A treatise of religion and governmemt [sic] with reflexions vpon the cause and cure of Englands late distempers and present dangers· The argument vvhether Protestancy is less dangerous to the soul, or more advantagious to the state, then the Roman Catholick religion? The conclusion that piety and policy are mistaken in promoting Protestancy, and persecuting Popery by penal and sanguinary statuts.

A TREATISE OF RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT.

FIRST PART. Of the beginning, progress, and principles of Pro∣testancy in general, and of the Prelatick Church of England in particular.

SECT: I. Hovv necessary a rational Religion is for a peaceable Government: What Religion ought to be judged rational? That the truth of mysteries of Faith is more credible then cleere; A digression concerning the No∣tions and Natures of things, and in particular of a Body. Hovv unreasonable it is to judg of impossibilities, in order to Gods omni∣potency, because they seeme so to our human understandings. How dangerous it is for a temporal Soueraign to pretend a spiritual iuris∣diction ouer his subjects: and how the Catolick world ever acknow∣ledged the Bishop of Rome his spiritual iurisdiction ouer all Chri∣stians▪

AMongst our Adversaries discourses against the Roman Catholick Religion, the inconsistency therof with the soueraignty and safety of Prin∣ces seemeth to be most applauded. The Prote∣stant Ministers ceas not to proclaim from pulpit and press, that Kings are but Tenants at will to the Pope, and that his spiritual iurisdiction de∣priues them of all temporall power.* 1.1 We shall rid (I hope) prote∣stant Princes of that iealousy (when we treat of this point) by ma∣nifesting

the calumny. In this part of our Treatise we confine our∣selues to matters of fact, reserving to dispute of the right herafter. And indeed none can frame a true iudgment of this, or of any other Controuersy, before he be informed of the historical part therof. Therfore our method is to set down in the beginning of this work the state and belief of the visible Christian and Catholick Church untill the yea•••• 1517. wherin the world heard first of protestancy: af∣terwards we shall proceed to examin whether the soul and state may be better gouerned by the principles of protestancy, then of Pope∣ry. We doubt not (with Gods assistance) to retort against our ad∣versaries their own arguments, and to proue, that as no Religion is a safe way to salvation, but ours, so likewise not any is so fauorable to the soueraignty of lawfull Magistracy, and to the peacebleness of human gouernment, as the same Roman Catholik. We need not inculcat to States-men (how euer so Irreligious) that the support of gouernment is Religion, and that th••ir own Masterpiece is, to keep the multitude in awe of the lawes, not so much by force of armes (an expedient more dangerous then durable) as by a religious fear of God, and a firm persuasion that Soueraigns are his Vice-ge∣rents; and divine prouidence so concerned in the maintenance of their authority and prerogatives, that neither can be opposed with∣out infallibility of eternall damnation to the opposers.

This persuasion must not be the sole work or word of the Soue∣raigns themselves, or of their state Ministers; their testimony would be suspected by the subjects, as partial; it must be grounded upon authority, credibly reported to be divin, as (among Christians) the holy Scriptures explained by the ancient tradition and sense of Councels and Fathers, which by another name we call the Church, or Clergy; that is men to whom God hath committed the charg of soules, and commanded us to follow their directions in spirituall matters, as being Jnterpreters of the divin Law, which Soveraigns must observe.

There could not be an expedient more satisfactory, then the insti∣tution of such a Church, Clergy, and spiritual Court of Iudicature, For, if interpretation of Scripture had bin left to the Soveraign, the

subjects would mistrust his sincerity in explaining the same; if to the lay subjects, the Soveraign would be as diffident of their explicati∣ons: Wherfore to avoid differences and disputes, God appointed the Clergy for spiritual Iudges, (as being by their institution less concerned in temporal affaires, and therfore presumed to be more conscientious, and less partial in their sentences then lay persons) and Tradition for the rule, wherby they must direct their judg∣ments: to the end their doctrin be Apostolical, not arbitrary, or altered from the primitive; but rather all novelties and differences (concerning matters of Faith) be still suppressed; and therby all unlawfull pretensions (which both Soveraigns and subjects fre∣quently claim under the pretext of Religion) be remedied or pre∣vented; for that, souveraignty is as apt to degenerat into tyranny, as subjection into rebellion, if not regulated by a religion that ma∣kes it as vnlawfull for lay men to intermeddle with the doctrin of the Church, as it is improper for Church men to intrude themsel∣ves into matters of state.

But because neither Soueraigns nor subjects are bound to submit their judgments in matters of Faith to a doubtfull authori∣ty, therfore vnless they who pretend to be the Clergy, can evi∣dence by vndeniable miracles (either wrought by themselves, or by their knowen spiritual predecessours that professed the same Faith) their iurisdiction and doctrin, they can not rationaly pre∣tend to have the charge of soules, or any divine authority for de∣termining controversies of Religion. Because, seeing the principal part of Religion doth consist in a perfect submission of the vnder∣standing to divi••e authority, (even against the appearence of sense, and the probability of reason) vnless the Church or Clergy wher∣upon we rely doth make it evidently credible by supernatural signs, that their authority and doctrin is divine, their religion is not rational; and therfore no rational person is bound (without that supernatural evidence) to acknowledg in them a spiritual ju∣risdiction, or to follow their dictamens, and forsake his own pri∣vat dictamens, and principles of probability, or the seeming evi∣dence of his senses.

Some men do require more then this, and are of opinion that a Religion can not be rational, vnless the truth therof be cleerly dis∣cerned, or demonstrated by the light of natural reason; and judg it a great folly in men to believe what they do not comprehend. But this maxim is destructiue to Religion and reason; it doth ouer∣throw the very foundation of both, which consists in acknowlegd∣ing an incomprehensible Deity, whose perfections are infinit, his thoughts and revelations (and by consequence the mysteries of Religion) inscrutable, and therfore to be revered, not examined by so limited and imperfect creatures as we are; that can hardly diue into the bottom of ordinary difficulties, and discern the im∣mortality of our own soules, or the nature and composition of any visible body.

* 1.2And albeit an excellent wit of our age, in a late Treatise, hath endeavored to cleere by natural reason the mysteries of Christian Faith; and in order to facilitat the beliefe of Transubstantiation, doth teach that one body can not be in many places at one tyme, nor be penetrated with another body; and therfore is for'ct to say, that Christ hath as many bodys as there are consecrated pieces of bread: yet I think it more agreable not only to Catholik Religion, but to natural reason, to believe, that the very same body of Christ that was born of the blessed Uirgin, and is in heaven, is also under every consecrated species: otherwise it must be sayd that Christ our Sauiour is a monster, that hath not only as many heads, but as ma∣ny bodies, as there are Consecrations

* 1.3But if this argument be thought more popular then philosophi∣cal, I hope schollars themselves will judg it unrea••••nable that Di∣vines or Philosophers be too positive in defining the immutable essences of things, or (which is the same) in determining what is possible, or impossible for God to do, and in deducing conclusions from such notions as they call natures. If we consider that we owe all our human knowledg to the evidence of sence (which is often fallacious) and to reflections, of the mind (which are alwayes fal∣lible) we must grant that we may be frequently mistaken in the ground of our demonstrations, and do sometimes take our own

fancies and false conceits for true objects, which haue no real exi∣stance in themselues, nor any other immutability in order to Gods power, besides that tenacity, or obstinacy wherwith men stick to their own opinions. This is sufficiently proved by the great discord and diuersity of opinion that is in the schooles, euen con∣cerning the essence or nature almost of euery thing, and parti∣cularly of a body or quantity. Wherfore it is more probable that M.r Bonart is as much mistaken in placing the nature or essence of a Body in actual extention,* 1.4 as he takes others to be in their con∣trary opinions concerning the same subject; otherwise Christ hath non only as many Bodys as there are consecrated species, but also it followeth (if his Body can not be penetrated, or in the same place with another) that he united to his Diuine person a nature which he cannot command to be whersoeuer himselfe (as God) is pleased to be: I am no Vbiquist, and therfore I grant that the hypostatical vnion doth not make Christs body to be e∣very where, or whersoeuer the Diuinity is; but I think all Chri∣stians ought to belieue that it is possible for Christ (as man) to be in any particular place, and penetrated with any Body what∣soeuer, where his person and Diuinity is.

And as for Mr. Bonart his way of defending how Christs Body did, and may penetrat other Bodys,* 1.5 I see no difference between it and that of the heretiks which himselfe derides, and condemns [Pag: 257.] but that the Heretiks say he did shew his body to the assembled Disciples through some chinck of the wall, or through the Key-hole of the doore; and M.r Bonart says Christ shot or thrust his Body in, through the indiscernable pores which are in euery body; and how the whole or the parts of a human body (such as that of Christ then was, and now is) can be conueyed entire through one or many such litle and distant pores, without loosing all human shape, (if a perfect penetration be not allow¦ed) I do not understand. And I belieue M.r Bonart will hardly be able to declare how the substance of Christs Body is not lost, as well as the shape, by Christs passing through the pores; for that according to his principles [pag. 243.] the substance of euery Body

consists in such a greatness and figure of the parts, as compose that body; and upon this ground he proceeds when he sayes [ibid.] that the substance of bread and wine is changed into the Flesh and ••loud of Christ, because the greatness and figure of the parts of bread and wine are changed, though al the rest doth remain. If therfore the greatness, figure, (and by consequence the shape) of Christs Body, and its parts, be changed, or proportioned to the pores of the penetrated body (as they must of necessity be before they can pass or be shot through them) Christs Body, and the parts therof, do loose the substance, as well as the shape of a hu∣man body, according to M.r Bonartes doctrin. Hence we con∣clude that actual extension doth not so cleerly (nor so catholickly) declare the essence of a Body, but that it must leaue or breed some doubts of Christs humanity, of Gods omnipotency, and of his Mothers virginity.

Besides; if the least particles or Atoms of a Body are of the same nature with the whole, and haue real extension, by the ad∣dition wherof they make a body greater, as this Author holds; it can not be well comprehended,* 1.6 how the Atoms can be so litle as not to be capable of being lessend by Gods power; especially seeing M.r Bonart doth grant one side of an Atom may be toucht, and the other side not toucht. For, if so: How can any that belie∣ves Gods omnipotency, imagin, that God can not separat or di∣vide sides which may be seuerally wrought and wrought upon by a corporeal instrument? If an Atom be so thick that a corporeal instrument may touch one side therof, and not touch or reach the other side, there is ground and room enough for Gods po∣wer to separat one side from the other; for if one side of a Body or Atom can be wrought upon independently of the other, it may exist also, or be moued, independently of the same, and by con∣sequence is distinct and separable from it. And indeed, if to be toucht, and not to be toucht be not contradictions sufficient to pro∣ve real distinction between the sides, or extremes so denominated, no kind of contradictions can inferre real distinction.

To say, [as Mr. Bonart doth pag: 301.303. & passim] that to be toucht

and not toucht argues only a verbal (not a real) distinction in the Atom wherof one side is realy toucht, the other not realy toucht; and to pretend that this is cleerly deduced from the first notion or nature of a Body, or extense; because forsooth, the notion of Parts must suppose not only one extense but many,* 1.7 with a certain manner and measure of extension; and that therfore an Atom may be extended, and yet not partible: To maintain this discourse I say, seemeth to me a begging of the question, and as difficult as any other opinion in this matter. For 1. It is not easy to conceiue how any extension whatsoeuer, can include in its first notion or nature, an exclusion of division. 2. In M.r Bonart his own principles it seemeth in∣intelligible how any Body or Atom that hath so much extension [that is so much length, bredth, and profundity] as to be capable of being toucht on the one side, with out being toucht on the o∣ther, is not composed of parts distinct one from the other. For, [pag: 303.] he grants that if in the expansion or exten∣sion of an Atom did appeare any little line or point, that line or point would conclude a real distinction of parts in the Atom. Now why the touch of any corporeal instrument [suppose of a Painters pencil framed and managed by Gods hand] may not leaue an im∣pression of it selfe [which impression you may call a line or point] in that place or side of the Atom that is toucht, no reason can be giuen; and by consequence there can not be any for denying real distinction, and division of the parts in the Atom.

Lastly: It must be concluded that the Atoms are either par∣tible, or penetrated: Because if they be not partible, they do touch each other wholy, and euery where, according to their dimension, and extensions; and if they touch in such a manner, they are pe∣netrated, or in one and the same place: And if they be penetra∣ted, or penetrable, impenetrability can not be the essence or pro∣perty of the Body which they compose, and wherof it only con∣sists. This is only sayd [by the way] to shew that the best wits may mistake the notion and nature not only of a spirit, but also of a Body; and that they are not the best Guides when they steere themselues and others more by their own privat discourses, then

by the common sense of the faithfull, in mysteries of faith, wherof it is a property to be more credible then cleere.

But if the euidence of sense be fallacious, and the reflections of our mind fallible, what certain knowledg can we haue of any thing? Must we al turn Stoiks or Sceptiks? Shall we doubt of all Geometrical Demonstrations? No, we haue certain Knowledg of our own existence, and of some other euident truths. And as for the Demonstrations of Geometry, Euclid himself neuer pretended that his notions of a point, line, superficies, perfect circle, &c. did point at the real existence of any such objects, as indivi∣sible points, lines, perfect cercles &c. he knew, and Mathematicians confess, there are no such things in rerum natura. And seing Ma∣thematicians are so ingenuous as to acknowledg that their cleerest notions are not real natures, or immutable essences, I see no reason why Philosophers [whose demonstrations are not so cleere] should be so positiue in defining things,* 1.8 as if they were defy••ing Gods omnipotency to make them otherwise then they haue dictated in the Schooles, or published in their Bookes. And he that thinks to declare the reasonableness of Christian Religion by making the my∣steries therof agree rather with his own Philosophical notions, then with the common sense of the Church, will involue himselfe into a labyrinth of errours.

* 1.9The reasonableness therfore of Christian Religion must not be measured by any cleere euidence of truth that human reason discouers, either in the works of nature, or in the diuine myste∣ries [for we shall proue herafter such euidence to be inconsistent with faith] but rather by the cleere euidence of an indispensable obligation [that euery man finds and feeles in himselfe] of sub∣mitting his judgment to the Church, when he reflects upon the signs and sufficiency of its authority in order to propose diuine doctrin. To submit our reason to a Church or Clergy that hath no cleere and authentick signs of diuine authority, is simple and sinfull credulity: not to submit to its sufficient authority, that is, to authority signed with supernatural signs, is heretical obstinacy.

As for the meanes wherby euery one concerned in this spi∣ritual

subjection to the Church and Clergy, ought to be infor∣med of their miracles, authority and jurisdiction, they are the same which all men practise and judg to be sufficient for know∣ing and acknowledging the true and lawfull Heire of a Kingdom or estate. The right to temporal dominion is decerned by suc∣cession, and that succession by Tradition; so also the right to gouern soules, and decide Controuersies of faith, must be acknowledged to reside in them that by a continual succession of Episcopall hands deriue their spiritual caracter or mission from the Apostles, and neuer varied from the Apostolical doctrin; of which succe∣ssion of Caracter, and continuance of doctrin, the best proof is a neuer interrupted Tradition, or Testimony of honest and know∣ing persons in euery age, against whose verdict there can be no Lawfull exceptions. That Church or Clergy whose doctrin, ca∣racter, miracles, and jurisdiction is witnessed by this Tradition, ought to be obeyed, as hauing the spiritual superiority wherunto Christ our Saviour commanded both Soueraigns and subjects to submit their iudgments in the mysteries and Controversies of Re∣ligion.

Though this expedient of a Church and Clergy so qualifi∣ed, ought to be acceptable and satisfactory to lay Princes and people, yet modern Politicians stand upon such nyceties, that the greatest danger and difficulty which they apprehend in the go∣vernment of a Christian Commonwealth is, to order so affaires, that the spiritual and temporal jurisdiction may not clash; they feare that by mistake, or ambition of the Clergy, the temporal may be too far intrenched upon, and made not only subordinat, but subject to the spiritual; and the spiritual at length become so absolute, and arbitrary, that the Clergy may [at least indi∣rectly] spiritualize any thing for their temporal conveniency; at least that they may persuade such as [by an implicit faith] sub∣mit to their authority and direction, to question [if not contemn] any ciuil Gouernment, wherof they mislike the Lawes or Mi∣nisters, and by their Ecclesiastical Censures fright the illiterat mul∣titude into rebellion upon the score of religion.

To prevent this ••anger our English states-men think fit to continue that supremacy of spiritual Iurisdiction in our Kings, which K. Henry 8. assumed (how piously and politikly, shall be seen herafter.) At present we will only obserue, that it is thought to be the concern as well as the custom of Soueraigns, to em∣ploy Clergy men in state affaires, for two reasons. 1. That they may be as much engaged in defending the temporal jurisdiction which they receiue from, and exercise by fauour of their Prin∣ce, as in vphoulding the spirituall, so much recommended to them by the Pope. 2. That the Soueraigns may be cleered from all suspicions and aspersions of intermedling with the soules of their subjects, farther then the Church and the Pastors therof do allow.

This Christian policy is imitated by the Turck, he thinks it so necessary for the safety of a Prince, not to be suspected by his people of affecting a spiritual supremacy, that he consults with, and euen remits to his Mufty, matters of state depending of Religion. The Pagans giue the same respect to their Priests; and the wisest Heathen Princes who tooke vpon themselues the High Priesthood, pretended and persuaded their subjects (by so∣me counterfait miracle) that they had bin inspired, or comman∣ded by the Gods to assume the dignity; or that the same was due to them by descent from some Deity. And indeed nothing less then a miracle can make it prudently credible, that God doth trust temporal Soueraigns with a spiritual supremacy.

* 1.10The ground therfore of policy as well as of piety and peace, consists in the choyce of a Clergy or Church for gouerning sou∣les, whose doctrin, jurisdiction and caracter hath bin confirmed by supernatural miracles; The legal settlement of such a Religion and Clergy is so agreable to reason, and so acceptable to all sorts of people, that the non-conformity therunto will be prudently (and popularly) judged to proceed rather from the contumacy then from the conscience of the non-conformists: and the seue∣rity of lawes against such Recusants, will sauor more of piety then cruelty, and moue more the generality of subjects to praise the

Soueraign, then pitty the sufferers. In a word; such a Church and Religion will make the Prince powerfull and popular; the mul∣titude peaceable and obedient; the Clergy respected; their riches and priuileges not enuied; it will take away conscientious preten∣ces of rebellion, and remoue or reconcile all differences between the spiritual and temporal jurisdiction. That the Roman Catho∣lick Clergy and Religion hath all these properties; and the Pro∣testant reformations not one of them, shall appeare after we haue finished the historicall part of this Treatise. Now to the mat∣ter of fact.

For the space of almost 1500. yeares it was the general be∣lief of Christendom, that the true Catholick Doctrin was pro∣fessed only by such as held to the Roman faith, and that the † 1.11 Su∣premacy of spiritual jurisdiction was annexed to the Bishop of Ro∣me, as St. Peters Successor, and Christs Vicar vpon earth; and that the Sea Apostolick changed not any one point of faith the first 600. yeares, is acknowledged by our learned [a] 1.12 Ad∣versaries; as also affirmed by the [b] 1.13 Fathers, that the Roman faith or Church, and the Catholick faith or Church, are Synonima; and that he who is not in communion with the Bishop of Rome is profane, and not in the way of salvation.

And though some of the more modern Greecks attempted to make their Patriarch of Constantinople at least equal with the Bishop of Rome, yet their frequent submissions and recantations of that presumption, together with the cleere testimonies of their holy and ancient [d] 1.14 Bishops and Councells in behalfe of the Po∣pes supremacy ouer the Churches of the East as well as of the West, sufficiently demonstrat the error of the Greek Schismatiks. I say therfor that for the space of almost 1500. yeares, the Roman Do∣ctrin was held to be the true Catholick and Apostolick, and the Roman Bishop to be S. Peters successor, and Christs Vicar vpon earth.

For, abbeit our learned Adversaries do not all agree in acknow∣ledging that the Roman doctrin was pure for the first 600. Yeares (some of them saying that it began to be corruped after the Yeare 400. others before that tyme) yet they do not prove their assertions, but ground them upon this only reason, that the Church in those ages did censure as Heresies some points of Protestancy, and condemned the [e] 1.15 Authors as heretiks; In par∣ticular Henaias for opposing the worship of Images; Aerius for denying prayer and offering the Sacrifice of the Mass for the Dead; Vigilantius for denying prayer to Saints, and their wor∣ship; as also the Monastical Profession; the single and unmarried life of Priests denied not only by Vigilantius, but by Jovinian and others; as the Churches visibility, and continuance by the Donatists:

But the censuring these protestant doctrins as errors, cannot be an argument of corruption or chang of faith in the Church that did censure them, vnless it be made appeare that the opinions censured had bin formerly the ancient and generally receiued be∣lief of the Catholick and visible Church, so that these and the like exceptions are grounded only vpon some vnlearned Protestants suppositions without proofe, and rather confirm then disproue what we say. Therfore we shall not argue against them, but in this particular of the Roman doctrins purity for the first 600. yeares, we will prefer the testimony of their more learned brethren, viz. their greatest Doctor Bishop. [g] 1.16 Ieuell, Bishop [h] 1.17 Godwin, D.r Humfrey, D.r Bell, Bishop Bale, and many o∣thers of their best Diuines versed in Ecclesiasticall history; all of them positiuely affirming, that the Roman faith was pure for the first 600. years; and that S. Gregory the great, Bishop of Rome (with whom ended that terme of years) liued and dyed in the purity of the primitiue faith; and that all the Orthodox Christians of the whole world professed his belief, and commu∣nicated with him, as appeareth also by his correspondence, and communion of faith with the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, and Hierusalem, and with all the Orthodox Chur∣ches of the world through out Asia, Africk, and Europe.

We do also agree with most protestant Writers in this, that the same Religion which S. Gregory the great held, was that which S. Austin the Monk and his Companions (sent by Gregory into England to conuert the Saxons) taught our Ancestors, and that God was pleased to confirm the faith which they preacht, with Miracles; as appeareth by the Confession of our [i] 1.18 Ad∣versaries, and by S. Gregories letters to Austin [k] 1.19 himself an. 602. aduising him not to glory therin but rather to consider that God gaue him that gift for the weal of those to whom he was sent. As also by his letters to Eulogius Arch-bishop of Alex∣andria (lib. 7. epist. 30. indict. 1.) saying therin:

Know then that wher as the English Nation &c. remaining hitherto in Infide∣lity; I did by the help of your prayers &c. send unto that Nation (Austin) a Monck of my Monastery, to preach to them &c. and now letters are come to vs, both of his health and of his work, that he hath in hand; and surly either he or they that were sent over with him, work so many Miracles in that Nation, as they may seem to imitate the power and Miracles of the Apostles them-selves.

That the particulars of the Religion professed by S. Gregory, and the visible Church of his tyme, and preacht by St. Austin the Monck and his Companions, sent by Gregory to convert the English Nation, were the same which we Roman Catholiks pro∣fess at this present, is evident by all Histories, Both sacred and profane; and even by the Confession of all Protestant writers, who treat of this subject. Austin the great Monck (saith Doct. Humfrey) [l] 1.20 sent by Gregory the great Pope, taught the Englis∣men a burthen of Ceremonies &c. Purgatory, Mass, Prayer for the Dead, Transubstantiation, Reliques, &c. And the [m] 1.21 Centurywri∣ters, [n] 1.22 Carion, [o] 1.23 Osiander, and other learned Protestants

say, that the Religion preacht by St. Austin to the Saxons was,

Altars, Vestements, Images, Chalices, Crosses, Censors, Holy Vessells Holy water, the sprinkling therof, Reliques, Translation of Reli∣ques, dedicating of Churches to the bones and ashes of Saints, Con∣secration of Altars, Chalices, and Corporals, Consecration of the font of Baptism, Chrism, and Oyle, Celebration of Mass, the Archi-Episcopal Pall at Solemn Mass tyme, Romish Mass Books, also free will, merit, Iustification of works, Pe∣nance, Satisfaction, Purgatory, the vnmarried life of Priests, the publik invocation of Saints, and their worship, the wor∣ship of Images, Exorcism, Pardons, Vowes, Monachism, Transubstantiation, prayer for the Dead, offering of the health∣full Host of Christs body and bloud for the Dead; the Roman Bishops claim and exercise of Iurisdiction and supre∣macy over all Churches (Reliquumque Pontificiae superstitionis Chaos) even the whole Chaos of Popish superstition.

Now that D.r Fulck should term this conversion our per∣version;* 1.24 and that Mr. Willet should place St. Gregorie and St. Au∣stin, among the Fathers of Superstition; and Osiander should say, they subjected England to the Yoke of Anti-Christ; and Mr. Ha∣rison that they converted the Saxons from Paganism to no less hurt∣full superstition then they did know before, making an exchang from open to secret Idolatry &c. we attribute to an excess of their pri∣vat spirit, and zeale in their own Presbiterian, or Fanatik way, which doth not agree with the more sober and more Christianlike Protestants; nor indeed impugn our assertion, which is, that this Popery, now so much raild at, though professed by St. Gregorie and wherunto our Ancestors were converted by St. Austin▪ the Monck, and our selves yet profess, was the Religion held by the visible Church as the only Catholik and Apostolik in the 6. age; and that vntil then no known chang of Christs Doctrin had bin made in the Roman Church. Whether the whole Church of the 6. age was deceived or no, in this their persuasion, and adhesion to the Roman Doctrin, is another question, and shall be discussed herafter.

SECT: II. Of the Author and begining of Protestancy, and of Luthers Disputation and familiarity with the Devill, serjously related by him self in his authentik Bookes.

THE first that preacht the Protestant Religion, or Reformation, was Martin Luther, a Ger∣man, who (as himself [a[ 1.25 confesseth in a letter to his Father) had bin fearfully hanted from his youth with Sathans apparitions, and (as o∣thers testify) often in the forme [b] 1.26 of firebrands; These frights together with the suddain death of his dearest Camerade slain by a thunderbolt, forced him (as he says, in the said Epistle) to enter into the Religious order of St. Augustin, wherin he lived some yeares (not without signs and suspition of being possessed) vntill that an 1517. one John Tecell a learned Dominican frier, was preferred before him in publishing and preaching of Indulgences, which Sermon in like occasions had bin formerly giuen to the Augustins.

This fancied injury don to his Order and Person, put Luther into such a passion, that notwithstanding he vnderstood not well (as he ingeniously [d] 1.27 confesseth) what the name of Indulgen∣ces meant, yet he preacht Sermons, and printed conclusions against them: his propositions being condemned in Germany, he appealed to Rome, and submitted his doctrin and himself to Pope Leo 10. Vt [e] 1.28 reprobet, approbet, sicut placuerit, acknow¦ledging his voice to be the voice of Christ. But loe (saith he) [f] 1.29 whilst I look for a joyfull sentence from Rome, I am stri∣ken with the thunderbolt of excommunication, and condem∣ned

for the most wicked man alive; then I began to defend my doings, setting forth many bookes &••. And seing it is so, let them impute the fault to them-selves, that have so excessively handled the matter.

[c] 1.30

Afther that Luther had lost his hopes of being favored in his opinions by the Pope, he [g] 1.31 appeald from his Holyness

sentence to a general Councel, assuring himself that none would be caled, or assembled in his own days. That this was his design, and not any desire of being directed by a Councel, is manifest by his procedings; for, as soon as he heard there was a Councel summoned, and perceived some likelihood that the Bishops would meet, he writ a [h] 1.32 book against the necessity and authority of general Councels, and begins with the first at Jerusalem, condemning its Decrees; then, with the first Nicen, and concluds there is no obligation of submitting our Judgments to their Definitions; or of conforming our actions to their Ca∣nons; and declars to his Germans, in what a sad condition they would all be, if they were bound to obey Councels, for then they must have abstained from strangled meat, foule, add (which is wors) from puddings, and sausages, according to the Apost∣les Decree at Ierusalem; as if that Decree (intended but for a litle tyme) were still in force. Therfore he maintained that Christ [i] 1.33 hath taken away from Bishops, Doctors, and Councels the right and power of judging of doctrin, and given it to all Christians in generall; and admitts of no other rule but Scripture, as every one will thinck fit to interpret the same.

Thus farr was Luther driven by his pride, and passion a∣gainst the Dominican friars, with resolution not to recant what he had once writt, though he wished [k] 1.34 he had never begun that business and that his writings [l] 1.35 were burned and buried in eternal oblivion: he had not as yet precipitated himself into the parti∣culars of Protestancy, but for some few years went no further then the dispute of Indulgences, and wore still his religious ha∣bit (though he had left the Monastery) sayd Mass, and was much tormented in his Conscience for running so desperat a cours as to appeale from the authority of Popes, Fathers, Coun∣cels, and Church, upon a punctilio of his mistaken honour. How often (saith he) did my trembling hart beat with in me, and repre∣hending me▪ object against me that must strong argument; Art thou on∣ly wise; do so many worlds err? were so many ages ignorant? what if thou errest and drawest so many into error to be damned with thee eternally? &c.[m] 1.36

And again. [n] 1.37 Dost thou O sole man, and of no accounpt, take upon thee so great matters? What if thou being but one offendest? Jf God permitt such so many, and all, to erre, why may he not permit thee to erre? [o] 1.38 Hitherto apartaine those arguments, the Church, the Church the Fathers the Fathers, the Councels, the Cu∣stoms, the Multituds, and greatness of wise men: whom do not these clouds and doutes, yea these seas of examples ouerwhelm?

Being thus tormented and tossed between his passion of pride, and a perplexity of mind, himself relates at larg (tom. 7. Wit∣temb. edit. an. 1558. lib. 1. de Missa. angu.) how vpon a certain tyme he was sudainly awaked about midnight, and how sathan began his disputation with him, saying; Harken right learned Doctor Lu∣ther;

Thou knowest thou hast celebrated priuat Mass, by the space of 15. years, almost euery day; what if such Masses were horrible Idolaty? &c. The deuill speaking thus to me, I burst forth all into a sweat, and my heart began to tremble, and leap (voce forti & gravi utitur) the deuill had a graue and strong voice &c. And then I learned how it came to pass that somtyms early in the morning men were found dead in their beds. To the Deuill I answered, I am an anoynted Priest, receaued consecration from a Bishop, and did all things by or∣der of my Superiors. In these streights and agony I would fain vanquish the Devill with the armes of Popery, and did object the intention and faith of the Church &c. But Sathan with greater force and vehemency did pursue; Go to, shew where it is writen (teaching Luther to appeale to Scripture alone) that a wicked and incredulous man can assist at the Al∣tar of Christ, and consecrate in the Churches faith? &c. If men have taught it without the express word of God, it is altogether vntrue: But in this sort are you acustomed to do all things in the dark, under the name of the Church and so set to sale your owne abominations for Ecclesiastical doctrin. &c.

After this disputation Luther was so well acquainted with the De∣vill, that him self saith (tom. 2. Germ. Jen. fol. 77. Believe me J know the Devill very weell, for now and then he walketh with me in my Chamber. When I am among company he doth not trouble me, but when he catcheth me alone, then he teacheth me my manners. And (in Conc. Dom. Reminiscere fol. 19. apud Cochlaeum) J am troughly ac∣quainted with the Deuill, for I haue eaten a bushell of salt in his com∣pany. Yea confesseth (in Colloq. Germ. fol. 275.281.) that the Devill was his Bed-fellow, and lay with him more frequently and ••loser to him then his beloved Kate the Nun. And (in litteris ad E∣lectorem

Saxoniae) he saith, The Devill doth so run to and fro trough my brain that J can neither write, nor read. And (in Colloq. Germ. fol. 283.) brags thus, J have a couple of rare Devills, who at∣tend and wait vpon me most diligently: they are no petty Fiends, but great Devills; yea great Doctors of Divinity among the rest of the Devills. One of these two great Doctors of Divinity continued his disputation thus against Luther.

Now I urge this, that thou didst not consecrat in thy Mass, but didst offer and adore only bread and wine, and proposedst the same to be adored by others &c. The institu∣tion of Christ is, that other Christians may communicat in the Sacrament, but thou art anointed, not to distribute the Sacrament but to sacrifice; and against Christs institution thou hast vsed the Mass for a Sacrifice &c. And that which Christ did ordain for ea∣ting and drinking for the whole Church, and to be given by the Priest to other Communicants &c. of this thou dost make a pro∣pitiatory Sacrifice O! abomination aboue all abomination,

And after that Zealous and learned Devill had thus exclai∣med, and argued against the Sacrifice of the Mass, the autho∣rity of the Church, Transubstantiation, and adoring of the B. Sacrament, he reasons also against the intercession and prayer to Saints; his words are set down by Luther in the same place thus. We Spirits being rejected, do not confide in Christs mercy; neither do we look upon him as a Mediator or Savior, but feare him as a cruell Judg; such was thine and all other Papists faith &c. Therfore ye did shun from Christ, as a cruell Judg to Mary, and the Saints; and they were Mediators betvveen you and Christ; so is Christ de∣prived of that glory.

In this disputation the Devill had so good success, that Luther was convinced, and resolued to become a Protestant, and to preach and print, not only against the Mass, and the other particulars mentioned in his Disputation, but (upon these words of the Devill, (So is Christ deprived of glory) did Luther ground his opinions against the necessity of good works (in favor of Iu∣stification by only faith) against merit, satisfaction, Purgatory

&c. and maintained these his Diabolical opinions with so great obstinacy, and so litle respect to [p] 1.39 Scripture, Church, Coun∣cells, Fathers, Princes, and Prelats, that such parts of Scripture as did not favor the Devills argument, he either rejected them as apocrijphal, or altered the words and sence in his Translations and Comments, against all exemplars and copies either in Greek▪ Hebrew, or Latin. And all Princes and Prelats that contra∣dicted his errors, he vilified in so virulent and villanous terms, that none but a soule directed by the Devil could resolve to print them. His Bull against all Bishops is full of most vile stuffe: as also against the Duke of Brunzuick, the Elector of Mentz, &c. In so much that his owne Scholler Sleidan acknowledgeth his manner of writing to be unworthy, Base, Scurilous &c. In his Book, and answer against K. Henry 8. he calls him an en∣vious mad foole, babling with much spittle in his mouth, more furi∣ous then madness it self, more doltish then folly it self, indued with an impudent and vvhorish face, without any one veine of princely bloud in his body, a lying sophist, a damnable rotten vvorme, a Ba∣silisk and progeny of an Adder, a lying scurill, couered with the title of a King, a clounish wit, a doltish head, most wicked foolish and impudent Henry. All this he says tom. 2. Wittenberg. fol. 333.334.335. & fol. 338.334. he saith: The King doth not only lye like a most vaine scurre, but passeth a most wicked knave: thou lyest in thy throat foolish and sacrilegious King; And other so immodestly base expressions against his Majesty and all other Papists, that we ar ashamed to English them. By Luthers Language, and way of defending his Protestant doctrin, we might guess at his Ma∣ster, though him self had not told us his name was Sathan.

SUBSECT I. How weakly Protestants excuse Luthers Conference with the Devill, and the embracing of Sathans doctrin.

THERE is not any one thing troubleth so much the learned Protestants, as their Apostle Luthers acknow∣ledged instruction in Protestancy received from the Devill, and therfore [q] 1.40 some of them endeavor to maintain that this Disputation was only a spirituall fight in mind, and no bodily conference; but with the same probability of truth they may af∣firm that all other real apparitions and the effects therof, were only spirituall conflicts. Luther tells so many corporeal circum∣stances, that it could not be a meere spiritual fight: first, he says that the Devill spoke to him voce forti & gravi, in a strong and grave voice. 2. That then he learnt how men were found dead in their beds in the morning; True it is that these words and circumstances are fraudulently omitted by the Divines of Wit∣tenberg, in their later editions of Luthers works, and perhaps Mr. Chark, and Mr. Fulk did never peruse the more ancient and sin∣cere edition (tom. 6. Germ. Ien. fol. 28.) where all these things are set down. Yet grant this were no bodily conference, and but only a spiritual conflict, what matters it whether Luther was instructed and persuaded this or that way, by sensible conferen∣ce, or inward suggestion into Protestancy, if therin the De∣vill was his Master?

Other [r] 1.41 learned Protestants excuse Luthers conference, saying it was only a dream; to mistake which for a reality, he was subject, as being a German Monk, giuing to understand, that good drinck doth frequently turn German dreams into reall per∣suasions. But vnless they prove that Luther was in a dream, or in drink, when he writ this conference, they wil never per∣suade any man that reads it, that this Disputation was not real. Him self says he was awake, tells the tyme of the night that it happened, describs the Devills voice, his owne feare, learnt how people were slain by the Devill in their beds; these refle∣ctions and impressions are far from dreams, especialy when the party delivers them as real truths many years after, and [s] 1.42 maks them the ground of his chang in so important a matter as Religion.

But suppose German Monks were as much given to drink, and after drink as apt to mistake their dreams for real truths, as Mr. Sutcliff insinuats; and to maintain, even when they are sober, that their dreams ar not dreams, as Luther doth his Conference; of what credit can such an evasion or excuse be to

Protestants? for what difference is ther between a dreaming, drunken, and Diabolical Religion?

