Of the necessity of reformation in, and before Luther's time and what (visibly) hath most hindred the progress of it : occasioned by some late virulent books written by Papists, but especially, by that intituled, Labyrinthus Cantuariensis : here besides some other points, the grand business of these times, infallibility, is fully discussed / by Meric Casaubon ...

Of the necessity of Reformation, in, and before Luthers time; and what (visibly) hath most hindred the progress of it.

THere is not anything that our Adversaries (so I must call them in this cause, though in Christ the common Saviour, whom we and they profess, fellow-members and brethren) have more frequent in their mouthes, or which they make more ad∣vantage of, when they have to do with ordinary people, then this common say∣ing, That no salvation can be had out of the Church. It is a true saying, and well worthy their serious consideration, who account it their chief business whilest they live, to make their Salvation sure. We shall make good use of it: it shall appear in due place: willing therefore we are to lay it as a foundation, and to begin with it. The reason is given by St. Au∣gustine, and is obvious enough upon Scripture grounds: Totus Chri∣stus, caput & corpus est: Christ and his Church; Christ is the Head; the Church his Body; no man can have any interest in Christ, but as he is a Member of his Body, which is the Church, the Scripture saith, Col. 1.24. St. Cyprian therefore pithily and brief∣ly: Habere non potest Deum patrem,* 1.1 qui Ecclesiam non habet matrem.

No salvation then out of the Church ordinarily; I say ordinarily, leaving God to the priviledge of his Omnipotency; as Christ in the like case answered, Mar. x.27. So still we keep to this main foun∣dation, That there is no other Name under heaven given among men, whereby they may be saved, but the Name of Christ: Act. iv.12. But what other way or ways God may have to bring men to the know∣ledg

of Christ available to salvation, doth not become us to enquire, much less to determine: For the secret things belong unto the Lord our God; but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our chil∣dren. Deut. xxix.29. But this by the way onely.

That by the Church, in this assertion the Catholick Church is in∣tended, that also is generally acknowledged, since no particular Church can pretend unto Christ, but as it is a member of the Catholick; which Catholick Church our Creed doth oblige us to believe, as a fundamen∣tal point of Christian Religion. But St. Augustine is very express, when he saith, Extra Ecclesiam Catholicam totum potest (quivis, scil. though he spake there of one particular man; but it is the same reason of all:) habere, &c. that is, Out of the Catholick Church, all things besides may be had. A man may have honor; (honorem: that is, promotion Eccle∣siastical; alluding to 1 Tim. v.17. and Heb. v.4.) a man may have the Sacraments; he may sing Allelujah; answer Amen; be perfect in the Gospect; (or perchance, perform the part of an Evangelist, or Gospel reader in the Church:) have Faith in the Name of the Father, the Son, and Holy Ghost; and preach it; but salvation he can find no where but in the Catholick Church.

Now the question is, what title the Roman Church hath to the Ca∣tholick Church, more then any particular Church? They will not say, That the Roman Church, as it is a particular Church (which they ac∣knowledg) is the Catholick Church. No, they profess to the con∣trary, and it would be too gross an absurdity if they should say other∣wise. But as the Roman Church is the root, or center of Unity, as it doth infuse Universality into other particular Churches; (a strange speech, and opinion!) and again, (Privilegio Dignitatis & Dominationis, quia sub se continet universas Ecclesias:) as God, saith one of the Popes, may∣be called Universalis Dominus, quoniam omnia sub ejus dominio continen∣tur: Universal Lord, because all things are under his dominion, (Decr. 1. dist. 99. a strange speech that too!) So the Romish Church is sty∣led the Universal, or Catholick Church. Truly, I think it may, with∣out any contradiction in the terms, be so styled, if this be true, in all, or in part, that is alledged; but how truly or probably said or alledged, besides what by others, against it, fully, solidly, which can never be answered, hath been opposed, let the Reader judg, by what we shall have occasion to say of it, though not intended purposely, but as it comes in our way.

But besides this allegation, which hath been mentioned, (of the truth whereof, the Reader, as I said before, may be able to judge by what we have to say;) I will acknowledge, and it may give some satisfaction to them that have not observed it, that the Roman Church may be called the Catholick Church, (it is so by some ancients:) in another sense, or respect, by a Catachresis or Homonymia of the word Roman. Anci∣ently, Romanus Orbis, or Romanum Imperium, because of its great ex∣tent, and generality, was used by many in ordinary language as in∣cluding an Absolute universality. Passages of ancient Heathen Au∣thors, are obvious to this purpose, which by learned Philologists, though upon another occasion, have been observed. Nay the very word Romania, or Romanitas, hath been used for the whole World; that only, which they called Barbaria, or Barbaricum, excepted. Roma∣na dominatio, id est, humani generis, saith the Epitomizer of the Roman storie, Florus. Why not then Romana fides, or Ecclesia, in this sense, for Catholica. Now as it would be impertinent, to inferre that all Gentiles, or Heathens, were Greeks properly, and none but they, be∣cause the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Graeci, is so used in the New Testament, and elsewhere; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Hellenismus likewise: or that all Europe∣ans are French-men, or Franci properly, and none but they, because so called anciently by the Turks; as is well known, and hath been obser∣ved by divers: so if in this sense Romana fides, or Ecclesia, be used by some ancients for Catholica fides, or Ecclesia; to inferre upon it, that therefore he that is a true Catholick, must of necessity be of the Roman Communion, how can it be less than a gross and absurd mistake?

The next thing which we shall ground upon, and will be granted on all hands, is, That one particular Church may have just cause of separa∣tion, in external Communion from another particular Church, and not be guilty of any Schism. The chief cause generally acknowledged, is, false Doctrine, in matters of Faith, not absolutely fundamental; for that would make it no Church: but material in point of truth and soundness of doctrine, and not of an indifferent nature. But there may be other just causes too; as, unjust usurpation upon rights and liberties: As also corrupted discipline and a scandalous life publickly maintained, and allowed by authority.

And here I desire to propose a Case to the Intelligent Reader. In

the year of the Lord 795. Constantine the VII. Son of Leo the IV. Emperour of Constantinople, having unhappily settled his affections upon one of the Ladies of the Court, was divorced from his lawful wife, and shut her up in a Monastery. He pretended, that his Wife had at∣tempted to poyson him, and otherwise too laid plots, to put him be∣sides the government. This he pretended, but nothing of it was be∣lieved; Neither indeed was there any thing of probability in the pre∣tence. However, he did what he could to get some of the Church on his side. He attempted the Patriarch, and others in dignity, but could not prevail. Yet, one Josephus a Priest, an Oeconomus of the great Cathedral in Constantinople was found, who performed all solemnities and countenanced the business with such credit as he had. All good men were much scandalized at the business. Tharasius the Patriarch (though a man that had been promoted to that dignity contrary to the Canons of the Church, per saltum) particularly. But among the rest, or indeed above the rest, Theodorus Studita (a man of great fame in those days, for his piety and learning; whom therefore the Emperour did endeavour to win to him, by all possible means;) appeared so zea∣lous, that he made bold, being no more in dignity then Guardian of a Covent, barely, to excommunicate the Emperour, and all that should adhere to him in this cause. Baronius saith, it was not a di∣rect excommunication, neither indeed was it at that time: but afterward it came to a direct excommunication: it was upon the same occasion, though not of the same Emperour. But Baronius, who would have it the Popes peculiar priviledge, takes no notice of it; there were others that joyned in that action; as particularly one Plato of great fame, and piety, he also Guardian of another Monastery. Theodorus his own brother also, Josephus Arch-bishop of Thessalonica, held with him; But by the progress of the story, from the beginning to the end, it doth clearly appear that Theodorus was the principal actor and author who gave life and countenance to all that was done. This act gave great of∣fence to divers; who otherwise had sufficiently declared their dislike of the Emperors unlawful marriage. So that even among those that were of one opinion in the main business, there became great division, and indeed apparent, if not Schism, yet separation. Great arguing there was (all which may be read in Baronius:) whether it were lawful to se∣parate but for matters of Faith and Doctrine: how far number was

considerable to the constitution of a true Church (the paucity of them that adhered to Theodorus in this act, being that which gave most offence) and other like matters. But Theodorus, though he suffered very much in his body for it, as imprisonment, and stripes, and the like: yet he stood with an invincible courage to what he had done; and did not suffer in his body more constantly, than he did plead for himself with his pen, stoutly and resolutely. I will not take upon me to justify, nei∣ther his proceeding, nor all his reasons, though much advantage may be made of some of his words: but that is not my aim, at this time. My observation is (and I shall make some use of it by and by:) that Baronius finds fault with nothing, neither proceedings, nor proofs; nay commends all, but that he would not have it a right excommuni∣cation, by no means, as I said before; and that he is somewhat angry at those words of Theodorus in a place,* 1.2 De papa autem quid ad nos, hoc agat an illud? But much more angry he would have been, had not the same Theodorus afterwards in his great di∣stress, and deplorable condition, with great humility, applyed himself to the Pope for succour.

This was the Case: upon which I have this consideration: If the Pope and the Church of Rome, by their own undeniable records, are convicted to have maintained among the Clergy, who should be ex∣amples of holiness unto others, the practice of lewdness and fornication, such as no heathenish Common-wealth can parallel, and such as must in all probabillity tend to the confusion of Christianism, the advan∣cing, and countenancing of Atheism and Heathenisme, more effectu∣ally by far then any thing that can be done or devised to the con∣trary for the advancing of the one, and suppressing of the other: whe∣ther in that case all men or Churches, truly zealous of Gods glory, and of his truth, were not bound in conscience to separate from the said Church, (and the head of it,) as the mother of Harlots and abomina∣tions of the Earth, &c. Apoc. xvii.11.

About the year of the Lord 1058. or 59. The cry of these fornica∣tions and abominations of the Church, which had filled all the world, was so loud in the ears of Pope Nicolas the II. (who certainly in∣tended well, but took a very contrary course:) that he imployed one Petrus Damianus, a man wholly devoted to the Pope, and his au∣thority, but otherwise not unfit for such an imployment, to inquire

and to apply some remedy. The account that Damianus returned unto the Pope was, that he found the evil gone so far, and so pre∣dominant, that he could do no good. Tentavi (saith he:) genitali∣bus sacerdotum (Bishops, he doth call them so at the beginning:) fibu∣las continentiae adhibere, sed quia haec secta est (continentia scil.) cui ab omnibus contradicitur, &c. As for all other commands and injun∣ctions that come from your Majesty (for so he writes) we may hope to give you a good account: But in this particular, all that we could extort, was but a bare promise made, (or uttered) with trembling lips. Si malum hoc esset occultum (saith he to the Pope:) fuerat for∣tasse utcunque ferendum: sed heu scelus! omni pudore postposito, pestis haec in tantam prorupit audaciam, ut per ora populi, volitent loca scor∣tantium, nomina concubinarum, Socerum quoque vocabula, & socruum; fratrum denique & quorum libet propinquorum. Et ne quid his asserti∣onibus deesse videatur, testimonio sunt discursio nuntiorum, effusio mune∣rum, cachinnantium joca, secreta colloquia. Postremo vero omnis dubi∣etas tollitur: uteri tumentes, & pueri vagientes. So he in that account, for the matter of fact, whereby it doth clearly appear that fornication a∣mong the Clergy in those days was as publick and ordinary almost as eating and drinking. Now what was the reason? Two are there given by the said Author; One is, because they dispaired that they could attain to fastigium Castitatis: not perfection of Chastity (they were far enough from it:) but to live chastly; which they reckoned to be a fastigium, or great perfection, not to be expected; Another is, because they feared no punishment. Will you know the reason of that security? Damianus will informe you: Because, saith he, (Nostris quidem temporibus gemina quaedam Ecclesiae Romanae consue∣tudo servatur, ut de caeteris quidem, &c.) In those times, it was the use or custome of the Roman Church, in other parts or heads of discipline to require performance: but in those things that concern the incontinency of the Clergy, for fear of the insultation of the Laicks and Seculars, dispensativè conticescere: he doth not say, absolutely to dispence; but (what is the difference?) by way of dispensation to take no notice at all. And how much less is this, then that they might do it by law? And can we think that where the Rulers gave such examples, greater licentiousness among the vulgar can be imagined, in a Commonwealth of miscreants?

But it will be said, The Pope was sensible of it, and did endeavour to remedy it. But how to remedy it except he had taken the right course,* 1.3 which was (commended by the Apostle, Better to mar∣ry then then to burn: and, Marriage is honourable in all:) to suffer Clergy men to marry, as in former times. Which he was so far from, that at the very same time, whereas the Clergy of the Church of Milan, were allowed wives (ever since Ambrose his time, certainly and before:) he never left until by his agents he had brought an alteration; though all he could do, could not bring it to any perfection or settlement in his time.

Now, if it were no better, in and before Luthers time, as there is oc∣casion enough to suspect, because besides the complaint of many of those times, and of that side too: (not to speak of Petrus Aloisius, Paul the third, Pope of Rome his bastard; what things, not to be na∣med, were laid to his charge; nor of Joannes Casa, Arch-bishop of Benovento in Italy, which things cannot be spoken without horror, though both continued, as is affirmed by good authors, in great favour; nor yet to speak of the state of Monasteries in England in King Henry the 8^th^'^s time; if we may believe publick Records:) the cause still continued, as it doth yet: I think it will be granted, there was ve∣ry just cause, had there been no other, for separation from such a Church, where such things to the great scandal and detriment of Chri∣stianity, are tolerated; and the remedy lawful marriage, (which to for∣bid, the Apostle saith, is doctrine of Devils;) so severely interdicted. But be it so, that there is great amendment, (as I make no question, some Popes since that time, have indeavoured it very really:) if it were so then with Rome; and that separation from it, upon that account, was lawful; I have what I aim at, that in some cases, besides errors in doctrine, it may be lawful to separate even from the Church of Rome, without any peril of schism. But of this matter, forbidding of marriage, how lawfully done, and what mischef it hath occasion∣ed; and what may be said of later times more, for the Readers further sa∣tisfaction, since we have had occasion to say so much of it here, will be said afterward; Before I pass to other matter, because Con∣stantine the Emperour his divorce from his wife, and what ensued upon it, hath given us the occasion of this confideration, it will be worth the while to take notice of some passages in Baronius in reference to the

said Constantine. It so fell out, that after some seven or eight years this Emperour, by the barbarous cruelty and treacherous rebellion of his own mother Irene, was craftily surprised, his eyes put out, and he soon after made away. Scelus plane execrandum, saith Baronius; so he begins:* 1.4 he thought it necessary to make some shew of dislike, or execration since, that the heavens themselves did so abhor the act, that immediately upon it, there ensued a long darkness (of many dayes continuance) in the land, that men could not see their way, and all men inter∣p••eted it, that it was Heavens resentment. But notwithstanding this judgment both of God and men; Baronius immediately after these words, Scelus plana execrandum, with a nisi, &c. turnes it into an act of great piety, and worthy of all commendation: warranted by Moses and by Christ: for which in very deed, he deserves the detestation of all true Christians: Nisi, saith he, (quod multi excusant) justitiae zelus ad id faciendum excitasset: that is, An execrable act, had not (as many do excuse it) a zeal of justice moved her, to do what she did. And then again, Plurimum interest, quo quis animo agat, &c. So that let an act be never so horrid in it self, never so contrary to the revealed will of God, and rules of his holy word: yet if may be said it was done ze∣lo justitiae, and out of a good mind (and certainly it is that that most assassinats of princes especially pretend unto:) by this rule it will become not only warrantable but laudable, and a worthy act. This Baronius had learned from Pope Urban the ii. who upon the very same ground Decr. II. c. 2, 3, 4, 5. doth acquit assassinats. But see how Baronius his zeal (if it must be so called) made him forget and con∣tradict himself in his account of this sad Tragedy! For whereas he saith here without any author, that Irene did not give any order for the putting out of her sons eyes, or death; but onely that he should be made fast or secured: his own author whom he doth produce (who also was present, as he professeth) saith directly, Et circa horam no∣nam, crudeliter & insatiabiliter, oculos ejus evellunt, ita ut mors subsequens confestim extingueret, consilio matris suae, & consiliariorum ejus. Then followeth that memorable change of the skies, which no story can parallel:* 1.5 That the sun for the time of seventeen days, was darkened and did not give its light (or did not put forth his beams) so that ships for want of light wandered upon the

sea, and all men sayd the sun did withdraw his rayes, because of this execution upon the Emperour. And again the same author quoted by Baronius in the same place: Die Sabbathi,* 1.6 orbatus est oculis à propria matre idem Constantinus. So far was Baronius transported with his blind zeal, that he knew not what he said. But now for a further con∣firmation of Baronius his perfidious false dealing in this business, and to the end the Reader may the better know him, I shall oppose to this disciple of Nereus, and a Cardinal, one of Loyolas disciples, a very Jesuit, even Petavius, whose account is very different, the more he to be commended for his love of truth and ingenuity. For first he tells us that Constantine was forced by his mother much against his will to marry that wife which afterwards he put away, whereas she had made him sure to another before; then concerning that abominable act, Effossis oculis Constantinus paulo post expirasse dicitur. Quod parricidium in Irenes laudem traxerunt Graeculi quidam.* 1.7 Sed quam invisum Deo fuerit, Septendecim dierum horrenda caligo testata est, quae mor∣tem illius consequnta est: That is: His eyes being put out, Constan∣tine is said to have dyed soon after. This parricide some Graeculi would draw to the praise of Irene. But how hateful it was unto God, seventeen days horrible darkness which insued upon it, did witness. So Petavius. Graeculi quidam: a notable and true censure: wherein Baronius, though not a Graeculus him∣self personally, is equally involved: For the matter is: those Graeculi would perswade the world, that this had happened unto Constantine justly at the hands of God; and that his mother did the act of a pious and religious woman in it, because her son had cruelly intreated some Uncles of his and other kindred, which, some in power, had attempt∣ed to set in the throne, in his stead: put out the eyes of some, and cut off the tongues of others: which indeed was cruel, and abominable; but done, partly by the Counsel of his mother Irene, as Baronius his own Authors testify: which Irene had executed little less her self, upon others, who as loyal subjects did, or were ready to do their parts, to free her son from that bondage and subjection, against all law and equity; in favour of her self and her dear favourite (Stauratius by name) even after perfect maturity, She kept him in. Her son therefore what he had done cruelly, he did it partly by her advice, and partly by her example: but her unnatural disloyalty to him, even before this last act, (in favour of her self and her favourite, as I said before;) was without ex∣ample.

What then should make Baronius and those Graeculi to speak of her with such respect? The true reason is, because she had been be∣fore, and was after this horrid parricid, a fierce promoter (or promotrix) of Image worship. Such friends that goodly cause hath had: and for being such a friend to the cause (a Mystery or Maxime our late Rebells and Re∣gicides learned of Popish zealots) Baronius is not willing to believe she could be so wicked or cruel, though she so cruelly killed her own natural Son; and which is more, her lawful King and Soveraign.

Now to go on as we propose to our selves: That one Church may separate from another for errors in doctrine, is not at all doubted: and upon this account it is, chiefly, that we justifie our separation from the Church of Rome. The particulars are many, wherein we charge them to have swerved from the true doctrine, both of the scriptures and primitive fathers. There hath been so much written by men of ex∣cellent learning, since our first breach within the space of 150 years, to make this charge good, as that it is very hard now for any man, be he never so diligent, to add somewhat to what hath already been done; or indeed to hope, after so much done and performed with no better success, that any more writing can be to much purpose. They that are both wise and godly, may hope to do more by praying, then they can do (the confidence of men to maintain a bad cause, which doth discover it self every day, more and more considered:) by arguing or writing. But in very deed it can be to little purpose to dispute a∣bout particular points with men who are possest or rather infatuated with a conceit of their Churches infallibility; which of all points be∣ing the most absurd and ridiculous, and most repugnant to antiquity, what hopes can any man have, that they that can swallow this, or have the confidence to press it upon others, as a main fundamentall ar∣ticle of Religion without which nothing can be certain, or satisfactory, either to eason or to conscience, as long as they continue in that mind, will regard any thing that can be alledged in any other point?

* 1.8The Church being infallible (saith the author of the Labrynth) twere meerly vain to examin her Decrees (which the relator requires to be done) to see if she have not added Novitia Veteribus, New Doctrines to Old. For the holy Ghost (as hereafter shall be proved when we speak of this point) having promised so to direct her, as she cannot erre, will never permit her to declare any thing as matter of Faith, which was not before either

expressed or infolded and implyed in the word of God. And again: The Bishop of Rome being St. Peters successor,* 1.9 in the government of the Church, and Infallible (at least with a General Council) it is impossible that Protestants or other Sectaries, should ever find such errors or corruptions definitively taught by him, or received by the Church, as should either warrant them to preach against her doctrine, or (in case she refuses to conform to their preaching) lawfully to forsake her communion. Again,* 1.10 We have already proved the Roman Church (in the sense we understand Roman) infallible; and therefore she ought not to be accus'd, for teaching errors. Nei∣ther can she submit her self to any Third, to be judged in this point; both because there is no such competent Third, to be found; as also because it were in effect to give away her own right, yea, indeed to de∣stroy her self, by suffering her authority to be questioned in that where∣on all certainty of Faith depends: for such is the Catholick Churches in∣fallibility. And not long after; The Church (Roman Scil.* 1.11) may lawfully judge her accusers, because she is infallible in her decissions of Faith, and hath full authority finally and absolutely to de∣termine all controversies of that nature.

So he there, and elsewhere often, to the same purpose: So that in effect, all controversies are reduced unto this one of the Popes Infalli∣bility. Which to make the more plausible, being a point of it self so contrary to reason, and (upon examination of evidences) to mani∣fest experience, that a rational man had need to shut his eyes very close, before he can entertain it with any stability of assent: it is proposed in many termes, and represented under several aspects: somtimes under the notion of infallibility of tradition: sometimes of Councils, sometimes of the Church: all which in their dialect, come to one, as the author of the Labyrinth doth tell us:* 1.12 Wherefore since the infallibility of the Church, Councils and Tradition depend so necessarily upon one another; whatever authorities prove the infallibility of any one, do in effect, and by good consequence, prove the same of all the rest. Now we also ascribe much to tradition, in a right sense: more to General Councils: but most of all to the Catholick Church, which we acknowledge infallible, in the main fundamentals of Christianity, according to Christs promise,* 1.13 That the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. Which promise

of Christ is well applied by the Council of Trent to the Fundamen∣tals of Christianity contained in the Roman Creed, (which little dif∣fereth from the Nicene) which Creed is generally received by all that profess Christianity, in all parts of the world. This would give us some hopes of some possible agreement in time. But upon a nearer view, or search into the bottome of the business, all this is resolved into the Popes Infallibility;* 1.14 whatever else is pretended, vanishes into meer nothing, as will be shewed more at large in due place.

My purpose therefore is, instead of other particular points, which I said before are many, wherein we charge the Church of Rome to have erred grosly and dangerously, to insist upon this of Infallibi∣lity; which, though I know it hath been canvased and refuted by ma∣ny, and by none more solidly and rationably, then by the late Arch∣bishop and Martyr, in that Book which the Author of the Labyrinth makes a shew to answer: yet because some things did offer themselves to me upon this subject, which I have not met with elsewhere; I thought it would not be amiss to impart that also, since no diligence can be too great to discry a falshood, where so much endeavour is used to cry it up to the credit of a Fundamental Truth.

To uphold this Infallibility against all assailants, three forts have been raised: the one founded upon pretended Scripture; the other founded upon the authority of ancient Fathers; the third, upon the strength of natural Reason. What is fetched from the Scriptures, is so remote, that by their own confession, (you shall hear them afterwards) little can be made of it: as little from what the testimonies of Anti∣quity afford: but from Reason, there they triumph, and dare tell Christ, had not he so provided and ordered, as they would impose upon our belief, he had been (I have some horror to speak it) neither good, nor wise: laying a necessity upon us (as much as in them lieth,) either to yield to their inferences, whether we see reason or no; or to blas∣pheme him in our thoughts, whom our faith doth oblige us to adore as a Saviour. We will therefore begin with that, because they presume so much up••n it; and the rather too, because it hath been least taken notice of by others, (so far as is come to our knowledg;) nor the con∣sequence of that kind of arguing, which may extend much further, if good and warrantable, by any that I know, fully considered of. Let

us hear then, if we can hear with patience, what these men, pretend∣ing to zeal and conscience, have made no scruple to utter.

Hence it follows, (so one of them) that even our blessed Saviour, who is Wisdom it self, would have been esteemed by all the world, not a wise Law-giver, but a meer Ignoramus, and Impostor. For had he not fra∣med (think you) a strange and chimerical Commonwealth, were it alone destitute of a full and absolute power, (which all other well ordered Repub∣liques enjoy) to give an authentical and unquestionable De∣claration, which is the genuine and true Law?* 1.15 So the Author of the Labyrinth, whose plea for Infallibility generally is, because it is necessary, as he doth apprehend it. Deus non deficit in necessariis— This is necessary for the peace and unity of the Church: and therefore not to be denied, unless an impossibility can be shewed therein, p. 263. And p. 276. from thence Infallibility is rightly and invincibly concluded, as we have shewn by the grand inconveniencies which otherwise would unavoid∣ably follow, both to Religion, and the Church.

So another, that wrote much about the same time: That since it is unworthy the wisdom and goodness of Almighty God, who sent his Son to save mankind, not first to lay, and then leave efficacious means for that end, &c. which is often repeated by the same Author, upon several occasions. Another of that side, having set down the opinions of Pro∣testants, as he would have it believed, blasphemously con∣cludes, Biblia illa non sacra, sed fanatica; spiritum illum,* 1.16 non sanctum, sed mendacem: Christum tuum, non redemp∣torem, sed seductorem, constantissimè affirmavero, &c. and the same Author elsewhere, nec existimarem (except you will grant him Infallibility) Deum esse sollicitum de nobis, &c. and again, Si desit mundo illa lux —tyrannidem non suavem,* 1.17 fortem{que} divinam, &c. But long before, Non videretur Do∣minus discretus fuisse, &c. was the speech of one that com∣mented upon the Canon Law, as hath been noted by others: and Pius the Second goes upon the same grounds, but is more sparing in his expressions, in a particular Bull of his, of this subject, though he had been of another mind before; Ne putatis divinam providentiam in∣ordinatam reliquisse militantem Ecclesiam &c.

In answer to this, I shall here in the first place, profess, That were it so indeed, and did it appear unto us by clear Scripture, backed with

the consent and practice of Primitive times, and by answerable event, that Christ did establish, besides his holy Word, a certain living and speaking Oracle upon Earth, to which all men, upon emergent occa∣sions, in controversies of Faith (wherein the truth of God is much conce••ned) might have recourse unto; by whose infallible (grounded upon Gods Word and Promise) resolution and determination, all weighty differences and doubts might be composed; and men, for the preventing of all schismes and divisions among them that profess the Name of Christ, fully satisfied: we should not onely submit, as in all things we are bound, (whether more or less plausible to mans reason,) with all humility; but gladly, and joyfully, with all possible expres∣sions of due thankfulness, embrace such an appointment. For what man is he, that hath any true sence of humanity, that would not rejoyce in peace, and unity, and concord among men, (and by consequent in the true means of it;) as the chiefest of worldly goods, and the greatest of heavens blessings? But if all that is plausible to humane reason, and which right humanity may oblige a man to wish, must therefore be true, and pass among men for good and sound doctrine: what more plausible, (to instance in one particular;) then that all ancient Philo∣sophers, and others, who before Christ, lived in the belief and profes∣sion of a Deity, and in their lives and conversations (so far as their knowledg extended, and humane frailty afforded,) became examples of vertue, of justice, temperance, continency, contempt of the world, and the like, unto others; that such should not be excluded from the benefit of Christs Redemption? How far some ancient Fa∣thers have gone in this point, and with them some later writers, of no small account among the Roman Catholicks, hath been observed by more then one. It seems in St. Augustins time, some went further; who grounding upon some places of Scripture, as they understood them; as particularly,* 1.18 that he had preached to the spirits in prison, and loosed the pains of Hell: did conclude, that Christ by his descent into Hell, the very place of the damned; for so St. Augustine doth avouch it, and saith of it plainly: Quis nisi in∣fidelis negaverit fuisse apud inferos Christum? and not onely there, but in his 57 Epistle, as expresly; ubi Dives torquebatur, &c. Whereby by the way,* 1.19 we may see how much the Author of the Labyrinth is to be trusted, when he saith, But how will it

appear that the Primitive Church interpreted Christs descent to be as low as that place where the reprobates are tormented? did exinanire in∣fernum; deliver all that he found there: Of which opinion St. Augustine, as a man whose charity did extend to all mankind in general; (which indeed is truest charity; not as some, who inhumanely and barbarously have maintained, if Heaven were open unto all, it would not be worth having or seeking:) quis non gratuletur? who would not be glad? saith he. And again▪ vellemus vel praecipuè: we had much rather it were so: but it follows, Nisi aliter se haberet sensus humanus,* 1.20 aliter justitia Creatoris: That is, were it not that humane reason and ratiocination, is one thing; and Gods Justice or De∣cree, another. We say therefore, upon grounds of humane ratiocinati∣on, whether true or supposed, (for all men will not agree, what is reason;) peremptorily to determine what God hath done or determi∣ned, or according to the tenor of those passages for Infallibility, and Supremacy (for they go together commonly) which I have produced: was bound, if good and wise, to do, or determine; I verily conceive, nay, and peremptorily (upon reasons to be produced) affirm, to be the ready way to Heathenisme, Atheisme, Mahometisme, and lastly, to all manner of Heresies, and the overthrowing or undermining of all true Religion and Piety. I do not desire to be believed any further then I shew reason; and if my reason deceive me, I shall thing my self beholding to them that will inform me better.

First then for Heathenisme, or Paganisme: this was the very way, whereby, chiefly, ancient Heathens, the most learned among them, did oppose Christianity in the mysteries of our Faith. Let a man, to pass by others, but peruse the writings of learned Origen against Celsus the Epicurean, (so commonly called and reputed, though by his tenets, a Platonist, rather then an Epicurean, as Origen doth often observe: who therefore doth doubt in a place, whether this title of Epicurean, was not rather a sirname, then a profession of his sect:) he will find that Celsus his main design in that book, which Origen doth answer, was, to shew and to prove, that not onely the redemption of mankind in general, by the Incarnation of the Son; but every particular circum∣stance almost of that heavenly mystery, and all that is recorded of Christ, from his Birth to his Resurrection and Ascension, was incon∣sistent with Divine Wisdom, Power and Providence; and how every

thing might have been contrived much better in reference to God; and much more plausibly to the satisfaction of humane reason and pru∣dence. How often doth that word occur in him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (and some∣times 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) It should have been, or it ought rather to have been thus, and thus; as he doth propose and argue? And indeed, if we must stand to the tryal of humane reason, (but that it is greatest impiety, e∣ven to consider, where divine wisdom hath certainly determined;) it cannot be denied, but many things may be spoken plausibly; especi∣ally in the judgment of ordinary men: Which makes Origen to say in more then one place, or to the same purpose, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: These things are able indeed to extort assent from illiterate ordinary men, to cause great applause, &c. And I think S. Paul intended little less, when he pronounced of the mysteries of our Faith, but of Christ his Incarnation particularly, that it was un∣to the Greeks, foolishness; and unto the Jews a stumbling-block:* 1.21 or, then was foretold by the Prophet in these words, (applied by S.* 1.22 Paul to that purpose) I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

This very thing, humane reason and ratiocination; (so conceived and apprehended by men that are self-conceited, and think highly of their own wisdom: for certainly right reason and wisdom is in all such things, so far above the reach of man, wholly to rest upon divine re∣velation, as ancient Fathers so often inculcate; and I have proved elsewhere, even from the testimony of wisest Heathens:) but this very thing, made the Author of the Book, entitled De vero, verisimili, & falso, upon the strength of his own brain, to which he did very much ascribe, to devise a way of salvation common to all men, and to all times: a way plausible enough, had it any other ground but phansie. The design was to shew, that there is no need of a Christ: (though he durst not openly profess it;) and what opinion he had of the Gospel, is not unknown to them that knew him. I have heard the Book was burnt in Rome: if true, they deserve much more com∣mendation, then they that licensed it in England.

The same humane reason and ratiocination, hath caused the reviving of that foolish, heathenish conceit of the souls praeexistence; which with, or notwithstanding all its plausibility, even then set out, and

contrived, to the utmost of humane wit and invention, (which the late revivers would make us believe is the light and happiness of these late days:) was by the care of the then rulers and governors of the Church exploded, and cast out, with shame and ignominy.

Again, humane reason and ratiocination (so conceited as I said be∣fore) is the thing, that made some of these late times (pious other∣wise, as I have heard;) to fall upon a project of making all men wise, and religious, and of one mind; concerning which, (that we may not be thought to instance in things not worthy the mention:) some Books have been written, and many have been perswaded to entertain the project, and contributions of money made towards it; though, I dare say, since that fabulous attempt of scaling the Heavens, by heap∣ing up of mountains one upon another; (I have said it elsewhere, and say it again:) never any thing entred into the heart of man, more ri∣diculous: that I say not (though it may be said as truly) more dero∣gatory to the revealed wisdom of God. So much for Heathenism, and Heresies, or strange opinions.

I said this way tended to Atheisme: For if reason must be the judg; what advantage will an Atheist make of the prosperity of the wicked, in this world (so notorious, so generally observed, that even the godly have been troubled at it) against God and a Providence; especially where and when no certain knowledg of the rewards in another world, is yet, or was by revelation? Hath not that been the language of Athe∣ists in all ages? that if there were a God, or a Providence, it would be thus and thus in the world: and not as it is? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (saith one) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: that is, in the words of another;* 1.23 ¶ Cùm vexent mala fata bonos (ignoscite fasso) Sollicitor nullos esse putare Deos. ¶ Divos dispertivisse vitam huma∣nam aequum fuit (reason and equity his plea, we see:) Qui Lepidè ingenuatus esset, vitam longinquam darent: Qui improbi essent & scelesti, iis adimerent animam citò. Si hoc paravissent, homines essent minus multi mali, &c.

Men would be less in love perchance with this Infallibility, if they knew what Patrons it hath had. Not the Popes Infallibility particu∣larly, I do not mean; but such a kind of Infallibility as they did phan∣cy; which because they saw never had been in the world, they thought they had ground enough to deny, that there is any truth, or any thing

cetain; and that the pursuit of either truth, or vertue, this world af∣fording no such thing really, was altogether vain and frivolous, the consequent whereof must be (though the inference, being odious and dangerous, they leave it to others to make it;) no God, no Religi∣on. Lucian, that great scoffer of all Deity, and great Patron of Epi∣curism, hath written a pestilent book, instiled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: (that is, Of choice of sects and opinions:) In which he doth set out the variety of sects and opinions of Philosophers, in the pursuit of truth and vertue; from which, with much sophistry, and rhetorical cavillation, he doth bring things to this conclusion, that it is no less then pure phrensie and madness, for any man to busie himself about such things; and that all Philosophers, that professed any help towards those ends, were meer juglers and impostors. Witness those last bitter words of his Book:* 1.24 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Our adversaries may find many of their arguments, and the very way of their proceeding in that Book. The main of all he doth express in these words: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (he doth also use the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to the said purpose:) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: and this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he would have so palpable, and discernable to all, that even blind men might be led by it. We might english him for a need by those words of a noble Champion of the Roman Cause;* 1.25 The true saving faith to bring men to beatitude, ought (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is the word) to be obvious to all mankind, and open, as well to the simple, as to the learned. In what esteem most ancient Fathers have had ancient Philosophers, and their labours in the search of truth, and true vertue: and what won∣derful operation their doctrine hath had upon men, whereof they alledg many particular examples, no man can be ignorant that is any thing acquainted with them; though upon occasion, I know, (and there was occasion enough, I confess;) they speak freely enough. But without an absolute infallibility, that all is but foppery, and lost la∣bour; that is it Lucian would have.

As for Mahometisme, that this way of proceeding and reasoning doth give great advantage to it, is very apparent, if we consider, that the Mehometans p••…••… is, that Christ indeed, the vertue and wisdom of God, (for so they speak of him;) was sent by God to turn men from their

vain ways, idolatry, and the like, by perswasion to the true God, and right manner of worship. But being that way did not take, that he sent Mahomet to bring that to pass by force of armes, which gentler means, reason and perswasion could not effect. And is it not very plausible (upon those very grounds before specified) that God should be obeyed, and have his will one way or other? Which might be further pressed, by that incredible success which their armes had; ha∣ving conquered more people and nations in few years, then the Romans had done in some ages. ¶ And will it not follow, or at least, very plausibly be inferred upon those grounds of humane ratiocination, that Christ having purposed unto himself such an end, he must needs have left (so they speak) or appointed some means, how that end may in∣fallibly be compassed; or else (as some to countenance their own infe∣rences, have been bold to censure, or rather to blaspeme,) to be thought so, and so: will it not, I say, follow upon it, that the Pope should be in a manner omnipotent, (and we know them that have made no scruple to give him those titles;) as well as infallible? That at least he should be backt with power sufficient, to compel them that will not be ruled or swayed (as many will be apt enough, if it be for their interest) by his Infallibility? May not Christs reputation, upon this ground, suffer as much, or more, by such a contempt? And in very deed, upon this very consideration, some have grounded the necessity of the Popes temporal Supremacy over all Princes and Kingdoms, giving him power to depose, and to kill, as he shall see cause; because without such a power over Kings and Princes, and Kingdoms, Christian Reli∣gion, they say, may in time come to nothing. So Suares, for one, a great Author, and of great authority among the Romanists; who doth confirm his opinion with the dictat of Pope Boniface, pronounced by him as an Article of faith to all Christians;* 1.26 Porrò subesse Rom. Pontifici omnem humanam creaturam decla∣ramus, dicimus, definimus, & pronunciamus esse omnino de necessitate salutis. Which to be spoken by him, of temporal subjecti∣on, as well as spititual, appears by the tenor of that Decree, or Decla∣ration. Now it is well known, that many Roman Catholicks, even of the learnedest of that side; yea, whole Nations, and Kingdoms of that profession, have not held it problematical, (as some would perswade) but disclaimed this doctrine as impious and diabolical; and Princes, with

their Councel and Clergy, have made strict Edicts against it, con∣demned, or censured the assertors, burned their books, and the like: Nay, more then that, when the Pope hath angred them, they have gone very far, some Princes and Kingdoms, yet in subjection, to cast of a great part of his spiritual power, and Supremacy, as we shall shew more fully afterwards. If therefore this Infallibility stand upon such ticklish points, so defective in those things that should make it useful, and available; what will the conclusion be upon those former grounds of humane ratiocination?

Now, if a power to compel be not allowed; how likely it was, or is upon grounds of humane ratiocination, that this Infallibility, though granted and acknowledged, would be available to that end which is pretended, I further propose to consideration. How natural it is to man, to be led by example, rather then by councel, or reasoning; who knows not, that knows any thing of the world, and hath been acquaint∣ed with men by experience, or by reading? That a man that is of a bad life, may be Orthodox (as to the world at least,) in his opinion, or doctrine, no man doth doubt: but whether such a man, where his actions are publick and notorious, may probably do more hurt, or good by his Doctrine; is, I think, a great question. Gods own words by his servant David are;* 1.27 But unto the wicked, God saith: What hast thou to do to declare my Statutes; or, that thou shouldst take my Covenant in thy mouth? Upon which words St. Chrysostom doth observe, that in Princes Courts, (by the laws or customs of his time) it was not ordinary or usual for any man to be allowed to be an Interpreter of the Kings Laws, that was convicted of a corrupt life. His words are; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The same St. Chrysostome elsewhere calls that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the most uncontrollable, or irresistible (we may say infallible) proof and conviction, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: adding in the same place, that all the reasoning in the world, without a godly life, is to no purpose. Nay, the same Chrysostome, in his sixth Homily, up∣on the same Epistle to the Corinthians, doth peremptorily deliver, that miracles, where a corrupt life is visible, will do no good; and that a godly life without miracles (since the first miracles of the Primitive times) is sufficient; among Christians, at least.

If therefore God designed the Popes breast for the sanctuary of truth,

(qui jura omnia in scrinio pectoris sui censetur habere: Sext. Decr. l. 1. tit. 2.) may not a man, upon ground of humane ratiocination, plau∣sibly infer, that certainly the same God, who intended him infallible, would also make him impeccable; or, if that be too much, or not so necessary; yet at least so to provide, that he might not be extreamly scandalous and exorbitant in his life and conversation; lest that instead of keeping men in the right faith, by his infallibility in doubt∣ful points of doctrine, he should (as most probably) overthrow the faith of more in points fundamental: make more Atheists by the one, then preserve from Heresie by the other? That there have been ma∣ny, besides the Primitive Popes, (who were all Martyrs, or most of them,) pious and exemplary Popes, worthy of that place, we will easily grant, and I think no body will deny; but is it not strange, that any zealous for the Pope and his greatness, should confess,, (forced by truth,) that no less then fifty Popes, one after another, (or there∣about) for the space of 150 years,* 1.28 were no better then arrant Apostates? I think I need not name him that hath said it, because divers have taken notice of it; but if any desire it, they shall find his name in the margin. And Baronius saith directly of some of them, though they sate without opposition, (and there is the same reason for all;) that they were not right Popes, but meer usurpers. What was the Church all that while without a head; such a head, as they would make us believe, Christ was bound, or thus and thus to be censured, to provide it? Could it subsist so long, with∣out this provision for Infallibility, and yet we to believe upon pain of eternal death, nothing so necessary, so fundamental, as infallibility? What contradictions are these? They that tell us upon grounds of humane ratiocination, that God was bound by his Goodness and Wis∣dom, to make the Pope infallible, to prevent heresies; how will they reconcile this with Providence? Hath God taken such care to pre∣vent Heresie, and made no provision against Atheisme, in which all He∣resies are included? What can be more inconsistent with humane reason, more derogating to Providence, then that a man promoted, if not by the Devil immediatly, (as by their own Authors it is written of some Popes;) yet by publick Strumpets, and governed by Strumpets after his promotion, (which of Pope John the Tenth parti∣cularly, is acknowledged by Baronius;) should by the extraordi∣nary

assistance of Gods Spirit, be made infallible, in mysteries of Faith?

