REPLY.

The direct and pertinent Answere to this Motiue, had been, to maintayne, that visible Profession was neuer wanting to Protestant Religion, so farre as concer­nes the Points in contestation. But forsaking this right way of defence (wherin he may well be excused, no man being boūd to performe impossibilities) he flyes from the question, and tells vs, that it is not neces­sary, there should be alwayes a Church, visibly pro­fessing true doctrine, without any mixture of falshood. Which is nothing to the purpose, for this argumēt is still in force: The true Church of Christ must be al­wayes visible (whether with, or without mixture of corruptions, we need not consider for the pre­sent:) But the Protestant Church, as it is distinct frō [Page 5]Ours; hath not byn alwayes visible: Therefore, the Protestant Church as it is distinct from Ours, is not the true Church of Christ. The Maior he grants in di­uers places of his Booke, & euen in this his Answere, vpon condition that we grant a possibility of corrup­tion in the Church, as for the present we are content to doe, by way of supposing a falshood. The Minor is affirmed in the Motiue, and not denyed in his Answere, nor can be denyed by any man of iudge­ment, and learning: And so the Conclusion must of necessity follow. But now, if this were a fit place to proue, that the true Church must be infallible, &c not subiect to any errour in Fayth, it were easy to doe it, if once that be granted, which neither Protestants doe, nor any Christian can deny; namely, that Chri­stian Fayth is infallibly true, and, not only probable. For, seing this very man confesses, that we cannot know Scripture to be the word of God, by Scripture it selfe, nor by any other meanes except the Tradition of Gods Church; if she be fallible, our beliefe of Scri­pture, and all verities contained therin, cannot be certaine, and infallible. We must therfore grant the true Church of Christ to be infallible, if we will maintaine Christian fayth to be certainly true.

REPLY.

I haue already demonstrated that the first part of his Answere is false, for if the Church be infallible, she is free from all errour in fayth. Nay it being the common, and as it were, naturall conceipt, and be­liefe of all Christians, that it is a damnable sinne of Schisme, to forsake the communion of Gods Church; we must of necessity inferre, that she is not subiect to errour, (for if she were, we might lawfully forsake her) and not contratily, say, that it is lawfull to for­sake her Communion, because she may, and hath fal­len into errour. And this was one of the reasons, which Charity Maintayned brought, to proue, that Gods Church is infallible, & consequently, that to [Page 7]disagree from her in Doctrine, was Heresy, and Schisme to leaue her Communion. Thus then, insteed of vindi­cating Protestants from Schisme, he yields them guil­ty both of Schisme, and Heresy, in affirming that they separated from all Churches, true or false, then being in the world. The rest of his Answere seemes to me a ridle, or an vnconsequent piece of Doctrine. For, suppose a man disagree from Gods Church in Profession of Fayth, refuse to participate in the same Sacraments, auoide her publike seruice or Liturgy, and disobey her Prelates; it seemes, by this mans new Diuinity, that such a one is still a member of that Church. He might as well persuade the world, that there is no such thing, as hitherto all Christians haue called Schisme, at least, while a man hath leaue to follow his owne conscience or discourse; wherin if he be restrai­ned, then the Church, and not he must be accounted Schismaticall. And why? Because she will not allow such a man her Communion, but vpon condition, that he professe the same fayth with her. And how can she doe otherwise? Can they be of her fayth, and Com­munion, who haue already opposed her fayth, & re­iected her Communion, and done as much as in them lyes, to make a separation? They then, who se­parate themselues, doe that, which of it selfe, makes their Communion with the Church to be impossi­ble, though she were silent, and did leaue euery man to his liberty. For, Profession of the same Fayth, par­ticipation in the same Sacraments, Concurrence at the same publike seruice and worship of God, and Obedience to the same Superiours, are conditions ne­cessary of their owne nature for vnity in Commu­nion, [Page 8]whether they be required by any Church, or no. And therfore, not the Church, for requiring these, but they for putting the contrary conditions are to be accounted Schismaticall. In the meane time; doth not this man make a daungerous Apology for Precisians, and all sorts of refractary persons, if they be forced to obseruances, which to their Conscience seeme superstitious? For, to vse his words, In this case the Church, for requiring this condition, is Schismaticall, & not they for separating from the Church. Or, if this man be an Arian, and the Church of England should de­ny him her Communion vnlesse he confessed the B. Trinity, and Deity of Christ our Lord; not he, but the Church of England, must be branded with the Epi­theton of Schismaticall.

REPLY.

