Labyrinthvs cantuariensis, or, Doctor Lawd's labyrinth beeing an answer to the late Archbishop of Canterburies relation of a conference between himselfe and Mr. Fisher, etc., wherein the true grounds of the Roman Catholique religion are asserted, the principall controversies betwixt Catholiques and Protestants thoroughly examined, and the Bishops Meandrick windings throughout his whole worke layd open to publique view / by T.C.

THE AVTHOR'S PREFACE TO THE READER.

AS I know my selfe to baue been mou'd with noe other impulse then that of Charity in composing this booke, so doe I coniure the Reader to carry the same minde along with him in the perusing of it. It is a great mistake to thinke, that heate of disputation, for the finding out of truth, is a cooling of Charity. De∣bates of this kinde are not so much breaches of freind∣ship, as a meanes to vnite vnderstandings in the beleefe of truth. If contenti∣ons in Schooles, for interest of ones priuate opinion only, or some worldly glorie, be esteem'd no violation of amity amonge disputants, surely to contend meerly out of zeale to saue soules, cannot be thought inconsistent with Cha∣rity. In this contest, our warre is not against the person, but the errours of our neighbour:in which to be silent would in some degree make vs criminal, and responsable to God for our neighbours ruine.

If any man wonder, why an answer came forth no sooner, let him consi∣der, that my Lord Bishops booke was publish't not long before the time of our publique distractions, in which it concern'd vs rather to prepare for the next world, then answer books, that defended the Church of England; which was then in so bleeding a condition, that it might haue been thought as vn∣handsome to impugne it, as to fight with a dying Aduersarie. But the heate of the warre beeing ouer, and many of the Prelatique party (who, together with our selues, did daily entertaine a confidence of the happy return and re∣stauration of our gracious Souereign King Charles the second) seeming to con∣clude, that my Lord of Canterburies booke was an impregnable piece, in regard wee had not attempted to assault it, I thought, I should performe a worke acceptable to God, and very satisfactory to the wishes of Catholiques, if I framed an answer, so often called for, by our Aduersaries.

In perusall of the Bishops booke I found so many affected Windings, and artificiall meanders, especially in that important controuersie of resolu∣ing our Fayth, (where he ought chiefly to haue aym'd at perspicuity) that I could not chuse, but looke vpon it as a Labyrinth; and haue therfore soe styled it in my answer.

I intend not to make my Reader spend time in vnnecessary Pream∣bles; which I wish him rather to imploy in seeking satisfaction within my booke. I shall therfore in this preface, only take notice of some few things, which the Bishop vrges against vs in his dedicatory Epistle to his late Maiestie of glorious and deare memorie.

The Bishop charges Mr. Fisher with downright disloyalty, for publishing, contrary to the Kings express command, the Relations of the Conferences which he had with the Bishop and Doctor White; because (sayth he) Mr. Fisher was charged vpon his allegiance, not to sett out, or publish what passed in some of the conferences, till his Maiestie gaue further licence. To which I answer, his Maiesties command (even as here sett down by the Bishop) doth only forbid the publishing of what pass't in some of these conferences: so that, for ought appeares, what pass't in other some might be publisht without further licence. Secondly, 'tis auerr'd by A. C. that not Mr. Fisher, but his Aduersaries, first transgress't this precept of his Maiestie by diuulging false reports to the preiudice of Mr. Fisher's person and cause: by reason whereof Mr. Fisher was forced, for the iust and necessary vindi∣cation of himselfe and the Catholique cause, to deliuer some copies to his friends. Thirdly, who made most hast in publishing what had passed in these Conferences, appeares likewise out of W. I. from whome the Bishop frames all this charge against Mr. Fisher. Some may (per∣haps) maruaile (sayes W.I.) why these Relations came out so late; it beeing now long, since the Aduersaries haue giuen out false reports both in speeches and print. So that it seems by this, not Mr. Fisher, but his Aduersaries were the first prouokers both in speeches and print; and by consequence, the only transgressours of his Maiesties command.

Neither are those of Mr. Fishers profession so apt to complayn, and cry out Persecution, without cause; there beeing then persons of great Authority about the King, inciting his Maiestie to put the penall and sanguinary Laws against vs, in rigorous execution: to say nothing of those, who were then actually persecuted. Nor does the Bishop so much cleere, as contradict himselfe in this particular, while he first sayes (pag. 11. of his Epistle) God forbid I should euer offer to persuade a persecution, in any kinde, or practise it in the least: and yet, in the very next lines, adds; God forbid too, that your Maiestie should lett the laws (viz. against Catholiques and Catholique Reli∣gion) sleep, forfeare of the name of persecution.

If Mr. Fisher and his fellowes doe angle for his Maiesties subiects, as the Relatour pretends, 'tis only to bring them the safe

to Heauen, and by which only they themselues hope to arriue thither: it is not to draw them into the beleefe of any assertions repugnant to loyaltie and Christian vertue, but such as their Teachers will be euer ready to maintayn, both with their pens and liues. To fish, in this manner, deserues neither hanging, drawing, nor quartering; but is conformable to the ancient commission, which in the person of the A∣postles, these anglers (as he calls them) receiued from Christ. Matth. 4. 18. follow mee, and I will make you Fishers of men.