Lastly, Is it likely, in point of reason, or agreeable to Providence, that God should make a Pope miraculously infallible in his publick de∣cisions and decrees, ex cathedra, as they say; lest the Church should receive hurt, and yet suffer him to be an Heretick in his ordinary life, and profession, from which as much, or more hurt may justly be feared? But it will not be granted by all Roman Catholicks, (though by many it is, men of great credit among them, who never were ac∣counted Hereticks for it) that any Popes have been Hereticks: Baro∣nius doth not grant it, nor Bellarmine, I know; but he that shall with judgment and unpartiality, read their answers to the objections and in∣stances to the contrary, will find, I am confident, that they are put to such shifts to find evasions, that he will rather be confirmed by their answers that it is so as we say, then receive satisfaction that it is not. Let any man, to instance in one, see how Baronius is put to it, to ac∣quit Honorius the First, who was excommunicated, after his death, by the sixth general Council, for a Monothelite, and the excommunication confirmed by Leo the Second; how miserably he doth come off; and after many windings and turnings, is glad to betake himself to caligo temporum, (or, darkness of those times) for an excuse; I think he will say Baronius might have spared his pains; but that what shift soe∣ver he makes, he must hold to his conclusion, which was the chiefest design of all that great and voluminous work. We shall have another instance in Liberius before it be long, where Baronius is as much put to it. Now if it be said that the Pope cannot be an Heretick, because when he becomes an Heretick, he doth (ipso facto, so some) cease to be a Pope; if they mean by that, that at that very time, by a mi∣raculous Providence, such a Pope is always deposed, or doth die: they say somewhat indeed, but that which is contrary to truth; neither in∣deed, is that their meaning. But to say, that he ceases to be a Pope de Jure, though he continue still Pope, and in full authority de facto; the answer is altogether impertinent as to Providence: For if he con∣tinue in his place without apparent opposition; how shall people judg him to be no Pope, for his false doctrine; and not rather believe his doctrine (upon their principles) good and true, because he is in the Popes Chair? As well may they maintain that the Pope is impeccable,

upon pretence, that as often as he doth sin, (scandalously at least) he ceases to be Pope, although he return to his right afterwards. And the like may be said of any Priest in general, that he is impec∣cable upon that account, which sheweth the impertinency of this evasion.

I will instance in one particular more, though I think I have already gone over all the particulars I promised. Not to speak of the East Indies, of discoveries and opportunities in those parts; when the New World (which may truly be called a New World, either for the extent of Land, found to be greater and greater every day; or for the number of Inhabitants;) was by Gods miraculous providence found out; a way opened for the conversion of innumerable multitudes of heathen people, to the saving knowledg of Christ, and of his Gospel: what readier way, in the judgment of humane reason, for the accom∣plishment of so great a work, then signs and miracles; even as at the first plantation of Christianity in the world, the reason in appearance being the same, and the number of men to be converted not less con∣siderable? This made one of the learnedest and most ingenious Papists, who by long experience was throughly acquainted with that business, to take it into serious consideration, as doth appear by what he writeth of it in his Books De procuranda Indorum salute: lib. 2. c. 9. where he doth propose a question in these words; Cur miracula in conversione gentium non fiant nunc, ut olim, à Christi praedicatoribus? He there tells us, that they were many that wondred at it, as well as he; for that it was (by approved experience) the readiest way; and that they were innumerable nations (whose salvation they were bound to believe was dear unto God,) that would speedily have been converted, if God had vouchsafed them the same means. He doth not absolutely deny (trusting upon the relation of others) but that some miracles, or miraculous operations have been performed by some, in some places: verum cur tanta signorum parcitas sit, cum videtur tam effusa esse neces∣sitas: (necessity the great argument for infallibility:) meritó: cruciat animum. It pierced his very soul, as he professeth: It is well he was not of the temper of the defenders of Infallibility; God should have heard of it in another manner, as you have heard before. But Acosta it seems, had better learned Christ; and therefore, besides what Gods holy Word did afford him, which he makes excellent use of, having

consulted with St. Augustine, and S. Chrysostome, upon the matter, whose words he doth there produce, he doth resolve the question with much wisdom and piety. The best resolution is, (though indeed, he doth also, after that, very modestly attempt upon some other plausible reasons:) Quis novit sensum Domini, aut cum quo iniit consi∣lium?* 1.29 Who hath directed the spirit of the Lord; or being his Counseller, hath taught him? Which also in that great question, con∣cerning the conversion of Nations, why God should leave some in their ignorance so long, and not afford them the means which he doth unto others, is St. Augustins, and all wise mens that have considered of it, their resolution.

Hitherto it hath been our business to shew the danger and imperti∣nency withall of that kind of arguing (in general) which is used by ma∣ny, and wherein they put great confidence, to prove a necessity of the Popes Infallibility. But now what may be said for Providence, in this very particular, to shew the unreasonableness of their allegations, (or blaspemies rather) as well as impiety; the reader, if he please, shall find at the end or conclusion (where I thought it more proper) of this dis∣course of Infallibility.

Now if they shall quit that plea, and fly to Scripture, or true Primitive Antiquity to prove it, we cannot except against the way; and though we have no purpose to examine all places and allegations, which would require a large volume, and hath been done fully by more then one; yet I shall propose some things to be considered of, which per∣chance may save some men whose leisure doth not serve them for long discourses, the labour to see further; And though Infallibility be the thing that we propose to our selves chiefly to insist upon, yet because it doth often coincidere with Supremacy, in proofs and allegations, and hath some connexion with it in the Popes case, both, as is pretended, being grounded upon one thing, the welfare and unity of the Church; we shall not decline what offers it self in the way, concerning that also.

¶ The first question then will be, whether it doth appear by Scripture, that such Supremacy joyned with Infallibility, was promised to St. Pe∣ter? The second, whether to his Successors? As for the first, what was granted to St. Peter personally, as an Apostle, will not much con∣cern us to inquire: Of his Successors is all the question. What is said of the first therefore, shall onely be as it makes way for the reso∣lution

of the second question. Those places that are produced to shew the Churches Infallibility, we meddle not with them; if any thing can be made of them, they concern not the Pope, but the Catholick Church; the Infallibility whereof, in Fundamentals, we maintain more truly then the Romanists do, as we shall see afterwards.

But before we enter into the examination of particular places, I shall propose to the Readers consideration, what I think he will not think unreasonable: If it be so, as we are told by the abettors of it, that with∣out Infallibility no man can tell what to believe; that there can be no certainty of Faith; and by consequent, no hope, no possibility of sal∣vation to any: that therefore Christ, who in his goodness had founded a Church, was bound in his Wisdom, though by a continued miracle, to provide this infallibility for it, as that without which, his Church could not subsist; it will certainly follow, that the same God did also provide that this infallibility might infallibly come to the knowledg of men, that would not be willingly and obstinately blind and ignorant. Of all men, I mean, who by their birth, as born of Christian Parents; or, by their conversion afterwards, have, or should have any interest in the Church. If they send us to the Scriptures, to find it there, we desire no better assurance. But then, since it is well known and grant∣ed on both sides, that the Scriptures are oftentimes obscure, and of doubtful interpretation; as once St. Augustine desired of the Donatists, so must we of our Adversaries, that they may not produce Scriptures which may admit of different interpretations: but clear, perspicuous, unquestionable Scripture; such as may be sufficient to convince any reasonable man that is but capable of common sence,* 1.30 and is not wilfully cross and refractory. Such Scripture St. Augustine required of the Donatists, and such did he produce against them himself very plentifully.

The places alledged for the Popes Infallibility (into which all Infal∣libility by their doctrine doth resolve) are three. First, Luke. 22.31, 32. Simon, Simon▪ behold Satan hath desired, &c. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, &c. What man, without a revelation, since Christ knew that Peter particularly, which no other Apostle did, would deny him, could imagine, that Christ intended any more by these words unto Peter, then this? Though I know, Peter, that thou wilt deny me through fear; yet, &c.

And truly this denial of Peter, whose zeal had been so eminent above the rest of the disciples, after so glorious a confession, might have troubled all the disciples, had not Christ foretold it: by which fore∣telling also, the Disciples in this time of Christs apparent outwardly dereliction, were seasonably confirmed, that Christ knew all things; and that nothing happened to him, or his, without a providence. But that any infallibility was promised to St. Peter, peculiarly to him, or more then to the rest of the Disciples; and not to him onely, but to all his Successors in that See; by which infallibility the Church should continue sound in the faith, and orthodox: must not he have the spirit of Prophesie, that could fetch all this infallibly out of these words? Besides, divers ancient fathers have commented upon these words. I am not so well furnished at this time perchance, that I can have re∣course unto all. But neither in Maldonat, who useth to be very exact upon such occasions; nor in the Rhemish Annotations, do I find any Commentators alledged, that have any thing of infallibility. No nor in Bellarmin: who doth indeed (as the others also, some:) pro∣duce the words of divers ancients, which apply upon occasion, those words to the Popes, as Peters Successors. But who are they? Some of them meer counterfeits, as Leo, the First: Felix, the Fi••st: out of the first Popes Decretals: which Papists themselves, when occasion is, stick not to disclaim, as false and suppositious ware. And then others but those later Popes, in their own quarrel, no competent judges or witnesses. Bernard his authority after the Popes were come to that highth, is not considerable. Chrysostome saith little, neither doth he quote those words particularly, as Bellarmine doth acknow••edge. To all these I will oppose Theophylact, whom Bellarmine and others not without reason, stile Chrysostom••s abbreviator, who is copious enough upon the place, and speaks of Peters Primacy, as other Fathers do: but nothing of any infallibility peculiarly granted to Peter by these words; much less to his successors. Nay it is apparent, that he knew no such thing: and certa••nly had it been a thing known, or bel••eved in his days, he had not been ignorant of it; and if not ignorant, he would have made some mention of it (who can think otherwise?) where he could not omit it without suspition of wilfull perfidiousness. That he knew no such thing, or at least would not be known; (if any can be so ab∣surd as to believe it:) doth manifestly appear; because in the ex∣position

of those words, and when thou art converted strengthen thy Brethren, he bringeth two interpretations; the first in reference to the present; the second extending to future times, and after-ages. In reference to the present time he saith, it became well Peter, as he that was, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the chiefest of the Apostles: yea 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: that is, the rock and fortress (or bulwark of the Church; (other Fathers have said as much, as this, of St. Peter, it is not denied: but how little this doth advance the Popes cause, will abundantly appear, I hope, before we have done:) after his repen∣tance to confirm the rest. The second interpretation, in reference to future times: What? Because this graunt, or priviledge (call it what you will:) was to pass to St. Peters Successors so indeed, reason would enforce, had any such thing been believed; especially, as an article of Faith, and a main fundamental of Religion. Theophylact his words are: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. That is,* 1.31 This may be understood also, as spoken not of the Apostles onely, that then lived, that they should be confirmed by Peter: but of all the faithfull that shall be unto the end of the world. For thou Peter, being converted, thou wilt become a good example unto all men of (or for) repentance: and none that believe in me, will dispair looking upon thee (or, whilst they look upon thee) who being an Apostle, didst deny me; and again (or, afterwards) through repen∣tance didst receive 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, primacy (or, superiority,) over all and (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: as much hath been said of other A∣postles;) the care (or superintendency:) of the whole earth: (or, World) Let any man judge by this, whether Theophylact knew any thing, or had any inclin from others of St. Peters Successors their infallibility from those words of Christ unto Peter.* 1.32 If any man shall reply, as Bellarmine doth, both of him and others, upon the same occasion; that though they say nothing of it, yet they deny it not; they say nothing against it: let the imparti∣al reader consider, whether the silence of a Commentator, upon a Text, upon which, such a necessary fundamental Article of Faith, (as they would have us to believe) is grounded, doth not amount to an absolute denial; or at least imply the ignorance of the Com∣mentator, concerning any such thing. But the reader may observe by the way, how manifestly Bellarmine doth contradict himself in this

matter. For whereas he saith in one place, Caeterum isti Patres, (Au∣gustine, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Prosper; by him named before;) li∣cet, &c. that is, Though these Fathers make no mention of the other pri∣viledg, which is, or was, (as he a little before doth expound it;) That as Bishop, or Pope, he should never teach any thing contrary to true faith —which priviledg did certainly descend to his posteri (or successors:) yet they deny it not, nor indeed could they, except they would contradict many other fathers. So here he confesseth, that those Fathers, Theophylact for one, made no mention of this second priviledg in their expositions upon this place, Luk. xxii. &c. In the very next place he hath these words; Praeter hos Patres, non desunt etiam alii authores, qui eodem mo∣do, (de secundo Privil.) exponunt. Theophylactus in caput 22. Lucae, apertè docet, dari Petro hoc privilegium, quia ipse futurus erat princeps & caput aliorum, & perinde dari omnibus aliis qui illi in principatu succe∣derent. And then produceth Theophylact his words, (which we had before) Quia te habeo principem discipulorum, confirma caeteros. Hoc enim decet te, qui post me Ecclesiae Petra es, & fundamentum. The same Theophylact in the same place, silent, Bellarmine saith, a little before, and yet so express concerning it, as he makes him here; is not this a manifest contradiction? If it be said, Bellarmine by these last words, intended onely that so much might be collected, or inferred from those words of Theophylact he citeth afterwards. I answer, were it so; yet non meminisse, and aperte docere, is a contradiction however, that can∣not be denied. As for the inference, that that also is a false inference, doth appear by Theophylacts own words immediately following, when he doth expound what follows in the Text, And when thou art convert∣ed, &c. Some may wonder at this kind of dealing; but not they that are versed in Bellarmine, and have examined his quotations; they will not wonder at it.

The second place of Scripture upon which they ground this Infalli∣bility, is that saying of Christ to Peter (concerning which so much hath been written on both sides:* 1.33) Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church: and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I must desire the reader to bear in mind that we are upon an Article of Faith, (as our adversaries would have us believe;) which is the Cardo Religionis; the main fundamental of Faith, upon which all depends, and without which, no certainty of any thing to

be had; no hopes of salvation left to any: which therefore (upon their own grounds of reason, upon which they build the necessity of Infallibility) had need to be written in capital letters in the Scripture, that all men may read it there, plainly and legibly; or else the Wisdom and Providence of God, &c. The rest may be supplied from their own words; I make some conscience, even to repeat them. Now this is the chief passage of Scripture, upon which both Supremacy and Infallibility are built. That much hath been ascribed to St. Peters Chair, by some ancients from those words, we may, and will easily grant: what may be made of this grant, we shall consider afterwards, in its proper place. All that we have to do here, is to consider, whether there be such a consent of ancient fathers in the interpretation of these words, as may induce us to believe that we have in them plain and direct Scripture, for either absolute Supremacy or Infallibility, it hath been the task of more then one, to examine all particular places: I think, if we can shew that some fathers of principal authority, have pitched up∣on a sence of the words, very different from that which the Romanists contend for, and which gives no advantage at all to either Supremacy or Infallibility, we shall have done as much to the full, as in pursuance of what we have undertaken, can reasonably be expected. The main difference is those words, Et super hanc Petram, and upon this rock: whether Christ intended Peter his person by that rock; or himself; or as some, St. Peters Faith; or the Church. I know much endeavour is used by the chiefest abettors of the Popes cause, Maldonat, Baronius, Perron, to reconcile their interpretation that would have St. Peters Faith, or the Church, understood with theirs that understand St. Peter himself. But he that well weighs the places, let him be a friend to the cause as much as he will, let him but judg impartially, will commend their will more then their success; however we may spare that labour. St. Augustine in his Retractations, which he wrote when his judgment was ripest, and his mind most disengaged, he doth there acknowledg, and in a manner retract, that in one place he had followed that interpre∣tation which made St. Peter himself to be the rock; which, that he might not be thought to have done singularly, he doth alledg St. Am∣brose his hymn, where that sence is followed. But then, Sed scio me postea saepissime sic exposuisse, &c. Though I did so there, (saith he) yet I am sure I did in very many places, since that time, (upon better consi∣deration

belike:) so expound it—ut (super hanc) intelligeretur Chri∣stus, quem confessus est Petrus, dicens, Tu es Christus, filius Dei vivi: ac si Petrus ab hac Petra appellatus personam Ecclesiae figuraret, quae super hanc Petram aedificaretur, & accepit claves regni coelorum. It is true, he leaves it free to the Reader to follow either; he doth not condemn that former interpretation, expressed by St. Ambrose, in those known verses of his; but if we follow his judgment, it is clear, Christ himself, not St. Peter, is the rock. And what need we more? What can Baronius answer for himself, or any body for him, who layeth no less then mad∣ness to their charge (eo amentiae provecti sunt) who would not have Peter understood, and by consequent, nothing here intended to him by Christ, particularly? Baronius would make us believe, that which gave ground to this interpretation of St. Augustine, is, his ignorance of the Hebrew, or Syriac. True it is, that the difference observed by St. Augustine, between Petrus and Petra, will not hold in the Syriac, as to any difference of termination; but as to the difference of sence, it is the same thing in the Syriac, and in the Latine. For Cephas for a proper name, and Cephas for a rock, (Tu es Cephas, & super hanc Ce∣pham;) are quite different in the sence: Besides, those that peruse those many places of St. Augustine, where he doth assert that interpre∣tation of Petra, for Christ himself, will find that he hath other reasons for it, besides that observation of the difference of the words; and there be other ancients besides St. Augustine, who follow the same sence, and make no such observation. And besides ancients, I will name one of these later times, a man of great authority in Spain, whilest he lived, Michael Medina, who in his Apology for Ferus (hereafter to be mentioned) doth treat of these words, and hath more interpreta∣tions then one, but not any that doth concern St. Peter particularly; much less the Pope, and his pretended Infallibility. We shall have occasion again to speak of the words, and give the Reader fuller satis∣faction: But by what we have said, the Reader may judg whether it be probable, that these words were ever intended by the Holy Ghost, as an evidence for Infallibility.

The third and last place of Scripture, is, Pasce oves meas. Joh. xxi.16. Feed my sheep. But they themselves that alledg this, can make nothing of it, but by remote consequences; (and indeed, if there be any thing of Infallibility in these words, who doth not see, that every

Shepherd must be Infallible?) which therefore we shall not need to insist upon. But if any man desire to be further satisfied, let him but read St. Augustine in his 49 Homily upon St. John; where, treating of those words, he makes the effect of them equally to concern all Bi∣shops and Pastors; that is, to be tender of their Flock, and not to enter into that charge otherwise, then by the right door, &c. but that they were spoken to Peter particularly: First, because Christ (in Petro for∣mabat Ecclesiam:) in the person of Peter, did lay the platform of his Church; and secondly, because Peter, having offended more then any other, would be obliged more then any other to the observation of this charge: but of any dominion, or peculiar priviledg granted unto Peter by those words, not any word there, nor in the next Homily, where he treats of them again; where also he doth assert Christ the onely Master, and head Shepherd: all others without any distinction, to have equal in∣terest in Christ.

Now if this be all that the Scripture doth afford for Infallibility (for the example of a chief Priest, among the Jews alledged by Baronius; or the Urim and Thummim, which he did wear, by Bellarmine, cannot be called arguments, much less evidences) let the reader judg, whether it have any ground in Scripture to be believed as an article of faith, by all men, as necessary to salvation.

But now on the other side, it will not be amiss to consider, whether a man not pre-occupied or pre-possest with prejudice, reading the Scrip∣tu••es will not be rather inclined, by what he finds there, to believe the contrary. I said before, that Supremacy and Infallibility▪ had some connexion. For in very deed, Supremacy, such absolute Supremacy as the Pope challengeth, without Infallibility (in fundamentals at least) will be very dangerous, and inconsistent with the welfare of the Church: and Infallibility, as was said before, without Supremacy, even such as is contended for, to little purpose. We shall therefore take them here together into consideration: I will but point at the places briefly, and leave them to the Readers further consideration.

First, we are often told that Christ is the head of the Church; so ex∣presly called and styled in divers places. As we read, so we believe and maintain; and we see and admire the effects of this headship of Christ, in Gods wonderful providences and dispensations for the preservation of a Catholick Church, in all ages, hitherto, notwithstanding all the

attempts of men, or devils, in all ages very visible, to the contrary. It will not serve to say, the Pope is head under Christ; For in a large sence the same may be said of any Bishop in his Diocess, or Pastor in his Parish: and of temporal rulers also, more eminently. But the Pope challenging to himself such power over the universal Church under that title; even as great, as would be due to Christ himself, if he ruled personally: is it not more then probable, that that title being given to Christ often, never to Peter, or any other; no other can pretend to it, and to the right of it, without manifest usurpation and Sacriledge? St. Peter himself charges all Ministers, pascere gregem (pasce oves meas,* 1.34 was Christ his charge to him; how much short is this of that, in ordinary construction?) to feed his flock: tells them of a chief Shepherd to whom they are accountable: saith nothing of himself: Lord, what other guess of language do we find in the Popes Epistles, and Decretals?

St. Paul Ephes. iv.11. doth set down the Hierarchy of the Church (we may so call it) in his days: he doth particularise the several char∣ges and offices appointed and instituted by God in his Church: some Apostles, saith he: some Prophets: some Evangelists: some Pa∣stors and Teachers, for the perfecting of the Saints, &c. He doth it also 1 Cor. xii.28. In both Chapters he doth treat of the unity of the Church, and wherein it consisteth: the unity of every particu∣lar Church: and the unity of the Catholick Church: Would not a∣ny man admire, if St. Paul knew any thing of the Popes Supremacy, in order to his Infallibility, and the Churches infallibility (for that is the principal end:) as St. Peters Successor; that he should make no mention, either of St. Peter particularly: nor of any such charge, to be continued in the Church, so necessary as we are told to the pre∣servation of it?

And again, the same Apostle speaking of the divisions among the Corinthians, relates their words, and makes them say, I am of Paul; and I of Apollo; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ; and then adds, Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? Which implies the same of the rest also: as if he had said: Was Apollo? Was Cephas? Would any man think St. Paul would have made so bold with Cephas, as to mention him among the rest, without any distinction, or ac∣knowledgment of his superiority, nay supremacy; which is now so ea∣gerly

pressed and contended for, as if all religion lay in that one Article?

But above all, let a man calmly and soberly, (I mean without passi∣on or prejudice;) read St. Paul, Gal. 2. the whole chapter: where∣in St. Paul gives an account of himself, and of his carriage in his charge; in reference (and partly opposition) to some others, who also were Mi∣nisters of Christ: how he speaks of them; first in general, who seem∣ed to be somewhat, in the sixth verse; asserting there the Independen∣cy of his charge and proceedings, in these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is a very significant word, and of great extent, In conference added nothing to me: so expressed in the English there; but others more generally, nihil addiderunt; auctoritatis, aut cognitionis, scil. that is, they added nothing to me, either of knowledge or authority. then v.9. naming them whom he intended: James; Cephas; and John; who seemed pillars. And then v. 11. of his contest with Peter, par∣ticularly; that he withstood him to the face (and v. 14. before all the company:) because he was to be blamed. and v. 13. that he dissembled. v. 14. that he (with the rest) walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel: Would not a man think that St. Paul foresaw somewhat, or that he was moved by the spirit of God, to write those things of purpose, to prevent, or at least, to convince the strange attempts and extravagances (to use the title of one part of the Popes Law, or Decrees; which might well be so stiled) of after-ages? I cannot blame the Pope, if he would not have these things read publickly to the people, in a language they can understand.

Again, Acts xv. Where we have the story of the Apostles meet∣ing together, to consider of some doubtfull points; we find indeed that St. Peter spake first; (which Baronius and some others would draw to an argument of his supremacy and presidentship in this Councel; quite contrary to St. Chrysostome his opinion, who directly makes St, James his speaking last, or after Peter, an Argument of his authority, as Bishop of Jerusalem, who also doth observe, that St. Peter spake more roughly; St. James not onely more fully (to end the business) but also more mildly; as became him (saith he) to whom 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉:) the power (or government) was committed: who was (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) in great power (or authority:) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) to leave those

things, that would be most offensive unto others; and himself, to insist upon those things, the subject whereof would well agree with more meek∣ness and moderation.

I shall not insist upon the weight of this observation, or the per∣tinency of it, in this place. All I observe upon it is, that if St. Chrysostome had believed St. Peters Supremacy, a great part whereof must be to preside in all Councils, he had never written so: But we are not yet come to that; (the opinion of the Fathers in general) but that this offered it self in the way. But to return to the Text: Doth not St. James seem to speak more distinctly, not onely de∣termining of some things, which Peter had not mentioned; (accor∣ding to which determination, the letter was framed:) but also in those words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (is there not some Emphasis in the pronoune; which though the English cannot be without; in the Greek, it is ordinary) My sentence is? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; saith the same St. Chrysostome: What mean∣eth this, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or, My sentence is? that is (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I speak, or declare with authority, that so it is. I pass over these things briefly, to which much more might be added, if we in∣tended a full discourse, or discussion. Those things are direct and pat against St. Peters Supremacy: such at least, as is contended for: which is the onely ground on which by way of Scripture authori∣ty his successors build.

But when our adversaries have done all that they can, to bring toge∣ther some places that may seem to ascribe to Peter somewhat a∣bove the rest of the Apostles; yet still a second question, they are to prove, wherein they confess the Scripture is silent: that, what was granted to Peter peculiarly, in this kind; was with equal right and infallibility, to descend to his successors, without which they do nothing. That nothing in the Scripture is to be found, that doth evidently concern the Popes as St. Peters successor; is the acknow∣led••ment,* 1.35 as of others, so of the author of the Labyrinth particularly in these words: To omit Scripture, wherein I con∣fess there is no express mention of the Pope, but only of St. Peter, in whose right the Pope doth succeed. And will they say then; can they dispence with their own Consciences so far, or so presume up∣on our credulity, as to maintain that the Popes infallibility, hath any grounds in Scripture, to make it an article of Faith, of necessary belief to all that will be saved▪

I know it is not for men, peremptorily to judge of the heart; yet if we consider all things, and may judge at any time, by outward appearances, their judgment we may say, is not without great pro∣bability, who think (as divers have professed) that none are further from the belief of this strange Paradox of infallibility, then they that are most earnest, and apparently zealous, to make others believe it. The reason may be; because many, upon the authority of great names, and some plausible allegations; and especially by the confi∣dence of the assertors; may probably be induced to believe it, truly and really: but that they that have taken the pains (as they must that defend it:) to look neatly into it, to see what can be said for it or against it; should not discerne the falsehood of it, the manifold contradictions and absurdities; is indeed very hard to believe.

And because they send us to the Old Testament, sometimes; and would make some advantage of some things there; I shall onely de∣sire the Reader to consider: What difference soever we find of ad∣ministrations and dispensations; of ordinances and commands, be∣tween the times before and since Christ; without further inquiring into the reasons, we think our selves bound with all humility to submit to the wisdom of God, and verily to believe, that what∣ever God did appoint in Church or State, for the government, or well being of it present and future, was absolutely best, so as God had appointed. In those things, where Gods will and authority reveal∣ed unto us in his word, hath not interposed; there we leave some liberty to human ratiocination. Whereas the Church (visible) was formerly confined by Gods own order and decree (what reason of man can penetrate into the causes?) to one particular Nation; we believe since Christ, a Catholick Church: that is, Congregations of Christians in all places of the world, united in and by the main fun∣damentals of Christianity: and by their head CHRIST JESUS: a∣gainst which Catholick Church (because it is so revealed unto us and promised by Christ himself:) we verily believe the Gates of hell shall not prevail. But of any particular Church; that it shall be in∣fallible, it self, and the means of infallibility unto others, having no ground from scripture, we see nothing in the course of Gods Providence in former times, that should induce us to believe. For certainly, God was then the same God, under the law in himself,

and in his own nature, (if we may so speak) as he hath been since the Gospel. He had a Church then, which Church had an interest in Christ, as it hath had since Christ. The people of Israel, they were his chosen peculiar people, whom he did cherish, and protect miraculously, from t••me to time, more then he did ever any other Nation. What care he took also for their instruction, that they might continue in his Fear, and true Worship, is abundantly recorded in the Scripture. Yet for all this, and those miraculous operations, so frequent among them, God did not provide for their Infallibility. Both they, and their Priests, did frequ••ntly apostatize in matters of Faith; and embrace false Doctrines: and they had schisms, and divisions among themselves: and yet still, God had a Church; a company of faithfull people, which though not without errours perchance, more or less, stuck still to the main foun∣dations.

So much of the Scripture; which I think I may conclude, doth not oblige us, neither Old nor New, to believe this Infallibility which our Adversaries lay upon us, as the grand fundamental point of Faith. And to say, That Christ was bound in his honour to order it so, as they m••ke bold; doth imply certainly, (we have already said it, and here repeat it purposely, because much depends of it) that he did also pro∣vide, how all men (pretending to Christianity) might come to the knowledge, and be assured of it; without which notification, or declaration, publick and obvious unto all men, learned and unlearned, it would do but little good. How then a Fundamental, if not in the Scripture?

But if all primitive Christians did agree upon it, in the opinion and practice, it would be some argument, I confess, that it was at first grounded, if not upon direct Scripture, yet upon Apostolical Tradition, or Institution. In the next place therefore, we shall see, what can be alledged for it from the consent of Antiquity. For still we must stand upon that, that being such an Article of Faith, as without it all other belief is bootless, or insufficient to salvation: the evidences of this con∣sent, and general practice, had need to be very clear, and irrefragable, else the matter will be lest very doubtfull, and not to be received, or pressed, as an Article of Faith.

First then, I ask: Might it not (upon grounds of reason and proba∣bility) have been expected, that an Article of that consequence (as is

pretended) wherein every souls future happiness, and the present wel∣fare, yea, very being of the Catholick Church, is so much concerned; should have been thought of, if not in the first (which we call the A∣postles Creed; as the most ancient, so the most compendious of all the Creeds) yet in some one of the rest, that have been made and received since, upon emergent occasions: some of them professing to contain the whole (not precisely so, we grant; but the most Fundamental) Catholick Faith? Well: nothing of it in the Creeds. What in the Councels? those that are generally received, as most ancient, and authen∣tical: the first four General Councils? Have they any thing of it? Somewhat, I know, may be alledged out of the Acts of those Coun∣cils; for it, and against it. As much against it, I dare undertake, upon accurate examination, and more, then for it: But that requires long time; I hope there will be no need. Besides, we may take that liber∣ty, Baronius doth, to question the integrity of such Acts of Councils, where they do not make for him. And indeed, it doth require good judgment and great diligence, to know what is sincere, and what is not, in the generality of those Acts; that cannot be denied. But Baroni∣us, for the most part, goes by one Rule: as things make for the Pope, or against, so he doth own, or reject.

For example: in Honorius his case (whom we spake of before) the Acts, he saith, of the Sixth General Councel are not to be trusted. In Liberius his case, whom St. Jerome, and so many others do witness, to have sided with the Arians, and to have subscribed to their Confessions; so many evasions, with great Art, and subtilty of wit, have been devi∣sed, as may perchance prevail with some to a belief, that he was inno∣cent, as to matter of Heresie: but with more, I doubt, that shall com∣pare the objections and evidences, with the answers and evasions, that there is no such thing, as truth, really: and that men trouble them∣selves in vain, in their inquiries after it. But yet at last, so God would have it, that certain Fragments of History, concerning what passed at the Councel of Ariminum where the Arians did establish their Do∣ctrine; written by that renowned ancient Father, Hilarius Bishop of Poictiers, in France; with other records of antiquity of the same sub∣ject; were found and set out in France, out of the Library of Pet. Pishae∣us, one of the famousest Philologists of that Countrey; but set out by Nicolaus Faber, who, besides other learning in general, and exemplary

Piety, for which he was made choise of, and trusted with Lewis the XIII^th. King of France his education, and learning; had the name and reputation generally, to be best seen in Eclesiastical Histories and Anti∣quities, of any in that Countrey (to go no further) without excepti∣on: Baronius was beholding to him, and doth acknowledge it, in more then one place. Faber did set them out with a large and learned Pre∣face. Now by those Fragments, &c. it doth clearly appear, that Li∣berius did subscribe to (and thereby authorized, so far as his Papal Au∣thority could go) that pestilent Regula, or Formula Fidei, (so called) set out by the Arians at S. Sirmium, so much detested and anathema∣tized by the Orthodox party: for which act, Anathema's are pronoun∣ced against him by that Godly Bishop (Hilarius.) Anathema tibi à me dictum Liberi, & sociis tuis. Iterum, tibi anathema, & tertiò, praevari∣cator Liberi. And Faber takes notice of it, in his Preface, in these words; Hoc unum addere sufficiat, ex verbis Hilarii,&c. Besides that, the same Liberius, as soon as he was Pope, charged Athanasius, and condemned him, as by his own Letter, there set out, doth appear: which Letter, though Faber makes no question at all of the truth and genuiness of it; (falsam, aut subdititiam esse, stylus negat; & praete∣rea, cui bono?) yet he doth acknowledge, that some objections may be made against it: and therefore we will not build upon it. But for the rest, as Faber is very confident, so may any body else be, even upon the judgment of that learned man, if himself be not so able to judge. But what saith Baronius to this? There was no way to avoid,* 1.36 but one: and because his wit and ability did not se••ve him, to reconcile those evidences, with his purpose; he doth make use of it, to prove them no evidences; and what by learn∣ing and d••ligence may be done in this kind, let the cause be what it will, you may expect it from him: we have too much experience of it in these his Annals. Yet in this particular, he had a hard task, when he must oppose the judgment of such a one, as Faber was. But what re∣medy, since it was so resolved in the Court of Rome; though so many Romanists, being forced by the light of so many evidences, have main∣tained the contrary; that a Pope can not be an Heretick?

Let the Reader judge by this, how far Protestants, in reason, may think themselves bound to submit to those Acts (of Councels, I mean) when objected to them by Romanists; which Romanists can so freely re∣ject, when they make against them.

But to leave them: The Canons of those Councels is that which we may safely trust to; and the onely thing indeed, (with their Creeds) which can be be called their doctrine or determination. What is there in any of these Councels, concerning this main article of Religi∣on? Even nothing; nothing at all for it: but somewhat against it there is in the Councel of Nice, where the Bishop of Rome his pre-emi∣nency is derived, not from Scriptures, but meer Custom; confirmed also since that by Justinian the Emperor.

Now for the particular Fathers, and other Writers of those times, if we do not much rely upon the testimonies that are produced out of them in this particular; not as undervaluing their authority, but as having just cause to suspect the genuiness of all those testimonies that are obtruded in their names, I think no body can justly blame us. For first, who knows not how many things, even anciently, have been forged in the behalf of that cause? All the Decretals of the first Popes (most of whom were Martyrs, and should therefore be of greater au∣thority;) are of that nature: all destinated to that end, to insinuate a Supremacy, and sometimes Infallibility; but all, though received into the body of the Canon Law for good, and to be of equal authority with Scripture it self, forged, adulterous, supposititious ware; and this, after much contest, acknowledged by Baronius, by Bellarmine, by all men that are not very ignorant, or much blinded with partiality. Be∣sides the matter of many of them, ridiculous, or false; and the false dates, and the like: the language is such of most of them, as he that can believe it is the language of those primitive Popes, may as well be∣lieve, that the English which is now spoken, and was spoken three or four hundred years ago, is all one, and not to be distinguished the one from the other. We may see therefore of what judgment, or consci∣ence, (shall I say) the author of the Labyrinth is; who,* 1.37 notwithstanding so many of his own side, who have acknow∣ledged the imposture, doth alledg them, as unquestionable; and elsewhere doth take upon him to defend them, but comes off very sadly, and needs no other confutation then their own Au∣thors, Baronius especially,* 1.38 whom I think the Reader will believe the abler of the two, to judg of such things. Bel∣larmine, though he had done what he could, to uphold their credit, (though even there, indubitatas esse, affirmare non audeo,

is his confession;) yet afterwards, he gave it over, having left most of them quite out in his Catalogue, De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis: and if he mention any (as he doth those that are ascribed to Clemens;) he doth give reasons why they should be rejected rather then approved. If any desire further satisfaction about them, let them read learned Blon∣dellus his Pseudo-Isidorus. He will admire: I will say no more.

On the other side; whether it may not as justly be suspected, that many pregnant evidences of that truth, which we assert, have been suppressed, and pu••posely destroyed, let the reader judg by this one particular. Two Epistles there be above the rest; the one of St. Cy∣prians, the other of a contemporary Bishop, of great fame, in those days, who joyned with Cyprian in the cause; both, in St. Cyprians works, which do not please the Zelots of the Roman Cause. The reason is manifest: For I dare say it, and maintain it; were there no other writings extant of antiquity to help us; those two Epistles (if the authors of them were not Schismaticks, and Hereticks, eo nomine, for that very consideration, for opposing Pope Stephanus as they did, which they never were accounted, but holy men; Cyprian especially, not inferior to any, the most renouned Fathers:) are very sufficient to justifie us, and to confound the assertors of either Supremacy or Infalli∣bility. They charge him there (Pope Steven) of pride, impertinen∣cy, contradictions, breach of Ecclesiastical unity, boldness, perversness, folly, hard obstinacy, presumption, contumacy; this is the language throughout the first Epistle: and in the second, besides repetition of the same, or great part of it; they compare him to Judas, (in some things) upbraid him with siding with Hereticks: quinimo tu haereticis omnibus pe∣jor es: make him worse then the worst Hereticks; animosity and pas∣sion; for want of wit; schisme and apostacy: (the words are, Pec∣catum verò quam magnum tibi exaggerasti, quando te à tot gregibus sci∣disti! Excidisti enim te ipsum; noli te fallere. Siquidem ille est verè schismaticus, qui se à communione Ecclesiasticae unitatis apostatam fecerit. Dum enim putas omnes à te abstinere posse; solum te ab omnibus abstinuisti:) Again, That he did contra sacramentum, & fidem, contumacis furore discordiae rebellare: and in conclusion, whereas Stephen had styled Cy∣prian (for this kind of language, it seems, begun from him) a false Christ, false Apostle, and deceitful workman: Firmilianus saith, it was done falsely, (per mendacium:) and that he (ex merito,) deservedly,

might be so called. I know well enough, St. Augustine did not like these things should be revived, but forgotten, for the honor of both Steven and Cyprian: yet St. Augustine doth nowhere except (though he do against the opinion it self of rebaptization, which was the cause of the quarrel;) against St. Cyprian, as though he had misbehaved him∣self in point of duty, or transgressed against canonical obedience for so writing to the Pope, which is the main business: And I am very confi∣dent, had St. Augustine been put to it, as we are; charged with schisme and heresie; yea, impiety, in the highest degree, for not acknow∣ledging the Supremacy and Infallibility which the Pope doth challenge unto himself as an article of Faith, he would have been the first man that would have made use of St. Cyprians authority, and example; (he had him in such veneration) as we do.

Of these Epistles therefore, the latter being the sharper, and besides that, affording us some notable passages, (which we shall make good use of in due place:) in some editions (one at Rome) was quite left out, for this very reason, because so prejudicial to the Pope, as Pamelius doth guess; who also doth as good as profess (consultius foret nunquam fuisse hanc epistolam editam, &c.) that he would have suppressed it him∣self, had it been in his power. The Reader may consider what op∣portunity the friends and Patrons of the Roman cause had, to forge, and to suppress what they would themselves, when the world through the superstition and ignorance of those times (before Printing) was ready to receive any thing; and all Manuscripts almost, in the hands, and by the hands of Monks and Fryers, who wholly depended on the Pope.

But now for Antiquity, and consent of Fathers, before we come to particular testimonies; I would gladly know, if any such thing were known to Antiquity, (still I must add, as fundamental, and necessary, which doth much aggravate the case:) how comes it to pass, that neither Clemens in his Constitutions (what antiquity soever you allow them, ancient enough for this purpose;) who doth so largely write of Ecclesiastical orders; Bishops, especially: Nor Dionysius Areopagita (whom our adversaries make such reckoning of, and will have him to be the right Dionysius mentioned in the New Testament, which we believe not; but ancient enough, he also, to serve our turn in this place:) in three books of his, of the Church Hierarchy, especially when

he treats of the unity of the Church in many places; that neither of these takes notice of this great mystery of Religion (though mysterious enough, Dionysius especially:) Supremacy and Infallibility? I cannot imagine what the most zealous for the cause can say to this; or can do less, at least, then wonder. If it be said, it needed not, because suf∣ficiently known: if that were granted, yet in such a proper place, to take no notice of such a fundamental point, so necessary to peace and unity, how can it be less then wilful perfidiousness, or sacrilegious pre∣varication? It is true, that Dionysius makes honourable mention, in one place, of Peter, as chiefest of the Apostles: but that is of Peter one∣ly, and meerly by the way; not by way of observation of any necessity or divine providence in it. Certainly then, they knew it not: no such article of Faith was then heard of.