I could in the very beginning stop his course, by telling him with much truth, and profit too, that the miracles which were wrought by our Sauiour Christ, and his Apostles, did primarily and immediatly gaine Autho­rity and credit to their Persons, and by consequence only to their Writings, as being penn'd by them, who's Authority was made most worthy to be credi­ted by miracles. If he aske, to what purpose do I put [Page 10]in this word of Consideration? I answere, that it is done in opposition to a certaine vnchristian doctrine of his. For if the Apostles, and the whole Church, notwithstanding those miracles, may be belieued to haue erred, as this man teachesPag. 137. n. 21. & pag. 144. n. 31. they did, the Bible can much lesse be said to haue been confirm'd by those miracles, in such manner as nothing in it can be erroneous; because, as I said, the whole credit of Scripture, is grounded vpon the Authority and In­fallibility of the Writers therof. But I need not insist vpon this point; for do not we also receaue the Bi­ble? Yea do not all Hereticks in a manner, pretend to belieue it, and their doctrine to be agreable to it? This plea then is too generall, especially, for this oc­casion. But, sayes he, This Booke foretels me plainly, that in after ages great signes and wonders shall be wrought, in confirmation of false Doctrine. What then? Must we belieue that no signes and wonders are true, because some are false? Then, we must reiect all true Scrip­ture, because diuers false Scriptures haue been for­ged. Thē may we despise those very miracles, which were wrought in confirmation of the Bible: and so with this his Argument drawne from Scripture, he ouer throwes Scripture it selfe. Did the Apostles themselues, and Apostolicall men worke no true mi­racles, after the time wherin Scripture had foretold, that great wonders should be wrought in confirma­tion of false Doctrine? Neither speakes he to any pur­pose in these words: That true Doctrine should in all Ages haue the testimony of miracles, that I am no where taught. For the Motiue only said, that the Doctrine of Catholiks, hath been frequently confirmed, and the opposite [Page 11]doctrine of Protestants confounded with supernaturall, and diuine Miracles. Now, though it were granted that true Doctrine had not in all Ages the testimony of miracles, (which heere I do not examine, as being a thing no­thing to the purpose) yet it is very true, that all Do­ctrines confirmed by miracles are true, and that they are false which haue been confounded by them But he willingly thrust's in matter to diuert the question from the true state. As here he does againe in the ve­ry next words, wherin he alledges the example of some, who liued and dyed in opposition to the Do­ctrine of the Roman Church (he meanes, as I con­ceaue, rebaptizing of such as were baptized by Here­tiques; and keeping of Easter at the same time with the Iewes; both which errours haue been condem­ned by the whole Catholike Church, (and not only by the Church of Rome;) and yet, sayes he, there is as good Story for miracles wrought by them, as there is for those that are pretēded to be wrought by the mēbers of our Church. All which is impertinent, vnlesse he can shew that they wrought miracles in confirmation of that doctrine,God hath ap­pointed miracles as signes of true doctrin. Exod. 4. Matth. 11.5. Ioan. 15.24. Mar. vlt. 17.1. Cor. 12. Hebr. 2.4. wherin they disagreed from the Roman Church; for example, that S. Cyprian proued by mira­cle, that Rebaptization of those who had been bapti­zed by Hereticks, was lawfull. This Answere is cleere, and fit for this occasion and intended breuity: though much more might be said, if I would descend to particulers, concerning the persons whom he alledgeth to no purpose at all. His last Answere is a desperate one, That it seemes to him no strange thing, that God in his Iustice should permit some miracles to be wrought, to delude them who haue forged so many, [Page 12]as apparently the Professours of the Romane Doctrine haue, to abuse the world. Which doctrine if we receaue, we cannot be certaine, but that the miracles of our Sauiour Christ, and his Apostles, were wrought to delude the Iewes, who receaued so many false Pro­phets, committed Idolatry; and perpetrated other crimes, for which God in his Iustice might haue per­mitted them to be deluded by true miracles. He should at least haue reflected that by this meanes, he contra­dicts himselfe, whyle by impeaching the Authority of miracles, he ouerthrowes Scripture it selfe, which in this very Answere, he say's, was confirmed by mira­cles. And he also contradicts what he affirmes in his Booke (Pag. 144. n. 31.) in these words: It is impos­sible that the Eternall Truth should set his hand and seale (by miracles) to the confirmation of a falshood. Seing then the Professours of our Catholike Religion, men knowen to haue been full of Zeale, integrity, con­tempt of the world, and eminent for all kind of san­ctity, haue in euery Age frequently, constantly, and manifestly, wrought wonderous things aboue all created power, wherby God hath been glorifyed, sinners conuerted, and Christian Religion propaga­ted; and that many of those admirable signes haue been wrought expresly in confirmation of diuers particular Points of our Catholike Fayth, as may be seen in Bellarmine Cap. 14. de not. Ec­cles. and in Brerely Tract. 2. cap. 3. sect. 7. subd. 1. who out of most credible Authours bring pregnant examples of miracles, wrought in confirmation of our Do­ctrine, concerning Prayer to Saints, Reliques, the Image of Christ, Reall presence, sacrifice of Christs body, Purgatory, and Prayer for the dead, the great vertue of the signe of [Page 13]the Crosse, Holy-water, Lights in the Church, Reseruation of the Sacrament, Holy Chrisme, Adoration of the Crosse, Confession of sinnes to a Priest, and extreme Vnction; se­ing, I say, these things are so euidently true, that they cannot be denyed without impudency, and great scandall to Christian Religion, to which the world hath been conuerted by men of our Church and by meanes of these miracles, which therfore to question, must needs bring the world back to doubt of Chri­stianity; we must conclude, that his third Motiue was true and sound; that his Answere not only for­sakes Protestancy, but vndermines Christian Reli­gion; and lastly, that we Catholiks to our vnspeaka­ble comfort, may humbly, yet confidently say with that deuout and learned man:Rich. de S. Vict. lib. 1 de T [...]t. cap 2. Domine, si error est quod credimus, à te decepti sumus: ista enim in nobis ijs sig nis & prodigijs confirmata sunt, quae non nisi à Te fieri po tuerunt. If we belieue a falshood, thou, O Lord, hast decea­ued vs; for the things which we belieue haue been confirmed by such signes and wonders, as could not be wrought but by Thee alone.

