynts of fayth (as true) first broached in these dayes by them. Good Protestant Reader, who [Page 132]shalt deigne to peruse this passage I do not wish thee heere to blush through shame, at these thy Grand Maysters proceedinges (for that were an ouer myld and gentle redargution of them;) but I will thee e­uen to grow pale through feare and horrour, to fynd Men (vpon whose credit and affiance thy fayth, and consequently the weale or woe of thy owne Soule greatly dependeth) to rise to that ascent of Impiety, as to reuine and raise vp out of the depth of Hell the most blasphemous Heresy of Arius, a­gainst the Maiesty of the Sonne of God, and Saui­our of the world. But heer I see it is true; Tert. contra Gentes. fiunt, non nascumtur Christiani.

To come to the poynt. And first concerning Luther, Is it not confessed, that Luther was so ad­uerse to the Blessed Trinity, as that he would not brooke this Verse to stand in the Litanyes: In po­stil. maiore Basileae, printed 15 [...]7. Holy Vide Enchirid. precum, anni 1543. Trinity, one very God, haue mercy vpon vs? He affir­ming (c) the word Trinity, to be an humane inuen­tion, and to sound coldly. And hence it is, that Luther in these ensuing words disgorgeth forth his poison against the most sacred Trinity: Anima Luth. [...]il. cont. Iacobum Latomum tom. 2. VVittemb latinèedito anno 15 [...]. though in later editi­ons these wordes are purposely left out & omitted. mea odit [...]; & optimè exegerunt Ariani, ne votem illam prophanam & nouam, regulis fidei statui liceret. that is, My soule euen hateth the Word [...], or Consubstantialie; And the Arians iustly vrged, that this prophane and new word should not be inserted within the rules or principles of our fayth. And beer upon also it well may be that Luther purposely expungeth out of his Dutch Bibles, this following place of Scrip­ture, being a markable text in proof of the Trinity: [Page 133] There be 1. Ioan. 5. three which giue witnes in Heauen; the Fa­ther, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three be one And thus much for some tast of Luthers mynd heerein; who stands so iustly chargeable with this execrable Heresy of Arius, that Zu nglius wryting against him touching that subiect, thus rebuketh him: In Tom. 2. in resp. Luth. sol. 474. verbis Lutheri grauissimi errores latitant &c. There lye most great errors in Luthers words. When I reade Luthers booke, it seemes to me, that a beastly Hog doth gruntle in a garden, beset with most fragrant flowers so impurely, so vnlyke to a Deuyne, and so im­properly Luther disputeth of God & al holy things Thus Zuinglius.

To come to Caluin ( Luthers heyre-apparent, though by his owne industry, he hath much impro­ued (as I may say) his bequeathed inheritance:) Cal­uins absolute dislike of the Trinity, and the doctrine thereof is manifested three seuerall wayes. First by his owne speaches deliuered against the Trinity; & his different expounding (from all Antiquity) the chiefest passages of Scripture, vsually alleadged in proofe of the Trinity. Secondly, from the testimo­nyes of other learned Protestants (for I purposly for­beare all authority of Catholikes heerein) charging Caluin with Arianisme. Thirdly, from the examples of the new Arians, who before their reuolt thereto, were commonly earnest and forward Caluinistes. To begin with the first. And first we do find Caluin to tread the steps of Luther, in disallowing that so­mer prayer: Holy Trinity, one God, haue mercy vpon vs. For thus Caluin In epist 2. ad Polo­nos in tract the­olog. pag. 796. writeth: Precatio, sancta [Page 134]Trinitas, vnus Deus miserere nostri, mihi non placet, ac omnino barbariem sapit. That is, That prayer, holy Tri­nity one God, haue mercy vpō vs, pleaseth not me since it wholy tasteth of Barbarisme. Touching Caluins con­trary interpreting of the chiefest texts of Scripture, alleadged by all antiquity, for proofe of the Trinity, two or three texts shall serue for example. And first that principall passage: I, and Ioan. 10. the Father are (v­num) one, viz. thing, euer mainly insisted vpon by the Viz. Basi [...]. l. 1. in Eunom. circa finē. Chrysost in hunc locum Augu. in hunc locū, & omnes adj. Fathers against the old Arians, for proofe of the Trinity, is thus auoyded by Caluin: Abusi In Io­an. cap. 10. sunt hoc loco veteres, vt probarent Christum esse Patri [...]. Neq: enim Christus de vnita [...]e substantiae dis­putat, sed de consensu &c That is, The Ancients haue abused this place, to proue from thence, Christ to be con­substantiall to his Father; for Christ heere disputeth not of the vnity of essence, but of the vnity of consent and Will; this being indeed the old condemned interpre­tation of Arius. Againe, that text: Thou Psalm. 2. art my Sonne (hodie) this day I haue begotten thee, interpreted not only by the Fathers, but euen by the Apostle Hebr. cap. 1. himself, to proue Christs diuinity, is in these words shifted off by Caluin Scio Calu. in psal. 2. hunc locū de aeterna Chris [...]i generation [...] à mult is fuisse expositum, qui & in verbo (ho­die) argutè philo ophati sunt &c. I know well, that ma­ny haue interpreted this place of the eternall generation of Christ, subtily disputing about the word hodie.

Againe, that markable passage aboue tou­ched, There 1 Ioan. 5. be three, that giue testimony in heauen, the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost; and these three be one. Which words all Fathers Hier. in hunc locum Cypr. l. de vnit. Eccles▪ [...] ­than. in l. 1 ad l be­ [...]ph. and Inter­preters [Page 135]euer expounded of the Trinity, is thus an­swered by Caluin: Quod Calu. in hun. lo­cum. dicit tres ess [...] vnum, ad essentiam non refertur, sed ad conscusum potiùs That is, Where it is heere sayd, these three are one; these wordes are not to be referred to one, in respect of essence, but rather in respect of consent. And thus far of some few chiefest texts of all (pretermitting diuers others As in Genes. c. 1. touching the word E [...]oim, and Genes c. 19. Psal. 33. & di [...]e [...] 3 o­ther textes prouing the Blessed Trinity. for bre­uity) prouing the doctrine of the most B. Trinity; yet otherwise depraued and misconstrued by Caluin

Now that Caluin is charged by diuers Prote­stants, for mantayning of Arianisme, is no lesse eui­dent. For (among others) Aegidius Hunnius (a most remarkable and learned Protestant) writeth a book against Caluin euen of this subiect, entituling it, Caluinus Iudaizans: Hoc est Iudaicae glossae & corrupte­lae, quibus Ioannes Caluinus illustrissima Scripturae sacrae loca & testimonia de gloriosa Trinit ate &c. aetestandum in modum corrumpere non exhorruit In like sort the sayd Author writeth a secōd book of the same subiect cal­ling it: Anti-paraeus. Againe, Conradus In the­olog. Cal­uinist. l. 2. fol. 38.39.4 [...]. &c. Schlusselburg (a Protestant) deeply and frequently chargeth Caluin with Arianisme. Ioannes Matthaeus (a Protestant) writing against Caluin for teaching Arianisme, enti­tuleth his booke: De cauendo Caluinistarum fermento &c. Also Pelargus (a Protestant) thus passeth ouer Caluin and his schollars in these wordes. Non In his admenit. de Arianis hic Caluinum & Caluinianos in plurinis scripturae expositio­nibus [...], and [...], laboriosè ostendam &c. That is, I heere pretermit to show, how Caluin and the Caluinists in many expositions of sacred Scripture, do play the Iewes, and the Arians. Lastly Stancarus (a Calui­nist [Page 136]in other poynts) thus wryteth to Caeluin: Con­clusum Contra minist [...]os Ge [...]teuen­ses & Ty­gu [...]inos. est (ô Caluine doctrinam tuam de filio Dei esse plane Arianam; de qua resilias quāprimum te [...]ro at (que) ob­secro: that is: O Caluin, it is concluded that thy doctryne touching the Sonne of God, is plainly Arian; from which I beseech thee, that thou wouldest presently depart.