Again: Gennadius Mussiliensis, who lived before the sixth Centu∣ry, first a Priest onely, (as in the title:) but afterwards, as Platina and Bellarmine affirm, made Bishop; hath written a Book, De dogmatibus: Ecclesiae. He begins with the most fundamental points, the subject of the Creeds; and so goes on: and though dogmata fidei be his proper aim, and subject: yet he doth intermix many things that belong to discipline and government also: as particularly, he hath one Chapter, what men are incapable of holy orders: where this particularly (I wish all men took good notice:) Neque illum, qui usuras accepisse con∣vincitur,* 1.39 (so I find it in the Ordinances of the Church of Geneva too:) aut in scenâ lusisse dignoscitur: among others is to be found. Yet I will not say, he doth comprehend all things pre∣cisely that may be reduced unto that head. However, it is hard to be∣lieve, if either Supremacy or Infallibility had been such an article of Faith, so necessary, (we must often repeat it:) so fundamental: no mention of it, would have been made. In the 26. Chapter, occasio∣nally, Pope Zozimus (beat a recordationis Papae Zozimi regularis au∣thoritas:) is mentioned, and that is all.

Yet I must acknowledg, that the Popes of Rome, begun betimes to arrogate unto themselves: there be Epistles of Innocentius and Zozi∣mus, that go very far, (and they began the fifth Century:) in point of spiritual power and jurisdiction. But of all such, and to all, we have one general answer, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: it is their own cause that they plead for: no wonder if they be so zealous for it. St. Peters pre∣rogative

(such as it was) was some ground; and it is the infirmity of many; they think they are bound in conscience, or at least in point of reputation, to advance the credit of their place, as much as they can. So one, after another; and every predecessors example, is an engage∣ment to the successor: Neither let the Reader wonder, if we speak of them, though pious otherwise, as men. What Ammianus Marcelli∣nus, a Heathen Historian of those times, writeth of the pomp, pride, and luxury of the Bishops of that See, I will not insist upon; he was a Heathen: But what Sulpitius Severus, a holy man, whose memory is sacred, commended by divers ancient fathers, doth write and testifie, (he lived about the same time when those Popes lived) is observable. In one place, he noteth the wicked ambition; in another, the strange covetousness of the then Rulers and Governors (whom he calls Mini∣stros Ecclesiae:) of the Church: but in general, temporum nostrorum piget, taedetque: which includeth much. Many such complaints of their times, we have in the writings of the Fathers; some more ancient; o∣thers that lived since: not to speak of the very Disciples of Christ, and their contentions, who should be greatest; for which they were rebuked by Christ. What therefore the Bishops of Rome did challenge as their due, is not much to our purpose to enquire: but what was acknow∣ledged, and generally believed by others of those times.

There is not any Writer, that the Patrons of that cause make more boast of, then St. Cyprian: he indeed, as considerable as any, both for antiquity and personal merits. The words that are produced with much ostentation out of him, are, that Super Petro fundata est Ec∣clesia: which words, or to that purpose, Cyprian useth in several pla∣ces. Words indeed, which of themselves (especially were it as certain, that they extended to his successors:) might seem to import very much: whereas, if we look into the meaning, as he himself doth explain him∣self; it will clearly appear, that little or nothing can be made of them. The ground of this expression, doth appear by his Book or Treatise De unitate Ecclesiae: where endeavouring to prove the Unity of the Church by Scripture, he hath divers arguments; some whereof are more direct and concluding; others, more remote; from bare simi∣litudes, and typical allusions. One argument is (often pressed by him and others:) Unum corpus, & unus Spiritus, una spes vocationis, una fides, unum baptisma, unus Deus.* 1.40 Ano∣ther,

is, from those words, I and the Father, are one: and those three are one. Another is, from Christ his seamless coat: A∣nother from those words of Josuah unto Rahab,* 1.41 And it shall be, that whosoever shall go out of the doors of his house, into the street, his blood shall be upon his head; —and whosoever shall be with thee within this house, his blood shall be upon our head, if any hurt be upon him. Others there be, which I omit. But the first argument, or proof of unity,* 1.42 are those words of Christ to Peter, I say unto thee that thou art Petet, and upon this rock, I will build my Church, &c. Upon which words he doth descant thus: Super illum unum aedificat Ecclesiam suam, &c. that is, Upon him alone he doth build his Church, and gives him charge to feed his sheep. And though, saith he, after his resurrection, he gave the same power to all the Apostles;— nevertheless to declare this unity, he appointed, unam Cathedram, (one Chair) and by his authority established this original of unity, which should begin from one. So then, from those words of Christ, he fetches a mystery of unity; in that, though Christ gave the same power unto the rest, yet he first uttered it, of one. Super illum unum aedificat Ec∣clesiam suam: that is, in address of speech, to commend unity to us, in a mystery: but upon the rest, as well, in truth, or reality of deed. That he intended it so, and so barely; his words immediatiatly fol∣lowing are very express, when he saith: The rest of the Apostles were ve∣rily what Peter was, having obtained (or, indowed with:) equal share of honour, and of power: sed exordium ab unitate proficiscitur: that is, but the beginning of this honor and power, must be in, or from unity: (to wit, when it was at first given to one alone; when Christ spake those words unto Peter;) Primacy was given unto Peter, that one Church, and one Chair might thereby be testified.

This might be illustrated, by what others say of it, to the same pur∣pose. S. Augustine had just such a conceit (be it understood with respect) upon those words of Christ: Ego sum Pastor bonus; Pastor ergo bonus Christus. That is: I am the good Shepherd; Christ then is the good Shepherd. It follows: Quid Petrus, &c. What was Peter? was not he also a good Shepherd? Did not he also lay down his life for the sheep? What was Paul? What the rest of the Apostles? What those Bishops and blessed Martyrs, who succeeded after those times? were they not all good Shepherds? &c. and then after a long Parenthesis, concerning false

Martyrs and mercenaries, he returns to his former speech; of Peter, Paul, and the rest, that they were all good Pastors. He stands upon Peter, to prove it of him more particularly, that he was a Shepherd, and a good Shepherd. Both these, from those words that passed between Christ and him: John xxi.15, 16, 17. and then concludes, Ergo Pastor (Petrus scil.) & bonus Pastor (nihil quidem ad potestatem & bonitatem Pastoris Pastorum:) sed tamen ipse & pastor bonus, & caeteri tales pastores boni. That is: Why then Peter he was a shepherd too, and a good shepherd (though not to be compared for power nor for goodness to the Shepherd of shepherds:) yet even he a good shepherd too, and all that were like him, they also good shepherds. Then he addresses him∣self to Christ: Quid est ergo, quod pastoribus bonis commendas unum pastorem (he doth mean Christ himself) &c. that is, What is it that to good Pastors, thou (Christ) doest commend one good Pastor? What, but in that one thou doest teach them unity? He hath more to the same purpose: so glad were they of any thing, that had but the shew of an argument for Unity.

St. Cyprian therefore, as St. Augustin of those we have spoken, makes a mystery of the words, not a grant of any power or jurisdiction. Can any thing be more plain then these words, Pari consortio praediti, & honoris & potestatis? And so S. Hierome, that Episcopus, sive Romae, sive, Eugubii, &c. ejusdem meriti, ejusdem est & Sacerdotii. Which words (as others before him) the Author of the Labyr∣inth, doth endeavour to elude,* 1.43 by saying that it is spoken of the office and power Episcopal, in it self; which is alike in all Bi∣shops: but not of the Popes power, as he is Pope; an additional, and supereminent power, given him, by Christ. But how little to the purpose this is, may easily appear, by the context of St. Jerome's words, and by the occasion: and I desire the reader to take notice of it, that is not yet fully acquainted with their manner of dealing.

Two things St. Jerome did propose to himself in that Epistle. First, to assert the right of Priests above Deacons (which gave occasion to the Epistle) by their institution: and secondly, to justifie the customs of other Churches and Countreys, against that pretended custom of the Church of Rome. After he hath done with the first, he falls upon the second. Now, the question was not, of the power of Bishops, by vertue of their ordination or consecration; which every man must in

reason understand, to be the same in all, if it be the same order or de∣gree: but in general, whether any Bishop by his See, or otherwise, had any more power or authority, then another: and particularly, whether the customs and orders of the Church of Rome, were to be pre∣ferred before other Churches customs, (for the Bishops sake:) and obliged men to imitation and conformity. Nec altera Romanae urbis Ecclesia; (there he begins:) altera totius orbis existimanda est. Nei∣ther (saith he) must we make any other account of the Church of Rome, then we do of all other Churches of the World. What, no peculiar privi∣ledg, no prerogative of that Church, above the rest? How would that be taken now, think you? But why so? The Churches of France, of Britanie, of Africa, of Persia; the Churches of the East, of India; and all the barbarous Nations, (that is, never subject to the Ro∣man Empire: so they were called:) they worship one Christ, (wherein, with that which follows of one rule, consists the unity of the Catho∣lick Church:) they have one rule of truth, (or faith: to wit, the same Creeds: the same Scriptures:) If the question be about authority, the whole world is greater then one City. (Authority then, is now the busi∣ness in question:) Where-ever a Bishop is, whether at Rome, or Eugu∣bium; at Constantinople, or at Rhegium, or Alexandria, or Tunis; as the Priesthood is the same, so is the merit, (he intends Authority:) They are all Successors of the Apostles: (did not he intend to say, as well as the Bishop of Rome, is St. Peters?) He goes on: But you will say, How comes it to pass, that in Rome, a Priest is not ordained without the testimony of a Deacon? What have I to do with the custom of one Town, (or City?) Replies he, Why do you take the part of (or justifie) paucity, (or, a few) from whom (de qua ortum est supercilium in leges Ecclesiae: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the character of the Church of Rome, or Bishop of Rome, in ancient Fathers:) pride (or usurpation) upon the rights of the (Catholick) Church is proceeded?

Could any man, that had studied it never so much, speak more plainly? Let the Reader, if he please, read the Author of the Laby∣rinth; where I refer him before; and see manifestly how far these men will venture with their sophistry, and brazen countenance, to per∣swade their Readers, that light is darkness, and black white. But if St. Hierome, saith he, should intend it so, he must contradict, and con∣demn himself. Why so? Let any man produce any passage of St. Hie∣rome,

where he doth so fully express himself for the Pope of Rome's Su∣premacy and Infallibility, as he doth here against both. If he doth in some places speak honourably of that Bishop, and ascribe somewhat to him, as St. Peters Successor; we say (and it is most true) both he and others, were many times, put to it by adversaries (schismaticks and hereticks) and glad were they to strengthen themselves and their cause, with the authority of that See; which indeed, to do it right, did for a long time continue very orthodox in all things; (that one of usurpation, or supremacy, tenderly first attempted, then by degreees obtained and practised; excepted:) and a great support to them that were so in all parts of the World. Which was the greatest occasion, through other Churches compliance, upon this consideration, of her greatness and super-eminent authority. They that are well versed in antiquity, and will judg rightly, will observe it, and acknowledg it. But why should not we interpret (as others) St. Hierome, by St. Hierome? those pas∣sages in him that are more doubtful and obscure, by those that are more full and express?

But we return to St. Cyprian, our chiefest aim at this time. I take it to be a very considerable matter, as any in the whole controversie; in what sense St. Cyprian (and others after him) affirmed, that the Church was founded upon St Peter: whether by that speech, he did intend any Supremacy, or Infallibility: yea, or no. For that indeed, as I said before, is a speech that seemeth, of all alledged in this argu∣ment, to import most, though nothing that extends to his Successors. Besides what hath been said already, I further argue: If Cyprian and his Collegues in this cause, even then, when they withstood Stephen, Pope of Rome, with that liberty, as we have seen; condemned his opinion, despised his authority; (as they begun, so they continued, resolute and constant, as long as they lived, in their opposition, of which more afterwards:) but, if even then, whilest they pleaded their cause against him; they did put him, or others, interessed in the same business, in mind of those words of Christ to Peter, thereby to aggra∣vate his cause, or crime, as violator, or breaker of the unity of the Church: surely, it must be granted, (deny it who can, and reconcile them to reason, and common sence, in the act:) that they had no thought of Supremacy, or Infallibility (for else, had they not shame∣fully, ridiculously prevaricated, in their own cause?) granted to the

Pope or Bishop of Rome, by those words of Christ unto Peter. But so they did: Cyprianus, in his Epistle to Quintus, concerning rebap∣tization: Nam nec Petrus, saith he, quem primum Dominus elegit, &c. that is, For neither Peter, whom the Lord chose first, and upon whom he built his Church: when Paul did contend with him about the circumcision, did upon that, insolently vindicate, or arrogantly assume any thing unto himself, that Primacy did belong unto him; and that he ought to be obeyed by them, that were but newly chosen, (St. Paul, he meaneth;) and came after. If any should answer, that St. Cyprians intention by these words, is to commend St. Peters humility, not to question his right: grant the words in themselves, will bear that sence; how can it be his sence, whilest his practice was openly, professedly contrary? That is it that I urge, and aim at, by these words.

But for the sence of the words, (without this consideration) let us take another passage of the said Cyprian, and I think there will be lit∣tle question. They are words (those I intend) that were spoken by Cyprian, at a meeting of the African Bishops, about this business of re∣baptization, which had caused the breach with the Bishop of Rome. Su∣perest, ut de hac ipsa re, quid singuli sentiamus, &c. It remaineth, saith he, that we all speak what every man doth think: not judging any body, or putting him back from the right of communion (Ecclesiastical) in case he be of another opinion (which Cyprian told you before, the Bishop of Rome had done:) For none among us doth make himself the Bishop of Bi∣shops,* 1.44 (the author of the Labyrinth, will tell you the Bi∣shop of Rome was so styled, by some:) or doth compel his Collegues with a tyrannical terror, to the necessity of obedience; since eve∣ry Bishop, according to the freedom of his liberty and power, hath his opi∣nion free, as he that cannot be judged by another, neither hath any power to judg others himself: but let us all wait the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who alone hath power to prefer us in the government of his Church; and to judg of our actions. It doth clearly appear, that St. Cyprian aimed at some body, by these words. And who should that be, think we; (for I know there be, who have attempted by their sophistry, to elude the sence, even of these words:) but the Bishop of Rome? with whom they were then at variance about it, and he with them: even to excommunication; threatned at least, and in some part, if not altoge∣ther executed. Whereas, of them that he spake unto, he had not the

least occasion to suspect, that any of them would, or could attempt any such thing. But we need not many words;* 1.45 since Ba∣ronius himself doth freely acknowledg as much as we de∣sire; to wit, that by those words Pope Stephen was intended.

Well, we have heard what St. Cyprian did write to Quintus his friend. Now let us hear what Firmillianus, a man of grear renown for parts and piety, Bishop of Caesarea, and Metropolitan, highly com∣mended by Baronius, did write unto him about the said business. At{que} ego in hac parte, justè indignor ad hanc tam apertam, &c. And here (saith he) I can do no less then profess my just indignation, for the open and ma∣nifest folly of Stephen, (Pope Stephen, he would have said:) that he, who doth so boast of his See, and doth pretend to Peters Succession, upon whom the Church is founded, doth bring in many rocks, and set up new structures of many Churches, whilest he doth avouch by his authority▪ right baptisme to be there. They that so freely yielded to the Pope at that very time when they stood upon terms of defiance, as it were, with the Bishop of Rome; that the Church was founded upon Peter; certainly, they did not think they did yield any great matter unto him, when they yielded so much. And since Cyprian had so many who joyned with him in that division: and that none of them were accounted schis∣maticks or hereticks for it: it must needs follow, that no such article of Faith was then known, as either Supremacy, or Infallibility. The like may be observed concerning the Asian Bishops, who were excom∣municated by Victor, Pope of Rome: who for all that, neither living, nor dead, were ever accounted Schismaticks, or the worse Christians; but Pope Victor, generally, much condemned (it is a known history:) for his rashness, and want of charity.

But here again, I must desire the Reader to take notice of our ad∣versaries way of dealing; let him give it the right name, as he shall see occasion. I said a little before, that Cyprian continued in his opposi∣tion, to his lives end: and a little before that, that though St. Au∣gustine excepted against Cyprians opinion of rebaptization, which was the occasion of the quarrel; yet I did not find any where, that he did except against him, that he durst (though otherwise of himself, as St. Augustine doth observe of him, a very meek, humble, and charitable man:) so freely reject Pope Stephens judgment, with such language, as you have heard: this certainly, is a great argument, that not Cyprian

onely, but St. Augustine, were ignorant of any duty that other Bishops did owe unto him, more then to any other. This Bellarmine, it seems, was very sensible of; and therefore to prevent the use that might be made of it, somewhat he thought must be done. In his fourth Book therefore De Rom. Pontifice, Ch. 7. he doth propose, An peccaverit Cyprianus mortaliter, non obediendo Pontifici: that is, Whether Cy∣prian did sin mortally, in not obeying the Pope. A very seasonable que∣stion, certainly: For else, what becomes of the Popes Authority, if such as Cyprian might withstand him, and without sin, deal with him as he did? Now he doth resolve the question out of two places of St. Augustine, two ways. First, out of his Book De Bapt. c. Don. c. 18, and 19. That Cyprian sinned venially onely; and that it was a ble∣mish in a fair soul; which he did expiate by his martyrdome. But Bel∣larmine is not satisfied with that answer; but argues against it, that it is more likely, he did sin mortally: in that he did so little regard the Popes judgment, (though not definition:) and not onely so, but oppo∣sed him so contumeliously. And therefore for a second resolution, he doth produce another passage out of the same Augustine (Epist. 48.) where the Father saith, some doubted whether those Epistles, (of that argument) were right Cyprians: But secondly, that it is possible St. Cyprian might repent before his death, and be of another opinion, though no record of it be extant. Who would not say, that doth look no further then Bellarmine, that he hath acquitted himself very well, and done the Pope great right? But if you look the places by him quoted in St. Augustine, it is quite another thing. For there, in neither place, doth St. Augustine speak of the Pope, or of St. Cyprians manner of dealing with him, whether good, or bad, not one word, or syllable: but onely of the opinion (rebaptization) which St. Cy∣prian maintained, which he saith was a naevus in him, sufficiently ex∣piated (by his other excellent parts, humility, charity, &c. he had said before:) by his martyrdome. So that in very truth, Bellarmine, instead of answering, hath made the objection much stronger. For if the opinion was a fault in Cyprian; (though truly, before the definition of a general Councel, no very great fault, or error: as may appear by what St. Basil writes of it in his Canons:) yet an error, or fault, (be∣cause so pertinacious in the defence of it:) acknowledged by St. Au∣gustine (a great admirer of that Saint:) much more would he have

thought himself bound, to take notice of his so manifest disobedience to the commands, and contempt of the authority (that grand ar∣ticle as we are now told, of our Faith;) of Pope Stephen: had he apprehended him guilty of any such thing. And though St. Au∣gustine had said, that St. Cyprian was more bitter and right down, in some expressions, then he needed to have been: that had not helped the Popes cause: he might have said so perchance, though Cyprian had written to his inferior. But even so much he doth not: not in those places (neither is there any errors in the citations) to which Bellarmine doth refer us. What kind of dealing this is, I leave to the reader to consider. It was worth the while, even so: but it makes for us too, and that we are now upon, not a little.

I have done with St. Cyprian; but before I leave him, I must not omit to let the Reader know (or put him in mind at least) that in those words we have considered of, and began with, there is nota∣ble variety in the Editions of Cyprian. For those words, super illum unum aedificat Ecclesiam suam: & illi pascendas man•••••• oves suas; (which Pamelius in his Annot. upon the 55 Epistle, doth make such reckoning of:) nor those (unam Cathedram constituit:) nor those [Pri∣matus Petro datur: — & Cathedra una] nor lastly, those as material as any (qui Cathedram Petri, super quem fundata est Ecclesia, deserit:) are to be found in all Editions. I have one at present printed at Paris, A. D. 1512. sumptibus Magistri Bartholdi Rembolt; dedica∣ted by Robertus Fortunatus, to L. Ruricio Blesensi: in which none of those things are to be found: And they that have seen Erasmus his Editions, say as much of those: and which is most observable, Gra∣tianus also doth so exhibite them in the body of the Canon Law. Since therefore this variety doth proceed from ancient Manuscripts; nor cannot be conceived casual (as often it happens) but intended and wilful: we have great reason to believe, that some to favour the Pope, did add those words of purpose; but that any should leave them out, of purpose, since those Manuscripts were neither written, by, nor in the hands of Protestants, we have no reason at all. However, for my part, as to Cyprians opinion in this particu∣lar of St. Peters primacy; or, of the Church being founded upon him; I confess ingenuously, I can make no great advantage of this diversi∣ty:

because, primatus is acknowledged by others; and granted by Protestants: and, that the Church is founded upon Peter, in that sence we have shewed, is St. Cyprians assertion in other places that are not questioned. But this use at least, we may make of it, that since it doth plainly appear that such tampering and adulterating hath been used; we may suspect it hath been done, where it is not suspected; or at least, not discoverable by such evidences.

This book of St. Cyprian, de unitate: (that is the right title: for it hath another too in some Editions:) which hath given us so much occasion: happily puts me in mind of a book of St. Augustine bearing the same title,* 1.46 de unitate Ecclesiae. Now that which our ad∣versaries chiefly ground the necessity of supremacy upon (on which infallibity doth depend:) is unity: no Catholick Church without unity; no unity without a Pope, so instated and impow∣red, as they maintain. And this is their continual Plea. I ask therefore; if without the Pope, so and so qualified, absolute, universal &c. there can be no unity; how comes it to pass; nay, how possible, that St. Augustine should write a book of Unity (Unity of the Catho∣lick Chuch) of purpose with much accuracy (as indeed it is) and in all that book not so much as mention the Pope, or Bishop of Rome; no one word of Universality, or supremacy, or infallibility in all that book?* 1.47 True it is, unity, at large, is a large subject. For there is u∣nity of communion, internal, and external: unity of doctrine, of discipline and government: unity of rites, and ceremonies; and the like: and besides all these (though it comprehendeth all these in some degree:) there is that, which we may call Catholick Unity; proper∣ly opposed to schisme and separation. I call Catholick unity, the acknowledgment of a Catholick Church, with actual communion with it, and all the members of it, under one and the same head, Christ; which doth include unity of Faith, or soundness of Doct∣rine, in the main fundamentals, necessary to salvation, according to St. Augustin his declaration in that book ch. 4. which I wish the Reader, if he be at leisure, to peruse. This is the unity, of the breach whereof, the Donatists were guilty, who did not acknowledge a Ca∣tholick Church, or which in effect doth amount to it, did acknow∣ledge no other true Catholick Church, but their own. So that St. Augustine writing against them in that book, his business was to

prove, that there was a Catholick Church, diffused throughout the whole world (or the greatest part) according to the promises of God by his Prophets in all ages: which he doth fully and copiously, by clear and manifest places, and testimonies of Scripture. His occasion therefore I confess, did not oblige him to treat of all kind of Unity in that book: No: but if all true Catholick Unity depend of subjecti∣on to the Pope, and communion with the Church of Rome, as we are told, and that this was the Faith of the ancient Church: Why should not St. Augustine have gone that way rather, to prove them schisma∣ticks, which of the two (if it were indeed the Faith of the ancient Church, and that Faith grounded upon clear Scripture:) would have been the most compendious and ready way? But is it not strange, and indeed if that had been St. Augustines Faith, and the Faith of those times, as we said before, incredible; that in all the book, not any mention is made of Pope, or Roman Church? I might say, and that would be sufficient, of either Pope, as universal Bishop; or Roman Church, as the Catholick Church. But indeed which doth adde to the wonder, of either Pope in general; or Roman Church, in general: as if he had avoided it purposely; for some cause best known to himself; but probably if for any cause, because he saw how ready both Pope and Church of Rome were, even then, to take to themselves: to usurp and to arrogate in leges Ecclesiae (as St. Jerome before:) against the rights of the Catholick Church. In the tenth Chapter of that book, St. Augustine doth very particularly e∣numerate all the Christian Churches, mentioned in the Scripture; he doth begin with the Church of Antioch: at Hierusalem; item at A∣thens, Iconium and Listra; the Churches of Corinth, Ephesus, Philip∣pi, Thessalonica, Colossus, Pontus, Galatia, Capadocia, Asia, Bithynia; Smyrna, Bergamus, Sardis, Thyatira, Philadelphia, Laodicea: besides the Churches of Achaia; of Galatia, and between Jerusalem and Il∣lyricum, and the like not particularly expressed (as he doth observe) but included in those general words. Had he added the Roman to these, it would not have taken away any thing of the weight of our ob∣servation we chiefly aim at, but that he should not mention it, I think may justly be wondred at; though I will not be very confi∣dent, but that my eyes, or memory, (though I have read the book more then once, and since that looked over him again of purpose:)

or my Edition (which is that in 8^vo. Lugduni apud Sebast. Honorat. 1562. as most commodious for use:) do not deceive me. For that St. Augustine doth quote some words out of St. Peters Epistle, or some out of the Epistle to the Romans; that I hope will not be ta∣ken as an express mention of the Pope or Roman Church. In the 15^th Chapter, he doth mention Ecclesias fundatas per Apostolorum la∣bores; and again, Apostolice labore fundatas, in the same Chapter: in general: and Chapter 16, he doth make particular mention of Optatus Milevitanus, and Ambrosius Mediolanensis: as men whose credit and authority was very eminent in the Catholick Church, besides innu∣merabiles nostrae communionis Episcopos, including doubtless in that ge∣nerality the Bishop of Rome among the rest: but not any special mention of him. Moreover, it is observable, that in this very book, Chap. 18, and 19. Augustin doth upon occasion, insist upon those words of Christ to Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church: and doth expound that rock, by that mentioned Matth. 7 24. I will liken him unto a wise man which built his house upon a rock; that rock saith he, are they which hear the word of God, and do it. So little did he think of St Peters prerogative, at that time; as granted unto him by those or any other words of Christ.

That the unity of the Catholick Church doth consist (as was be∣fore intimated) in the Publick profession of the main fundamentals, (whereof one is, that Christ is the head of the Church) is excellent∣ly attested by St. Irenaeus one of the ancientest, now ex∣tant;* 1.48 who after a short account of a Creed, not much dif∣ferent from the Apostles Creed, in substance: This faith saith he, the Catholick Church having received, she keep∣eth all the world over, even as if she dwelt but in one house; she be∣lieveth it, as having but one soul, one heart: and she doth agreeably teach, preach, and deliver it, as having but one mouth. — So the Churches in Germany, in Spain, in France, in the East, &c.

I have mentioned divers books (besides this last of St. Augustin. De Unitate Ecclesiae:) which because when there was occasion, and the subject was proper, they make no mention of the Popes Su∣premacy, or infallibility; I conceive it may be inferred from their silence, that they knew it not; (it was a thing unknown in their time:) or at least, believed it not, I have one more, and he shall be

the last of my authors, to this effect; of whom I shall say before hand (because I would have the reader to judge, as well as I:) that if my judgment fail me not extreamly, he alone might have been sufficient, to have done the deed abundantly.

The author I intend, is, Vincentius Lirinensis: who lived about the beginning, or before the middle of the fift Centurie. To whom Bellarmine doth give this testimony. Scripsit opusculum, parvum mole, sed virtute maximum; de profanis vocum novitatibus.* 1.49 Libellus extat, & utilissimè legitur. The subject of the book is, as himself doth propose it, and set it down at the beginning; how a man certa quadam, & quasi generall ac regulari via Catholicae fidei veritatem, ab haereticae pravitatis falsitate, discernere:) by a certain, and as it were general, and regular way (or method) may discern the truth (or verity) of the Catholique faith, from the falsehood of heretical depravation (or adulteration.) Is not this the great controversie, between us and the Romanists? And which I am now upon? Is not this the chief subject of the late Arch-bi∣shop (of blessed memory) his book; and of the answer to it inti∣tuled Labyrinthus Cantuariensis? Let us hear then, what this so much approved and commended author, not only by Bellarmine, but by many others, of that side besides, doth deliver; and, what is ob∣servable, not as his own sence only, but as the sense of the ancient∣est and worthiest of those times, whom he professeth that he sought unto for their advice, as many as he could have access unto. Nay in his third and last summary or recapitulation, he doth affirm; (fuisse semper, & esse hodieque Catholicorum consuetudinem) that it had ever been, and was then, the Custome of the Catholicks, so to do; or to go the same way, which he doth here propose, and commend.

First, then, Vincentius layeth down these two grounds; Dovinae legis authoritatem: tum deinde Ecclesiae Catholicae traditionem: that is, the authority of the Divine Law (or Gods Word) and then, the tradition of the Catholick Church. Not but that the Scripture is of it self per∣fect and sufficient: (as he doth acknowledg:) but because men are very apt to vary in the exposition of it. Well: Tradition of the Ca∣tholick Church; What is that? That is, saith he, the intelligentia, or sensus, (his own words) the sence, or exposition of the Catholick Church. But what Catholick Church? The present Church, or Roman Church?

No such matter. In ipsa Catholica Ecclesia, &c. In this Catholick Church, saith he; we must follow, Universality, Antiquity, and Con∣sent. First, it must be the sence of the whole Catholick Church, all the world over. Secondly, it must be the sence of the ancient Fa∣thers of the Church: and Thirdly, there must be a consent of those an∣cient Fathers. Vincentius goes on: What shall a Catholick Christian do, if some one particular Church do forsake the communion of the general, (or universal) Faith? What, but prefer the soundness of the whole, before the contagion of a part. But what if the contagion attempt the whole? (he saith of the heresie of the Arrians afterwards: pene totum orbem contaminaverat, &c.) Then he must have recourse to Antiquity. What if Antiquity it self hath been tainted? (It seems he did suppose it possible:) not onely two, or three particular men; but a whole Town or Province? Then he must stick to the definiti∣ons of general Councels: (Si qua sunt universaliter antiquitùs, univer∣salis Concilii decreta:) and in his third recapitulation: Si quid esset an∣tiquitùs ab omnibus Ecclesiae Catholicae Sacerdotibus, universalis Concilii auctoritate decretum: a hard matter this: and therefore he speaks of it doubtfully, Si quid, & Si qua: But what if the matter is such, as hath not been defined by any such Councel? Why then, the consent of ancient Fathers, (recurrendum ad sanctorum Patrum sententias, in his third recapitulation:) of several ages, and places, who have always been reputed orthodox; that must be our refuge and remedy in such a case. And here Vincentius his Rule, or direction, doth end: which, because he would not be mistaken, in a business of such weight; he doth set down the summary of it three several times, with some variety of words, but not any at all of the matter: In the beginning, about the middle, and at the end of this book: which Bellarmine told us before, is of no great bulk; neither indeed is it. His diligence therefore, is the more observable. All the rest of the Book, is but an explication, or exposition of all the particulars contained in this Rule. In all those three recapitulations, or summaries, his last resolution after Scripture, is, the sence, and consent of the Fathers.

Let us hear, I pray, before we proceed, how this doth agree with the doctrine of the late Arch-Bishop of Canterbury. And for the Rule,* 1.50 which governs me (saith he) if I cannot be confident for my soul upon the Scripture, and the Primitive Church expounding

and declaring it, I will be confident upon no other. I have all the reason in the world, to be confident upon this rule, for it can never deceive me.

But now to Vincentius again: I ask in the first place, Did Vincentius, or those he had consulted with, know any thing of the Infallibility of the Pope, or any particular Church: (or of the greater part of the present Church, I might add: but we are not upon that now:) was any such thing known or believed generally, or by many, in those days? Certainly, he that will say so, must also believe, though Vincentius for some reasons, spared the name of the Pope, or to set down the opinion in express terms; yet his intention was to confute it, by this book; his Rule here delivered, being so diametrically, repugnant, and con∣trary. If any should reply, that all he had written of this subject, is not extant: true it is indeed, that the greatest part of the second Book (the whole consisted of two) is not extant, nor hath been these many ages. But what is wanting (as doth cleerly appear by his own ac∣count) was but a further prosecution, or confirmation of some particu∣lars by him delivered, by some examples; as particularly of the Ephe∣sian general Councel against Nestorius, which Councel was held in his time. The particulars of that Councel, was the whole subject of the second Book: and he gives us a particular account of those particulars, (what they were, and how prosecuted:) in that which remaineth of it. So that this evasion is sufficiently prevented. Those three reiterated recapitulations, or summaries we spake of before, the like whereof I do not remember in so small a book; may not one say, there was a provi∣dence in it?

Now let us go on with Vincentius his method, or some particulars of it rather, not before spoken of; for his Rule, I said before, was ended. But these definitions, (saith he) of general Councels (if such have been, or can be had:) or this consent of ancient fathers (our last re∣fuge) must it be expected, or sought, for every thing that we believe in all doubtful points?

So the Romanists tell us, and it is an article of Faith with them, that whatsoever is proposed unto us by the present Church, or Pope; funda∣mental, or not fundamental; must be believed with equal certainty of Faith: else, that all that we believe (a horrible,* 1.51 damnable doctrine) will do us no good. All points defined by the Church (the present Church) as matters of Faith, (saith the Author of the Laby∣rinth:)

are fundamental; that is, necessary to salvation to be believed by all those to whom they are sufficiently propounded to be so defined. And again, It is manifest, that all points defined by the Church,* 1.52 are fundamental, by reason of that formal object, or infallible authority propounding them, though not always by the matter, which they contain. And again: It is manifest, that if the Church be disbelieved in any one point, there can be no infallible faith of any thing.

But what saith Vincentius Lirinensis? Quae tamen antiqua sancto∣rum Patrum consentio, non in omnibus divinae Legis quaestionibus, sed solum certè praecipuè in fidei regula: (what the ancient Fathers call fidei regulam: and even the Council of Trent, principium illud, in quo omnes qui fidem Christi profitentur, necessariò conveniunt: The Reader, I hope need not to be told, that is not a stranger to an∣tiquity:) magno nobis studio investiganda est, & sequenda. And again: Ut ad unam Ecclesiastici sensus regulam scripturae caelestis intelligentia dirigatur; in ijs duntaxat praecipuè quaestionibus, quibus to∣tius catholici dogmatis fundamenta nituntur.

This is plain and express; This consent must be expected in fundamentals onely. And so the Reverend Arch-bishop; That the whole Church cannot universally erre in the doctrine of Faith (fidei regula, in Vincentius:) is most true, and is granted by most Pro∣testants: so you will but understand its not erring in absolute fun∣damental doctrines.* 1.53 And elsewhere: Now therein there can be no necessity of an infallible certainty in the whole Catho∣lick Church,* 1.54 and much less in a general Councell, of things not absolutely necessary in themselves. For Christ did not intend to leave an infallible certainty in his Church, to satisfy either contentious, or curious, or presumptuous spirits. Let the Reader judge who come nearest to the faith of the ancients, in this main funda∣mental. Take all Vincentius Lirinensis together; consider e∣very part, compare it with what is maintained and delivered, by the said judicious Reverend Author, and lay aside the age, and o∣ther circumstances of time and persons; you would think Vincenti∣us had intended a vindication of that excellent piece, against the false doctrine, calumnies, sundry shuffl••ngs and impertinencies of this confident anonymus antagonist, the author of Labyrinthus Can∣tuariensis.

But I have not yet done with Vincentius: I insist the longer up∣on him, because he is so generally commended, by those, whose malice, and uncharitableness, would make us, if they could tell how, worse then Infidels, though in very deed, upon a right and unpar∣tial tryal, we may justifie our title of Catholick, (and that indeed is it we must trust to, for salvation: which I wish they would better consider, that call the Romanists, Catholicks absolutely, in opposi∣tion to Protestants: it is a dangerous kind of civility; for if they be, the Catholicks; we must be Hereticks, or Schismaticks:) much better then they can.

Vincentius doth suppose (a supposition though somewhat strange, yet not without all ground, as may appear by what hath been said before of the corruption of ancient books; and others, forged and supposititious) that an heresie may spread and prevail; and by pre∣vailing, attain to prescription of age and antiquity: in a word so far prevail, that it may have the opportunity, to corrupt and adul∣terate ancient books; to suppress some and forge others: What now? Surely now (in such a streight: such a pinch as this:) or never, we shall hear of an infallible Pope or Church: now, or never; who will not say as much? Alas poor man! neither he, nor any of his time, that he advised with; nor any before them, were so happy; they knew of no such thing. What a ready satisfactory answer had he had, had he known of it, or any body that he knew? For want of this knowledge (the happiness, or happy discovery of latter ages) he is forced for a Remedy, to send us to Scriptures; or to the decrees, (if any be to be had) of general Councels, and there to leave us. But that he doth advise, to prevent this streight, not to give errors or heresies this advantage of time or growth; but as soon as they begin to appear, presently fly to the Scriptures and the consent of Fathers, in their expositions. But the Reader probably may desire (in a matter of such moment) Vincentius his own words, which therefore I have set down whole; out of a very good edi∣tion, as I conceive; set out in Paris (I guess Petrus Pithaeus might have a hand in it:) in Quarto, apud Sebustianum Pinellum: A.D.* 1.55 1586. with divers other several tractates of others. Of that edition page 63. I find it thus: sed ne{que} semper, neque omnes haereses hoc modo impugnandae sunt, sed novitiae

recentes{que} tantummodo, cum primum scilicet exoriuntur, antequam in∣falsare vetustae fidei regulas, ipsius temporis vetantur angustijs, ac prius quam, manante latius veneno, majorum volumina vitiare conentur. Caeterum, dilatatae, & inveteratae haereses, nequaquam hac via adgredi∣endae sunt, eò quod prolixo temporum tractu, longa his furandae veritatis patuerit occasio. At{que} ideo quascun{que} illas antiquiores, vel schismatum, vel haereseωn profanitates, nullo modo nos oportet, nisi aut solâ, si opus est (that is, if no definitions of general Councels can help us:) Scripturarum authoritate convincere; aut certè jam antiquitus, univer∣salibus sacerdotum Catholicorum concilijs convictas, damnatasque vita∣re. Ita{que} cum primum, &c.

* 1.56But again it is the opinion of that Reverend Pre∣late (of blessed memory) that infallibility in fundamen∣tals necessary to salvation, is the priviledge of the whole Catholick Church: derived from her (though not with like certainty) to the representative in General Councils. He disputes it at large p. 228, &c. This the Author of the Labyrinth calls an erroneous supposition: and doth endeavour (he had rea∣son,* 1.57 since nothing can be more contrary to their doct∣rine of the Popes infallibility) to confute it both there and elsewhere. Let us hear what the commended Vincentius Lirinensis saith to this. He takes his occasion from the words of the Apostle; O Timothee, depositum custodi, devitans profanas vocum novitates. Quis est hodie Timotheus (saith he) nisi vel generaliter universa Ecclesia; vel speci∣aliter, totum corpus praepositorum (the Catholick universal body of the Church,* 1.58 and Clergy in the Church: are the very words of the Arch-bishops, though he makes no mention of Vincentius, who I believe was not in his thoughts, in all this business, though mentioned by him, upon other occasions:) qui integram divini cultus scientiam vel habere ipsi debent, vel alijs, infundere. This vel twice repeated, may trouble some Reader per∣chance. For how can they alijs infundere, which they have not themselves? But so they spake in those days; vel for &; ordi∣narily. For example: De vita, vel obitu sanctorum, qui Deo placu∣erunt: the title of a book in Isidorus Hispalensis. Lex Alamanno∣rum, quae temporibus Chlotarij Regis, una cum principibus suis, Epis∣copis, & ducibus, & comitibus, vel caetero populo constituta est: The

title of another, in the Codex Legum antiquarum, set out by Fri∣der Lindebrogius. To return to Vincentius: Christi verò Ecclesia sedula & cauta, depositorum apud se dogmatum custos, nihil in his un∣quam permutat, nihil minuit, nihil addit:) can this be said of the Roman Church? Yes, by them who by their Sophistry, will make a man believe, that twice two, is not four; or that the whole is not bigger then part of it, and the like) — deni{que} quid unquam aliud Conciliorum decretis enisa est, and a little after, haereti∣corum novitatibus excitata, Conciliorum suorum decretis Catholica per∣fecit Ecclesia, &c. It is a very material point, and therefore I thought this notice would not be unseasonable,

What I aimed at, out of Vincentius, is at an end: with what success the Reader must judge. But should I leave Vincentius here, I may perchance hear of it, as though I had been partial in the business, concealing some things that made for the Pope. Truly I know nothing that doth so, really. But because men that are passionate∣ly addicted to a cause, are very apt to catch at any thing that hath but a little shew: let us see, whether any thing can be found of that nature.