REPLY.

The weakenesse of this Answere shewes, that his heart is not with Protestants, nor that it is his inten­tion, [Page 14]to defend them in good earnest. What if all those be not Hereticks, who by these three Authours are put in the Catalogue of Hereticks? There be diuers besides these who haue made Catalogues of Heresies. And to account any doctrine to be an Heresy, it suf­fices, that we know it to haue byn condemned by the Church, by what meanes soeuer we come to that knowledge. If he had meant well to Protestants, he should haue specified the particular Points, wherin they are accused to agree with Hereticks anciently condemned; and then haue shewed, that they are not such. Or if he could not doe this (as indeed it is im­possible to be done) he should not haue vsed this ter­giuersation in matters of Religion, but either haue plainly confessed the truth, or at least not haue put himselfe vpon answering that, which he knew could not be answered in the grounds, which Protestants will seeme to maintaine, namely, Consent with the Ancient Church. But the truth is, he cares not for Antiquity, and therfore with the Socinians would rea­dily grant, that opinions condemned for Heresies by the ancient Church, may be orthodoxe truths. If any desire to be satisfyed, that sundry doctrines of Prote­stants, are the same with those which haue been con­demned by the ancient Church, let him readBel­lar. cap. 9. do not. Eccles. Bel­larmine andBrere­ly Pract. 1 sect. 8. subd. 2. other Catholicke Writers.

REPLY.

We haue no reason to take his bare words without any proofe. Meanes he, perhaps, that the Gothes were conuerted to Christian Religion by Arians? But, first, this is false, as Bellarmine Cap. 12. do not. Ec­cles. demonstrates. Se­condly, it is impertinent to proue that the conuersion of Kings and Nations is not the worke of Catholiks alone. For, euen they who are pretended to haue been conuerted by the Arians, were but the lesser part of the Gothes, most of them hauing been Catholiks be­fore, and therefore Thirdly this example makes rather for vs, in that of all the world conuerted to Christian Religion, one only poore halfe example, and that not of Protestants, is so much as pretended to the con­trary; which cannot exempt Protestants from that property which Tertullian Lib. de Praes­cript. cap. 42. affirmes to be common to Nouelists: Their imployment, sayth he, is not to con­uert Heathens, but to perucrt them who are already conuer­ted. And doubtlesse it must needs seem a very prodi­gious thing, that Hereticks should haue so litle Zeale, or meet with so ill successe in conuerting the world to Christ, if they alone be true Christians; Or that the prophecyes of dilating the Church of Christ, should be performed by the endeauours of Catho­liks, and yet they be not true Christians: Or finally, that our Doctrine should be false, and yet it alone should haue that power, and efficacy to conuert soules, [Page 16]which the holy Scripture ascribes to the Doctrine & Law of God (Psalm. 18.) And might not Pagans, Iewes, and other enemies of Christian Religion, re­fuse, not without shew of good reason, to imbrace Christian Fayth, if they could say with truth, that all they who for many Ages past, and at this present la­bour to make them Christians, are themselues no true Christians? And who can oblige them to exchange one falshood for another, which is the best they could hope for, by being conuerted to vs, euen though they were persuaded that their owne sect were false? What ill successe Protestants haue found in their poore en­deauours in this kind, may be seen inTract. 2. cap. 3. sect. 6. subd. 3. Brerely; who also cites the words of Beza, that such pilgrimages to remote Countreys, for conuerting of Infidells, are to be left for the locusts, the Iesuits, as it pleases him to speake.