Now to crosse these learned Mens iudgements passed vpon Caluin, it is not sufficient to affirme, that Caluin euer in his lyfe professed himselfe to be­leiue the doctryne of the Trinity: since such his pro­fession can be, but only externall, and in words: for how can he be presumed inwardly and vndoub­tedly to beleiue that doctryne, the greatest authori­tyes in proofe of which doctrine himselfe laboureth to ouerthrow, at least, to eneruate and weaken?

Touching the third poynt, to wit, that most of our new Arians at this day were afore earnest Cal­uinists, is auerred by diuers learned Protestan s And first M. Hooker thus faith of this: In his Eccles. po­licy l. 4. p. 183. The Arians in the reformed Churches of Poland (meaning thereby the reformed Churches of the Caluinists there) thinke the very beleife of the Trinity to be a part of Antichristiā corruption; And that the Popes triple crowne is a sensible marke, whereby the world might know him to be that my­stica [...]l beast spoken of in the Reuelation; in [...] respect so much, as in his doctryne of the Trinity. Againe the a­fore alledged Stancarus Contra Ministros Ge [...]teuen­ses & Ty­gu [...]mos. fol. 94. thus peremptorily auer­reth: The reformed Churches of Geneua and Tigure, are Arians. Iacobus [...]n praefat. refutat. Apolog. Dauaei. Andraeas (a learned Pro [...]estāt) thus giueth his iudgment heerein: Minimù mirandum est ex Caluinianis in Polania, Transilua [...]is & H [...]ungaria, [...]ly [...] (que) [Page 137]locis, quamplurimos ad Arianismum accessisse &c that is: It is not to be woundred, that very many Caluinists in Polonia, Transiluania, Hungary, and other places, do imbrace Arianisme &c. to which impiety the doctryne of Caluin hath prepared way. Thus Andraeas: to whose sentence the learned In his Antipa­raeus p. 97 Hunnius subcribeth in these words: Tot celebres Anti-trinitary ex Caluinianorum Scholis & Ecclesijs prodierunt &c. So many eminent Anti-trinitarians (or enemyes to the doctrine of the Trinity) haue issued out of the Schooies and Churches of the Caluinists &c.

But to seale vp the truth heerof, with pro­ducing examples of particuler men, who being Cal­uinists, became Arians, I will heere content my selfe with one testimony only. Adam Neuserus (a Caluinist of great note, and once cheife Pastour of Heidelberge) became an Arian, and after a Turke, and thereupon flying to Constantinople, did wryte from thence to one Gerlachius (a Protestant Mini­ster) in Iuly 2. anno 1574. in this sort. None This is related by Osiander in Epitom. ceut. 16. p. 208. is knowne to be in our tyme made an Arian, who was not first a Caluinist, as Seruetus, Blandrata, Paulus Alcia­tus, Francis us Dauid, Gentilis, Gebraldus, Siluanus & others: Therefore who feareth to fall into Arianisme, let him take heed of Caluinisme. Thus much Neuserus for example of himselfe, and these other particuler Arians, who first were Caluinists. And thus far of this subiect, where we fynd by seuerall kynds of proofs, that Luther & Caluin are Posthumi to Arius, and that Mans Vnderstanding in these our tymes, neuer receaueth the deepe and full dye of Arianisme, [Page 138]except first (as for a due preparation thereto) it be drenched and steeped in the tincture of Caluinisme.

But now to turne backe vpon the Premisses, and vpon my selfe: What Reason can I probably haue, that Luther, Caluin, and their ofspring (thus maynly erring in the fundamentall poyntes of Christianity) doth not also erre in other lesser prin­ciples of their owne religion? Is it possible, that the wronging of Christ in his Essence, being, & honour, should be a step or disposition, to preach in other poynts, the true fayth of Christ? Or shall the sup­porters and reuiuers of Arius (the designed enemy of my Sauiour) be my instructors and guydes, tou­ching my beleife in my Sauiour? No. Such Pseudo­christians, and their serpentine and hidden malice against thee (sweet Iesus) I loath, and disclayme from: who, though not as the Lambe of God (which taketh away the Sinne of the world) yet as the Lyon of Apoc. cap. 5. the Trybe of Iuda (which confoundeth his enemyes) will for thyne honours sake, inflict iust punishments vpon them, for these their perpetrated indignityes.

THE XI. MOTIVE. That there is vnity in Faith in Catholike Reli­gion; and disagreements in fayth in Protestancy.

AMONG other incommunica­ble Attributes of God, it is ascri­bed vnto him, that he is Since his vnity is opposed to all multi­tude, as his simpli­city of na­ture is to all compo­sition. summè Vnus (though this his vnity of Essence and Nature comprehen­deth (eminenter) all multiplicity of perfections in creatures.) This Vnity by way of Analogy (that so the spouse might be heerein like to her Brydegrome) God hath imprinted vpon his Church, as an inseparable marke or Character. And this consisteth, in that her members are to im­brace one fayth, one Religion, and (according to the Apostles wordes) endeauouring Ephes. 4. to keep the v­nity of spirit in the band of peace; continuing Philip. 1. & 1. Petr. 3. in one spirit and one mind. Which sacred and indeleble stampe of vnity is so proper to God (euen in this se­condary acceptance) that therefore the 1. [...]or. 14. Apostle [Page 140]styleth him, the God not of dissention, but of vnity. Heere then it commeth to be examined, to which Church this venerable title of Vnity may best seeme to be appropriated. Touching the Catholik Church, we find our own Brethrē (though loath to ascribe to her greater perfections, then she truly enioyeth; for willingly, Nolunt Tert. coutra Gentes. audire, quod auditum damnare non possunt) to confesse thus much: Contentiones D. VVhitak de Eccles. cont. Bel­larm. cont. 2. q. 5. pag. 327. Papistarum sunt friuolae & futiles, de figmentis & com­mentis sui cerebri; meaning heereby, that the Catho­likes contentions strike not at the hart of their Reli­gion, but concerne thinges only of small moment; so graunting their differences to be only about In­differencyes. But D. Fulke A­gainst Hes­ [...]ms, Sanders &c p. 295. acknowledgeth of this point more fully, saying: As for the consent and peace of the Popish Church, it proueth nothing, but that the Diuell had then all thinges at his will, and therefore might sleep, thus graunting an vnity of fayth in the Roman Church, but falsly obtruding it vpon the enemy of Vnity.