These answers not being any way probable, other learned Protestants grant the Devill did realy conferr with Luther; so Hospinian, B.p Morton, Joannes Regius, Baldwin &c. This last in a Book of this subject printed at Jsleb 1605. pag. 76.75.83. saith, let none wonder that I confess the disputation to be real, and not written in iest, or hyperbolicaly, but seriously and historicaly; for, Luther writ that history so consideratly and prolixly, that I still ac∣knowledg be writ it seriously, and according to the truth of the histor. But then he adds that Luther had bin a protestant before that Conference, and that the Deuills drift was to make Luther des∣pair for hauing said Mass, prayed to saints. &c. But this is impertinent and fals; impertinent, because our dispute is not of the Deuills intention, but of his instruction, and whe∣ther Luther did well in embracing (either before or after his re∣volt from vs) the Devills doctrin; fals, because vntil that Dis∣putation Luther sayd Mass almost every day; as sathan objects to him speaking [t] 1.43 somtyms in the present, and was then no pro∣testant; for, the only point wherin he differed then from Catho∣liks, was, about Indulgences; and euen that he maintained more out of a pick and pride, then Judgment, as appears by what hath bin sayd in the beginning of this section.

Wherfore Joannes Regius [v] 1.44 in his Apology against Be∣larmin saith, that the Devills instruction is no argument to con∣fute Luthers doctrin, because though it was the Devill that in∣structed him, he instructed him according to the word of God; and the Devills speak truth somtyms, especialy when they speak that which the Scripture witnesseth.

This, in my opinion, is the worst of all other evasions; 1. Because the Devill seldom or never applies the words of Scrip∣ture, to the right sence; when he tempted our Savior, though he quoted Scripture, yet he was no true Interpreter therof. Now what ground Protestants can have to believe that the Devill hath altered his ould custom, or why they should prefer the Devills

Scriptural interpretation, before that of the visible Church, Coun∣cells, and Fathers, is not intelligible. 2. It is not credible that if all the visible Church of Christians did err in professing Po∣pery and committed Idolatry by hearing Mass, and adoring the Sacrament, that the Devills would dissuade them from that I∣dolatrous Religion; his design and desire is to seduce men, not to reduce them to the way of saluation. 3. It is not likely that God would compel the Devill to be chief instrument of refor∣ming the Catholik Religion, and Church; in the ould law he never committed so great a charg unto him, he employd ho∣ly men and Prophets to convert the Iews and Pagans; 'tis strang that in the law of grace the Devil should become an Apostle. When Dives (who was but the Devills Camerade) desired lea∣ve to come into the world, and preach to his Brethren, God did not judg him a fit Messenger, or Missioner; it was answered that his brethren ought to believe Moyses and the Prophets, that is the Church, and the Ministers therof. And though this be a parable, it contains real doctrin, wherby we are instructed that Gods Church would never be so low brought, as to stand in need of Preachers from Hell. Seing therfore we have so many reasons to conclude that God would not make the Devill an Apostle, or a Reviver, and Reformer of the Ghospell, Prote∣stants can have none to believe that the doctrin and Reforma∣tion which Luther received from him, is true, or agreable to Scripture.

Doctor Morton [w] 1.45 late Bishop of Duresme (to proue ad hominem against us, that the Deuill doth persuade men som∣tyms to piety, and by consequence that Luthers reformation might be pious, though the Deuill instructed him therin) objected Delrius (a Iesuit) affirming, that the Deuill appeared to an Abbot in the forme of an Angel, and persuaded him to say Mass. Ther∣fore if the Mass be good (as Catholiks say) the Deuill may and doth exhort men to vertuous actions. To this I answer, 1. That our question is not whether the Deuill may somtyms persuade men to do things of themselues good; we know he may, but

when he doth, it is always with an euill design, and to the end good things may not be well don, but that the manner of doing them may vitiat their goodness. This Delrius in the place cited by M.r Morton, says, and proues by many exemples, wherof the Mass is one. But M.r Morton wilfully conceals and mistakes the truth of the story; for, Simon the Monk, whom the Deuill endeavored to persuade to say Mass, was neither Abbot nor Priest; but only Diacon, as Delrius sheweth, and therfore he answered the Deuill, that none ought to say Mass without the order of Priesthood; and by his aduice to the contrary, he was discouered to bee the Deuill, though he appeared like an Angell. Without doubt this was a Lutheran Deuill, and perhaps the same that dissuaded Luther from the Mass, because Luther [x] 1.46 learnd of him amongst other points of the reformation, that lay men, and euen women, are Priests, and may consecrat the Sacrament, preach and absolue from sins.

Hauing sincerely related this matter of fact in Luthers own words, and not concealed any thing that any of the most lear∣ned

Protestants could say, to interpret or excuse the same; and nothing appearing wherby his instruction in protestancy by the Deuill may be denyed, or justifyed, I leaue it to the considera∣tion of all wise, and Religious persons, whether it be policy or piety to promote a Religion whose confessed Author or Apostle is Sathan. So long as the generality of a people can be made be∣lieue that Luther did seriously, and of set purpose, belye him∣self, and discredit his own reformation; or that the Deuill is a sincere Interpreter of Scripture; and Scripture interpreted by him, is the word of God; so long, I say, as these Nations can be made belieue so impossible things, without doubt both the protestant Church and state may thriue by protestancy, but how long so un∣likly a persuasion will continue amongst inquisitiue, though ig∣norant people is vncertain, as also the greatness grounded ther∣vpon. It hath gained more ground in England then could be ex∣pected, considering the ingenuity of the Natiues; but Q. Eliza∣beths interest went a great way in the begining of her Reign; euery Courtier and countrey gentleman expected (by giuing his vote in Parliament for reuiuing the Protestant Religion, wherby alone she could pretend to be legitimat) her fauor, and rewards out of the Church liuings; and in her long continued gouernment, their Children were made belieue that her Reformation was not the work of Cecil, but of Christ; And euer since, their posterity haue bin confirmed in that opinion by false Translations of Scrip∣ture, and falsifications of Councells and Fathers, as shall herafter appeare.

Its strang so improbable a persuasion can beare such sway, and beat down the Catholick truth. But as the Deuill insisted most vpon discrediting the Diuine Sacrifice of the Mass in his Dispu∣tation with Luther, so the Protestant Clergy striue to make that holy Mystery to be lookt vpon by their flock, as a blasphemous fable, and dangerous deceit. We hope notwithstanding that the En∣glish Laiety will reflect upon the occasion of their mistake, and consider whether it be not a grieuous sin and great folly, to pre∣ferr Q. Elizabeths temporal interests, (which now is turned into

dust) before that of their souls: and Whether any thing can be so vnreasonable as to giue more credit to the Deuill, and to Mar∣tin Luther, and his followers (debauch't and dissolute Friars and Priests) then to the holy Doctors, [y] 1.47 and Martyrs of Christs Church (euer since the Apostles) in their acknowledgd writings, and in general Councels, who call the Mass the visible [1.] 1.48 Sa∣crifice, [2.] 1.49 the true Sacrifice, [3] 1.50 the dayly Sacrifice, the Sa∣crifice [4] 1.51 according to the Order of Melchisedech, the Sacrifice [5] 1.52 of the Body and Bloud of Christ, the Sacrifice [6] 1.53 of the Altar, the Sacrifice [7] 1.54 of the Church, and the Sacrifice [8] 1.55 of the new Testament, which succeded [9] 1.56 all the Sacrifices of the old Testament: and that it was offered for the health of the [10] 1.57 Em∣peror, for the [11] 1.58 sick upon the Sea, and the fruits of the earth, for the [12] 1.59 purging of houses infected with wicked Spirits, for the sins [13] 1.60 of the liuing and dead; And this is so undeniable that our learned aduersary Crastoius in his book of the Mass against Belarmin (pag. 167.) reprehended Origen, S. Athanasius, S. Am∣brose, S. Chrysostom, S. Augustin, S. Gregory the great, and venerable Bede, for maintaining the Mass to be a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the liuing and of the dead.

And if there can be no policy of state (as things now stand in the English Monarchy) to make Q. Elizabeths legitimacy and supremacy a matter or ground of Faith, I am sure it cannot be Christian piety to press and preferr the reformation (which she and her faction introduced for that reason of state against the Stewards), before the Religion of all the ancient and learned Fathers of the Catholick Church though we had no other ex∣ception against it, but that all the wit and learning of Protestants, cannot make it probable in any degree, that the Deuill is not the Author of Protestancy.

SECT: III. Of the principles and propagation of Protestancy.

LVther after his Conference with the Deuill, hauing resolued upon that Foundation of his Reformation, which hee had learnt from so godly a Master, endeauored to gaine as many Poets, Players, Painters, and Printers as he could, to discredit with Scoffing, Ballads, Pamphlets, Poems, and Pictures, the Roman Religion (which un∣till then had bin caled and esteemed the only Catholick and A∣postolick) and to divulge his n••w Doctrin amongst ignorant and vicious People. For encouragement of the dissolute Clergy to ioyn with him, he taught (against the doctrin and practise of the whole Church euer since the Apostles as shall be demonstrated), that Priests and professed Nuns might mary; and to giue them good example he took a professed Nun [a] 1.61 for his owne wife: And prevailed with this doctrin more then Iouinian [b] 1.62 the heretik.

For this liberty together with his principle of justification by only faith, drew from sundry parts of Europe, incontinent Cler∣gymen, wherof the chief were Caro••stadius, Archdeacon of Wit∣temberg, Iustus Ionas head of a College of Canon Regulars, Oe∣colampadius a Monk of S. Brigits Order; Zuinglius a parish Priest; Martin Bucer a Dominican friar; Peter Martyr a Canon Regular. Bernardin Ochinus a Capuchin; and some Augustin Friars of Lu∣thers own Order. Each of these hauing taken a wench, were en∣gaged in Luthers quarrel against the whole Church.

But their course of life and the nouelty of their doctrin, being dislik't by all men that were not Libertins; and not coun∣tenanced as yet by any Princes or Prelates; it was thought neces∣sary for their own preseruation and propagation of their Ghospell, to make it plausible to the giddy multititude, whose ignorance they knew to be as capable of incredible impressions, as their na∣ture is impatient of reasonable subjection. [c] 1.63 Therfore besids many other works, in the yeare 1520. Luther writ a book called Praeludium captivitatis Babilonicae, wherin he maintayned, that Chri∣stians are not subject to human Lawes (at least in foro Conscintiae) Christ hauing made them all equall by the Gospell; but that the Pope, Prelates, and Princes had tyranically usurped a Iurisdiction ouer them; and kept them for many years in gross ignorance

and wors then in a Babylonian captivity; therfore that God had sent him to reforme these abuses, and restore vnto all oppressed people the Christian liberty which they had received in Baptis∣me, and by his reformation they might enjoy so fully as to judg and govern all, omnia judicemus & regamus.

Then he published his doctrin of justification by only faith so resolutly, that he doubted not to preach, though mens words

be the greatest blasphemies, and their works the most damnable vill••nies: If they haue as much confidence to belieue without doubt, as impudence to act without scruple, they may be sure that God hath receiued them into his fauor, and cannot be damned, un∣less they doubt of their saluation.

This abominable presumption Luther [d] 1.64 grounded, upon the infinitness of Christs merits, (as if forsooth, our Sauiour had suf∣fered, to the end we might not only be happy in heauen, but by his passion hah waranted our wickedness upon earth) grossly mistaking, and confounding the sufficiency of Christs merits with the sufficiency of their application; none can deny but that the least drop of our Sauiours Bloud is sufficient to redeeme millions of worlds, because it is of infinite value; but all Catholicks euer held that though his Bloud and merits be infinitly sufficient, in them∣selues, yet are they not sufficiently applyed to sinners, unless they concurr to their own reconciliation and justification, not only by faith, but by good works, Sacraments, and other meanes, which God hath appointed for that purpose. Yet Luther pretended that faith alone is a sufficient application of Christs me∣rits, and that men needed not mortify their bodys nor endea∣vour to secure their salvation by good works, thinking it a dimi∣nution of our Redeemers glory, and a disrespect to his person, that with our free will we should cooperat with his passion, and help our selues; and vpon this ground do Protestants raise all their batteries against Indulgences, Purgatory, Pilgrimages, praying to Saints, Confession of sins, Penance, Satisfaction, Merit, austerity of Monastical life, Works of supererogation, &c.

A reformation so indulgent to liberty, and sensuality, could not want Proselits; and in a short tyme appeared the effects ther∣of; the Peasants of Germany rebelled against their Princes and Lords in defence of that Euangelical liberty which Luther had preached, and in the space of one summer, were on both sides a hundred thousand men slain. Some Princes, to make themselues considerable (by heading the multituds which ran to Luther) pro∣fessed his Religion, and protected his person, and he layd for the foundation of his reformation the ensuing principles.

SVBSECT I. The fundamentall principles of Protestancy.

THe first principle, and foundation of Luthers and of all Protestant reformations, is, a supposition, that the whole visible Church fell from that primitiue pure doctrin, and true meaning of Scripture, which Christ our Sauior and the A∣postles

had planted, and the first Christians had professed. All r••∣formed Churches do and must agree in this supposition (the very name of a Doctrinal reformation implies a change and decay of doctrin) though they disagree in the tyme, and other circum∣stances of the change. Untill Luther had conferred with the De∣vill, he durst not vent this principle; he appealed indeed from the Pope to a generall Councell, and from a generall Councell (when he perceiued one was summon'd) to the Church diffusiue; but af∣ter his conference with Satan, he ventured to say: [a] 1.65 Lay aside all the armes of orthodox antiquity, Schooles of Diuinity, authority of Councells, and Popes; consent of so many ages, and all Christian Peo∣ple, we receiue nothing but Scripture, yet so that we must haue the cer∣tain authority to interpret the same. Our interpretation is the sence of the holy Ghost, that which others bring, though they bee great, though many, proceedeth from the spirit of Sathan, and from a distracted mind. The reasons why Luther and all Protestants run this desperat course, is, because hauing examined and found that orthodox an∣tiquity was Roman Catholik, and not one Church, parish, or person ever Protestant, before 1517. they are inforced to maintain (by mis-interpreting Scripture) that the whole visible Church er∣red, and that God sent them to reform it.

The second principle of Protestancy is, to admit of no rule of faith but only Scripture, of no other infallible Judg of the letter or sence of Scripture, or of any controversies in Religion, but every particular [b] 1.66 Church and person, interpreting Scrip∣ture according to their best endeavors, and discretion. This is expressly declared in the last mentioned words of Luther, and in∣culcated by the Devill to him in his Conference; and though few are willing to speake the same words, yet is there not one Prote∣stant in the world, that doth not practise the very same doctrin, and defend it, when the matter is argued: It necessarily follo∣weth from the first principle; Because if the whole visible Church fell from the pure faith, and from Gods meaning of Scripture, the belief, tradition, and testimony of that visible Church, Councell, and Fathers, can be no true rule of faith, nor them∣selves

fit Iudges of Religion, or of the sense of Scripture. Ther∣fore every privat Protestant must be his own Guide, and Iudg, in matters of saluation and Scripture. For, though Luther, Cal∣vin, or any Protestant Congregation should pretend that their sense and interpretation of Scripture, is that of the holy Ghost; and the interpretation of others, Diabolical; yet no privat Pro∣testant doth look even upon their own reformers, or Churches, as infallible in this, or in any other particular, but in as much as he Iudges it agreeth with Scripture; and therfore every one that supposeth the fall of the Roman Catholik and visible Church, and the fallibility of the Reformers and reformations (as all Pro∣testants [c] 1.67 do) will deny that him-self hath any obligation to submit his Iudgment in controversies of Religion to any inter∣pretation of Scripture, or decision of doctrin, besids his owne; and so becoms his owne Guide, and his owne Iudg of contro∣versies, and makes his owne interpretation of Scripture, his only rule of faith.

* 1.68The third principle of Protestancy is, that men are justified by only faith; and that he who hath once justifying faith, can neither loose it, nor be damned. This tenet is cleerly professed as the doctrin of all Protestant Churches: in the Catholik doctrin of the Church of England art. 11. pag. 5••. & seqq. And pag. 54. The Papists are declared heretiks for holding that men are to re∣main doubtfull whether they shall be saved or not. From these principles flow that infinit variety of Protestant Religions, and reformations. They began in Luthers owne days, and still con∣tinue to increase and multiply, having no rule of faith but an ob∣scure text of Scripture, nor no Church, or Court of judging the controversies therof (with an obligation to submit there-unto) but every ons privat opinion; which must needs breed diuision add confusion. And so it happened in the very beginning to Lu∣ther. For, his Disciples observing that every one of them-selves might pretend to be sent by God (by an extraordinary vocation) as well as Luthers (seing he proved not his Mission by Miracles, or by any supernatural sign) to reforme the Church; divers of them separated from him, and set up for them-selves; as Zuin∣glius, who invented the Sacramentarian Religion against Christs real presence in the Sacrament; and Bernard Rotman, Father of A∣nabaptists &c. It were tedious to relate all their divisions, and almost impossible. We will only assure the Reader, that in the space of 30. years after Luther began his Reformation, it was di∣vided and subdivided in Germany alone, into 130. Sects.

For first, his Disciples divided them-selves into four prin∣cipal Reformations, of plain Lutherans, halfe Lutherans, Antilu∣therans or Sacramentarians, and Anabaptists. These plain Luthe∣rans,

into eleuen Sects; and these againe into soft, rigid, and ex∣travagant Lutherans; the semilutherans or half Lutherans, also into eleven Sects. The Sacramentarians or Antilutherans into 56. and one of these into 9. The Anabaptists into 13. Sebastianus Traneus, a Protestant, numbreth 70. How all these have bin subdivided since, we may guess at, by the variety we see in En∣gland of Protestant Religions, not with standing the severity of the Laws in favor of the Prelatik.

Not one of these Sects have subordination to another, and agree only in some generall Notions of Christianity, and in im∣pugning the Roman Catholick Religion (one of the marks wher∣by the Holy Fathers discerned [d] 1.69 Heresies.) Each of them pre∣tend to be a true Church, and condemn the rest as Schismatical, and Heretical Congregations; perpetualy quoting Scripture one against the other, but understood according to every ons con∣veniency, fancying or feigning that the Spirit of God inspires him to reform not only the Roman Doctrin, but the Protestant re∣formations.

But when we call to them for their comission (which must be signed by Miracles) and desire to know by what authority they presume to take vpon them so high an employment? they tell vs that Miracles are ceased in the Church, and all ours either [e] 1.70 counterfeit, or Diabolicall, wrought by the Devill to con∣firm us in the Idolatry of the Mass, Invocation of Saints, &c. But because our Miracles exceed the Devills power, and can be wrought only by God, rather then Protestants will embrace the truth by Miracles testified, they [f] 1.71 teach a blasphemy, saying that God doth give power of working true Miracles unto false teachers, not to confirm their false and Popish opinions, but to tempt those (the Indians, Iaponeses, and Chineses) unto whom they be sent.

By which Paradox they call in question Christianity it self; for why might not God tempt the Iews and primitive Chri∣stians by Christs Miracles, as well as the Indians, and Iaponi∣ans

by others of the same nature, and as prodigious? If the In∣dians be not bound to belieue the doctrin preach't to them, though confirmed by our true miracles, why should the Jews or any others be obliged in conscience to belieue Christ? For, if God may work true Miracles to make a falshood so plausibly credible as to oblige prudent men to belieue it; no prudent man is bound to belieue the truth when it is euidently confirmed with true Mi∣racles, and by consequence none was or is bound to belieue in Christ: which doctrin is impious, and contrary to our Sauiours own words Ioan. 5.36. and against 2. Cor. 12. Hebr. 2.4. and Marc. 16.20. and Joan 15.24. Where our Sauiour declares that the reason why the incredulous Jews did sin in not belie∣ving his Diuinity was, because he confirmed his doctrin with Mi∣racles: Jf I had not don among them the works which no other man did, they had not sinned.

As for their authority of reforming the Roman Ca∣tholick faith, they answered that they needed no other warrant but Scripture, which did cleerly condemn the Popish Tenets. Being desired to shew what parts or words of Scripture were Contrary to the Popish Tenets, (for that after comparing all places and Texts, very godly and learned men could find no such opposition between Gods word and the Roman doctrin) they [g] 1.72 replied, that the reason why the Popish Diuins and Pre∣lats did not see their own errors, afterall their search and study was, because they had not the spirit of God, which had reuea∣led to Protestants the true meaning of holy writ; though they could not deny but that their own interpretation was new and contrary to that which the visible Church of the 15. ••n age had receiued

from the 14.th and the 14.th from the 13.th and so forth.

Therfore they all conspired in maintaining that the visible Church had erred in doctrin, and that the mystery of iniquity be∣gan euen with the Apostles, or immediatly after. But because some parts of Scripture are so cleere against their new doctrin, that they could not be wrested against the Roman Catholicks nor reach the Protestant, thy framed a new Canon of Scripture, and excluded as Apocryphall many Books and Chapters which spook cleerly against them, and in their translations of the ould and new Testament into vulgar languages, they added to, [h] 1.73 and sub∣stracted from Gods word, what they thought fit, to make the illiterat people belieue that their new inuentions were agreable to Scripture; and that Popery was quite contrary to the same.

And because none of the first Reformers was a Bishop, and they knew Bishops only could consecrat other Bishops and Priests, and that no Congregation could be esteemed a Church with out that caracter and calling, according to the receiued maxim of S. Hieron. Ecclesia non est quae non habet Sacerdotem. Luther [i] 1.74 And the rest who pretended a Reformation, judged it necessary to al∣ter this doctrin, and declare that all Christians, both men and women, are Priests by baptism; yet that only such as are cho∣sen by the Congregation, or Magistrat, ought to exercise the function, for the auoyding of confusion. Luther endeauors to proue it at large thus. The first office of a Priest is to preach

the word &c. But this is common to all: next is to baptyze; and this also may do euen women &c. The third is to conse∣crat bread and wyn; but this also is common to all, no less then Priests; and this I avouch by the authority of Christ him-self, saying, Do this in remembrance of me; this Christ spook to all there present, and to come afterwards; whosoever should eat of that bread, and drink of that wine &c. This also is wittnessed by S. Paul, who 1. Cor. 11. repeating this, applyeth it to all the Co∣rinthians, making them all as him-self was, that is to say, Con∣secrators; &c. If then that which is greather then all, be given indifferently to all men and women, I meane the word and bap∣tism, then that which is less, I mean to consecrat the supper, is also given to them. So much Luther.

With Luther in this doctrin concurred all the reformed Churches, even the Prelatick of England seems to approve ther∣of in the 23. and 25. articles of Religion; and M.r Horn Bishop of Winchester in the Harbrough An. 1559. n. 2. saith concerning the Ministery, Preaching, or Priesthood of women: Jn this point

we must vse a certain moderation, and not absolutly in every-wise de∣barr women herein, &c. J pray you what more vehemency vseth S. Paul in forbidding women to preach, then in forbidding them to vnco∣ver their heads; and yet you know in the best reformed Churches of all Germany, all the maids be bareheaded. They who know this to have bin the Doctrin of Luther, and of the reformed Churches, are not so much startled at Q. Elizabeths spiritual headship of the Church, nor at the Act of Parliament 8. Eliz. 1. wherin it is declared that she and her successors may authorise any person whatsoever (whether lay man or woman) to exercise any spiritual jurisdiction or power in any matter whatsoever, even of consecra∣ting Archbishops, Bishops, Priests &c. And albeit afterwards (art. 27.) there hath bin an explanation made concerning the supre∣macy, excluding from the Church a shee; or Lay Ministery and Priesthood; yet the words of the Oaths both of supremacy and Episcopal homage, and the laws of the land (especialy this Act 8. Eliz. 1.) maks it most manifest, that even Prelatik protestan∣cy maks the temporal Lay Soveraign to haue the source of all spiri∣tual power and jurisdiction; and that the letters Patents of the Kings of England, directed to any person whatsoever, renders him ca∣pable of consecrating Archbishops, Bishops, Priests &c. as may be seen in the aforesaid Act of Parliament. And if any person whatsoever may by vertue of the Kings letters patents consecrat Bishops, Priests, &c. without doubt the King that gives that spi∣ritual authority, and the Lay men, or women so authorised, must of necessity have the caracter of Episcopacy and Priesthood which they communicat to others: vnless it be maintained that men can give what they have not themselves.

Thus was Protestancy begun, principled, and propagated, by Martin Luther and his Disciples; and because their Sects agree in nothing so vnanimously as in protesting against the doctrin of the Roman Catholik Church, and the Imperial Decrees enacted in behalf therof, though some Lutherans only (exhibiting the Confession of their faith at Auspurg) were the Protesters, yet all others who pretend a Reformation, like the name, and call them∣selves

Protestants: thinking it to be more for the credit of their dissenting Congregations, to pretend vnity of doctrin by assum∣ing one name, then declare the novelty and diversity of their Tenets by calling themselves by the names of their first Authors, and Reformers. Now it is tyme we treat in particular of the Pro∣testant Church of England.

SECT. IV. Of the Protestant Church of England.

IT was the misfortune of England to have had in that tyme when Reformation began to spread, a vicious King, and lewd Court, an ambitious Minister of state, a timorous Clergy, and con∣temporising Parliament. Cardinal Wolsey who had bin raised from the meanest parentage to domi∣neer over the English Peerage; not content with his good for∣tune, and the Kings favour, would needs be Pope, and obtained from Charles V. the Emperour, a promise of his best endeavours to promote him to that dignity; but perceiving himself delu∣ded when the occasion was offered of performance, and that Char∣les had preferred to the Papacy one of his own subjects that had bin Instructor to him in his tender age, he resolved to be revenged vpon the Emperors relations, seeing hee could not reach his per∣son. And observing that K. Henry 8. was weary of Q. Catharin the Emperors Aunt, and desired her death or divorce, to the end he might marry and have issue male to succeed him in the Crown, The Cardinal discoursed with his Majesty of the doubts which himself had raised, and many seemed to entertain concerning the validity of a mariage with one that had bin his brothers wife; and proposed the publick conveniency and privat satisfaction the

King might receave by taking to wife some relation of the French King, with whom he persuaded Henry 8. to make a league in defence of the Sea Apostolick against Charles V▪ whose army at that tyme had sackt, Rome, and kept the Pope prisoner; not doubt∣ing that his Holiness so oblidged by Henry, and injured by Char∣les, would declare Q. Catharins mariage voyd.

* 1.75K. Henry applauded the motion, but lik't not so well the French Lady, as An Bullen one of his Queens Mayds of honour, of whom he was so desperatly enamoured, that though he was advertised of her amorous disposition, and lewd conversation by one of the Courtiers that sayd he had enjoyed her savours; yet she rejecting his Majesties courtship, he thought, she was not so cun∣ning as chast, and persuading himself that a woman so sparing of favours to a King, would not be prodigal of them to others, he gave litle credit to the publick reports, and privat informations of her immodest behaviour, and now courted her not as his present Mistriss, but as his future wife; not questioning but that the Pope whom he had obliged, would declare null his mariage with Q. Catharin: but his Holiness, though much inclined to gratifie the King, and incensed against the Emperour for many indignitys, resolved neither to reward, or revenge by abusing his spiritual authority, which he knew could not be extended to dissolve a knot that God had tyed, and blessed with posterity: his Predeces∣sors dispensation, after mature deliberation, was found to be va∣lid, and no way contrary to Scripture, which is so far from pro∣hibiting a mariage with a deceased brothers wife (Levit. 18.) that it commands (Deuter. 25.) the brother to marry his issu∣less brothers widow. And when S. John Baptist told Herod, it was not lawfull for him to keepe his brothers wife, his brother was then living: so that these words could not be applyed to K. Henry 8. his case, nor occasion any scruple in his conscience.

He therfore finding by experience that the Sea of Rome was not directed in deciding controversies of Religion by human respects, or interest, and that the Colledge of Cardinals could not be corrupted with bribes, to favour his sute, as some Doctors of

forreign vniversities had bin; nor terified by his threats, as was most of the English Clergy; he resolved to renounce that spiritual ju∣risdiction and supremacy, (the only lett against his lust) which all his Christian Ancestors had acknowledged, and himself defen∣ded in an excellent Treatise against Luther, demonstrating as well by Scripture as by reason,* 1.76 that the Bishop of Rom's supremacy and jurisdiction was de jure Divino; otherwise how could S. Peter be caled by the Evangelist, Chief of the Apostles, or Primus in dignity, seing his brother S. Andrew was the first Disciple, or primus in antiquity; and if there was a Chiefe among the Apost∣les, how can it be imagined that their successors should be all e∣qual, or that the successour of the Chief Apostle could be depri∣ved of a prerogative so necessary for the peace, and government of the succeeding Church? Or if the Bishop of Rome had not this supremacy as S. Peters Successour, and by Christs appointment, how is it possible, that all the Christian Princes and Prelats of the world should conspire, or consent to submit themselves to one whose temporal power could not force that submission, and they had no cause to feare his spiritual more then that of other Pa∣triarchs, or Bishops confined to their own Dioceses?

These were the Kings reasons in behalf of the Popes su∣premacy against Luther; but now his passion made him contra∣dict his pen; and love (though blind) gave him eyes to see more of Christs mind since he had seen Anne Bullen, then all the world had discerned in 1500. years before. He declared therfore by Act of Parliament that the Popes spiritual jurisdiction was a meer vsurpation, and that every temporal Soveraign was Pope, in his own Dominions and by vertue of this prerogative he de∣clared his own mariage with Q. Catharin, voyd; married Anne Bullen, and seised vpon all the lands, and treasurs of the Mona∣steries, and Abbies; dispensed with all the young Friers, and Monks vows of obedience and chastity (after that he had taken an or∣der they should not break the vow of Poverty) and to that pur∣pose framed an instrument (and forced the Religious to sign it) wherin they declared, that now at length (through Gods great

mercy) they had bin inspired, and illuminated to see the incon∣sistency of a•••• Monastical life with true Christianity, and the sal∣vation of their souls, and therfore they humbly petitioned his Ma∣jestie, by means of his Vicar General in spiritualibus Cromwell, (who was Earle of Essex, and a black-smiths son of Putney) to restore them to Christian liberty, and a secular life. And because the Abbots of Glastenbury, Reading, Glocester, and many others would not subscribe to this instrument, nor by their approba∣tion therof declare that S. Austin the Monk and Apostle of Eng∣land (who converted the Saxons to Christian Religion) professed a life inconsistent with Christianity, they were cruely tormented and put to death.

The same tyrany was executed vpon all sorts of people with∣out distinction of age, sex or quality, and amongst them suffered also Sir Thomas Moore Lord Chancelor of England, and Cardi∣nal Fisher Bishop of Rochester, two of the greatest ornaments of that age, for refusing the oath of the Kings supremacy. And for that S. Thomas of Canterbury, alias Becket, had opposed K. Henry 2. Laws, made rather against the exercise, then the right of the Popes spiritual authority in England; and therfore was Kill'd by some officious Courtiers, and honoured as a Martyr by the Ca∣tholick Church; and his Sanctity, and Martyrdom had bin con∣firmed by most authentick Miracles (which also confirmed the Po∣pes spiritual supremacy and jurisdiction and condemned King Henry 8. vanity) he without feare of God, or regard of the world, ci∣ted a Saint reigning in heaven, to appeare and heare vpon earth his sentence; which was, to have his reliques burn't, the treasure of his Church, and shrine confiscated, and all those declared Tray∣tors that would call him Saint, or celebrat his feast, or permit his name to remain in the Kalendars of theyr Books of Devotion. He also prohitited his subjects to call the Bishop of Rome Pope, and every one who had S. Cyprian, S. Ambrose, S. Hierom, S. Au∣stin, S. Leo or any of the Fathers works, was commanded to write in the first leafe therof, that they renounced those Saints doctrin of the Popes supremacy. Not content with these extravagancies

at home, he sent Embassadours to solicit Princes abroad (and in the first place to Francis 1. of France) that they might follow his example in assuming the supremacy; and albeit the Pope was ei∣ther agreed or engaged in a Treaty with Charles 5. to the preju∣dice of France,* 1.77 yet that Christian King would not as much as hear Henry 8. Ambassadours speak of his imitating their Master in assuming to him-self the supremacy.* 1.78 And even the Protestant Princes of Germany, to whom the Ambassadours repaired after that their negotiation had bin rejected by the French King, told them they were sorry K. Henry 8. did not ground his reformation vp∣on a more religious foundation, then his scandalous passion for Anne Bullen.

And the first protestant Reformers abroad (part of whose design was to get all spiritual jurisdiction rather into their own hands then into the hands of their temporal Soveraigns) were much troubled at K. Henry's supremacy, and Calvin writ a smart though short treatise against it, and no Protestants make a lay Prince spiritual head of a Church, but our English Prelaticks.

Notwithstanding that the lateness of the discovery together with K. Henry 8 motives of his supremacy made it so incredible that no Catholick Soveraign would assume to him-self that pre∣rogative, nor any forraign Protestants approve therof, yet his cru∣elty made most of his English subjects swear that, which neither themselves nor the world could believe; for had it bin any way probable by Scripture, History, or Tradition, that temporal So∣veraigns (as such) are spiritual Superiours, how is it possible that all Christian Princes before Henry 8. should be so short-sighted, and stupid in their own interest, and in a matter of so great consequence, as not to see a thing so obvious, and aduantagious? How careless in their own concerns, were Charls 5. Francis 1. and many other Princes their Predecessours, who after having bin pro∣voked, and exasperated by some Roman Bishops, so far as to think it necessary to invade their Teritories, sack Rome, and im∣prison their persons, yet at the same tyme did acknowledg that spiritual supremacy which gave so much advantage, power, and

credit to their enimy? Without doubt the same forces which had bin employed against the Popes person, and temporal power, would not have spared or favored his spiritual jurisdiction; he would have bin forc't to renounce his primacy had not the world, and they who subdued him, bin fully satisfied that it was no hu∣man donation, but divin institution.

Though these reasons were convincing, and the example of Charls 5. spiritual subjection and submission to his subdued pri∣soner Pope Clement 7. was fresh in King Henry 8. memory, and that he knew never any Catholick Princes pretended it was a pre∣rogative of soveraignty, to share with the Pope in the Ecclesias∣tical government of the soules of their subjects (though many clamed as a priviledg granted by the Roman Sea, the liberty to examin and approue the authentikness of Papal censures and in∣junctions) and that his passion for Anne Bullen was turned into hatred,* 1.79 for her proued incest, and adultery; yet his pride and wil∣fulness was so excessiue, that rather then acknowledg his former error by a formal recantation, he continued to exercise his scan∣dalous supremacy so violently, that he devised Articles of Reli∣gion, made Cromwel his Vicar-general in spiritual affairs took upon him to define what was heresy, what Catholick faith; permitted the Scriptures to be translated by heretiks, and read in English, and (to vexe the Pope) countenanced, and connived at any novel∣ties; though afterwards he burn't the novelists for heretiks, and prohibited (when it was too late) their Translations of Scriptu∣re, and other Books which he had formerly permitted. But seing that notwithstanding his severity, the Sacramentarian heresy, which he most of all hated, did increase in his Kingdom, and that the spiritual sword in his lay hand did not work those effects which it, had don when it was managed by the Bishops of Rome (by whose sole authority all the heresies of the first 300. years were condemned and suppressed without the help of a general Coun∣cel) and that the Keys which he had usurped served rather to open the doors of the English Church to all errors,* 1.80 then shut them out; and perceiving his end draw neer, he began to think of

a reconciliation with Rome, but such a one as might sute with his humor, which he termed Honour. Therfore he sent his fa∣vorit Bishop Gardener to the Jmperial Diet, with privat instruc∣tions, to endeavour in such a manner his return to the unity and obedience of the Church (through the mediation of the Catho∣lick Princes of Germany, and of the Pop's Legat) that on King Henrys side it might look more like a princely condescend••ncy then a penitent conversion; wherunto he seemed to incline at the solicitation rather of others, then moved by a detestation of his own errors? But God with whom none must dally, nor Prin∣ces capitulat, summon'd him to an account sooner then was ima∣gined. Whether he repented, or despaired at his death, is vncer∣tain. Some say his last words were omnia perdidimus, all is lost. In his last will and Testament he named 16. Tutors for his Son, to govern, during his minority, with equall authority; charging them not to bring in the Sacramentarian Religion. But God per∣mitted his will to be broken before his body was buried (who had changed the last wills of so many thousands deceased) and that, but three days after his death; for upon the 1. of February Seamor Earle of Hartford brother to Ed. 6. Mother, was made Protector of the King and Kingdom, by his own ambition, and privat authority of his faction (which prevailed amongst the 16. Executors) without expecting any Parliament, or consent to the Realm for so great a charge, or for the change of religion which immediatly followed. And because Wriothesly Earle of Southamp∣ton Lord Chancelor, the Earle of Arundel, and Bishop Tonstall, and some others, would not betray their trust, and opposed the new reformation, they were disgraced and displaced.