In a place, having magnified those Confessors, who did man∣fully oppose themselves to the Arrian faction, when it raged every∣where, and carried all before it: Ne{que} hoc sane novum (saith he:) si quidem mos iste, semper in Eclesia viguit, ut quo quisquis foret reli∣giosior, eo promptius novellis adinventionibus contrairet. This wil scarce be granted now, that any Priest, or Prelat, may oppose errors and he∣resies, till they have been declared such by the Pope. Well, that any might, he saith: and he will give you an instance. Exemplis talibus plena sunt omnia. Examples saith he, are obvious everywhere, but one shall serve our turn, which shall be taken from the Apostolick See, that all men may clearly see, with what eagerness, study, and contention, that blessed Suc∣cession of the blessed Apostles (that is, that part of the Apostles Succession, except he should intend Peter and Paul, who both; as many an∣cients are of opinion, were Bishops of Rome: however here is nothing of Peter particularly:) did defend the integrity of the Faith (or religion) once received. I think so much hath been acknow∣ledged before, that the Bishops of Rome did very good service in those days, to uphold the true faith. But then a little after, it follow∣eth;

Tunc b. m. Papa Stephanus, Apostolicae sedis antistes cum cae∣teris quidem collegis, sed tamen prae caeteris restitit, &c. that is, Then Pope Stephen (of bl. m.) Bishop (or ruler) of one of the Apostolick Sees; (or be it, of the Apostolick See, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉:) with the rest of his collegues, indeed; but more then the rest, did oppose; think∣ing it (as I conceive) fit and reasonable that he should outgo all o∣thers as much in his zeal for the Faith, as he did in the authority of his place: or, of the place: for the credit of Rome, domina gentium, the Mistress of nations and head of the world, as anciently cal∣led; added much to the credit of the Bishops.

I think we may conclude (which is all can be made of it, for ought I know) that he that so spake of the Bishop of Rome (as many others did in those days with all civil respect:) had no quarrel to him, no intention to do him wrong, to deny him his cue: not his Supremacy then, or infallibility; had he known or believed any such thing: which doth not a little confirm what we concluded before upon those pregnant evidences, that he knew no such thing belonging unto him.

In his second book, after an account given of the general Coun∣cel at Ephesus (where no mention is made of the Pope:) and di∣vers named (quorum in illo Concilio, vel tanquam judicum, vel tan∣quam testium, scripta recitata sunt:) whose writings, as either judges or witnesses, were there read: he doth add: Sed ne sola Graecia, aut Oriens tantum, &c. that is, And to the end, that not Greece onely, or the East alone, but the Western and Latine world also, might be certainly known always to have been of the same opinion, the letters of St. Felix Martyr, and St. Iulius Bishops of Rome, written to cer∣tain persons, were there read. And to the end, that not the head of the world onely, but also the sides, &c. And two or three pages after, Quae omnia licet cumulatè abundé{que} sufficerent — ne quid deesse bea∣tae plenitudini videretur, ad extremum adjecimus geminam Apostolicae sedis auctoritatem; unam scilicet sancti Papae Systí, qui nunc Rom. Ec∣clesiam venerandus inlustrat: alteram decessoris sui, b. m. Papae Ce∣leslini, &c. and then a little after; Quibus Apostolicis, Catholicis{que} decretis, &c. that is To these Apostolick and Catholick decrees, which might abundantly suffice, we have in the last place, that nothing might be wanting to such a plenitude (as an overplus to a full mea∣sure)

added a double authority of the Apostolick See; the one of holy Pope Systus, who worthily, and vertuously doth now govern the Roman Church; the other of his predecessor of bl. m. Pope Celestin. And then: These Apostolick and Catholick decrees whosoever shall op∣pose, first, it must needs follow, that in so doing, he doth insult over the memory of St. Celestin: (he doth insult? Why not, he is a Schismatick, an Apostat, an infidel; ipso facto: according to the language of those times?) and secondly, that he doth deride the definitions of holy Systus. Truly by the tenor of these expressions, I think a man may justly suspect that Vincentius did not use so much cautelous∣ness, without some cause; and that he had somewhat in his thoughts, which made him write so warily. Especially, if it be considered withall, that before any mention of those testimonies, (of Felix, or Julius, or Systus, or Celestin.) he doth argue from 1 Cor. 12 28. And God hath set some in the Church, first Apostles, Secondly Pro∣phets, thirdly teachers, &c. The necessity of submitting to the uni∣versal consent of Fathers (present, and ancient, when they agree; but of ancient Fathers, if they do not:) wherein he makes the Unity of the Church to consist. Hos ergo in Ecclesia. Dei, divinitùs per tempora & loca dispensatos, &c. Quod si quis ab eorum sententiae com∣munione desciverit, &c. and that in all this, no mention of Church or Bishop of Rome is made. Except those words that follow, though applyed there to another, might have some reflection that way: (which is not impossible:) Et ne quis forsitan, praetermissis caeteris, se solum audiri, sibi soli credi, arrogaret, &c. that is, And lest perchance any body passing by the rest, should arrogate unto himself, that he onely must be heard: he onely must be believed.

This comes very near to St. Cyprians censure of Stephanus Pope of Rome before spoken of. So that for conclusion, I shall repeat what I said before, (and I speak it from my heart, according to thar measure of judgement wherewith God hath endued me:) that if the Author had intended purposely, to write against the opinions of these times, (some beginnings whereof he might have seen in his days, and fear the progress▪) I do not know (but that he did forbear openly to profess it:) how he might have written more pertinently, more pregnantly.

After this consideration of the reasons, grounded upon humane ra∣tiocination; and then, authority, whether of Scripture, or consent of Fathers, upon which, as cleer and convincing, (which if they be not, they must be acknowledged impertinent:) Supremacy and Infallibility, are obtruded, as Articles of Faith, necessary to Salvation; by our ad∣versaries: we now proceed to the consideration of some reasons, and arguments of our own, why we should not believe it: First, from the nature of it, or doctrine it self, as it is set out unto us, by them that maintain it; full of intricacies, of repugnancies, and contradictions. Secondly, from the uncertainty of the persons. And lastly, from the different opinion of other Roman Catholicks (generally, so acknow∣ledged, notwithstanding their dissent:) about it.

First then we say; this Infallibility, so earnestly contended for, which if certain and evident, would prevent, or soon allay all distractions, and disturbances of thoughts; is a thing so perplex, and intricate in it self; so full of confusion, and uncertainty; that he had need to be a right Oedipus; (if he look into the nature of it, and do not take it upon meer trust:) that can tell what to make of it, to receive any comfort, or sa∣tisfaction from it. First, we observe the variety of terms, wherewith, the better to comply with variety of opinions, and to conceal their own differences; yea divisions; they set out this assertion, (or article of Faith, as they make it) unto the world. Sometimes it is called the Infallibility of the Church: sometimes of Councels, and sometimes of Tradition: though under that variety, one thing by most, be intended; and that is the Popes Infallibility. The Infallibility of the Church Catholick (with due restriction) even Protestants do maintain: of Coun∣cels, many Romanists, that cannot endure to hear of the Popes: and Tradition is a very ambiguous word, in the writings of ancient Fathers; being taken sometimes for the doctrine of the Gospel, and most funda∣mental points of our Christian Faith. Specious words therefore; but that we may say of them—atrum Desinit in piscem (Annulus Piscato∣ris; I need say no more:) mulier formosa superne. The Church first, (the Catholick Church:) mulier formosa superne, we may say of it:* 1.59 but then, there is no need of any special mention of the Pope, in speaking of the authority of the Church: because this autho∣rity is always chiefly supposed, as being Head of the whole Church; saith the author of the Labyrinth. Councels (general Councels) venerable

names, even with them that do not hold him infallible: but ap∣paret totam firmitatem conciliorum esse a pontifice, saith Bellarmine: and take tradition (as sometimes) for Scripture; what more sacred? But, Id solum pro Dei verbo veneramur, ac suscipimus, quod nobis Pontifex ex Cathedra Petri—definiendo proponit: that is, We receive and reverence that only for the word of God, which the Pope out of Peters Chair, doth propose unto us by his definitions; here is the ater piscis; or venome in the tail, that spoileth all. The Author of the La∣byrinth, doth many times profess, that no more is required of any Protestant, but that he should believe the Popes infallibility when he hath the assistance or concurrence of a General Council: whereby he seems to grant somewhat towards peace, and accommodation of di∣ferences: but in effect, as he doth explain himself, he grants nothing at all. For besides what he writes in some places, where he seems more directly to contradict himself, as where he hath these words: Hence also it follows in proportion (upon allegation of Christs pro∣mise as in the former times:) that the Bishop of Rome,* 1.60 being Pastor of the whole Church, and intending to oblige the whole Church by his definition, cannot (in the common opinion) erre for the same reason: besides this, I say, which is more direct; the opinion which he with others, maintain of infallibility, in the conclusion, though not in the means or premisses, (which neither he, nor any body else doth pretend to reconcile to sence, but are glad to fly to Gods omni∣potency for it: doth altogether void the use, or expedience of a∣ny Councels, or indeed of any counsel at all: so that they may be thought to deal far more ingenuously, who plainly write and main∣tain, that whether the Pope use any endeavour or no (to find out the truth) it is not at all material, let him but define, he will be in∣fallible, as some of them have openly professed. So that a pre∣tence of general Councells, is but a meer mockery; but no small argument to us, or to any that will judge indifferently, that they that are put to such shifts, are not unsensible of the badness of their cause.

Now if that be the common opinion, both of them who open∣ly profess it, and of many others who cunningly rather insinuate, then absolutely declare, that the Pope in his definitions (laying a∣side the concurrence of Councels) is infallible: it will be some work

to find out, what it is, that he doth define as Pastor of the whole Church, by his definition: (as the Author of the Labyrinth doth ex∣press it:) and what he doth define and avouch as a privat person,* 1.61 if the subject be matters of Faith. A Pope may be an heretick; (it is granted by divers, who nevertheless maintain his infallibility.) Liberius in persecution might yield: Marcellinus for fear, might commit adultery; Honorius might fall into heresie, and more then all this, &c. So the Rhemish Annot. upon Luke 22. v. 31. and yet continue in actual possession of his chair. May not he probably, write, and write peremptorily like a Pope, to maintain his errors? And though he do not write, will not his private judg∣ment and opinion, he being a publick Person, and the Oracle of the world by his place, be looked upon by most men, who do not understand the niceness, and punctilios of Pope as a private Doctor; and, Pope as Pastor of the Church: or, Pope in the Chair, and out of the Chair, as others express it; and intending to oblige the whole Church: and the like to be looked upon I say as publick defini∣tions.

And what are the Decrees of Popes, and Decretals? The chiefest part of the Canon-Law: are they not to be looked upon as pub∣lick definitions? Yes, certainly: Consistories, Courts, Councels, De∣crees: So we are told, and in reason it ought to be so. Now it will be proved by and by, that those Decrees, and Decretals, contain abominable false doctrine, rejected and condemned for such; by a great part, if not greater part of Roman Catholicks: which the Author of the Labyrinth, and other late English writers of that side, do profess to disclaim and abhor. But first of repugnancies and contradictions.

Those Decrees, (we say) have many irreconciliable contradictions, where what one Pope had decreed, is repealed by another, as false and erroneous:* 1.62 So that of necessity one of the Popes must be acknowledged to have erred. Learned Erasmus in his Annotations upon 1 Cor. 7. v. 39. (liberata est à lege: cui autem vult, vubat:) hath many pregnant instances, to which not a few more might be added if there were any need of it here. But we have enough besides, if I be not much mistaken. I will instance in one particular, where those Decrees are contrary to the doctrine of these

times, maintained and asserted by other Popes. The administration of the Communion or holy Eucharist, under two kinds, as instituted by our Saviour; our adversaries hold it, to be a matter of indiffe∣rency in it self; and he that shall hold otherwise, will be acounted an heretick; and if he will not conforme to the practice of these days, established by the Popes order and authority, he will be con∣demned for a schismatick. Nor do we grant possibility of Salvation to any (horrible words:) that out of privat heretical persuasions, hold it ought to be received by all: or out of contempt of the Churches order to the contrary,* 1.63 do receive it in both kinds. So the Author of the Labyrinth. Now we say, former Popes have been of the same opinion as we are: and have publick∣ly defined the contrary for wicked and sacrilegious, and as a ma∣nifest breach of Christs institution. I will set down Pope Gelasius his words.

Comperimus autem, quod quidam, supra tantummodi corporis Chri∣sti portione, a calice sacri cruoris abstineant. Qui procul dubio (quo∣niam nescio qua superstitione docentur obstringi:) aut integra Sacramenta percipiant, aut ab integris arceantur:* 1.64 quia divi∣sio unius ejusdem{que} mysterij, sine grandi sacrilegio non po∣test provenire.

Here, first it is apparent, that Gelasius pronounces the receiving under one kind, to be receiving of a portion onely: and secondly that the Sacrament is not intire, or perfect, if either kind, (Bread or Wine) be omitted. Thirdly, and lastly, that the division of this mystery (by receiving in one kind onely:) is grande sacrilogium: great (or intolerable) sacriledge. Is this plain, or no? Or if it be not, what words can be devised by the wit of man, that can be thought plain to a prepossessed mind, or resolute obstinacy? But let us hear. Bellarmines first evasion, which he sticks too, in his books De Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 10. is, (Gelasius in eo canone, logui solum de sacerdote sacrificante:) that Gelasius speaks there onely of the Priest that doth officiate; (or, sacrifice, as he will have it:) and not of the people that receive. But let any man soberly consider with himself, whether it be probable, if Gelasius wrote this of Priests particularly, whether he would have used such an indefinite, unlimited word (quidam, and no more) as would in all probability, be un∣derstood

otherwise, then he intended; especially when this mistak∣ing of his sence, must of necessity give great offence. But whether Priest, or people be intended; if that be yielded; what then? Doth not he say plainly, that they that receive in one kind, receive but a portion? That the Sacrament (not Sacrifice:) is not whole and entire; except it be received in both kinds? And lastly, that this division of it, is grande sacrilegium? Are not his words abso∣lute and general, without any restriction, or limitation; as any can be devised or imagined? But Bellarmine hath another answer besides, in his books De Eucharistia: and that is Baronius his answer,* 1.65 who slights the former, as impertinent, and a meer device (frigidam solutionem, &c. he might well say it:) But what is it then, that he saith? Truly, that, which upon consideration, will appear as impertinent every whit, as the former▪ Baronius therefore, he will have this (quidam) to be intended of some Manichaeans of those days; to which purpose, to prove that there were Manichaeans in those days, who did refuse the cup; he doth produce a passage of Leo, the Pope, which indeed doth evince so much, and that is all that can be made of it. Well; suppose it was intended of Manichaeans: what then? Why then, saith Ba∣ronius, if they did forbear, or refuse the Calix, or Wine out of su∣perstition: (because they condemned all use of wine, as unlawfull) why then he might well say, that this Divisio unius ejusdem{que} sa∣cramenti, non potest sine grandi sacrilegio provenire: this dividing of one and the same Sacrament: (to wit, embracing one part of it, and rejecting the other; whereas both parts Bread and Wine, make one entire Sacrament:) could not be practised without great Sacriledge. He might say it of them it is true; but it is the same reason of a∣ny other, that should do the same, that these did, though they do it not for the same reason: though it be not superstition, in them (they do it not, because they think the use of wine unlawful:) yet it is Sacriledge; because they divide that, which of its own nature, and by Christs institution cannot be divided. Wherever that divi∣sion is, there are not integra sacramenta; Gelasius saith: it is but por∣tio corporis sacri, not integrum corpus. What then is the difference whether the Manichaeans be understood, or any others? And where∣as Baronius and Bellarmine, and out of them the Author of the La∣byrinth,

doth argue, because Leo doth say, such Manichaeans there were in those days, that did refuse the Wine; and by consequent did receive in one kind: that therefore receiving in one kind was then, ordinary: no such thing doth follow from the words of Leo; but this onely, that the Manichaeans did attempt such a thing, to bring it in use; and were it seems connived at, by some Priests of those times: which therefore, is by Gelasius taken notice of, con∣demned; and for reasons which he doth there alledge, inhibited for the time to come. Leo's words are, that, ad tegendam infidelitatem suam, nostris audent interesse mysterijs: because they would not be accounted Manichaeans, (that is, to avoid the Laws, and censures of the Church:) they would come to the Communion, but with this temperament (between true Christians and right Manichaeans:) that they would receive the bread, but refuse the cup: (which was one of Manichaeus his Tenets, that Wine ought not to be drunk: dicentes fel esse Principum tenebrarum, cum vescuntur uvis: saith St. Augustin:) by which signes they may be known from others saith Leo (ut no∣bis hujusmodi homines, ex his manifestentur indicijs:) What are those indicia, I pray, by him mentioned, but their forbearing the Cup? If therefore they might be known what they were, by those indicia: must it not follow, that they were onely Manichaeans, who received but in one kind, in those days? I know not what is sence, if this be not. Which is quite contrary to what Baronius, and Bel∣larmine would gather from the words.

And whereas Bellarmine in the same place doth fur∣ther argue, because neither Epiphanius, nor Augustine,* 1.66 who write of the Manichaeans, lay it to their charge, that they received but in one kind; that therefore it was then ordinary so to receive: it is an argument very unworthy such a man, as he is generally believed; though they that know him (his parts otherwise, and abilities, we deny not) will think it is very like him. For the Manichaeans, by the account those Fa∣thers give us of them, were rather Infidels, or Heathens, then Chri∣stians. In lieu of a Communion, or Eucharist, coguntur electi eo∣rum velut Eucharistiam conspersam cum semine humano sumere, saith St. Augustine: which afterwards he calls rightly scelestum mysterium. Would any body (but in a fit of phrensie, or dementation) draw

an argument from thence (from what those miscreants did:) that therefore the Communion was then administred in one kind, a∣mong true Christians? Truly I should scarce believe my eyes, were they not pretty well used to such sights.

But to return to Gelasius, and his words: should any now for∣bear the cup, out of any such superstitious conceit; because all use of wine, upon any occasion, is vicious: what would his punishment be, to force him to take it under both kinds (the high priviledge of Priests and some Kings, if I be not mistaken:) or to deny him the communion altogether, until he had renounced his super∣stition?

Besides all this, to make this matter more clear and evident: (though I think greater evidence then what hath already been produced, no man can reasonably require: In the same Distinction, (as called) c. 7. there is a Decretum, or Epistle of Pope Julius, as the title doth bear. In that Epistle, the Pope takes notice of divers abuses, in the admini∣stration of the Eucharist. One is, that some had a custom to dip the Bread in Wine, and so to give both kinds thus contrived in one, for the whole Eucharist, which they called Intinctam Eucharistiam. Ju∣lius tells them, (Probatum in Evangelio testimonium non recipit:) It was contrary, or not agreeable to Christs Institution: (seorsum enim panis, & seorsum calicis commendatio memoratur:* 1.67) be∣cause by that Institution, the Bread ought to be given asunder, and the Wine asunder. He concludes therefore, after divers other a∣buses mentioned; De caetero, aliter quam praescriptum est faciens tamdiu à sacrificando (there is no hurt in the word, in that sence they used it:) cessabit, quamdiu legitima poenitentiae satisfactione correctus, ad gradus sui officium redeat, quod amisit: a direct suspension, (if not deprivation, because of the word amisit:) till reformation and amendment.

May not we now, with all the confidence that clearest evidences and unquestionable records can breed in any man, conclude that Popes have contradicted one another in this point? I hope it will be grant∣ed; or we must never hope to carry any thing (though never so vi∣sible and palpable:) as long as some have the face to affirm; and others the facility, to believe, what best sutes with their occasions, and main design, (to uphold the cause) quo jure, qua injuria: be it right, or wrong. Of which kind of dealing (though I intended Decretals onely)

I will give the Reader, before I pass to other matter, a further trial upon this very subject.

The Reverend Archbishop, and now blessed Martyr, had objected that by Christs Institution, the Sacrament was administred in both kinds, and that his institution and example had the force of a precept. To which purpose he doth produce words of a certain Catechism, printed at Paris, The Institution of a Sacrament, is of it self a command: and again, Institution is a Precept. Now,* 1.68 That both kinds, in the Sacrament, were instituted by Christ; he proved by the very confession and acknowledgment of the Councel of Constans, in those words: Non obstante Christi institutione. Two things then we have; that the Cup is Christs institution: and that Christs institution (though there be a precept too, besides the in∣stitution, as the Bishop doth observe:) hath the force of a pre∣cept. To this the Author of the Labyrinth doth reply:* 1.69 To shew that the practices of the Church were contrary to Christs institution, the Bishop should have made it appear, that Christ did so institute this sacrament of his last supper, that he would not have one part to be sacrament, without the other: or, that he would not have one part to be taken without the other. What; though both kinds be acknowledged Christs institution; and that institution hath the force of a command, or precept; yet is all this nothing, except Christ have said expresly, that he would not have one part to be sa∣crament without the other; or, that he would not have one part to be taken without the other? Why then, if I say to a thief, making profession of Christianity, it is written, Thou shalt not steal: may not he answer as well: yea, but shew me where it is written, Thou shalt not steal for thy need; or, when opportunity doth offer it self: and so the adulterer, where it is written, Thou shalt not commit adultery, though thou hast no wife of thine own; or, though the woman make some advantage of her adultery, which she and her Children stand in need of; and the like. This it is, to be resolved, not to yield to any thing, whatever comes of it.

But hear him again: Our Saviour (saith he) gave it in one kind only to the two disciples at Emmaus (Luke 24) as both S. Augustine, S. Chry∣sostome, S. Hierome, Theophylact, and others, of the ancient switness:* 1.70 whose example the Church following, &c. Who doth read this, but would

expect in those Fathers here quoted, to find somewhat expresly, concerning communion in one kind? But if you look, not one word in any of them will you find, concerning one kind, or two: but this only, that those Fathers are of opinion, that by those words, breaking of bread, the Communion is intended. Now breaking of bread in common speech among the Hebrews, implying drink also, as no man ever de∣nyed, or doubted, (as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Greek doth imply meat also, and the like in other languages:) to bring them for witnesses, and to make them say peremptorily, that the Eucharist was administred in one kind by Christ; because by breaking of bread, the Eucharist is intended: what kind of dealing is this? let the Reader judge. I shall add onely, that Maldonat, who doth earnestly contend for this sence, that by breaking of bread, the Eucharist is intended in this place, urging many reasons, and alledging the very same Fathers their authority for it; yet of the Sacrament administred in one kind (which, had he seen any ground for it, he had not omitted, cer∣tainly:) he hath not one word. Nay, those words of his, fractionem pa∣nis, non ipsam actionem frangendi, sed totum illum actum conficien∣di, administrandique Eucharistiam appellari: may be thought not im∣probably, to imply the contrary, and to aime at some confuta∣tion.

But why do I say, not improbably? For certain it is, that he could intend it no otherwise; and as certain, that the Author of the Labyrinth, did not well understand what did belong unto him∣self as a Priest; if, as probably, he be a Priest. For though the Romanists do administer unto the people under one kind: yet they do not hold that right consecration of the Elements, that is not made under both. And therefore (as is well observed by a learn∣ed Romanist, whom we shall name afterwards, who hath written a learned discourse of this very subject;) Neither the Councel of Constance, nor that of Basil, nor of Trent, by which Councels, ad∣ministration under one kind was established (or confirmed;) would make use of this place of Scripture to confirm their doctrine, or decree; as, wisely foreseeing what would be objected. And is this the man, that durst undertake such a work, as the confutation of the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury? That learned, and judicious piece.

Now to sum up what hath been said hitherto upon this subject of infallibility, considered in it self; and briefly to supply what hath not yet been said of the intricacy of it: First in the very title or termes, there is obscurity, or craft, which every body doth not un∣derstand; whilst some call it, or the same man perchance, some∣times infallibility, of the Church; sometimes of Councels; and a∣gain, of tradition: one thing being intended, to wit, the Popes. Well; the Popes infallibity; yes; but not as he is a private per∣son or Doctor (how can he be so whilst he is Pope? but as he is the chief Pastor of the Church; not in his ordinary doctrine, or in the Schooles; but as he doth teach the whole Church in his Pastoral chair: not in the premises, but in the conclusion: not in matters of fact, but in matters of Faith: and in matters of Faith, (as I con∣ceive this is, whether the Pope be above a general Councel; or a general Councel above the Pope:) whether as matters of Faith: or, by way of Canonical, or Ecclesiastical Constitution:* 1.71 for which last I refer the Reader to the Author of the Laby∣rinth. And again, the voice of the Church (that is the Popes:) in determining controversies of Faith, not simply divine, though by immediat miraculous inspiration: and their Decrees, rightly sty∣led the Oracles of the Holy Ghost; (Labyr. p. 253.) but, in a man∣ner divine. Well: an intricate business we say; and they that main∣tain it, are much put to it: and yet, such an article of Faith, as without it, no salvation; here is ground enough for any man to doubt the truth of it; so much I hope will be granted. But upon their own grounds of humane reason, or ratiocination, that Christ as wise, or good, was bound: &c. (before spoken of:) what will follow, I leave to the Reader to judge.

But, an intricat thing in its own nature, full of repugnancies and con∣tradictions, that is some prejudice to the cause certainly: but that is not all. Though it were granted true, that every true, lawfull Pope, is (with such limitations and restrictions:) infallible; yet we are as much to seek, and more too, in the person; whereof according to their own doctrine and definition, there can be no assurance, that such, or such, is a true Pope, and by consequence infallible.

First, he that came in, or got possession of the place, by bribery and Simony, he is declared by the sentence of many Popes no lawful Pope▪

Si quis pecunia, vel gratia humana, vel populari, seu militari tumultu, sine concordia & canonica electione ac benedictione Cardinalium, Episcopo∣rum— fuerit Apostolicae sedi inthronizatus, non Apostolicus sed a∣postaticus habeatur: liceat Cardinalibus—invasorem etiam cum a∣nathemate — à sede Apostolica repellere: &c. So Nicholas Papa II in Concilio Romano statuit: Dist. 79. c. 9. Si quis. And Pope Paschalis Caussa 11. q. 1. declares all Simoniacal persons to be hereticks: veluti pri∣mos & praecipuos haereticos, ab omnibus fidelibus respuendos, &c. Omnia enim crimina, ad comparationem Simoniacae haeresis, quasi pro nihilo re∣putantur. Other Decrees, and Canons, of Popes there be to the same purpose which I omit. I shall onely content my self with Platina (a man bred in the Court of Rome and throughly well acquainted with their ways.* 1.72) his words in one of the Popes lifes; (which book he delivered himself to the Pope: Eò enim tum Ponti∣ficatus devenerat &c. That was the case (or condition) of the Popedom (or, Popeship) in those days; that no holy life, or learning; but largition (or bribery) and ambition, all good men being oppressed, and put down, were the only means, to obtain that high dignity: which custom, would to God, our times had not retained: (utinam aliquando non retin. nostra temp. I wish they would once leave, or give over: or perchance he means, They did not always so: the expression is somewhat ambigu∣ous, but that which follows, makes the other more probable:) But this is but little: if God prevent it not, we shall see worse hereafter. Of what consequence, this may be, I leave to the Reader to consi∣der.

The next thing is, their doctrine and definitions, concerning the in∣tention of the Priest, in consecrating: by which it doth infallibly fol∣low that no man can be so sure, that he that now sits, shall sit, or ever sat, as Pope; is in holy orders; and by conse∣quent,* 1.73 whether true Pope; and if not Pope, certainly; then what certainty of his infallibility? This is very strongly pres∣sed, and very particularly proved from their tenets, and definitions by the most Reverend Arch-bishop: to which the Author of the Laby∣rinth doth endeavour to say somewhat: but whether, what he saith, may be called an answer, let any man judge, whom prejudice, and partiality, hath not altogether bereaved of his judgment.

His first answer is, by way of retortion: No man, saith he, can infallibly be sure of any man, that he is truly baptized:* 1.74 therefore it is possible, for ought he knows, that none are. How then can he believe a Catholick Church, which must consist of persons rightly baptized? This indeed, were an argument of some force against them that hold that the validity of a Sacrament depends of the intention of the Priest, which is their doctrine: but of no validity at all against us, who be∣lieve no such thing; and protest, as the Archbishop doth, against the manifest, intolerable uncharitableness, and absurdity of the opinion. What did he mean then, to bewray so much absurdity, and imperti∣nency in his retortion? Though in very truth there is besides a vast difference in the business, or comparison. For that all Priests, all the world over, or greater part, should be such Devils, and in this one par∣ticular too, is altogether incredible; and then it will not concern the Catholick Church, if some here and there be not truly baptized: but in this case, of the Popes being baptized, yea, or no; whose Infalli∣bility is said to be the Churches Rule, and Oracle; and therefore should be very well known, and certain: if some Priests sometimes, may be supposed to be so wicked; that is enough to make every Pope questionable. And that the Reader may not think we suppose strange things, not easily to be believed: (therefore also it will the better ap∣pear, what horrible doctrine, this doctrine of intention is:) I will im∣part to the Reader, what I find recorded by my F. (of bl. m.) in his Adversaria, in these words:

Presbyteri novum exemplum furoris.

Audivi saepe a senatoribus, & Praesidibus hujus amplissimi ordinis, anno 1598. aut 1599. Presbyterum fuisse vocatum in jus in Provincia Conomano∣rum, & mox huc Lutetiam adductum, qui fassus est se per annos jam sep∣tem vel octo, in consecratione panis mystici, semper pro nomine benedicto Domini Jesu, nomen (horresco referens) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 pronuntiasse. Erat enim sortilegus, & ex voto se ad id daemoni malo obstrinxerat. Aiebat Praeses Thuanus, censuisse ordinem, gravissimas quasque poenas ab eo ex∣igere: sed ordinem Ecclesiasticum hominem repetiisse, & quid de eo sta∣tuerit, nesciri.

The sum is; A Priest was questioned in Paris for a Sorcerer, who confessed that instaed of the name of Christ, at the consecration of the

mystical Bread; having bound himself to him so to do, he had used some seven or eight years that of the Devils. Intention is not here men∣tioned; for it seems he had the boldness, and opportunity both to perform by direct utterance; what some others, more probably, com∣mit intentionally onely. God be thanked, such a thing cannot happen in our Churches, where we are bound to speak audibly, in a tongue which is understood. So much of his first answer.

* 1.75Then: Secondly, I answer, saith he: That both a general Councel, and the Pope, when they define any matter of Faith, do also implicitely define that themselves are infallible; and by consequent, that the Pope in such a case, and also the Bishops that sit in Councel, are persons baptized, and in holy orders. Well: If I be out of my wits, God re∣store me: but I am certainly, and I must acknowledg it, if any man can make good sence of this. The question is, (it matters not what the Bishops are:) whether he that sits, as Pope; be true Pope; that is, truly baptized, in holy orders, &c. which by the doctrine of intention (as is abundantly proved by the Arch-bishop:) established by Popes, as matter of Faith; cannot be known. How then can it be known, that he that sits as Pope, and Decrees, and Defines, is Infallible? Yes, saith our Labyrinth-maker: it may be known; because when he doth define any matter of Faith; he doth also define (implicitly) that he is Infallible; therefore baptized, and in holy Orders. But (I can hardly keep my self from exclaiming: Dei hominum{que} fidem!) what is the definition of such a one (whether implicit, or explicit:) to the pur∣pose; until we know that he is right Pope, and by consequent (as you would have it:) Infallible? He that sits as Pope, (many have done, it is well known, and granted; yea, for a long time, that were no true Popes:) takes upon him to define matters of Faith, (who should, but he that sits in the Chair for the time, whether true Pope, or no?) therefore, he is Infallible, &c. Is not this Petitio principii; as manifest, and palpable, as any can be?

* 1.76His third answer is; That it is not necessary to believe the In∣fallibility of the Proposer, (or Pope:) prioritate temporis: but it sufficeth to believe it, prioritate naturae. He that doth understand this, to apply it to the purpose; let him speak, and brag; I will not envy him, but admire him. For my part, I think, if instead of this, he had put in two, or three words of Welch, or some other unknown

language, it might have done as well; or better. But I will ex∣pect what men of better capacities, will say to it. This shall serve, (though much might be added from the uncertainty of the true Pope, in times of schisme, when divers Popes set together, though not in one place; which hath often happened:) to shew how fallible and uncertain, this doctrine of Infallibility is, in the persons, or subject of it.

Our next business (as we proposed it before) will be to shew, that this Infallibility of the Pope, in his Decrees and Constitutions, which we are told is the common opinion; is rejected by others (of the same pro∣fession, otherwise: to wit, Roman Catholicks:) as impious and dia∣bolical: not very likely then, that there is such great certainty of it, that it should be obtruded as an Article of Faith, and necessary to Sal∣vation. Bonifacius the VIII. Pope of Rome, did set out a Decree, or Declaration, entered into the body of the Canonical Law, whereby he doth establish himself absolute Lord and Monarch of the World, chal∣lenging temporal, as well as spiritual power, over Kings and King∣doms; in these words, among others: Nam veritate testante, Spiritu∣alis potestas, terrenam potestatem instituere habet, & judicare, si bona non fuerit. Sic de Ecclesia, & Ecclesiastica potestate, verificatur vatici∣nium Hieremiae: Ecce constitui te hodie, super gentes & regna; & cae∣tera quae sequuntur. (ut evellas & destruas, & disperdas, & dissipes, & aedifices, & plantes:) Ergo si deviat terrena potestas, &c. He concludes: Porrò subesse Rom. Pontifici omni humanae creaturae (al. omnem huma∣nam creaturam:) dicimus, definimus, & pronunciamus omninò esse de necessitate Salutis. Some will reply perchance, that these be general words, by which he intended not to challenge to himself absolute tem∣poral Dominion; but onely to magnifie the spiritual power, (to which purpose, I must acknowledge, that some ancient Fathers, have some high expressions of Episcopacie, in general:) and preferr it, b••∣fore the temporal: Though the words will scarce bear this sence, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that we had Suarez before, a great Author among them, his acknow∣ledgment to the contrary; yet I would not much contend ab•••…•••… were it not for the testimonies of their own Historians, concerning 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Boniface: whereof one of them, doth so write of him: This 〈◊〉〈◊〉 was very expert in all things that belong to Courts: and be∣cause he had not his fellow for this kind of knowledge,* 1.77 he

did so unmeasurably arrogate unto himself, that he reported himself to be Lord of the whole world, as well in things temporal, as spiritual. This I think makes it out of doubt, what he intended by those words.

* 1.78Besides, we could tell you of Nicolas the II. of that name, Pope of Rome, two, or three hundred years before this Boniface, but not many years before Hildebrand, the grand assertor, or rather founder of Popish Omnipotency; who decreed, and defined,* 1.79 the very same in effect, in that Decree of his, registred in their Law; where, having pronounced all Sees, and Dignities Ecclesiastical to be founded by the Church of Rome; he further addeth: Illam vero solus ille fundavit, &c. that is: But her, (or it) (the Church of Rome) he onely (God, or Christ) hath founded and erected upon the rock of Faith, then beginning; who hath committed unto his blessed Claviger (or Key-keeper:) the right (or disposition) of the earthly both, and heavenly Kingdom. This is objected by some, as though he had intended the same as Boniface. But Bellarmine doth an∣swer not improbably, that by those words he did not intend, any tem∣poral or terrestrial dominion properly; but meerly alluded to the words of Christ: Matth. xvj.19. And I will give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in Heaven: whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in Heaven. Well, be it so: yet, Bellarmine must grant, that either Pope Nicholas speaks nothing to the purpose; or so much at least, he doth here assert to Peter and his Successors, as their proper priviledge, that unto them onely, the Keys of Heaven; that is, the power of binding and loosing, was given by Christ, Which he doth not here onely affirm; but afterwards, in this very Decree, doth define it He∣resie to deny it: Qui autem Rom. Ecclesiae privilegium—hic procul∣dubio in haeresin labitur:—hic est proculdubio dicendus haereticus. Now it is certain, that it is the Doctrine of the ancient Fathers (ge∣nerally:) that nothing was given to St. Peter by these words, (but onely that it was given to him first, for unities sake: in which sence some say, soli Petro:) but was given to the rest of the Apostles. And certain it is, that many Roman Catholicks, (the greatest part, I be∣lieve) are of the same opinion, as the ancient Fathers were in this par∣ticular. How then the Popes infallible in their Decrees; and their In∣fallibility, how much regarded among them generally, by whom to us

Protestants, it is proposed as an Article of Faith; this may well go for one instance.

But in the next place; What shall we say to Hildebrand, or Gregory the VII. who doth decree and declare, that if a Prince, or King be excommunicated, all his Subjects are discharged of their Oath; and not onely, so, but doth strictly forbid, that any fidelity (or obedience) shall be performed unto them? His words are; Nos sanctorum Praede∣cessorum nostrorum statuta tenentes, eos qui excommunicatis, fidelitate aut sacramento constricti sunt; Apostolicâ auctoritate, a Sacramento absolvi∣mus; & ne iis fidelitatem observent, omnibus modis prohibemus; quo∣usque ipsi ad satisfactionem veniant. This is so punctual, that it will admit, (I think:) of no evasion: And that this Doctrine is impious, heretical, destructive to all Kings, and Princes, hath been declared by divers Edicts of Kings and Princes, with the joynt concurrence of their Clergie, Bishops, Archbishops, &c.

But that which is most horrible, beyond which professed Atheisme, and Infidelity cannot go; is that of Urban the Second, whereby he doth declare them to be no homicides, who through zeal for the Church, shall murther any man, (King, or Prince, you may be sure; who are most subject to those Excommunications:) that stands excommuni∣cated. Yet nevertheless, he doth order,* 1.80 that some kinde of penance, for Disciplines sake, in case they have not done it out of meer zeal, should be enjoyned them. And this, he saith, is the Ordo; course, order, or appointment of the Church of Rome. But it will not be amiss, to set down his own words. Urba∣nus II. Godfredo Lucano Episcopo. Excommunicatorum interfectoribus (prout in ordine Eccles. Rom. didicistis:) secundum intentionem, modum congruae satifactionis injunge. Non enim eos homicidas arbitramur, quos adversus excommunicatos, Zelo Catholicae matris ardentes, aliquos eorum trucidasse contigerit. Ne tamen ejusdem Matris Ecclesiae disciplina desera∣tur, &c.

The word arbitramur, might seem to qualifie the matter somewhat, as though it were but a declaration of his opinion, not an absolute de∣termination. But here the Author of the Labyrinth, doth offer himself very seasonably: I am very willing to make some use of his authority; but the rather, to do the Reverend Archbishop some right, which I did propose to my self, to do upon all occasions, that should offer them∣selves,

as I told the Reader, at the beginning. Though therefore it be some digression from the present matter; yet it is not besides my first intention, and purpose. The question is, about a place of St. Jerome, where he doth use the word arbitramur; in what sence there to be taken. Before we resolve the question, and produce Jeroms words; let us hear, what the said Author of the Labyrinth, doth make of it, which may stand us in some stead upon this particular occasion of Pope Urbanus his words.* 1.81 [As for the word arbitra∣mur (saith he) which the Relator catches at, as if S. Jerom thereby delivered onely his own private, and but conjectural opi∣nion, and not any matter of Christian belief; we answer, Arbitramur doth not alwayes signifie opinion, or doubts, but simply a mans sence, and judgment, in whatsoever matter or question propounded, as every common Lexicon might have informed him. Doth the word signi∣fie no more then meer opinion, in that Text of St. Paul, Phil. 2. Non rapinam arbitratus est, esse se aequalem Deo? &c. And would not the Bishop (think you,) have been shrewdly put to it, to find a proof for justification by Faith onely, should that of Rom. 3.28. have been wrested from him in that manner: St. Paul is here onely at his arbitramur, we think that a man is justified by Faith, without the works of the Law? He delivers not a point of Faith, but onely his private opini∣on, &c.]

Thus he; and that this interpretation of the word arbitramur, doth very well agree to Urbanus, as Pope, that is, as supreme Judge, (so they would have it) in all such causes; no man can doubt. But how∣ever, what construction soever we make of this arbitramur, is not much material, since his order and appointment how they shall be used, that have, or shall commit such a thing; not as execrable murtherers, or parricides; but as men, who perchance in this act of Zeal, might have some other consideration (as happily some private revenge, or expectation of reward, and the like,) besides Zeal; and therefore some arbitrary petty penance, to be enjoyned them; and no more: this doth absolutely pronounce them no murtherers, no parricides. And this is the Doctrine, all, or most that of late have attempted up∣on the persons of Kings, and Princes, have gone upon, and acted by. And this, one great mystery of Jesuitism, (though I hope,* 1.82 all that go under that name, are not conscious

of it:) which they call the directing of the intention: by the help whereof, they provide themselves assassins, against all occasions. Ne∣ver was Doctrine devised, more pernicious to Kings and Princes: and for this one point (were there no other) all the Canon Law, whilest this remaineth in the body of it, deserves to be banished from all Chri∣stian Common-weals, where the Popes authority is established by Law. For how can they punish them legally, who have such a plea provided for them, (which they commonly make use of) justifiable by the Popes Law?