REPLY.

In this Anssvere he clearly forsakes Protestants, [Page 17]and yields that, euen by their owne confession, our Doctrine is conformable, and theirs contrary to the doctrine of those Fathers, who liued within the com­passe of the first 600. yeares. But that our Doctrine is confess'd by vs, to be contrary to the Fathers, we vt­terly deny, and he could not hope that we should be­lieue him affirming the cōtrary without any proofe.

REPLY.

Heere he is so farre from defending Protestants, that he directly opposes their 23. Article, which sayth: It is not lawfull for any man to take vpon him the office of publike preaching, or ministring the Sacraments, in the Congregation, before he be lawfully called, and sent to exe­cute [Page 18]the same. And those we ought to iudge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this worke, by men who haue publike Authority giuen them in the Congrega­tion, to call and send Minislers into the Lords vineyard. But by this mans doctrine, euery priuate Christian, euen by being a Christian, must haue an ordinary commission from God himselfe (which therfore, no Church, Prelate, or Authority can oppose) to teach and preach if need require; because, as he declares himselfe in his Booke,Pag. 359. It is one of the greatest works of Charity, to persuade men out of a false, into a true way of eternall happinesse. According to which reason of his, not only a Christian, but euery man whatsoeuer, hath commission from God to teach, preach, and do other such necessary works of Charity. But certainly this Do­ctrine tends only to the ouerthrow of all Order, O­bedience, and subordination in the Church of God, that Socinian liberty of Iudgment, may be enioyed with all freedome. And it puts into the mouth of vn­quiet people an answere, whensoeuer they are que­stioned for preaching their Nouelties, if once they be persuaded in conscience that they are truths. Neither can any such proceeding be a necessary worke of Charity, as he pretends: but rather, euen from hence, we are to inferre, that Gods Church is not subiect to errour in points of Doctrine. For if she were, then euery pri­uat person, might publikely oppose, and preach a­gainst her Doctrine, and forsake her Communion. From which true ground of the Churches Infallibi­lity, we deny his supposition, and auouch. That no Prelate, or priuate person can pretend any Authority, to preach against her Doctrine; neither does she in­tend [Page 19]to giue them any such Autority. He sayes, in­deed, that in extraordinary cases extraordinary courses are not to be disallowed. But if euery Christian haue, as he teaches, an ordinary commission from God, to do such a worke, how is it an extraordinary course? Or if it be extraordinary, it must be proued by miracles, which ought to accompany extraordinary calling, euen in the opinion of chiefest Protestants, as may be seen in Bre­rely Tract. 2 cap. 2. sect. 3. subd. 2.. Our Sauiour Christ sayes of himselfe,Ioan. 15.24. If I had not done among them workes that no other man hath, done, they should not haue sinne: and yet Scripture did abundantly witnesse, that he was the true Messias. Neither did he oppose any doctrine receaued by the whole Church of the Iewes; and that Church was not to last alwayes. But this man speakes of a case, wherin the whole Church of Christ must be opposed, and her Doctrine condemned; euen that Church which hath a promise of perpetuity, from Christ her Lord and spouse. Which considerations require, that whosoeuer pretends an extraordinary calling to op­pose her, ought to proue it by euident miracles. And euen Luther is forced to say (how directly against himselfe, & his adherents I leaue others to consider,)In loc. Com­mun. clas. 4. God neuer sent any, who was not either called by men, or declared by miracles, no not the Sonne of God himselfe. This man in the meane time does very vnworthily, in comparing the conuerting of Infidells by priuate exhortation, with preaching against Christian Chur­ches, where Religion is setled, and Bishops (who by diuine Institution are appointed to gouerne Gods Church) ordained. In which case, to say that euery Christian hath Commission from God, to preach in op­position [Page 20]to such Superiours, is to fasten a contradi­ction on the Ordinations, or Commissions of God himselfe. And, euen Infidels are not to be conuerted by priuate persons, without due subordination, and either expresse, or interpretatiue leaue from the law­full Prelates of Gods Church, but neuer with oppo­sition, and disobedience to them.

REPLY.