SVBSECT I. Of the English Religion, and Reformers in King Edward VI. reign.

THe Earle of Hartford, newly created Duke of So∣merset and Lord Protector of England, was a man fitter to be governed, then to govern: his judg∣ment was weak, but himself very wilfull, and so blindly resolut in commanding and execu∣ting the designs of others, by whom he was guided, that without perceiving it, he was made the instrument of his own ruin, as wel as of his brothers; and of the yong King also by the chang of the ancient Religion. Dudley Earle of War∣wick was his director both in Church and state affairs, and yet was his greatest enemy; which Somerset had not the wit to see, though all the world knew him to be his Competitor. And al∣beit Dudly had bin always a Roman Catholick in his judgment, yet (as most Polititians do) he dissembled his belief, and yet ••oothed the Protector in his inclination to the protestant refor∣mation, not doubting but that having once intoxicated the people with the liberty and inconstancy therof, he might lead them from the contempt of spiritual authority to rebel against the tempo∣ral, and humor so well their mad zeale that for their new Ghos∣pel's preservation and propagation, they would fix vpon him for their Director, and stick to whom he would appoint for their Soveraign. He was not deceived in his expectation, the Protector Seamour was destroyed; Dudly himself made chief Minister of England; the King poysoned; the Princess Mary excluded, the Lady Jane Gray declared Queen (because she was a Protestant) and marryed to Dudlys Son. All which things he compased in a short tyme, though by degrees, as you shall hear.

No sooner was K. Henry 8. dead, but Dudly Earle of War∣wick advised Somerset to take vpon him the Protectorship, and (to make him odious) by his privat authority to alter the publick profession of faith; and because he knew so notorious a fraud could not be effected without force, he devised with the Protector, the journy of Musselborough field, and the war of Scotland, vn∣der pretence of gaining by force the yong Queene of Scots to marry K. Edward 6. but in reality to get the power of the Militia into his own hands, and therby to settle in England a Religion wherby he might (in due tyme) vpon the score of a refin'd re∣formation, vnsettle the government, and alter K. Henry 8. Testa∣ment, and persuade England that his Daughter Marys reign would eclipse the light of the ghospel, which then began to shine. Af∣ter that he had made the Protector so odious, that none could endure to hear his name, or to live vnder his government, he thought it a proper tyme to establish by Parliament that new pro∣fession of faith, which he knew could not be effected without the consent and concurrence of that great Assembly. And though he was not ignorant of the absurdities contained in the best of the new reformations, yet because since the setlement of the spiritual headship of our Kings, he perceived the common people might be led any way, and that an Act of Parliament was held suffici∣ent to make them believe the ancient Christian Religion was pro∣fane; and that any protestant reformation was the primitive and Apostolick faith; he wrought so much by the feare of the army and the Kings authority, that albeit in the first Parliament and year of Edward 6. reign, nothing more could be obtained in favour of Protestancy, but an indemnity for the preachers ther∣of from penalties enacted by the ancient laws against married Priests, and Heriticks; and a repeal of the English Statuts con∣firming the Imperial Edicts against heresies; yet in the second year, and Parliament of Edward the VI. It was carried (though by few votes, and after a long debate of aboue four months) that the Zuinglian, or Sacramentarian reformation should be the Religion of England.

* 1.81The charge of framing Articles of this Religion, as also of composing the Liturgy, and a book of rits, ceremonies, and ad∣ministration of Sacraments, had bin commited to Thomas Cran∣mer Archbishop of Canterbury, and to some other Protestant Di∣vins, who were all married friars, and Priests, lately come out of Germany, with their sweet-hearts, viz. Hooper, and Rogers, Monks; Couerdale, an Augustin friar; Bale a Carmelite; Martin Bucer a Dominican; Bernardin Ochinus a Franciscan; and Peter Martyr a Chanon Regular; these three last were invited by the Protector, and appointed to preach and teach in both the Vni∣versities; and at London; and were to agree with the rest in the new model and form of Religion; which was a matter of great difficulty; because the Tenets which vntil then they had profes∣sed, were irreconciliable. H••••per, and Rogers were fierce Zuin∣glians, that is, Puritans or Presbiterians; and with them was joy∣ned in faction against Cranmer, Ridly, and other Prelaticks (for that they opposed his pretension to the Bishoprick of Worcester) Hugh Latimer, of great regard with the common people. Couer∣dale, and Bale, were both Lutherans; and yet differed, because the one was a rigid, the other a mild, or half Lutheran. Bucer also had professed a kind of Lutheranism in Germany, but in England was what the Protector would have him to be, and therfore would not for the space of a whole yeare, declare his opinion in Cambridg (though pressed to it by his Schollers) concerning the real presence, vntil he had heard how the Parlia∣ment had decided that controversy at London; and then he chan∣ged his opinion and became a Zuinglian.

The same tergiversation was used by Peter Martyr at Ox∣ford, and so ridiculously, that coming sooner, in the first E∣pistle to the Corinthians (which he vndertook to expound) to the words Hoc est Corpus meum, then it had bin determined in Parliament what they should signifie, the poore friar, with ad∣miration and laughter of the University, was forc't to divert his Auditors with impertinent Comments vpon the precedent words, Accipite, manducate, fregit & dixit &c. which needed no explana∣tion.

And when the news was come, that both houses had ordered they should be vnderstood figurativly, and not li∣teraly, Peter Martyr said he admired how any man could be of an other opinion, though he knew not the day before what would be his own. But as for Bucer, he was a concealed Jew, or Ath∣eist, for being asked confidently his opinion of the Sacrament by Dudly Duke of Northumberland, in the presence of the Lord Paget then a Protestant (who testified the same publickly after∣wards) he answered, that the real presence could not be denied if men believed that Christ was God, and spoke the words: This is my Body; but whether all was to be belived which the Evangelists writ of Christ, was a matter of more disputation.

Bernardin Ochinus dyed a Jew in his opinion, he writ a book to assert the lawfulness of having many wives at once; this toge∣ther with his profession of the Mosaick law at his death, proved that he was but a counterfeit Protestant.

Cranmer was a meer Contemporiser, and of no Religion at all. Henry VIII. raised him from Chaplain to Sr. Thomas Bullen, to be Arch-bishop of Canterbury, to the end he might divorce him from Q. Catharin, and marry him to An' Bullen; afterwards by the Kings order he declared to the Parliament,* 1.82 that to his knowledg Anne Bullen was never lawfull wife to his Majesty when he married the King to An of Cleves; and when the King was weary of her, Cranmer declared this marriage also nul; and mar∣ried, and vnmarried him so often, that he seemed rather to exercise the Office of a Pimp then the function of a Priest, which (to requite one courtesy for an other) made the King connive at his keeping a wench, and at some of his opinions, though contrary to the Statut of the 6. Articles.

In King Henry VIII. days he writ a Book for the Real pre∣sence, in King Edwards 6. days,* 1.83 he writ an other Book against the real presence. He conspired with the Protector Somerset to over∣throw K. Henry 8. will and Testament; and afterwards conju∣red with Dudly to ruin the Protector. He joyned with Dudly and the Duke of Suffolk against Q. Mary for the lady Jane Grey,

and immediatly after with Arundell, Shreusbury, Pembrouk, Page••, and others against the same Duke. Finaly when he was con∣demned in Q. Maries reign for treason and heresy; and his trea∣son being pardoned, hoping the same favor might be extended to his heresy, he recanted and abjured the same; but seing the temporal laws reserved no mercy for relapsed hereticks (who are presumed not to be truly converted or penitent) he was so ex∣asperated therby, that at his death (moved more by passion then conscience) he renounced the Roman Catholick Religion, to wich he had so lately conformed.

These were the men who framed the 39. Articles of Reli∣gion the Liturgy and the Book of Sacraments, rits, and cere∣monies of the Protestant Church of England: and though it may seem incredible that a Iew, an Atheist, a Contemporiser or meer Polititian, a Presbiterian, a rigid Lutheran, half-Lutheran and an Anti-Lutheran, or Sacramentarian, should all agree to make one Religion, yet when men do but dissemble, and deliver opinions to please others, and profit themselves▪ and have no Religion at all, they may without difficulty concurr in some general points of Christianity, and frame negative articles impugning the parti∣cular truths therof. This was the case of the Church of Eng∣land. For though Hooper, and Rogers were prity obstinat in the Presbiterian, or Zuinglian doctrin of the Sacrament, and prevai∣led therin so far by the Protectors countenance, as to reform the common praier-Book, and to confound the caracter of E∣piscopacy with single Presbitery, as if there had bin no real di∣stinction between both, nor no imposition of Episcopal hands required for either, but only a bare election of the Congrega∣tion, or Magistrat; yet rather then loose the revenues of benefi∣ces, and Bishopricks, they were content (contrary to their solemn confederacy) to connive at the Episcopal disciplin, and ceremo∣nious decency of surplises, square Caps, and Rochets; The na∣mes of Priests and Bishops they were content to admit of in the common praier-Book, so the caracter were not mentioned in their new form of ordaining them, but rather declared not to

be of divin institution, nor a Sacrament: In like manner Hooper at length condescended to take the Oath of supremacy, and con∣formed thervnto his conscience, when the Bishoprick of Worcester was added to his former of Glocester, though vntil then he agreed with Calvin in impugning the Kings' spiritual headship.

As Hooper condescended to the Kings' Supremacy, to the Pre∣latick disciplin, and ceremonies, so Cranmer and his prelatick par∣ty condescended to the Presbiterian doctrin because they were in∣different for any that would alow them wenches, and not de∣prive them of their revenues. And as for Ochinus the Jew, Bucer the Atheist, and the rest of the protestant Divines, their vots as wel as their livelyhoods depended of Cranmer his wil and pleasur. Besids Cranmer perceived the Protector inclined to Zuinglianism, and the Presbiterian doctrin, and therfore resolved to accomodat the doctrin of the Church of England to his humour.

Hooper and Rogers agreed vpon an ecclesiastical Government inconsistent with Monarchy; which was, that over every 10. Chur∣ches or Parishes in England there should be a learned Superintendent ap∣pointed, who should have faithful readers vnder him, and that all Po∣pish Priests should clean be put out: And to draw all publick mat∣ters of state and Religion to them-selves, they composed a Trea∣tise to prove: That it is lawful for any privat man to reason and writ against a wicked Act of Parliament, and vngodly Councel, &c. see Fox pag. 1357. col. 1. num. 72. And Hoopers prophecy against the Prelatick protestants for not conforming them-selves to his Puri∣tan and Presbiterian disciplin. pag 1356. And of his contention with Cranmer and other Prelatick protestants about the oath of Supremacy &c. Fox, pag. 1366.

Both Cranmer and Ridly, made apear to the Protector and Councel, that Hoopers Presbiterian disciplin was not consistent with the Constitution of Parliaments; and the refusal of the oath of Supremacy to be of dangerous consequence, in a tyme that Deuenshir Northfolk, and many other Shires had taken arms in defence of the Roman Catholick faith. It was further considered that so su∣dain a change from on extreme to an other in matters of religion

(as it would have bin, from ceremonious Popery to plain Pre••∣bitery) was against the rules of policy▪ therfore seing the people had bin so long accustomed to the Mass, and to Ecclesiastical ceremonies, it was judg'd expedient to make the vulgar sort be∣lieve, the chang was not of Religion, but of language; that the common prayr was the Mass in English; that the substance of the Catholick faith was retained in the Prelatick caps, copes, and surplises; and what alteration there seem'd to be, was but of things indifferent, or petty circumstances; and had bin resolved vpon by the King and Parliament more to preserve vniformity, then to pro∣mote novelty; as may be seen by any that wil observe the words of the statuts confirming the common prayr book, administra∣tion, rits, ad ceremonies of the Sacrament. 2. Ed. 6.1. and the Councels letter to the Bishops recited by Fox, pag. 1184. col. 1. Whereof long tyme there had bin in this Realm of England divers forms of common prayer. And where the Kings Majesty hath hereto fore divers tyms assayed to stay innovations, or new rits. To the intent that an vniform, quiet, and godly order should be had concerning the pre∣mises, hath appointed the Archbishop of Canterbury should draw and make one convenient and meet order of common Prayer and adminis∣tration of Sacraments to be vsed in England, Wales, &c. The which at this tyme by the ayde of the holy Ghost, with vniform agreement is of them concluded, &c. in the Statut.

But in very deed the whole substance of Catholick Religi∣on was changed, and nothing retained but so much therof as see∣med necessary to keep the name of Christians, and had not bin rejected by most of the ancient condemned hereticks, as shal ap∣peare by our obseruations vpon the 39. ensuing articles of Reli∣gion of the Church of England.

SECT. V. Of the 39. Articles of the Church of England.

WHosoever consider•••• these 39. Articles of Re∣ligion composed by Cranmer, and his Divi∣nes, may easily perceive their drift was rather to humour factions at home, and dissenting Protestants abroad▪ to countenance sensuali∣ty, and grant a liberty of not believing the particulars of Christianity, then to instruct men in the doctrin of Christ or to prescribe any certain rule of Faith. For, their method is, to word so the matter of the Arti∣cles, that where Protestants disagree among themselves, every one of the dissenting parties may apply the Text to his own sense. In so much that the Presbiterians except not against the doctrins themsel-ves rightly explained (that is according to their explanation) but against the wording and expressions therof,* 1.84 which (say they) are ambiguous, and capable of more senses then one, and so may be, and are wrested to patronise errors. In the mistery of the real presence they speak clearly against it, because it was resolved in Parliament, That England should be Zuinglian in that point, against the Ca∣tholick faith of Transsubstantiation.

Wherfore after Cranmer and the other his Contemporisers had set down in five of their six first Articles, the belief of the Trinity, Incarnation, Passion, and Resurrection, wherof no Pro∣testants then doubted; they dare not declare themselves (in the third, wheein they speak of Christ descent into Hell) whether it was to that of the damned, or to a third place; for that if they denyed the first, they would have offended Calvin; Jf they de∣nyed the last, they were sure to disoblige some Lutherans that admitted of Lymbus, or a third place.

In the sixt Article they free all men from an obligation of believing any thing that is not read in Scripture, or proved ther∣by, and make it their ownly rule of faith, and themselves the Judges therof: wherin they agree (a) 1.85 with the ancient Here∣ticks, Arians, Donatists, Eunomians, Nestorians &c. But for that some Protestant doctrins are expresly reproved by many Parts of Scripture, they make those parts Apocrypha, because, forsooth, they were doubted of▪ by some Churches in the primitive ty∣mes. And truly if a man will reflect vpon these words of th••ir sixt Article, We do vnderstand those Canonical Books of the ould and new Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church, he may cleerly see that they believe many parts of the new Te∣stament not to be Canonical Scripture, because many parts ther∣of have bin doubted of in the Church before the Canon was de∣termined. See after, part. 2.

In the 7. they only declare that Christians are not bound to observe the ceremonial, but only the moral law of Moyses.

In the 8. they tel vs of foure Creeds (wherof S. Athana∣sius his symbol is one) are to be believed; because they may be proved by Scripture; and yet S. Athanasius himself declared in ••he Councel of Nice that the doctrin of his Symbol, that is, the mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation, could not be proved by Scripture alone,(b) 1.86 or without Tradition.

In the 9. and 10. Article they (c) 1.87 follow the heretick Pro∣clus, the Messalians, Zuinglius, Luther, and Calvins doctrin con∣cerning Original sin.

In the 11. Article they teach with some of the (d) 1.88 Pseu∣do-Apostles, with Eunomius, and with the same Zuinglius, Luther and Calvin, that men are justified by faith alone. See herafter of the justification by only faith, how inconsistent with any so∣licitude or care for good works.

And in the 12. would faine (but in vaine) free themselves and their Doctrin from the aspersion of neglecting good works though they maintain them not to be necessary for justifica∣tion.

In the 13. Article they say all virtuous moral actions of men ••hat are not in grace, have the nature of sin; And in the 14. they follow Eunomius, Vigilantius, Helvidius, Jovinian, Faustus,* 1.89 and Ebion hereticks, saying: that works of supererogation (that is, not commanded but councel'd by God) cannot be taught with∣out arogancy and impiety; and yet Christ taught them, and S. Paul commends them.

In the three subsequent Articles they seeme to agree with all Christians: But in the 19. they differ from all Catholicks, And as the Arians did maintain the fallibility of the Nicen Coun∣cel, and the Donatists the fal or invisibility of the whole Church, ••o do Protestants; and therby open a wide gap for all heresies.

In the 20. they contradict themselves, and the former ar∣ticles by saying that the Church hath power and authority to de∣cree controversies of faith; for there can be no authority in a Church to decree or define matters of faith, without there be in the faithful an obligation of conscience to submit and conform their judgments to the said Decrees and definitions; and s••ure there can be no obligation of conscience in any man to submit or conform his judgment in points of faith to a Church that doth acknowledg it self may err therin, and lead men to heresy, ido∣try and damnation. True it is that the Protestant Church of England can never remedy it's want of authority, vnless it pre∣tends to infallibility; and that, now can hardly be don; seing in the 2••. Article next ensuing, it denys that same prerogative to general Councels, which are of greater authority then our En∣glish Convocations.

In the 22. Article Cranmer and his Associats (because all other Sects of Protestants do the same) speak cleerly against the Roman Catholick doctrin of Purgatory, Pardons, worshiping of Images, Reliques, and invocation of Saints; and are pleased to censure it a fond thing, invented and grounded vpon no waranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of God: as if, forsooth, the Jews, Atheists, and Apostata Friars who composed these 39. Articles, knew better the right sense of the word of God, then

the whole Catholick Church, and the general Councels which practised, and thaught the Roman doctrin, and the lawfulness of these things, and condemned the contrary as heresy.

These errors were rays'd by Aërius n. 342· Xenaias and o∣ther hereticks: Aërius because he was refused a Bishoprick, taught that Episcopacy was not distinct from single Priesthood; He de∣nyed Prayrs and masses for the Dead ought to be offerred, and by consequence the doctrin of Purgatory; as also that the Church could command men to fast, but that every man might fast when he thought fit Xenaias was the first who made war against Images· Vigilantius against Reliques, praying to Saints &c. S. Hierom. ad Ripar. & Desider. Presbiteros: Vigilantius orsus est su∣bito, qui contra Christi spiritum, Martyrum n••gat sepulchra veneran∣da, damnatqae Sanctorum Vigilias; ex quo fit vt Dormitantius po∣tiùs quam Vigilantius vocari debeat. Haeretici assumunt sibi linguas suas, vt cordis venena ore pronuncient. O proescindendam itaque lin∣guam, & in partes & frusta lacerandam? meam injuriam patienter tuli, impietatem contra Deum ferre non valui.

S. Hierom laughs at the folly of Vigilantius the heretick, and cals him Dormitantius, for being in these points a Protestant; and says that his tongue ought to be cut and carved into a thousand pieces for blaspheming against God in his Saints. And truly it is a hard case that Scripture should warrant our worship∣ing of Prophets, or recommending our selves to the Prayers of Saints, when they convers with vs vpon earth; and yet that it should not be lawful for vs to do the same when they ar in heaven; as if their enjoying the presence and sight of God, did diminish their dignity, or charity. Or as if a Saint in Gods glory were not as fit an object and as capable of our Religious worship as a Prophet, Apostle or Bishop is in this world, to whom we kneel out of the religious respect we own to their spiri∣tual caracter, or Ecclesiastical dignity, though their natural qua∣lities deserve not such respect. My-Lord of Canterbury (they say) commends very (e) 1.90 much the religious piety of some Ladys for craving his benediction vpon their knees; which reverence

is not exhibited by them, nor expected by him, as he is M·r Sheldon; but as he pretends to be Archbishop of Canterbury. And if it be not only lawful but comendable to kneel to his Grace, or at least to others who are true Bishops, and to shew a religious respect of the like nature to his picture or presence; and that all this may bee don without daunger of Idolatry, or of derogating from the Deity; I see no reason why men should condemn in vs, the like worship of Saints in their Images, or Reliques. It is not the outward action, but the inward intenti∣on that maks the worship unlawful. So long as we do not adore Images as Gods, or Idols, we may bow and kneel to them with as much ceremony, as Protestants do to their Prelats, or Episco∣pal pictures. The simplest Papist can hardly be so stupid by na∣ture, or at least so destitut of instruction, as to believe a stock or stone, can be God; or that there is no difference between the worship due to Saints, (whom they know to be but Gods ser∣vants) and the worship due to their Master and Creator.

The 23. Article is set down in such general and ambiguous terms that neither Presbiterian nor Prelatick Clergy is therby es∣tablished; nor any caracter of Priesthood, or Episcopacy asser∣ted, but according to the doctrin of all the first Reformers, a private ministery of preaching, and baptising insinuated to be common to all Christians. Be you most certain, saith Luther lib. de Captiv. Babylon. and let every-man (who is a Christian) know that we are all equaly Priests, that is, we have the same power to preach, and administer the Sacraments. The same doctrin tea∣cheth Zuinglius and Caluin. Though (to avoyd confusion) it be not lawful for any man to take vpon him the office of publick prea∣ching, or ministring the Sacraments in the Congregation, before he be lawfully caled, and sent to execute the same. And because in the 25. Article they declare it is not necessary that this caling or mi∣nistery be ordination by imposition of Bishop's hands, or by A∣postolical succession, and by consequence, may be extraordi∣nary vocation, or election, they leave the authority of caling as doubeful as not determining whether the power be in the se∣cular

Magistrat, or in the ecclesiastical Congregation▪ albe•••• they seeme (by virtue of the English Supremacy) to place it in the King; their words are, And those we ought to judg lawfuly caled and sent, which be caled and chosen to this work by men who have publick authority given vnto them in (not by) the Congregation, to call and send Ministers into the Lords vineyeard. So that they seem to place all spirtiual authority and jurisdiction in the Kings, and reserve only the application therof, and the choice of the persons authorised, to themselves. But they were loath to explain their meaning in this particular, for feare of scandalizing their brethren abroad, that admit of no such Supremacy in temporal Princes.

In the 24. Article they make it a point of the Protestant faith, that Scripture expresly commands the publick prayers and ministring of the Sacraments not to be in Greek, Latin, or He∣brew (wherin the Scriptures were written) because the common people vnderstand not these languages, but vnder pain of dam∣nation must be in English, Dutch, Irish, Welsh, &c. as if, for∣sooth, it were not lawful for a Priest or publick Minister, to offer Sacrifice, or negotiat for a multitude of iliterat people in languages they do not vnderstand; or as if it were not sufficient for them to vnderstand, that in publick or privat prayers, they thank God for his benifits, and crave new favours. So that accor∣ding to this Article, a Greek Priest cannot offer publick prayers for the Latins, or even his own Grecians, who vnderstand not the learned Greeck, nor a latin Priest for the Grecians, or any other nation that vnderstands not Latin; neither is it sufficient that God who alone is able to grant what is demanded, vnder∣stand the petition, and heare the publick Minister, but it is ne∣cessarily required that the demand be made in a barbarous lan∣guage, because the common people vnderstand no other.

In the 25. Article they cut of five of the seaven Sacra∣ments, as not being Sacraments of the Ghospel, or ordained by Christ; this extravagancy of doctrin was thought necessary for the disciplin of the protestant Churches, which despairing of

a succession of true Bishops, excluded the Episcopal Caracter, and all Sacraments that had dependency therof.

In the 26. Article they endeavour to excuse their own lewd∣ness and liberty (though by inculcating truth) to wit, that the effects of the Sacraments are not taken away, by the defects of the Ministers.

In the 27. they condemn (against their own principle in the 6. Article) their Brethren the Anabaptists, for not bapti∣zing their children: which error cannot be confuted by Scripture without Tradition.

In the 28. they tel vs it is plain in Scripture that when Christ sayd This is my Body, he meant This is not my Body, and therfore that Transsubstantiation cannot be proved by holy Writ: if they can prove by Scripture that Christ means the contrary of what he speaks we shal confess that neither transsubstantiation nor any other thing can be proved by holy Writ, but only this, that Scripture cannot be vnderstood, nor be a rule of faith.

They add that the mean, wherby the Body of Christ is spi∣ritualy received and taken in the supper, is faith. To receive, and eat spiritualy the Body of Christ (if it signifies any thing) must signifie that we ought to believe that the Body of Christ is re∣ceived and eaten. And if this belief be true (as it must, if it be Divine) then Christ's Body is realy received and eaten, though in a spiritual manner, that is in a manner not perceptible by our sen∣ses. The 29. Article is but a quotation of some words of S. Augustin.

The 30. Article seems to have bin altered (as also the 37. of the supremacy) in Q. Elizabeths reign; because as we find it now, it contradicts not only the doctrin of the chief Protestant [f] 1.91 Reformers (who acknowledg that the Communion vnder both Kinds was always a thing indifferent) but also the statut made in Edwards 6. reign, and a little before this article was framed. The statut 1. Edward 6. cap. 1. ordains indeed that the B. Sa∣crament

be commonly delivered to the people vnder both kinds, but addeth, except necessity otherwise require. And certainly there can be no necessity, or possibility for any human power to dis∣pense with Christ's ordinance and commandment, which this 30. Article says was, (contrary to what the statut supposed) that both kinds should be administred to all Christian men alike.

Besids, the statut doth in the end declare that by what it commands, it doth not condemn the vsage of any Church out of the King his Majesties Dominions; which limitation doth de∣monstrat that the Parliament and English Protestants then be∣lieved the communion of the layty vnder both kinds, not to be a precept or determination of Christ, but an indifferent thing left to the discretion of the Church: neither have our modern Protestants (who grant no other substance in the Sacrament but that of bread and wine, whervnto they add nothing but a re∣menbrance of Christ's passion) any reason to vpraid vs with rob∣ing them of half the communion, seing we exhort the layty to that remembrance, and offer them wine after receiving the species of bread.

In their 31. Article we are tould that the Sacrifices of Mas∣ses (in the which it was commonly sayd that the Priests did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt) are blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits And yet S. Cyprian lib. 2. & 3. versus finem, Et de Coena Domini post med. Concil 1. Toletan. can 8.5. Origen in numer. hom. 23. August. de Civit. Dei lib. 10. cap. 19. & 20. & passim. S. Clement the Apostles scholler in Apost constit. lib. 6. cap. 22. fol. 113. edit. Antverp. 1564. Concil Nicen. 1. can. 14. Augustinus de cura pro mortuis cap. 14. & in Enchirid. cap. 110. &c. Tertul. ad Scapul. cap. 2. Chrisost. hom. 27. in act Apost. S. Clemens lib. 8. Const. Apost. cap. 18. fol. 173. & 174. edit. Antverp 1564. Augustin. de Civit. Dei lib 22. cap. 8. Ciprian. de Coena Dom. prope initium S. Ig∣natius the Apostles Scholler in Epist. ad Smirn. S. Augustin. lib. 9. Confes. cap. 12. & in Enchirid. cap. 110. & de verb. Apost. serm 34. Saith that the sacrifice of our price was offered for his Mo∣ther Monica, being dead; and that it is not to be doubted, but that the soules of the dead are relieved by the piety of their living friends, when for them is offered the sacrifice of the Mediator: and that the v∣niversal Church doth observe, as delivered from our Forefathers, that for those who are dead in the Communion of Christ's Body and Bloud when in the tyme of sacrifice they be remembred in their place, prayer

is made for them; and (besids this prayer) it is remembred the sacri∣fice be offered▪ for them also &c. S. Ambrose maks express mention of the Mass lib. 5. epist. 33. Ego mansi in munere, Missam facere coepi &c. S. Leo epist. 81. ad Dioscor. Necesse autem est vt quaedam Populi pars sua devotione privetur, si vnius tantum Missae more ser∣vato, &c. S. Augustin. serm. 91. de Temp. In lectione (quae nobis ad Missas legenda est) audituri sumas. &c.

Let any Christian be judg whether it be not more safe, and more rationa••l•• to rely in matters of faith vpon the Tradition of the whole Catholick Church, and it's ancient Liturgies, and vpon the Testimony of all the holy Fathers, and Councels since the Apostles, then to take the bare word of Cranmer, a man who married and vnmarried K. Henry 8. to as many women as his Majestie lik't or dislik't, dissolving the holy Sacrament of Matrimony as often as the King seemed to be weary of a wife; a man, whose religion was nothing but his conveniency and in∣continency; and therfore did alter his faith as often as the tyms changed, and factions prevailed, and sided with every Rebel a∣gainst his Prince; and was so carnaly given that even in Henry 8. days, when Priests were not permitted to have wives, he kept a wench so constantly, that he carried her about in his Visita∣tions: Let any Christian I say be judg whether this man toge∣ther with Ochinus a Jew, Bucer an Atheist, Peter Martyr so indif∣ferent for any doctrin, that he framed his faith at Oxfor••, ac∣cording to the news from London, and the Parliament Diur∣nals; Hooper, Rogers, and Latimer, ambitious and discontented Presbiterians, B••le, and Coverdale, two lewd and runigad friars; whether I say, these men ought to be believed in this impor∣tant point of salvation, rather then the holy Fathers, and Coun∣cels, who (as hath bin•• said hertofore) cal the Mass the visible Sacrifice, the true Sacrifice, the dayly Sacrifice, the Sacrifice according to the Order of Melchisadech; the Sacrifice of the Body and Bloud of Christ, the Sacrifice of the Altar, the Sacrifice of the Church, and the Sacrifice of the new Testament, which succee∣ded all the Sacrifices of the old Testament: Must the word of Cran∣mer

and his fellows be a sufficient ground for prudent men to believe as an Article of Religion,* 1.92 that the doctrin delivered as Catholick by the holy Fathers, and Doctors of the Church, are but fables, and themselves but a company of Cheats.

The 32. Article was made by Cranmer and his Camerades to excuse their lewdness, legitimat their bastards, and make their wenches wives. The second Parliament of King Edward 6. had bin so importuned by Apostata Priests and Friars, who had cou∣pled themselves with women, that (their petition having bin re∣jected by the first Parliament Edward 6.) at lengh against the inclination and judgment of both houses, they obtained now by meer importunity an Act to take away all positive Laws of man, made against the marriage of Priests statut an. 2. Edward 6. cap. 21. But then they are told in the very Act, that it were not only bet∣ter for Priests to live chast sole and separat from the company of wo∣men &c. but that it were most to be wished that they would willingly and of themselves endeavour to keep a perpetual chastity, and abstinen∣ce from the vse of women. And 1400. years before that,* 1.93 Origen Hom. 23. & lib. 8. contra Celsum declared the doctrin even of the Greeck Church in these words. Jt is certain the dayly Sacri∣fice is hindred in them who serve the necessities of mariage; therfore it seemeth to me that it appertaineth only to him to offer the dayly Sacri∣fice, who hath vowed himselfe to dayly and perpetual chastity; with whom••agree the other Fathers; S. Jerom (in Apologia ad Pama∣chium, cap. 3.) desires them who like not of this doctrin, not to be angry with him, (for telling them of it) but with the holy Scrip∣tures, vvith all Bishops, Priests &c. vvho know they cannot offer Sa∣crifice if they vse the Act of mariage; and said to Vigilantius (c. 1.) who in this point also was a Protestant, and seemed to confess his owne frailty. What do the Churches of the East, of Egipt, and of the Apostolick Sea, vvho receive none but unmarried or continent Priests, or if they have vviues, they must cease to be Husbands? And a∣gainst Iovinian cap▪ 19. & 14. & ad Pamachium Apol. cap. 8. Truly thou dost acknowledg that he cannot be a Bishop vvho in that state getts children; if he be convicted therof he vvil not be taken for a Husband, but condemned as an Adulterer. But it seems out Pro∣testant

Bishops know the Scripture, and the doctrin and disci∣plin of the primitive Church better then S. Hierom, Origen, and all the ancient Fathers and Councels both of the East and West. Since the King's most happy restauration they were not content to enjoy their wives, and see the legitimacy of their children ap∣proved of, but in the first Parliament wherin they were permit∣ted to vote (as I have bin credibly informed) they at••empted the house of Lords should declare their spiritual peerage did com∣municat the same honours and privileges to their Ladys, that the law doth give to Baron's wives; but seing the house smile at the motion, and one of the first Peers begin to rally (according to his witty way) vpon a subject so proper for his genius, one of the Bishops not so much concerned in the suit, (because he was not married) in the name of all the rest, waved the pretention by saying, there had bin a mistake in the motion.

Jn the two following articles, they would fain prevent di∣versity of opinions and schisms among the Protestants of the Church of England, and gain authority for the Prelats therof, and reverence for their ceremonies and censures. But this de∣sign is frustrated by maintaining the lawfulness of their own re∣volt, and separation from the Church of Rome, as also the Roman Catholick fallibility and fal from the true Apostolick Religion, without any farther proofe or evidence of so great a fault or frailty, then the fancy and privat interpretation of Scrip∣ture of some discontented and dissolute persons pretending divi∣ne inspirations, and illuminations for the same, and for their warant to depose their spiritual Superiours, and to reform the doctrin of the whole visible Church; which reformation they also introduced in so tumultuous and seditious a manner, that none who considers the principles, practises, and circumstances of the chang, can prudently commit his soule to the reformers charg, or condescend to any spiritual jurisdiction and authori∣ty in their Successours. For, besids that they have nothing to shew for their presumption, and intrusion, but obscure texts of Scripture, interpreted by them selves in a sense contrary to that of

the whole visible ancient Church, that hath bin confirmed by continual and vndeniable Miracles; they can give no assurance or probability of them selves being or continuing in the right way of saluation, because if all the Roman Catholick Churches did err in doctrin, how can their reformations pretend not to be subject to the same mis-fortun or mistake? And if the sup∣posed frailty and fallibility of the Church of Rome be a suffi∣cient cause to question and condemn it's authority, how can the Church of England, or any other Protestant congregation ex∣act from their Sectaries, greater respect, and obedience, then the first reformers gave to their Roman Superiours? Presbite∣rians, Independents, Quakers, Anabaptists &c. pretend to as pure doctrin, as Divine a Spirit, and as much Scripture against Prelaticks, as Prelaticks do against Papists, and thinck there is as much reason for them to be Iudges of the truth of their own Canon and sense of Scripture, and of the falshood of the Canon and sense of Scripture of the Church of England, as there is for the English Church to make it self judg of the falshood of the Canon and sense of the Church of Rome. As for the authori∣ty which the Prelatick religion receives from the laws of the land, that gives but little advantage, seing the Roman Catho∣lick doctrin hath bin confirmed by the temporal laws of every Kingdom, Country and Citty, besor, and at the tyme that Pro∣testancy succeeded, and prevailed; and yet that legality was not valued by the Reformers.

The 35. Article is to authorise some Puritan homilies, as the 2. wherin the danger of idolatry in Popery is much insisted vpon, as if Christians could easily mistake Images for Idols, or Saints for Gods▪ Jews and Hereticks have often endeavoured to confound the one with the other▪ Catholicks never.

The ancient Fathers, as also the second Councel of Nice have long since declared the Protestant Doctrin against Images to be heresy, and the Councel of Trent confirms the same decree of Nice, and demonstrats how far that the Catholick doctrin of worshiping Images is from any danger of Idolatry. The words

of the Councel sess. 25. are:

The Images of Christ, of the Virgin Mother of God, and of other Saints are to be had and retained, especialy in Churches; and that due honour is to be imparted vnto them, not for that any Divinity is to be be∣lieved to be in them, or vertue, for which they are to be worshipt or that any thing is to be begg'd of them, or that hope is to be put in them, as in tyms past the Pagans did, who put their trust in Idols; but because the honour which is exhibited to them, is referr'd to the first pattern which they resemble. So that by the Images which we kiss, and before which we vncover our heads, and kneele, we adore Christ and his Saints, whose likness they beare; we reverence that which is ratified by the Decrees of Councels, especialy of the second of Nice, against the impugners of Images.

In the 36. they make it an Article of Religion, that their new form of ordaining Priests and Bishops is valid, and contai∣neth all things necessary; but since his Majesty's happy restaura∣tion they have judged the contrary, and therfore thought ne∣cessary to add thervnto the words Priest and Bishop.* 1.94 Yet this wil not serve their turn, for before they can have a true Clergy, they must change the Caracter of the Ordainers, as wel as the form of ordination: a valid form of ordination, pronounced by a Minister not validly ordained, gives no more caracter then if it had continued invalid, and never bin altered: The present Pro∣testant Bishops, who changed the form of their own Ordination vpon their Adversaries objections of the invalidity therof, might as wel submit to be ordained by Catholick Bishops, as alow (by altering the from after so long a tyme, and dispute) that it was not sufficient to make themselves, and their Predecessours Priests or Bishops.