But if now we looke backe vpon our selues, it is cleare, that D. Whitaker Vbi supra. had good reason to say: Nostrae contentiones sunt propter fidem, they shaking indeed the whole Systema, and frame of Protestancy. For we do nothing els, but by our reciprocall wri­tings one against another, labour to reedify the tower of Babylon: Such a tumultuous and confused heape and masse of dissentions in doctrine we haue raysed vp by our pennes, and now raised cannot laye them; we resembling heerin the Moone, which is able to stir and moue the humours in mans body, [Page 141]but not of force to dissipate and dispell them. And first we disagree euen in the approuall or dispronall of Scripture; since there are whole Churches These bookes are denye [...] by most Lu­therans in Germany, both beer­tofore (& particuler­ly by Kē ­nitius in [...]nchi [...]id. p. 63. end in exam. Conci. Tri. part. 1. p. 55.) and at this day, they not suffering these books to be prin­ted in the same vo­lume with other ac­knowled­ged Scrip­ture. in Germany, and all professing Protestancy, which at this day do reiect the Epistles of Iame [...], of Iude, the second of Peter, the second and third of Iohn, the e­pistle to the Hebrewes and the Apocalips Secondly we disagree in our translating of confessed Scripture, as heereafter shalbe demonstrated. Thirdly, we dis­agree in the construction of that Scripture, which we acknowledge to be Canonicall and truly translated, as will more fully appeare heereafter in our mutuall accusations.

But to approach more neerely to this point; the Reader is to conceaue, that our interchangeable dis­sentions and condemnatious in matters of Religion are in seuerall sorts. First the Lutherans with the Sa­cramentaryes, I meane with the Zuingliaus and Cal­ninists. Secondly the Sacramentaryes condemning the Lutherans. Thirdly, the Lutherans among them­selues. Fourthly the Sacramentaryes among them­selues, vnder whome are comprehended the Prote­stants and Puritans heere in England.

And first to begin with the iudgment of the Lutherans passed vpon the Sacramentaryes, Luther himselfe thus sayth: We Thes. 21. contra Louaniens. seriously iudge the Zuin­glians & Sacramentaryes, to be heretiks, and aliens from the Church of God. And againe he sayth: The Epist. ad Ioannē Heruag. Typograp. Argent. Sa­cramentaryes began their opinion of the Sacrament with lyes, and with lyes they end it. And yet further: We will Tom. 7. in de­f [...]ns verbo. Coenae Do­mini fol. 386. reproue and condemne them (to wit the Sa­cramentaryes) [Page 142]for Idolaters, corrupters of Gods word, blas [...]emers and deceauers; and of them, as of the enemyes of the Ghospell, we will sustaine persecution and spoyle of our goods &c. Thus much Luther himselfe.

Neither are Luthers Posthumi (I meane the Lutherans, whome by testimony of D In his answere to F. Camp. his 8. rea­son. Whitaker the English Protestants imbrace, as their deare bre­thren in Christ) more mild in censuring the Sa­cramentaryes, then their Father was. For Luke Enchi. cont. Calu. cap 7. Osiander (a Lutheran) speaking of certaine wicked assertions touching Christ, sayth thus: But heere (gentle Reader) beyond & aboue those blasphemous things which in the discourse afore we haue heard against the Son of God, out of the opinion of our Aduersaryes (the [...]alui­nists) there openeth it selfe a gulfe of hell of Caluinian do­ctrine, in which God is sayd to be the Authour of sinne. &c. And hence of necessity, must arise in the hartes of men manifest blasphemyes against God. West halus (a Lutheran) auerreth, Apol. cont. Calu. p. 430. c. 19. that all the Caluinian workes are stuffed with taunts, curses, and lyes. And he further affirmeth: That there are certaine pages of Caluins works of which euery one contayneth aboue twenty lyes & taūts. In his epist, dedi­catory to the co [...]u­tations of Caluins de­prauatiōs. Hunnius (a most remarkable Lutheran) chargeth Caluin, that he wresteth the Scriptures horribly, from their true sense, to the ouerthrow of himselfe and others. Brentius In re­cognit. Prophetar. sayth: All the Zuinglians workes are full of deprauations, cunnings, deceits and slaunders. Con­radus In prae­sat. Theo. Ca [...]ui [...] ▪ Schlusselour [...]e confidently auerreth; That the Caluinists do nourish Arian, and Turkish impietyes in their harts, which doth not seldome, at sit tymes openly disclose it selfe. And thus passing ouer the censures, [Page 143]which the Bookes Caluinus Iudaizans, and Caluino­papismus (both written by Lutherans) do giue, besides many other bookes written against him, and the Sacramentaryes by the Lutherans; this already set downe, shall suffice concerning the Lutherans çon­demnation of Caluin, and other Sacramentaryes.

Next let vs obserue how the Sacramentaryes carry themselues towardes Luther. And first Zuin­gliùs Zuing. tom. 2. in resp. ad Luth. Con­fess. fol. 4 [...]8 & 469. calleth Luther, Marcion (the old heretike) & further sayth, that Luther is guilty of high blasphemy against the nature and essence of God, in that he taught, that Christ dyed according to his Diuinity. He Further speaketh of Luther touching the same poynt, saying This can be, by no reason, explayned or excused: for Luther clearely and manifestly confesseth, that he will not acknow­ledge Christ to be his Sauiour, if only his Humanity had suffered. Zuinglius, also wryting in another place against In resp ad Luther. I. desacra­ment. fol. 401. Luthers doctryne, thus prouoketh. Thou (Luther) shalt be forced either to denye the whole Scrip­turs of the new Testament, or to acknowledg Marcions Heresy. And in the same place fol. 478. Zuinglius saith of Luther thus:

Caluin speaking of Luthers Heresyes Instit. l. 4. c 317. §. [...] 17. saith: By the Lutherans Marcion is raised out of Hell; and in one Ad­monit. 3. ad VVest­phalum. place, Caluin thus further wryteth: The Lu­therans are forgers and Lyars Ioannes (z) Campanus (a Sacramentary) thus anathematizeth Luther: In col­loq. lat. Luth. tom. 2. cap. de Aduers. As certaine as God is God, so certaine it is, that Luther was a diuellish lyar.

Finally for greater breuity (occasioned rather throgh [Page 144]leauing much out of this subiect, then contracting of all which can be said) Oecolāpadius (that [...]ial. contra Melancth. glit­tering Caluinist) affirmes, that the Lutherans bring forth only a colour and shadow of the word of God (as He­retyks commonly are accustomed to do.) They bring not the Word of God and yet they will seeme to build vpon the Word of God; & of Luther in particular he thus saith: Let Oecol. in resp. ad confess. Luther. Luther take heed, least being puffed vp with pride, he be deceaued by Satan. See with what full and in­temperate tearmes the Caluinists do charge Luther, from whom they first receaued the supposed splen­dour of their Gospell; bearing their selues heerin, as vngratefully, as the Moone doth to the Sun, which in enioying her greatest borrowed light, showeth her greatest Opposition: He taking that name, as supposed to be (according to the Etymology) Lā ­spas domus Dei.

Now, as we haue seene, the Lutherans con­demning the Sacramentaryes, and the Sacramenta­ryes them againe; So neither of these two s [...]rtes doth absolutely approue such, as are of their owne faction. And first we fynd, that Conradus Schlussel­burg In Catalog hae­retic. [...]o­stritempo­ris l. [...]. (the foresaid Lutheran) placeth six sorts of his owne Lutherans in the Catalogue of Heretyks: And so through the disallowing of one anothers doctryne, did first ryse the distinction of Molles and Rigidi Lutherani; so as it is manifest euen out of their owne books and Inuectyues, that they hould one another for Heretykes.