Now I have done with Pope Urban, whose arbitramur made us think of the Labyrinther; the Reader will give us leave to do the most Reverend Archbishop some right, by a further account, (upon this opportunity) of his adversaries way of dealing. First, it is most clear by a manifest antithesis. in St. Jerom's words between credimus, & ar∣bitramur; that St. Jerome by arbitramur, intended conjectural opinion only, and not matter of Christian belief, as the said Labyrinther would have it. As we believe (saith St. Jerome) the external torments of some; Divels and Infidels:) So (arbitramur) we think (probably) that the sentence of the Judge against the wicked, yet Christians, whose works are to be tried and purged by fire, may be moderated with some mercy. His words are: Et sicut Diaboli & omnium negatorum at{que} impiorum, qui dixerunt in corde suo, Non est Deus, credimus aeterna tormenta: sic peccatorum, at{que} impiorum, & tamen Christianorum, quorum opera in igne probanda sunt, at{que} purganda; moderatam arbitramur & mistam clementiae sententiam judicis. Now for those instances he useth, to prove, that arbitramur is so taken sometimes as he would have it; could the man be so ignorant, or impertinent, as to believe, that if the Archbishop would prove any point of Religion out of the New Testament, he would go by the Vulgar translation, (because authorized by the Councel of Trent:) and not rather by the ori∣ginal Greek, which only with us, is authentick? There, no arbi∣tramur is to be found (Rom. III.28. but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉? which they that read Theophylact (not to mention any other) will say, is very well and truly translated, we conclude: which is our translation. Whilst the Labyrinther therefore thought to make himself some sport with the Archbishops words, S. Paul is here onely at his arbitramur, &c. (See Relat. p. 349.) he hath made himself very ridiculous to any man, that is not a meer stranger to these things.

But we return to the Pope; Not his temporal, but very spiritu∣al power and supremacy, hath been and is opposed and impeached by many professed Roman Catholicks, men of great credit, and au∣thority among them; who have written against it, maintained the government of the Church instituted by Christ, to be Aristocratical; and that Councils, (General Councils,) are above the Pope; may question, condemn, and depose him (contrary to Pope Boniface his definition before spoken of) as they see cause. The Council of Con∣stance and Basil, have determined it, one way: The Council of Lateran another way: great banding there hath been, among the learned of that side, about the authority and validity of those Councils, and their actions: some asserting the one: others as much oppo∣sing it.

Cardinal Cusanus, a man, besides his authority, of great learning and reputation in the world; hath written accurately against the Popes Supremacy, both Spiritual, and Temporal, applying all the promises of Christ, made to Peter, to the Catholick Church; in his books inti∣tuled, De Concordia Catholica. Bellarmine doth speak of him with great respect: vir doctissimus & diligentissimus: and, ob ejus viri erudi∣tionem, in the same place: and elsewhere doctus & pius. And though the same Bellarmine saith of him, and produceth somewhat of his, to prove, that he did change his opinion in some things, hefore he dyed: yet, as to the main of his book, that he ever was of another opinion, nothing is alledged by Bellarmine. Th. Campegius Bononiensis, Epis∣copus Feltrensis; De auctoritate & Potestate Rom. Pont. Printed by Pau∣lus Manutius, A. D. 1555. doth justify the Decree of the Councel of Constance, and makes no question of it, but a Pope may be an heretick, and eo nomine, worthy to be deposed.

In the year 1612. a book was set out in Paris (much noised, and as much commended in most places:) under this title, De Ecclesiastica & Politica potestate liber unus. Ecclesia (in the title Page) est Politia Monarchica, ad finem supernaturalem instituta, regimine Aristocratico, &c. consisting of 18 Chapters, or Paragraphes; the first whereof is, Infallibilis potestas decernendi, aut constituendi canones toti Ecclesiae, quae est columna & firmamentum veritatis, non uni & Soli Petro compe∣tit;* 1.83 id{que} praxi Ecclesiae comprobatur. And though the book was questioned, and condemned afterwards, by some part of the

Clergy: yet the Author (one of the Doctors of the Sorbone) instead of being terrified, grew so confident, that upon it, (some friends it seems he had, that wished well unto that cause:) whereas before he had concealed his name, he now durst openly make himself known, which troubled the Clergy not a little.

How many more could we name, if need were? Apparent there∣fore it is, that this infallibility, so earnestly contended for, hath not yet taken effect, even among them, that are acknowledged by the abettors of it, good Catholicks; how then, an article of faith, and necessary to salvation? And again, how suitable to Gods providence (upon their own grounds:) that a thing so intricat in it self; subject to so much opposition and contradiction among them, who agree in other things; should be made by God the main Article of Religion, without the belief whereof, no salvation can be had!

But though this absolute power and supremacy of the Popes, be ob∣truded by the abettors of it as the Article of Articles, without which nothing can be right in matters of Faith; nothing, available to salva∣tion; and many are content, for some politick ends, the opinion should pass current among them, that will entertain it, upon those terms: yet how easily, many that apparently submit unto it, can dispence with themselves, when occasion is; hath appeared by sundry publick acti∣ons, and proceedings of whole Nations, and Kingdoms, at several times.

In the year of our Lord 1524. or thereabouts, Caesar, saith Thuanus, (Charles the V. Emperor of Germany, and King of Spain:) ut injuri∣am sibi a Clemente illatam, ulcisceretur; nominis Pontificii auctoritatem, per omnem Hispaniam abolet (Henry the VIII. did not much more in England) exemplo ab Hispanis, posteritati relicto, posse disciplinam Ec∣clesiasticam, citra nominis Pontificii auctoritatem, ad tempus conservari. The same was agitated (quod Senatus urgebat, saith Thuanus) and very near effected in France, had it not been for the opposition of one, that was very great and powerfull; when the Pope stood off, and would not acknowledge Henry the IV. lawfull King of France.

What the matter was in France, about the year 1640. others may know better then I, that were then in the Countrey, eye-witnesses of what passed. Sure I am, that by Books then printed, it doth appear, that there was much talk of a Patriarch, then to be constituted: and

that it was verily believed, by many, that it would be so. Which gave occasion to a Book, intituled, Apotrepticus, adversus inanem Op∣tati Galli ad Illustriss. & Reverendiss. Ecclesiae Gallicanae Primates, Ar∣chiep. Episcopos, Paraeneticam. A. D. 1640. written of purpose, and as I conceive, by authority; to allay the jealousies of men; and to pre∣vent disorders, that might probably ensue upon it. In that Book, among other things, you shall find notable instances, quantum distet a piâ Francorum erga R. Sedem observantiâ, fastus & contemptus Ibericus.

Long before that, in the year 1626. was printed a Book or Wri∣ting, in Paris, under this title; Cardinalium, Archiepiscoporum, Epis∣porum, caeterorumque, qui ex universis Regni Provinciis, Ecclesiasticis Co∣mitiis interfuerunt, de anonymis quibusdam, & famosis libellis, sententia. Lut. Paris. apud Anton. Steph. A. D. 1626. Cum privilegio Regis. In which, among other things, I find this clause, so contrary to the Popes, and Jesuits doctrine, rhat nothing can be more: At injustam est, quod ad restituendam haereticum Principem (adde etiam infidelem: the Prince Palatine, that then was, is intended:) bellum susceptum sit. Infidelis sit, sed a Deo constitutus, a quo potestas omnis data est: &c. This whole Book, or judgment, was inserted (it had such approbation:) in the Mercurius of those times, and in a Book consisting of four Tomes, then printed, and intituled, Des affaires du Clergé de France: 1626. nay, it was inrolled in the publick Records, or Registers of the Kingdome. But the Jesuitical party prevailing, this Book or Sentence was disavow∣ed, and disclaimed by a great part of the Clergie; and a large Book set out against it, Par Francois, Cardinal de la Rochefoucaut, Grand Ausmonier de France. However, it may easily appear by these Wri∣tings, upon what doubtfull terms, the Popes authority stands in that Countrey; and how many enemies it hath. So that in very truth, this business of Infallibility ascribed unto the Pope, is looked upon by the generality, rather as a device to amuse the simple and credulous; then as a thing seriously to be entertained, by any that know how the world goes, and can discern between the inside and outside of things.

If all this we have said hitherto, be not enough to satisfie the Read∣er, that it is so indeed, I will propose one instance more to his consi∣deration; and, if that will not do it, I shall leave him, peaceably, to the liberty of his own judgment.

As we Protestants (as many as go under that name) by the Sentence of the Church of Rome, partly for false doctrine, which they charge us with, in matters of Faith; but especially, for not acknowledging the Pope our head, nor yielding obedience unto his commands; are proclaimed Hereticks, and solemnly anathematized, at certain times, in Rome, (as I take it:) So are the modern Grecians, though not for the same points of Doctrine, yet for others, and particularly, for not acknowledging the Supremacy of the Pope. And whereas the Re∣verend Archbishop doth endeavour to free them from such errours, so fundamental, as should make them no Church;* 1.84 the Au∣thor of the Labyrinth, will not hear of it: he will prove them, whatsoever any body thinks to the contrary, Hereticks, and disputes it at large. And elsewhere, that they are Schisma∣ticks; in more then one place. He is peremptory in it:* 1.85 We have proved (saith he long after:) that the Greeks Errour in that point, is fundamental, and sufficient to unchurch them. I make not any great wonder at it; for ordinarily they dare speak of them no otherwise, be∣cause of the Popes sentence. I said ordinarily: but they dare when they please. Witness he (no obscure man, Jacobus Goar, ordinis Fr. praedicat. S. Th. Lector; & in Oriente Missus Apostolicus:) who hath set out in Paris the Euchologium, in Greek and Latin, with Annotations. In his Epistle to the Reader, he speaks of the Greek Church, in these words: Una est Orientalis Ecclesia; una est Occidentalis: unum Deum authorem omnium suspicit, ac veneratur: pones externos venerationis ri∣tus, haec ab illa discrepat, quia unus ac idem operatur in ea Spiritus: Deus ergò Opt. Max. cum sit omnium, quem utraque Ecclesia profitetur, objectum, &c. I think this is plain language; it needs no Comment: a free and cleer vindication of the Greek Church. Yet I must acknow∣ledge, that the Author, in the beginning of his Epistle, was so wary, as to provide himself (if occasion should be:) a refuge, or evasion; by a cautious Parenthesis; de primaeva illius aetate; vel de sana, quae tempore hoc restat, heu modicâ licet, loquor: but it is apparent, that not∣withstanding this Parenthesis, he speaks afterwards of the Greek Church in general; visible, and conspicuous, and commonly known, under that name. No other construction (to make sence of them:) can be made of his words. Yet for further evidence of the matter, and the better to prevent the subterfuges of brazen confidence; I referr the

Reader to the Approbations, (the two last of the three:) there follow∣ing, where the same thing is averred, without any limitation or ex∣ception: Ut in Ecclesia Catholica (Ecclesia Orientalis, & Occidentalis, the two Churches before mentioned:) cum rituum diversitate, Sacra∣mentorum societatem, vel potius unitatem esse, omnes intelligant. But the other, more cleerly, and fully; Ut omnes sciant, Ecclesiam Orien∣talem & Graecam, suos adhuc primaevos ritus, fideliter asservasse, nec ad ejus splendorem aliud deesse, quam Romanae fidei unitatem, & cum Ro∣mano capite, adeò peroptatam unionem; quod annuente Iesu Christo, Ca∣pite Romanae, seu Graecae; praestabit istud opus, &c. Here the Greek Church is acknowledged a Church, wanting nothing to full perfection or splendor, but unity with the Roman Church, in the same Faith, and under the same Head; but acknowledged a Church nevertheless, un∣der one, and the same Head, Christ Jesus.

Is not this strange Doctrine? Can any thing be more contrary to the definitions of Popes, and Church of Rome; then that any Church should be acknowledged a Catholick Church, which hath no dependance from the Pope? Is not this the very Doctrine of Protestants, so rigo∣rously condemned in them, and for which, more then any other point, they are branded as Hereticks, and Schismaticks? Now let the Read∣er speak, what reckoning those men make of the Popes Infallibility, and his Definitions, that do so point-blank oppose them, and reject them, when they please. What the Author of the Labyrinth will re∣ply to this, were worth the knowing; if he be not one of them him∣self, who would have us to believe that; and that too, (to terrifie us, silly people, into a belief,) under pain of eternal damnation; which him∣self thinks himself too wise to do, truly and really. The Book to which those Approbations (made both by Readers, and Professors in Divinity:) was printed in Paris, A. D. 1647.

I have been the longer upon this point of Infallibility, and made choice of that (as was partly said already, in the Epistle to the Reader,) to insist upon it before any other: or indeed, in this, instead of all the rest: because it is the point (of late years, especially) most pressed, as the Point of Points, and Article of Articles, by the Patrons of the Ro∣man Cause. As therefore the Reverend and blessed Archbishop said well, speaking of them of that party, If this be true; (that the Pope is infallible:) why do you not lay all your strength together, all of your

whole Society, and make this one Proposition evident?* 1.86 For all controversies about matters of Faith are ended, and with∣out any great trouble to the Christian world; if you can but make this one Proposition good, That the Pope is an infallible Judge: So, the same rea∣son will hold with us Protestants also, why as many as deal in Contro∣versies, we should make it our chief business, to make it good and evi∣dent, that he is not.

Now truly, I think they have done what they can, they have so applied themselves to it, of late: and because (it seems) upon accu∣rate perusal of former grounds and arguments, they begin, (as we may guess probably:) to mistrust, or to despair: some of them have devised new ways, new props and fences to uphold this tottering building, which were not thought of before: or at least, disused and laid aside. Witness a Book entituled, Schisme Dispatcht: or a rejoynder to the Re∣plyes of Dr. Hammon, and the Lord of Derry, 1657. This man hath a way by himself, of his own devising; or reviving, at least: though he send us to the Dialogues of one Rusworth,* 1.87 which he styles The rich Store-house, of this kind of dealing. This I do not under∣stand: I never heard of such an author: and it is possible, the better to cry himself up, (which is the artifice of some:) he might borrow ano∣ther name. But be they two, or one: if they go one way, we may speak of them, as one, without wronging them. This author then; Popes, and Prelates, their testimonies he makes nothing of; nay, disclaims them; as insufficient proofs and evidences; (the bare words of a few particular men, so he speaks of them:) Scriptures,* 1.88 Fathers, and Councels (in this business) he slights, as much:* 1.89 calls them in scorn, wordish testimonies; and gives you his rea∣sons, why he doth not account them good evidences: But I stand not upon this (saith he, such kind of evidences:) having a far better game to play, &c. Oral Tradition, and the testimonies of Fathers of Families; is the onely thing wherein he placeth Infallibility: which to make good, he hath so many chimerical suppositions, and doth so please himself in his impertinencies, as must needs beget wonder, in case the man (as probably) be of any account, and reputation in the world. For my part, by this extravagant kind of dealing, I cannot but suspect of him, that he is one of the fraternity of the new (pretended) lights: no friend to ancient Books, or Learning. Woe to Colledges, and Libra∣ries,

if they should prevail: Atheisme, and Mahometisme will get well by it. Others, of approved worth and abilities, have met with this man; who I think have done him more credit, then he deserved. I do not judg his parts: but I account his way so ridiculous, that I should hardly have thought it worthy of an answer, or so much as notice.

But since I have taken notice of this man, who doth less concern us; I must not omit to acquaint the Reader, what is done by the Author of the Labyrinth, upon the same occasion: who, though not in the same way, yet he also (upon the same occasion) doth bewray not less diffidence and difficulty. For, being put to it by the Reverend Archbishop, he hath no remedy, but he must quit all those pleas of Scripture and the rest; (as necessary;) and wholly betakes himself to Motives of Credibility.* 1.90 He saith plainly, other Arguments are but ad hominem ex principiis concessis, against Sectaries: and that the Church, without the help of the same, is sufficiently proved to be infallible. Where the Reader may observe, how he confounds the Church, referring us to Bellarmine, de notis Ecclesiae; with the Churches Infallibility: it being one thing, to believe the being of a Church, upon some Motives of Credibility (in part:) and to believe, that the Church is absolutely infallible. And again, one thing, to be∣lieve the Infallibility of the Catholick Church, in fundamentals neces∣sary to salvation, and to the constitution of a Church: (which Pro∣testants do generally grant and believe:) and to believe the Infallibility of the Pope, as Head of the Church; the onely thing, (as we have ob∣served before) all these goodly words and pretensions drive at. A mar∣vellous Infallibility, and well worthy the first place among the Articles of Faith; which to maintain, the assertors of it are put to so much shuf∣fling and confusion.

Now should a man go about to examine his motives of probability, as he doth marshal them; sanctity of life, and miracles in the front; effi∣cacy, &c. I do admire, with what face, he durst mention sanctity of life, when so many of their own Authors have made known unto the world, the Epicurean, Atheistical lives of so many Popes, scarce to be parallel'd by any heathenish History: whose examples (as Su∣preme Pastors, and Governors of the Church upon Earth, according to their opinion:) must needs be more considerable, and of more in∣fluence,

to do good, or evil; generally: then the lives and sanctities of thousands, yea millions, which may not so easily be judged of: and if believed, of little consideration, in comparison. Besides I re∣ferre the Reader to what hath already been said, and shall be yet after∣wards, of the atheistical life of their Clergy, by their own con∣fessions.

And for miracles: what will he answer to so many Fathers, who so often disclaim them: and particularly, to St. Augustine: as when he saith: Romoveantur ista &c. that is: Let these, either fictions of lying men, or prodigies of deceiving Spirits, be removed.* 1.91 For all those things that are reported of that nature (by the Donatists and others who indeavoured to justifie their cause, by such proofes) either they are not true; or if in very deed, some wonders have been done by some hereticks, we ought to take heed of them the more; since our Saviour, after he had warned us &c. And a little after, What signes soever of that nature, are done in the Catholick Church, therefore they are (approbanda:) to be approved: (to be liked, and well thought of:) because they are done in the Catholick Church: but the Church is not thereby proved, (or manifested) to be Catholick (or, a true Church) because such things are done in her. This must be understood of miracles, since miracles generally ceased. For of the miracles of the Old Testament, or done by Christ and his Apostles, it is quite another case. And truly by what I have read; (who have been somwhat curious to satisfie my self in this point: whereof I may perchance, give a further account to the world, at another time:) and by what I have learned by the relation of others, I am clear of opini∣on, that the pretended miracles of the Church of Rome, where they make one good Christian (and it must be some of the meanest sort; or such at least, who naturally, are very credulous:) they make ma∣ny more atheists. I will not say, of the better sort of men; but, of the more rational, and intelligent, among them. I justifie them not; for their be other motives and considerations, to keep them in the Faith of Christ, if they made that their business. But we consider men, as men. For when they see so much imposture (though not com∣parable now, to what it was, before the reformation; men are som∣what more wary, now:) so much fraud and juggling; (witness many of their own books and Authors:) on the one side: so much creduli∣ty,

simplicity of others, who are ready to embrace any thing in that kind; who also build some kind of faith, and devotion upon such things, without further examination: it must needs make them who look no further into the true grounds of Religion, and hear mira∣cles (even of these times:) cried up, as a great Argument, or motive (as our Author would have it) of credibility; to think of Religion accordingly.

Yet, for all this, I do not deny; nay, I verily believe, that in all places, at all times, (more, or less) some strange things do happen from strange causes; which may be called miraculous, or supernatural events, or operations; for which no reason from the ordinary course of nature, can be given: which supernatural operations having been ac∣knowledged, not onely by the wisest, and most religious of former times; but by the best, and most learned naturalists of this learned age (even since the restoration of learning:) whose profession hath given them greatest advantage and opportunity, to understand the truth of these things: I must look upon it, as an argument of great ignorance, or sensuality (Plato, the Philospher, will give the reason, why sensuality:) in any man to make a question. So much for mi∣racles.

I might proceed to his third motive: efficacie, puritie, and excel∣lencie of Doctrine; (as he expresseth it:) and so to the rest; were it not too much besides my purpose. I shall only, in discharge of my conscience, such an opportunity offering it self, declare the apprehen∣sions (not without much grief) of my mind, and most retired thoughts: that this one point of Doctrine, the worshiping Images, as it is taught and practised (though practised much worse, then taught: yet, even taught:) in most places, where Popery is established; I verily believe, not in its self onely, damnable; but the great and abominable scandal of Chri∣stianity: for which, they that pretend to antiquity, may with as much colour, or reason pretend, that the Alcoran was the work of some one of the ancient fathers; or, an abstract of their Doctrine. By anti∣quity, I understand the first six hundred years. And my opinion is (by what I have found, at least) that they, Protestants I mean, that read Bellarmine and others, (if men of any judgement:) upon this point, will rather be confirmed in their opinion, if they doubted before; then otherwise. Nay it is able to make a man a Protestant, that is not;

to see what wayes they go, what shifts they are put to, to maintain so wretched a cause.

I have said to his Motives, as much as I mean: that which I aim at, is to make the Reader sensible, what a sad thing this Infallibi∣lity is, which by their Doctrine should be the chiefest Pillar of the Church; the ground, and foundation whereof, is so full of uncertainty and contradiction. But yet I must not pass by a manifest blasphemy (as I apprehend it) of this subtil Architect of the Labyrinth; (a right Title to his Book, had he but left out Cantuariensis:) where he saith: As therefore Moses, our blessed Saviour, and his Apostles,* 1.92 were proved infallible by their works, signs, and miracles, without Scripture: so is the Church (the present Church; for of the ancient and primitive, there is no question made) without help of the same, sufficiently proved infallible, by the motives of credibility: doth not he thereby ascribe as much to the miracles and holiness of the pre∣sent Church (the Roman, as he names it:) as to the miracles and ho∣liness of Christ and his Apostles? If this can be excused, I am well content: I would not make him worse, then he is; I profess, I do not see, how it can.

But to return to Infallibility, such as is avouched by the more sober: Of all points of Popery, which we believe erroneous; this we have reason to account the most odious, and intolerable; because by it, we are put off from all hopes of peace and reconciliation, in Religion: which they that do not wish heartily, and daily, privatly, publickly; according to their places and professions, pray for fervently; they know as yet but little of true Christianity. For what grief of heart must it be to a true Christian, to see the Church of Christ, the body of Christ, so divided, and set against it self; Church, against Church; member, against member; with all fierceness, and animosity: whereby so much advantage is given to Turks and Mahometans abroad; to Atheisme and profaneness, even where Christ is professed?

Truly, my judgment is: He that looks into many of our contro∣versies, not as they are stated, and aggravated by too many, on both sides: but into the true nature of the differences, as stated by the more sober and moderate: he will not apprehend such an impossibility of reconciliation, as the prejudice of some, and the interest of others, would make us believe: but confess, that in some points of greatest

consequence, the difference is more in words, and speeches; then in reality of matter: for which I appeal to the Acta Ratisbon. A. D. 1541. and what Phil. Melanchton, Bucer, and other German Divines, have written of the same subject. However, if not a perfect reconciliation; yet a charitable, and brotherly toleration, (so far as may stand with the peace and safety of every place:) though in a different external com∣munion, would be comfortable. But as long as this Doctrine of In∣fallibility, under the pretence whereof, grossest untruths and abuses are, and must be countenanced; what hopes? what possibility? Great reason therefore, that we should apply our selves most to that, and bend all our strength and forces against it, to make all men sensible, (if possible) how little there is of truth, or probability, in the opini∣on, at large: but to make it an Article of Faith, a Fundamental of Christian Religion, necessary to salvation, without which, all other Faith, or belief, is but Infidelity; how much of horror, and im∣piety!

But what then? if no Infallibility in the Church; (I would not leave any thing unanswered, that I think fit to be taken notice of:) what becomes of Christs promise, that he would build his Church up∣on the Rock, against which the gates of Hell should not prevail:) Is there nothing of Infallibility in this? Yes, surely, as long as there is a Church, a Catholick Church, there must be some infallibility: For if the Church fail, in the main fundamentals, it ceaseth to be a Church. The Rock upon which Christ promised to build his Church, according to the interpretation of most Ancients, is Christ himself; or which is equivalent,* 1.93 Peter's Confession of Christ, that he was Christ (the Messias:) the Son of the living God. This we say, is the Rock especially, and precisely, against which Christ hath promised, the gates of Hell shall not prevail: which hath been proved before, by many testimonies. And do not we see the accomplishment of it, in all parts of the world, where Christ is professed, with admira∣tion? Is it not strange, and (but through the mighty power of God,) incredible, that the Catholick Church, being so divided into so ma∣ny factions, and professions; so many different opinions, maintained with so much eagerness and animosity, as greater between greatest Ene∣mies can hardly be conceived; yet all agree (some very few excepted, if any:) in this main Fundamental; as here delivered by St. Peter,

and all the necessary consequences of it. The same Gospel every where; the same Creeds; and the same Canons of the four first Ge∣neral Councels; which Councels, (the first, third, and fourth at least) were chiefly called upon this very occasion, to settle the right belief (though sufficiently declared in the Scripture, in the substance of it, necessary to salvation:) of this Article of Christs person, against He∣reticks; so that it is not possible to devise any thing against the true Faith in that point, but may easily be found and convicted by what hath been determined by those Councels, and their Creeds. And I cannot look upon it otherwise, then as a Providence, that notwith∣standing the Church of Rome and their adherents, are so vehemently set for the maintenance of their opinions; whereof the chiefest, is the Popes Supremacy, and Infallibility, as grounded chiefly upon those words of Christ (before cited) Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it: they should never∣theless (as already intimated) with many ancient Fathers and Pro∣testants, apply them to the Creed and the contents of it. Quare Sym∣bolum fidei, quo sancta Rom. Ecclesia utitur, tanquam principium illud, in quo omnes, qui fidem Christi profitentur, necessariò conveniunt; ac fundamentum firmum & unicum, contra quod portae inferi nunquam praevalebunt, totidem verbis, &c.

So St. Hilary: Unum igitur hoc est immobile fundamen∣tum una haec est foelix fidei petra, Petri ore confessa,* 1.94 Tu es Filius Dei vivi; tanta in se sustinens argumenta veri∣tatis, quantae perversitatum quaestiones, & infidelitatis calumniae movebun∣tur. And in the sixth Book, Super hanc confessionis petram, Ecclesiae aedificatio est.—Haec fides Ecclesiae est fundamentum, per hanc fidem infirmae adversus eam sunt portae inferorum. So the Apostle himself, after he had told us, that the Church is the (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) the pillar and ground of truth: he doth presently after confine this truth, to that fundamental Article concerning Christ: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit: seen of Angels; preached unto the Gentiles; believed in the world; received up into glory: which doth b••iefly com∣prehend, what is more fully and plainly expressed in the Creeds.

We are to believe, that there will be a Catholick Church in the world, to the worlds end, whatsoever becomes of the Pope or Church of Rome, wherein this fundamental Doctrine, will be preserved, sound

and intire: and in the profession of this Doctrine, and acknowledg∣ment of a Catholick Church, under one Head Christ Jesus, the true unity of the Church chiefly consisteth. That of Campegius, whom we have mentioned once or twice already; (he was one of their own Bi∣shops:) Tria sunt, quibus non praeest, sed subest Papa: credenda; scilicet, articuli fidei: agenda, praecepta moralia; medicamenta, Sacra∣menta: His stantibus, quae tollere non potest Papa, non labitur fides, nec Ecclesia, licet ipse labatur. This is the summary (made by him∣self) of what is more largely delivered by him, Chap. 23. §. 18. of his Treatise, De potestate Romani Pontificis: wherein he shews himself very zealous for the Pope and his authority. But if it be so, as he saith, (as indeed it is:) what need is there of this Infallibility, so much con∣tended for? But we have said enough of that before. All we intend here, is this onely, what Infallibility it is, that we maintain, well wor∣thy the notice, and observation, (and of Gods providence therein, to∣wards his Church:) of all men; grounding it with antiquity upon the texts of Scripture, upon which they would ground the Popes Infallibility.

But without it, cry the Patrons of Infallibility, there will be Schismes and Heresies: no time, no place will be free: men will not know what to fasten upon. This hath some appearance of plausibility, or proba∣bility, at first hearing; but upon further search and inquiry, it hath nothing in it, but bare appearance. For first, Heresies there will be, there must be: He that hath assured us by his promise, that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against his Church; hath also foretold and wa••ned by his Apostles, Oportet esse haereses: There must be Heresies. Might we be as bold with God Almighty, as our Adversaries, (whose words have been produced at the beginning:) we might perchance reason with him, whether it were so suitable to his Wisdom, or Di∣vine Power, and Providence, to permit it. But God forbid we should take that liberty. We acknowledge his Goodness, yea and Provi∣dence, that he would warn us so long before, that we might not won∣der, or be dismayed at it: We think our selves bound to do what lieth in us, according to our places, and callings, to hinder it, to pre∣vent it: but withal, as much our duty, to submit with humility, when it doth so happen. Do not we see, how it fared in the beginning with Christs Church; in those infant-days of it, when, if ever, a man would have thought it should have been most secure? Neither

indeed, was infallibility, then, wanting; certain infallibility, as long as any of the Apostles lived; which was for a long time: yet for all that, when were there more divisions, more heresies; either for the fervency of the abettors, or for the quality of the Doctrine more scandalous and offensive? And at the same time, the persecutions of Infidels, as hot, and destructive: those, in the bowels of the Church; these, round about; raging, and spoiling; and every day threatning utmost ruine and destruction. And this, not for a short time, but for some hundred of years after Christ. Where was then Providence? if we should go upon the same grounds our ad∣versaries do; we might say. But providence we acknowledg; great providence; those very heresies, did conduce to the settlement of the Doctrine of faith; and the Church Catholick was enlarged by those persecutions and devastations: The blood of Martyrs was the seed of the Church: (as of old well observed:) and was not this a marvel∣lous providence, and an effect of Gods mighty power, and omnipo∣tency? Why then may not we trust the same power, and provi∣dence? Why must infallibility be granted; or all yeilded to be lost? But sure enough it is; peace and unity (goodly pretences to work upon them, that wish well; but had rather believe, then take the pains to search:) may be alledged; but they that have eyes and will make use of them, see well enough what it is, that is aimed at. Let supremacy be but granted (such as is required, and chal∣lenged:) I dare say, the Plea of infallibility, will soon be quitted; if the quitting of the one will conduce, to the obtaining of the other.

This of the Councel of Trent, I, a little before, took notice of; puts me in mind, of somwhat I observed long ago; and because I have the books by me; (which I wish I could say, of all I have had) at present, I will acquaint the Reader with it. It is not im∣probable, but some may be affected with it, as I was. I have a French Bible, in two volumns in 8^vo. printed at Rouen, in France, par Jean Crevel, au Portail des Labraires:) A. D. 1611. It is a tran∣slation, as the title page doth bear, of the Latin Bible set out by the Theologues, or Divines of Lovain, in Flanders. In this edition of the said French translation, after the license, or approbation; and a Latin Epistle of one Jacobus de Bay; who in the first lines doth men∣tion, Sacri Concilij Tridentini Patres; and doth also give the Read∣er

an account, that this translation out of the Latine was made, or at least, revised by some Theologues of Lovain: and after St. Jerome his Epistle to Paulinus, concerning the books of the Bible, which is usally set out before all Bibles of the Vulgar edition: there follow∣eth a small parcel, not consisting of above three or four pages (but in a small Print) entituled, A Summary of all, contained in the Old and New Testament. The contents of the Old, as there comprised, are not many: but of the New, they are long enough, and con∣tain many particulars, besides those that concern Christs person and his office. It concludes in these words: Other foundation then this, no man can lay in the Church of Jesus Christ, upon whom (or, up∣on which:) it is founded: so that St. Paul, doth wish him lost, sunk, and cast away by God (or, from God,) yea, though it were an Angel of Heaven, who shall preach any other Faith, or salvation, then by Jesus Christ, in the Catholick Church. There is not one word there, but a Protestant may subscribe unto, with a good conscience: Nay, had any Protestant Doctor been to make such a Summary, (as I doubt not, but some have had occasions) I do not know how he could do it more pertinently, more substantially, to satisfie the most judicious and intelligent of that profession. A strange thing, that for all this, we must be thought no better, then miscreants and infidels. But then comes in this new divised article, which certainly was hatcht in hell, and fostered by the suries of hell; by men, who care not how many they send to hell (according to that horrid speech of one of the Popes Vassals, entered into the body of the Canon Law, That though the Pope should be never so wicked and by his wicked example,* 1.95 should draw after him innumerable people and Nations into hell, there to be tormented aeternally; yet must not he be rebuked, or judged by man:) for their own ends, and the interest of that cause which they have undertaken: even, that new article we have spoken of be∣fore, in the words of the Author of the Labyrinth; That whatsoever is proposed by the Church as matters of Faith, is fundamental, &c. and that, If the Church, (that is the present Roman Church:) be disbelieved in any one point, there can be no infallible faith of any thing. So that if we cannot believe, that the Communion ought to be ad∣ministred in one kind onely; or that images are to be worshipped; indulgencies purchased with mony, to deliver souls out of purgatory; or

otherwise advantage the dead: and other like points proposed unto us by the Church of Rome, to be believed as matters of Faith; with like assurance, as we believe that Christ came into the world to save sinners; though otherwise never so orthodox, and in our lives, ne∣ver so upright and innocent (as men:) yet all this will do no good: to hell we must: the Pope who is infallible, hath so decreed it. But do all Romanists think themselves bound to believe it really?

What Sancta Clara did aim at, or who set him at work, or whether he himself (as most likely:) more then can be gathered by any man, from his own profession and manner of dealing, I know not. How∣ever this advantage we may make of his book, intituled Deus, Natura, Gratia: as the third edition Lugduni, A. D, 1631. which hath the approbation of so many Doctors of that side, doth represent it: We may learn by it, if we knew it not before, that it is not the opi∣nion of all the Roman Catholicks, that there is no salvation to be had in the faith and communion of Protestants: which is so confident∣ly affirmed by the Author of the Labyrinth. Yet to do him, and others of that confederacy no wrong, though sometimes they are very peremptory, and make great use of their confidence among women especially, and other illiterate people, when they maintain without exception, that there is no salvation for Protestants,* 1.96 that live and die in that belief: yet they can mince them at∣ter when they please, and change it into few, or none; as our Author speaks; and again, except in case of invincible ignorance: which doth much alter the case, and gives hopes to every Protestant, that is verily perswaded, nor ever made any question (though ever willing to be better informed, and in case of error, to embrace the truth;) of his being in the right way; that he may be one of those few.

But, since we are upon a considerable point, whereof, as I said be∣fore, the Romanists use to make great advantage; I desire to pause upon it a while, and take a view of those reasons given by the Author of the Labyrinth,* 1.97 why the Roman Church and Religion, must upon our own grounds, be the safer way to heaven. I am very confident the Reader will acknowledg, it was well worth the while, if not give me thanks, when I have done. First then, for the salvation of many, in their communion, upon our

grounds, he doth thus argue: In the Catholick Church, 'tis evident, that many being to depart out of this life, do receive the Sacrament of Pennance. These, according to che Doctrine of the Roman Church, are saved; because by vertue of this Sacrament they receive the grace of justification, whereby of Sinners, they are made the Sons of God, and Heirs of Eternal life: nor can they be denyed to be sav'd according to the Doctrine of Protestants, seeing they believe in Christ their Redeemer, they confide in Gods goodness and mercie, for the pardon of their sins; they truly repent of them, and truly purpose for the future, to amend their lives: which is all that Protestant Doctrine requires, to make men partakers of Christs sanctifying grace: and is also necessarily re∣quired by Catholicks, to make them fit subjects for the Sacrament of Pennance. Who can therefore doubt, but all such persons are saved, both according to the Doctrine of Catholicks and Protestants too? I say who can rationally, and with charity doubt, but that Catholiques (ge∣nerally speaking) being taught, that Faith, Hope, true Repentance for sins past, and a Purpose of amendment, are necessary to the due receiving of the Sacrament of Pennance; do not omit to exercise those acts, with all necessary diligence and sincerity, especially, when they are to prepare themselves, against the dreadful passage of eternity?

I have set down the passage at large, that the Reader might be the better satisfied. Now, if I be not mistaken, here is not dange∣rous onely, but horrible Doctrine delivered; giving such vertue to the opus operatum of the Sacrament of Pennance (as they call it) that whoever are made partakers of it, at the point of death, though they spend all their life, in all manner of debauchery, and villany: in open defiance of almighty God, and all laws of men, as long as they live; and by their example, and allurements, undoe never so many: Yet, if they receive but the Sacrament of Pennance, before they die; they are sure of justification, and life eternal: what encou∣ragement, may this be to the wickedest of men, to continue in wickedness? that I say not, to the best of men, to become wicked. I do not make any question, but Gods mercies may extend even to such; (God forbid, I should:) even at the last, if they repent them truly: but to promise them, to warrant them before hand, that by the bare (if all the rest doth infallibly follow) performance of the outward act, they may be sure, and secure, that God will

give them grace, truly, and effectually to repent: (for he doth not propose it conditionally, in case they truly reptnt, &c. but absolute∣ly, these; without any exception:) I would not willingly believe that the Church of Rome, would countenance such wretched Doctrine: Sure I am, it is very contrary to the Doctrine of Prote∣stants. We do not think that, to believe; or, to repent; truly, and really; is a meer voluntary thing; which a man, by any outward performance, hath at his command, when he will. We have not so learned the Scriptures. And I am sure it is contrary, (this of Pennance particularly, as always accompanied with true repentance, and justification; and consequently, salvation:) to the Doctrine of the ancients. Witness for one St. Augustine: (or whoever is the Author:) Si quis autem positus in ultima necessitate aegritudinis suae, voluerit accipere poenitentiam, & accipit, & mox reconciliabitur, & hinc vadit; fateor vobis, non illi negamus quod petit; sed non praesumi∣mus, quia bene hinc exit. Non praesumo, non vos fallo; non praesu∣mo. Agens paenitentiam, & reconciliatus cum sanus est▪ & postea, bene vivens; securus hinc exit. Agens poenitentiam ad ultimum, & recon∣ciliatus; si securus hinc exit, ego non sum socurus — poenitentiam dare possum, securitatem dare non possum. — Numquid dico, dam∣nabitur? Non dico. Sed dico etiam liberabitur? Non. Et quid dices mihi? Non praesumo: non promitto: nescio. What can be more contrary then this is, to the Doctrine of the Labyrinth? He saith plainly, and repeats it again, and again (to make men the more sensible) that a man at his death, if he desire it, may obtain pen∣nance; and may be reconciled, by the outward act: but whether really, effectually; he knows not, he doubts it; Yea, though the party be secure, he cannot be secure. So in the Church of Eng∣land, if any before death, upon confession, and profession of true sorrow, and repentance, receive absolution; we hope well, in the judgment of charity: nay, we make no question, if their repentance before God was true, and sincere: their trust and confidence in God, through Christ, and in Christ; by right application of his merits, and satisfaction; sound and perfect: no question, but all is well. But to pass an absolute judgment; we leave that to the judg and searcher of hearts: and have too much occasion to believe, that many; very many, (through Gods just judgment, for their long con∣tempt

of the means, and his grace:) are deluded at that time, per∣swading themselves that they repent, (it is likely, most do, after a sort, when they see they must die) and that they have made their peace with God; when God knows there is no such thing. The Author therefore of the Labyrinth, doth much wrong the Reverend Archbishop, when he would put it upon him, that he was of the same mind, for saying that a Donatist (an honest plain Donatist; those are the Bishops words; by which he means certainly, one that hath lived in the fear of God:) if he repent truly of his sins, &c. might be saved. This he might say; but the inference very false, that therefore he believed, a man might repent truly, when he listed. If this be the Romanists, their readiest way to salvation, because they trust to their pennance, at the point of death; when they can sin no longer; there is no occasion we should envy them: but rather wish heartily, God would make them more sensible of their errors and danger.

But now let us see (which indeed I did chiefly intend:) how he doth prove, very few; or no Protestants, living and dying in that faith, can be saved. And first of all (for which we must commend his moderation) he doth wave that part of our charge, or indictment,* 1.98 upon which most others go; that we are hereticks: Not that this is a point of our belief (saith he) that many Protestants shall be damned precisely, upon the account of being hereticks; because heresie is an obstinate, and wilfull error a∣gainst faith, which we cannot easily, much less infallibly determine, whose errors are wilfull: but, because there are none, or surely very few among them, but are guilty of mortal sin, against Gods commandements; and because the ordinary means they use and prescribe, is not according to our Principles, sufficient to expiate, and blot out such sin. 'Tis well known, that though Protestants to obtain salvation, believe in Christ▪ trust in his merits, and repent of their sin; (God be thanked so much is acknowledged:) yet they do it not purely out of a perfect love to God, so as to hate sin above all evils, meerly as it is an offence a∣gainst the Divine Majesty, and to prefer God and his holy comman∣dements, before our selves, and all other creatures (for this is a very hard and rare act, even among the best of Christians) but at best, upon inferior and lower motives (as the manner of most men is to do)

viz. in consideration of the Beatitude of Heaven, as it is their own par∣ticular good; or, for the avoiding of the pains of Hell, as it is their par∣ticular, and chiefest harm. Now according to our Doctrine, such kind of repentance as this, is no sufficient remedy, to blot out sin, unless it be joyn'd with the Sacrament of Pennance, viz. Confession, and Priestly Ab∣solution, &c. which Protestants reject. I say, without the Sacrament of Pennance, actually and duely received, all Catholicks hold, that neither Faith, nor Hope, nor any Repentance, or sorrow for sin, can save us, but that onely, which is joyned with a perfect love of God, whereby we are dis∣posed to lose all, and suffer all that can be imagin'd, rather then to offend God; yea, though there were indeed, neither Heaven to reward us, nor Hell to punish us; which being a thing so hard to be found; especially amongst such as believe a man is justified by Faith onely; it follows evidently, that in our Doctrine, very few, or no Protestants are saved. The conclusion therefore is undeniable, that our Church is a safer way to salvation, then that of Protestants.

I could not tell how to express him better, then in his own words; and my desire is, that he may be perfectly understood; that so the Reader may judge the better of what I have to answer. The matter we are up∣on, is of great weight; and the reason here used, not ordinary. The substance of all he saith, as I take it, is this: That which must bring us to Heaven, must be, either a perfect Love of God: &c. or the Sa∣crament of Pennance: viz. Confession, and Priestly Absolution, &c. but neither of these, (or very rarely:) is found amongst Protestants.