In their 37. Article they give a spiritual supremacy to the temporal Soveraign. But because the world laught at that vanity and at the statuts 1. & 8. Eliz. 1. Wherin is declared, that the English Soveraignty is so spiritual as that it may give to any per∣son whatsoever (whether man or woman, lay or ecclesiastick)

power and authority to exercise any spiritual function, and con∣secrat Priests and Bishops) they would fain make vs now belie∣ve that they did not attribut to the Queen, and her Successours any power of ministring God's word, or the Sacraments; not∣withstanding that the aforesaid Statuts, yet in force, certify the contrary; And indeed if none can give what himself hath not, seing the Kings of England can give power and authority to any person watsoever to consecrat Priests and Bishops, and to ex∣ercise all kind of spiritual ministery, and jurisdiction concer∣ning God's word, and Sacraments, this power and ministery cannot be denyed to be inherant in themselves.

In the 38. and 39. articles they endeavour to supress so∣me errors of the Anabaptists, which necessarily follow from the foundation and principles of Protestancy: for if it be lawfull to deprive men of a spiritual authority and jurisdiction, wherof they are in present possession, and which their Predecessours had peaceably enjoy'd, tyme out of memory, the consequence of the lawfulness to deprive men of their temporal jurisdiction, Dominions, riches, and goods, is evident by a parity of reason: for if peaceable and present possession, confirm'd by a prescrip∣tion of many ages, be not sufficient to ground right for the Roman Bishop and Clergy to govern souls, and to enjoy the Church livings, ther is no temporal Prince, or person can be secure, or have a right to govern subjects or possess his Domi∣nions. So that by the same warrant wherby Prelatick Prote∣stants have taken from the Pope, and Roman Clergy their spi∣ritual jurisdiction, and temporalities, the Anabaptists and all o∣thers may evidently demonstrat, that all goods are common, and no one person can pretend right to Superiority, or any thing he doth possess.

SECT. VI. Of the effects which these 39. Articles of Prelatick Protestancy immediatly produced in England, and may produce at any tyme in every state wher such principles are made legal: and how the Ro∣man Catholick Religion was restored by Act of Parliament of Queen Mary.

AFter that Prelatick Protestancy had not only bin permitted, but established by Parliament in England, ensued the destruction of many thousand innocent people, as also of the Pro∣tector Seamor, and K. Eduard 6. togeather with the exclusion of Q. Mary, and others the lawful Heires of the Crown, and the in trusion of the Lady Jane Grey (and in her of Dudly's son and family) vnto the Royal throne. These were effects of Prote∣stancy, not events of fortunc; they were designs driven and di∣rected by the principles of the Reformation, the like wherof any politick and popular subject may compass as wel as Dudly: wit∣ness our late long Parliament, and Oliver Cromwel's procee∣dings. Though K. Edward 6. was but a Child, and his vncle the Protector no great Polititian, yet they had a grave and wise Councel; but against the liberty and latitude which men are allow'd by the principles of Protestancy, no conduct can pre∣vail, nor government be safe, as appeareth in many examples, and in our late Soueraign's Reign, and death. Jt's in vain to make particular articles of Religion, or temporal Statuts, if there be a general principle admitted as if it were the word of God,

wherby both are rendred vnsignificant. One of the general principles, and indeed the foundation of Prelatick Protestancy, is, that it is lawful for privat men and subjects (such were all the first Protestant Reformers) to despise and depose their spi∣ritual Superiours by their own arbitrary interpretations, and ap∣plications of Scripture, notwithstanding the peaceable possessi∣on, immemorial prescription, legality, and exercise of their sayd Superiour's authority and jurisdiction. From hence it evidently followeth, that if it be lawful to deal thus with spiritual Su∣periours, it must be as lawful (a fortiori) to deal after the same manner, and vpon the same grounds of every privat man's interpretation of Scripture with temporal Superiours. To ima∣gin therfore that by a particular article of Religion, or by an Act of Parliament against Presbiterians, Quakers, Anabaptists, &c. (in favour of the subject's property to temporal goods, or of the King's prerogatives, and soveraignty) such mens minds, or mouths wil be stopt from raising tumults, and runing into a rebellion so cleerly waranted by the fundamental principle of the Protestant Reformation, is but a fancy, not to be rely'd vpon by any discreet person.

Dudly Earl of Wa••vvick, and afterwards Duke of Nor∣thumberland, observing that by this foundation of Protestancy the very ground of Alegiance, and Obedience not only to the spiritual, but also to the civil Magistrat, is vndermin'd; resol∣ved to make his son King of England, and in order therunto marryed him to the Lady Jane Grey, a Protestant of the bloud royal, not doubting but that they who had renounc'd all sub∣ordination unto their spiritual Superiours vnder the pretext of a reformation, would vpon the same score preferr the lady Jane to the Crown before the Princess Mary, a Constant Catholick. Therfore after that he had beheaded the Protector, and poy∣son'd the King, he crown'd his son's wife, with the concurrence and applause of the Prelatick Clergy, Cranmer, Ridly &c. and with the consent of the Protestant Nobility, and Citty of Lon∣don. But Protestancy not being at that tyme so deeply rooted,

nor so largly spread in the nation, the Catholick Gentry and Commons togeather with Q. Maries great courage, and reso∣lution, quash't this Polititian's design, and brought him to due punishment. Vpon the scaffold he declared that he never had bin a Protestant in his judgment, and only made use of it's pro∣fession and principles for temporal ends, as to raise his family, &c. he advertiss't the people of the new Religion's inconsistency with peace and quiet; that it's Clergy were but Trumpets of sedition: The substance of his speech is set down by D.r Heylin in these words.* 1.95

He admonish'd the spectatours, to stand to the Religion of their Ancestors, rejecting that of later date, which had occasion'd all the misery of the foregoing thurty years; and that for prevention for the future, if they desir'd to present their souls vnspotted in the sight of God, and were truly affected to their Country, they should expel those tempests of sedition, the Preachers of the reform'd Religion; that for himself, what soever had otherwise bin pretended, he profess'd no other Religion then that of his Fathers; for testimony wherof, he appeal'd to his good freind, and ghostly Father the Lord Bishop of Worcester; and finaly, that being blinded with ambition, he had bin contented to make rack of his conscience by temporising, for which he profess'd himself sincerly repentant, and so acknowledg'd the justice of his death.

A Declaration (saith D.r Heylin) very vnseasonable, whether true or false; as that which rendred him less pittied by the one side, and more scorn'd by the other. This is a more Politick then pious observation of D.r Heylin; would he not have men confess their faults, and profess their ••aith when they are dying? and would he have them preferr the vanity of the pitty or scorn of the world, when they are to bid the whole world adieu, before the satisfaction and salva∣tion of the soule? I feare too many of D.r Heylins principles not only deferr until the last houre the profession of the truth, but even then dissemble; thinking a Declaration and recantation of their errors at that tym•• either vnseasonable, or vnpardonable;

and preferr, the vanity of the world's opinion, before the ne∣cessity of a conversion vnto the true faith.

Q. Marys daunger ended not with Dudlys death,* 1.96 it lasted as long as ther was any man to head the Protestant party, and to put the people in mind of it's principles. First, the Duke of Suffolck, and others, plotted the setting up once more of the Lady Jane Grey, and began the execution therof by their Pro∣clamations against Q. Marys intended mariage with Philip of Spain; this occasioned the Lady Jan's death. Other zealots of the Protestant Religion concluded a mariage between the Lord Courtny and the Lady Elizabeth; their plot was discover'd, as also Wyats Rebellion suppress'd; all these things were don by the ad∣vice and assistance of the Protestant Clergy that remained in En∣gland, and were commended by such of them as liv'd abroad. D.r John Poinet the last Bishop of Winchester was not only of Wyat's Councel,* 1.97 but continued in his camp vntil he perceiv'd the design would not take; then he departed telling the Rebels he would pray for their good success. Goodman, and Knox ray∣led in their Books against the Queen; and Calvin in his Coment vpon Amos termeth her Proserpine.* 1.98

Goodman hath this ex∣pression. Wyat did but his duty, and it was but the duty of all others that profess the Ghospel, to have risen with him for the maintenance of the same. His cause was just, and they were all Traytors that took not part with him. O No∣ble Wyat▪ thou art now with God, and those worthy men that dyed in that happy enterprise. This was the primitive spirit, these the first effects of our English Protestancy.

Not only the Queen out of a zeal to the Roman Catho∣lick Religion, but the Privy Councel and Parliament moved with a desire of peace (seing it was moraly impossible to go∣vern people protestantly principl'd) resolved to restore the an∣cient doctrin wherwith their Ancestours had so long prosper'd; and to suppress the Protestant novelties by the rigour of the laws formerly made against heresies, which had bin repeal'd at the instance of the reform'd Preachers, and Prelats, in K. Edward

6. raign. And therfore (as D.r Bancroft Arch-Bishop of Can∣terbury confesseth in his book of dangerous positions pag. 63.) though Q. Mary was a Princess of nature and disposition very mild and inclined to pittie, yet she and her government is taxed with too much severity by them that consider not the nature and consequences of Protestancy. If Tinkers, Taylors, Tapsters, Tanners, and Spinsters, would needs run into the fier for de∣fending the fond inventions of Cranmer, and of other known Temporisers, who could help it? neither patience nor pains was wanting in the Catholick Clergy to reduce them to the truth; but their obstinacy, and the vanity of dying Martyrs (forsooth) made them preferr their own privat sence of Scripture before that of the whole visible Church. So charitable were the Ca∣tholicks, that they delay'd the penalties of such as they could not convert, and connived at them who endeavored to escape by absenting or concealing themselves. And as for Cranmer, Ridly, Latimer, and the other Ringleaders of Protestancy, they had liberty given them to maintain their cause in publick dis∣putations, with the tyme, books, and notaries that themselves desired. How litle they could say for their Religion and Re∣formation, and how they were convicted of frauds and falsifi∣cations, in the planting and propagating therof, may be seen in the third part of this Treatise.

But that which most pleased and setled the Kingdom, was the Roman Clergy's resignation of the Church livings to the Crown, and to others that possess'd them. The whole Con∣vocation petition'd to their Majestys, declaring the readyness they were in, to wave their claim, and interest; and thus con∣clude.

* 1.99Wherfore preferring the publick good, and quiet of the Kingdom before our own privat commodities, and the salua∣tion of so many souls redeem'd with the precious Bloud of Christ, before any earthly thing whatsoever, and not see∣king our own, but the things of Iesus Christ, we do most earnestly and most humbly beseech your Majesties, that you

would graciously vouchsaf to interceed in our behalf with the most Reverend Father in God, the Lord Cardinal Pole Legat a latere, from his Holiness, that he would please to setle and confirm the sayd goods of the Church either in whole, or in part, as he thinks most fit, one the present oc∣culants therof, according to the power and faculties com∣mitted to him, by the said most Serene Lord the Pope, &c. And for our parts we do both now, and for all tyms com∣ming give consent to all and everything, which by the said Lord Legat shal, in this case, be finaly ordained, and con∣cluded &c.

As the Clergy shew'd much zeal and charity in resigning their temporal interest, so did the layty give an eminent proof of Christian humility in acknowledging their schism and heresy by an instrument deliver'd by the Lords and Commons assem∣bled in Parliament, to Cardinal Pole, craving absolution for their sins and schism, mention'd in the Statut an. 1. & 2. Philip. & Mar. cap. 8. part of which Statut I thought fit to set down a part for an example worthy of imitation, it being credible that they who were Actors in the Changes of Religion, and had ex∣perience both of the new and old faith, knew better how things were then carried, and vpon what motives, then any now li∣ving. Thus then they petition to the Queen, and King.

Wheras since the 20. year of K. Henry 8. of famous me∣mory,* 1.100

Father vnto your Majesty our most natural Soveraign &c. much fals and erroneous doctrin hath bin taught, preacht and written, partly by divers the natural born subjects of this realm, and partly being brought in hither from sundry other foreign Countries, hath bin sow'n, and spread abroad within the same; by reason wherof as wel the spirituality, as the temporality of your Highness Realms and Dominions have swaru'd from the Obedience of the Sea Apostolick, and de∣clin'd from the vnity of Christ's Church, and so have conti∣nued vntil such tyme as your Majesty being first raised vp by God, and set in the seat Royal over vs &c. The Pop's Holi∣ness

and the Sea Apostolick sent hither vnto your Majesties (as vnto persons vndefil'd, and by God's goodness preseru'd, from the common infection aforesaid) and vnto the whole Realm, the most Reverend Father in God, the Lord Cardinal Pole, Legat a latere, to cal vs home again into the right way from whence we have all, this long while wandred and strayd abroad; and we after sundry long and grievous plagues, and calamities, seing by the goodness of God, our own errors, have acknowledg'd the same vnto the sayd most Reverend Father, and by him have bin received and embraced, into the vnity and bosom of Christ's Church: and vpon our humble sub∣mission and promise made, for a Declaration of our repen∣tance, to repeal and abrogat such Acts and Statuts as had bin made in Parliament since the sayd 20. year of the sayd King Henry 8. against the Supremacy of the Sea Apostolick &c.

And because the first occasion and main Motive of our English Protestant Reformation was the pretended nullity of K. Henry 8. and Q. Catharins marriage; for satisfaction of the world and a discovery of the truth, the Parliament (wherin sat many both Lords and Commons particularly acquainted with the whole matter, and employ'd in that intrigue) declare their knowledg and discharg their conscience in the ensuing Act 1. Mariae.

An Act of Parliament an. 1. Mariae concerning the fraud and force of King Henry 8. vnlawful divorce from Queen Catharin.

FOr as much as truth (being of her own nature of a most excelent vertue, efficacy, force, and working) cannot but by process of tyme break out and shew her self, however for a while she may by the iniquity, and frailty of man be sup∣press'd and kept closs: And being revealed and manifested, ought to be embraced, acknowledged, confessed and professed in all ca∣ses and matters, whatsoever, and whomsoever they touch or con∣cern without respect of persons; but in such cases and matters, especialy as wherby the glory and honour of God in heaven (who

is the Author of Truth, and truth it self) is to be specialy set forth, and wherby also the honour, Dignity, surety, and pre∣servation of the Prince, and the Ruler vnder God in earth, dependeth and the welfare, profit, and special benefit of the vniversal peo∣ple and body of a Realm is to be continued, and maintained. We, your Highness most loving, faithful and obedient subjects, vnderstan∣ding the very truth of the state of Matrimony between the two most excelent Princes of most worthy memory, King Henry 8. and Qu••en Katharin his loving, godly, and lawful wife, your High∣ness lawful Father and Mother, cannot but thinck ourselves most bound, both by our duty of Alegiance to your Majesty, and of conscience towards God, to shew vnto your Higness, first, how that the same Matrimony, being contracted, solemnized, and consumated, by the agreement and assent of both their most noble Parents, by the councel and advise of the most wise and gravest men of both their Realms, by the deliberat and mature consideration and consent of the best and most notable men in learning, in those days, of Christendom, did even so continue by the space of 20. years and more between them, to the plea∣sure of Almighty God, and satisfaction of the world, the ioy and comfort of all the subjects of this Realm, and to their own repose, and good contentment, God giving for a sure token, and Testimony of good acceptation of the same, not only god∣ly fruit, your Highness most noble person (whom we beseech the Almighty and everliving God, long to prosper and preserve here amongst vs) and other Issue also, whom it had pleased God to take out of this Transitory life vnto his eternal glory, but also sending us a happier, flourihing and most prosperous Common∣wealth in all things.

And then afterward, how that the malicious and pervers actions, of some (a very few persons) envying the great felicity wherin, by the goodness of God, your sayd most noble Father and Mother, and all their good subjects lived and continued many years, did for their own singular glory, and vain reputa∣tion conceive sundry suttle, and disloyal practises, for the inter∣ruption

and breach of the sayd most lawful, and Godly con∣cord. And endeavering to put the same in vre devised first to insinuat a scruple into the King your Father's conscience, of an vnlawful marriage, between him and his most lawful wife the Queen your Highnes's Mother, pretending for the ground ther∣of, that the same was against the word of God. And thervpon ceased not to persuade continualy vnto the sayd King your Fa∣ther, that he could not without daunger of the loss of his soule continue with his sayd most lawful wife, but must be separated and divorc'd from her. And to this intent caus'd the Seals a•• wel of certain Vniversities in Italy and France to be gotten (as it were for a testimony) by the corruption of mony, with a few light persons, Schollers of the same Vniversities; as also the Seals of the Vniversities of this Realm to be obtained by great travail, si∣nister working, secret threatnings, and intreatings of some men in authority, especialy sent at that tyme thither for the same pur∣poses.

And how that finaly Thomas Cranmer, newly made Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, most vngodly and against all laws, equi∣ty and conscience, prosecuted the same wicked device of divorce, and separation of the said King your Father, and Queen your Mother, caled before him (ex officio) the hearing of the same matter of marriage, and taking his foundation partly vpon his own vnadvised judgment of the Scripture, ioyning ther with the pretended Testimonies of the said Vniversities; and partly vpon bare and most vntrue conjecturs, gathered and admitted by him vpon matters of no strength or effect, but only by supposal, and without admitting or hearing any thing that could be sayd by the Queen your Mother, or by any other on her behalf; in the absence of the sayd late your Mother, proceeded, pronoun∣ced, and discerned, declared, and gave sentence, the same most lawful and vndoubted matrimony, to be naught, and to be con∣tracted against God's law, and of no value, but lacking the strength of the law▪ and the said most noble King your Father, and the said noble Queen your Mother so married together, did separat

and divorce, and the same your most noble Father King Hen∣ry the 8. and the said noble Queen your Mother, from the bands of the same most lawful matrimony, did pronounce, and declare, by the same his vnlawful sentence, to be free, discharged, and set at liberty. Which sentence and judgment so given by vnlawful and corrupt means and ways by the said Archbishop of Canter∣bury, was afterwards vpon certain affections ratified, and con∣firmed by two several Acts, the one made in the 25. year of the raign to the said King your Highnes's Father, and intituled, an Act of declaring the establishment of the succession of the Kings most Royal Majesty, of the Imperial Crown of his Re∣alm. The other Act of Parliament made in the 28. year of the raign of the said King your Highnes's Father, intituled an Act for the establishment of the succession of the Imperial Crown of the Realm.

In the which said two Acts, was contained the illegitima∣tion of your most noble Person, which your sayd most noble Person being born in so solemn a mariage, so openly approu∣ed in the world, and with so good faith, both first contracted, and also by so many years continued between your most noble Parents, and the same Mariage in very deed not being prohibi∣ted by the law of God; could not by any reason or equity in this case be so spotted. And now we your Highnes's sayd most loving, faithful, and obedient subjects of a godly heart and true meaning, frely and frankly, without fear, fancy, or any other corrupt motion, or sensual affection, considering that this fore∣sayd mariage, had it's beginning of God, and by him was con∣tinued, and therfor was received, and is to be taken, for a most true just, lawful, and to all respects, a sincere and perfect ma∣riage, nor could nor ought by any man's power, authority or jurisdiction, be dissolved broken, or separated (for whom God joyneth, no man can nor ought to put a sunder) and conside∣ring also, how during the same mariage in godly concord, the Realm in all degrees flourished to the glory of God, the honour of the Prince, and the great reputation of the subjects

of the same; and on the other side, vnderstanding manifestly that the ground of the sayd divice and practice for the sayd divorce, proceeding first of malice, and vaine glory, and afterward was prose∣cuted and followed of fond affection, and sensual fantasie, and finaly executed and put in effect by corruption, ignorance and flattery; and not only feeling to our great sorrow, dammage, and regret, how shamful ignominies, rebuks, slanders and contempts yea with death pestilence and wars, disobedience, rebellions, in∣surrections▪ and divers other great and grievous plagues. God of his Justice hath sent vpon vs, ever since this vngodly purpose was first begun and practised; But also seing evidently before our eys that vnless so great an injustice, as this hath bin, and yet continued, be rebuked, and that the sayd fals and wrong∣ful process, Iudgment, and sentence, with their dependances be repealed and revoked, nothing is less to be doubted, then that greater plagues, and stroaks are like to encrease and continue dayly more and more with in this Realm; do beseech your most excelent Majesty, as wel in respect of your own honours, dig∣nity and just title, as for truth's sake wherwith (we doubt not) but your Highness also will be specialy moved in conscience, and also for the intire love, favour, and affection which your Majesty beareth to the common wealth of this Realm, and for the good peace, vnity, and rest of vs your most faithful sub∣jects, and our posterity; that it may be enacted by your High∣ness, with the consent of the Lords spiritual and temporal, and Commons in this present Parliament assembled.

And be it enacted by the authority of this present Parlia∣ment, that all and every decree, sentence, and Iudgment of di∣vorce, and separation between the sayd King your Father, and the sayd late Queen your Mother, and all the process commenc'd followed, given, made, or promulged by the sayd Thomas Cran∣mer, then Archbishop of Canterbury, or by any other person or persons whatsoever, wherby the same most just, pure and lawful marriage, between the sayd late King your Father, and the sayd late Queen your Mother, was, or is pronounced, or

in any wise declared to be vnlawful, or vnjust, or against the law of God, be, and shal be from the beginning, and from hence forth, of no force, validity, or effect, but be vtterly naught, voyd, frustrat, and annihilat, to all intents constructions and pur∣poses, as if the same had never bin given or pronounced.

And be it also enacted by the authority aforsaid, that as wel the said Act of Parliament intituled an Act declaring the establishment of the Succession of the King's most Royal Ma∣jesty, to the Imperial Crown of this Realm, made in the 25. year of the reign of the King your Father be repealed, and be it voyd, and of no effect, as also all and every such clauses, Articles, branches, and matters contained and expressed in the afforsaid Act of Parliament, made in the said 28. year of the Reign of the said late King your Father, or in any other Act, or Acts of Parliament, as wherby your Highness is named or declared to be ilegitimat, or the said marriage between the said King your Father, and the said Queen your Mother, is decla∣red to be against the word of God, or by any means vnlawful, shal be, and be repealed, and be voyd, and of no force nor ef∣fect, to all intents, constructions, and purposes, as if the same sentence or Act of Parliament had never bin had, nor made, and that the said marriage had and solemnized between your said most noble Father King Henry, and your said most noble Mo∣ther Queen Catharin, shal be definitivly, cleerly, and absolutly declared, deemed and adjudged, be, and stand with God's law, and his most holy word, and to be accepted, reputed, and taken of good effect and validity to all Intents, and purposes. &c.

Notwithstanding that the force and fraud vsed by King Henry 8. Cranmer, and others engaged in this divorce, were so plainly manifested, the Catholicks faith reestablished, the folly and falshood of former schisms and heresies publickly acknow∣ledged, yet no sooner was Queen Mary deceased, then Queen Elizabeth and her Protestant faction, resolved to return to the former errours, whervnto vicious persons (who always are the greatest number) were as vehemently inclined, as men are to en∣joy

their liberty, and to excuse the sensuality which they prac∣tised, by the principles of that Religion.

* 1.101And though it seemed a busines of great difficulty for Q. Elizabeth and her Councel, to revive a Reformation, which had bin so lately cryed down as schism and heresy, by the vnanimous concurrence of a ful and lawful Parliament, yet her Regal authority, her sex, and words wrought so strongly vpon the weakness of some, and vpon the ambition of others, that she gai∣ned the greater part of the house of Lords (and yet but by on only voice) for establishing Protestancy; the Duke of Norfolk, and the Earl of Arundel employing in her service, all their in∣terest, with friends and relations, against the Religion of their Ancestors.

And such Lords and Gentlemen (saith D.r Heylin) as had the managing of elections of their several Counties, retained such for members of the house of Commons, as they conceived most likly to comply with their intentions for a reformation. Besids (saith he) the Queen was young, vnmarried and like enough to entertain some thoughts of a husband; so that it can be no great mervail, not only if many of the no∣bility, but some even of the Gentry also, flattered themsel∣ves with possibilities of being the man whom she might choose to be her partner in the Regal Diadem. Which hopes much smoothed the way to the accomplishment of her desires, which otherwise might have proved more rugged and vnpassable, &c.

Notwithstanding all these devices, and compliances they never passed an Act in Parliament for the validity of her Mothers marriage, on which (saith Heylin) her title most depended. It seems the late former Act declaring the validity of Queen Catharins mariage deter'd her from attempting an other incompatible ther∣with, and wherin men must have had contradicted themselves most imprudently, as also the truth asserted by the many wit∣nesses, and confirmed with such individual circumstances, that without infamy to the late Parliament they could not take from Queen Elizabeth the brand of bastardy. Yet they resolved it should be no bar between her and the Crown, and so they thrust her

into the Throne, which of right belonged to Mary Steward Queen of Scotland, as is manifest to all that are not persuaded, Catholick Religion doth make soveraigns incapable of Regal ju∣risdiction.

SECT. VII. Other effects of Protestancy after it was revived in England by Q. Elizabeth, to exclude the Royal Family of the Stewards from the Crown; of the nulity of her Clergy's caracter and jurisdiction.

By King Henry 8. his revolt from the Church of Rome, not only the Religion but the realm of England was so embroyl'd, that very ma∣ny who had no right, entertained hopes of ascending into the Royal Throne; some by fishing in troubled waters, others by mar∣rying Q. Elizabeth, others by their descent from the younger daughter of King Henry 7. (all mention of the heires of the elder Sister having bin omitted, or blotted out of the last will and Testament of K. Henry 8.; and Q. Elizabeth having bin declared ilegitimat by three Acts of different Parliaments, which never yet were repealed) very few there were that did not hould their own title to be more legal then hers. This con∣fusion also made the Queen of Scots known right to be ne∣glected. But the French King who was concerned therin, com∣manded her to be proclaimed Q. of England, and quarter'd the Arms of great Britanie with his lilies. Q. Elizabeth apprehen∣ded some daunger from a title so cleere, seconded with the po∣wer

of France, and Scotland; and therfore by the advice of Secretary Cecil and others, resolved upon the chang of Religion and the destruction of the Catholick party and Clergy which favoured the Stewards claim.* 1.102 The Protestant Reformation (as being sutable both to her birth and interests) was revived, and a new caracter of Priesthood and Episcopacy devised; not imprinted in the soule by imposition of Episcopal hands, accor∣ding to the Ghospel, but in wax, as if forsooth by the weight of the great seal, and the vertue of a shee supremacy, a woman or lay men might make Bishops. This superficial formality was declared a sufficient caracter, and ground of Episcopacy, by a Junta of her Majesties lawyers, and Divines as appeareth in their definitive sentence, and her Commission * 1.103 to the Conse∣craters of her first Bishops D.r Parker, and others, wherin she dispenseth with all the inhabilities, and incapasities even of their State and Condition; because the true Bishops refused to ordain her Clergy, and a Clergy she was resolved to have that would vote in Parliament, and instruct the People as should be thought fit for her Succession and security.

And because the Roman Catholick Writers of those tyms laught at the Protestant Bishops Episcopacy, and bid them shew the letters of their Orders, not the letters patens of the Queen; and tould them a secular Prince might give them the revenues of Bishopricks, but not the Caracter of Bishops; and that the same Catholick writers insisted much vpon their Adversaries not being able to name what Bishops did consecrat them; and be∣sids pleaded in the publick Court, they were not realy nor legaly ordained; and that afterwards it appeared so to the Iury appointed for the examination therof; both the Queen and her Bishops found it absolutly necessary for her credit and their ca∣racter, to ratify all Acts, and things had made, or don by any person, or persons in or about any consecration,* 1.104 confirmation, or investing of any person, or Persons elected to the office, or dignity of Archbishops, or Bis∣hops by vertue of the Queens letters patents, or Commission, since the beginning of her Reign. So that to know whether D.r Parker,

and his Camerades were true Bishops, none must have examined whether they had bin consecrated by other Bishops, but only whether the person or persons that were the Consecrators (whe∣ther lay men or Ecclesiastick it matter'd not) performed that ceremony by virtue of the Queens letters patents, or commissi∣on? If they could shew her great seal, they might vse what matter and form they pleased; for,* 1.105 by the Act 1. & 8. Eliz. there was given to the Queens Highness, her Heires &c. full power and authority, by letters patents vnder the great seal of England, from tyme to tyme, to assign, name, and authorise such person or persons as she and they shal thinck meet and convenient (any lay man or woman would serve turn) to exercise, use enioy and execute vn∣der her Highness, all manner of jurisdictions, Priviledges, prehemi¦nences, and authorities, in any wise touching or concerning any spi∣ritual, or ecclesiastical power, or jurisdiction within this Realm, or any other her Majesties Dominions, or Countrys. Now priesthood be∣ing nothing but a spiritual power to Consecrat Christ's Body and Bloud, and forgive sins, and Episcopacy including besids the same, a spiritual power to consecrat, and ordain other Priests and Bishops; who can doubt but that by these words and Sta∣tut, the Queen might, and her Successours may, by their sole letters patents and great seal, make any lay man, (whether Carter or Catchpole), a Protestant Bishop, or Priest; seing therby he receiveth ful power to exercise, vse, execute, &c. all manner of jurisdictions, preheminencies, and authorities, in any wise touching or concerning any spiritual, or ecclesiastical power &c.

And because ther might remain no ambiguity or scruple of Parker, and the first Protestant Bishops valid and legal Con∣secration, the same Statut 8. Elizabeth 1. assures us, that the Queen in her letters patents for that purpose directed to any

Archbishop, Bishops, Or Others (mark the word Others) for the confirming, investing, and consecrating of any person elected to the Office or dignity of any Archbishop, or Bi∣shop, hath not only vsed such words and sentences as were accustomed to be vsed by the late King Henry, and King

Edward her Majesties Father and Brother, in their like letters patents, made for such causes; but also hath vsed divers other general words and sentences, wherby her Majestie by her su∣preme power, and authority hath dispensed with all causes or doubts, of any inperfection or disability, that can, or may in any wise be objected against the same, as by her Maje∣sties sayd letters patents (remaining on record) more plainly wil appeare.

Now Mr. Bramhal, the late Primat, would fain make the Parliament so sensless, and his Readers so sim∣ple, as to referr the words, mentioning and comparing the re∣cords of the Queen and her Father and Brother's tyme in this Act, to the Archbishop of Canterbury's Register, and not to their Majesties letters patents; wher as by the whole context and discourse it is evident, that the Parliament's drift is to shew no such ceremonious solemnity (as of late hath bin pretended and printed by Mr. Mason) was necessary. Had ther bin any such legal or formal Consecration at Lambeth, as 50. years after was forged, and foisted into the Archbishop's Register, the Par∣liament 8. Eliz. 1. would have remitted us therunto, named Lambeth, and not insisted al-togeather vpon the Queen's dispen∣sation for the validity, and legality of her first Bishops Conse∣cration and caracter.

* 1.106Many ar the reasons lately printed, and not like to be an∣swered, that persuade all prudent men, who have not too great a passion for the Prelatick Clergy, to believe that Mr. Mason's new found Register of Lambeth is forged. 1. It was never produced, nor mentioned by the first Bishops, so much pressed by their Adversaries to shew some Register, or any evidence for their Consecration. 2. They were only desired to let the world know, wher, when, and by whom they had bin made Bishops? questions easily answered, had they bin consecrated at Lambeth, or any Register then extant when Dr. Harding, Sta∣pleton and others, charged them with nulity and illegality of E∣piscopal caracter. 3. It's no more credible that such knowing and conscientious men as Stapleton, Harding, Fitzherbert &c.

then living in England, and probably at London, would que∣stion so publick and solemn an action, then it is, that a sober man would now cal in doubt King Charl's 2. coronation at Westminster, or ask in print, who set the Crown vpon his head pretending he neuer had bin crown'd. And though Bishop Godwin and other Prelatick Writers abuse Dr. Harding, Holi∣wood, Fitzsimons &c. for relating the meeting of the first Pro∣testant Bishops with a design to be ordained at the Nagshead in Cheap-side, yet all the world knows that albeit there could be no design to feign that story, yet our Controversy with the Prelaticks, is not whether their first Prelats were ordained there, but whether they were ordained any wher? We know Bishops might be as validly consecrated in a Tavern, though not so de∣cently, as in a Church. But t'is fit they also consider,* 1.107 that if Dr. Parker and their first Bishops, were so narrowly watch't by Mr. Neal, and other Catholicks (whom Primat Bramhal doth cal Spies) that they could not be merry in a Tavern with∣out their knowledg, they could hardly perform so serious, and solemn an Action in a Church, as the first Consecration of a Protestant Archbishop, without their observation; it being a matter then so much sought after, and controversed, of so great curiosity in it self, and of greatest concern to us, the total credit, and being of their new Reformation depending therup∣on; And yet for aboue 50. years none of the Writers of either side Catholick, or Protestant (who mentioned all other parti∣culars relating to the reformation) writ, or spoke a word of this solemnity at Lambeth. The Puritans indeed upraided the Pre∣laticks with saying their Episcopal ordination in England, had it's beginning and progress in a corner, not in a Congregation,* 1.108 but we can not imagin they could mistake the Archiepiscopal Chap∣pel of Lambeth, for a corner, or deny that the great Assembly pretended to have had bin at Dr. Parker's Consecration, deser∣ved not to be caled a Congregation.

Queen Elizabeths Clergy thus created by her patents, and Par∣liaments, they endeavored to shew themselves gratful to her

Majesty, by making the people believe that Popery (by the principles wherof she was vncapable of the Crown) was Idola∣try, the Pope Antichrist &c. And to that end corrupted Scrip∣tures in their English Translations, as shal be proved herafter. And because their frauds and follies were discoverd by Catho∣lick Priests,* 1.109 the sanguinary and penal laws were enacted and executed with great cruelty. But that which most troubled the Queen and her Clergy, was the life and right of the Queen of Scots; they found an expedient to rid themselves of both, that innocent Queen was murthered, and seing Queen Elizabeth was not inclined to marry, it was decreed in Parliament that in case there should be any natural issue of her body, it should en∣joy the Crown after her death,* 1.110 and so the line of the Stewards was excluded; and for that the doctrin of the Roman Catho∣licks favored their Title, all persons of that profession were dis∣countenanc'd, and persecuted. And albeit this setlement both of the Crow'n and Clergy of England, seem'd very absurd to all that reflected vpon the principles of Christianity, and the practise of God's Church, yet they who were guided only by Maxims of human policy, excused the Queens proceedings, and condemned not her Clergy for accepting of those revenues, and dignities which they could not acquire by honest and ordinary ways, their learning being but vulgar, and their birth obscure. Had not her Majesty exalted those mean persons from nothing, to be a legal, though not lawful Clergy, she could not have had any Clergy at all, for that no man of conscience, or ho∣nour, would have gain'd his living by damning souls, and cor∣rupting Scripture, nor received a spiritual caracter from a secu∣lar seal, and she supremacy. And indeed even to this day very few or none of the Protestant Nobility, or prime gentry, vn∣dergoe that cours of life; and the better sort of Trads-men take it for no great honour when any of their Relations becom, Ministers.

And becaus the foundation of the Queens legitimacy, and of her Clergys caracter and jurisdiction, was King Henry 8. and

her own supremacy, an oath of the same was pressed vpon the subjects, and proposed in the Parliament. The temporal Lords who were wiser then to believe that Christ committed the go∣vernment of souls, and of the Church to women or lay Princes (all of them one excepted) having bin for the three first Cen∣turies, Idolaters; and many, for some succeding ages, notorious hereticks, (and for the future may prove no better,) refused to concurr with their votes for passing of the Oath, unless the Peerage were exempted from taking it: this being condescended vnto, they consented to make that Oath legal, which themsel∣ves had rejected as vnlawful; and yet is this oath, even in our tims, made the distinctive sign not only of Prelatick Protestan∣cy, but of Cavallier loyalty, and Christian honesty. But this po∣licy of State neither then, nor now, could worck that vnity of faith, and vnion of hearts for which it was devised. It divi∣ded Protestants into Puritans, and Prelaticks; and confirmed Papists in their own belief, as being scandalised to see others ma∣ke a thing so incredible, the foundation of their faith. The Pu∣ritans agreed with the Papists in denying the Queen's spiritual supremacy, but differ'd from them in the ground of the denial, and in the person wherunto they granted that prerogative. The Papists continued it in the Pope; the Puritans vsurped it to them∣selves. The Papists grounded their belief concerning the Pop's supremacy vpon the common and continual consent of all Ca∣tholicks,* 1.111 acknowledging the Bishop of Rome to be de jure Di∣vino S. Peter's, Successour;the Puritans rejected that consent and Tradition, relying vpon their own privat spirit, and fond interpretation of Scripture. And though it be more dan∣gerous for Souveraigns to alow of this spiritual superiority in their own subjects, then in a stranger, whose parentage (gene∣raly speaking) is not considerable, and whose power is not du∣rable, as coming very late into his hands, and not surviving his person by descent to his posterity, or relations; yet Queen Elizabeth, was more jealous of the Pope, then of the Puritans; becaus the generality of the Irish, and a great part of the En∣glish,

were Papists; and according to their principles, the Ste∣wards ought to have bin in possession of the British Empire, and the Pop's censures in behalf of the Queen of Scots, had wrought already vpon some of their consciences. But the Pu∣ritans hated her Religion, person, and posterity, and were the chief instruments that Queen Elizabeth employ'd in embroy∣ling Scotland, and sheading of her Royal bloud: and therfor they were not only tolerated, but many of them exalted to places of trust, honour and profit. On the contrary, the Ro∣man Catholicks were persecuted, as a party that not only wish't, but wrought what was possible for the Queen of Scots liberty, relief, and the restitution of the Crown to her self, and to her line, wherof it had bin so vnjustly deprived by the principles and practises of Protestants: wherof some were so ignorant or impudent, as to give out then, and even now Dr. Heylin pag. 131. doth rashly maintain, that the Pope offered to confirm her English Liturgy, vpon condition she would acknowledg his supremacy. This was then, and is now reported, to the end illiterat Protestants may believe there is no great difference be∣tween their Reformation, and the Catholick Religion; and that the Bishops of Rome, and the Councel of Trent proceeded rash∣ly in their Censures, or at least may now, and would then, contradict former definitions, vpon more mature deliberation, or for some temporal respects: But they who know it is not in the Pop's power to legitimat a spurious brood, on begot and born in adultery, as Queen Elizabeth; and that he would be deposed from his Papal dignity, if he offered to confirm, or alow any of the many defin'd heresies contain'd in the English Litur∣gy: They I say, will not believe the Bishop of Rome could be so fond of Queen Elizabeth, or forgetful of him-self, as to become a Protestant, and chang the revenues of his Popedom for the vncertainty of her pension, in case she would value his kindness so much as to bestow a pension vpon him. By such follies and frauds is Protestancy supported in the opinion of cre∣dulous, and carless people, and their Clergy kept in possession of a vast revenue.