Touching the differences betweene the Cal­uinists amongst themselues; they are these which [Page 145]follow, to wit, Concerning the Churches Visibility; Christs suffering in soule the paynes of Hell, his descending into Hell after death; Baptisme of lay Persons in tyme of Necessity; reprobation and Vniuersality of Grace; whether in case of adultery, the innocent party may marry againe; whether Vsury be lawfull; Whether Christs body be really and substantially present in the Sacrament to the mouth of fayth, as D. Whitaker, M. Hooker &c. do hould, or but Sacramentally only present, as the Puritans main­tayne; whether Bishops be lawfull, or Antichristian; whe­ther the signe of the Crosse in baptisme, and the vse of the surplisse be lawfull; whether the Ciuil Magistrate may be head of the Church; and finally (to omit many other doctrines, controuerted among the Protestants) whether God doth decree and will Sinne, or but only decree to per­mit sinne. All which pointes (besides many more) are seuerally mantayned by seuerall Protestants; yea most of the points by those Protestants, not be­ing Lutherans, which are aduerse to the Puritans.

To exemplify in one or two of the former: Doth not Lib. de Coena Do­mini & l. 4. Instis. c▪ 15. § 1. Caluin condemne Zuinglius for tea­ching, that the Sacraments are bare external signes? And is not Caluin reciprocally condemned by Zuin­glius Epist. ad quandā Germaniae ciuitat. fol 190. againe, because he attributed more to the Sacramentes, then externall signes? Castalio (a Sacramentary) charging Caluin to be the authour of Sinne, maketh a distinction of the true God, and of Caluins God; and among other thinges he thus sayth: By Lib. ad Calu [...]. de praedestin. this meanes, not the Diuell, but the God of Caluin is the Father of lyes; but that God which the holy Scriptur teacheth, is altogeather contrary to this God of Caluin. [Page 246]And then after: The true God came to destroy the works of the Caluinian God: And these two Gods, as they are by nature contrary one to another; so they beget and bring jorth children of contrary disposition, to wit, that God of Caluin, children without mercy, proud &c. Thus farre Castalio. D. In his Meditat. vpon 122. Psalm. Willet (a formall Protestant) spea­king of certaine doctrines mantayned by M Hooker, D. Couell, and others, and thinking them to be erro­neous, thus wryteth: From this fountaine haue sprung forth these, and such other whirlepoints and bubles of new doctrine; As for example, that Christ is not originally God &c. That Sacraments doe giue and confirme grace &c. And reiecting diuers other points, thus conclu­deth: Thus haue some beene bould to teach and write, who as some Schismatikes (meaning the Puritans) haue distur­bed the peace of the Church, one way in externall matters concerning discipline; they haue troubled the Church an­other way, by opposing themselues by new quirkes and deui­ses, to the soundnes of doctrine amongst Protestants. Thus D. Willet.

But now in this last place, to come to the mutuall accusations of English Protestants only, & English Puritans only (as most neerely concerning vs) we find, that the booke entituled Constitutions and Ca­nons Ecclesiasticall, printed anno 1604. by the appoin­tement of the Bishops, doth ipso facto excommuni­cate the Puritans, for their mantayning of these po­sitions following (besides others) as they are in that booke set downe.

The worshippe in the Church of England is corrupt; super­stitious, vnlawfull, repugnant to the Scriptures.

[Page 147] The articles of the Bishops Religion, are erroneous, their rites Antichristian &c.

The gouernement of the Church of England vnder his Maiesty by Archbishops, Bishops, and Deanes, is An­tichristian, and repugnant to the word of God.

The Puritans in another The mild defen­ce of the silenced Ministers supplicatiō to the high Court of Parlamēt. of their bookes, thus write: Dowe vary from the sincere doctrine of the Scrip­tures? Nay rather many of them (meaning the Bishops & their adherents) do much swarue from the same touching generall grace, and the death of Christ for euery particu­ler person &c. Touching the manner of Christs presence in the Eucharist; that the Pepe is not Antichrist; concer­ning the necessity of Baptisme &c.

In another Intitu­led, A Christian and modest Offer p. 1 [...] ▪ of the Puritans bookes we thus find them to say: If we be in errour, and the Pre­lates on the contrary haue the truth, we protest to all the world, that the Pope and the Church of Rome (and in them God and Christ Iesus) haue great wrong and in dig­nity offered vnto them, in that they are reiected &c. But we will insist more particulerly in relating the Pu­ritans dislike in two things; the one concernes the Common prayer-booke, the other our English Translati­ons of the Bible

Touching the first, the Puritans in one I [...]tit [...] ­led, The petition of twenty two prea­chers in London. of their bookes thus write: Many things in the Commu­nion booke are repugnant to the word of God. And again: In the Communion-booke there be things of which there is n [...] reasonable sense; there is contradiction in it, euen in necessary and essentiall points of Religion; the holy Scrip­ture is disgraced in it &c Others of them In the Suruey p. 20. & 24. say thus: The Communion booke of England is not agreable to the [Page 148]word of God in many thinges. A third Certain confidera­tions prin­ted anno 1605. fol. 10.11.12. thus censureth of it: The Protestants Communion-booke and seruice i [...] naught, it hath grosse and palpable repugnancy in it. This dislike of the Puritans of the Communion-booke is so euident, that D. Couell In his exam. pag. 179. their aduersary, and allowing the Communion book, thus setteth down their iudgement heerein: The Communion-booke is boldly despised; grosse err [...]urs, and manife [...]t impietyes (meaning in their opinion) are in the Communion-booke. Thus much of the Communion-booke.

Touching our English translations of the Scrip­ture, we find the Puritans most violent & headlong in condemning of them. Answerably heerto diuers of In the abridgmēt of a booke deliuered by certaine Ministers to the King. pag 11. and 12. the Ministers with one consent, thus write of the english Translation: A translation, that taketh a­way from the Text; that addeth to the text; and this som­tymes to the changing or obscuring of the meaning of the Holy Ghost. And againe: A translation, which is ab­surd and senseles, peruerting in many places, the meaning of the holy Ghost.

M. Burges In his Apology sect. 6. speakes in this sort of the En­glish Translation: How shall I approue vnder my hand a Translation which hath many omissions, many additi­ons, which sometimes obscureth, sometymes peruerteth the sense; being sometymes senseles, sometyms contrary? M. In his aduertis­ment to the Bishops. Broughton (the great Hebrician) thus sayth: The publike translation of the Scripture in English is such as it peruerteth the Text of the old Testament in eight hundred fourty and eight places; and it causeth millions of millions to reiect the new Testament, and to runne in­to eternall flames. Thus he. D. In his answere to M. VVil­lam Rey­nolds pag. [...]25. Whitaker (though [Page 149]fauouring the English Translation of the Bible, as much as possibly he may) thus confesseth: I haue not sayd otherwise, but that somethings in the English tran­slation might be amended.

To conclude this point, we find, that at the Conference at Hampton Court before the Kinges Maiesty, D. Reynolds (the foreman for the Puritans) openly refused to subscribe to the Communion-book; because (sayd he) it warranted a corrupt & false translation of the Bible. Thus far of this second point.