Here again, in the first place, I must say, If it be the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, that the opus operatum of the Sacrament of Pen∣nance, (so called) which they that have lived in perpetual contempt of God, and all Religion, may have before they die, if they desire it; is equivalent to that perfect kind of Love of God, by him described, which few in this world (he saith himself) attain unto; and equally available to salvation: it is a horrible Doctrine, tending to the over∣throw of all piety and godliness among men. I will not further dispute it now: let the sober Reader consider.

Secondly, It is false, that the Church of England (and I believe it may be said of most other Protestant Churches:) hath not the Sacra∣ment (take the word in a large sence, we should not contend about it:) of Pennance: viz. Confession, and Absolution. Witness that excellent

Rubrick of the Common-Prayer Book, in the Visit. of the Sick: Here shall the sick person be moved to make a special confession of his sins, if he feel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter▪ After which confessi∣on, the Priest shall absolve him (if he humbly and heartily desire it) after this sort. So, now; and so, before, in the former Books; with very little alteration of words.

Thirdly, Whereas he layeth it to the charge of all Protestants in general, that what they do, they do it not out of a perfect love of God, &c. had he said no more then perfect Love of God; we should not much oppose it; for who is it, that dares affirm of himself, or of any other, that he loveth God perfectly? There is indeed a new kind of Divinity, lately much cried up by some, commonly known by the name of Theologia Mystica: which doth pretend to great perfection. But of that Divinity; the original, and qualities of it, (as having more of delusion in it, then perfection:) we have had occasion to con∣sider elsewhere: whither I shall referr the Reader, if he please.* 1.99 But for such perfection of love, as he doth here describe, and doth appropriate to his own party; is it not a speech both presumptuous, and uncharitable in a high de∣gree, so peremptory to make Protestants incapable of it? Doth he not thereby arrogate unto himself, what is proper to God onely, to judge of the hearts of men?

But is it not strange, that he that could see the very thoughts and hearts of Protestants, whom he was less acquainted with: should be a stranger to the published speeches and declarations of his own friends, and fellows, in this business? For first, Cor. Jansenius, a man (were it but by the hatred, and opposition of the Jesuits:) well known: he layeth it to the charge of Protestants, this very thing, (the want whereof, is here objected unto them:) that by their Doctrine, they do not allow of any acts of justice, or piety, to be acceptable to God; which are grounded upon the consideration of a reward: (that is in ef∣fect, which do not proceed from pure love:) to which he doth oppose the exhortations of Christ, as Matth. 5.12. for great is your reward: and elsewhere. And the words of S. Paul, concerning Moses, Hebr. xj.26. for he had a respect unto the recompence of the reward. And of David, I have inclined my heart to perform thy statutes always: It is in the Original, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 unto the end: so our English translation; and du

Muis, the late learned Professor of the Tongues in Paris, likes it bet∣ter so: propter retributionem; so the Vulgar; which is not amiss; (Psal. xix.12. for in keeping of them, there is great reward: rhe same word in both places:) but that is not our business. As Jansenius, so Ludovicus Tena, a very famous man, upon Hebr. xij.2. Look∣ing upon Jesus — who for the joy that was set before him, &c. he also chargeth the Lutherans with the same, as contrary to sound Doctrine.

But again, Bellarmin, de Poenit. lib. 2. c. 17. Contritionem imper∣fectam, sive attritionem ex timore poenae ortam, bonam atque utilem esse: (that is the argument of the Chapter:) he layeth it to the charge of Luther, and other Lutherans; that they did once teach that contrition, which ariseth from a servile fear, made men but hypocrites; and ra∣ther added to their guilt, then took away. Himself, both by Scrip∣ture, and sundry testimonies of the Fathers; doth prove the con∣trary.

By this that hath been said, let the Reader judge, whether this man had any reason to deny Protestants, a possibility of Salvation, because they serve God onely with a servile fear: for that is the effect of his words. As for that he doth add, That without the Sacrament of Pen∣nance, actually and duely received, all Catholicks hold, that neither Faith, nor Hope, &c. yea, though there were indeed neither Heaven to reward us, nor Hell to punish us: &c. how this doth agree with Bellarmine; Contritionem charitate formatam, reconciliare hominem, etiam antequam actu Sacramentum suscipiatur: and again, Extra Sacramentum facile fieri posse, at sine confessione & satisfactione, per internam cordis poeni∣tentiam quis justificetur: but especially with that De Poenit. l. 2. c. 17. where speaking of divers kinds of fears, he hath these words: Tertius est timor poenae, quem Deus ipse peccatoribus comminatur, sed cum timore offensionis divinae, ita conjunctus, ut licet homo vehementer poenam ti∣meat; magis tamen offensionem Dei, quam poenam illam timeat. Atque hic timor servilis dici solet, secundum substantiam, sed absque servitu∣te, &c. and this he proves to have been the fear of holy men, and Saints.

And it is the same reason of that, which they call amor servilis, or mercedis intuitu; which many call scornfully, but foolishly, mercena∣ry love. What our Author thinks of it, he hath told us. But how

will he reconcile himself to the Councel of Trent (could he be igno∣rant of it?) which peremptorily doth define this Doctrine, to be contrary to true Religion; and doth anathematize them, that make it sinfull for a justified man to have a respect, in what he doth well, unto the reward? Hear their own words: Unde constat eos orthodoxae religi∣onis doctrinae adversari—qui statuunt in omnibus operibus justos pec∣care, si in illis suam ipsorum socordiam excitando—cum hoc, ut im∣primis glo••ificetur Deus, mercedem quoque intuentur aeternam. So Ses∣sion 6. c. 11. but ch. 16. of the same Session, with allegation of other Scriptures, more fully: and then in the 31. Canon of the said Session (what will the Labyrinth-maker say to this?) Si quis dixerit justi∣ficatum peccare, dum intuitu aeternae mercedis bene operatur, anathe∣ma sit.

Truly, my opinion is, and this opportunity being given me, I pro∣fess it; they that will not allow us to have a respect unto the reward, (whether Pap••sts, or Protestants: for I cannot but acknowledge, that I have heard such things delivered out of Pulpits, more then once:) be∣sides, that they must forbid us the reading of the Scriptures, where it is so often recommended: they would do well to take it into consi∣deration, that this one speech of one of the ancient Masters of the Jews, as it is recorded in their Talmud, Be not ye as hired servants, that serve their Masters for a reward, &c. was that which first gave ground, to the Sect of the Sadduces, who made that construction of their Masters words, that if no reward must be looked for, or aimed at; then none to be believed, to either good, or bad; and consequent∣ly, no resurrection, no immortality. Such Doctrine, I doubt, is more likely to produce such fruits, then to advance true piety, and godli∣ness. As for some sayings of ancient Fathers, that may seem to coun∣tenance it, they may easily be answered; and it will appear a great mistake, if the matter be throughly examined, and the homonymie, or ambiguity of words cleared. I have done it elswhere: but that is not our business here.

I did think it well worth the Readers notice, and consideration, up∣on what account (chiefly) the Author of the Labyrinth, whom we must suppose to be no mean man by his undertaking (if he were not set on, and made choice of by others; as is very probable) against such a work; doth maintain the Roman Faith, to be the safest way; the

plea of heresie against Protestants, being laid aside, and in his judgment, not pleadable, or justifiable: in which account, if our Author (as I think he is:) be grosly, and fouly mistaken; then I hope they will be more wary hereafter, how they deny Protestants heaven, and in∣gross it to themselves, and their party.

As for his second Argument, whereby he doth undertake to prove, that Protestants standing to their own Principles, neither have, nor can have any thing necessary for salvation; and this upon this ground, be∣cause their faith is not firme, sure, and without doubt, or hesitation; or in a word infallibly sure: because it hath been the cheifest subject of all our debate hitherto, to prove their infallibility, a meer ficti∣on; and that we stand upon the same ground, as antiquity hath done: it will be needless further to insist upon it. When they have answered what is opposed against them, and alledged for us, out of Vincentius Lirinensis, (which one Author having had that approbati∣on from their side, generally, as it hath had; they cannot in reason refuse, to be tried by him:) and others; we shall think our selves bound to give them a further answer.

These two arguments, in case it be not yeilded, (as he saith ma∣ny Protestants will not) that salvation may be had in the Roman Communion, our Author thinks sufficient, to prove the Roman faith, the safer of the two. But in case it be yielded by Protestants, that salvation (which they will not yield to us in ours:) may be had in their Church, then without any more adoe, he thinks that, a very clear, and undeniable proof, that theirs is the safest way. Now be∣cause I am one of them, who verily believe, and think it very ne∣cessary, (as afterwards we shall have more occasion to argue:) to be believed by all men, who build their faith upon certain grounds: that the Roman Church, is yet, a true Church,* 1.100 as to the essence of a Church; and consequently, that it is possible for them, who erre ignorantly, with other limi∣tations fully declared by the Reverend Archbishop; to attain salvati∣on in the said Church: I think fit to say somewhat to that too, be∣fore I leave this argument, which to them that content themselves with a meer superficial view (whether for want of parts, or care:) ap∣peareth most plausible; and which our adversaries, make most use of, as their best weapon.

* 1.101Now first of all, to take away much of the plausible∣ness of it, the Reverend Archbishop, as divers had done before, doth well represent by a clear testimony out of St. Augustine, that this very way, those notorious schismaticks, the Donatists of old, did go. Come to us, come (said the Donatists:) all ye that will not perish for ever, with your false teachers. Would you be sure, that we are in the right, and they in the wrong? Behold, they acknowledg our Baptism, to be a true Baptisme: we deny theirs to be so. How sacred and holy must that be, the holiness whereof is acknowledged, even by sacrilegious enemies? Is not this the very argument, and the same ground of plausibleness? The Donatists denied the Baptisme of Catholicks to be a true baptisme; and did actully rebaptize them, that came to them from the Catholicks: the Catholicks did acknow∣ledg the Baptism of the Donatists to be true baptism; and did not re∣baptize them that came from them: upon this, the Donatists ground their advantage, that their communion must be the safest way to heaven. Let any body tell me, where the difference is; or acknow∣ledg, the advantage they make of our grant, is of no more force then was the grant of the Catholicks, which those Schismaticks made such boast of. If any shall except, that it is not the same case, because, what is granted by us to the Romanists (a possibility of sal∣vation in their Church:) and that which was then granted to the Donatists (the truth, or validity of their baptism, which they denied to the Catholicks) is not the same thing: I must answer, that it is a very frivolous exception. For though it be not altogether the same thing in express termes: yet in substance of matter, they are reducible to one thing; in this question especially: and there is as much ground of advantage, or plausibleness in the one, as there is in the other. The ground is the same; and the way of arguing the same. The question between the Donatists, and Catholicks of that time, was, whether it were a sufficient proof, that the Baptism of the Donatists was the truest of the two, and the safest way to heaven, because theirs was acknowledged true by the Catholicks; not, the Catholicks true, by them. Now the answer to this, was; that the argument did not hold, because there were other things in question be∣tween the Catholicks and Donatists, of great consequ••nce to salvation, besides Baptism: wherein if the Donatists were convicted, or sufficient∣ly

proved to be out of the way, their Baptism (except upon plea of ignorance:) could do them no good. The question between the Romanists, and us, is about possibility of salvation, in either Church. We grant a possibility in theirs; they not in ours. Therefore theirs the safer way, by our grant? No: For as we grant a possibility in ge∣neral; so we limit it, to such and such; and in such a case onely: so that we make it a matter of great hazard, and peril, at the least, not therefore the safest way, (certainly;) by our grant, and according to our sup∣positions, as the Author of the Labyrinth would infer: nor, at all the safest way, (let them make the most of it:) except they can prove, that our limitations, and restrictions, are groundless; which is the main original business; to wit, which Church is orthodox; and which guilty of schism and heresie.

Now to this parallel of the Donatists, and Romanists in this business of salvation; which takes away much of the plausibleness of the argu∣ment, in their hands; and turnes the advantage on our side rather; (though they that are wise men, will not much rely upon such ar∣guing:) because we may say, they imitate the Donatists (those arch∣schismaticks:) therein: to this parallel, I say,* 1.102 the Author of the Labyrinth, taking occasion of some other use the Archbishop makes of the Donatists words, and arguments, doth an∣swer somewhat, and will needs prove, that the orthodox Catholicks, for all that, (notwithstanding that plea of the Donatists:) might not embrace the baptism of the Donatists, and their communion with it; (that is, in effect, forsake the Catholick Church:) without sinning. This I think he might very well have omitted; there was no need at all of it. Yet to make somewhat of it, We suppose (saith he) Protestants grant, a man may live and die in the Roman Church; and that none of his errors shall hinder his salvation, whatsoever motives he may know to the contrary. Now upon strange suppositions, strange things may be built: but as the suppositions are but imaginary, so the build∣ing. What ground, I pray, could he have for such a supposition, so contrary to all that is delivered by the Archbishop, in this business of salvation? himself doth afterwards acknowledg the impertinen∣cy of his proceedings, (You will say perhaps &c.) and hath no o∣ther way to help himself, but by referring us to his first argument, (the impertinency, and invalidity whereof, I hope we have suffici∣ently

proved) as not to be answered or doubted of. But afterwards, when the Reverend Archbishop doth again insist upon it, and quote their very words, our Author, or Labyrinth architect, doth endeavour a more direct answer, but cannot tell how, not here neither, except he may take it for granted, that the Protestants; at least, the most learn∣ed,* 1.103 most wise, and most considerable among them, do grant them pos∣sibility of salvation, notwithstanding any thing that we believe, or do: which, as he doth here deliver it, is most notoriously false. For this doth amount to an absolute general grant: whereas, that which is granted, is but to some, and with danger, and peril. So that the parallel, stands firm, and in full force, to what it was inten∣ded.

And now we have done with their arguments, whereby they would prove their communion the safer way; because many have been much taken with this kind of arguing; I will see how we can requite them, with somewhat of that nature. But I will be but short; rather hint, then argue.

That which is least doubted of, may (plausibly) be thought the safest. All that Protestants do positively believe as necessary to salvation, is granted and believed by the Romanists. But the Roma∣nists do believe many things as necessary to salvation, which the Pro∣testants do believe to be false, and inconsistent (of themselves with∣out divers suppositions) with salvation: Therefore &c.

Again: Without baptism, (ordinarily) there is no salvation. Want of the Sacrament also of the body and blood of Christ (in them that are capable:) is a great want, to say no more. But by the doctrine of the Church of Rome, concerning the intention of the Priest, no Romanist can be sure, that he is baptized; or ever received the com∣munion. Therefore &c.

Again: Protestants do wholly rely for salvation, upon the me∣rits of Christ, and mercy of God: The Romanists (Councel of Trent &c.) adscribe much to the merits of good works: But Bellarmine their great Champion, doth confess, that it is safest to trust wholly to Gods mercy: if therefore Bellarmine be in the right, the Protestants, (at least in this one point of highest consequenee:) is the safest way.

Again; charity is the chiefest of Christian vertues, without which

no man can be saved. But there is more charity, apparently, to be∣lieve that they that worship Christ as a Saviour; believe of him and other mysteries of faith, what is written in the Gospels, or in the an∣cient Creeds; and apply themselves in sincerity of heart, according to their powers, to keep his holy commandements, &c. may through his merits, be saved: then to deny (no article of Faith obliging:) a possibility of salvation to such; which, probably, may proceed from want of charity. Therefore &c.

Again: By the Roman faith, when a man hath done all that he can, yet still he is left uncertain, whether he shall be saved, or no: but by the Doctrine of most Protestants (though I will not justifie all that hath been written by some Protestants, in this point:) a man that liveth in the true faith, and serveth God, with an upright heart, to his power; may be sure of his salvation. Therefore &c.

Divers other things of the same nature may be found, which may plausibly be alledged, and with as much truth; as, that ordinary plea, so much insisted upon, that the Roman communion must be the safer way, because a possibility of salvation is granted in it, by Protestants: which possibility, rightly understood, with all its limitations, and re∣strictions; doth in very deed evince the contrary; that it is not the safer way. I have been in a Labyrinth; yet I hope, not erred much from the main purpose. But I am now got out.

What I had to say concerning infallibility, is now at an end. If it doth appear clearly, by what hath been said, that it is not, neither directly, nor indirectly, by any necessary consequence, grounded ei∣ther in reason, or Scripture, or consent of antiquity: but rather the contrary: which nevertheless is proposed unto us by our adversaries (and that too, sufficiently cleared:) as a main fundamental article of religion: then, upon this, we may ground certainly, that they that have erred in this main point, of all other, most inconsistent with reformation of Doctrine; might erre as well in divers other points, of D••ctrine and discipline, wherein reformation hath been required, and thought necessary. What those points are, there will be no need, neithe•• is it my intention, to give a particular account of at this time: the point of Supremacy, and Infallibility (as already said) if so grosly mistaken, and rigidly obt••uded, as we pretend to have clearly proved, is enough (that done) to shew the necessity of a reformation, as our

title doth promise. Neither did we intend any more, at the first. Yet since it is so fallen out that two particulars; the forbidding of marriage to men in orders; and mutilation of the sacrament; though I had no design to insist upon those particularly, more then any others; yet since it is so fallen out, occasion offering it self, that so much hath al∣ready been said of them; for the better satisfaction of the Reader; I shall be willing to make up here, before I proceed to other mat∣ter, what may be wanting to either; and that is, to the first, the forbidding of Marriage; of which somewhat was said at the beginning. Of this later, the mutilation of the Sacrament, though there will be occasion again, before we have done, and much more might be added to that; yet I am clear of opinion, that they that will not acknowledg by what hath been said, that the forbidding of the Cup, in the judgment of Pope Gelasius, is à sacrilegious mangling and abusing of that Sacrament; if an Angel from heaven; or the present Pope now sitting, should averre it to their faces, and upbraid them for their obstinacy; they would study some eva∣sion.

As for the first, the marriage of Priests, and Clergy men; because I did not think fit, to stay the Reader so long, upon a subject that came in by the by, onely, and as it were, accidentally, in that place: I shall here adde somwhat, though but very little, in comparison of what the subject will bear; Yet more I am confident, then the Au∣thor of the Labyrinth, or any other, that will deal plainly (let them try it, when they will) shall ever answer. I will not fetch the bu∣siness so high, as from the Scriptures, what was the Doctrine, or practice of the Apostles, so far as may be gathered by their writings: I shall content my self, with what is granted by Cardinal Perron, and others,* 1.104 that in the time of the Apostles, Bishops might be married, or married men might be Bishops (so they did not marry after they were Bishops:) and use their wives freely. Whether this continued in the Primitive times and divers ages after; or no; shall be my inquiry. Secondly; whether the forbidding of marriage to Clergy men, hath not been the occa∣sion of far greater evils, (so judged of by antiquity) which have been wickedly and irreligiously countenanced; or at least, tolerated, by the Court of Rome.

To our purpose then: there is no body, but hath heard of the Coun∣cel of Nice, the first General Councel, and that of most authority with all men: what was done there, or rather forborn to be done (for it was then proposed, and followed by some, that it might be made a law, that no married men should be admitted to holy orders:) upon the advice, and grave remonstrance of Paphnutius; (a man of great fame, for his holiness of life, and sufferings for the faith; who him∣self was never married:) ancient Historians are very particular, in the relation of it, and all agree in their relation: and the relation is entred into the body of the Canon law, with many other particu∣lar records, and attestations of the same nature: so little doubt was then made of the truth of the story. But this was such a dead blow to the cause, which must be maintained, what shift soever is made: that Turrianus, first, as I take it; then after him, Baronius, and Bellar∣mine; and others since, have made bold to question it, and to deny it to be a true story. Let no man wonder at it. There were a sort of men anci∣ently, whose profession was, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (in their own words:) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and on the contrary: that is, in the Poets expression, Qui facere assuevit, Patriae non degener artis, Candida de nigris, & de candentibus atra:) to make white to appear black; and black, to appear white. It was objected to Socrates the Philosopher, by his enemies; but most wrongfully: It is most true of those men, then, and since that, called Sophists, who made it their study (and it is almost in∣credible, to what perfection many attained) to discourse of any sub∣ject, suddainly; to maintain any cause; good, or bad; true, or false; it was indifferent to them: they would undertake, if you would have them, to commend Thersites for the most accomplished man, even for those things, that Homer made him infamous, that ever was: that snow, was black; and fire, cold: and such things have been at∣tempted by latter wits too; but, I doubt, meanly performed, in comparison. Julian his commendation of baldness, though full of excellent learning otherwise, hath much of that strain. Let us not therefore make a wonder of it, if Baronius and Bellarmine, who were sworn to the cause, and made it their study a long time; have ventured upon things of the same nature. But truth, is truth for all that: and Sophistry (to say no more) is sophistry. And they that will take pains (with some help, if they want it;) may be satisfied,

and plainly discern the false play and juggling, that is used in the business, by those great Champions of the Pope. He that will be fully satisfied (in this particular we are upon:) let him read Geor. Calixti, De conjugio sacerdotum, tractatum. He shall find there all their arguments (if they deserve the name) with candor, and ingenuity, as well as diligence, particularly sifted, and solidly answered. He was (he will find him, if I be not much mistaken) a learned, judicious, moderate man, as any that of late, hath meddled with controversies: That is my judgment of him. I shall not therefore need to say much of this business: that which I chiefly intend, I do not find in him. But yet somwhat (though it may be found elsewhere) for their sakes, that have not all books, at command; or perchance not the leisure, to make use of them they have.

That the relation then, we have spoken of, may be blasted and ex∣ploded, if possible; Socrates the Historian (who they say, is the ori∣ginal avoucher of it:) his credit is called in question. Divers things are laid to his charge, wherein it is pretended, he is willfully false, or ignorantly mistaken. This indeed, is the way to perswade men, there is no truth in the World. For if this be enough, because some things may be objected, to question all; whom shall we believe? And suppose he were the first; they were not babies, nor fools (so many after him:) that trusted him: but men whom we trust (Pro∣testants, and Papists) in very great matters. But see the blindness of prejudice, and partiality. In other things, that are not contro∣verted, but especially, where some advantage (plausibly) may be made of his words; I know no Author more frequently alledged: and then his authority is good, and current. I know there be other objections too, against the relation in Socrates: but they are all an∣swered: I shall not here take notice of them: What need we, though they were not? Gelasius Cyzicenus of whom Perron in a place, where he doth make some use of his authority, for the Pope, doth observe, that he lived (when the Cardinal wrote) above eleven hundred years ago, and the very next age after the Councel of Nice: this man hath written an abstract of the acts of the said Councel: I know not of any exception, against his fidelity: we are beholding to the Va∣tican Library, for the Copy; printed at Rome, and at Paris: this man hath the very same relation; with little alteration of words:

which is a clear argument, that Socrates and Sozomen (who wrote at the same time almost) had it, whence he had it: and he professeth, he had collected his abstract, from the very Acts, then extant: and what can be more certain? Or must we prove, that the sun is up in our hemisphere, at noon day?

I said, they deliver it, Socrates and Sozomen, who lived together: and Gelasius Cyzicenus; the next age after: (not to mention Cassio∣dore, who lived about the same time, or a little after: nor Suidas whose age is not certainly known: nor Niceph. Callistus, who lived not much above 300 years ago:) with little, or no alteration of words. Yet the diligent Reader may observe: that some things are expressed more fully, and clearly, by Gelasius and others, then by Socrates: as that particularly, he should say, he feared, that by that law, chasti∣ty would be violated, (for that he accounted, the lawful company of man and wife, Chastity:) so Socrates and Sozomen; but Gelasius ad∣eth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. good and commendable chastity: not onely by men only, but by women also, if they should be bereaved of their husbands. Which (if nothing else) doth make it improbable, that they had it from So∣crates. But we have Gabriel Vazquez, for learning and judgment, not inferiour to the best of that side; who doth not onely acknowledg the truth and sincerity of the relation, questioned by Baronius, and Bellarmine: yea, and Perron, three Cardinals; but doth very freely and ingenuously assert it, and vindicate it, answering the objections (or rather cavils:) made against it, by others: for which he is deservedly commended, by him, whom I commended but a little be∣fore, Georgius Calixtus.

Now the business in agitation at the Councel, was plainly this, Not whether married men, in general, should be allowed to be Priests or Bishops: (for then we had been told, that such were allowed, up∣on condition they would forbear their wives, from that time; and so in∣deed it was in the Latin Church afterwards:) but, Whether they that had wives, should be allowed to live with them, to lye with them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉:) and the Councel of Gangres (a Councel of great an∣tiquity, and authority:) doth pronounce Anathema, to them, that refused to receive the Communion at the hands of such: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: conjugati: is their words. But here again our Sophisters play their parts. They tell us, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is a praeterit, not a present: which

therefore must be translated, qui uxores habuit; not, habet: he that had wives; not; he that now hath. Could we presume that all, that may read this, have some knowledg of the Greek; it would be very needless, if not ridiculous, to make any answer. But be∣cause the contrary is more probable; it is well, that this very word is in the New Testament, and there translated (as of necessity it must:) by the present, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. iis autem qui matrimo∣nio juncti sunt, praecipio: So the vulgar: which is sacred with them: yet I doubt, whether that would serve the turn; did not that which follows of necessity require a present: And unto the mar∣ried (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) I command;* 1.105 yet not I, but the Lord: Let not the wife depart from her husband. But besides, if there were any ambiguity in the word; yet the matter of the Canon doth require a present tense, or signification. For the Canon was made against men of that age, who generally would not allow husband and wife to live to∣gether; and avoided the company of such; but not of those who had been married and continued widdowers. Besides, Socrates doth ex∣press the matter by the present 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. and Balsa∣mon upon the place 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. As for the Latin tran∣slations, some follow the present tense; and so it is entred into the body of the Canon Law, by Gratian: some render them by the prae∣terit, through ignorance, or of purpose, to fit it to the Roman cli∣mat: though even in the Latin some praeterits include the present al∣so: as they that translate uxorem duxit: which is as proper of them whose wives are alive, as of them whose wives are dead.

After these, (to pass-by many things between) let us see, Whether they come off better with the Canons of the Councel of Constantino∣ple in Trullo: which was an Apendix or second part, of the sixth Oe∣cumenical Councel. The Graecians called it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Balsamon gives the reason. It hath always been of as great authority with them, as any other (for so they maintain it) General Councel: and many Canons of it, are received into the body of the Canon Law, by Gra∣tian. And certain it is, though generally it was not received by the Roman Church; that Pope Hadrianus, the first of that name, did high∣ly approve of it; or egregiously dissemble with Therasius, Patriarch of Constantinople, (and indeed Baronius saith little less, if you will believe him) in a letter to him, where he speaks very honourably of some

Canons of it. Besides that, the seventh Oecumenical Councel, (in so great esteem, with all worshippers of images) did allow it. How∣ever, both Baronius and Bellarmine, do what they can to undermine the authority of it. Now by those Canons, Bishops indeed were se∣questred from their wives, if they had any; Priests, Deacons, Sub-Deacons, were allowed to marry? if they pleased, before ordination; and after ordination, if then married, they are so far from being se∣questred from their wives, that if upon pretence of piety, they did re∣fuse to live with them, or would put them away, they were suspended from their charge for a time; and if they persisted, to be deposed. So were those (Bishops or Patriarchs) who should attempt (conjunctione cum legitima uxore, & consuetudine privare, as the words are translated in the Paris edition of Balsamon) to bereave them (Priests, or Deacons) of the society, or company of their lawfull wives; they also to be de∣posed. By the same Canon the Roman Church is noted, as having a contrary order, not agreeable to Apostolical constitutions. And this very Canon, is in the body of the Canon Law: Dist. 31. Cap. 13. But, however the Councel had so ordered it, as we have said: yet it was not constantly observed. For in the days of Leo, the Philoso∣pher, (so surnamed:) Emperour of Constantinople, who reigned some two hundred years after; Priests, and Deacons usually, as doth ap∣pear by a Constitution of the said Emperor against it, had two years liberty after ordination, to consider, whether they would marry or no.

That which I have more to say of this business in general, is: Ca∣lixtus doth cite divers Authors, who wrote before the Reformation, but of no small credit to this day among the Romanists; and among others, Thom. Aquinas; who all agree, that this Prohibition of mar∣riage, to men in holy Orders, is meerly juris positivi, and Ecclesiasti∣ci, which therefore may be abolished, or repealed, by the same pow∣er by which it was enacted. But even since the Reformation he doth name some, who have made bold to maintain the same. To those I adde, Tho. Compegius Bononiensis Episcopus Feltrensis, who hath writ∣ten a book De caelibatu sacerdotum non abrogando: and very earnest he is for it, that it ought not. Yet even he, doth confess, that for the first four hundred years, there was no such law, that obliged any in sacred orders: that Syricius, Pope of Rome (which hath been the

constant and common opinion, before this late breach:) was the first Author of it, and that it may be repealed. Besides, he quotes Abbas Siculus (insignem Canonum interpretem, as he stiles him: Panormitanus, he means;) whose judgment is: That it were very expedient for the saving of souls, that they that would contain and merit (by works of supererogation, he means:) might be left to their liberty: but they that would not, might marry: since that experience hath made it apparent, that the contrary of what was intended by the law of Continence, hath in∣sued; for that they do not live spiritually, or purely; but, to the great pre∣judice of their souls, are contaminated (or, defiled) with unlawful copu∣lations; whereas they might live chastly with a wife, Besides, he doth put a case in law, how it may fall out, according to the rules and Maximes of the Canon Law, and definitions of Popes upon it; that a Priest may be married, and compelled to live with his wife.

Now I ask; if the marriage of Priests and others of the Clergy be not unlawful, in it self; which is generally granted: and the prohi∣bition of it be the occasion of so much scandal and wickedness, as even among heathens would be abominable: and this too, certain and acknowledged; witness the account we had before, from Pe∣trus Damianus; the complaints of so many others; Zealous Papists, otherwise; in all ages: for this seven or eight hundred years, at least; besides daily experience: is not this prohibition, a sin, a wickedness not to be excused, but by them that care not what becomes of the world, and all religion; so they have their wills and ends? But what if Popes, even by their laws and definitions, make that, which in its own nature, and by the law of God, is horrid and abominable; lesse criminous, and more tolerable, then that which by the law of God is acknowledged lawful? Yea, we might say, honourable? Is not fornication in its own nature, and in any man, a great and scandalous sin; and if notorious, and without bounds, able, and like∣ly to draw the curse of God, and his severest judgments, upon any nation? How much then more horrid and intolerable, and of more dangerous consequence in Clergy-men, whose function is holy; whose persons are in some degree sacred; and their lives to be a rule and example unto others? What is horrible, and abominable, if this be not?

By the Canon of the Concilium Neocasariense, a Priest, if he mar∣ry

(after Ordination) he is to be deposed. Well, be it so. It is enough for us to know, that in the time of the Apostles, there was no such Law: and that Popes have dispensed, even with Bishops, that were married, and had children: whereof we have a notable example: Dist. 28. c. 13. De Syracusana: by the tenor of which Dispensation, it doth not appear,* 1.106 but that they might still live together; as they did in Africa and Libya, when the Canons of the Sixth Councel were made: However, it doth clearly appear, that they did live together (as Gratian there observeth) when the party be∣fore his election, was but Priest, or Deacon. Sive ergo presbyter, sive dia∣conus, sive subdiaconus fuerit; apparet quod in praefatis ordinibus con∣stituti, licitè matrimonio uti possunt, saith Gratian. But this by the way onely. By the said Canon, a Priest (as I said before) that marri∣ed after Ordination, was to be deposed: but if the same were con∣victed of fornication, or adultery; by the same Canon, it was not deposition, that would serve his turn: he was utterly to be cast out of the Church (as an Infidel:) or to do solemn pennance, before he could be reconciled to the Church: which made him incapable, even of the lowest charge in the Church, for ever. The words in Gratian are translated: Quod si fornicatus fuerit, vel adulterium commiserit, ex∣tra Eccelsiam abjici, & ad poenitentiam inter Laicos redigi oportet. It is in the Greek, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Some are of opinion it should be read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: and by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, would understand, mysteria:* 1.107 Sa∣cramenta: as though the Communion onely were for∣bidden to such by those words. But besides that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is not very usual; and that it doth not agree with that which followeth, to do publick pennance, which in those dayes, such was the condition of that pennance, was the highest punishment the Church could inflict for greatest crimes: Balsamon,* 1.108 who was best acquainted with the language, doth ex∣plain it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉· That,* 1.109 he shall be ejected from the company of the faithful. It doth also appear, by St. Basil, in his Canons; where the sentence is reversed, or mitigated, in these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, But in the 32▪ Canon; as also in the Canon of the African Church, cited by the same Balsamon, there may be some question of the sence. But we may not digress so farr.

That was the Religion of those dayes: how is it now? How the Church of Rome dispensed, or connived in most scandalous times; (and where such dispensation or connivance is, how can it be expected other∣wise, at any time?) we heard before from Petrus Damianus, the Popes Agent. A further account we might have had of the state of those times from the said Damianus, had it not been suppressed by the Pope, as we read at large in Baronius: and yet by that account which is in Baronius, I do not know it could be much worse in Sodome and Gomorrha. Now let us hear another case from authentick Records; and then tell me in good earnest, what account the Pope makes of Fornication, and by consequent of the Scriptures; and what we may think of them, that maintain such Doctrine.

The Archbishop of Lyons, Legat to the Pope in those places; asks counsel of Innocentius the Third, what course he should take with those Priests, that had more concubines then one. A question of hard resolution in those times it seems; we may guess what times they were. But that the Archbishop struck at, was this: Who they were, that were anciently called digami, or bigami; is not certain, or generally yet agreed upon, among the Learned. There be three Interpretations of the word, (nay, no less then seven, reckoned by the Civil Law∣yers:) but two opinions onely that are much questioned: whether they, that had married two, or more Wives successively; or, they, that had divorced from one, and married another. Both opinions have very learned abettors; and it is not easie, absolutely to deter∣mine, which is the truest. Hard indeed it is to believe, that they should be made incapable of holy Orders by the ancient Church, who had married two Wives lawfully, one after another: or to believe, that that was S. Pauls meaning, 1 Tim. 3.2. But it will not much con∣cern us to know, as to our present occasion. Whoever they were, that were intended; it is certain they were declared irregular, and in∣capable of ordination. Now, the Archbishop, it seems, had some thoughts, that Priests (or Bishops perchance: but they must not be named: yet Pet. Damianus, in his Letter to the Pope, upon the like occasion, made no scruple to name them: neither is the unworthiness of men, any just exception against the holiness of any place, or the re∣verence that is due unto it; whereof we have many examples in the Scriptures:) who kept divers Concubines at one time, might be

brought within the compass of irregularity, under the notion and title of the Bigami. This he proposeth to the Pope; without whose au∣thority, it was in vain to think he could bring any such thing to pass: witness Petrus Damianus, and what opposition he found, when he at∣tempted, though authorized by the Pope, to apply some remedy to the exorbitancie of those times. But the Pope was not of that mind. His resolution of the case, therefore, is, that he shall proceed with such, as guilty onely of simple Fornication. Now they that know, what a petty business, this matter of simple Fornication, is made by divers Canonists; will easily believe, that no great punishment was intended to those notorious whoremasters, or fornicators. But you shall have his own words, lest mine may be suspected.* 1.110 Sane postulasti per Sedem Apostolicam edoceri, si Presby∣teri, plures concubinas habentes, bigami censeantur. Ad quod duximus respondendum, quod cum irregularitatem non incurrerint digamiae, cum eis, tanquam simplici fornicatione notatis quo ad executio∣nem Sacerdotalis officii, poteris dispensare. What is this (can any so∣ber man think of it otherwise?) then to abolish the Law of God; and to establish (in St. Pauls language) the doctrine of De∣vils? Is it possible,* 1.111 that any man that is called a Chri∣stian, and makes profession of it, can be of another opinion? Truly, I should not believe it: but that the same Apostle doth tell us in ano∣ther place, of strong delusions to befal some men from God, who give more credit to (pretended) signs, and lying wonders, (the miracles of these times, as I take it:) then to the truth: by which,* 1.112 I think the Word of God (the publick reading whereof, is strictly forbidden, it is well known, where publick Stews are per∣mitted:) may probably be meant. But how these pretenders to Anti∣quity will reconcile this definition or determination of Pope Innocentius, with that Canon of the Councel we have spoken of, by which a Priest, if he marry after Ordination, is to be deposed; but a Concu∣binarius or fornicating Priest, is to be cast out of the Church, as an arrant Infidel; I leave it to them to consider it.

There is an account, or report somewhere extant, of the state of Monasteries in England, in the year of the Lord 1538. delivered by the Visitors, under this title: Breviarium compertorium in Monasteriis, &c. a short abstract whereof hath been set out in Latin, which I have.

I have looked upon it often, with great indignation (such a Prior, by name; or, such a Friar; one, or two Concubines: some, eight, nine, ten, twelve▪ or thirteen; and besides, a Sodomite, &c.) as suspect∣ing that matters might be made worse then they were found, to please the King; or out of spight to the profession: and I would much rather think so still. But I must needs say, since I read Petrus Damiani (so irrefragable a witness) and compared him with the report of others, who themselves were of the same profession: but espe∣cially, what a light account was made of such abominations, by those that should have withstood them by their authority: and lastly, how averse they were (those in power, and most account∣able) from the onely true effectual remedy; my charity is much put to it; I cannot tell what to think. And these are the fruits of Pope Syricius (according to the common opinion) his Definition: record∣ed Decr. dist. 83. which, whosoever reads, if he be not a stranger to the Scriptures, may justly suspect, it was made in opposition to the Scriptures, and S. Pauls Doctrine, particularly: as speaking of mar∣riage, with all manner of scorn, and contempt; whereas the Authors of those Canons, of the Sixth General Councel, by which they for∣bid a Bishop to live with his Wife, they use much tenderness, to pre∣vent all suspicion, as though they did it in contempt of Apostolick Au∣thority (whether holy Scriptures, or those Constitutions that were then called Apostolicae Constitutiones; as Balsamon doth interpret them:) whereas it was done by them (so they profess) upon a supposition, that men of that eminency might do more good in the reputation of a continent life; disengaged from the lusts and cares of the world; and less subject to slanders and reproaches, which Wife and Chil∣dren do often occasion; then yoked and charged with Wife and Children.

Now after all this, whether we may not conclude, that since the Pope and Church of Rome would not; it was lawful for others to re∣form themselves in this one point (had there been but this one:) con∣cerning the marriage of Clergy-men; let the Reader judge: for that is it, which we did propose to our selves.

Having now gone over three particulars; that, of Infallibility, as the chiefest, and which alone might have done the business, and there∣fore, chiefly intended, and prosecuted; but besides that, two others,

which casually did offer themselves; (that of the mutilation of the Sa∣crament, and forbidding of marriage) to prove the necessity of refor∣mation, in and before Luthers time; our chiefest part: I might im∣mediatly pass to what remaineth: rather, as an accessory, then a part; to wit, what hath most visibly hindered the progress. But though I might; I shall yet nevertheless, before I come to it, (wherein we shall not belong:) for the Reader (not acquainted) his further satis∣faction, and the better to stop the mouths of shameless impudent men, who tell their ignorant Disciples and Proselytes, and dare tell it to us, and before us too (brazen foreheads!) that all was well, in perfect peace and unity, when Luther began to stir: I shall, I say, before I leave this subject, propose somewhat to consideration, which if my judgment fail me not very much, may be sufficient to convince the most obstinate, and make all men sensible, that have any freedome of judgment left: that such men there be in the world, that will ad∣venture upon any thing, though never so false; rather than yield to the evidence of truth: and if sensible, then I hope, more wary how they trust them hereafter.

I might tell the Reader, of Catalogus testium veritatis: or, Fasci∣culus rerum expetundarum: but especially, of Goldastus, his three Tomes in folio, containing for the most part the grievances, and complaints of Kingdoms, and Commonwealths: the remonstrances, of Kings and Princes; of Courts and Assemblies, Secular & Ecclesi∣astical: of men, for worth and reputation, (Bishops and Cardinals, among the rest;) the most eminent of their times: some with threats; others, with tears, calling for Reformation, against damnable op∣pression; and abuses long continued, and daily increasing in all places: out of which tomes, it were no difficult business (notwithstanding some slips, or mistakes, if any such be, incidental to so great a work) to col∣lect so much, as would swell this small Treatise, into a large volumn: I might, I say, but I rather choose to go another way; which as it will be, I am sure, more compendious; so may prove perchance, not less effectual. I know it hath been thought upon, and some use made of it, by divers: I have no ambition at all, to be thought the first: but whether it hath been pressed, or proposed so effectu∣ally, as it might have been, to that end and purpose, that we aim at, let the Reader judge, when we have done.