SECT. VIII. Reasons why Queen Elizabeth in her 44. years Reign could not make her Prelatick Clergy and Religion acceptable, neither is it possible for her Successours to gain credit and esteem for the same.

THe setlement of a Christian Religion or Cler∣gy doth not consist in making them legal by Acts of Parliament, but in persuading the peo∣ple that both the Religion and the Clergy is Apostolick; and by consequence that the Acts of Parliaments wherby they are confir∣med, are lawful. Notwithstanding the great severity of Queen Elizabeths laws, and the litle sincerity of her Clergy, in pulpit, press, and privat conversations, against the Roman Catholick Religion, for the space of aboue 44. years of her Reign, though Popery was therby rendred odious, and ridiculous to simple men, silly women, children, and others, whose want of capa∣city, and even of curiosity made them not reflect vpon the drift of Protestant Preachers, nor vpon the reasonableness of Catho∣lick Tenets; yet their Prelatick Protestancy did and doth every day rather loose then gain ground, and the generality of these Nations can not be wrought vpon either by fair or foul means to thinck wel of that Religion, or to submit their Judgments, and consciences to the direction of the Bishops, and Prelatick ministery. The reasons are obvious to such as are not obsti∣nat. 1. The incredibility of their pretented spiritual caracter and jurisdiction. 2. The incoherency of their doctrin with the fun∣damental principles of Protestancy. Their Episcopal caracter

and jurisdiction, is as incredible as King Henry 8. spiritual su∣premacy, Queen Elizabeths legitimacy, and the validity and so∣lemnity of their first Bishops consecrations. They have indeed of late endeavored to excuse the latness of their Masonian Re∣gisters discovery,* 1.112 and to cleere them from the suspitions of for∣gery, but so faintly and fraudulently, that their vindication (though pen'd and published by on of the ablest Prelats of their Church) hath furnished their adversaries with so many new demonstrations against their Caracter, that in steed of a reply, the Protestant Bishops have resolued vpon a submission to the evidence of our arguments, and changed the controverted and essential part of their forms of Ordination.

As they endeavored of late to vindicat their Registers from forgery, so they, long since explained the Queens supremacy, but so contrary to the known laws of the land, and cleer words of their Oaths both of supremacy and Episcopal homage, that nei∣ther can bear their fond interpretations; and if they could, the Bishops would have nothing to shew for their pretended spiri∣tual function and jurisdiction, it being manifest they cannot de∣duce either of them by succession from any Apostolick Church, or orthodox Councel; and therfor must content them-selves with what they can buy from a lay soveraign, and temporal Statuts, or acknowledg the truth, and confess ingeniously, they are but lay-men, and have no lawful authority to take vpon them a spiritual function, and jurisdiction, seing they have no Catholick Predecessours, and degenerat from the first Protestant Reformers, and are ashamed to claim (with Presbiterians and Fanaticks) the extravagancy of a privat spirit, and extraordi∣nary vocation.

The incoherency also of the Prelatick doctrin maks these nations averse from the Prelatick Church and Clergy. ••n the 39. Articles of Religion they declare with Luther, and the first Reformers, that no visible sign or ceremony (and by conse∣quence no such thing as imposition of Episcopal hands) was in∣stituted by Christ, or is the necessary matter of a Priest's and

Bishop's ordination; and yet now of late, that visible sign and ceremony is held by them-selves to be so essential, that without the same, no caracter of Priesthood or Episcopacy is thought to be given to the party ordained; and therfor they reordain such Presbiterian Ministers as did neglect, or contemn imposition of Episcopal hands. 2. They maintain in the same 39. Articles, that the Roman Catholick Church hath falen into damnable er∣rors, and acknowledg that only such a fal can justify the Pro∣testants separation, or excuse them from sin and schism. And yet when they are pressed with a consequence that necessarily follows out of this supposition, to wit, that if the Roman and visible Church had so erred, Protestants can have no Christian faith, nor certainty of the Scriptur's being God's word, or of the Trinity and Incarnation &c. which they received and retain vpon the sole Testimony of the Roman Catholick Church, ha∣ving in their own 39. Articles declared the Greeck Church, Here∣tical (for the doctrin of the Holy Ghost's procession) and therfor it's testimony (even in other Articles) is invalid, and it's con∣currence, in those other Articles, with the Roman Church, is vnsignificant. And yet they again contradict them-selves, and confess that the Roman Catholick Church is infalible in all ar∣ticles necessary for saluation. 3. The same inconstancy and in∣coherency they shew in denying, that doctrinal Traditions are the word of God, or that Tradition it self is a sufficient ground of Divine belief; and yet when they are demanded to shew a proof by cleer Scripture of the distinction between single Priest∣hood, and Episcopacy (v.g.) then they maintain that traditional doctrin is God's word, and the testimony of the Roman visi∣sible Church, a sufficient evidence therof. Their wavering and inconsequent way of proceeding, doth manifest to the world, that as wel in this, as in other particulars of Christian Religion, nay even in declaring which are necessary or not necessary points of faith, the Prelatick Clergy hath a greater regard to their own conveniency, then to God's veracity; and to the revenues of ••he Church, then to the saluation of souls: Otherwise why

should they take our Roman Catholick word for Episcopacy, and not for the Pop's supremacy; for the letter, but not for the sence of Scripture; for not rebaptising, or for receiving relaps'd pe∣nitents, more then for Purgatory, or Transubstantiation; or for keeping Sonday, and not praying to Saints &c. Seeing all these do∣ctrins are equaly proposed to them as Catholick truths by the sole credible testimony and tradition of our one and the same Roman Catholick Church; the testimony of the Greeck and all other Churches (as hath bin sayd) being rendred invalid by the he∣reticks wherwhith Protestants confess they are infected:

Some are of opinion that if the more modern Prelaticks had not forsaken their ould way of being ordained Bishops by the Queens letters patents, or by some such publick testimony and superficial ceremony of their Congregations, without trou∣bling them-selves with the doctrin of the inward caracter given by imposition of Episcopal hands, so contrary to the princi∣ples of the reformation a broad, and to the 23. and 25. of their own 39. Articles at home; they had not bin so hard put to it by their Presbiterian Brethrens arguments, who stick to the Tenets and Rules of pure and primitive Protestancy, detesting those formalities and dregs of Popery, which Prelaticks of late have so much affected in ordaining of Ministers.

Mr. Hooker, Dr. Couel and some other Prelaticks in their writings towards the end of Queen Elizabeths reign, began to inculcat the doctrin of making Ordination a spiritual caracter imprinted in the soul by imposition of Episcopal hands, and not a bare formality, of the secular Magistrat's election, by some outward ceremony, or letters patents, as all English Protestants had believed and practised vntil Hooker and Couel broacht this among their other Popish novelties, and therfor were publickly blamed, and complained of by Prelatick Writers, and particu∣larly by Dr. Willet in his worck vpon the 112. Psalm. printed 1603. and dedicated to the Queens Majesty page 91. he saith: From this fountain have sprung forth these and such other whirl∣points, and bubles of new doctrine; and amongst others he sets

down as a novelty in the Church of England this, That there is in ordination given an indelible caracter; and then addeth, Thus have some bin bould to teach and write, who, as some Schismaticks (the Puritans) have disturbed the peace of the Church one way in externall matters concerning disciplin; they have troubled the Church another way in opposing themselves by new quircks and devices to the soundness of doctrin among Protestants.

And truly, to pretend with all reformed Churches, that the Pope is Antichrist, and the man of sin, and at the same time pro∣fess (as the learned Prelatick writers do in their books) that without his caracter of Priesthood there can be no orthodox Clergy or Christian Church; are things that do not hang wel togeather; neither is it credible that so zealous Protestants as were the first English reformers Cranmer, Coverdale, Bale, &c. who strained Scripture in their Translations (and made formal ab∣jurations) against the caracters of Episcopacy and Priesthood, which they had received in the Church of Rome; or that Parker, Je∣wel, Horn, &c. who received that same doctrin, and excluded those caracters by an express Article of their 39. of Religion from the Church of England, and from their form of ordination, it is not I say credible, that these and the like men did maintain in their convocations, the late Prelatick contrary doctrin, or that they exercised or recorded any such Popish formalities of con∣secrating Priests and Bishops by imposition of Episcopal hands, as M.r Mason pretends he found in Parker's Register at Lambeth, as appeareth also to any that wil consider, the homely choyce, and caling of the primitive Pastors and Preachers of our Prela∣tick Protestancy, objected to themselves in print when they were living, and yet could not deny the fact, neither did they go a∣bout to excuse it, not taking it to be a fault.

D.r Kelison in his survey pag. 373. & 374. saith of the Pro∣testant Clergy in Q. Elizab. time. Lay men were taken, of which, some were base artificers, and without any other conse∣cration or ordination then the Prince's, or the superintendent's letters, made them Ministers and Bishops, with as few ceremo∣nies

and less solemnity then they make their Aldermen yea Con∣stables and cryers of the market. D.r Stapleton in his Counter∣blast lib. 4. num. 481, saith. And wherin I pray you resteth a great part of your new Clergy, but in Butchers, Cooks, Catch∣pols, and Coblers, Diers, and Dawbers, fellows carrying their mark in their hand insteed of a shaven Crown, &c.

Seing therfor our Catholick Arguments convince all dis∣interest'd persons (that weigh them) of the absurdity and no∣velty of Protestancy in general; and such as do not take them to be of any weight (because themselves are byassed, and bent against vs by education or interest) must needs take notice (if they think seriously of any Religion or of their own Protestant principles) that the Prelatick Reformation is but a politick ap∣pendix or addition of Q. Elizabeth in pursuance of her Father's passion, and by her self resolved vpon, more for securing a Crown then saving the soule;* 1.113 and therfor containing more mysteries of state then of faith, and more regarding conveniencies then conscience, as appeareth by the layty of her Clergy, by her She-supremacy, by the anticipated Royalty of her vnlawful issue, in case she would be pleased to own any; these things I say being no calumnies of malignant pens or persons, but most ma∣nifest by her own Articles of Religion, and Acts of Parliament, can hardly be digested by honest subjects, (much less settled as Divine truths in Christian souls) or carry the face of a pious and plausible Religion, even amongst the most silly sort of peo∣ple. Yet far be it from our thoughts to censure with folly or impiety such as suck't with their Nurses milk the poyson of this Prelatick Protestancy; no, we know they want neither piety nor policy according to their own principles; but I hope they wil not be offended, if, according to ours, we do pitty their condi∣tion, and pray for their conversion; we believe their zeale against our catholick Religion proceeds not from malice, but mistaks; and desire they may likewise believe our intention is only to ex∣pel by this antidot, the poyson which others have infused into their brains. This humble apology and explanation doth not relate to

them that made the chang of Religion for preferring Q. Eli∣zabeth, and any natural issue of her body to the Crown, befor the lawful heires, who (by God's providence) since her death, and at this present enioy right, nor to any that wil obstinatly maintain such proceedings: It is intended for all wel meaning Protestants that believe themselves to be Catholicks, and if they be not, wish they were; and that the true Religion were setled in these Nations. But what mervaile is it that privat persons be mistaken in Protestancy, when the Royal family of the Stewards (against whose title and succession it was introduced and esta∣blished, both in England, and Scotland; in England by Q. Eli∣zabeth, in Scotland by the Bastard Murry) are so much in love with that Religion; devised for their own ruine? So bewitching a thing is education, engrafted in good dispositions, and so dan∣gerous, if not cultivated, and corrected, by our own more ma∣ture reflections, when we arrive to years of discretion.

SECT. IX. How injurious Protestancy hath bin to the Royal family of the Stewards, and how zealous they have bin, and are in promoting the same▪

AFter that King Henry 8. had vsurped the Pop's Supremacy,* 1.114 and divised certain Arti∣cles of Religion, he desired his Nephew K. James 5. of Scotland, to follow his exam∣ple, which that Catholick Prince refus'd to do, King Henry in his last will and Te∣stament (confirmed by his Protestant Par∣liament) excluded the Royal family of Scotland from their right

and succession to the Crown of England, preferring before the Stewards not only his illegitimat daughter Elizabeth, but the Grays, and all others that descended of the yonger sister Queen Dow∣ager of France, and Dutchess of Suffolk. King James 5. decea∣sed, his wife the Queen Regent of Scotland, and his young daugh∣ter Queen Mary, were so persecuted by the Scotch and English Protestants, that the Queen Regent was deposed, and Queen Mary was forc't to fly for refuge into France. After her return into Scotland, the King her Husband was murthered by the Pro∣testants, his subjects, and the innocent Queen trepan'd by her protestant Bastard Brother to marry Borthvel one of the mur∣therers; with a design to diffame and depose herself from the government, which the Bastard had vsurped; and had murthered likewise King James 6. an infant, but that God prevented his wicked designs by permitting him to be killed by the hand of a Hamilton.

Other Protestants succeeded the Bastard Murry in the go∣vernment; and though King Iames escaped the dangers, and de∣signs they had layd for his life, yet they perverted his soule, and when he was but 13. months ould, Protestancy was set vp in his name; his Mother (being driven out of her own Kingdom by those Protestants that deposed herself, and abused her Son's minority) was (contrary to the publick faith and privat promi∣ses of Queen Elizabeth) imprisoned in England, her Rebels coun∣tenanced, and her self at length most vnworthily murthered by the joynt consent of a Protestant Queen and Parliament: and her son and Family excluded from the British Empire, in case Queen Elizabeth should have, or at least own, any natural issue: which many suppose was the true cause, why she or the Parli∣ament would never declare her Successour.

King James having bin brought vp in this schoole of af∣fliction, attained to more then ordinary wisdom, dissembled with his enemies in England, and strengthned him-self with as many friends and Allies as he could in foreign Nations, to the end he might recouer his right after Queen Elizabeths death,

which he and the best part of the world every day long'd son▪ He kept faire with France, Spain, and even with the Pope. He succord Tyrone Tirconel, and the Jrish Scots in Irland against Queen Elizabeth but vnder hand. He corresponded with the Catholick party in England, and was civil even to that party that contrived and pressed his Mothers murther. By his mar∣riage he obtained the confederacy of Denmarck and the Prote∣stant Princes of Germany for recovering of England. Cecil and others of the English Councel, observing how prudently this young King had ordered his affairs, and prepared him-self for being their Master, courted him, and vnknown to the Queen, gave him dayly intelligence, and thought it their best course to fix vpon him for her Successour; seing they could hardly keep him out, they invited him to the Throne after his enemie's death; and he finding that very Protestancy by which his mo∣ther and him-self had bin so long excluded from their right (and would have bin for ever, if Queen Elizabeth had bin as capable as t'is sayd she was desirous of Posterity) was deeply rooted in the hearts of most of his English subjects (who ei∣ther did not see he chang, or not observe the motives and My∣steries therof) King James J say, reflecting vpon this inclina∣tion of the people to Protestancy, conformed him-self vnto that Reformation which had bin setled by law in England; discoun∣tenanced the Puritans, by whose doctrin he had bin persecuted in Scotland; and would have tolerated the Catholick, if the gun powder Treason (wherunto some few discontented and desperat Papists were cunningly drawn by Cecil, to make their Religion odious) had not blasted our hopes, and blotted out of his Ma∣jestie's memory what we had suffered for his Mother, and how not only our persons, but our principles had bin persecuted for supporting the title of his Family to the British Empire.

By King James his learned works, and discourses, it is ma∣nifest he had a design to reform the principles of Protestancy, and reduce them to some rules of reason, and confine that dan∣gerous liberty which they give to every privat Protestant, of

being supreme Judg in all spiritual Controversies to one cer∣tain interpretation of Scripture that might be less prejudicial to Monarchy, Monarchs, peace and all civil Government, then the Protestant arbitrary interpretations have proved hitherto. To that purpose he commanded the Bible to be truly translated, and those fraudulent and foolish corruptions to be corrected, which had bin imposed vpon the people for God's word by Queen Elizabeths Clergy, for maintaining her title, and securing the re∣venues of the Church to them selves. But his command was not obey'd, some falcifications in the ould and new Testament were corrected, but very few, in respect of what remain and pass now current for true Scripture. He declared that Catholicks and their Religion had no hand in the gunpowder treason, those few per∣sons excepted, which had bin executed. He was not, afraid to acknowledg that the Pope was the first Bishop of Christendom, and Rome the mother Church; he suspended the rigor of the sanguinary and penal Statuts; commended not apostatised Priests, that became Protestants, as he said, to get wenches, and bene∣fices. These things he did, not out of any inclination to Pope∣ry, but out of his zeal to Protestancy, which he perceived would in a short time become as infamous, as it is intolerable to Monarchs, in case it's principles were not corrected and brought neerer vnto Catholick Tenets.

After King Iames his death, his son King Charles 1. pur∣sued the Father's design; but found by sad experience that the Protestant liberty of interpreting Scripture, cannot be restrained to reason by any human industry of the wisest Princes; espe∣cialy so long as they are guided by a fallible Church that con∣fesseth it's own vncertainty of doctrin.

King Charles the 1. was persuaded by his Councel and Cler∣gy that the Laws which had bin enacted in favour of the Pre∣latick fallible Church, and doubtful jurisdiction, were of suffi∣cient force and authority to contain Protestant subjects in awe, and obedience, and to stop the cours and consequences of those fundamental, and violent principles of their reformation against

superiority, at the Church of Rom's doore; and keep them from passing further, or entrenching vpon the Church of Eng∣land. But the mistake soon appeared; they who are allowed by the Prelatick principles to rebell against their Roman Supe∣riours, vnder the pretence of a Religious interpretation of Scrip∣ture, and evangelical Reformation, could not then, nor cannot for the future, be contain'd, or deterr'd by any authority from rebelling against their Protestant Kings, and Bishops vpon the same score, whose superiority could not be more authentick, then the Roman Catholick. And therfor because the King, had engaged in the Bishops quarel, he drew vpon himself the odium of all Protestants that with the spirit and zeal of Reformation stuck to the fundamental principles of Protestancy, which is, to contemn all authority both spiritual and temporal, which any pri∣vat person judges contrary to his own interpretation of Scripture; and seeng the Prelatick Church of England doth grant this do∣ctrin was lawful in Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, Parker, and other particular persons, Churches, and States against the Pope, and others their then acknowledged spiritual and temporal superiours, it will be very difficult to shew why now a Presbiterian or Fa∣natick Congregation may not as rationally pretend, and as law∣fully practise the same doctrin as their primitive Protestant Pre∣decessours had don. And so in vertue of this fundamental prin∣ciple of Protestancy, was the sacred person of a good King jud∣ged and murthered, by a rude and wicked multitude, without regard to innocency, or respect to Soveraignty: And by a re∣markable revolution of tyms, and interests, the grandson came to loose his head for vpholding that same Prelatick Religion and Clergy which by Q. Elizabeth had bin rays'd for the destruction of his Grand-mother, and the exclusion of his family from the crown.

Since Christian Soveraigns have reign'd, the like Tragedy hath not bin acted; many Princes have bin murthered by their Subjects, but never by any such formality of Law, and a pu∣blick Court of Judicature, pretending superiority in themsel∣ves, and Scripture for their rule and warrant. Wherfore they

that looke into the principles and privileges for the future in so zealous and resolute a people as the English, who stand much vpon enjoying their temporal liberties, and much more vpon the spritual prerogative of Protestancy, which according to Luther (the first Author,* 1.115 and Apostle therof is) omnia judice∣mus & regamus. Let us judg and govern all things; and not on∣ly his German Scholler Brentius but our English Bishop Bilson, and all Prelaticks grant, that the people must be discerners and Jud∣ges of that which is taught. And the Catholick doctrin of the Church of England explaining the 39. Articles therof saith, Authority is given to the Church, and to every member of sound judgment in the same, to judg controversies of faith, &c. And this is not the privat opinion of our Church, but also the judgment of our godly brethren in forain Nations. And it is not only the Tenet of Calvin, but of all Protestant Writers, that temporal laws oblige not in conscience any Christians to obey.

It being therfore a principle and priviledg, even of Pre∣latick Protestancy, and agreable to the 39. Articles, that every member of sound judgment in the Church, hath authority, to judg controversies of faith (and by consequence) all other differences that may be reduced thervnto, how is it possible for any King to be a Soveraign among Protestants, who are all supreme judges both of faith and state? for that State-affairs are subordinat to Religion, and must be managed according to the Protestant sense of Scripture, that is, according to the judgment and interpretation of every particular Protestant or of him that can form or foole the multitude into his own opinion. Wher∣fore we ought not be astonished, that men constituted supreme Iudges and Interpreters of Scripture by the legal authority and articles of the Church of England, and by the Evangelical li∣bertys of Protestancy, should presume to make them-selves the King's Iudges. For my part, I shal thinck it a great providence of God, and extraordinary prudence in the government, to see any King of England (during the profession and legality of such principles in his Kingdom) escape the like daunger; and

do continualy pray, that their good Angel may deliver them from the effects of their own Religion.

His Majesty that (by miracle) now Reigns (long may he live and prosper) hath bin forced to lurck for his life in one of those secret places wherunto Priests retire, when they are search't for; God giving him to vnderstand therby, that the most powerfull Princes (where Protestancy prevails) even in their own Kingdoms, are never secure; and may be often re∣duced to as hard shifts, and as great extremities as the Poorest Priests, and meanest Subjects.

RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT.

THE SECOND PART. Of the inconsistency of Protestant principles with Christian piety and peaceable Government.

SECT. I. Proved by the very Foundation of the Protestant Reformation, which is, a supposition of the fallibility and fal of the visible Catholick Church from the pure and primitive doctrin of Christ, into notorious superstition.

IN the beginning of the first Part, it hath bin sayd that the groundworck as wel of Policy, as of Peace and Piety, consists in making that persuasion to be the Reli∣gion of the State, which is most credi∣ble, or most agreable to reason; because no commands, duties, taxes, or charges will seem intolerable to subjects, for the preservation, and propagation of such a Religion, nor for the maintenance of the spirititual and tem∣poral Ministers, to whose charge is committed the government of such a Church and Common-wealth. How far all kind of

Protestancy (even the Prelatick) is from having this preroga∣tive, we shall demonstrat in this Part of our Treatise; and in this Section prove the same by the absurdity of the fundamen∣tal Protestant principles, Common as well to the Prelatick as to all other Reformations.

The foundation wherupon all Protestant Reformations are built, is this incredible or rather impossible supposition, Viz. That all the visible and known Christian Churches of the world ••ell from that purity and truth of doctrin, which they had once professed, into superstition, and damnable errors; vntil at length in the 15. age, God sent the Protestant Reformers to revive the true faith and Religion; whose separation from the Roman Catholick Church and all others then visible, is pretended to be free from sin and Schism, by reason of the falshood of the Roman Catholick doctrin, not consistent with saluation. But this supposition is incredible. 1. Because Protestants confess the fall and change of Religion was not perceived vntil 1300. or vntil at least 1000. years (a) 1.116 after it happned, and such an impercep∣tible change in Christian religion, involues as plain contradicti∣ons as a silent thunder.

For, either it must be granted that all the Pastors, and Prelats who lived in the time that any alteration of doctrin began, were so stupid as not to take notice of so important and remarcable an object; or so wicked as to observe, and yet not oppose no∣velties so destructive to the souls committed to their charges. Both which are proved to be groundless calumnies by the ac∣knowledged zeal learning, and integrity wherwith many Pre∣lats and Pastors were endued in every age since the Apostles, as their works yet extant do testify.

The truth of this Protestant supposition is not only incre∣dible, but impossible; because the supposed chang of Christian Religion into Popish superstition is not pretended to have bin only a chang of the inward persuasion, but of the outward pro∣fession, visible and observable in ceremonies and practises, ans∣werable to the Mysteries believed; as the adoring of the B. Sa∣crament,

worship of Jmages, Communion in one kind, publick prayer in vnknown languages &c. How then is it possible that any Christian man, or Congregation could begin so discernable and damnable novelties, as (according to the opinion of our Adversaries) The adoration of the Sacrament, Transubstantiation, worship of Jmages, Communion of the layty vnder one kind, the Sacrifice of the Mass, and publick prayers in an vnknown language, the Pop's supremacy, the doctrin of Purgatory, Jndulgences, Praying to Saints, the vnmarried life of Priests &c. How is it possible I say, that any one should begin to teach, and practise any of these supposed damnable doctrins, and yet never be noted, or reprehended by any one Prelat, Pastor, or Preacher (who ar (according to Esay) the wat••chmen [b] 1.117 of te visible Church) vntil Luther's times, or at least vntil these supposed superstitions had bin so vniversally spread, so deeply rooted and plausibly re∣ceived as Catholick truths, and as ancient Traditions of Christ, and of the Apostles, that they who censured and opposed any of them, were (for so doing) immediatly cryed down and condemned by the then visible and Catholick Church and Coun∣sels, as notorious hereticks; How come the Preachers and Pro∣fessors of these pretended Popish errors to escape for so many ages, as Protestants confess they had continued, vncontroul'd from the censures of Christ's pure Protestant Congregation, if there was any vpon earth during that time? was there not one Bis∣hop, Priest, or Preacher in all the world for so many ages, so zealous as every Protestant is in ours! If any Protestants lived then, why did not they speack or write? were they all Tem∣porisers, and Turn-coats? or were they all so blind, dumb, deaf, and dull, that not one of them could see, heare, repre∣hend, or observe practises and ceremonies so erronious, obvi∣ous, and offensive?

The Protestant evasion or answer to this evident Demonstra∣tion, is both frivolous and fallacious. Their chief Doctors (c) 1.118 acknowledg they can not tell by whom, nor at what time the Popish errors were broacht, and say that errors in Religi∣on

may creep as insensibly into the Church, as a building may decay, or white haires grow in man's head: as if, forsooth, all and every Christian of the world, and particularly the Pa∣stors and Prelats of the Church, were as much concern'd in the observation of every gray hair and head, or in the preservation of every building from decay, as they are in observing and pre∣serving the purity and integrity of every article of faith, and in opposing the least novelty contrary to the same. Besids, the outward profession and propagation of those points of Popery that Protestants suppose to have crept insensibly into the Church, could neither be concealed, nor confounded with the contra∣dictory principles and practises of Protestancy, as a white hair may be easily confounded and concealed with others that co∣ver, or come neer it in colour. Moreover, the chang from youth, and stately buildings, into gray hairs, and ruinous edi∣fices, is wrought insensibly by the hand of time without any perceptible concurrence of any other cause; Time wears out and consumeth structure, strength, youth, and beauty, whether men gaze or not gaze vpon such gay objects; but the planting, preaching, or inculcating of new doctrin, and new ceremonies of Religion, are of a quite contrary nature; they have not such dependency of time alone, they must be effects of attention and observation of discourses and disputs, of Sermons and Cate∣chisms; they must be also professed and practised in the view of the world. Time without these and the like notorious pra∣ctises and observations, can not alter Christian Religion, nor in∣duce a contrary superstition.

Lastly. Granted there were no fallacy in the similitude, nor disparity in the Comparison; the examples are better retor∣ted against Protestancy, then applied to Popery; for, though haires may begin to grow white, and buildings to decay, with∣out any great notice taken of their chang, yet when either coms to the height, or even to the mediocrity of their chang, that chang is observ'd by as many as have eyes to see; and is not only observed, but resented, and remedied (according to their power) by them who are most concerned in such decays and defects. If then a white head is so easily discern'd from black, and a ruin'd edifice from a new Palace, and a decay'd fa∣ce from a beauty, by all kind of people that make use of their senses, and if so much industry is used by them who are most sensible of those imperfections, to hinder their further progress or appearance; how is it possible that all or any orthodox Chri∣stians (being so greatly and particularly concern'd in the purity and truth of their Religion, and in the observation of it's rites and Ceremonies) could be for many ages so stupid, as not to distinguish it's doctrin and profession from the quite contrary? or so carless in applying remedies against the grouth, and con∣tinuance of errors both damnable and discernable? Is it not more probable and possible that Martin Luther (a man so impious, proud, and passionat, that him-self acknowledgeth he did re∣tain Idolatry in the Church at Wittenbergh, to vex his Scholler Carolostadius; should (to disgrace the Pope and Papists his ene∣mies) be seduc'd (by his confessed disputation and submission) in his diabolical doctrin, then that the whole visible Church, Fa∣thers and Councels before Luther for at least 1000. years, should not only forsake Christ's doctrin, but mistake the true sence of

Scripture now pretended to be so cleer and manifest to every Pro∣testant? That all the world did conspire and concurr to such an apostasy, is not credible: That they who did not concurr, should sit quiet and conive, is as vnlikly.

If no Pastor nor Prelat had the courage to oppose Idola∣try and superstition, sure some one or other would have had the curiosity to describe the occasion, beginning, and progress of so great and remarkable a change; and would mention, (if not con∣demn) the stupidity of the whole Church, in not opposing do∣ctrin so inconscionable, and vnreasonable. And yet ther is no Tradition therof, nor a syllable in any history sacred or profa∣ne, of this supposed change in any on point of Popery, nor so much as the least sign therof in any monument of antiquity.

SECT. II. The Protestants evasion of the cleerness of Scrip∣ture against our Roman doctrin, as also of the invisibility of their own Church, confuted: and the incredibility of the supposed change and Apo∣stasy, proved by the difference of the Roman Ca∣tholick, and Protestant principles.

THE second evasion of Protestant Writers is, that they are not bound to inquire when or wher our Popish errors crept into the Church, or became so vniversal, but think it sufficient to prove by Scripture, that Popery is not Christ's doctrin. This shift is no less absurd then the former, because they suppose for granted what is de∣nyed, and the subject to our disputes.

The controversy between Protestants and Catholicks is, whe∣ther the Roman Tenets be contrary to Scripture? Protestants say they are, and prove it, because, forsooth, Scripture is con∣trary to the Roman Tenets; We deny it, and they prove it on∣ly by pretending that the letter and sense of Scripture is evident for the Protestant doctrin, and by consequence they must say that all Papists for the space of 1500. or at least 1000. years, have bin either so witless as not to vnderstand what is evident, or so wicked as to contradict evidence, and the cleerness of God's written-word and meaning. Let any Protestant (who hath so much sense as to vnderstand that nothing but the obscurity of Scripture can make it the subject of disputs, and occasion di∣versity of opinions among so honest and learned Christians), be judg, whether the controversies between us, and Lutherans, Pres∣biterians, and Prelaticks., &c. be not a demonstration that the true sense of Scripture is not cleer and evident in the controverted Texts. And if the dissent and dissentions amongst honest men and learned Scripturists be an vndeniable proof, and evidence of Scrip∣tur's obscurity, whether it be not great obstinacy in Protestants to maintain that Popery is evidently condemned in Scripture, and that so many thousands of honest and learned Papists could not or would not discover what is cleer to every illiterat Protestant; or if they did, would not embrace that truth to which their judg∣ments and God's cleer word did direct them?

Until the year 1517. no man euer pretended the cleerness of Scripture for Protestancy; at that time Martin Lather (seeing all the Fathers contradicted his protestant doctrin) bouldly affir∣med (d) 1.119 the ancient Doctors and Fathers of all former ages to have bin blind and most ignorant in the Scripturs, and to have erred all their life time.

And in Colloq. cap. de Patribus Ecclesioe Luther saith of sun∣dry Fathers in particular thus. Jn the writings of Jerome there is not a word of true faith in Christ and sound Religion. Tertullian is very superstitious. J have holden Origen long since accursed. Of Chry∣sostom I make no accompt. Basil is of no worth, he is wholy a monk,

I way him not a haire. Cyprian is a weak Divine, &c. Adding fur∣ther that the Church did degenerat in the Apostles age, and that the Apology of his scholler Philip Melancton doth far exceed all the Doctors of the Church, and exceed even Austin him self. And in his Treatise de formulâ Missae, & in tom. 3. Germ. folio 274. Jf the Councel should in any case decree this (the Communion vnder both kinds) least of all then would we vse both kinds, yea rather in despite of the Councel, and that decree, we would vse either but one kind or neither (notwithstanding Christ's precept and the nece∣ssity of that spiritual refection) and in no case both.

But this man's bare word ought not to weigh more then the Testimony of all the Fathers and Councels that went before him, or be preferred before the constant Tradition of 15. ages, especialy if we reflect vpon the pride, and passion which he de∣clares in all his writings, not only against the Doctors of the Roman Church, but against his own Disciples: and (as hath bin said) how in the begining of his reformation (when his spi∣rit was in it's primitive fervor) he doth plainly confess that he did favour Idolatry, to contradict Carolstadius for anticipating his commands in a point of the reformation, viz. for abolishing of the adoration and elevation of the B. Sacrament in his absence: [e] 1.120 I did know (saith he) the elevation of the Sacrament to be Idolatricall, yet nevertheless J did retain it in the Church at Witten∣berg to the end J might despite the Devill Carolstadius. And yet this wicked friar's authority is the first foundation of protestan∣cy: Therfore notwithstanding his known impiety he is termed by their writers (f) 1.121 Holy saint Luther, a man sent of God to ligh∣ten the world: [g] 1.122 the Helias, Conductor, and Chariot of Israel: to be reverenced next after Christ and Paul: (h) 1.123 greater then whom, lived not since the Apostles tims: [i] 1.124 The Angel and last trumpet of God, whose caling was (k) 1.125 immediat and extraor∣dinary &c. Let the most peevish Protestant, I say once more be judg, whether it be not more probable and possible that one pri∣vat proud and [l] 1.126 passionat man did mistake the true sence of Scripture, and misapply the words therof to humour his passion

of pride and revenge, then that all the primitive Fathers and Christians of the world did conspire to forsake the known true letter and cleer meaning of God's word; or if all did not con∣spire in the Apotasy, that there should be no monument left, or mention made in record, history, or tradition, of the fideli∣ty of the party that resisted.

Secondly, this supposed change is proved incredible not on∣ly by the impossibility of an insensible change in a thing so re∣markable and important as the doctrin and Profession of Chri∣stian Religion, but also by the impossibility that a change and corruption of Christ's doctrin should be made to the detriment of the wary layties temporal interest, and to the disadvantage both of the layty and Clergie's liberty; For when men resolve to go out of the narrow way which leads to heaven, they are not so foolishly wicked as to retire from the wide world into deserts, or Monasteries, and to impose vpon themselves or their followers an obligation or principles of a more [m] 1.127 strict course of life then that which they had forsaken, as dayly experience doth cleerly demonstrat.

If protestancy therfor was the primitive and pure Christi∣an Religion, the fall from it to Popery, must have bin rather condessending then contrary to sensuality and liberty: And yet if the doctrin of the reformation, and it's exceptions against Popery be considered, we shal find that in every particular wher∣in they differ, Protestancy doth favour liberty and vice; Popery doth favour temperance, and virtue.

We shal declare herafter to what great crimes and carles∣ness of life men are encouraged by the Protestant doctrine of predestination, and justification by faith alone. Christ's suffe∣rings and satisfaction for our sins they apply not to themselves by imitation of his virtues, and mortification of the flesh, but think it a diminution of his glory, and a disrespect to his per∣son, that men endeavour by God's grace to help themselves, and to cooperat with Christ's passion; and vpon thi•• ground they rayse their batteries against Indulgences, Purgat••••y▪ ••••lgrimages, Prayer to Saints, Confession of sins, Pennance, the three Vows, and the austerity of a Religious life, Works of Supererogation &c.

and censure Catholicks as guilty of superstition and folly for believing, that though Christ's passion be infinitly sufficient to redeem vs from the guilt and penalties of sin, yet is it not suf∣ficiently and actualy applied to actual sinners without their own concurrence, good works, and the Sacraments of the Church. As for their pretence that Christ hath satisfied for all, they may as wel say, that he hath prayed, fasted, and given almes for all, and so discharge men of all such Christian-duties and devotions.