Neither doth Mr. Fisher, or any of his profession, allow, or vse any such netts, as the Relatour mentions (pag. 11. Epist.) that is, they neither practise, nor hold it lawfull to dissolue oaths of Al∣legiance, to depose or kill Kings, to blow vp states for the esta∣blishing of QUOD VOLUMUS &c. All which, out of his Cha∣rity, and professed forbearance towards vs, the Bishop does very kindely infinuate both to his Maiestie and the Reader. But our answer is, wee yeeld to none in all Christian and true allegiance to our So∣uereign Lord the King; which wee haue in times of tryall so mani∣fested to the world, that wee hope there are not many, euen amonge our Aduersaries, but are conuinced of our reall fidelitie: and though some perhaps will talke more, and sweare more, yet none vpon all iust occasions will doe more, in defense of his Maiesties sacred Person, rights, and dignity, then those of our profession. This is certain, Ro∣man-Catholiques alone can glorie in this, that whereas in these late vnhappy times, some of all other Religions in England, oppos'd eyther his sacred Maiestie that now is, or his Royall Father, they only haue been, all and euer Faythfull to them both: therby shewing, that the doctrine of Allegiance to their lawfull Soureigns is a necessary point of their beleefe, and a part of that duty, which not only interest and ends, but Religion and conscience obliges them to pay.

The Relatour would haue vs obserue, that the Church of England is between two factions, as between two mill-stones, like to be grown'd to powder. (pag. 15. Epist.) meaning by one of these, Catholiques; for whome alone, I haue vndertaken to plead. The Bishop here seemes to complaine of persecution himselfe, as well as wee; but with farre less reason, as is euident: seeing wee Catho∣liques, (if wee were so ill minded) haue no other instruments to perse∣cute withall, but our tongues and our pens; which draw noe bloud, and in the vse whereof, I presume no indifferent man, well confidering what hath passed both from the pulpitts and presses of our Aduersaries, will thinke, that in any thing, they fall short of vs, eyther for lowdness, or passion.

'Tis no such idle Querie, as the Relatour would haue it thought, (pag. 16 Epist.) but a very pertinent one to demand where the Pro∣testant, or this pretended Church of England, was before Luther. For haue any Protestants as yet, been able to shew a visible Church in the world, before Luthers time, professing the doctrine, which distinguishes them from vs? 'Tis true, they haue been often call'd vpon to this purpose; but haue euer any of them done it? was the question euer answer'd categorically? or otherwise then by tergiuersation, and shifting it off with ambiguioyes of their owne fiction? as the Relatour himselfe (for example) here doth, by telling vs, their Church was there where ours is now; one and the same Church still; noe doubt of that; one in substance, but not one in condition of state, &c. Is this to answer categorically? wee doe not enquire whether or noe, or in what feigned sense, theirs and ours may be sayd to be one and the same Church: the following treatise doth sufficiently confute that pretense: But our enquirie is, whether there were a Ptotestant Church before Luthers time, there where our Church now is; I say a Protestant Church, be it in name, or thing; that is, a visible Society of Christians openly Protesting against the pretended errours and superstitions of our Church, and beleeuing the doc∣trine, which Protestants now beleeue and hold in opposition to our Church. This, neither the Bishop nor any body else, was euer able to proue. Wee Catholiques, therfore doe not only doubt, but absolutely deny, that there was any Protestant Church, (or any Church, which the Bishop can properly and truly call his Church, or their Church, speaking of Protestants) be∣fore Luthers time, not only there where ours now is, but in any other part, or corner of the world.

Neither is their Church and ours one and the same Church, in any other sense, then what is meerly fictitious and arbitrary, and wherby, all Heretiques whatsoeuer may, if they will, pretend to be one and the same Church with the Catholique. Nor is it possible for Protestants to confute them; seeing they can bring no conuincing argument to proue, that such errours are more destructiue of the Foundation, then those which they account damnable and to shake the very Foundation of Christian Reli∣gion. Who knowes not that wee Catholiques, differ from Protestants in the Sacraments; which certainly are of the substance of Religion, if any thing be; and by our Aduersaries own principles, and definition of a Church pertaine to the Churches essence? Wee differ from them in the matter of Sacrifice; which they reiect, but wee hold and beleeue to be the most princi∣pall and solemne action of all that pertaines to Religious worship. Wee differ from them also in many other points of maine concernment to the honour of God and Saluation of soules. They charge vs, and wee them

errours directly derogatory to Gods honour, directly contrary to divine Reuelation, directly contrary to the institution and ordinance of Christ and repugnant to Saluation. How then are wee one and the same Church? or how can Protestants pretend to become members of the Catholique Church, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 s they maintaine principles, or articles of doctrine of such high concernment in Religion, contrary to the beleefe of the whole Catholique Church, in so many ages before Luther?