Ferdinand Emperour of Germany, whose piety, prudence, magnani∣mity (to which some add zeal and constancy for the Catholick re∣ligion: meaning that, which he was born, and brought up in:) is acknowledged by Historians of both sides: after the Councel of Trent was ended, and he saw that little, or nothing was done by it to satisfie the expectation of so many in all Countreys in point of reformation, and to reconcile differences; but rather to the contrary; sensible also, how he had been from time to time dallyed with, by vain promi∣ses; being much troubled at it; and at the sad consequences of it: he begun, not without the advice of his most faithful, and wisest coun∣sellors; to cast about, and finally did resolve, upon another way, how he might come to the knowledg of the truth, in all those contro∣versed points. The way was to find out a man, (if the Christian world afforded such a one) one of their own communion, a professed and acknowledged Roman Catholick, but of approved integrity and piety, and for his parts and abilities, in this kind of learning, especially (the knowledge of antiquity, and all controversies of Religion:) not inferiour, if possible unto any, in any part of the world. Upon inqui∣ry, a man was found. What shall I say? Let any man in his private thoughts, form to himself the idea of a man, such a one as he could have wished, or his fancy can represent unto him; I dare almost say, that this man went beyond it▪ So many particulars did concur, to compleat him for such a work; that if I say less then a miracle, I think I say too little (all things well considered:) and he that doth not ac∣knowledg a providence in it, I know not how to say less, but that he is, or hath much of an Infidel in him. For his integrity, and the exemplariness of his conversation, all the country, where he lived, would have born him witness; it was so publickly, and notoriously known unto all; but most admired of them, that knew him best. His learn∣ing and knowledg of antiquity, insight in controversies, had made him famous: but affection and reverence, to ancient rites and ceremonies that did savour of true Primitive Piety, he had given such proofs, and testimonies of, both by his practice, and by his writings, his Liturgica, his Hymni Ecclesiastici, preces Ecclesiasticae; (all extant) as greater could not be expected from any man. Yet in those things, I will suppose that some (not many, truly:) might equal him: which is as much as I can say. But then, let us consider the rest, and let any man tell me, whether he

thinks, I have exceeded in my expressions. First, he was at that time, when the Emperor did address himself to him by his Letters, and to some Princes of Germany about it, (the Emperors Letters, and the An∣swers, are extant, and to be seen:) a bed-rid man, brought so low with the Gout, and what other infirmities; that affidavit was made unto the Emperor, should he attempt to go to him, as was desired, he would in all probability die by the way, and not hold out. Indeed, he did not live many years after, though he did out-live Ferdinand; and gave his account to Maximilian, who succeeded, and prosecuted the business with as much eagerness, as Ferdinand had done. Here first we may (who can do less?) observe the Providence of God; that whereas Cassander (for that was his name:) was first appointed to come, and give an account unto the Emperor, by word of mouth: he was afterwards appointed to do it in writing, that so all posterity might reap the benefit of it. Then secondly; whereas it might be said, (there was no great probability, if he were such a pious honest man; but what will not men say, when they are put to it?) that he might have some worldly ends, to gratifie others, or to advance him∣self; as we know, that such and such were made Cardinals, for as∣serting the Popes cause, with all their might, and power: How can that be suspected of one in Cassanders condition, which daily put him in mind of another world and made him utterly incapable of enjoying any thing, that this world could afford, as a temptation? But that which, as I take it, considering how much he had to say for the Pro∣testants, and their cause, and against his own party; is most observable; is; that this very man, had been very unkindly used, by some chiefest Protestants, who suspecting him, by some writings of his, (they knew nothing of his person:) to have been a certain scandalous Protestant, inclining to Popery, and ready to leave them; fell upon him foully, with all bitterness and virulency; to their own shame, and the no less grief and scandal of many others. Was not this somewhat to try a man, whether he would be provoked, or no; and suffer his judgment (as most men) to be corrupted by his Interest? But Cassander shew∣ed himself passion proof. He did answer them, who so bitterly had provoked him, with all meekness and moderation: and as for the Protestants, and their cause in general, it did appear to all the world in general, that what he had written before of them, he had writ∣ten,

not to gratifie any, great, or small; but to satisfie his own Con∣science.

But yet for all this: some will be ready to say (I know:) they va∣lue not what Cassander saith, because they account him not a sound Catholick.* 1.113 So indeed the Author of the Labyrinth doth except against him, as many others have done before him. But why not a sound Catholick? Could they charge him with any particular opinion which anciently hath been accounted He∣retical; they would say somewhat. Or could they say, though never so pious, or learned; yet he was a Protestant, he did favour his own party, (as most men are too apt:) that were somewhat too. But a man, against whose learning and integrity there can be no exception: who lived, and died in the Communion of Roman Catholicks; round about in the Countrey where he lived, in high credit, and esteem: bu∣ried honourably by Roman Catholicks, in one of their Churches; with an Inscription, or monument, now extant, and to be seen by all that go to those parts; which monument doth contain an ample testimony of his integrity, piety, learning; his fame and reputation, whilest he lived, with all men, farr, and near; and yet he not a sound Catholick, be∣cause he hath freely reproved or charged the Roman Church, with ma∣ny gross errors, and abuses, in matters of Faith, and otherwise: is not this wise arguing? For apparently, either it signifies nothing: or it doth ground upon this, that the Roman Church cannot erre: he is therefore an Heretick, who doth charge it with errors, or maintain opinions, contrary to what it teacheth. But is not this a meer petitio principii: a most senseless and ridiculous kind of arguing? If therefore it doth not follow, that he must be an Heretick, because he excepted against the errors of the Church of Rome: how much more probable, because he was a judicious able man, as any those times afforded; a pious, con∣sciencious man, so acknowledged by all men: a man bred and born in the Roman Church: (and certainly, accustomance and education hath some influence upon the wisest of men:) who lived and died in the communion of it: in all likelihood, therefore, well-affected, and more likely to extenuate, then to aggravate: upon these grounds, I say, how much more likely, that he had good reason for what he doth except against; and that his judgment and authority, should be of great weight with all sober judicious Roman Catholicks? For as for the Protestants,

though truly his great learning, approved piety, and integrity must make his judgment in all things very considerable, even to them; yet the same obligation doth not lie upon them: they may say, as was intimated before; long accustomance, education, affection, might make him, as a man, unsensibly partial; or at least, less sensible, (in some things) then otherwise he might have been. For the further satis∣faction of the Reader, but of all Roman Catholicks, especially; I shall add, that his Works were not onely printed by Roman Catho∣licks, when he first set them out singly; but long after his death, all reprinted in Paris, in one Volume, by Roman Catholicks: in a fair Character (more then is usual, for the largeness of it:) Parisiis, apud Hieronymum Dro••art: A. D. 1616.

Well: it is time we should hear, what this man will tell us. Two Books there be of his, of this argument chiefly: De officio pii, publicae tranquillitatis verè amantis viri, in hoc religionis dissidio. In that Book (to begin with that, because first written:) after some reasons given, why the Church of Rome, is still a true Church: (Ecclesiae Catholicae non contemnendum membram: in his own expression: that is: a member of the Catholick Church, not to be contemned: or if you will positively, because the words will bear it: a considerable member of the Catholick Church:) and that there is no necessity of separating, though corruption be acknowledged; he doth add: Interim tamen, eos damnare non possum, &c. that is: But nevertheless I cannot condemn them, who persisting in the fundamentals of the Apostolick Doctrine, out of love of a pure (or sincere) Religion, upon good information from them that are both pious and learned, that some-things ought to be cor∣rected; Supreme Authority leading, and the common consent of the Church concurring, in some part of the Church (Catholick) have pur∣ged some things in the Doctrine, and abolished some Ceremonies, though ancient, great utility, and even necessity compelling them for the good of the people: and in lieu of them, have established others, better agreeing with piety and discipline: provided that this be done, with as little scan∣dal, and disturbance, as is possible: and that communion of spirit, and the bonds of peace, be still preserved with the rest of the Body. For who can blame that member, which when the rest of the body is sick, and will not be cured; doth take care of it self, that it may be cured? Not to insult upon the rest, but to give it an example, and to invite it to do the

like. (All this, how appliable to the English Reformation; let the Rea∣der judge.) These — though by some, who through an immoderate zeal, or particular disease of their mind, abhor all restoration, or reformation of the Church; they are traduced and condemned as hereticks, and schisma∣ticks, and enemies of the Church: yet I know not how to separate, or re∣move them either from Christ the Head (of the Church:) or from the body, (of Christ:) which is the Church.

* 1.114This, he repeats again, not long after: Quare ut ante quoque dixi, qui recta sententia de Christo, &c. where indeed, he doth acknow∣ledg that he knows not how to acquit them of schism who rejoice in this separation; will not acknowledg them from whom they have separated a true Church; have no love, no charity, for them: but abhor all manner of Communion with them, as very limbs of Satan, or Antichrist. Of which kind of men, we shall have occasion to con∣sider afterwards; and how right his judgment may be in this. What will our Zelots of the Roman party say to this? The furious abet∣tors of those mad Tenets, That he that doth not in all things, believe as the Roman Church doth believe; is an Infidel and (ordinarily) damned? What will they say? Why then this good man, whose memory is so precious with many Roman Catholicks, he must be damned too. For though he lived and died in the Roman Com∣munion; yet you see, what he maintained; so contrary to that, which is maintained by the Church of Rome: at least, if it must be so, that Jesuites and Jesuited Zealots, must be accounted the best, and truest members of that Church; which I doubt many will not grant. But what shew soever, such men make before others; yet I believe there be but few of the number, who (if really they believe a heaven and hell:) in their private thoughts, will not rather, (when dead) wish their souls, where this mans is; then where they can hope, that such furious courses, and Tenets, will bring them.

* 1.115Well: but it may be some will be so charitable, (it is the charity of the Author of the Labyrinth:) as to hope, (and that will be the answer:) that he did effectively repent be∣fore his death. A pretty piece of charity, rather to make men smile then much to perswade: but still they hold to their principle, that somewhat must be said, when they have nothing to say. In the mean time glad am I, that as yet, they can alledg nothing but hopes for it: it

may be, at some other time, when they have better considered of it, how much it doth concern them; we shall be told of somewhat else: some reasons perchance, why one should believe it: or some pretended evi∣dences, to prove it. For we know, they are good at it; we have had some experience; when they think the cause doth need it. But this I hope we shall sufficiently prevent; there will be occasion by and by: till then, the Reader may think of it, as he pleaseth. In the mean time, God be thanked, that he hath provided scrupulous Pro∣testants, (as some may be) that comfort, that they may be out of all fear of schism in the judgment of this pious learned Roman Ca∣tholick, so that they want no charity for them, who do not yet think themselves bound to follow their example. And I hope that they that wished so well to his works, as to cause them to be so fairly reprinted in Paris; may probably be thought to have been of the same opinion.

Now after this general judgment of Cassander, concerning Prote∣stants: we shall in the next place, produce his opinion concerning some particular points, which his Consultatio must afford us. Yet himself doth acknowledg, that he did but in part, acquit himself of that charge; his infirmities giving him but little respit for such thoughts; as he doth excuse himself to the Emperour, in the con∣clusion. But that he did pass by many things, doth appear by these words, in the 26th Article, De potestate Ecclesiastica: Ad haec con∣cedimus, &c. that is, We do grant moreover, that they that have the government of the Church, must earnestly be intreated, that by their care, those known and manifest abuses (some of which have been spoken of before) which have been the occasion of these troubles, and commotions, wherewith the Church at this day is very dangerously tossed, and afflict∣ed, (those that concern the Mass, and other parts of Divine Service, especially:) may be taken away and abolished. Now this being written since the Councel of Trent, it doth plainly appear what he thought of that Councel, and their performances. And to this purpose, though where he treats De Pontifice Romano, he doth yield unto him some kind of Supremacy, by the grant, or consent of the ancient Church: yet doth he immediately before, roundly charge him; to have been the chiefest cause of those sad calamities, and distractions in the Church; which did so grievously affect him; for that puffed

up with a vain conceit of his Ecclesiastical power, he did proudly and fastidiously despise, and reject them, who rightfully and modestly, made their addresses, or remonstrances: His words are: Non negarim tamen—praecipuam caussam hujus calamitatis & distractionis Ecclesiae, illis assignandam, qui inani quodam fastu Ecclesiasticae potestatis inflati, rectè & modestè admonentes superbè & fastidiosè contempserunt, & repule∣runt.

* 1.116In his Chapter of the merits and intercession of Saints: he doth insist upon several grosse errors, and abuses; quos imprimis (saith he) & quidem summâ diligentia correctos oportuit: that is: for the correction whereof, there was great need, that all possible diligence should have been used. These errors he saith did beget contrary er∣rors. It is true he would not have had invocation of Saints, as it was used in the ancient Church; quite taken away: but the abuses onely, reformed; indeed very grosse and intolerable, as he doth set them out: but the Councel of Trent, it seems, had somewhat else to do; then to reform such abuses.

* 1.117In his Chapter de imaginibus, & simulachris: having argued at large, what a late thing this worshipping of images is, &c. he hath these words: Manifestius enim est, &c. that is: it is so manifest a thing, that we need not many words to prove it; that the worshipping of Images and Statues hath too much prevailed; and that too much hath been indulged to the affection, (humour:) or rather superstition of people: so that either in point of highest adoration, which was ever yielded by Heathens, (or Pagans) to their Statues: or in point of utmost vanity, which the same heathen, in making and adorning their Statues, and Images, were guilty of; our peo∣ple may be thought not inferior to them.

* 1.118Of relicks, he concludeth thus: Since then it is so, that true and certain relicks, in these parts, especially; are very few; and many of them that are shewen, may very well be sus∣pected; and that the often visiting and worshipping of such, doth very little conduce to true piety; but to superstition, and base lucre, very much: it seems much more expedient, that henceforth no shewing of relicks be allowed; and that the people may be provoked, to a right esti∣mation of the true relicks of Saints, by imitation of their examples of pie∣ty and vertue, left unto us in their writings; or, in writings concerning them.

Of the Sacrament under one kind, he saith: Quare non temerè est, quod optimi qui{que} &c. that is: That all good men, even Catholicks (so he calls them) as well as others, that have been conversant in the reading of the Scriptures, and Ecclesiastical writers: moved also by the considera∣tion of those reasons (by him there:) alledged; did even burn with a longing desire to enjoy the Cup; and used all means to them possible, to effect it, that this saving (salutare: or, so much conducing to salvation) Sacrament of the blood of Christ, with that of the body: according to the old and continued, for so many ages, custome, of the Universal Church, be restored again. Yet for all that, in that very chapter, he doth not seem to hold it so necessary (administration in both kinds:) as that the contrary can be called mutilation, or sacriledg: or, that the peace and unity of the Church (if it cannot be obtained otherwise) should be broken, or forsaken for it. And as for the words of Pope Gela∣sius, we have spoken of before, and vindicated from false foolish e∣vasions, and interpretations: he also seems to make the same con∣struction of them, as Baronius did; as though the objected sacriledg, concerned the Manichees onely: So Cassander, there. But in a trea∣tise of that very subject, De Sacra communione sub utra{que} specie: set out by it self, since this Consultation; where he doth with much ac∣curatness, handle that business, historically, and scholastically; he is of another mind: where his conclusion is, hanc integram in utraque panis & vini specie, communicationem, etsi simpliciter non necessaria habeatur; that this communion under both kinds, though perchance not absolutely necessary: (or by many, not so deemed: that is, in some cases only, as that of necessity; and the like: for the whole dis∣course tends to prove the greater safety, and manifold advantages of a perfect Communion, under both kinds:) yet, multis nominibus anteponendam, &c. for many reasons ought to be preferred. And for that Decree of Pope Gelasius, he doth expound it in this treatise, as we have done before, and gives his reasons, why it cannot be otherwise un∣derstood; and that those consequences of Bellarmine (though he doth not name him, that in those days the Eucharist, was administred in one kind, are manifestly false, and quite contrary to the intention of the words: whereby we may gather, that Cassander, (as one of that communion) did in his Consultation, comply, as much as ever he could, and his conscience would suffer: and was more likely to

have recalled some of his concessions; if occasion had offered it self: then to have repented (as the Author of the Labyrinth doth charita∣bly hope:) before he died, that he had spoken so freely of the Church of Rome, and of the errors, and corruptions of that Church.

Of Priests being forbidden to marry, he saith among other things; Videmus hoc decreto, &c. We see, that by that decree, (or, ordinance) Christian chastity and continence, is so far from being confirmed; that by it, a door to all manner of lust and flagitiousness, is rather opened: and again, to the same purpose; afterwards he quotes Panormitanus (that oracle of the Canon law, as once accounted:) whose words we had before out of Campegius: and such an apprehension he had of the horror of it, and how much Christianity did suffer by it; that it made him venture upon a strange speech, as it may seem to some; That though this caelibatus, or ordinance of Priests forbearance, were granted to be of Apostolick institution (which he knew it is not:) there was reason enough why it should be dispensed with. Neither would he have onely married Priests allowed, as anciently: but that it might be lawful for Priests, to marry after ordination also; which was not wont to be: and yet, good man, when he wrote those things, such was his condition, as to the world; that austerity might have been feared, rather then too much indulgence, had not he seen a great necessity,

In his Chapter, De missis solitarijs, he doth avouch Hofmeisterus's saying, that it was manifest, that the fashion both of the Greek, and Roman Church was, that not only the Priest, who did officiat (he saith sacrifice:) but other Priests and Deacons also then present, and the rest of the people, or part of it, at least, did communicate: and that it is a wonder how it came to be left off; and that men should en∣deavour to recall that good custome into practice.

But it is time to make an end: though I hope the Reader that doth apprehend the case rightly, will not think this labour ill be∣stowed. Sure it is, that the Emperour who set him on work, up∣on good assurance of his abilities, in every respect, for such a per∣formance; had such an expectation of it, that he intended it for a rule to all Parishes within his Dominion: as doth appear by his letter to Cassander himself, in the end of the Second Letter: Ita ut tale sum∣marium,

sit quasi methodus quaedam, &c. They are very remarkable words: let the Reader well peruse them, and he will say, had so much been written to the Pope, he would have had a very pregnant testimony for his Infallibility: but what reckoning in the mean time the Emperor made of the Popes Infallibility, or absolute Supremacy over the Church, the Reader may guess, by those words.

I hope by this, those Roman Catholicks, that shall happen to read this, if not sworn to the cause in despight of all truth; will have a better opinion of Reformation, then they had before, and some∣what a worse opinion of those men, who bear them in hand, that all was well, when Luther began to stir. And though I cannot ex∣pect, that they, who (adhering to that blind Maxime, that who∣soever speaks against the Church of Rome, though never so good a Catholick otherwise, and generally so accounted; cannot be Ortho∣dox, eo nomine, because he speaketh against the Church of Rome; which is a ridiculous Petitio principii, as before shewed:) are not con∣victed by the judgment of such a one as Cassander; will be much moved by any other Authority, of the same nature: Yet because we have better hopes of the ingenuity of many of that side; and that he may not be thought the onely man that hath so thought, or writ∣ten: I will joyn another with him; who for the opinion men had generally of his worth and piety; in Spain, especially, where his works have been among all Preachers, in marvellous esteem, be∣yond any other mans; comes very near to Cassander; even Joh. Fe∣rus, by name. Yet for all that, there wanted not a Zealot of that side, that durst charge him publickly, with no less then seventy se∣ven Lutheran errors, and opinions; whereof, one is, as I take it, that we are justified by faith onely. But Ferus wanted not stout and able champions; more, it may be; but one, I am sure; Michael Me∣dina, Bellarensis, Franciscanus: who with great applause of the learn∣ed of that side, vindicated him, and laid it home to his adversary, as a malicious and ignorant Sycophant, or slanderer. The Book was first published at Complutum, in Spain; (that part of Spain which is called Hispania Tarraconensis:) famous for an University. There, first; and soon after, Moguntiae, in Germany, A. D. 1572. Let any man read that Apologie (so it is styled:) and he most of necessity, ei∣ther acquit Ferus, nay, acknowledge him Virum Catholicissimum, as

there styled; or charge all Spain as Lutherans; or favourers of Lu∣therans, at least. Now all I intend by this naming of him, is but to tell my Reader, that this Johannes Ferus, vir catholicissimus; this eminent Roman Catholick; hath written of the depravation of Reli∣gion, amongst Papists; and of the necessity of a Reformation (our Subject:) as roundly, and freely, as almost any Protestant. For which I appeal to his Preface, to his Comments upon the Acts. And Ferus also, wrote since the Councel of Trent, which is to be observed.

I think the ingenuous Reader, is sufficiently convicted by the te∣stimony of two such witnesses, and that he will acknowledge it. Yet to stop the mouth of impudency it self (if it be a thing possible:) or at least, that all men that are not past all sense, and have been made to believe, that there was no such need, as we pretend; may by the light of so many evidences, be forced to acknowledge they have been grossly abused; and if in this particular, apparently; then pro∣bably, in divers others; I will yet produce the testimony of one more, a man of very different temper from Cassander, or Ferus; yet truly, a learned man; but a rigid Romanist, as doth appear by a speech he made in the name of Philip the II. King of Spain, uttered at the Councel of Trent; whereby he doth bitterly inveigh against the Protestants, as unworthy of all compliance or condescension: from which he doth earnestly disswade the Councel. That speech of his, is extant, with three Orations, uttered before Pius V. and some Sermons of his before the said Councel of Trent: printed by Christo∣pher Plantin, A. D. 1574. with an attestation of Arias Montanus, at the end, concerning the worth of the Author, and high esteem he was in, in all places of the same Profession. These, with an Apolo∣gy of his for the Councel of Trent, were dedicated by him to Sta∣nislaus Hosius, one of the Pope's Legats; and President, in the Councel, at times. In that Dedication, he doth inveigh against Luther's proceedings, sufficiently: yet so, that he doth acknowledg bona ex malis orta; & ex ipsis morbis, medicàmenta; as he speaketh. He doth make a great miracle of it; and doth highly magnifie the goodness and providence of God, towards his Church in it. For be∣fore those times; those stirs and commotions, first occasioned by Luther; Liquidi illi puri{que} fontes coelestis doctrinae, saith he, neglige∣bantur

omnino, & turbidam è luculentis quibusdam rivulis haustant aquam homines bibebant. Jacebant in tenebris, (he goes on) illa Ecclesiae antiqua lumina; & auctores quidam obscuri, horridi, spinosi, & inculti dominabantur in Scholis; quos omnes, sordida quaedam barba∣ries occupaverat; & ipsa literarum gymnasia — otiosis quibusdam, & inanissimis concertationibus occupata tenebantur. Luther, I think, would not have said much more. The sum is; That the pure foun∣tains of heavenly Doctrine, being forsaken, men drunk puddle-wa∣ter: that is, as he doth explain himself, That the Word of God (before those stirs by Luther) was quite laid aside, as also the wri∣tings of ancient Fathers: and instead of them, crabbed, obscure, fruit∣less Authors (School-men, I think, he doth mean: but Legends of Saints also, probably: the onely Books then in request:) were en∣tertained in the Schools; and Colledges: that is, Universities. If this be not plain enough; hear him again, the same Author, in his Apology. Sed dices (saith he) nullo unquam tempore, tot ac tanti∣abusus. Nunquam depravata vetus sic disciplina: nunquam sic omnes Ecclesiae ordines corrupti, & dehonestati fuerunt. Nolo tecum hac de re pugnare, Fabrici: (that is the man, he wrote against, or rather did endeavour to answer, in the behalf of the Councel of Trent:) nolo praeterita tempora cum nostris conferre:* 1.119 nolo nunc recen∣sere veteres Ecclesiae plagas; nolo saecula illa commemo∣rare, in quibus vix ullus reperiebatur totius Christiani Or∣bis angulus, in quo, non modo morum integritas, sed ne{que} doctrinae pu∣ritas conspiceretur. Lateant haec, &c. I think here is plain acknow∣ledgment, that there was not any corner of the world left, where both manners, and doctrine (among Christians) had not suffered great cor∣ruption, and detriment: and I think, the restoring of Gods Word to its credit, and authority, with the Writings of the ancient Fathers; (the acknowledged effects or consequences of the then Reformation of Religion:) deserve to be looked upon as a singular blessing, and happiness of the times. True it is, he saith afterwards, that the evils which came along, were greater. But what he, as an Adversa∣ry, doth lay to our charge; we are not bound to acknowledge true, because he saith it: but what he doth grant to us, not out of any good will, but being forced by the evidence of things; I think we may safely build upon, as unquestionable truth: and they that will

not yield to such evidence; what reason have they to expect, that they should ever be believed in any thing? We do not deny, but many evils ensued upon those alterations, (all alterations are dan∣gerous:) to which Luther gave occasion. But we know that the same thing was objected by heathens to the Gospel of Christ: and what was answered by the godly Fathers of those times, we know. We deny not also, but that division, and separation, is in it self the greatest of evils, that can happen in the Church: but whether Luther or the Pope, was the occasion of the separation that hap∣pened in Luthers time, is a great question: Or rather, no question at all, with us Protestants, but that it happened through the Pope and Church of Rome, their wicked obstinacy, who would not heark∣en to good counsel, nor yield to any real reformation which from all parts was so much desired.

We have heard Cassander say as much, that the Pope was the cause. Though Cassander, with all truly judicious and wise, may be instead of a thousand, for a witness, in this particu∣lar:* 1.120 yet since we are upon it now, it may be worthy the Readers notice, that doth not know it; what ano∣ther Roman Catholick, no obscure man, Stephen Pas∣quier the author of les Recherches, doth write to his friend Mr. de Raimond (he, I think, that hath written of Heresies:) about it. He doth maintain it, and dispute it at large, that, not Luther; or not Luther so much as Leo, the then Pope, was the cause of the first breach. But the grounds he goes upon, are not the same Cassander doth: I make no great reckoning of his arguments; neither do I aim at any great advantage to the cause by this accidental indica∣tion.

The same Fontindonius (a man more considerable to us, by far) in that very Oration to the Councel of Trent, where∣in,* 1.121 as we said before, he doth inveigh against the Pro∣testants with so much bitterness; hath these words among others: Sauciam Ecclesiam in vestris manibus habetis, &c. that is, Yee have the wounded Church in your hands: the wounds whereof, there is no need that they should be opened unto you, which your selves do know, and the Legats from all Provinces have not only insisted upon, but have set the whole body of it before your eyes, full of wounds and bruises. Thus

he. And for that he faith of the Legati of several Countreys; they that have read a Book intituled Instructions & Missives des Roys Tres-Christiens de Fr. &c. printed 1608. containing the several speeches, and Orations made by the King of France, his several Am∣bassadors, and others authorized by him; in the Councell of Trent: their account given to their King, and his Letters and replyes and other things of that nature; will say, that he had good reason for what he said,

For besides many such places, where they mention the wounds and sores of the Church; they say in one place, after the perusal of some papers of that subject; that their reformation was not like to prove like to Esays healing plaisters (Es. 38.) made of figgs; such as the Church wanted, and desired: but to Ezekiels (ch. 10.) his untempered morter, &c. And in the end of the Oration, they pro∣test openly against Pius the IV^th. Pij autem V^ti imperium, &c. As for the power or authority of Pius the fourth, all his Statutes and Sen∣tences (or Decrees) we reject, we disdain, and despise. Him for Christs Vicar, and Peters lawful Successor, we renounce and reject.

In another place they tell the Councel, that they came to the Pope, craving of him that Spiritual bread, which should be the food of their souls: whereof all the Christian world over, there was such scarcity, as was scarce known in any age since Christ: but that instead of that bread they desired; he had given them a Scorpion, at one time, to sting both King and Church of France: that it was not then with the world as some years before (that is before Luther appeared:) for that now men believed in Christ, not for the womens Testimony, (Joh. iv.42.) but because they believed the Scriptures, which now they were, but before had not been acquainted with. And that is in ef∣fect, what Fontindonius had told us before. If therefore such, even such, as Fontindonius, so zealous a Romanist, such an enemy to Protestants; (not to speak here of that famous Consilium Delectorum Cardinalium, &c. de emendandâ Ecclesia: A. D. 1538. Printed in divers places; even in some editions of Councels to be sound; though prohibited afterwards, and concealed with all possible care) have acknowledged the miserable condition of the Church before Luther began to stir: was there not great need of Reformation? What may we think of them, that will not acknowledge it themselves▪

and do what they can, to keep others from the knowledge of it?

I Have now done with the first part of this my present under∣taking, That, before, and at that time, when Luther first appeared, the Church stood in great need of Reformation; not in matter of Discipline and manners only, which is not denied, though little hath been done to redress it: but of Doctrine, and matters of faith, as much as in any thing. This brought us to the business of infallibility, the prime controversie of these times; up∣on which we have been the longer, the variety of matter offering it self, partly because of the consequence; and partly, because of the obstinate opposition of adversaries who are very sensible of the consequence. What remaineth, a consideration of the hindrances, will be no hard or long work; nor subject, as I conceive, to much opposition; but of great use, if my judgment fail me not, and at this time, not unseasonable.

How it comes to pass, that after so many endeavours, in so many years, the hereticks of these times, (they mean Protestants:) are not yet converted, or perswaded, to return to the unity of the Church; that (to use some of their own words) nihil adhuc profectum est, & de inanibus Catholicorum conatibus haereses triumphant: that is, they that have laboured hitherto, have reaped no benefit of their labours, but heresies triumph of the vain attempts of the Catholicks; Some Roman∣ists have been curious to inquire into the reasons. One of them I am sure, an eminent writer among them; whose those words are, I have quoted. Whether it be so or no; and whether they have any rea∣son to make a wonder of it; I will not now stand to dispute. Cer∣tain I am that we who certainly believe this Reformation, which after so many wishes and attempts in former ages, begun to take effect not full 150 years ago; was the work of God, and for which all truly sensible of piety, and well acquainted with primitive times, are bound to praise God heartily; have much more reason to won∣der, that in few years, having had so miraculous a successe, it hath made no greater progresse since: and since that, of late years, hath rather lost, then gained, though there have not wanted at no time, from the first beginning, multitudes of able champions to justifie

the cause (though not to justifie the proceedings, in all places) by their writings. A thing it is, I confess, which may cause some won∣der: especially where the motives, or engagements, are apprehen∣hended as clear and visible; as they are, certainly, in themselves ponderous, and of highest consequence.

But if any be scandalized at it, let him consider the several ebbings and flowings of Christianity in general, in several places of the world since the first beginning of it; in those especially, where it was once most flourishing, and is now either quite extinct (as in one fourth part of the world:) or brought very low, and under cruel bondage; as in ma∣ny places of great extent: and if he be forced, (as I think he will) to say, that these be secrets of Gods providence, or just judgments, which the reason of man cannot penetrate into; I think there is in this particular also of reformation, as much reason, why he should submit, if not with∣out some wondering, or just indignation which can hardly be avoided; yet without such scandal, as should make him think worse of the cause.

Laying therefore that aside, the consideration of hidden causes, which doth not belong unto us; nor of such Politick causes, as may be given perchance, by men well acquainted with the State, and in∣terest of the several Kingdoms, and Commonwealths of Europe: we shall only take notice of such, which no question can be made of, but that then concurred more or less; the knowledg & consideration of which, may be useful, and of some consequence, towards the peace of this Church, which it is our happiness to be members of. To this purpose, that which I shall chiefly insist upon, is, to shew, that rash, rigid speeches, opinions, and judgments, pretending to zeal and purity, but for the most part, the effects of gross ignorance, or damnable hypocrisie, or natural fierceness (such is the temper of some) and precipitancy; have been the most visible hindrances. By this, some may think, that I intend Puritanisme; which certainly doth always proceed, from some one, if not more of those causes. If therefore we distinguish, between the accidentals of Puritanism, particular objects, and opinions, which may differ according to difference of times, and places; (for even in England, the particulars of Puritanisme, have not been always the same:) and the essentials, or formalis ratio of it from which those accidentals usually flow and proceed; so we may call it Pu∣ritanism, that was the greatest, or one of the apparent obstacles, in this blessed work.

But it will not be amisse, I think, first of all to take some notice of him, who was the most visible instrument of this great alteration; even Martin Luther; who did much please himself, that he was parti∣cularly prophesied of by John Hus, who had begun the work, and made a good progress in it, in Bohemia, about a hundred years, be∣fore Luther appeared in Saxony. Some words indeed of John Hus, are mentioned by many, very express to that purpose: who also a∣verre, that a coin, or medal was stamped by the Bohemians about that time, containing part of those prophetical words; which medal, I suppose, hath been seen by many. Ulembergius, a learned Ro∣manist, who hath written Luthers life very particularly; and for the most part out of Luthers own works; where he doth set down Lu∣thers words, he doth not contradict it, nay doth seem rather to ac∣knowledg it, by his marginal note: Vaticinium Hus, de Luthero. Certainly, such a prophesie well attested, and strongly apprehended, as it seems it was by Luther; must needs add much to his confi∣dence, which indeed was extraordinary, and little less, without the help of that prophesie, then miraculous. But of this prophesie, and how far Luther might rely upon it, as belonging to him, let every man judge, as he thinks fit.

However, the mention of it, hath given me the opportunity to tell the Reader, if he knew it not, of a very clear prophesie of St. Je∣rom's, concerning the Reformation of religion, then begun in Ger∣many, and the principal (though mute) instrument of it, the Scri∣ptures. St. Jerom, (whom also I find in part, cited by learned Jewel, in his Apologia Eccl. Anglic.) in his Comments upon the 3^d. chap. of the Prophet Nahum, doth tell us first, how perversa dog∣mata, and perversae doctrinae, through the baits and allurements of the Devill, shal prevail in the world; so that both Teachers and people shall be cast into a deep sleep: non habente sermone Dei, ubi caput reclinet, cum perversa dogmata cuncta possideant:) and the word of God shall be turn'd out of doors, nor find any resting place. But, that at the end of the world, before Christs coming, the people of God, (qui sub magistris antea fuerat consopitus) who before was kept asleep by its masters, or teachers; shall then fly to the Scriptures, (for safety:) and apply themselves to the reading of them.

St. Jerom wrote this above a thousand years, before Luther; he

might very well think the world would be towards an end, by that time; and besides, we may hope yet for a further accomplishment. But whether we have not seen the fulfilling of it, in part, ever since the Reformation began, if any be so ignorant or wilfully blind, as not to acknowledg it, I desire them to consider once again of Fon∣tindonius, the Trent Orator, his words before set down; and with them, of those of the French Orators, the then King of France his Agent; uttered before the said Councel. I will say no more of it; this is more then I intended, but that John Hus his prophesie, concerning Luther, gave us the occasion.

What Luthers good parts were, natural and acquired, by which the Reformation by him begun, was happily promoted; is not our business here to inquire: It is certain, he had some that did not a little hinder it. He had a great courage: that did well: but he was very passionate, and in his passion, and anger, what he said, he had no regard at all. He could not indure to be contradicted by any who pretended to reformation: or that any (in Germany, at least) should share with him, in the credit of that great work. He was naturally very free to speak any thing that was in his thoughts, without any disguise, or dissimulation: and such an opinion he had of his calling (being much animated by the success:) that instead of striving a∣gainst, he used this liberty with all security, as a priviledg of his authority. As reason, or passion led him, so he spake, and wrote, with all manner of indifferency; which made such notable contradicti∣ons, in his writings, (which have been observed by more then one) not to be reconciled, but by the knowledge, and acknowledgment of his infirmities as well as excellencies.

In his first Augustan Confession, which only the rigid Lutherans to this day, acknowledg, and embrace, as genuine; how indiffe∣rently, and moderately, (and yet not with less truth, for the most part, then moderation: being in substance the same with the second, which Calvin did approve and subscribe) did he state all manner of dif∣ferences? But how differently, since that, he wrote when he did in∣dulge to his passion, or was set upon aggravation; there be that have made it their business, to take notice, and to make known: among the rest, Bellarmine; who both in some Orations; and elsewhere in his Controversies, doth make great use of it, to advantage his

cause thereby, (which I believe he did; as much, as by any thing:) and to make Reformation odious, and detestable unto all men, that did not wisely consider of it.

For I ask, Would it not confirm a Protestant in his Religion, who is not a stranger to the Articles, and Confessions of Faith, set out by Protestants, concerning the necessity of good works: heareth the same preached, and pressed every day, in Sermons: the same, in ordinary books of Devotion in best credit; besides the known pra∣ctice, of all accounted pious and religious, among them: to hear a Papist, pretending to the knowledg of Differences, and Controver∣sies, object unto Protestants generally; that they maintain the suf∣ficiency of faith unto salvation; (to justification indeed, we do: and so divers Roman Catholicks:) without works? Or that, to follow Calvin, we deny the reality of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, which so many Protestant Confessions profess to believe; and Calvin, of all Protestants, doth in so many places, so vigorously assert? Witness among others, those words of his: Sub∣stantiam veri corporis & sanguinis Jesu Christi, uti ex utero virginis illam semel accepit, praesentem esse in Coena, tam fidelibus, quam infi∣delibus; who also doth acknowledg a great miracle (though no tran∣substantiation:) in the business, and effect of Gods omnipotency, not comprehensible to man. His whole book against Westphalus, is of that subject, to vindicate himself and his Doctrine, of that slan∣der. Yet these be objections made by a late Romanist, a great pretender to peace and charity. But when the same author, speak∣ing of the English Reformation, doth tell us, seriously, that instead of the Crucifix upon the rood, a naked Unicorn, to content Luther and Catherine Bore, was placed; and that marriage was allowed to Priests to satisfie Calvin, who without scruple of irregularity, married a Taylors widdow: what can a sober Protestant think of such men, who pretending to sobriety and moderation,* 1.122 are not ashamed, to our faces, so basely, so unworthily, to traduce, and calumniate: how can he believe them in any thing?

When therefore Papists have been told by some Protestants (to instance in one particular:) that before the Reformation, begun by Luther, they had no knowledg of Christ nor of the benefit of his Cross;

the free remission of sins, and justification, through faith: so contra∣ry to their ordinary Rituals (as by divers Papists and Protestants, hath been asserted and objected:) and so contrary to so many books of Devotion, in use and credit among them: must they not in all probability, suspect every thing to be of the same nature, and have a worse opininion of Reformation, and all Protestants, in gene∣rall?

But of all things in this kind, wherein the inconsiderate zeal, or ignorant, uncharitable rashness of some Protestants, hath been to blame, my opinion is, that nothing hath done more hurt to the cause, to hinder the progress of Reformation, and to advantage the adversaries of it, then the denying of the Church of Rome, to be a true Church. Quin & eò ventum est, &c. that is, Nay it is come to that, (saith learned judicious Cassander) that some (which is the propriety of schisme) have made bold to bereave this Church (the Ro∣man) of the title and possession of a true Catholick Church; and to ar∣rogate it unto themselves, as their own peculiar.

This indeed, is a matter of highest moment, on which as I con∣ceive, the standing or falling of Christianity, in general, doth not a little depend. For since it is well known, that most errors of Popery, began to prevail over all Christianity, or the greatest part; (in Europe, at least:) a thousand years before Luther; (though e∣very age did afford some, that did vigorously oppose them:) and that Christianity, in other parts of the world, hath suffered, though not so much perchance, nor in the same kind; yet suffered not a little: if all this while, Christ hath had no visible Church in the world, but here, and there in some corners; I know not what to make of all the prophesies of the Old Testament: and if so ma∣ny prophesies, so plain, so full, so direct (as by St. Augustine in his books, De veritate Ecclesiae, is disputed, and proved, at large:) come to nothing; truly I know not, what we may trust to. To me, it doth appear no less, then, if not a direct, yet an implicit (if the consequence be rightly weighed;) abjuration of Christiani∣ty. And were it so indeed, that Protestants generally, did require any such profession, or subscription; I think that were ground e∣nough for any conscientious man, to avoid their communion: as on the other side, were there nothing else to be objected to Pa∣pists,

but this one thing; their uncharitable proscribing, and ex∣communicating of all Christians, in all parts of the world, who are not of their communion; and obliging all that adhere unto them, to profess the same; I should think that one thing, a just ground of Separation, or forsaking of their communion. And I must ac∣knowledg when I consider with grief of the calamities, and di∣minution, Christianity in general, hath received, by the increase of Mahometisme: though I am sorry, that so much superstition is gone along; yet it is no small comfort, to think of the conversion of the Americans. And though my comfort would be greater, if, as I said, less superstition had gone along; yet even in that, I receive no small satisfaction, when I read the speeches made to some Indians, concerning Christianity, wherein I find nothing, that can give just offence; but true and pure Christianity delivered: as particularly in a book intituled, The History of the Mission of three Capuchins to the Isle of Maragnan, &c. by the R. F. Claude d'Abbeville Praedic. Ca∣puchin: at Paris, 1614. not to mention others.