Now in the last place, let vs take a short view how we, that are moderate and Parlamentary Pro­testants, doe censure of the Puritans. M. Powell in his con­siderations. Powell censureth the Puritans, to be notorious and minifest Schismatiks, out off from the Church of God. M. In his enist. dedic. pag. 3. Parks auerreth thus: The Puritans seeke to vndermine the foū ­dation of fayth. And further he thus sayth: The Creed it Vbi supra. selfe, which alwayes hath beene the badge and cog­nizance, whereby to discerne and know the faythfull from vnbelieuers &c. is the maine point in question betweene vs, and the Puritans. D. Couell Exam▪ pag 71. speaking of certain hot and fyrebrand Ministers, thus wryteth: The first english Ministers so far dissented, that some bookes and the greatest part of Christendome was filled with irreue­rent, vnholy, and vnnaturall Contentions &c.

I will close this poynt with the testimony of a great In the Suruey of the preten­ded disci­pime c. 5. &c. 24. & cap. 3 [...] Pillar of our church, who thus chargeth the Puritans: They peruert the true meaning of certaine places, both of Scriptures and Fathers, to serue their owne turnes. And againe, the said Authour saith of them: The word of God is troubled with such choppers & [Page 150]changers of it; finally (to leaue out diuers other such passages) he further thus complayneth: The Ca­terbrawls, pittisull distractions, and Confusions among the Puritans, proceed of such intollerab e presumption, as is vsed by peruerting and false interpretation of holy Scripture. And thus far for some tast (not setting downe thereof the hundred part) of our recrimina­tions vsed against the Puritans.

But before I come to the Catastrophe and end of this Scene, I am to put the Reader in mynd, that as auoyding prolixity, & vnwilling to launce deeper into our owne wounds, I passe ouer; first, How the very names of Lutherans, Caluinists, Protestants, and Puritans are not inuented by the Papists, or out of malice by ech others Aduersaryes; but euen of Necessity, to distinguish the different doctrine of euery Professour, as D. Whitakew In his answere to to M. Reynalds prafat. p. 44., and (x) Conradus Schlusselburge do acknowledge. In his catalog. h [...]retic. p. 866. Secondly I passe ouer the infinite bookes written by forraine Protestants, one against another, amounting to the number of foure hundred and aboue, as is euident, to any one, who will peruse Iudocus Coccius his Thesaurus tom. 2. Hospinan his historia Sacramentaria part altera, and the yearly Catalogues of Bookes returned from Fra­nekford. Thirdly I pretermit to show, how the Con­tentions of forraine Protestants (only for matter of Religion) haue beene so violent as that they haue prohibited Vide Hospinan in historta Sacram. part, altera fol. 393. sale of each others Bookes, haue ap­pointed Hosp. vbi supra. Articles of Visitation, concerning the apprehending of ech ones Aduersaryes; and (which is more) not forbearing to Hosp. vbi supra fol. 395. & Ofiander e­pitom cent 16. p. 7 [...]5. enter into open ar­mes [Page 151]and hostility. Lastly I passe ouer to mention the Books made by English Protestants one against an­other, touching these questions following. 1. Of Christs descending into Hell. 2 Of Bishops and Ceremo­nyes. 3. Concerning the sufficiency of our Redemption by our Sauiours bodily death vpō the Crosse, or whether that his further suffering in Soule the paynes of Hell, was also needfull. 4. Concerning Vniuersality of Grace. 5 Con­cerning the lawfulnes or vnlawfulnes of Vsury. 6. Tou­ching the Innocent partyes marying againe, in case of diuorce vpon Adultery, besydes some others; the number of all which will amount to seuerall scores.

All this, I say, I passe ouer; but I cannot passe ouer but obserue (and therat smyle) the subtle de­portments of vs Protestants, in this matter of our Dissentions; Since when we wryte one against an­other, we with great intemperance of words do deepely charge our Aduersaryes (other Protestants) with obscuring the Gospell of Christ, and laboring to maintayne their owne darknes of Ignorance, eue in the fundamentall poynts of Christian fayth as is showed. But when we Protestants are vpbray­ded by our Aduersaryes (the Catholyks) for such our diuisions in matters of fayth; then the Case is altered, and we beare it out (as though the Sunne equally and indifferently shyned vpon vs all) auer­ring with D. [...]e well in his Apolo­gy of the Church of England p. 101. sayth thus: The Zuingliās and Luthe­rans are good friends, they vary not betw­e [...]ne them­selves vpon the princi­ples and foundatiōs of our Re­ligion, but vpon only one questiō which is neither waighty, nor great. The like sayth D. VVhitak [...] in resp. ad rationes Camp. rat. 8. p. 155. monstrous boldnes, that the Protestāt differ among themselues, not in any mayne poynts of fayth, but only in Ceremonyes, and some few matters of Indifferency; so making our pens and Controuersyes (for our owne aduantage) to par­take [Page 152]of the nature of diaphanous and transparent bo­dyes, which are equally capable of light & darknes.

In lyke sort, I cannot, but obserue, in the thronge of so many great differences among our selues, the detriment we suffer, particularly by our dissensions, touching our Communion-Booke of Prayer, and our English Translation of Scripture: Since by the first, we are not resolued, how we ought to pray to God, & whether our prayers made for the remitting of our Sinnes, be not an increase of our sinnes (since wrongfully, and with a false fayth to pray, is but to offend God.) And thus do we depriue our selues of the cheife means of pacify­ing Gods wrath and indignation. Seing Prayer is a secondary Mediatour betweene God and man; by meanes of it, God (as I may say) knoweth not that (to wit, our Sinnes) which from all Etermity he did know; nor remembers that, which before the perpetrating thereof, was firmely registed in the Booke of his Prescience: Prayer indeed being the spirituall ayre, which refrigerates the heat of our Passions: Os Psalm. 1 [...]8. meum aperui, & attraxi spiritum.

In lyke sort we being at wars, which is the true Word of God in our translations of Scripture, we are in the meane tyme depriued (euen by our owne grounds) of the true Iudge for the appeasing & determining of Controuersyes in Religion; since granting the Scripture to be this Iudge, yet this is to be vnderstoode of the Scripture, as it is pure in it self, and incontaminated; not as it is abastarded with false Translations. Besydes being vnresolued [Page 153]which is the true Word of God, we know not, which is that heauenly Kings true [...]mbassadour, bringing to mankynd the comfortable message of Saluation; or rather which is the Great Seale of that most great God, whereunto he hath set his hand, obliging himself by promise, to giue Pardon to all truly Penitent; euery sentence thereof being indeed the Lyse of our Soule; and Soule of our Life: Ioan. cap. 6. Verba, quae ego locutus sum vobis spir tus & vita s [...]nt.

But to conclude this Chapter; since the Ca­tholyks (in respect of fayth) enioy a perfect Vnity; since the Protestants maintayne strange diuersityes of doctrine, attended on with intestine simultyes, and vnchristian Anathematizings; And since I haue but one poore indiuisible soule, not capable of seue­rall wayes; therefore I am resolued, that this one soule of myne, shall in her fayth, (according to her owne being and essence) tread the path of Vnity; not of multiplicious Contrariety, and repugnancy in Re­ligion.

THE XII. MOTIVE. That Saluation may be had in Catholyke Reli­gion, by the confession of Protestants.