What he layes to our charge (Epist. pag. 17.) of crying vp the Church aboue Scripture, and that so farrae, as to indanger the beleefe of it with a great part of men, will be abundantly shew'n in the following discourse, to be a calumny of the greatest magnitude. At present wee only protest against it as such, and auerre with himselfe, that the Scripture, where it is plaine, should guide the Church; and the Church, where there is doubt, or difficulty, should expound Scripture. Only to that Prouiso which he adds, touching the Churches exposition of Scripture, viz. that shee may reuise what in any case hath slipt from her, wee cannot allow it, till wee certainly know his meaning. For if by reuising what hath shipt from her he mean't to intimate (as 'tis most probable he did) that the Church should erre in any thing shee defines to be beleeu'd, 'tis his own errour to affirm it, as wee shall proue hereafter: if any thing else, wee meddle not with it.

Whereas he obserues (Epist. pag. 18.) that many rigid Professo urs haue turn'd Roman Catholiques, and in that turn, haue been more Iesuited then any other: and that such Roma∣nists as haue chang'd from them, haue for the most part, quite leap't ouer the meane, and been as rigid the other way; to the first part of his obseruation I assent; reason it selfe teaching it to be true. For the streames of that zeale, which formerly wrought extrauagantly in them, by reason of their ignorance and errour, beeing now cleer'd and turn'd the right way, make the Professours of it still feruorous for that, which is good, and no less vehemently auerted from what they know to be ill. But of the second part I cannot ap∣proue; it beeing so contrary to all experience; which shew's, that the desertours of our Religion seldome become so zealous in the contrary way, as the Relatour pretends: nay reason it selfe is against it. For, commonly speaking, the motiues of their turn are eyther the preseruation of their estates, the obtaining of some other wordly and temporall ends, or lastly some voluptuous pleasure, of which in the way of Catholique Religion they finde themselues debarr'd. And hereof this is an assured Argument, that when these motiues cease, (as at the howre

death they all doe) many of them, through the mercy of God, returne from whence they had departed. Whereas on the other side, I neuer yet heard of the man, who professing the Catholique Fayth in time of health, desired in sickness to dye a Protestant.

The Relatour obserues againe (Epist. pag. 19.) that noe one thing hath made conscientious men (of his party) more wauering in their mindes, and more apt to be draw'n beside from the Religion professed in the Church of England, then want of of vniforme and decent order &c. therevpon taking occasion to en∣large himselfe on the subiect of ceremonies, shewing their vsefulness and necessity in the publique exercise of Religion; wherin I haue noe reason to contradict him. Only this I must note by the way, that whereas (out of indulgence to his ordinary humour) he taxes the Roman Church with thrust∣ing in many, that are vnnecessary and superstitious, he might haue know'n, that the Councill of Trent it selfe not only inables, but inioynes all particular Bishops in their respectiue Dioceses, and all Archbishops and Metropolitans in their respectiue Prouinces, to reforme what euer they may finde amiss in this kinde. And this his crimination is no more, then was obiected to himselfe by his owne people.

Wee shall in due place shew, in what sense it is, wee maintaine, that out of Rome, that is, out of the communion of the Roman-Ca∣tholique Church, there is no saluation. At present it may suffize to say, that wee doe not shut vp saluation in such a narrow conclaue as the Bishop would haue his Reader beleeue, when he parallels vs with the Donatists. Wee teach no other doctrine concerning the attainement of saluation, then what hath been held in all ages, in all times and in all places, and is now visibly taught and professed throughout the Christian world; viz. that out of the true Catholique Church, saluation is not to be expected. Nor doe wee shut Heauen-gates, as the Relatour insinu∣ates, to any that are willing to enter; prouided, they be willing to enter, and goe that way, which Christ hath appointed. But 'tis the Bishop and his party, that doe really shutt Heauen-gates to those who otherwise might enter, euen whilest they pretend to open them. For by teaching the way to Heauen to be wider then it is, and that Saluation may be attained by such meanes, and in such wayes, as according to Gods ordinary Proui∣dence it cannot, what doe they but putt men into a false way, and in stead of leading them in that straite path to eternall happiness, which the Gospell prescribes, trace out that broad way to them, which leads to death?

I shall close my Preface with an Aduertisement to such, as are apt to quarrel at words, beyond the meaning of those that vse them. The

infallible (which in treating of the Church and Generall Councils I haue had frequent occasion to make vse of) is cunningly raised by our Aduersaries to so high a pitch of signification, as though it could import no less, then the ascribing of an intrinsecall vnerring power in all things, to those wee account infallible; which is cleerly to peruert our meaning: wee intending to signifie noe more, when wee say the Church, or Generall Councils are infallible, then that by vertue of Christ's promise they haue neuer erred, nor euer shall in definitions of Fayth.

In fine, Good Reader, that thou mayst see and embrace the truth, is the hearty wish of him, that bids thee noe less heartily.

Farewell.