This therefore I conceive, was a great hinderance, to the progress of Reformation; when many (through misinformation) apprehend∣ed, that instead of Reformation, a new Religion was intended, not known, or heard of, (but here and there in some corners:) for the space of a thousand years: whereupon must follow (which many were ready to infer, and to exaggerate:) that as many (Fathers, and Forefathers) as were dead in the mean time, though otherwise never so pious in sight; were dead in their sins, as Heathens, and Infidels. Now, though this never was the Doctrine of Prote∣stants, in general; as will appear by and by: yet it cannot be de∣nied, but some Protestants in very deed (if I may call them Pro∣testants, whom I know not how to account Christians; except ig∣norance, and not want of charity be their plea:) have been of that opinion; and even before our late confusions, by which true Christianity did suffer such an Ecclipse in this Land; a learned and pious Bishop was much put to it, by the Puritanical party, for this very thing, because he had said, The Roman Church was, or is, a true Church. Though his credit, and deservingly, was great; yet, no less then an express Apology; and after that ano∣ther, (which are extant:) would serve the turn, to acquit him

from suspicion of Popery; and glad was he, to get compurgators, men of eminency in those days▪ and of some credit, with the facti∣on; and all, little enough. And even since that, in this late dis∣mal interruption of government, one of that worshipful company, that were appointed Examiners of them that were to be ordained, or beneficed; whereof Hugh Peters, (a very fit man for such a pur∣pose: for by the questions they were wont to ask, a man cannot tell what they aimed at, except it was to advance Quakisme, or make way for Mahometism:) was the head: but one of that wor∣shipful company, did publickly, p••rstringe, though absent, that Reverend worthy Prelat for it, as guilty of a foul business. It be∣came one of that company well enough, both for their learning and their Principles. Some may wonder, that Reverend Bishop could find in his heart (but that it was his humility, and charity:) as though the judgment of such, had been a thing considerable; to apologize a third time. The more we may wonder, because at that very time, or a little before,* 1.123 a book was set out by the Provincial Assembly of London, (so they call themselves) wherein I find it thus: The Religion of the Church of Rome; &c. They hold many truths; but then they poyson them by their he∣retical Additions. They hold most that we hold, &c. Thus their Religion, is bread and poyson, mingled together; and who∣soever living among them, can separate the bread from the poyson, shall find bread enough to nourish him unto eternal life. Again: When the Protestant Churches did separate, they did not erect a new Church; but reformed a corrupt Church. And therefore ours is cal∣led, The Protestant Reformed religion: not,* 1.124 A new Reli∣gion. Again: There are indeed some learned Orthodox Divines, that say, That the Church of Rome is verè Ecclesia: is Truly a Church: though far from being, a true Orthodox Church. There are others that say, &c.

But whatever may be the Faith, or apprehensions of particular men, in this business; God be thanked, the Church of England hath sufficiently declared her self, to take away all scruple from them, that adhere unto it, in outward communion, as to a particular Church; (of all particular Churches, that we know, both for Do∣ctrine

and Discipline, as we verily believe, and heartily joy in the happiness of being members of it▪ most right, and Orthodox:) but think themselves, as Christians in general, bound to believe a holy Catholick Church, dispersed throughout the whole world: the Church of England, I say, hath sufficiently declared it self; as to satisfie her Sons and adherents, and to take away all scruples, in this point: so to stop the mouthes of the enemies. Witness those gold••n words, in her Canons and Constitutions, set out A. D. 1604. §. 30. So farr was it (so they profess) from the purpose of the Church of England, to forsake and reject the Churches of Italy, France, Spain, Germany, or any such like Church, in all things, which they held and practised; that (as the Apologie of the Church of England professeth) it doth with reverence, retain those Ceremonies, which do neither endamage the Church of God, nor offend the minds of sober men: and onely departed from them, in those particular points, wherein they were fallen, both from themselves, in their ancient inte∣grity; and from the Apostolick Churches, which were their first foun∣ders.

* 1.125Now whereas some Papists would make some advan∣tage of this against us, as though the first Reformers of Religion, had denied a constant visible Church upon Earth, for many Ages, before the Reformation; which they say later Protestants have been forced to acknowledge: it is, either a great mistake, or a gross calumny. For I do not know any one of the first Reformers, or Protestant Divines, that were then, or are now, of any reputati∣on, that ever denied, that Christ had a Church in the Papacy, not onely invisible, consisting of the Elect properly: but al∣so visible,* 1.126 as Calvin doth explain himself. Their testi∣monies have been produced by others; to which more (if need were) might be added. Luther indeed, expressed himself very variously, in this point, as in many others; as was before ac∣knowledged. Sometimes, he grants more to the Church of Rome then most moderate Protestants can well allow unto it; sometimes, he leaves them nothing at all; which no sober man can justifie▪ Some other Protestants may speak ambiguously, sometimes; but if well understood, they will be found to agree well enough, in this point.

That which hath made many wary and scrupulous how they speak, in this particular; is, the advantage the Papists make of our conces∣sions, with ordinary simple people; when they inferr upon it, that therefore their communion must be the safest way, because we ac∣knowledge them a Church; and by consequent, a possibility of sal∣vation in it: they, (that is, the hot-headed or ignorant Zealots, of their side:) not ours so: whereas in very truth, (and they will acknowledge it, who are well acquainted with the Doctrine of An∣tiquity:) it is one main advantage of our cause, that though we dif∣fer from them in many things; nay, charge rhem with many gross, pestilent errors, and abuses: yet because they still keep to the main fun∣damentals, we do not exclude them from the Catholick Church; though by their hard and rigid censures, and excommunications of us, and all others that do not hold with them; they do very much hazard their right and title, to the said Catholick Church; as much, as by any thing.

But this hath been considered of before, and their Arguments for this pretended advantage fully discussed: whether, (if he have not been there already) I referr the Reader, who doth desire further sa∣tisfaction in this point. Our occasion here, is onely to observe, that this one thing; the denying the Church of Rome, the being of a Church, in the communion of which, they that have lived and er∣red; or do yet; wanting the means, ignorantly; by the advantage of the main fundamentals, and a godly life, may possibly be saved: which some Protestants rashly, and ignorantly; or rigidly, and un∣charitably, too much yielding to their own tempers, and humors, have done: hath been a great hinderance of Reformation. And I ve∣rily believe, the opinion most Papists are kept in, that the Religion of Protestants, is a new Religion; is not of little force, to make them averse from it▪ to this day.

It is well known, how bitterly rigid Lutherans judge generally, of the Protestants, that are not of their opinion. Papists (ordinary Papists) may be thought charitable, in comparison. Yet no provo∣cation could make other Protestants, far more in number, and every way much more considerable, to requite them, or to imitate their uncharitableness, and virulency: though they make great boast of it, and make no small advantage of it among themselves, to maintain

their own party; by their insultation. Yet for all that, they are ac∣counted Brethren, whether they will, or no: the French Churches, even lately, in a Synode of theirs at Charanton; have declared them so. I wish we had no greater differences with the Papists: however, if moderation and charity towards the one, be commendable; (as who would not commend it?) notwithstanding their uncharitable provo∣cations: why should not we be as charitable (so farr as the cause will bear:) towards the Papists, in our judgments, and deserve commen∣dation for it; though they judge of us no better (for worse they can not:) then the Lutherans?

Another great hinderance, noted and acknowledged by all men, and concerning which divers Books have been written, which give an Historical account of all actions and proceedings, private, and pub∣lick, in that business; is the difference that did arise among Protestants concerning the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ. So much hath been written of it, and of the sad effects and consequences, that I shall onely name it here, and no more.

Other particulars there be, of the same nature; which I could in∣sist upon; if I intended a perfect search, and disquisition. But be∣cause my chiefest intent, is, to insist upon those things, the know∣ledge and consideration whereof, may be of some concernment to us, of the Church of England; I shall confine my self to the consi∣deration of one particular, of Ceremonies: which as it was at first, a great hinderance to the progress of Reformation, in Germany, and elsewhere: So hath it been the occasion of great troubles and distur∣bances, to the Church of England; and sometimes hazarded the beauty and glory of its Reformation, (by all Protestants, that have any knowledge of former times, and do not unchristianly contract the Catholick Church, to present and particular Congregations, acknow∣ledged:) by base, unworthy compliances with the defects, (that I say not, deformity:) of some other Churches.

Whilest the chief Reformers were busie about material points, wherein true Christian-Faith had suffered great detriment; which every day appeared more and more, and begun so far to be acknow∣ledged every where, that all States and places, did even thirst for a sound and substantial Reformation: the Devil, who had tried many ways, to hinder and oppose what he could, and yet saw himself in

great danger: (God for other secret causes, but apparent infirmities of some chief actors, and unworthiness of others, who should have reaped the benefit; permitting, or not hindering:) this great Enemy of incorrupted Truth and Religion, stirred up a Sect of men, where∣of Flaccius Illyricus, and one Joach. Westphalus, were chief leaders, and abettors; who under colour of Zeal and Purity, despised, af∣fronted all Authority; preached rebellion, and sedition, as lawfull, for that which they called Religion; charged the most eminent Re∣formers, with Idolatry, Apostacy, Infidelity, and the like, for al∣lowing some ancient Rites and Ceremonies: some, for themselves, as ancient, and usefull: others, for peace and unities sake, as things in∣different. Like so many Furies of Hell, or Bedlams, that had bro∣ken their bonds, by Press and Pulpit, and all manner of ways, they filled the world, with their out-cries, and reproaches; by which ma∣ny were not a little terrified; but many more, who before had shew∣ed great inclination to it, scandalized, even to a hatred and abhor∣rence of all Reformation. In the mean time, the Zelots for the Popes power, and great Patrons of all inveterated Superstitions; made great advantage of it, to countenance their rigour and obstina∣cy, on the other side; and wholly bent themselves (which was vi∣gorously prosecuted by the Councel of Trent) to make the breach as irreconcileable, as they could possibly make it, even unto all extre∣mity: placing henceforth the greatest strength of their own safety and security, in the proscribing, and anathematizing of all dissenters, as damned Apostates, and Infidels. This is the grand mystery of Je∣suitisme, and politick Popery, at this day: to look upon all mode∣rate counsels, as pernicious and destructive; to fear nothing more, and to hinder as much as they can, lest any man with calmness and indifferency (that is, not preoccupied and prepossessed with opinion and prejudice) should enquire into the occasion of this unhappy breach, and the true state of Reformation. It is their advantage, and that which they earnestly labour for, that every difference may be made a Heresie; yea, flat Idolatry, or Apostacy: whether they impeach us, or we impeach them, in that kind, it matters not; the advantage they make of it is the same. So that in very truth, Jesu∣ites and Puritans, by two contrary extremities, are the great props, and interest of Popery: and though particular Papists, may suffer in

some places, by the fierceness of Puritans; and Puritans, in other, by the fierceness of such Papists: yet that is not considerable, in comparison of what the cause doth get in general, by those extre∣mities, on both sides.

What were the particular Rites, or Ceremonies, that were so fiercely impugned, and the occasion of such division; I shall not now make any inquiry: of rites and ceremonies in general, the question was, that is certain, whether in their own nature indifferent, (whence the name, or crimination of adiaphoristae, so frequent in that History, sprung:) and whether any might be retained, that had been abused, the abuse being taken away: the one (the sober and moderate) maintaining the affirmative: the pretended zealots, as peremptorily charging them with Popery, Idolatry, Apostacy, and I know not what, for the opinion. The Surplice, I remember, was one great particular, concerning which strange things were delivered by that Fanatick crew; as though whole Christianity had been hazarded, nay lost, by the using of it. But I will refer my Reader, if he desire a further account, to the Ecclesiastical History of those times: especially to them that have written the life of Lu∣ther and Melanchthon: which incomparable man, as he excelled in piety and learning; so he was the principal object of their revilings, and threatnings.

This is all I intended of the visible hinderances of Reformation; the observation whereof, I thought, would be of some use, to those that have any interest in this particular (of all reformed, the most eminent) Church of England. I shall yet before I end, commend some things to the Readers consideration; which upon the same subject of ceremonies, as I was writing what hath been written before; did offer themselves; and I have done.

First, to the Papists: Great braggs they make of their Ceremo∣nies, and their antiquity. We cannot deny, but many of them are ancient: now laid aside for good reasons, by the Church of England. But first; Can they make it appear that the substance of Faith which doth Constitute a Catholick Church, was ever thought by the ancients, to consist in part, or in whole, in ce∣remonies? Who doth not know, what ancient fathers have said and determined, concerning this matter of Ceremonies? What no∣table

variety, and in some things, contrariety hath been observed by ancient Ecclesiastical writers, in divers parts of the world; where one faith was acknowledged and professed.

But secondly: they have retained many; ancient, we acknow∣ledg; which we have not: but withall, they have many articles of faith; never heard of in the primitive times; which we have not, we praise God for it. They will not acknowledg it, I confess; except some here, or there, that are more ingenuous then the rest: but it hath been proved, and will be proved yet, if need be, and made as manifest and visible, as the light of the Sun at noon day may be to them that have eyes, and will not shut them of purpose, lest they should see.

But again, (a third answer, or observation:) They have many that are ancient; which we have not: we grant it. But have they all, or near all; of that nature? I will undertake, let all their rites, and customs, that are truly ancient, be put together: we will give an account, when it shall be required, of so many more, at least, ancient also, which are now, and have been, these many years, antiquated, and out of use. The reader may be better satisfied that the thing is very feasable, who shall but peruse those that have written de antiquis Baptismi, & Missae ritibus; Josephus Vicecomes, particularly; who hath taken greatest pains: in two tomes, in 4^to; Printed at Milan, 1620.

Bellarmine, I remember, in a place, where he disputes for transubstantiation: hath these words:* 1.127 Adde ultimò morem esse Graecorum &c. that is: [Lastly, Cardinal Bessa∣rion, in his books of the words of the consecration; doth relate that it is the custume of the Greek Church, that those words of the Lord, This is my body: and, This is my blood: are uttered with a loud voice, and that the people answer to either, Amen.] A man would not have thought, that such a one as Bellarmine should be beholding to Bessarion for this observation, which he might have found in divers ancients, who spake of it, as a thing general∣ly practised: St. Ambrose, in two several places, and Justin Martyr, long before him; not to mention others. But then it seems, it was so anciently; is it so now?* 1.128 But Bellar∣mine, again, doth in another book, out of St. Au∣gustine,

tell us of another ancient custome; that the people not only after consecration; but then also after the Priest had dispensed to them the blood; or uttered the words of distribution; The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ &c. did answer, Amen. Truly I have no ambition to find fault with Bellarmine: but the ingenuous Reader will not be offended, if I desire to do the truth right, upon any occasion that offers it self. Bellarmine excepts, the book out of which this is cited, is not Augustines. Be it so: Yet Ballarmine might have observed, that those words are taken out of a book of St.* 1.129 Augustine, that was never questioned; cont. Faustum Manich. lib. xii. c. 10. Secondly, Bellarmine doth re∣ferr us to St. Ambrose De Sacr. iv. c. 5. for the same. But the diligent Reader will find, that St. Ambrose in that place speaks of the Amen of the people, after the consecration; not, after the words of distribution, or dispensation. But for that custome, that the people were wont (and that it ought to be so) anciently to answer,* 1.130 Amen, after the words uttered by the Priest, The body (or, The blood) of our Lord Jesus Christ, &c. We have (not to mention others) the clear testimo∣ny of Pope Cornelius, in Eusebius; and as clear testimo∣ny of St. Augustine, many years after, that it was so practised, or ob∣served ab omnibus gentibus, in his time. So anciently, then, and universally so; is it so now at Rome; or where Rome is followed, as a rule? I find it not in the Missals, or Rituals, that I have. Well, if it be not; all I shall say of it, they were to blame; were it but for antiquity sake, that first left it out. But what shall we say, to the very words, or form of consecration: (of greater moment I believe, then any bare ceremony; yet, that too, in some respects a ceremony:) do not we know, that the practice of this day, gene∣rally, is contrary to the order, and resolution of some ancient Popes about it: and that the learned among the Papists, are divided among themselves, in their opinions, what is, or ought to be the true form?

Here be some instances of some variety: but the Ordo Romanus, or ancient Western Liturgy, set out by learned Cassander, with his ob∣servations; will furnish, who is desirous, with more of the same na∣ture; and of higher consequence, some; as the administration un∣der both kinds, and the like.

Thirdly, and lastly, we say: The Church of England, though for the abuse and other good considerations, it hath laid aside divers Ceremonies, that are acknowledged ancient: yet it doth not condemn any, that have been anciently and universally used, (as then used:) as impious, or idolatrous: nor doth think that, a just cause of Se∣paration, from any other Church, that useth them, as then used: whereby it doth fully acquit it self of all imputation of schisme, or breach of Communion with the ancient Church; upon that score: which they that do, that rashly and furiously censure all they do not like (the right Puritanical humor:) for Popish, impious, idolatrous and the like; are guilty of: and by that means, though they do not all pro∣ceed perchance to that degree of madness, as to deny the ancient Church, to have been a true Church, therefore: yet truly, they do it great wrong; and give the Papists great advantage (which they make great use of) by making Popery to be so ancient: more ancient, by some hundred of years, then sound Protestants can, or will acknow∣ledg it. For it is not the using, or not using of such, or such a Ce∣remony; (where the duty of obedience to superiors, doth not oblige the conscience) that is so considerable in it self: but rash, uncharitable censuring, and condemning of others, or separating from them for such things, which of their own nature are indifferent: which must needs proceed from great ignorance, (as we would charitably hope, of most:) or a worse cause. The Papist the refore have no reason at all to be offended; nor can take any advantage at all, of the doctrine or practice of the Church of England, in this point; which hath used such moderation, such wonderfull caution, to prevent all just offence: but what they can say for themselves, for retaining so many idle, superstitious (to say no more as now used:) ceremonies, by which the consciences of men are intolerably burdened; and Religion it self the substance of it, clouded, oppressed, and very much indangered: as by many moderate Papists (by Kings and Princes a∣mong others; witness the Letters of Charles the II.* 1.131 King of France, to the Princes of Germany:) hath been in part, if not altogether acknowledged, and com∣plained; I know not, nor they neither, I believe, if they would deal truly, and ingenuously.

As for those among us, who have been, or are yet guilty of such

rash, and uncharitable censures, in this matter of Ceremonies; where∣by they have caused, (besides the advantage given to Papists) great troubles in this Church, and are yet ready, many of them, to set all on fire again, upon this very score of Popish, Idolatrous Ceremo∣nies: which they have ever found their readiest Incentivum to work upon ignorant or disaffected people; and therefore, as a necessary re∣serve to themselves, against any good occasion, are so loth to part with: I have but little to add, to what hath been said by others, and whether possible to light upon any thing, that hath not been fore∣stalled, I make a question. But I shall adventure upon somewhat, I do not remember to have met with elsewhere: which I will commend to their consideration, whose senses, proper ends and Interest, or resolved and obstinate partiality, hath not obstructed.

In civil worldly things, that outward visible Signs and Ceremo∣nies have great power and influence upon men, ordinarily, to beget affection, or reverence; is acknowledged by wisest men and Politi∣cians. Plutarch doth observe (and some have made use, I know, of the observation, but upon another occasion) that Cato, though he was a man of great integrity, in his ordinary conversation, and very incorrupt in his judgments, as a Magistrate: yet did more hurt to the Commonweal of Rome, by the contempt he brought upon the Se∣nate, and highest Courts, by his contempt of outward apparel, and carriage, in his place: then he did good by his exemplary innocency of life, and approved uprightness, in administration of justice. I will not deny, but true Religion may suffer by too much, and affect∣ed formality: but the contempt of all Ceremonies, must be acknow∣ledged, to be the high-way to Atheisme; or no Religion at all: which is the worse of the two.

I remember I have read in Calvin, of a certain Staff, which was the Insigne or proper badge of Supreme Authority, in that Town where he lived. He calleth it sacrum baculum; a sacred staff; and saith plainly, that the people generally gave so much respect to it, that the very sight of it (when the authority of the persons did not, or could not: so I understand him:) did appease tumults, and prevent slaugh∣ters: so that the breaking of that staff, in a tumult, which at other times did use to appease tumults, was looked upon, as highest con∣tempt, and rebellion. How should that Staff, I wonder, become

so sacred, and of such authority in the eyes of the people; but as it was an outward sign (confirmed by long use and time) of power and authority? The persons, to whom the reverence was properly due, often changed; but the Staff still continuing the same, long time, and accustomance, was of that force, that it added reverence to the persons, and contributed not a little to the maintenance of that Au∣thority, which was due unto them. If this be the nature of men, in point of Signs, and Ceremonies, civil: why should not Religious Signs and Ceremonies (used with moderation, and discretion) be a help to devotion, and a preservation to reverence, as well? We have had sad experience in our late confusions, when the very Prayers of men, first brought into contempt, by their unmannerly sitting, and other misbehaviour in the Church; were heard by many, as ordi∣nary Ballads, in the streets; and indeed, were not better (many times;) by their affected non-sense, (though I believe, many could not help it:) and familiarity with Almighty God. Was this Refor∣mation according to the best, or worst Reformed Churches? But we may easily guess, what was intended by the contrivers of that horrid Oath; and the contempt of God, and all holy Rites, and Ceremonies, was a visible effect of it.

It is true, when a Rite or Ceremony, though never so good and warrantable, hath been disused in a place, or never used; it may seem strange at first; as apparel, that a man hath not been used unto, though never so comely of it self; by children, and fools, especial∣ly: (such I mean, that know little of the world, besides the place of their birth, and usual abode) is looked upon with admiration, if not derision. But wiser men, who judge of what they see, by the nature of things, and not by vulgar apprehensions; they will soon be satisfied, if their reason be satisfied. Yet some men, though wise and prudent enough, otherwise, (too much austerity, perchance, may be some cause:) have naturally such an antipathy to Ceremonies, that Nature (if they look not to it carefully) will sooner overcome their Reason; then Reason, their Nature. But there is danger in it: not onely because rash censures, in this kind, may give just offence, and cause divisions amongst Brethren: but because, by yielding too much to nature, we may condemn them sometimes unwarily, to whom we acknowledge all submission and reverence to be due; and

so condemn our selves, at the same time, though against our wills, that we condemn them. But I shall be better understood, by giving an example.

St. Paul, 1 Cor. xv. among other arguments, by which he doth prove the Resurrection of the Dead; or rather doth reprove their inconstancy in the Faith, that denied it: one is, in these words, v. 29. What shall they do, that are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not, why are they then baptized for the dead?

How many wayes, these words by several Expositors, and other learned men, are interpreted, and what I my self think most pro∣bable, I will not take upon me to give the Reader an account, not for the difficulty, but because it would not be much to our purpose. The most obvious, and literal Interpretation, certainly; much con∣firmed by the observation of a very learned Philologist, of the dif∣ference between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is, that St. Paul by these words, doth allude to the custome of some of that time, and Church; which was, if any converted to the Christian Faith, died unbaptized, to substitute another to be baptized for him, though dead. That this was done really, by divers in the Primitive times, we have the clear testimony of some ancient Fathers, and others: as Tertullian, Chrysostome, Epiphanius; whom learned Justellus, in his Notes upon the Codicem Can. Eccles. Univers. doth cite. But those they speak of, the Cerinthians and Marcionists, besides that they were Hereticks, were not then in being, when S. Paul wrote. And whether they were the first institutors of it, (which is possible; grounding upon those very words of St. Paul, as they understood them; as Theophylact doth intimate:) or whether they received it from some that lived when St. Paul wrote; doth not appear by those testimonies. However, as I said before; the most obvious and li∣teral sense, that can be made of the words, is, to understand them as spoken of such a custome or practice, by some of that Church, to whom St. Paul did write. And it doth appear▪ both by the 18^th. Canon of Codex Ecclesiae Afric. and by the 83. Canon of the Coun∣cel in Trullo, that it continued a custome a long time, in divers Churches, among them that were no Hereticks. Those first Chri∣stians, certainly, did by it, innocently testifie their Faith, and cer∣tain▪ belief▪ concerning the Resurrection of the Dead; their charity

also prompting them, to use all means imaginable, though not com∣manded, or at all necessary, to secure them that were dead▪ St. Paul (it must be gtanted, if it were his meaning, as there is great proba∣bility:) saw no hurt in it; and therefore doth mention it, without reproof. But Calvin, a rigid man naturally, against Ceremonies, and ever suspicious of the worst, he calls it, a profanation of Baptism: a wicked heathenish superstition; a sacrilegious, and Magical abuse of Baptism: and will by no means allow, though he grant it the most rceceived interpretation, that S. Paul should be so understood. It is well, he would not have St. Paul to be a Patron of Magick. But what if Calvin's interpretation of St. Paul's words, be thought by others, forced, violent, not at all probable: and that other, which he doth so reject, as countenancing those abominations, (as he would have it:) be thought the onely true, or that hath any probability and this, by Protestants of good credit, who lived in Geneva, since Calvin? Was not Diodat a man of some credit, in Geneva; and his Annotations upon the Scripture, in great esteem? Well; what saith he upon these words of St. Paul, in his third and last Editions of his Annotations; as he is expressed, (for I have not the Original Ita∣lian, at this time:) by the English Translator? Which are baptized for the dead: so St. Paul: From this manner of speech (saith he,) it appears, that the Apostle means not an ordinary Rite of the Church, but a particular custome of some Christians; of whom Antiquity makes men∣tion: and it should seem, that the beginning thereof, was, if not alto∣gether good, and laudable; yet, at least, tolerable. Which was, that when any one died in the confession of Christs Faith, before he could receive Baptism; some of his kindred or friends, &c. And again: The end of this particular Ceremony was, the profession of the expectation of the blessed Resurrection of Believers. In following Ages, this thing came to be an abuse, and superstition.

The same Interpretation is followed by learned Hugo Grotius. And the Jews have a custome to this day, (when it began, I know not:) if a child die before he be circumcised; that is, before the eighth day; he is circumcised nevertheless, and a name given him over his grave: as Buxtorfius, and others testifie. Certainly, besides pro∣fession of their Faith; there was somewhat in this custome very con∣siderable, to keep people in the opinion of the use, and necessity

(ordinarily) of Baptism: which was much better, then that hor∣rible contempt of it (and of Christ himself, in it:) which among Precisians and Puritans; as in our late confusions, to the great da∣mage (as to the ordinary means:) of innocent souls, and as great scandal of true Orthodox Christians, did appear unto all men; is usual and ordinary: and not of Baptism onely, but of the Eucharist also: which Calvin (this contempt of it, I mean) did so much de∣test. Now if this were St. Pauls meaning, for which there is so much probability; and is so positively and peremptorily maintained, where Calvins name is yet in greatest credit: what shall we say, that St. Paul was much to blame, for his apparant countenancing of so heathenish, magical, an abuse and superstition; as Calvin doth censure this custome? or that Calvin was much to blame, to judge so rashly and rigidly of a custome, which if not altogether good and laudable; (to use Diodate's words) yet was tolerable: and, as a bare profes∣sion of Faith, (as then used:) and due respect unto the Sacra∣ment of Baptism, we might say, very commendable; but it will serve, (if St. Paul were in the right:) to say, not to be excepted against.

But for Calvin, though he was a rigid man, naturally; and espe∣cially in point of Ceremonies; and might over-shoot himself some∣times, in his censures and opinions; yet he was a godly pious man, otherwise; a man of great worth, and parts; and by what he writes of some particular Ceremonies; in some places, very moderately; but especially, of the necessity, or expediency, at least, of a stand∣ing Liturgie; we may probably guess, had he lived in England, and been better acquainted with the true state of businesses, he would have been of another mind, in many things. But what shall we say of them, who (to pass by what they have done, when the confu∣sions of the times gave them the opportunity; which, I wish hearti∣ly, their present carriage would suffer us altogether to forget:) are yet ready to cry out against whatsoever they allow not, (a Surplice, perchance, or the sign of the Cross in Baptism; and the like:) as Po∣pish, Antichristian, Idolatrous; and would have the world believe, that Conscience is the cause of these out-cries: what shall we say of them? That these be the Saints; the beloved of the Lord,* 1.132 (as one doth style them) the apple of his eye: the people that are sure to prevail, and reign

with him for ever? Doth he not mean, the only true Christians of the world? I know not what other sence to make of the words. O horror! O infatuation! O deluded people!

Deluded? They that are so against their wills, they may be pitied. But with the Readers leave, I will for conclusion, give the world an ac∣count (I know not any now living, that can do it better) of a business which once in the days of King James of blessed memory occasioned much talk; whereby it will appear clearly, that these men, these pre∣cise anticeremonial, antiprelatical men, generally; (or many of them, at least:) are willing to be deluded, and wilfully delude others: being perswaded, it seems (which we noted of Popish zealots, before) that no means are unlawfull, whereby the cause may be advanced.

In the year of the Lord 1624▪ a book was set out, intituled: The original of idolatries; or, The birth of Heresies. First faithfully gather∣ed out of sundry Greek and Latine Authors; as also out of divers learned Fathers: By that famous and learned Isaac Casaubon, and by him pub∣lished in French, for the good of Gods Church: And was translated in English for the benefit of this Monarchy: By ABRAHAM DARCIE. I was then a young Student in Oxford. I heard of the book, and great commendations of it, before I saw it. When I had seen it, and read some part; I know not whether more sensible of the ignorance, that possesseth ordinary men; or of the wrong that was done to my Fa∣ther particularly; but troubled I was, I am sure, very much: and that which most troubled me, was the report of the acceptation the book had found at the hands, as of many others; generally; so of that bles∣sed and learned King, particularly, whom I knew very able, as most men in the Realm, to judge of such ware. The cheif end, and subject of the book, I found, was to prove, that the Masse, (a word of great extent and antiquity; which made the Authors of the Augustane Con∣fession, subscribed by Calvin, say, Falsò accusantur Ecclesiae nostrae, quod missam aboleant: retinetur enim missa apud nos, & summâ rever∣entiâ celebratur.) or rather indeed the whole Liturgy; ancient and late; and every part of it; was derived from ancient Heathens, Numa Pompilius, and I know not whom: some part also taken out of the Alcoran: which to prove, his Authors, for the most part, are some late collectors of Roman Antiquities, as Blondus, Alexander ab Alex∣andro, and the like; who say no such thing: but from what they say

of the Romans, he makes his inferences and applications, as he list himself; more like the dreams of a distempered man, then the words of a man endowed with ordinary sence and reason. Truly, I could as soon have been perswaded, that all the ballads that were sung in London, those four years my Father lived there, were of his making, as to believe he had any hand in that book: and I further believe, that himself, had he been alive, had as easily digested, to have been thought the Author of the one, as of the other. But a fierce book it is, a∣gainst Ceremonies: against Superstition, and Popery: that is enough to satisfie those, who are such friends to zeal, that they stand not at all, upon truth, or knowledg; the proper character of a Puritan or a Je∣suit.

Well: though Nathaniel Butter, the Bookseller, that vented them; had told me before-hand, when he saw I did not like the business, he was sure, I should have no thanks, if I did question the book; and bid me earnestly, to consider of it: yet I was resolved, whatever came of it to do my utmost, to do the truth, and my Father right. I first addressed my self to some, to whom by their place, as I conceived, the cognisance of such things, did most properly belong, but there indeed, though otherwise, and upon other occasions, looked upon with favour enough, I had little thanks, it was far from it. After that, I had no hopes, but in the King; to whom I was well known; as my Father had been before, much more. The King was then at Theobalds, as I remember: I addressed my self to one of those Reverend Bishops, who usually waited upon the King. By whose means a let∣ter of mine being shewed unto the King; (who indeed had received the book, because it bare my Fathers name, with much gracious ac∣ceptation; but had not yet had the leisure to look into it:) after he had pawsed a while, and as I was told, examined some places; grew into a great passion, that such a cheat was put upon him, and others. Cer∣tain it is, that some were put to it, to make their peace, whom the King apprehended accessories by their neglect, or the neglect of those, whom they trusted: and suddenly after, Nathaniel Butter, the Book∣seller; and Abraham Darcy, the Translater, were committed. This Darcy was a man of a very bad life, generally; and lived, or made use, at least (as I was told by one of the Ministers of the French Congre∣gation, in London, who said he had been charged by their Consistory

about it:) towards his living, of an imployment so base, and scan∣dalous, that the very name is base, and offensive to modest ears. Upon this, the noise was all London over, (and I suppose it went further:) that the Popish Bishops, at the Court, by their calumnies and misin∣formation, had set on the King against a godly book, and some god∣ly men, by whose means it had been published. I am very sure, that liberal supplies of mony were sent from some, that were very near the King, to the Translator; whilst he was in prison: who (some others having, at last, with much importunity, mitigated the King to his en∣largment:) thereby instead of punishment, made a benefit of his imprisonment. Yet before this, (which is the thing I would have the Reader take good notice of) a French book, the original of the English translation; being produced; it had been found out, that an old title page, had been, by art, and cunning, transformed; the years altered, and the name of Isaac Casaubon inserted; and thus the world for meer gain and lucre, (for I do not believe, that there was any further myste∣ry in it, at the first:) shamefully abused. Other editions, or copies of the same book, were found, and shewed to the King; yea translations of it, that had been made, when my father was yet scarce born. Besides somwhat had been written and published by me, in the Latin tongue, in Vindication of my Father; which by the Kings command, had been translated into French, and English: all this, whilst the business was yet fresh, and in frequent debate; or soon after.

A man would think, there had been enough done (besides the qua∣lity of the book it self, before spoken of:) to satisfie the world; if apparent truth and visible evidences, would have done it. Yet for all this, some years after, the same book, or English translation, was a∣gain (we may guess by whose procurement) reprinted; where, I can∣not tell certainly; but at Amsterdam, I guess: with this title: The Original of Popish Idolatry: or, The birth of heresies. Published under the name of Casaubon; and called in the same year, upon misin∣formation. But now upon better consideration, reprinted with allowance, Being a true and exact description &c. Printed—1630. A preface also was added, in justification of the book, and first editors of it: where among others of the same stuffe, these words are: that they that did suppress it, were either Papists in their hearts; or such as hold with Pa∣pists, that ignorance is the mother of devotion: that the Gospel of our Lord

Jesus Chrst, was departing from the land, &c. and the like. And since that, a base Pamphlet came out, I know not where Printed, much to the same purpose; in the very front whereof, these goodly words are; by way of approbation: D. Causabonus, ille eruditissimus, Caeremoniarum Ethnicarum & Diabolicarum in Pontificias & Episcopa∣les mutationem, terris demonstrare promittebat. Quod ego Casauboni pro∣missum judico dignissimum, quod typographiae beneficio, ad manus plurium perveniat. It is but short, but all of the same strain, and spirit, as the former book, to which it doth referr.

Evidences I know are obvious enough; and we needed not have looked back so far; (later times have afforded store;) how much those men (I speak it of the generality:) regard truth, or sincerity, when lying and juggling will advantage the cause. But because I was particu∣larly interested, in this account, I hope the Reader will accept of it, and make good use, (my chiefest aim:) as occasion shall offer it self.

FINIS.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Cypr. De Ʋnit: Eccles.
• * 1.2

  Baron. a. d. 808. §. 219.
• * 1.3

  1 Cor. 7.9. Hebr. 13.4.
• * 1.4

  Baron. a. d. 796.8.
• * 1.5

  Bar. a. d. 797. Sect. 2
• * 1.6

  Ba. ibid.
• * 1.7

  Dion. Pet. in Ratio tom. Paris. A D. 1632.
• * 1.8

  Laby p. 37.
• * 1.9

  p. 147.
• * 1.10

  p. 171.
• * 1.11

  p. 172.
• * 1.12

  Labyrinth. p. 177.
• * 1.13

  Math. 16.18.
• * 1.14

  Labyr. p. 33.
• * 1.15

  Labyr. p. 77.
• * 1.16

  Valer. M. de¦cred. reg. p 55.
• * 1.17

  Vid. l. Mis∣cel. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 p 9. & 〈◊〉〈◊〉, &c.
• * 1.18

  1 Pet. 3 19. Act. 2.24.
• * 1.19

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. p. 336.
• * 1.20

  Aug Epist. 99. to 2. p. 502.
• * 1.21

  1 Cor. 1 23.
• * 1.22

  Ibid. 11 19
• * 1.23

  Pl. Mil. glor. ed. 8 p. 422.16 p. 392.
• * 1.24

  p. 127.
• * 1.25

  S••. K. D. his conser. with a Lady, p 84.
• * 1.26

  Extrav. Com. l. 1. tit. 8 c. 1.
• * 1.27

  Psal. 50.16.
• * 1.28

  Genebrard. in Chronol.
• * 1.29

  Isa. 40.13.
• * 1.30

  August. De Ʋnit. Eccl.
• * 1.31

  Theophyl. in E∣vangel. Rom. Ed. p. 357.
• * 1.32

  Bell. De. R. P. l 4. c. 3. p. 796.
• * 1.33

  Matth. xvi.18.
• * 1.34

  1 Pet. v.2 4.
• * 1.35

  Laby. p. 280.
• * 1.36

  Baron. a. d. 357. § 50, &c.
• * 1.37

  Labyr. p. 208. & 334.
• * 1.38

  Baron. v Blond. p 114. Ibid. p. 112.
• * 1.39

  Cap. 72.
• * 1.40

  Ephes. lv.4, 5, 6.
• * 1.41

  Joh. 10. 1 Joh. 5. Josh. 2.19.
• * 1.42

  Matth. xvi.18
• * 1.43

  Labyr. p. 222.
• * 1.44

  Labyr. p 334
• * 1.45

  Bar. to. 1. a.d. 258. §. 42.
• * 1.46

  To. 7. p. 621.
• * 1.47

  Uni. V. Card. Perron. p 50. &c.
• * 1.48

  Iren. lib. 1. c. ii 3. de q^o.
• * 1.49

  De script. Eccl. p. 149.
• * 1.50

  Relat. p 336.
• * 1.51

  Laby. p. 15.
• * 1.52

  Ib. p. 16.
• * 1.53

  p. 139.
• * 1.54

  p. 3••7.
• * 1.55

  Vincent Lirinen. Commonit. Lib. 1 p. 63.
• * 1.56

  Relation. p. 228.
• * 1.57

  Labar. p. 244.
• * 1.58

  Relat. p. 229.
• * 1.59

  Labyr. p. 33
• * 1.60

  Labyr. p. 103.
• * 1.61

  p. 242.
• * 1.62

  p. 472.
• * 1.63

  Labyr. p. 317.
• * 1.64

  Decret. 3. de cons••cr. Dist. 2. c. 12.
• * 1.65

  Lib. 4. c. 26. p. 693.
• * 1.66

  Bell. De Euch. l. 4 c. 24 § Quar∣ta ratie. &c.
• * 1.67

  Decr. 3. Dist. 2. De censor. c. 7.
• * 1.68

  Relat. p. 259.
• * 1.69

  Laby. p. 27••.
• * 1.70

  Ibid. p. 318.
• * 1.71

  Laby. 262 3.
• * 1.72

  Plaet. in Silu. 3^o.
• * 1.73

  Relat. p. 271.2 3.
• * 1.74

  Labyr. p. 282.
• * 1.75

  Ibid.
• * 1.76

  Ibid.
• * 1.77

  ••
• * 1.78

  Bill. de R. P. l. 5. c. 5.
• * 1.79

  D••cret. 1. di••t. 22
• * 1.80

  Decr. II. a. 23. q 5. p. 823. c. 47.
• * 1.81

  Labyr. p. 364.
• * 1.82

  〈…〉〈…〉 129.
• * 1.83

  S••••bone
• * 1.84

  Labyr. 6.7.
• * 1.85

  p 233.8.
• * 1.86

  Relat. p 266.
• * 1.87

  p. 45.
• * 1.88

  p. 98.
• * 1.89

  p. 42.
• * 1.90

  Labyr. p. 55.
• * 1.91

  August. De ••••••t. Ecc. c. 16.
• * 1.92

  Labyr. p. 57.
• * 1.93

  Matth. xvj.16.
• * 1.94

  Hilar. de Trin. lib. j. & lib. vj.
• * 1.95

  Gra••. Dec. Dist 40 si Papa.
• * 1.96

  Labyr. p. 301.302.
• * 1.97

  Lab. p. 301 &c.
• * 1.98

  Labyr. p. 302.303.
• * 1.99

  Treatise of En∣thusiasme, ch. 3.
• * 1.100

  Rel. p. 281. &c. I••. 301 &c.
• * 1.101

  Relat. p. 285. & 296.
• * 1.102

  Labyr. p. 306.
• * 1.103

  Ibid. p. 315
• * 1.104

  Resp. an R.P. 711.712.
• * 1.105

  1. Cor. vii.10.
• * 1.106

  Decr. p. 93.
• * 1.107

  Cal. (obj.) p. 236.
• * 1.108

  Bals. p. 766.
• * 1.109

  Basil. tom. 2. p. 771.
• * 1.110

  Decretal. 1. tit. 2. De Bigamis.
• * 1.111

  1 Tim. 4.3.
• * 1.112

  2 Thes. 2. 11.
• * 1.113

  Labyr. p. 144.296.
• * 1.114

  1. p 789
• * 1.115

  L••byr. 297.
• * 1.116

  Ed. 8^o. p. 180.
• * 1.117

  Ed. Ed. p. 978 Ed. 8^o p. 206
• * 1.118

  Ed. Ed p. 974. Ed. 8^o. 191.2.
• * 1.119

  Pet. ••••ntid. A∣pol. p. 104.5.
• * 1.120

  Letters d' E••••. Pasq. 40 11. p. 596.
• * 1.121

  Orat. p. 215.
• * 1.122

  Fiat lux. p. 250.251.
• * 1.123

  Jus Divinum Ministerii E∣vangelici. Pub∣lished by the Pro••••n. Assem. of Lond. 1654 Part 11. p. 39.
• * 1.124

  Ibid. p. 45.
• * 1.125

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 against Featly, p 52 53.
• * 1.126

  C••lv. Epist. 104. p 222.
• * 1.127

  Bell. de Sacr. Ecc. l 4 c. 13.632.
• * 1.128

  Bell. De Missa. ii.12. p. 831.
• * 1.129

  August. to. vi p. 323.
• * 1.130

  Euseb. Ecclesi. Hist. l. 6. c. 35. p. 180.
• * 1.131

  Exemplar. liter &c. Paris 1557 & p. 204. & 212.
• * 1.132

  The Life of Faith; a Sermon preached by R. B. Jul 22 1660.