PERVERSITAS fidei est probata non credere, non probata prasumere, saith the ancient and learned Aduer. G [...]osticos. Tertullian. By which words, we are taught, that an indubious and and fully warranted Truth, ought to ouerballance in matter of fayth, all vncertaine & iniustifiable fluctuations of a contrary iudgment. Heere then the Question being, in what fa th and Religion a man dying may be saued (a primary and Car­dinall poynt) I fynd, that the learneder sort of Pro­testants do conspiringly seach, that a Catholyke, or (in our own phrase) a Papist, dying a Papist, may be saued; but I do not fynd the lyke fauorable censure of our learned Aduersaryes, so vnanimously to passe vpon vs dying Protestants. Thus the first poynt, as being on all sydes approued, I may secu­rely beleiue; the second as not granted, I must ap­prehend [Page 155](at least) as doubtfull. The considera­tion of our owne Brethrens iudgments heere in the behalfe of our Aduersaryes (I grant) hath much swayed me. For as some of vs do teach: Peter Martyr. in his Comm. places par [...]. 2 p. 319. Among all testimonyes, that testimony is of greatest respect, which is witnessed by the Enemy, since such an authour by disprouing the truth, most strongly approues it, and by impugning, propugnes it.

This poynt then (to wit, that the hope of Sal­uation belongeth to Papists, dying Papists) shall be de­monstrated foure seuerall wayes, euen from the in­genuous and plaine acknowledgment of those Pro­testants, whose pennes and wrytings haue most strōgly inuaded the iudgment of their Readers. First by showing, that diuers of vs doe hould, that the cheifest Articles of Catholyke Religion, are but poynts of Iudifferency, and compatible with Salua­tion; and (which is more) by prouing, that sundry learned Protestants haue actually and really belei­ued the said Catholike Articles as true. Secondly by manifesting euen from our owne wrytings, that the Church of Rome is the true Church of Christ, and that in that Church Saluation is to be obtayned. Thirdly from our doctryne & practize in baptizing the children of Catholyks. Fourthly by insisting in diuers examples of particuler men, which haue dyed in the Roman and Catholike Church, and yet by vs Protestants are reputed for glorious Saints in heauen.

As touching the first, I will rest for greater expedition in some few of the chiefest articls of the [Page 156]Roman fayth, the which being accounted by vs as matters of indifferencyes, may stand (by our owne censures) with saluation; from whence we may in­ferre, that then much more many other articles of the sayd Religion be reputed by vs to be of the like indifferency. And first concerning the primacy of the Church, Luther In as­sert. art. 36. himselfe thus sayth: The Popes supremacy is among those vnnecessary trifles, wher­in the Popes leuity and foolery is to be borne withall. Me­lancthon In his epist. ex­tant in the booke sty­led Centu­ria epist. Theolog. epist 74. proceedeth more plainely, saying: An agreement may easily be established in the Article of the Popes Primacy, if other articles could be agreed vpon. The doctrine of the Primacy (to wit that one must be chiefe in the Church of God) is taught by Vbi su­pra. Melanctō, So rela­ted by Hos­pinian hist. p. 389. Iacobus Andreas, Luth. in loc. com class. c. 37 Luther, and D. D. Co­uell. in his exam. fol. 106. Couell, who giueth this reason thereof, saying: If there were not one supreme head in the Church of God, the Church should be worse, then the meanest Commonwealth, yea then any den of theeues.

Touching the reall presence, D. Reynolds In his conclus. annexed to his confe­rence pag. 722. so depresseth the weight thereof, that he sayth: The Reall presence is but as the grudging of a little ague, if o­therwise the party hould the Christian fayth. Iacobus A­contius (a In lib. stratagem. Satan. pag. 135. learned Protestant) accordeth with D. Reynolds saying: It is euident, concerning as well those, who hould the reall presence of Christs body in the bread as those others, which deny it; that although of necessity the one part do erre, yet both are in way of salua­tion, if in other thinges they be obedient vnto God. The like iudgment giueth As he is cyted by Amandus Polanus in his Syllog. Thes. Theolog. pag. 464. Luther of Transubstantiati­on.

[Page 157]Now the doctrine touching Communion vnder one, or both kindes, is of that indifferency with Luther Ine [...]. ad Bohem. that thus he sayth therof: Quamuis pulchrum &c. Though it were very good, to vse both kinds in the Eu­charist, and that Christ commanded heerein nothing, as necessary; yet it were better heerin to seeke after peace, then to contend touching the shecies or kindes.

Now that the doctrine of the Reall presence is true (besides that it is defended by Luther, and all the Lutherans, that Christs body is really giuen in the Sacrament to the bodily mouth) it is further raught, that not only the efficacy of Christs body (as the Sacramentaryes do hould) but that the body it selfe, after a wonderfull and incomprehensible manner, is giuen to the mouth of the faythful. And this is acknow­ledged for true (though with great dislike of other Sacramentaryes) by In script. An­glican. pag 548. Bucer, Contra Duraeum pag 119. D. Whitaker, & Eccles. policy l. 5. sect. 67. M Hooker. In like manner the indifferency of one, or both kinds is defended by Luther, saying: Si ineris &c If thou shalt go to a place, where they vse to communicate in one kind, communicate thou also in one kind; in like sort by In cent. epist. theo. pag. 2 [...]1. Melancthon, (q) De va tra (que) specie Sacram. and by others alleadged by D. In his reply pag. 110. Iewell, who were (as I may say) but of halfe-bloud to Luther, in the doctrine of the Sacrament.

Concerning Prayer for the dead, the indiffe­rency of it (as not being necessary to saluation) is taught by M. Cartwright, thus writing: The doctrins of prayer for the dead, freewill, (t) So cy­ted by M. VVhitgift in his de­fence p. 82 and a number of other as necessary doctrines, are such wherin men being nuzzeled, haue notwithstanding beene saued. The same is like­wise [Page 158]taught by D. In his confut. of Purgatory pag. 3.6. Fulke, and M. In his answere to Iohn d'Al­bins pag. 382. Sparkes. Now the doctrine of prayer for the dead is taught and belieued by As witn [...]sseth Vrbanus Regius in prima par­te operum in formula cautè lo­quendi c. desanctorū cultu. Luther, Vrba­nus Regi­us vbi su­pra. Vrbanus Regius, In script. Anglic. p. 450. Bu­cer, and the Prin­ted anno 1649. Communion-booke, in King Edwards tyme.

The doctrine of Free-will is taught as a point not necessary, by M. In M. VVhitgif defence vbi supra. Cartwright in these words: If you meane by matters of fayth those, without which, a man cannot be saued, then the doctrine, which teacheth, there is no freewill, or prayer for the dead, is not within your compasse. By M. In his [...]osition of the [...]reed pag. 402. Parkins, who thus wryteth: A weakning errour is that, the houlding whereof doth not ouerturne any point in the foundation of saluation, as the errour of free-will, and sundry such like. The doctrine of Free-will is taught for true by the two Protestants Secanus, and Hemingius, as witnesseth D. In his sinops. printed 1600. pag. 808. Willet, and by diuers other Protestants, mentioned by M. Act. mon. pag. 1533. Fox.