And as to other particulars, we desire to know, what can the Protestant Clergy's design be in allowing Priests mariages, and a liberty to dissolve mariages, change wives [n] 1.128 and hus∣bands in case of adultery, departure, infirmity by child-birth, or otherwise, but lust and sensual liberty contrary to the insti∣tion of matrimony, and to the purity and practise of Christia∣nity, which Roman Catholicks observe? From whence procee∣deth their allowing of eating of flesh and fish promiscuously on all days of the year, but from gluttony? Their Clergy's deny∣all of the Pop's superiority (which their betters in virtue, birth and learning acknowledg) but from want of humility? And their placing it in the temporal Soveraign, but from excess of flattery? Their dulness in confounding the substance with the appearance of bread and wine in the Sacrament, but from sensu∣ality? Their denial of the Church's infallibility (and yet assert in themselves an vncontroul'd authority) but from pride and obstinacy? Their fond expressions of their own prelatick re∣formation and doctrin, but from want of Christian modesty, and from their for-fathers the ancient hereticks, whose presump∣tion and obstinacy was neuer more manifestly absurd, nor mo∣re legaly condemned at Nice, Ephesius, Calcedon, or Constantinople, then the Protestant Tenets have bin at Trent, as wil appeare to any that wil read the history of those Councels, and compare the objections and exceptions made by Arians, Nestorians, and E••••tychians, &e. against the Authority and decrees wherby they were censured in these four first Councels, with the Protestant exceptions and objections against the Councel of Trent; especi∣ly

if they wil pervse but the very first leaves of Cardinal Pala∣vicino his confutation of Fr. Paulo Suarez, or Servita, his histo∣ry, wherin they wil find above tree hundred lyes and calum∣nies of that Apostata Friar in matter of fact, so notorious and vndeniable, that our English Prelatick Clergy wil (or ought to be) ashamed of the Preface they have set before it, and of abu∣sing King Iames and his Subjects with such impostures, by their extolling so improbable and infamous a Libel.

Seing therfore the supposed change and fall from primiti∣ve Protestancy to popery, hath bin from presumption and pri∣de of a privat and censorious [o] 1.129 judgment against the publick testimony and sense of the visible Church, to submission and humility of an obsequious and prudent belief; from notori∣ous rebellion against spiritual and temporal superiours, to religi∣ous and dutifull obedience; from gluttony to abstinence; from incontinency to chastity; from sincerity to flattery; from Cloysters and austerity to Sacrilege and liberty; from a pretence of faith alone to the Christianity of faith and good works &c.

It must be concluded, that either Protestancy was not the pure and primitive Religion, or if it was, that the change therof in∣to popery, hath bin for the better, and by consequence that the first Papist, introduced into the world a more sacred and sin∣cere profession, then had bin taught by Christ and his Apostles. But this being impious and as impossible, as it is that men aban∣doned by God, should exceed God's servants in piety, or that they should establish and practice more Godly principles and more zealously promote virtue when they fel from God, and the way of salvation, then when they were in the same; it must be granted, that Popery is the pure and primitive Religion taught by Christ; and his Apostles; and that only weak brains, or such tender plants as in their infancy received strong impressi∣ons of the possibility, and existence of an invisible Christian Church vpon earth, can fancy an insensible change of it's doctrin, profes∣sion, and ceremonies, into so remarkable and different a wor∣ship of God as Popery is, compared with Protestancy.

Congregations of Protestants living in the same Provinces, Citties, and Parishes with Papists, and dissenting from them in the outward and oral profession of faith (if they did not pro∣fess

protestancy, (which they suppose was Christ's faith) with the mouth, they were dissemblers, and could be no part of the true Church) in the Canon and sense of Scripture, in the admi∣nistration and number of Sacraments, in Rites and Ceremonies, in the substance and language of the Liturgy, in adoring the B. Sacrament, in worshiping of Images, in receiving of the Com∣munion &c. such Protestant Congregations, I say, to be invisible and never heard of in 1500. or 1000. years, nor observed, nor persecuted by the prevailing Papists among whom they lived, is not a thing possible, or intelligible, much less prudently cre∣dible. We see by experience in these Kingdoms, how impos∣sible it is for a Recusant not to be discerned, and discovered; Papists are known though not convicted. Many of them through the mildn'ss and prudence of the government, escape the pe∣nalties and rigour of the Law; but none the observation of their neighbours, and very few the menaces of both ecclesiastical and civil Courts. The invisibility therfor of the Protestant Church and the insensibility of it's change to Popery, is a fitter subject to ground ther-vpon a ridiculous Romance, then a religious re∣formation. Perhaps it wil be sayd that Protestants were vntil the last age among the ten tribes as the Jews, of whose appea∣rance ther hath bin of late so much talk; but we heare not of Protestants among them; neither did Luther, Zuinglius, Cranmer, or Calvin pretend that they came from those Israelits, or from Terra australis incognita; they were born and bred neerer, and they brag'd that them-selves were the first Reformers. Now to their Scripture.

SECT. III. Protestants mistaken in the Canon of Scripture maintained by the Church of England, and by Doctor Cousins Bishop of Duresme.

OUr second Argument against the probability, or possibility of Protestancy being the word or work of God, is taken from the Protestants mistake of Scripture, and their altering of the Canon. And wheras [a] 1.130 our learned Ad∣versaries do agree with vs in saying that nei∣ther the Scripture it-self, nor the privat spirit can determin which parts of Scripture are Canonical, or holy, but confess that this controversy must be decided by the Testimony and autho∣rity of the Church; and that above 300. years after the Apost∣les, some of their writings were not held by all orthodox Ca∣tholicks to be Canonical, which now are comprehended in the Canon, and admitted as the word of God by many Protestants; it foloweth.

1. That the Canon of Scripture was not so sufficiently proposed to the whole Church for the three first ages, as to make the denial or doubt therof, Heresy 2. That the 6. Article of the Prelatick-Religion of England, which admitted only such books of Scripture for Canonical, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church, is false, and the ground therof fallible.

For as all men vers'd in the Ecclesiastical History wel know, and learned Bilson the Protestant Bishop of Winchester doth acknowledg (in his survey of Christ's sufferings &c. printed 1604. pag. 664.) The Scripturs were not fully received in all places; no not in Eusebius his time (which was above 300. years after the Apostles) he saith the Epistles of Iames, Iude, the second of Peter, the second and third of John, are contradicted as not written by the Apostles; the Epistle to the Hebrews was for

a while contradicted, &c. The Churches of Siria did not receive the second Epistle of Peter, nor the se∣cond and third of Iohn, nor the Epistle of Iude, nor the A∣pocalips, &c. The like might be sayd for the Churches of Arabia. Wil you hence inferr that these parts of Scripture were not Apostolick or that we need not receive them now, because they were formerly doubted of?

This Argument of Bishop Bilson we apply to the Macha∣bees, and to the other books declared by the Church of Eng∣land to be Apocryphal.

Doctor Cousins writ a book caled a Scholastical History of the Canon of Scripture (for which him-self and his friends think he wel deserved the Bishoprick of Duresme that he now enjoys) in defence of the Prelatick Protestant Canon, and of the 6. ar∣ticle of the Church of England. And because he tels us in his Preface, that men of knowledg pressed him to publish it as a pie∣ce that would give more ample satisfaction, and cleere the passages in antiquity from the objections that some late Authors in the Roman side bring against Protestants, then those other writings of home, or for∣eign Divines have don that are extant in this kind. I thought fit to give Protestants a proof of the soundness of their doctrin, and of the sincerity of their Doctor. And though it seemeth to me impossible for any man to know what parts of the new Testa∣ment the 6. Article and Canon of the Church of England, de∣clares Canonical, it being so intricatly worded, that either it must be non sense, or els exclude from the Canon the Epistles of Iames, the second of Peter, the second and third of John, the E∣pistle of Iude, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Apocalips, seing the authority of all and every one of these hath bin doub∣ted of in the Church, and the 6. Article of the Protestant Re∣ligion of the Church of England is, that In the name of the holy Scripture we do vnderstand those Canonical Books of the old and new Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt of, in the Church, Though I say, it's impossible for me to comprehend how com∣mon sense and Christianity can meet in this Article, but that if

the words therof signify any thing, out of the English Protes∣tant new Testament, must be excluded all the aforsaid Epistles and Apocalyps; yet leaving this difficulty to the decision of that Church, I wil suppose at the present with D.r Cosins that all these Epistles and Apocalyps are included in the English Canon, and come to the examination of the Arguments wherby he pre∣tends to defend it.

He therfor foreseing the impossibility of giving any rea∣son why the parts of the New Testament hertofore doubted of should rather be received by Protestants into their Canon, then the Books of the Old Testament, no more questioned by the Church of Christ then the aforsaid epistles and the Apocalyps; thought to avoyd the force of this pressing parity, by flatly de∣nying (pag. 5. & alibi) That ever any intire Church, or any Na∣tional or Provincial Counsel or any multitude of men in their confes∣sions and Catechisms, or other such publick writings, rejected or doubted of the sayd epistles &c. In case so many solemnities had bin requisit for the questioning of Canonical authority, (which his Lp: knows, are not necessary) It seems his lord∣ship did not peruse Eusebius his works, though he quotes them very often; or at least did not thinck that the ancient Churches of Syria and Arabia deserve to be called Churches, not that the Lutherans of Germany, Denmark, Suethland &c. who stick to Luther's principles and Canon, can make one, or many Churches, Its a gross mistake in the Doctor to say (pag. 4. & 5.) that Luther or his Lutherans recalled or recanted their error concerning the Epistle of St. James; he might see the con∣trary in the very book him-self cites of Chemnitius the famous Lutheran, whose authority and words he placeth (in his addi∣tion of certain Testimonies) in the same rank with sentences of St. Augustin, and St. Thomas of Aquin &c. This Chemnitius in most of his works (as in his Enchirid. pag. 63, and in his exa∣min of the Councel of Trent. p. 1. pag. 55. & 56.) declareth his own sense, and that of his Church in these words, The se∣cond Epistle of St. Peter, the second and third of John, the Epistle

of Jude, and the Apocalyps of John, are Apocryphal, as not ha∣ving sufficient testimony of their authority.

His lordship might also have bin better informed of Lu∣ther's sence and Church by the saying of Illiricus an other pillar and Writer therof, (whom Mr. Bell in his regiment of the Church (pag. 28.) termeth a very famous Writer, and most wor¦thy defender of the Christian truth) his words are, Luther in his preface vpon St. Iem's Epistle giveth great reasons why this epistle ought in no case to be accompted for a writing of an Apostolick au∣thority, vnto which reasons I think every godly man ought to yeeld▪ Luther's reasons are to be seen in the ancient editions of Jene, and are comprehended in these few words of his, The Epistle of Iames is contentious, swelling, dry, strawy, and vnworthy an Apo∣stolick spirit. And because these words and others were omitted in the later editions of Wittemberg by some Divins that would fain reform Luther's Canon, Religion, and Church, the chief Lutheran Doctors mett in a Synod at Altembury, complained of their Adversaries corrupting Luther's books, and resolved to stick to the ancient editions, and to the literal sence of his words. So that in case it were true the Canon of Scripture could not be sayd to have bin questioned by any Protestant Congregati∣on, whithout declaring their doubt in a publick confession of faith, we see the Lutheran doth so; as also in their confession of Wittemberg quoted by Belarmin (lib. 1. de verb. Dei cap. 7. init.) which is seconded by all hereticks of these tims, (saith Belarmin.) the Calvinist only excepted.

But the Doctor is so much mistaken in the necessity of such a formality, that the Arians were condemned as hereticks, notwithstanding that in their publick confessions of faith they endeavored rather to disguise then declare their errors.

It is wel known that Lutheran Churches in Germany not only do reject from their Canon the Epistles of S. Iames, Iude, the second of Peter, and third of S. Iohn, the Epistle to the He∣brews, and the Apocalyps, but are so obstinat in denying them to be in any wise Canonical Scripture, that they do not as much

as print them in their Bibles. And if my Lord of Duresme thin∣ks that the rigid and moderat Lutherans, half Lutherans, and other Protestant Congregations wherin are many as learned Mi∣nisters and [*] 1.131 Writers as him-self, deserve not the name of a Church, he may expect that they wil censure his Church after the same manner, and perhaps with as much reason. But lett them agree as wel as they can, it concerns not vs. Yet I hope he wil not pronounce so severe a Censure against the Greeck and La∣tin Churches, and vn-church both; Wherof S. Hierom (in epist. ad Dordunum) testifieth, that the Greeks doubted as much of the Apocalyps against the common consent of the Latins, as the La∣tins did of the Epistle to the Hebrews against the common consent of the Church.

Seing therfor it is evident by the confession both of ancient

Fathers and modern Pro••estants, that in the primitive Church the Canonical Scriptures were not generally received all at once, but in so great variety of pretended Scriptures, great care and search was requisit to determin which Scriptures were Canoni∣cal, and which not; wherby it came to pass tha•• sundry books and parts were for a long time misdoubted by some Churches and Fathers, and by some Councels omitted, or not received, which yet afterward vpon greater search and consideration, were generally acknowledged; it must be very great obstinacy in Doctor Cozins and other Protestants, to reject the Canon which the Councel of Trent proposeth, and embraceth, because forsooth some books therin contained, were not as soon be∣lieved by all Catholicks to be Canonical, as the others. Or to deny the authority, and authentikness of some books of the old Testament, because they were not in the Canon of the Iews; as if the Jews might not doubt and omitt to put some books divinely inspired into the Canon, as wel as the primitive Chri∣stians; or as if the Apostles might not supply that defect, and de∣clare some books of the old Testament (wherof the generality of the Jews doubted) to be Canonical.

SVBSECT I. Doctor Cozins exceptions and falsifications against the Councel of Trent's authority answered. The difference between new definitions and new articles of faith explained.

THe Protestant obstinacy is not excusable by the excep∣tions made against the number of Bishops that voted in the Councel of Trent, or against the pretended novelty of the Canon which they decreed. As to their number, the au∣thority

of defining matters of faith in a general Councel is no more limited, or diminished by the absence of members legaly summoned, and long expected, then the authority of a lawful Parliament by the absence of many Lords, and commons; espe∣cialy if there be a necessity of applying present remedies to the distempers of Church or Common-weal. Doctor Cozins doth confess that the Catholick Church stood in need of a reforma∣tion, and that the Councel was too much diferr'd and delay'd; After they had met at Trent, Seing the Bishops were not as ma∣ny as the Pope and his Legats expected and wished,* 1.132 for the grea∣ter solemnity, of so important a decision as that of the Canon of Scripture, whervpon they were to ground their further de∣finitions, they put of that session for 8. months, and at the end of them, hearing that besids those who were at Trent, many Bishops were setting forth, and others in their Journey, they differred the definition of Canonical Scripture for three months more, to the end as many as could possibly come might be pre∣sent. If through neglect, contempt, age, infirmity, or other acci∣dents, wherof the Pope was not in fault, many Bishops were ab∣sent, that could no more prejudice the authority of the Coun∣cel at Trent, then the like circumstances disanull the authority, or make voyd the Acts of our Parliaments. But sure the lear∣ned Protestant Pastors cannot but smile at the simplicity of their illiterat flocks, when they consider the zeale and earnestnes wher∣with they except against the smal number of Bishops (and their presumption forsooth) in the Councel of Trent, For the decla∣ring the Canon of Scripture, and other Divine truths; and yet them-selves accept the Canon of Scripture, and doctrin of their own Churches vpon the bare word of one Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin, or vpon the sole authority of the 12. or seven men, ap∣pointed by Parliament in the reign of Edward 6. Besids, our Canon of Scripture was confirmed by the whole Councel of Trent afterwards, together with the other points of faith therin defined.

And though Doctor Cozins (pag. 208.) tels how the Prin∣ces

and reformed Churches in Germany, England, Denmark, &c. immediatly set forth their Protestations, and exceptions a∣gainst the Councel, aleadging that the caling of this Councel by the Pop's authority alone was contrary to the Rights of Kings and the ancient Customs of the Church; That he had summond no other persons thither, nor intended to admitt any either to debate or give their voice there, but such only as had first sworn obedience to him; that he took vpon him most injustly to be Judg in his own cause &c. Yet it is sufficiently manifested to the world by the very Acts of the Councel, that the Pope did nothing but what his Predecessors had don, and the Catholick Princes, and Church had approved in the like occasions; and that, though Protestants were not admitted to vote at Trent, [a] 1.133 yet they were not only permitted but invited in a most secure, and civil manner by the Councel to reason, dispute, and debate their controversies, and answer for them-selves and their doctrin; and this way of proceeding is no more vnreasonable in a general Councel, then it is in a Parliament, not to permit any to vote therin before he taks an oath of alegiance, (not to say any thing of the oath of Supremacy) and much less to admit of Lords or Commons accused of treason, or rebellion, to sit in the House, vntil they prove their innocency, or acknowledg their fault, and obtain their pardon by a dutiful submission, and pro∣fession of repentance.

And granted that nothing had bin resolved in the Councel of Trent by the Fathers therof, but what first was canvass't at Rome by the Pope and Conclave (which is false (yet we con∣ceive that, to be no more against the constitution or freedom of a Councel, then it is against the constitution or freedom of a Parliament, that no Bill pass vnto an Act, vnless it be first sig∣ned by the King and approved by his Councel, and yet we know, that to have bin the constant custom in one of his Majesties Kingdoms since the reign of King Henry 7. As for the Pope or Church of Rome being Judg in their own cause, it is a prero∣gative so absolutly necessary for the authority and govermnent of Magistracy, and the quiet and peace of the people governed; that no Monarchy or Commonwealth can want it without falling into great inconveniences and confusion.

A subject t'is true may sue the King; but the sentence must be given in the King's Courts, and by his authority, notwith∣standing any objected dependency or parciality of the Judg explaining the laws and customs in favor of his Soveraign. And he who would not acquiesce in such a sentence, but would needs have the cause decided by a foreign Prince, or People, is a re∣bel. If this be reasonable and just in temporal Courts, and fal∣lible sentences, how much more, in spiritual controversies, and infallible definitions of the Church; which definitions of the Church if not acknowledged to be infallible, the Church can not have any jurisdiction or authority in matters of faith▪ as not being able to satisfie doubts, and setle the inward peace of Christian souls either perplexed in them-selves, or in daunger of being perverted by others, whether hereticks or pagans, neither of which can be indifferent Judges, or competent Arbitrators between the Catholick Church and her Children. And seing doubts and differences are vnavoidable in both Church, and Com∣monwealth,

and that there can be no appeale to Infidels, or Foreigners, without doubt it is more agreable to Scripture, to the law of nature, and light of reason, that Parents and Pastors be Judges in any cause of their Children and inferiors, then the contrary; or that there be no Judg at all, nor jurisdic∣tion either spiritual or temporal.

But that which Doctor Cozins, and all Protestants most press against the judicature of Popes, and the councel of Trent is, that they do not judg according to Scripture, and to the right sense therof, wheras Kings and their Judges are re∣gulated by the laws of the land, even when the suit is against the King, or his pretended prerogative. To this we answer that Popes and Councels are as much regulated by Scripture in their definitions as Kings and their Courts by the laws; But Pro∣testants do not observe, that as the interpretation of the laws depends not of them who sue the King, but of the ancient practise of his Judges, and Courts, so the interpretation of Scrip∣ture must not be made by t••em who sue the Pope and Coun∣cels, but by the Bishop and the Church; who ar to explain it, not according to every on's privat fancy, as Protestants do, but according to the tradition, customs and practises of the orthodox Christians in former Ages.

And by this we free the Roman Catholick Church,* 1.134 and the Councel of Trent from the Protestant calumny of novelty of doctrin, not only in this particular of the Canon of Scripture, but in all it's other definitions: Pro••estants confound our new Decrees with new doctrin, wheras nothing is more cleer then that old doctrin may be defined by a new Decree, that is made more publick, and authentick. The Councel tels them (sess. 4.) that it only declares what Canon of Scripture the primitive Church held, and quotes for it divers ancient Fa••hers, and Councels; and therfor it's Decree maks no new Canon of Scripture, but is a promulgation of the old, which induceth an obligation of believing, what formerly had not bin so ge∣neraly known, because it had not bin so cleerly and solemnly proclaimed.

Methinks none ought to carp less at the novelty of our definiti∣ons then Protestants, if they would reflect vpon their own reforma∣tions. They pretend that their doctrin is not only renewed, but re∣vived, because forsooth, the whole visible Church had lost that pu∣rity of the Primitive faith for many ages which they now have re∣stored. Roman Catholicks are more moderat and modest, as having a better opinion of the Church and of God's providence; they con∣fess that the doctrin defended by the Councel of Trent was never ex∣tinguished in the Church, but that it lived in the harts and pro∣fession of many faithful, though many others of the same com∣munion did not hold them-selves obliged to believe it as a do∣ctrin of faith, vntil it had bin sufficiently and solemnly propo∣ned by the Definition of the Church in a general Councel, as Divine. That being don, no addition or alteration was made of divine faith; For new definitions are not new articles of faith, but promulgations of the old faith, or declarations of our obli∣gation to believe as articles of faith those things which had bin formerly revealed, but not so sufficiently proposed to the whole Catholick Church. Wherfore articles of Faith not believed be∣fore they be decreed by a general Councel, may be aptly com∣pared to laws, or ordinances, before they ar published; as the publication or proclamation of a law maks not a law, but declares the obligation of complying therwith, so the definition of a ge∣neral Councel maks not the article of faith, but declareth the obligation of believing that doctrin, which before the publica∣tion or proclamation of the Church, had not bin sufficiently pro∣posed as Divine revelation.

To what purpose then did Doctor Cozins trouble him-self and his Readers with composing a book against the Catholick Canon of Scripture declared in the Councel of Trent, when all his arguments are but sayings of men who doubted of books and parts of Scripture before they were declared (and only because they were not declared▪) Canonical by a general Councel. He would fain impose vpon the world that S. Ierom was so much a Jew, and so little a Christian as (for the Canon of the old

Testament) to rely altogeather vpon the Hebrew Rabins, and that he set a greater value vpon their testimony, then vpon the authority of the Church, or of the great Councel of Nice, which received into the Canon of Scripture the book of Judith, though rejected by the Jews. His proof of S. Jerom's judgment being the same with that of Protestants in this controversy is, that in some places of his writings he says, the contested books of the old Testament are not in the Canon of the Jews, nor received as Canonical by the Christian Church; to which is answered that S. Jerom altered his opinion, as appeareth in his prefaces prefixed to the said books, which he translated into latin at the instance of the Churches and Bishops that held them to be Ca∣nonical, to whose belief S. Jerom at length conformed his own judgment. In his preface to the Book of Tobie he says: Yee de∣sire me to translate a booke from the Caldean language, to Latin, the book of Tobie, which the Hebrews admit not into the Catalogue of Sacred Scriptures, J have satisfied your desire, &c. The He∣brews reprehend vs &c. Because we have translated into latin things against their Canon. But I judged it better to displease the judgment of Pharisees, then disobey the commands of Bis∣hops, &c. In conformity to this he says in his preface of Iudith: With the Hebrews the book of Iudith is read amongst the Agiographa, the authority wherof is judged less fit to decide controversie, &c. But because the Nicen Synod is read to have computed this book in the number of holy Scripturs, J have acquiesced, or complyed with your demand. Out of which words it is manifest 1. That St. Jerom was not of the same opinion with the Iews concerning these books, because he says he displeased or offended their judgment by his translation, as a thing against their Canon, which would not have ••in, vnless his intention in translating and judgment were known to favour the belief of the Bishops and Christians, that held them to be Canonical; for, the trans∣lating them only as pious books, could not be offensive to the Iews, who acknowledged them for such, as Cozins with Chem∣nitius and all Protestants confess, though (pag. 82.) he contra∣dicts

him-self (having no other shift left to prove St. Ierom a Iew in this particular) And his words of the book of Iudith demonstrat that he opposed the authority of the Nicen Coun∣cel against the opinion of the Iews, to prove that book Cano∣nical, and fit to determin controversies of Religion; and in case we should grant he doubted whether the Councel numbred it in the Canon yet non can doubt but that he believed the Councel had authority to declare it Canonical, which is the point disputed of.

But Doctor Cozins would willingly make us believe (by a notorious fraud and imposture) that Cardinal Belarmin doth not only acknowledg St. Ierom to have persisted still in his for∣mer opinion of excluding these controverted books from the Canon, but also that the Councel of Nice never received that of Iudith into it, and to that purpose (pag. 45.) quotes Be∣larmin's words (de verbo Dei lib. 1. c. 10. vlt.) thus, Admitto Hieronymum in ea fuisse opinione, quia nondum generale Concilium de his libris aliquid statuerat; These words the honest Prote∣stant Bishop of Duresme setts down in capital letters, and with them concluds Cardinal Belarmin's sentence and sense concerning Hierom's opinion of the book of Iudith, and of the Councel of Nice; and most vnconscionably cuts of the words immediatly following, where Belarmin says the quite contrary of what Co∣zins imposed vpon his Readers, to make good his English Canon of Scripture. The words immediatly following are: Excepto libro Iudith, quem etiam Hieronimus postea recepit: Except the booke of Iu∣dith, which also Hierom afterwards received, as Canonical. So that where Cozins says Belarmin confesseth that S. Hierom sayd the Councel of Nice declared not the book of Iudith Canonical, Belarmin in that very place says the quite contrary. And in the same page cap. 12. Belarmin proves by S. Hieroms testimony and words, that the book of Iudith was declared Canonical in the highest degree by the Nicen Councel. It were to be wished that Ecclesiastical promotions had bin better bestowed then up∣on 139 men whose labour and learning 〈◊〉〈◊〉 altogeather employed in

seducing souls, concealing the truth of Religion from their flocks, and corrupting the writings of the ancient Fathers and modern Doctors of the Church, for no other reason but be∣cause they speak so cleerly against the Protestant Doctrine of these times, wherby our Prelatick Ministers are maintained, v∣surping vast revenues from the Crown, and come to the grea∣test preferments both of Church and State. I have not seen any one Protestant Writer free from this fault; 'tis strange that af∣ter so manifest and manifould discoverys as have bin made of Mortons, Andrews, Fox, Sutclif, Jewell, Barlow, Whitaker,* 1.135 Willet, Vsher, Lauds, and others, falsifications, frauds, and la∣byrinths, there should be men yet found to follow their exam∣ples; and much more to be wondred that they should thrive by a trade so base, vnconscionable, and distructive, notwithstan∣ding so manifest and frequent discoveries of their impostures.

As to this work of Doctor Cosins, it may be properly cal∣led a Cosenage, independently of an allusion to his name; had not his book bin sufficiently confuted by the absurdity of his fundamental principles, denying that the Apostles or Christian Church could declare any book of the old Testament, Cano∣nical, which the Iews omitted or rejected, and affirming that no parts of the New Testament were ever questioned by any Church ancient or modern, I should set down many more of his willful falsifications, and weake evasions; but that labour being rendred superfluous by the incoherency of his own do∣ctrin, and by the inconsistency of his principles with including in that Canon of Scripture (which he vndertakes to defend) the epistles above mentioned of Peter, Iohn, Paul, and Iude, and the Apocalyps (for it is evident by the quoted testimonies both of ancient Fathers and learned Protestants, that these epistles of Iohn Iude, Peter and Paul, as also the Apocalyps, were doubted of by many Christian Churches, for three or foure ages) I do not think fitt to trouble the Reader nor my self with a more par∣ticular confutation of this rather fantastical then Scholastical History of the Canon of Scripture: fantastical J say, because

he fancies to him-self that the authority and sayings of men who writ before this controversy had bin decided by a general Councel, and at the same time professed a faith which obliged them so submit ther writings and judgments to the decrees of Councels, can be of any force against that general Councel by which the contrary was decided, and they would have bin gui∣ded by, if they had bin now living, as St. Austin saith of St. Cyprian in a point of doctrine which was determined by a ge∣neral Councel against the holy Martyrs opinion, long after his death.

Whosoever can take delight in seing the pittifull shifts, and sleights wherby interested writers endeavour to blind mens eyes, and vnderstandings, let him peruse this book of Doctor Cozins and he will find more sport in observing how he tosses and turns the sayings of the Fathers against them-selves, then could be wished in so serious a subject. When the Fathers call the books of Macabees, Tobie, Judith, &c. sacred and Divine Scripture, Canonical Scripture prophetical writings of Divine authority, &c. Holy inspirations, revelations &c. he tels you (pag. 93. & alibi passim) all this must be understood in a large and popular sence, though the contrary may appeare to any vnbyass'd judgment that will read the words by him cited (pag. 92. & alibi;) in the Authors themselves; as for example let any one observe how Doctor Cozins mingles and mangles S. Austin's words con∣cerning the controverted books of the Machabees, and afterwards see what the St. him-self says, he will ••••rce believe the words are the same, and may swear the sense is not. For, S. Austin (lib. 2. de doctr. Christ. cap. 8.) sets down as his own sense the same Canon of Scripture which the Councel of Trent accepts and confirmeth,* 1.136 and he subscribed unto in the third Councel of Carthage; And because he knew that this Canon had not bin defined by a general Councel, and therfore many Churches and Fathers doubted of some books, which he and the 3. Councel of Carthage held for Canonical, he gives some instructions how they who do not follow his Canon, shall proceed vntill they

be more fully informed, or the matter decided; and these in∣structions which he sets down for others, who doubted and differ'd in opinion from him, Doctor Cozins wilfully mistakes and misapplies to St. Austin him-self, as if he could be ignorant of his own belief of the Canon.

He is also troubled that St. Austin doth favour so much the doctrine of Purgatory, and the authority of the Catholick Church (in declaring books of the Old Testament to be Ca∣nonical, which were rejected by the Iews) as to say (lib. 18. de Civit. Dei c. 36.) That the books of the Machabees are accompted Canonical by the Church, although not by the Jews. To weaken this testimony he brings an other that strengthens it, and quo∣tes St. Austin's words (Ep. 61. ad Dulcitium) wherin confuting the error of the Circomcellions who (to cloake their self-homi∣cides with text and examples of Scripture) excused that doctrin with the examples of Eleazarus and Razias, related in the Ma∣chabees; which pretext St. Austin largly confutes not only in his epistle ad Dulcit, but in his 2. book against the epistle of Gaudent. cap. 23. not by deminishing the Canonical authority of the books of the Machabees as Doctor Cozins falsly impo∣seth vpon his Readers [pag. 108. & seq.] but by declaring how the Scripture doth indeed relate, yet not commend the self-ho∣micide of Eleazarus and R••zias, nor canonize them Martyrs, or propose their deaths to be imitated, though it cannot be denyed but that they shew'd great worldly courage, and con∣tempt of life. Did Doctor Cozins imagin that Dulcitius, Gau∣dentius, and other learned Circumcellions were such Coxcombs, as to prove their Religion by Scripture, and then to quote for Scripture a book which their Adversaries admitted not at least for so Canonical as that controversies of Religion could be ther∣by decided? or doth he think that St. Austin would not have put them in mind of that folly in very cleer termes, and excu∣se farther disputes by telling them plainly, and without going about the bush, that the Machabees was not Canonical Scripture nor fit to be quoted in matters of Religious controversies?

But the Doctor argues (pag. 110.) that St. Austin tells Gaudentius, the Christian Church receiveth those books not vn∣profitably, if they be discreetly or soberly read or heard, what then? All discreet and sober men say the same, not only of the books of the Machabees, but of all the other books, and parts of Scripture; and St. Peter sayth the same in substance of St. Paul's epistles: Will the Doctor conclude from thense, that St. Paul's epistles are not Canonical Scripture? because men may read them indiscreetly, and deprave them to their own dam∣nation? Or that there is no Scripture at all, because he him∣self or some of his Bishoprick of Duresme do not read the Bible with sobriety and discretion? these words of St. Austin in the Doctor's judgment (pag. 108.) are so cleerly against the Ca∣nonical authority of the Machabees, that he says Cardinal Be∣larmin layd his thumb vpon them, and durst not relate them. I am sure he pointed at them with his Pen, and directed all the world to see and examin them by his quoting the book and Chap∣ter where they are, as my Lord of Duresme him-self confes∣seth in the margent: neither could Belarmin, Peron, or any o••her Catholick Writer observe any disadvantage to their cause in those following words of S. Austin, Which Doctor Cozins pretends to be so notoriously prejudicial; Recepta est ab Ecclesia non in∣vtiliter &c. The Machabees is received by the Church for holy Scrip∣ture not vnprofitably, if it be soberly read or heard. That is, sayth Doctor Cozins [pag. 110.] As St. Augustin els wher expoundeth him-self (but where, Doctor Cozins doth not, because he can∣not tell) If those things that we read there, be conferred with the sacred and Canonical Scriptures, that whatsoever is therevnto a∣greeable may be approved, and what is otherwise, may be rejected. According to this acute explanation, which Doctor Cozins fals∣ly fathers vpon S. Austin, the most profane books, and Ro∣mances, Esop's Fables, and Don Quixote, may be received by the Church for holy Scripture, as well as the Machabees, if those things that we read therin be conferr'd with the sacred and Canonical Scriptures and whatsoever is thervnto agreable

be approved, and what is otherwise be rejected. It were too tedious to note all Doctor Cozins his mistakes. Let these few serve to know by what a pillar the English Canon and Church is supported.

SECT. IV. Protestants so grossly mistaken in their letter and Translations of the Scriptures that they can not have any certainty of faith; and are forc't at length (by their principles) to question the truth of Scriptures, and of them who writ the Cano∣nical books therof.

THe holy Scriptures were writen by the Pro∣phets, Apostles, and Evangelists, either in Hebrew, Greeck, or Latin; the old Testa∣ment (excepting some few parts writen in Chaldaick, and Syriack) was writen in Hebrew, the new Testament, for the greatest part, in Greeck, S. Mathew's Ghospel in Hebrew, S. Marck's in Latin. We have not the original writings of these Prophets and Apo∣stles, nor of the 70. Interpreters who translated the old Testa∣ment into Greek some 300. years before the comming of Christ; we have only Copies; for the truth and exactness wherof, we must rely vpon the testimony, and tradition of the Church, which in so important a point, God would never permit to err; at least it must have bin so infallible therin, as that the Copy be sufficiently authentick to be a rule of deciding controversies of faith, and of directing men to holiness of life; though per∣haps no copy is so exact but therin may remain some erratas

of the press and pen; yet easily discoverable by it's coherency or incoherency with other parts of the Text.

Notwithstanding the necessity of admitting some true and authentick copy of Scripture [for what can it availe a Christi∣an to believe that Scripture is the word of God, if he be vn∣certain which copy or Translation is true and authentick Scrip∣ture] Protestants pretend there is no authentick copy of Scrip∣ture in the world, as may be seen in the preface of the Tigurin edition of the Bible, and in all their books of Controversy, seing therin they condemn the Councel of Trent for declaring that the old Latin Translation is authentick; and yet them∣selves name no other for authentick: and therfore though the Lutherans fancy Luther's Translation; the Calvinists that of Ge∣neva; the Zuinglians that of Zuinglius; the English some times one, somtimes an other; yet because they do not hold any o∣ne to be infallibly authentick, it followeth (from their excep∣tions against the infallibility of the Roman Catholick Church in declaring or decreeing a true and authentick copy of Scrip∣ture, and their confession of the vncertainty of their own trans∣lations) that they have no certainty of Scripture, nor even of faith, which they ground vpon Scripture alone.

Most of the old Testament as it is in the vulgar Latin Trans∣lation, which the Councel of Trent declares to be authentick, was (a) 1.137 ••ranslated out of Hebrew by St. Hierom; and the new Testament had bin before his time translated out of Greek, but was by him (b) 1.138 revewed, and such faults as had crept in through negligence of the Transcribers, were corrected. You constraine, me sayth he, to make a new work of an old, that I after so many copies of the Scripture dispersed through the world, should sit as a certain Iudg, and determin which of them agree with the true Greek and in this Cathalogue he saith, Novum Testamentum graecae fi∣dei reddidi; vetus juxta haebraicum transtuli.