That Luthers conference with the Diuell, was no dreame is demonstratiuely proued byCon­olus. sect. 7.8.9.10. Brerely. And though it had been but a dreame, yet this eight Motiue is very strong; because Luther conceauing it to be a reall Apparition, followed that which according to [Page 21]his conscience proceeded from the diuell; and so, his action must, by reason of such his conscience (whe­ther true, or erroneous) be sinfull, and Diabolicall. Nor could the holy Ghost moue to that action which the party himselfe belieued to proceed from a bad spi­rit, and yet did not abstaine from it. In his second euasion that the diuell did but dissemblingly dissuade Luther from the Masse, hoping by doing so to keep him and others constant to it, he imitates his Brethren, or rather Progenitours, the Arians; of whom glorious S. Am­brose writesSerm. 93. de In­nēt. sorp. S S. Ger­nasij & Protasij. thus: Dicunt damones martyribus, veni­stis perdere nos: Ariani dicunt, non sunt daemonum vera tormentae, sed ficta & composita ludibria. The diuels say to the Martyrs, you are come to destroy vs: The Arians say, they are not true torments which the Diuels suffer, but fei­gned and compacted deceits. Thus also, when the diuels were forced to fly from Iulian the Apostate, who frighted with the sight of them blessed himselfe with the holy signe of the Crosse, a Magician told him, that the diuels sled, not out of feare to the Crosse as they seemed to doe, but in detestation of his signing himselfe with the signe of the CrosseTheod lib. 3. c. 3. But if men may thus be more crafty then the Diuell, in vaine shall we persuade any man hereafter, to fly from that towards which the Diuell tēpts him. For, it may be belieued, that the Diuell tempts him to it dissemblingly, to the end he may fly from it: and for the same reason, in vaine haue spirituall men giuen Rules for discerning, whether or no, the motions which we feele in our soules, proceede from a bad spirit. It seemes this man is resolued to spare neither God, nor the Diuell. He told vs beforeAus­were to the third Motiue. that mira­cles, [Page 22]which are works proper to God alone, may be intended by him to an End contrary to that, for which they seeme to be wrought: Heere, he charges the Diuell to pretend one thing, and intend another in his persuasions, or temptations. I wish that him­selfe be free from belieuing, that men also, may dis­semble, euen in matters of Fayth. But because it were a sinne, either to bely the diuell, or deny him his due; it must be acknowledged, that he spak as he meant, and meant to persuade Luther, and others by his mea­nes, to reiect and impugne the Masse: and none ought to be blamed for saying, that the Diuell vpon this ground had a chiefe hand in drawing Germany to Lutheranisme, from the ancient Catholicke Fayth, which they had imbraced, by the preaching of S. Bo­niface, and other Apostolicall holy men.

REPLY.

We may for our part, be content to let him leaue Protestant Writers with the imputation of falsifiers, and calumniatours as he does. But we can giue him [Page 23]no commission, to speake against vs, more then he can proue, or hath any shadow of truth. It is strange that the Directour could possiblily vtter so many fal­sifications in citing so very few Authours, which, if I mistake not, are about six in all. And I am well assu­red, that he citeth not any one of those Authours, without hauing first both seen, and pondered the pla­ces. And till he proue at least one of those many falsifi­cations, he must not take it ill, if I doe not belieue him. Neuerthelesse, there is a maine difference be­tween Catholiks and Protestants in this particular, though our Writers were granted by vs to be as guil­ty of this crime, as by him our Aduersaries are. For we do not rely, either vpon our owne vnderstan­ding, or on the iudgment, and fidelity of any priuate person. But, Protestants, not belieuing any Infallible publike liuing Iudge of Controuersy, must depend very much, on the fidelity of their prime Controuersy Writers, whome this man affirmes, to be notorionsly, & in a high degree guilty of grosse falsifications and calumnies.

REPLY.

The summe of his Answere, is this: Let a man be­lieue the Scripture, and for the interpretation of it, be guided by himselfe alone, and then there can be no Heresy, but all must be of one Communion. A paradoxe sufficiently confuted, only by being recited. Such a Church of Socinians, will indeed abound with Vnity, or rather singularity, of euery man a part by himselfe: but it can neuer hope to enioy Vnion, or Communion of one with another.

Thus, I hope, the Reader cleerly perceaues, that, as I said in the beginning, Protestants are forsaken in this mans Answers, and grounds layd to introduce a new vnchristian Sect. But yet notwithstanding his contrary intentions, men who haue a feeling care of their owne soules, will see, both the force of his Motiues, and that the Infallibility of Gods Church, & the necessity of a liuing Guide in the way to Heauen, manifestly appeares, by his very Answers and Exam­ple, which demonstrate, that whosoeuer relyes not on such a Rocke, must be inconstant in all his wayes.