Of the doctrine of satisfaction & merit of works, D. Whitak. thus discourseth The Contra Camp. pag. 73. and the like in his answere to Maister Rey­noldes. p. 135. Fathers thought by their externall discipline of life, to pay the paines due for sinne &c. which though it be an errour, yet were they notwithstanding good men, and holy Fathers. Happy soules, with whome to feare wisely, was to free thē from fire; they being indeed more truely confident of their saluation, then we Protestants can be, through our vncertaine certainty. Now the do­ctrine of the necessity of workes to saluation, is af­firmed [Page 159]by D. A­gainst the Rhemish Testament in 2. Pet. 2. Fulke, and D. In his [...] pag 90 [...] Willet, though contradicted by In prae­fat. ad Ro­man. Illirycus, for new papistry (to vse his owne wordes) as pernicious as the old. In like sort voluntary Pouerty, Chastity, and Obedience are taught, by M. In his Eccles. [...]ist: l. 2. p. 102. Hooker, and D. In his defence of M. Hook. art 8 pag. [...]2. Couell.

Concerning Inuocation of Saints, D. In the tower disp. with [...]a. Camp. the 2. dayes conference argum. 8. R. 11 & R. 111. Fulke, and D. Goad affirme, that this article doth not exclud men from being members of the Church of Christ: In like manner for honouring of Saints Reliques M. In his answere to Ichn d'Al­bins pag. 382. Sparkes thus sayth: We are not so hasty to pronounce sentence of condemnation of any, for such er­rours: as that either we thinke all must be saued, that hould one way, or all condemned, that hould another way. The doctrine of Inuocation of Saints, is taught and belieued by [...]n pur­gat. quo­rumdam articul. as also in e­pist. ad Georgium Spalatinum. Luther, who thus writeth: De intercessione Diuorum &c. Touching the intercession of Saints, I belieue and iudge with the whole Christian Church, that is, That Saints are to be honoured and in­uoked; by In orat. 1. Chrysost. de Iuuentio & Maxi­mo. Oecolampadius, by Act. mon. pag. 462. Bilney a Prote­stant, and by Act. mon. pag. 1312. Latimer.

Finally the worshipping of Images is held a point indifferent, by M. In his treatise tending to pacification pag. 104. Bunny, who thus sayth of this article, of the Conception of our Blessed La­dy, and some others: In these or such like articles who­soeuer will condemne all those to be none of the Church, that are not fully perswaded, as we are therein &c. com­mitteth an vncharitable part, towardes those his Bre­thren.

[Page 160]The doctrine it selfe of worshipping Images is defended; as true, by Thomas Act. mon. pag. 462. Bilney aboue al­leadged, and by certaine Protestants of Germany, as Bezi In his [...]isp ad acta. [...]loq montisbol­gar. parte altera pag. 23. relates. In lyke sort, reuerence and bowing downe at the name of Iesus is affirmed, and comman­ded by Q Elizabeths Act. 92.3. Iniunctiōs, by D. In his defence p. 742. Whit­guyft, In loc. com. p. 59. Muscu [...]u [...]. and in ep. Paul. ad Philipens. Coless &c. fol. 223. Zanchius. But if bow­ing to the Name of Iesus, being heard or read, be lawfull; then followeth it irrefragably, that the ho­noring of Christs Image is lawfull: since the name of Iesus is to the eare, as his Image is to the eye And thus far of certaine mayne points of the Catholike Religiō acknowledged but as matters of Indifferē ­cy by certaine Protestants (and therefore not ex­cluding in their Iudgments the beleiuers of them from Saluation) and taught and beleiued for most true, by other learned Protestants.

In this second place, we will show, that our learned Brethren, do teach, the Church of Rome (notwithstanding her certaine supposed Errours) to be the true Church of Christ, and consequently her Professours to be, not Analogical and half Christiās, but true and perfect Christians, and therefore not excluded (euen by our owne mens iudgments) from the hope of Saluation.

First then, we do fynd our Brother In his treatise of the king­dome of I­srael, and of the Church p. 24. D. Morton (now Bishop of Couentry and Lichfyeld) thus to wryte: Papists are to be accounted the Church of God, because they do hould the foundation of the Gospell, which is fayth in Christ Iesus, the Sonne of God, and Sa­uiour of the World: If then the Papists by the Church [Page 561]of God, it followeth, they are the true Church of God; since to speake with S. Cyprian: Adulterari Lib de vnit. Eccl. non potest sponsa Christi incorrupta est, & pudica.

In like sort, M. In his fift booke of Eccles. policy pag. 188. Hooker giueth this honou­rable and worthy respect to the Church of Rome, saying: The Church of Rome is to be reputed a part of the house of God, a limme of the visible Church of Christ; & we gladly acknowledge them, to be of the family of Iesus Christ. M. Bunny In his treat. ten­ding to pacific. p. 109 & 111. speaking of the Catholikes and I rotestants thus writeth: Neither of vs may iustly ac­count the other to be none of the Church of God; we are no seuerall Church from them, nor they from vs. D. Field thus writeth: We Of the Church l. 3. cap. 46. doubt not, but that the Church, in which the Bishop of Rome, with more then Luciferlike pride exalted himselfe, was notwithstanding the true Church of God that it held a sauing profession of the truth in Christ; therefore in his iudgment, those which dy­ed in this Church, might be saued. D. Some: If In his defence a­gainst Pen­ry p. [...]76. you thinke, that all the popish sort, which dyed in the Po­pish Church, are damned, you thinke absurdly, and do dissent from the iudgment of all learned Protestants D. Barow: I In his 4. sermōs & 2. que­stions dis­puted ad Clerum p. 448. dare not deny the name of Christians to the Romanists, sith the learneder writers do acknowledge the Church of Rome, to be the Church of God.

To be short (leauing out the authori­tyes of many others) D. in his defence of M. Hook. &c. p. 77. Couell thus auerreth: We affirme them of the Church of Rome, to be paries of the Church of Christ, and that those that liue and dye in that Church may notwithstanding be saued: This Doctour further charging those, that thinke the contrary, with (l) ignorant zeale. Thus we see, how the Sphere [Page 162]of Catholike Religion (euen according to the Theo­ryes of our best Euangelicall Mathematicians) tur­neth vpon the Poles of Mans saluation.

A third way of prouing the former verity, may be taken from the Protestants doctrine, and practize, touching the baptizing of Catholike chil­dren; which baptisme we Protestants teach to be good and auaylable, whether it be ministred by Ca­tholike Priests, or by Protestant Ministers; and this (as we So teach the Deumes of Geneua in the propo­sitions and principles disputed at Geneua p. 178. The same is taught by D. VVhi­gist in his defence p. 623. by M. Hooker in his Eccles. policy. l. 3. pag. 131. affirme) because they are cōprehended with­in the couenant of eternall life, by meanes of the fayth of their parents. Now when we Protestants baptize the children of Catholiks, it is not (sayth M. Vbisu­pra. Hooker very learnedly) in regard of Gods promise, which rea­cheth vnto a thousand generations; since if it were so, then (saith he) all the world might be baptized (meaning the children of Iewes, Turkes &c.) in so much, as no man is a thousand descents remoued from Adam; but it is, by reason of the fayth of their Catholike parents. And hence it is, that D Some In his defence a­gainst Pen­ry cap. 22. affirmes, That In­fants & children of West Indian Christians (whose for­mer Ancestours, in regard of their late conuersion to Christianity, neuer knew the Christian fayth) being baptized by their Catholike Priests, receaue true baptisme (to vse his wordes) & are engrafted into Christ.

But heere I vrge. If the fayth of Catholyke Parents be auaylable for their Childrens Saluation, much more then is it auaylable for their owne Salua­tion; except we will imagine their fayth, to partici­pate of the nature of the Ayre, which is a principall Cause, why all other things may be seene; and yet it [Page 163]selfe depriued of the benefit of being seene.