The antiquity and sincerity of the first Interpreter, and the great Commendations therof to be seene in St. Austin de Civit. Dei lib. 18. c. 43. Non defuit temporibus nostris Presbiter

Hieronymus homo doctissimus, & omnium trium linguarum peritissi∣mus, qui non è Graeco sed ex: Haebraeo in Latinum eloquium eas∣dem Scripturas converterit. Cujus tamen litterarum laborem Judaei fatentur esse veracem. And (lib. 2. doct. Christi. cap. 15.) togea∣ther with the eminent Sanctity and learning of S. Hierom, for∣ceth our Adversarie (B••eza, to confess, Annotationibus in caput 1. Luc.) That the old Interpreter seemeth to have interpreted the holy books with marveilous sincerity and Religion; and [in praefat. novi Testam.] The vulgar edition I do for the most part embrace and preferr before all others. Carolus Molinaeus [in nov. Testam. part. 30.] I can very hardly depart from the vulgar and accustomed reading, which [in Luc. 17.] he professeth to preferr before Eras∣mus, Bucer, Bullinger, Brentius, the Tigurin Translation, and e∣ven before Iohn Calvins, and all others. Doctor Humfrey [de ra∣tione interpret. l. 1. pag. 74.] The old Interpreter seemeth to be much addicted to the propriety of the words, and truly with too much an∣xiety, which I attribute more to Religion then ignorance. See also Pelicanus (a learned Protestant writer) his great prayses of the Translation of the Psalmes in the vulgar Latin edition in praef. in Psalterium an. 1584. See also Doctor Covell acknowledging in his answer to Burges pag. 94. The antiquity of the vulgar trans∣lation to be so great, that it was used in the Church a thousand three hundred years agone: and concluding pag. 91. That the most approved Translation authorised by the Church of England, is that which cometh neerest to the vulgar, and is commonly called the Bis∣hops Bible. And Doctor Whitaker (in his answer to Mr. Rey∣nolds (pag. 141.) was pleased to moderat his former rayling a∣gainst our vulgar Translation revewed by St. Hierom at the re∣quest of St. Damasus Bishop of Rome, saying, St. Hierom J reverence, Damasus I commend, and the work I confess to be Godly and profitable to the Church.

The reason that moved the Protestants not to accept, or acquiesce in our vulgar Latin Translation so much commended by them-selves, and the ancient Fathers, is, because they would have as much liberty to reject the true letter as the true sence

of Scripture their new doctrins being condemned by both. For had they granted that any one ancient Translation is authentik, how could Luther have had the impudence to thrust into the Text the word [c] 1.139 alone, to assert his justification by only faith, [Rom. 3.28.] or how could he omitt 2. Petr. 1. (where it is sayd) wherfore brethren labour the more that by good works you may make sure your vocation, this particle by good works? How could Zuinglius have translated for this is my body, this signifies my Body, to maintain his figurative signification of the words, and cry down Christ's real presence in the B. Sacrament? And so of all other Protestants Translations, wherof every one hath words added, and omitted in the Text, which cannot be justi∣fied or excused by any ancient copy of Scripture, extant in a∣ny language whatsoever.

No mervaile therfore if the Lutherans reject the Calvinists Translation and the Calvinists that of Lutherans; the Trans∣Translation

Translation of the Divines of Basile is reproved by Beza, who says (respon. ad defens. Cast.) that it is in many places wicked, and altogeather differing from the mind of the holy Ghost. And Moli∣naeus [in Testam. part. 20.30. &c.] saith of Beza, that in his Translation he actualy changed the Text: and of Calvin [in Trans∣lation. Testam. nov. fol. 110.] That he maketh the Text of the Ghospel to leap up and down, and that he vseth violence to the letter of the Ghospel, and besids this, addeth to the Text.

As for the English Translation we have King James his true censure in the sume of the conference before his Majesty (pag. 46.) that he could never yet see a Bible well translated into English. His Royall judgment is confirmed by Mr. Carlile of Christ's des∣sent into Hell [pag. 116.] where he says of the English Tran∣slators, that they have depraved the sence, obscured the truth, and deceived the ignorant; that in many places they do detort the Scrip∣turs from the right sence &c. The Ministers of Lincoln Diocess in their abridgment of a book delivered to his Majesty the first of December, pag. 11. & seq. say, that the English Translation taketh away from the Text, addeth to the text, and that, som∣tyms to the changing or obscuring of the meaning of the Holy Ghost. Also Mr. Burg••s in his Apology (sect. 6.) sai••h how shal I ap∣prove vnder my hand a translation which hath many omissions, ma∣ny additions, being somtyms sensless, somtyms contrary.

Other precise and learned Protestants in a Treatise intituled A petition directed to his most excellent Majesty &c. [pag. 76.] say, Our Translation of the Psalmes comprised in our book of com∣mon prayer▪ doth in addition, subtraction, and alteration differ from the truth of the Hebrew in 200. places at least, And make this the ground of their scruple to make vse of the common prayer. And these corruptions are so vndenyable, that Dr. Whitaker hath nothing to answer to Dr. Reynolds (pag. 255.) who obje∣cted them against the Church of England, but these words, What Mr. Carlile with some others, hath writen against some places translated in our Bibles, maketh nothing to the purpose, I have not sayd otherwise but that some things may be amended.

These corruptions in the English Protestant Bibles are so many and so notorious, that Doctor Gregory Martin com∣posed a whole book of them, and therin discovers the frauds wherby the Translators pretend to excuse them; somtyms they recurred to the Hebrew Text: and when that spoke ag∣ainst their new doctrin and translation, then to the Greeck; when that favoured them not, to some copy acknowledged by them-selves to be corrupted, and of no credit; and when that no copy at all could be found out, to cloke their corruptions, the book or Chapter of Scripture that contradicts them, is de∣clared Apocryphal; and when that cannot be made probable, they fall down right upon the Prophets and Apostles that writ them, and say they might, and did err, even after the com∣ming of the holy Ghost. This is not only Luther's shift, all Protestants follow their first reformer in this point, having the same necessity imposed vpon them by their own reformations and translations, so contrary to the known letter of Scripture. Luther being told by Zuinglius [tom. 2. ad Luther. l. de Sacram. pag. 412. & seq.] Thou dost corrupt the word of God, thou art seen to be a manifest and common corrupter and perverter of the holy Scrip∣tures, how much are we ashamed of thee, who have hitherto estee∣med thee beyond all measure, and now prove thee to be such a man? Luther knowing all this to be true, had no way left to defend his impiety but by impudency, preferring him-self and his own Spirit, before that of them who writ the holy Scriptures, ther∣fore (tom. 5. Wittemberg. an. 1554. fol. 290. & in ep. ad Galat. cap. 1. after the English Translation fol. 33. & 34) he saith, Be it that the Church, Austin, and other Doctors, also Peter, Paul, yea an Angel from heaven teach otherwise, yet is my doctrin such as setteth forth God's only glory &c. Peter the chief of the A∣postles did live and teach (extra verbum Dei) besides the word of God; and against St. James his mentioning the Sacrament of Extreme Unction (de Capti. Babyl. cap. de extrem. vnct. in tom. 2. Wittemberg. fol. 86.) But though this were the epistle of James I would answer that it is not lawful for an Apostle by his authority

to institute a Sacrament; this apertaineth to Christ alone: As though thas blessed Apostle would publish a Sacrament without warant from Christ. See also what he says of Moyses his writings (tom. 3. Wittemberg. in Psalm. 45. fol. 432. & 422. & tom. 3. Germ. fol. 40.41. & in Colloq. mensal. Germ. fol. 152. & 153.) The Century Writers of Magdeburg follow this doctrin of Luther [Centur. 1. l. 2. cap. 10. col. 580.] and particularly accuse St. Paul of error by the persuasion of St. Iames. Brentius also, (whom Bishop Ievel in his defence of the Church of England (pag. 473.) termeth a grave and learned Father, affirmeth [in Apol. Confess. cap. de Concil. pag. 900.] that St. Peter chief of the Apostles, and also Barnabas after the holy Ghost received, togeather with the Church of Ierusalem, erred.

Though Lutherans and Calvinists differ extreamly in many points of doctrin, yet in this of fallibility of the Apostles in faith and manners even after the receiving of the holy Ghost, they fully agree. Calvin him-self in his Comentary in omnes Pauli epistolas in Gallat. c. 2. vers. 14. pag. 612. reprehendeth Pe∣ter, Barnabas, and others; and pag. 150. says, that Peter added to the schism of the Church, the indangering of Christian liberty, and the ouer-throw of the grace of Christ▪ See him also in Act. c. 21. Cle∣bitius a learned Calvinist (in his Victoria veritatis argum. 5.) im∣pugneth St. Lukes report in the history of our Sauiours passi∣on, saying, Matthew and Mark deliver the contrary, therfore Mathaeo & Marco duobus testibus plus adhiberi debet quam uni Lucae, qui Synaxi non interfuit, quemadmodum Mathaeus. To Ma∣thew and Mark being two witnesses, more credit is to be given, then to one Luke. And Gualter (in Act. 21.) reproveth St. Paul's sha∣ving of his head. And other Calvinists mentioned in Zanchius his epistle ad misc. sayd. If Paul should come to Geneva and preach the same houre that Calvin did, I would leave Paul and heare Calvin. And Lavaterus in his historia Sacramentaria (pag. 18.) af∣firmeth, that some of Luther's followers, not the meanest among their Doctors, sayd they had rather doubt of St. Paul's doctrin, the•• of the doctrin of Luther, or of the confession of Augusta.

This desperat shift being so necessary for waranting their corruptions of Scripture, and maintaining the fallibility of the Church in succeeding ages (for the same reasons which conclude it infallible in the Apostles time, are applicable to ours, and to every former century; other-wise it must be sayd that God's providence and promises were limited to few years, and him-self so partial that he regardeth not the necessities of his Church, nor the saluation of any person that lived after his Disciples, this impiety could not be rejected by the Prela∣tick Church of England without contradicting their brethren abroad, and their own principles at home. Therfore B. Iewel in his defence of the Apology for the Prelatick Church of En∣gland (pag. 361.) doth affirm, that St. Mark mistook Abracher for Abimelech, and St. Matthew, Hieremias for Zacharias; And Mr. Fulck against the Remish Testament in Galat. 2. fol. 322. chargeth Peter with error of ignorance, and against the Ghos∣pell; and Doctor Goade in his Tower disputation with Campion (the second days conference arg. 6.) affirmeth that St. Peter did err in faith, and that, after the sending down of the holy Ghost vpon them. And Whitaker [de Eccl. cont. Belarmin. Controv. 2. q. 4. pag. 223.] saith:

Jt is evident that even af∣ter Christ's Ascension, and the Holy Ghost's descending vp∣on the Apostles, the whole Church not only the common ••ort of Christians, but also even the Apostles them-selves er∣red in the vocation of the Gentills &c. yea Peter also erred: he further more also erred in manners &c. And these were great errors, and yet we see these to have bin in the Apostles e∣ven after the Holy Ghost descending vpon them.

And truly if the Apostles were not only fallible, but did teach errors in manners and matters of faith, after the holy Ghost descen∣ding vpon them, their writings can be no infallible Rule to direct men to saluation; which conclusion is so immediatly and cleerly deduced from this Protestant doctrin, that the supposal and premises once granted, their can be no certainty in Scripture; and indeed this all the Reformers aymed at,

though durst not say it, yet they did as well, and sufficiently declare what litle esteem they have for Scripture, though they make their ignorant flocks believe they teach them noth∣ing but true Scripture, and the infallible word of God.

SVBSECT I. Particular instances of Protestant Corruptions in the English Bible.

THough it may seem superfluous to specify any corruptions of the English Translators of Scrip∣ture after so cleer testimonies, and confessions drawn from men of their own party, yet to excite a conscience, or at least curiosity in the Protestant Reader of examining further this matter, I will mention a few of many which he may find both in Doctor Gregory Martins book of this subject, and in the Re∣mish Testament. To maintain by Scripture that Popery is, or at least savoreth Idolatry, by worshiping of Images, whersoever the Scripture speaks of Jdols, they translate Images, as 1. Jhon 4.21. My babes keep your selves from Images. And, how agreeth the temple of God with Jmages.* 1.140 And be not worshipers of Images as some of them, &c.

And 2. Paralip. 36. vers. 8. they added to the Text, words, that are not in the Greek, Hebrew, Latin, or any copy however so corrupted. The rest of the acts of Ioakim and the rest of the abominations which he did, and the carved Images that were layd to his charge, behold they are written &c. These words (car∣ved Images layd to his charge) are added by the Protestant Trans∣lators, and not to be found in any copy or Text of Scripture in the whole world. And though for meere shame in some la∣ter

editions this impiety hath bin corrected, and Jdols not J∣mages put into the Text, yet to make the illiterat sort of peo∣ple believe that they are the same thing, Image is put in the margent; and in some places left vncorrected.

The first Protestant Bishops in Queen Elizabeths reign not being able to prevaile with the deposed Catholick Bishops to consecrat them, as Scripture commands, by imposition of Episcopal hands, and therfore relying for their Caracter vpon the letters patents, supremacy, and election of the Queen, trans∣lated the Greek word Kerotonia [which S. Hierom and all the Ecclesiastical writers before and after him translate, Ordi∣nation by imposition of hands they to make good I say their want of such an Ordination, by words of Scripture in the Bi∣ble which then they set forth] translated the said Greeck word Ordination by Election: but their Successours who of late pretend to a more lawfull caracter then ever their Ordainers durst pro∣fess to have had received, or them-selves can make good, cor∣rected this translation, and restored into the text Ordination by imposition of hands.

To assert mariage of Priests, when St. Paul says Have we not power to lead about a woman? they translate, insteed of wo∣man; wife; but when he says in the same epistle, and vseth the same word,* 1.141 It is good for a man not to touch a woman, then they translate not wife, but woman.

To cry down the Sacrifice of the Mass, they translate Temple, or Table, for Altar, elder for Priest. To discredit the worship and honour of Saints, they corrupt the words of the Psalm. 138. Thy friends O God, are become exceeding honorable; their Princedom is exceedingly strengthned, thus How deere are thy Councells (or thoughts) to me o God: How great is the su'me of them?

To condemn vows of Chastity as impossible to be perfor∣med, they translate Matthew 19. v. 11. All men do not receive this saying, thus, All men cannot receive this saying. To assert the Supremacy, in King Henry 8. and Edward 6. days, they

translated thus, submitt your-selves &c. vnto the King as chief head. 1. Peter. 2. But in Queen Elizabeths reign (because she did not think the title of head of the Church so proper for one of her sex, they altered their Scripture, and translated, To the King as having preheminency, or as superiour. But when King James ob∣tained the Crown, and seemed to affect much the supremacy,* 1.142 then Scripture spoke according to his humour, to the King as supreme.

To excuse many of their corruptions and falls Translati∣ons, Doctor Whitaker writ a book, wherin he endeavored to shew that some Greek and Hebrew words might be taken in that sense which the English Translators gave them; but he never could prove that the profane and Poetical signification wherunto the Translators and he had applyed them, could make sense in holy scripture, nor be accommodated to ecclesiastical disciplin, and Divine doctrin. And therfore Doctor Reynolds in his reprehen∣sions of Whitaker's works, proves the absurdity of his defence, and of the English Translations, by this example. Suppose (saith he) that a yong spruce Minister should step into the pulpit, and exhort his Parish to prepare them-selves for the holy Com∣munion, and the Anabaptists for baptism; according to the stile and phrase of the English Protestant scripture, wherin Priest is caled elder, Church, Synagogue, holy ghost, holy wind, Lord Baal. Master, raine, Baptism washing, soule carcas. (Because they had rather bury Christ's soul with his body, or deny that he had a soule, then confess it went to Limbus Patrum, and therfore they also translate Hell grave;) Sacrament secret, Beelzebub lord of afly, Angells Messengers; The Minister therfore who accor∣ding to the proper and ecclesiasticall sense of these words might have spoken sense thus,

I that am your Priest placed in this Church by the holy Ghost, for the feeding of your soules, do denounce vnto you in the name of Christ our lord and Master, that vnless your soules be regenerated by Baptism, and prepared for the Sacrament of the Altar, you shall be condemned body and soule into hell, and your portion shall

be with the Devills, I say with Beelzebub and his Angels; the yong Minister I say in steed of this godly exhortation which might move the Audience to devotion, must in his own scriptural language move the parish to laughter, thus;

I that am your elder, placed in this synagogue by the holy wind, to the feeding of your Carcasses, do pronounce vnto you in the name of the anointed our Baal and raine, that vnless your Carcasses be regenerated by was∣hing, and prepared for the secret of the Table, you shall be condem∣ned body and carcass to the grave, and your portion shall be with the slanderers, I say with the lord of a fly and his Messengers.

Let none therfore admire if Doctor Gregory Martin so celebra∣ted for his knowledg in the Hebrew and Greek tongues (which he taught in Oxford,) should conclude his Treatie of the En∣glish corruptions of scripture with this zealous reprehention of the Protestant Clergy of his Nation

Are not your scholars (think you) much bound vnto you, for giving them in steed of God's blessed word and holy scripture such transla∣tions Heretical, Judaical, profane, false, negligent, fantasti∣cal, new, naughty, monstrous? God open their eyes to see, and mollify your hearts to repent of all your falshood, and treachery, both that which is manifestly convinced against you, and can not be denyed, as also that which may by some shew of answer be shifted of in the sight of the igno∣rant, but in your consciences, is as manifest as the other.

For my part, J will not say much to the Protestant Cler∣gy with any great hopes of their conversion; there must by more of Divine inspiration then of human persuasion in bring¦ing men to acknowledg corruptions so abominable in them∣selves; so advantagious to the Contrivers, Continuers, an Connivers, and so much applauded by the poore souls that are seduced. My rhetorick is not sufficient to persuade bloud and flesh to recounce the Peerage and profit of their Bishop∣ricks and Benefices, and reduce them-selves, their wives and Children, to their former despicable condition, and then either to beg their bread, or rely for a lively-hood vpon the

charity of those, whom they had deceived by their doctrine or disobliged by their censures. To attempt so difficult an enterprise would argue as much vanity in me, as it doth folly in lay Protestants, that thinck, them-selves safe in conscience and sufficiently informed of the way of saluation, by asking a Protestant Bishop or Minister, whether he be a Cheat? or (which is the same thing) whether the doctrine wherby alone he can live, and hope to thrive in this world, be not sufficient to save the soule? Few men will confess their guilt, or pro∣nounce an infamous sentence against them-selves, though they be guilty; neither will it be a tollerable excuse in the day of Judgment for any discreet Protestant to say, that he made Jud∣ges of his Religion (no indifferent but) indigent persons, that have no other interest, credit, or lively-hood, but to preach and maintain Protestancy, whether it be sufficient or not suf∣ficient for saluation, the Bishop or Minister lives by saying it is sufficient, and the true Religion. I can not deny but that some Protestant Bishops and Ministers have recanted and repen∣ted their errors; but few, before they were summon'd out of this world by approaching death, or before they had lost their interest and hopes, by the violence of warr and the vicissitude of times.

Wherfore seing the Protestant layty hath so much reason to doubt either of the sincerity o•• sufficiency of their Clergy in matters of a Religion without which their Ministers can not subsist [few of them having either patrimony, or a trade]; let them be pleased at present only to consider whether it be more credible that St. Hierom, the greatest Doctor of God's Church, and the most skilfull in the three languages wherin Scripture was writen, who lived in the primitive times, whem perhaps some of the original writings of the Apostles were extant, or at least the true and authentick copies, in Hebrew and Greeck, better known then now they are, a man that renouncd' the pleasures and profits of this world, retiring him-self to deserts, where he employ'd days and nights in his devotions, and study

of the Scriptures; let them be pleased, I say, to consider, whe∣ther it be more credible that a Translation made or received by this most holy Doctor, (and then approv'd of by all the world and ever since accepted and applauded in God's Church) be defective, or deceitfull, then a translation made since the preten∣ded Reforma••ion, by men not only engaged in that new do∣ctrin, but maintain'd therby, and so addicted to the pleasures and profits of this world, as the first Reformers, and their Successours the Protestant Clergy are known to be, not only in England, but in all other parts of Christendom: Let them be pleased also to consider, whether the judgment of the Roman Catholick Clergy in these Kingdoms, (who in being of that judgment, can have no motive, but conscience as is manifest by the incapacities and penalties lay'd vpon them for not con∣forming to Protestancy) be not a more impartial, and less to be suspected rule for any prudent person to follow, then the judg∣ment of the Protestant Clergy, rewarded, and promoted to the greatest employments both in Church and state, for being of that opinion they profess, and who would forfeit all their being if they declared them-selves contrary to Protestancy.

This being as maturely and impartially considered as the importance of the matter doth require, non will believe that the vulgar Translations made by Protestants, is holy Scripture, they being so contrary to our vulgata in latin, translated out of the true Greeck and Hebrew copies, writen first by a holy Martyr, and after revewed by a St. whose sincerity and lear∣ning were sufficient to canonize his Translation, had it not bin the word of God, and most holy of it self, and so de∣clared by the testimony and approbation of the Church for the space of 1200. years before the Councel of Trent. In vain therfore do Protestant Writers tell us that thei•• Translations are taken immediatly from the fountains of the Greek and He∣brew, so is our vulgata; only with this difference, that ours was taken from the fountains when they were cleere, and by holy and learned men that knew which were the crystal wa∣ters,

and true copies, but theirs is taken from fountains of trou∣ble'd waters, by lewd and vicious persons, and after that the Arians and other Hereticks had poyson'd and corrupted them with their false and filthy doctrin.

Thus much against the Protestant letter of Scripture; now to their sense of Scripture.

SECT. V. The Protestant interpretation is not the true sense of Scripture.

THE principal part, and as it were the soule of Scripture, is the sence, which was delivered to the Church togeather with the letter. For as St. Hierom [in ep. ad Galat.] sayth, the Ghospel is not in the word, but in the sence, not in the bark, but in the sapp, not in the leaves of the words but in the root of the meaning; So that though we should grant the Protestant Translations to be true, yet if we prove their interpretation false, we demonstrat they have no Scripture, nor the least pretext or colour for their Reformations.

And first, that the Church received togeather with the letter the true sense of Scripture, is as evident as it is, that God would not speak words without sense, or leave the interpreta∣tion of them to men whose capacities reach not the mysteries of Religion, contained in the words. Therfore our learned Adversaries are obliged to confess, that no man doubteth,* 1.143 but that the primitive Church received from the Apostles and Apostoli∣cal men, not only the text of Scripture, but also the right and nati∣ve sense therof.

The dispute therfore between Catholicks and Protestants

is not, whether the Church ever received the true sense of Scriptures, but whether that sense continued as well as the letter in the Church; and whether the interpretations of Luther, Cal∣vin, Cranmer, Hamond, &c. or of the Prelaticks of England, ought to be preferr'd before that of the Roman Catholick Church; because the true sense of Scripture, is supposed by all Protestants, to have bin lost for many ages, and that the who∣le visible Church of God was either so careless as to forget the ancient sense, or so wicked, as to forge a new sense of Scrip∣ture.

And first it seems against reason, to believe that any Chri∣stian Congregation could be less carefull of the sense of Scrip∣ture, then of the letter, because the sense is that which im∣porteth most for preservation of the faith. Therfore if the Prelats and Pastors of the Church have bin so watchfull and diligent in all ages, as to find out and correct all heretical cor∣ruptions of the letter of Scripture, how is it possible they would neglect the same industry for preservation of the sense which is the principal part of God's word? And if Protestants think the letter was safe in the custody of the Roman Chatholick Church, from which they received it, how can they suspect the purity of that sense which was kept and delivered to them by the same Church and authority? And if God's providence (as they confess) was engaged in keeping the leaves, and letter of Scripture from corruption, surely it could not be so vncon∣cern'd for the integrity of the sence, and substance, as to per∣mit it to perish. Besides, it is much easier to keep the sense of Scripture incorrupt and pure, then the letter: The letter was writ only in paper or parchment, the sense in the heads and hearts of the Bishops, Doctors, and People of the Church: a dash of a pen may alter the letter, but cannot have access to the sence, which lodgeth in the hearts and heads of the faith∣full.

The precept of receiving the sense of Scripture from the Church, is not only agreable to reason, but prescrib'd in Scrip∣ture,

as the only way of saluation. Go not from the doctrin of the elders, for they have learned it from their Fathers, and of them thou shalt learn vnderstanding, and to answer in the time of need. Eccles. 8.8. The first Protestant Reformers observed not this, they went to no precedent Church, nor Fathers for their in∣terpretation of Scripture; and therfore the words of Ieremy 18.15. may be literally applyed to them. They have stumbled from the ancient ways to walk in ways not troden. The Protestant Cler∣gy ought to say and confess ingeniously that of holy Iob 8.8. Jnquire therfore I pray thee of the ancient generation and prepare thy self to search of their Fathers, for we are but yesterday, and ought not intrude their own Imaginations as the true explanation of God's word. They do not imitat St. Gregory Nazianzen and St. Basil who as Eusebius relates [Hist. l. 11. cap. 9.] did seek the vnder∣standing of the Scriptures not from their own presumption, but from the writings and authority of their Ancestors. They do not fol∣low the rule of Origen saying [tract. in Math. 29.] That in our vnderstanding of the Scripture we must not d••part from the first Ecclesiasticall tradition, nor believe other-wise, but as the Church of God hath by succession delivered to us. Nor that of Tertulian [l. 1. de prescrip. c. 6.]

What the Apostles preach'd, what Christ reveal'd to them, ought not be otherwise proved then by the Churches which they planted.* 1.144

Protestants contemn all these rules, and because there was never any Church in the world which professed the same faith that any of their Reformers preach't, or them-selves now pro∣fess, they are necessitated to except against all Testimonies of ancient Fathers and Councels, and against the continual and common consent of all Christian Churches concerning the pro∣per sense of Scripture, delivered to the primitive Christians: and will be judg'd therin by none but by them-selves, and by their own fancy of Scripture. They all follow this rule of Lu∣ther the first Reformer, which he layd as the foundation of all Protestant Reformations:

The Governours of Churches, and Pastors of Christ's sheep have indeed power to teach,

but the sheep must judg whether they propose the voice of Christ, or of strangers, &c. Whefore let Popes, Bishops, Councels &c. decree, order, enact, what they please, we shall not hinder, but we who are Christ's sheep, and heare his voice, will judg, whether they propose things true and agreable to the voice of our Pastor; and they must yeeld to us, and subscribe and obey to our sentence, and censure. Luther tom. 2. Wittemb. cap. de Sacra Script. fol. 375.

And because B.p Jewel in his challenge (thinking that no∣ne durst answer or accept it) appeal'd to the holy Fathers of the first ages, and was thervpon immediatly convicted of hy∣pocrisy, and impostures, he was grievously reprehended by his own Prelatick brethren as injurious to him-self, and as one who had given the Papists too large a scope, and after a man∣ner spoyl'd him-self and the Church, see Doctor Hum∣frey in Iewel's life edit. Londin pag. 212. and the same also in Fulk's retentive against Bristow pag. 55. Ever since that foile, the Prela∣tiks have bin more wary, and one of their greatest Champi∣ons Bilson Bishop of Winchester in his true difference between Christian subjection &c. part. 2. pag. 353. saith in plain termes The people must be discerners and Judges of that which is taught.

How contrary to Luther's Reformation was the doctrin of the primitive Church and Fathers, we may judg by these words of Gregory Nazianzen in the oration, wherin he excu∣seth him-self for having bin long absent from his flock and not exercised his function. Vos Oves, nolite pascere Pastores, neque super terminos eorum elevamini, satis enim est vobis, si recte pascimini, nolite judicare iudices, nec legem feratis legis-latoribus &c.

Now let any man who hath common sense be Judg, whe∣ther it be in the least degree probable that not only the illite∣rat Protestants, but even their greatest Doctors, and their first Apostles, Luther, Calvin, Cranmer &c. should know better the true sense of Scripture that was delivered to the first age, then they to whom those of that age told what they were taught by Christ and his Apostles, or then the second which told the

third what they were taught by the first? and so from gene∣ration vntill Luther and Calvins tyme. That every age gave this favorable testimony to the subsequent, of the sense of Scripture which it delivered, can not be denyed; otherwise none would have received their sense of Scripture, or their doctrin, as Di∣vine; whether they were sincere in delivering their testimony is the question; And because none questions it but Luther, Calvin &c. and their followers, vntill we see be ter evidence and a more cleere cause of their reformed principle and know∣ledg of the visible Churches apostasy, then their privat spirit, or Luther and Calvins new and extravagant interpretations of Scripture, we dare not condemn the whole ancient visible and Catholick Church, nor concurr with it's declared enemies in so rash a judgment, as to affirm, that the Church betrayed it's trust, and posterity▪ which rash judgment is the ground of the Protestant Reformations.

S. Athanasius in lib. de Decretis Nicen. Synod. contra Euseb. Ecce nos quidem ex Patribus ad Patres, per manus traditam fu∣isse hanc sententiam demonstravimus; vos autem O novi Judaei, Caiphae filii, quos tandem nominum vestrorum potestis ostendere pro∣genitores. S. Gregor. Nazian. ep. 2. ab Chelid. Absconditam post Christum sapientiam nobis annunciant, rem lacrymis dignam, si enim triginta his annis fides originem habuit, cum quadringenti (now 1600.) fere anni ab eo tempore fluxerint quo Christus palam conspectus est, inane tanto tempore fuit Evangelium, inanis etiam fi∣des nostra; & Martyres quidem frustra martyrium subierunt, frustra etiam tales tantique Antistites populo praefuerunt.

St. August. de vtilit. credendi cap. 14. saith, to the Mani∣chees, what we may to the Protestant Reformers. Vos autem & tam pauci estis, & tam turbulenti, & tam novi, nemini dubi∣um est, quoniam nihil dignum autoritate proferetis.

Seing therfore the Roman Catholick sense of Scripture hath for the space of 1600. years bin delivered by the visible Christian Church from age to age, as the true meaning of God's word; and that the Protestant sense of Scripture was

never accepted of by any but condemned Hereticks, and even in this last age was delivered but by a few turbulent and dis∣agreeing persons, and obnoxious ••o many exceptions much di∣minishing the credibility of their testimony; it is at least 16. to one, not only in the number, but also in the quality of the witnesses, that the Roman Catholick sense of Scripture is true, and the Protestant false; and by consequence the Prote∣stants have no Scripture to maintain the doctrin wherin they differ from Roman Catholicks.

SECT VI. Protestants mistaken in the Ministery and Mission of their Clergy, in the Miracles of their Church, in the holiness and honesty of their Reformers.

ALbeit God was able to call, justify, and con∣firm the elect without any mediat means, yet (as Protestants confess) he was pleased, not to accomplish the same otherwise then in, and by the ministery of his Church. Ther∣fore S. Paul tells vs [Ephes. 4.11.12.13.] that Christ hath placed in his Church Pastors and Doctors to con∣tinue to the consummation of Saints till we all meet in the vnity of faith. The chief of these Pastors and Doctors are the Bishops, vnto whom (as the same Apostle testifieth) it belongeth to go∣vern God's Church [Act. c. 2••.] These Bishops must succeed not only in Doctrin, but in caracter to the Apostles; which carac∣ter is the ordinary ministery or vocation, discern'd and recei∣ved by imposition of Episcopal hands [1. Tim. 4.] But because Luther was only a single Priest, and Calvin (as most say) not

so much as a Priest, and that both despaired of Episcopal and Priestly succession, they resolv'd to remedy that want, by say∣ing that the caracter of Priests and Bishops was not distinct from that of Baptism; and wheras, Luther's ordination or ordinary vocation in the Roman Catholick Church, was, to preach the doctrin which he had receiv'd from that Church, and not his new doctrinal Reformation, [a] 1.145 he and all Reformers after him, pretended an extraordinary and immediat vocation and mission from God, to teach an other faith contrary to that which the then visible Church professed, and could not be proved that any precedent Congregation ever held.

If there had been right beleevers saith Georgius Milius pag. 138. that went before Luther in his office there had then bin no need of a Lutheran Reformation. Therfore we say that Luther was rai∣sed vp (divinitus & extra ordinem) by God's special apoint∣ment and extraordinarily.

See Luther in loc. Com. class. 4. pag. 51. Bucer in epist. ad Episcop. Hereford. calls Luther the first A∣postle of the reformed doctrin. Beza in epist. Theolog. ep. 5. Ergo de extraordinaria vocatione videamus Huic vero tum demum lo∣cum esse dicimus, cum vel nulla, vel penè nulla est ordinaria vocatio, sicut nostris temporibus accidit in Papatu, cum expectari extraordinaria vocatio, quae nusquam erit, nec debuit, nec potuit. Bishop Iewell in his Apology for the Church of England part. 4. cap. 4. divis. 2. And in his defence of the Apology pag. 426.

The truth was vnknown at that time when Martin Luther and Vldrick Zuin∣glius first came vnto the knowledg and preaching of the Ghospel.

Mr. Parkins in his exposition vpon the Creed, pag· 400. and in his works printed 1605. fol. 365. And in his reformed Catholick, pag. 329.

We say that before the days of Luther, for the space of many hundred years, an vniversal Apostasy overspread the whole face of the earth, and that our Church was not then visible to the world.

Calvin in Institut. lib. 4. cap. 3. sect. 4. Quod Dominus nobis iniunxit, &c. Lascicius in proof of his extraordinary vocation,

lib. de Russorum Relig. pag. 23. alledgeth Calvin saying.

Because the succession or Series of ordination hath bin interrupted by the Pop's tyranny, there is need of a new subsidy, &c. And this guift was altogeather extraordinary.

Mr. Fulk against Stapleton, pag. 2. The Protestants that first preacht in these last days had likwise extraordinary calling. Mr. Perkens saith the same in his works printed 1605. fol. 916. Mr. Symonds, pag. 123. vpon the Revelations, affirmeth a calling to preach by the civil Magistrat, a holy and sufficient calling (saith he) in the time of these confusions.

But this pretext and presumption of theirs is groundless 1. Because the ordinary Ministery of Christ's Church being to continue (as S. Paul says) to the consummation of Saints, and end of the world, there could be no necessity of an extraordi∣nary contrary mission or ministery; but rather it must be con∣cluded that there is an impossibility therof, seing it is impossi∣ble that God should send men to contradict him-self or that doctrin, which he promised should continue vntill he day of judgment by the Ministery and means of the ordinary Pastors and Doctors of the Church. 2. Whensoever God sent any ex∣traordinary Ministers or Reformers, he confirm'd their mission and Ministery with vndoubted miracles, as is manifest by the example of Moyses, and the Prophets of the old Testament, and of the Apostles in the new. But no such thing appeared in Lu∣ther or any Protestant.

Their ordinary excuse that Miracles are ceased in the Church, is confuted by their [b] 1.146 own acknowledging that in the In∣dies, God, by means of the Jesuits and other Catholick Preachers, worketh Miracles for the conversion of Pagans.

And Philippus Nicolai confesseth that the Jesuits and other Spanish and Portugal Preachers, converted both Indies, Iapon, Cataia, &c. And wrought many true Miracles in those parts, and in our age, but Withall addeth lib. 1. of his Comentaries de Regno Christi, pag. 91. 312. & 313. 314. 318. & 219. That such Miracles wrought by the Jesuits and other professed Papists, pro∣ceed

not from their faith as it was Roman Catholick,* 1.147 but as it was Lutheran. See him pag. 91. & 53. & pag. 91. he sets down some mysteries of Christianity, wherin Lutherans agree with Roman Catholick, and attributs the Miracles to them only; concluding. Hucvsque enim Lutheranisant. Wheras it is well known that the Jesuits inculcat to their Pr••selits in all parts of the world the Romnn Catechisms, and in the Indies, Iapon, China, &c. bid them beware of the English, Holanders, and other Protes∣tants doctrin, as of heresy: And many of their Miracles are wrought at ••he intercession of our B. Lady S. Jgnatius, S. Fran∣cis Xaverius, &c. and by application of their Reliques.

Mr. Hartwell is more reasonable; he confesseth loc. cit. that the conversion of Congo was accomplished by massing Priests, and after the Romish manner, and this action (saith he) which tendeth to the Glory of God, shall it be concealed, and not committed to memory, because it was perform'd by Popish Priests, and Popish means? God forbid.

Now if God works miracles for the Conversion of Pagans to our Catholick Religion, it must be confessed, that either ours is the true Religion, or that God deceives those poore soules which by our Ministery, and his miracles are thervnto converted. Besid's; if what Protestants say, and that wher∣vpon they ground their Reforma••ions, be true viz, that for above 1000. years the true Church hath bin invisible, or sup∣press'd, and the world abused by Popish Impostors, and coun∣terfeited miracles, &c. the innocent and illiterat Papists (who are supposed to have bin seduced) seeme as fit an object for Divine mercy, and miracles, as the Indian Idolaters: But seing not one vndoubted miracle hath ever bin wrought to convert them from Popery to Protestancy, it must necessarily follow, that either God doth not approve of Protestancy, or hath altered the vsual Stile of his providence, which never fai∣led to work miracles for the conversion of the Israelits, and Hereticks when most guilty of heresy and idolatry. T'is strang he should not observe the same custom with Popish Christi∣ans,

and convert them by the means and miracles of holy Pro∣testants, if these be his chosen people, and sent by him to preach the Ghospel.