The fourth and last Medium, which I will heere vse, for the warranting of the foresaid Verity of Catholyks Saluation, shall be to apply the former vniuersall Truth of Schooles & learned Protestants to particuler Persons; that is, to set downe the iudg­ments of vs Protestants, articulately and punctually passed vpon certaine men, who by our owne Con­fessions, dyed Catholyks, whom neuerthelesse we affirme to be saued.

And first touching the Fathers in generall, whom to haue lyued and dyed Papists (as being re­iected for their doctryne by vs) is euident out of our former passages. Now of them In his reply, & in [...]octor VVhirgif. defence p. 82. M Cartw­right thus charitably wryteth: I doubt not but diuers Fathers of the Greek Church, who were Patrones of Free will, are saued The lyke iudgment D. Whitaker Contra rat. Camp. pag. 78. vs supra. giueth of the Fathers, notwithstanding their do­ctryne touching Satisfaction and Merit of works; And the same iudgment of vs, is proued euen from the word and title of Saint, which almost all the sober & learned Protestāts commonly giue in their wrytings & speaches to Augustin, Ierome, Ignatius, and the rest of the Primitiue Church. Now if we entitle them Saints, then do we acknowledg, they are saued, except we would say, there are some Saints, which are not saued.

But to descend to more particuler examples: Beda (as Osiander In epi­tom. cent. 8. l. 2. c. 3. witnesseth) was wrapped in all popish errours, wherein we at this day dissent from the Pope; and yet he is acknowledged by D. In [...]esu­ [...]sme par. 2. rat. 3. Hum­frey, [Page 164]to be in the nūber of godly men (to vse his words) raysed vp by the Holy Ghost. Againe, Gregory the Great, and Augustin, who first planted in England Christi­an Religion, are confessed by vs, to haue beene Pa­pists (as aboue is showed▪ and yet they are thus sty­led by vs: That M. Godwin in his Catal. of Bishops pag. 3. See the like cō ­mendation giuen to them by D. Fulke a­gainst Hes­kins, San­ders &c p. 561. blessed, and holy Fathers S. Gregory, and S. Augustine our Apostle. S. Bernard by our ac­knowledgment, was so confessed a Papist, as that he was an Abbot, and Osiand. in epitom. Cent. 12. p. 309. Authour of many Mona­steryes in France, and Flaunders; and yet D. Lib. de E cles. p. 369. Whitaker thus writeth of him: Ego quidem Bernardū verè suisse Sanctum existimo. And Osiander Cent. 12. p. 309. tear­meth him: A very good man. Of Bernard, Francis & others. Tindall Act. mon. pag. 1338. thus acknowledgeth: I doubt not but S. Bernard, Francis, and many others, like holy men erred as concerning Masse; thus he confessing them to be men of Sanctity and holynes, and consequently in state of saluation. And touching the same point, Luther In col loq Germ. cap. de Missa. thus saith: Priuate Massse hath deceaued many Saints, and carryed them away into errour from the tyme of Gregory, for 800. yeares.

Of S. Dominicke, who was the Authour of the Order of the Dominican Fryars, In Chronic. p. 200. Pantaleon (a Protestant) relateth much; and speaking greatly of his piety and vertue, concludeth thus: Dominicus erat vir doctus & bonus, & Praedicatorum Ordinem instituit. His like confessed Holines is celebrated much at large by the Cent. [...]. col. 1179. Centurists. To conclude of these three former Saints, Luther thus confesseth: Fateor &c. I g [...]aunt, that the guifts of God were not want ng to Francis, Dominicke, and Bernard, and to others, [Page 165]who were the first Authours of Colledges for Monks, but these guifts are but personall. But such guifts cannot stand without true vertue, nor true vertue without hope of saluation. And thus farre of this most cer­taine and vndeleble truth, that Catholikes dying as Catholik [...], may be saved, confessed in the cleare words of the most learned Protestants; from whence we may be assured of their iudgments (especially deli­uered in the behalfe of their Aduersaryes) answera­ble heerein to their writinges; since wordes are the naturall shadow of the mind, cast by the light of the Vnderstanding.

But heere do present vnto vs, two Porismata or Resultancyes, out of the Premisses of this Passage. The first. That all true Reason perswadeth me to implant and ingraft my self in that Church, which I fynd to be acknowledged, for the true church, pro­mising Saluation to her members, euen by her Ad­uersaryes. For if I dye Catholyke (my lyfe being a­greable thereto) both Catholyks and Protestants warrant my Saluation; But dying in the fayth of Protestancy, the Protestant alone (and this in ho­nour of their owne Religion) assure me of it For there is neuer a learned Catholyke wryter in the world (an obseruation much to be weighed) who granteth, that a Protestant dying with a positiue, setled, and contumacious neglect of the Catholyke Church and fayth, can be saued. This then being thus, shall I in so great a busines leaue a certainty for vncertainty? God forbid. We Protestants expect to be beleiued in other our Positions and doctrynes; [Page 266]Why not then in this? Since then the Protestants do teach, that Catholyks (so dying) are in state of Sa­luation, I am resolued, my Brethrens wrytings shall haue that powerfull influence ouer me, as what thē ­selues, doe heerin teach, I will (through Gods grace) put in execution. And so my Will shall become in this poynt, a ready and seruiceable Handmayd to their Iudgments.

The second. The Wronge, which we Pro­testants commit, in afflicting the Catholyks, and in vnnaturally betrampling vpon their deiected estats, only for matters of Religion. Alas! by our owne doctryne, they are neither Babylonians, nor Aegyp­tians; both they and we being (as we teach) Isra­lits; why then should Israel thus persecute Israel? Are we not become the gaze of Christendome, thus to fight without an enemy? Thus for kynred to wound it owne kyndred, yea often the Father the Sonne? so turning our owne swords into our owne childrens breasts; we still inciting his Maiesty to greater seuerity (a Prince of his owne disposition, of the most benigne, mercifull, and commiserating nature, that the World at this day enioyes) and all this for the Catholyks liuing in that fayth and Re­ligion, in which our selues teach, they may be sa­ued; thus do we make the confessed hope of their saluation, to be the sole cause of their pressures and calamityes. Good God! who would thinke, that Christians, the cheifest articles of whose fayth are either reputed but as Indifferencyes, or (which is more) beleiued for true doctrine by their Oppres­sours; [Page 167]whose Church is acknowledged to be the D [...] Morton v­bi supra. Church of God, houlding the foundation of the Gospell; the M. Hooker v­bi supra. family of Iesus Christ; it being no seuerall M. Bunny vbi supra. Church from theirs, nor theirs from it; houlding D. Field vbi supra. a sauing Profession of the truth in Christ; in which many D. Co­uell with the other Doctours vbi supra. dying, are by their Aduersaries registred for most glo­rious Saints; shold neuertheles be persecuted by other Christians of their owne Country (yea their owne flesh) for their only perseuering in the foresaid Church, with confiscation of goods, restraint of body, and sometymes with sheeding of most inno­bloud, & suffering a cruel death: Obstupescite Hierem cap. 2. Cali super hoc, & portaecius des [...]lamini vehementer.

Heere now I will stay my penne, making this last Motiue, as a fitting Catastrophe for all: Since that Closure, and End is warrantable inough, which euicteth from the ingenuous Confessions of the most learned Protestants, that I may be saued in that Religion, wherein I am resolued to dye.