Not on Protestant Preacher could hitherto be prudently taken for an ordinary Prophet, or for a person of extraordi∣nary piety; even the first Protestant Reformers are convicted of dishonest dealing, and scandalous conversation, and are farr from that degree, J do not say, of sanctity, but of morality, requir'd in men pretending to reform others. We grant that a true Re∣ligion may be abused by the wickedness of it's Professors, yet never was the truth of Religion planted, or revived by the mi∣nistery of wicked persons. Let us run over all Christendom, and we shall find every Province therof converted to the Ro∣man Catholick Religion by men not only Apostolical in their lives, and conversation, but also in Miracles. We shall find (not to leave our own Ilands) an Austin in England, a Patrik in Ireland; a Columban in Scotland, and almost in every county of these Kingdoms a miraculous Saint that converted our Ances∣tors to Popery. How incredible therfore is it, that Protestancy can be the true Religion, seing that in all the world they can∣not name one Protestant eminent for Sanctity, Miracles, or mo∣rality. Cranmer carried his wench with him in his Episcopal vi∣sitations; Bale says him-self was inspired to take a sweet-heart called Dol; Bishop Poynet went to law with a Butcher for his wife; Peter Martyr, and Bucer came to preach into England, each of them having a Nun for a wife; Calvin kept a Gentle∣man of Lausanna his wife; Beza run away with the wife of a Taylor; And as for the Protopatriarch, and first Apostle of all the Protestant Reformations Luther, himself confesseth (loc. com. class. 4. pag 50.) that from his infancy he was haunted by the Devill, and to be rid of him entred the Religious Order of St. Austin; but afterwards the Devil prevail'd in a reall, not imaginary dispu••ation against him, concerning the abrogation of the Mass, adoration of the Sacrament, and invocation of our B. Lady and other Saints; and he resolved (having bin

convicted by the Devill's argument to for-sake his Order, and set vp Protestancy, which never had bin heard of before. And wheras during the time he lived amongst his friars, he acknow∣ledgeth that he lived chastly, and virtuously, yet after his re∣volt from the Roman Catholick Religion, he professeth in sundry places of his writings, that he could not live without a woman, and none could serve his turn but a Nun, whom he debauched out of her Monastery. Luther tom. 1. epist. fol. 334. & Colloq. Germ. cap. de Matri.

Eight days were now past wherin I neither did write, pray, nor study, being vexed with the temptation of the flesh, &c. As none can abstain from meat or drink, so he cannot from a woman &c. But it suffiseth that we have known the riches of the glory of God, the lamb which taketh away the sins of the world, can not draw us from him although we should commit for∣nication, or kill a thousand times in one day.

His pride was so excessive that his Disciples are ashamed of him, and have endeavored (by altering many things in the later editions of his works) to conceale the impiety of his Te∣nets, and the imperfections of his person; He was a better Drol then Doctor; sociable, but scandalous. Melanchton excusing Lu∣ther's scandalous mariage in epistol. ad Ioan. Camer pag. 39. saith, Est vir iste nequaquam ex iis qui homines oderunt, & congressus fu∣giunt, quotidianae autem vitae illius vsum non ignoras, vnde cogitare te caetera, quam me scribere, melius ut opinor fuerit.

He wanted not wit to se the meakness of his Zealous Pro∣selits, and was so facetiously wicked as to laugh at them for relying vpon one Luther in a matter of so great importance as the chang of Christian Religion, against the testimony of the whole visible Church, and the sense of all ancient Fathers and Councels; and therfore was vsed to say when he was merry amongst his confidents, and Camerades in the Alehouses of Wittemberg, Bibentibus nobis cervisiam Wittembergensem crescit E∣vangelium: That the Ghospel was zealously preached (by fooles) while he made good cheer with friends. He spent

his life in good fellowship; and Sleydan his deer Schollar (lib. 3. edit. 1521. fol. 29.) reporteth, how that Luther him-self ack∣nowledged his profession not to be of life or manners, but of do∣ctrin, wishing (l. 2. ed. 1520. fol. 22.) that he were removed from the office of preaching, because his manners and life did not answer to his profession: wherfore it was vsual with such Protestants as knew his life and conversation to say when they resolved to give them-selves to pleasure, and debauche: bodie Lutheranice vi∣vemus, to day we will live Lutheranlike: see Benedict Morgensterne in tract. de Ecclesia. pag. 221. His death was answerable to his life, in the morning he was found dead, having bin very merry and feasting him-self the night before. He attempted in vain two miracles, at the importunity of his Schollers; the one was to revive a dead man; the other was, to dispossess one of his own Disciples, according to his new form of Exorcisms; But Staphylus, who was present, says, Luther was so fouly fright∣ed, that in steed of chasing the Devil, him-self run away, and was in danger of being killed; The want of success in these two attemps, made him say that miracles were ceased in the Church, and that all ours are but impostures, or don by com∣pact with Sathan.

Zuinglius Author of the Sacramentarian Religion, having bin tyed by Luther to no other rule of faith besides the letter of Scripture (for he had bin Luther's scholler) but differing from his Master in the point of the real presence, invented a new re∣formation, which he planted among the Suitzers; and before he would impart it to them, he made (c) 1.148 his conditions by way of petition (yet extant in his works) that if the Cantons would permit him and his Ministers who ioyned with him, to take wives, he would reveale to them the Evangelical doctrin, so long hidden. An other Epistle to the same purpose he writ to the Bishop of Constance: and the reason he gives for his demand is, least the soules committed ••o his own and his fellow's charge, should be any longer offended by the example of their sensua∣lity.

We have proved (saith he) that the weakness of our flesh

hath bin (O for grief) cause of our often falling, &c. we have burned (O for schame) so greatly that we have com∣mitted many things vnseemingly, &c. To speake freely with∣out boasting, we are not otherwise of such vncivil manners that we should be ill spoken of among the people to vs com∣mitted for any wickedness (hoc vno exc••pto) this one point only excepted. And confesseth tom. 1. fol. 115. that he and his fellow Ministers by means of their lustfull desires were made infamous before their Congregations.

Himself and his Camerades having taken wives, or wen∣ches, he began to reveale his Ghospel, and impugn the Mass by instruction from a spirit that appeared to him, [d] 1.149 Whether black or white, he remembreth not. Having by this Diabolical dream or apparition, resolved to abolish the Mass, and change the do∣ctrin of Transubstantiation by altering the Text of Scripture in his Translation (dedicated to Francis King of France edit. Tigur. an. 1525.) saying, This signifieth my Body, for This is my Body. Zuinglius tom. 2. de vera & falsa Religione. fol. 202. & fol. 210. He quotes his own Text of Scripture thus, Sic ergo habet Lucas, & accepto pane, gratias egit, &c. dicens, Hoc significat Corpus me∣um. He proceeded after a very strange manner in his design: for he confesseth that his doctrin was more accomodated to tem∣porising liberty, then to sincerity or truth; and that God com∣manded him to proceed in that manner, least his design should be quasht in the very beginning by his Adversaries, whom he termes Dogs and Swine. Retractamus igitur hic quae illic diximus, tali lege, vt quae hic damus anno aetatis nostrae quadragesimo secundo, propendeant eis quae quadragesimo dederamus: quando ut diximus, tempori potius scripsimus quam rei, sic jubente Domino, vt tali ratione aedificemus, ne inter initia Canes & Porci nos rumpant.

He had no great opinion of the Apostles writings, as is proved by his altering the very Text of Scripture contrary to all copies both Greek and Latin, and by his saying, that S. Paul did not attribut so much to his own Epistles as to think that all therin contained was sacred; for, that were to impute im∣moderat

arrogancy to the Apostle (tom. 2. Elench. contra Cata∣baptistas, fol. 10.) And because the other Cantons of the Suit∣zers would not accept of this Reformation; he sticking to the principles therof, endeavored by force of arms to bring them vnder subjection, and to his own Ghospel, and in this attempt Zuinglius was killed, sealing with his bloud what he had writ, (tom. 1. in explanat. art, 42. fol. 84.) that Kings and Magistrats may be deposed when they resist the Ghospel,* 1.150 that is any pri∣vat Protestant interpretation of Scripture.

As for the Reformers of the Protestant Church of Eng∣land, they were King Henry 8. Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, Peter Martyr, Hooper, Rogers, Ridley, Bucer, Okin; The Revivers were Jewel, Parker, Horn, &c. of whose lives and conversations we have sayd somthing, and enough to pro∣ve they were not fit men to reform christian Religion; their doctrin they borrowed from Luther and Zwinglius (the supre∣macy only excepted, which King Henry 8. invented) and ther∣fore Bishop Iewel the chief maintainer both of the Protestant doctrin and Prelatick caracter of the Church of England, in his defence of the Apology (edit. 1571. pag. 426. as also in the A∣pology part. 4. c. 4.) thought it necessary for the credit of the 39. Articles of the English Religion, which had bin compiled out of Luther and Zwinglius writings, to commend those two Pillars of Protestancy as most excellent men, even sent by God to give light to the whole world in the midst of darkness, when the truth was vnknown and vnheard of. As for B.p Iewel him-self, we remit the reader to Doctor Hardings Confutation of the Apology, wherin he may cleerly discern the false lustre of this counterfeit Jewel, and the value which men ought to set vp∣on this pretious stone, layd for a foundation of the Prelatick Church; and vpon the rotten stuff which he and his Succes∣sours have sould for Divine truth to English Protestants ever since he vndertook,* 1.151 to maintaine their cause; for as Doctor Heylin ingeniously acknowledgeth in his Ecclesia restaurata, all the learned English Protestant Writers have borrowed from

B.p Jewel what they have sayd in defense of the Protestant Re∣ligion, and that is one reason why their works are so full of manifest vntruths, and them-selves so frequently convicted of gross mistakes; they rely too much vpon this reviver of their faith; or at least would make the world believe that he may be relyed vpon in matters of faith.

But because Doctor Heylin makes it his busines to persuade the world, that Ievel then did make good the caracter and or∣dinary vocation of the Church of England against Harding; and that Doctor Bramhall, late Protestant Primat of Ireland, triumph'd over the supposed Jesuits who renewed Harding's quarrel, I jud∣ged it necessary to cleer both these mistaks in few words; As for Bishop Iewel, we have sayd in the 1. part sect. 7. of this Trea∣tise how easily he might have stop't Harding's mouth by only naming the Bishop who consecrated Parker and his Camerades; for, Harding vsed no other Argument against the nullity of the English Protestant Clergy, but this, A Bishop must be ordained by an other Bishop; but Parker and his Camerades were not ordained Bis∣hops by any other Bishop. Ergo. His proof that they were not or∣dain'd by any Bishop was this, name the Bishop that ordained them, name the place where they were consecrated. This was a demand soon satisfied if ever Parker or his fellows had bin ordained Bishops; especially with so much ceremony and solemnity as the new re∣cords of Lambeth report that matter. Yet Jewel could never name Parker's and the first Protestant Bishops Consecrators; he named indeed Parker for his own Consecrator, but being press'd by Harding to name Parkers, insteed of answering Harding's que∣stion, whervpon depended the whole controversy, the credit of his Clergy, and the satisfaction of the Reader, he maks an im∣pertinent digression and long discours of the obligation which some pretended to have bin in ancient times, of consulting the Bishop of Rome before they proceeded to the election and consecration of Bishops, but never returned to the point of na∣ming the first Protestant Bishop's Consecrator, whom he would have named to Harding, if ever they had bin consecrated. And

this is one part of the great victory, which Doctor Heylin so much brags of.

The other part concerns Bramhall and the supposed Iesuits. The true relation wherof is as followeth.

After that his Majesty and the Royal Family had bin dri∣ven out of England and France by the late vsurped powers: and all Christian Princes thought it their conveniency to court the Rebells, and not entertain in their Dominions the Person of our King, much less embrace his quarrell; it happen'd on day at Bruges, that Doctor Crouder Chaplain to his Royal High∣ness the Duke of York, in his Master's Chamber and presence, without any provocation, or occasion given by any of the Ro∣man profession, vtter'd very intemperat words against Doctor Goff Almoner to the Queen Mother, for having taken orders in the Church of Rome, after that he had received them in the Church of England▪ To which a Catholick Gentleman answered, he had don no more then what all other Protestant Ministers who became Roman Priests, had continually practi∣sed, and (as he believed) vpon good grounds. Whervpon the Doctor (notwithstanding the King was come to his Brother's chamber) reassum'd his Argument, and continued to dispute with such vehemency, that being caled to read morning pray∣ers, he mistook the time of the day, and in the morning read evening prayers to the congregation. The cause of his mistake being known, and many believing that his excess of choler ar∣gu'd a weakness in his cause, Doctor Bramhall late Primat of Ireland, Writ a Treatise in vindication of the English Clergys caracter, which is the book so much applauded by the Prela∣ticks, and by Doctor Heylin, as vnanswerable; wheras it was sudainly and so substantially answered, that Primat Bramhall never durst reply, notwithstanding the general concern of his Clergy, and his own particular engagement; and the Church of England perceiving the evidence of our arguments against the validity of their forms of ordination,* 1.152 thought their best answer was to confess the force of our reasons, and correct the errors

of their Bishops, by changing the forms they had composed of Priesthood and Episcopacy: and by in serting into those forms,* 1.153 words that might beare the signification of the caracters which their Predecessours had excluded from or omitted in the ordi∣nation of Protestant Ministers, as superfluous, and superstiti∣ous. This manner of answering is of great satisfaction to Ca∣tholicks, but how safe it is for the Protestant layty to rely v∣pon the validity of a Ministery that now after 100. years con∣fess the insufficiency of their own forms of ordination, and by consequence of their Priesthood, Episcopacy, and Sacraments, we leave to their consideration, and pass to speak a word of Cal∣vin the chief Author of the Presbiterian sect, and faction.

John Calvin (whom the Magistrat of Noyon condemned for infamous Sodomy) was by his freind Beza canonized for extraordinary Sanctity; but Sclusselburg a man of so great esteem among Protestants that he was made Superintendent and general Inspector of many Churches in Germany, after relating Cal∣vin's Sodomy and vices, saith;

I know Beza writ otherwise of Calvin's life, manners, and death; but seing him-self no∣ted with the same Heresy, and almost with the same sin as the history of Candida &c. witnesseth, none can credit him.

Therfore I am induced to believe Bolseck the Phisiti∣an of Geneva, who begins his book of the life and death of Calvin with this protestation.

I am heer, for the love of the truth to refute Theodor Beza his fals, and shamless lyes in the praise of Calvin, protesting before God and all the holy Court of heaven, before all the world, and the Holy Ghost it self, that neither anger nor envy, nor evill will hath made me speake or write any one thing against the truth and my conscience.

Then he relates how Calvin was branded for Sodomy with a burning iron on the shoulder, and therfore retired from his Country (Noyon in Picardy) and how this punishment was testified by that Citty vnder the hand of a publick and sworn Notary to Mons.r Bertelier Secretary to the Councell of Geneva, which testimony (sayth Bolseck) is yet

extant. Then he describeth Calvin's delicat dyet, how his wine was choyce, and carried with him in a silver pot, when he di∣ned abroad; that also special bread was made for Calvin only, and the same made of fine flower, wet in rosewater, mingl'd with sugar, Synamond, Aniz-seeds, besides a singular kind of bisket; and this he affirmeth as a matter known to all Geneva: This delicasy of dyet was not prescribed to preserve his health, but prepared to foment his lust and lewd conversation with a Gentleman of Lausann's wife, and others; his ambition was so great, that he aym'd at being Lord of Geneva, approving of their notorious rebellion and deposition of their lawfull Prince from his temporal right and jurisdiction.

His death is described by the aforsaid Schlusselburg (lib. 2. fol. 72.) in these words.

God in the rod of his fury visi∣ting Calvin did horibly punish him before the fearfull houre of his death; for he so stroke this Heretick (so he term'd him in regard of his doctrin concerning the Sacrament and of God being the Author of sin) with his mighty hand, that being in despaire, and calling vpon the Devil, he gave vp his wicked soule swearing, cursing, and blaspheming; he dyed of the disease of lyce and worms (a kind of death wher with God often striketh the wiked as Antiochus, Herod &c.) increasing in a most lothsom vlcer about his privy parts, so as none present could endure the stench.

His Miracle (for he never attempted to work more then one, or two) is recorded not only by Bolseck, but also by Nin∣guerda Lindanus, Copus, and others, and it was thus. Calvin pretending extraordinary vocation, thought necessary, for the confirmation therof, and his own credit, to cheat the world with a feign'd miracle; to that purpose he agreed with a poore man caled Bruleus to feign him-self dead, promising him great rewards if in this Trage-comedy he would be secret, and act his part hansomly; non knew of the plot but Bruleus, and his wife, who vpon the day and howr appointed, sart in her house lamenting her husband's death; Calvin passing by with a great

number of his freinds [as it were by chance] and hearing the lamentations of the poore woman, seemed to pitty her sad con∣dition, and moved, forsooth, with charity and compassion, fell down vpon his knees with the rest of the company; praying in a loud voice; and beg'd of God that for the manifestation of his glory, and confirmation of his servant Calzin's doctrin and mission, he would vouchsafe to revive the dead Carcass, which he took by the hand, and bid him rise in the name of the Lord. The wife seing her husband did not move nor rise, as he had promised, drew neer, and perceiving he who had bin well but half an houre before, was now dead, lamented in good earnest the loss of her husband, reviled Calvin as a Mur∣therer, Cheat, Hypocrit, Heretick &c. and related to the whole company what had past between them; Calvin seing Bruleus had acted his part more naturaly then he wished, retired with hast and confusion to his lodging. I leave it to the judgment of any disinteress'd person whether Bolseck and other grave Au∣thors, would report such remarkable lyes (as Calvinists will pretend, this and other passages of Calvin's life and death to be) and set down in print so many circumstances, in a time wher∣in they were so notably disprovable. This kind of miracles, as Tertulian sayth, is proper to men who teach new doctrin contrary to that of the Apostles; as their doctrin is contrary, so ought their miracles to be; the Apostles raysed men from death by miracles, their Antagonists by miracle make men dead. Jsti (Apostoli) de mortuis suscitabant, ipsi de vivis mor∣tuos faciunt. Tertulian. in lib. de preter. Beza (an other Prote∣stant Saint) was in love with a boy and a girle at the same ti∣me; in his amourous and lascivious Epigram's printed at Paris 1548. he called the boy Andebertus, the girle Candida, in these Epigram's is express'd his passion for both, and his perplexity in the choice of on before the other. At last he resolves, to preferr the boy before the girle, and if his Candida should com∣plain, to content her with a kiss: his words are. Preferre ta∣men alterum necesse est, O duram nimium necessitatem! sed post∣quam

tamen alterum necesse est, Priores tibi defer•• Andeberte, Quod si Candida forte conqueratur, Quid tum? basiolo ••acebit vno.

I will not trouble the Reader with relating the known vi∣ces of other Protestant sectaries; these three are the chief, all other Sects being but branches of theirs. If any English Protestant will pretend that the Church of England is neither Lutheran Zuinglian nor Calvinist, let him fix vpon his Reformers; Jf he rejects Henry 8. Cranmer, Ridley, Bucer Martyr, Ochin, La∣timer, &c. And will needs have the whole Parliament which au∣thorised them in Edward 6. reign to reform Religion, or the Parliament of Queen Elizabeth that received the English ex∣tinct Protestancy, to have the honor of being Authors, or Re∣formers, let him be pleased to read the Cronicles of this Nati∣on, and compare the integrity of them that pretended to reform Popery, and revive Protestancy, with as many more Members of precedent English Parliaments, and he wil find there was ne∣ver found in this Kingdom, or in any other, such a number of men, or a Parliament that deserved less credit in matters of Re∣ligion, then they, who admitted and setled Protestancy. He may observe how in King Henry 8. days (to humor his lewd∣ness and couetousness) they cryed down the Pope, and flatte∣red a temporal Soveraign with a spiritual Supremacy, and yet persecuted as heresies all other points of the Protestant Refor∣mation. In Edward 6. days he may see how the same men (to comply with Seamors folly and Dudleys ambition) declared the doctrin which them-selves had profess'd as Catholick in King Henry 8. reign, to be notorious heresy. In Queen Maries time he may read in the statuts, and in this Treatise (1. part. sect. 6.) how they recanted and condemned them-selves, and censured the King's Supremacy (togeather with all points of Protestancy) as heresy; and with in six years after see them pass the same cen∣sure against the Roman Catholick doctrin, to which they had bin so solemnly reconciled again; and revive the Supremacy to∣geather with other points of Protestancy. So that in the space of less then 16. years they changed their Religion, by publick Acts

of Parliament, five of six tyms, to humor the factions which then prevailed. Wherfore it cannot be denyed but that these Parliaments and persons deserve as little credit in matters of Re∣ligion, as Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin, or any other privat sectary.

SECT VII. Protestants mistaken in the application of the Pro∣phecies of Scripture, concerning the conversion of the Kings, and Nations of the Gentils from Paganism to Christianity, foretould as an infallible marke of the true Church, and wherof the Protestant is deprived.

SAint Augustin saith: [a] 1.154 Obscurius dixerunt Pro∣ph••tae de Christo, quam de Ecclesia; puto prop∣terea quod videbant in Spiritu contra Ecclesiam homines facturos esse particulares, & de Chri∣sto non tantam litem habituros, de Ecclesia magnas contentiones excitaturos, ideo illud vn∣de majores lites futurae erant, planiùs praedic∣tum est. The Prophets did speak more cleerly of the true Church then of Christ him-self, and giveth this reason, because they did forsee in spirit that there would arise greater doubts, and heresies against the Church then against our Saviour; Therfore to stop the mouths of hereticks it was fit that God should de∣scribe the Church in Scripture by so remarkable and obvious signes, that neither ignorance nor obstinacy might be excusable by pretending want of knowledg of the truth, or means of re∣pairing

to that Guide of faith wherby the illiterat ought to be instructed, and the learned directed in all doubts, and contro∣versies of Christian Religion. Amongst all the marks of God's Church mentioned in Scripture, not any is more discernable and less subject to mistakes, then the conversion of Kings and Na∣tions from Paganism to Christianity; Miracles may admit of dis∣putes whether they be true or false? But the conversion of Na∣tions from Paganism to Christian Religion, cannot be counter∣feited, nor concealed. If therfore the Protestant Congregations never converted any Kings or Nations of the Gentils to the Chri∣stian faith, not any nor all of them can be the true Church of God. For

The Prophet Esay foretelleth of the true Church, tha•• all [b] 1.155 Nations shall flow to it. And concerning the Gentills co∣ming to the Church in abundance, Thou [c] 1.156 shalt see and shi∣ne, they heart shall be astonished and enlarged, because the multitude of the Sea shall be converted to thee, the Iles [d] 1.157 shall waite for thee, their [e] 1.158 Kings shall minister to thee, and thy gates shall be continually open, neither day nor night shall they be shut, that men may bring to thee the riches of the Gentills. And that their Kings may bee brought, thou [f] 1.159 shalt suck the milk of the Gentills, and the brest of Kings. Kings [g] 1.160 shall be thy nursing Fathers, and Queens thy Mothers. I will [h] 1.161 give thee the earth for thy inheritance, and the end of the earth for thy possession. Thou must prophesy again vnto Nations, Peoples, Tongues, and many Kings: Apocal. 20.11. All [i] 1.162 Protestants as well as Catholicks apply these prophecies to the conversion of the Gentills.

In like manner do [k] 1.163 Protestants and Catholicks agree, that these prophecies of God have bin accomplish'd; but not in the first 300. years, because as Barlow saith (in his defence of the Articles of the Protestant Religion pag. 34. (Jn the primi∣tive Nonage of the Church, the promise of Kings alleigance ther∣vnto was not so fully accomplish'd, because in those day's that pro∣phecy of our Saviour was rather verefied, you shall be brought before Kings for my nam's sake, by them to be persecuted even to death.

From the time of Constantin the Great vntill the time of Gre∣gory the great, or Boniface the third, Bishops of Rome (which was 200. and od years) few Kings professed the Christian faith, the Emperours of the East and West only excepted; and even of those, some revolted, as Julian the Apostat, and sundry others were Arians, as Constans, Constantius, Valens &c. And in case any illiterat Protestant should pretend that the Religion pro∣fess'd by Constantin, and propagated in those 200. and do years was not the Roman Catholick, but the Protestant, we remit him to his own learned Writers, and to Eusebius de vita Con∣stantine, and particularly to the Centurists in their fowrth Cen∣tury dedicated to Queen Elizabeth, in which they vndertake to deliver to her Majesty the state of the Church which in Constantin's time illustrated the whole world, and yet do charge the Fathers and Doctors of that and th'ensuing ages with the Popish doctrines of [l] 1.164 Iustification, and merit by works; (m) 1.165 Confession of sins to a Priest, (n) 1.166 Invocation of Saints, (o) 1.167 Pur∣gatory, the real (p) 1.168 presence and Transubstantiation, worshiping (q) 1.169 of the Sacrament confirmed by miracles, offering (r) 1.170 it in Sacrifice to God, as being propitiatory for the living and dead, with (s) 1.171 solemn translating of Saints Reliques, and their [t] worship, with (v) 1.172 pilgrimage to them, with (x) 1.173 Images in the Churches, with numbring prayers vpon litle stones or beades, worshiping (z) 1.174 of the Cross, and by it's vertue driving (1) 1.175 away Devills, single life (2) 1.176 of Priests, the Bishop of Rome his Supremacy (3) 1.177 Iure Divino, &c. So that in those 200. and od years▪ Protestants cannot pretend that any Kings or Nations were converted to their Religion.(y) 1.178

Therfore they desire the decision of this controversy con∣cerning the Conversion 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Pagan Kings and nations to Chri∣stianity, may be reduced 〈◊〉〈◊〉 these last thousand and od years, from St. Gregory the great his time to ours which point being open matter of fact▪ and so cleerly mentioned in all Histories, and confess'd by Protestants, to have bin don by Roman Ca∣tholicks, and to the ••oman Catholick Religion, no demon∣stration can be more convincing then this is, against the Pro∣testant Church and Reform••••••••••. In so much that Whitaker (lib. de Eccles. contra Belarm. pag. 336.) hath nothing to say to this our objection of all the converted Kings and Nations since Gregory the great to this present, to have bin performed by Pa∣pists, and to Popery, but, I answer that those conversions of so many nations after the time 〈…〉〈…〉, mentioned by Belarmin, were not pure, but corrupt. The like answer and no other▪ is given by Danaeus, Symon de V••yon, and others. But Mr. Barlow in his defence of the articles &c. pag. 35. saith, The promise by Esay prophecied (〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Church) was accomplished, and the num∣ber so increased, though still invisibly that as her love sayd in the Canticles, there 〈◊〉〈◊〉 therefore Queen &c. so that there were thre∣score invisible Queens, Princes, or Kingdoms converted to Protestancy; and that performed by Protestants as invisible as they. What greater evidence can there be of heretical obsti∣nacy, then to maintain the real existence of an impossibility,

by it's invisibility? what is more impossible then that so re∣markable things as the conversion of great princes and Nati∣ons from Idolatry to the outward profession of Christianity, could be invisible or conceal'd? I must confess though Mr. Barlow's answer be very absurd, yet is it very consequent to the principles of Protestancy; for why should not threescore Queens, Kings, and Kingdoms be invisible, as well as the whole Protestant Church wherof they were but a part? And if all the Christian world could be insensibly and invisibly changed from pure and primitive Protestancy to superstitious Popery, why might not the same world, Kings, and Queens be invi∣sibly and insensibly changed from Paganism to Protestancy?

We Catholicks are not forc't to admit of such absurdities; our grea••est Adversaries name the Kings and Nations by us converted to Christianity. Any Protestant may see the parti∣culars confess'd and alledg'd by Iohn Pappus (in his Epitom. histor. Eccl. cap. de conversionibus Gentium pag. 89.91.92.93.94.100.106.107. &c.) also the Century Writers of Mag∣deburg mention the conversion of sundry nations wrought by vs since Gregory the first, as Germany (centur. 8. c. 2. col. 20.) of the Wandals (centur. 9. c. 2. col. 15.) of the Bulgarians, Sclavonians, Polonians, the Danes and Moravians (cent. 9. c. 2. col. 18.) And of sundry Kings and Kingdoms (cent. 10. c. 2. col. 18. & 19.) And of a great part of Hungary (cent. 11. c. 2. col. 27.) And of the Norwegians (cent. 12.) See the Protestant Writer Osiander (in his Epitom. histor. Eccles. centur. 9.10.11.12.13.14. & 15.) mentioning the conversion of ma∣ny Nations performed by Roman Catholiks, as of the Danes, the Moravians, the Polonians, the Sclavonians, the Bulgars, the Hunns, the Normans, the Bohemians, the Suecians, and Norwegians, Livonians, and the Saxons, The Ungarians, the Rugij, and Thuscans, of Candia, Majorca, of Tunes in Africa &c. wherunto may be added not only the like known con∣version of our Ancestors the English Saxons, Scots, and Jrish in more ancient times, but in this last age of many Kings and

Kingdoms in the East and West-Jndies, Africa, Iapon, and China, confessed by our Adversary Symon Lythus (in respons. altera ad alteram Gretseri Apologiam pag. 931.) where he says: The Jesuists &c. in the space of few years not content with the li∣mits of Europe, have filled Azia, Afrik, and America, with their Idols: And Philippus Nicolai who writing of the accomplish∣ment of the prophecies concerning the conversion of the Gen∣tils (as he professeth in his Preface to the Duke of Saxony pag. 12.) is inforced wholy to insist and rely vpon our Popish Pre∣achers, and Iesuists in all parts of the world. See lib. 1. c. 1. pag. 2. & 3. & lib. 1. pag. 15. & pag. 52.

There is not any history profane, or sacred, ancient, or modern, which mentioneth as much as one King or Kingdom converted from Paganism to Protestancy; vnless they will pre∣tend that their histories, and Records are as invisible as their Church had bin before Luther and their Registers of Lambeth before Mason, I cannot say that all Protestants wanted ••••ale to attempt such conversions; but the•••• zeale wanted success in all their attempts, and that proves the prophecies of Scripture poin∣ted not at their Church or Doctrin.

Calvin sent some Ministers, and amongst them Richerus (whom Beza termeth a man of tryed godliness and learning) into Gallia Antartica to convert the heathens there; and he writ to Calvin a letter (extant in Calvin's epist. & respons. pag 438. his words are. Latet eos an▪ Deus 〈◊〉〈◊〉, tantum abest ut legem ejus observent, vel potentiam & bonitat••m ejus mirentur, ut prorsus sit nobis adempta spes lucrifaciend•••• eos Christo, quod ut omnium est gravissimum ita inter caetera maximè aegre feremus.

He saith more over that nothing could be don untill the children which Mr. Villegaignon delivered to the Barbarians to learn their language, had bin perfect therin; but while the children were learning the heathens tongue, Richerus, Villagaig∣non and the other Ministers disagreed so in their doctrin, that the whole design fell to the ground; and Villagaignon insteed of conventing the heathens, forsook his own Religion, moved

thervnto by the dissentions, and inordinat accomplished lusts (not to be named) of the Protestant Preachers, wherof see Launoy 〈◊〉〈◊〉 la Republicque Christi••ne &c. l. 2. c. 16. fol. 281. and Villegaignon adversus articulos Richeri l. 1. c. 90. Franciscus Go∣marus a Protestant Writer ackowledgeth the like want of suc∣cess in other places, and persons: se his Speculum verae Ecclesiae pag. 161. & 168. And Mr. Hacluits book of voyages and dis∣coveries of the English Nation, and their frustrated labours in conversion of the remote northen Nations; wherof the Au∣thor saith (pag. 680.) The events do shew that either God's cause hath not bin chiefly preferred by them, or ells God hath not permitted so abundant grace as the light of his word, and knowledg of him, to be yet revealed to those Infidells before the apointed time.

No mervaile therfore if [4] 1.179 Beza despairing of any suc∣cess in the Protestant Church of converting Pagans, disclay∣meth therin, and doth advise his brethren to leave that labour to the Jesuists, and so employ them-selves at home among Christians, thinking perhaps that to make Papists Protestants is a sufficient accomplishing of Esay's prophecies. Nec enim nunc magnopere nobis de legatione ad remotissimas aliquas. Gentes laboran∣dum, cum nobis domi, & in propinquo satis suporque sit quod nos & posteros nostros exerceat: Has igitur potius tam 〈◊〉〈◊〉 pe••gri∣nationes locustis illis JESU nomen ementientibus, relinquamus. But as the converting of Gentills to Christianity is an infalli∣ble mark of the true Church, so is the drawing of Catholicks to Protestancy, an infallible mark of a false Church, and of Hereticks, whose endeavor, saith Tertullian [5] 1.180 Is not to convert Pagans, but to pervert Christians. Negotium est illis (Haereticis) non Ethnicos convertendi sed nostros evertendi.

Their success in that particular is no argument, that God approves of their Religion, but is only a sign of our human frailty, and perverse inclinations to vice and liberty. And they who say that the Protestant Reformation needs no other mi∣racle to prove that it is Divine, but it's propagations, mistake

and misapply the argument; the miracle consists not in that many embra•••• Protestancy, but rather in that any at all reject or forsake a Religion so favorable to sensuality of li••••, and singularity of judgment. Is it not an argument and a miracle of God's special and super-natural grace; that any one temporal Catholick Soveraign reject so absolut and advantagious a juris∣diction over these Subjects, as the spiritual supremacy? That Bishops preferr the Catholick subordination to the Pope before the Protestant equality? That Catholick Priests contemn the conveniences, and co••••••nt which Protestant Ministers find in a married life 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••hat the Catholick layt••, change not their wives or husbands according to the principles and practises 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Protes••••••cy▪ and not only contradict their senses in the 〈…〉〈…〉▪ Transubstantiation, but dis-own the Protestant pretended right of every privat person to judg (according to his own sense of 〈…〉〈…〉 all controversies of Christian Re∣ligion? A Reformation so indulgent and obliging to every man and woman of what ••••ate and condition soever, could as litle want Proselies as the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 neither is the multitude of be∣lievers more a miracle 〈…〉〈…〉 P••••••estant, then in the Maho∣metan, or any other popular 〈◊〉〈◊〉 pleasing Religion.

SECT. VIII. Protestants mistaken in the consistency of their ju∣stifying faith with justice, or civil Government. Demonstrated in the new setlement of Irland, and in the persecution against Catholicks in England: and yet the King and his government vindicated from the note of Tyrany, or the breach of publick faith; because his Ministers are compell'd, by a necessity of state, to run with the spirit and prin∣ciples of Protestancy: Notwithstanding all which the Irish, and English Roman Catholicks are bound in conscience not to attempt the recovery of their right or Religion by arms, but rather to submit them-selves to his Majesty, and suffer their crosses with Christian patience.

All Protestants agree in the doctrin of Iu∣stification by only faith, but seem to differ in that of good works. And though all ne∣cessity of good works be in very deed ex∣cluded by the pretended sufficiency and efficacy of the Protestant justifying faith; for in what need can a man stand of good

works, if he be sure of his justification (and by consequence of his salvation) by only faith. But the scandal of the world at their dispensing with the observation of the ten Comman∣dments as things not required by Christians, and cleerly in∣ferred from their Iustification by only faith, was so general, that they disguised (but never disown'd) the doctrin; and do yet stick to their principle though they dare not openly allow the consequences. They speak so sparingly in favour of good and gracious works, that no one Protestant Church will attribute to them any merit, congruity, or influence vpon eith∣er justification, or salvation. In so much that our Prelaticks (who are more mod••••at then any other Protestants in this par∣ticular) will not grant that good works are commanded by God as if they were depending of our liberty, or relating to our endeavors, but only are commanded as vnavoydable effects flowing necessarily from a Protestant and justifying faith, as heat from fire, or fruit from the tree.

* 1.181

The Prelatick Church of England in the 11. Article of it's Religion, saith:

We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Iesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherfore that we are justified by faith only, is a most wholsom do∣ctrin, and very full of comfort.

And in the 12. Article declares

All beit that good works which are the fruits of faith, and follow after justification, can not put away our sins, and endure the severity of God's Judgment, yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith; in so much that by them a lively faith may be as evi∣dently known as a tree discerned by the fruit.

This explanation concerning the necessity of good works, mak•• men as carless of them, as if they had bin impossible, or not at all requisit; Because we are not solicitous of what we are sure of; he who is well clad, and sits by a good fire, fears not to be starv'd with could, neither doth he think it necessary to vse any other exercise, or diligence for keeping him-self warm. If therfore good works do spring out as ne∣cessarily of a true and lively faith, as heat from fire, or fruit from the tree, any Protestant that supposeth, him-self hath that

faith, needs not be solicitous of good works; they will spring as a necessary consequent from his faith.

But because experience doth shew that the Protestant who pretends to a justifying faith, hath not always good works, and many who are not Protestants, exercise moral virtues, it is further declared by the Church of England in the 13. Article (for the comfort of Protestants, and confusion of Papists) That even the best moral works and virtues when they spring not of faith in JESUS Christ, are no way pleasing to God, but rather have the nature of sin; Hence it is, our English as well as ot∣her Protestants hould expressly with Luther, That good [a] 1.182 works take their goodness of the worker, and that no work is dis∣allowed of God, vnless the Author be dis-allowed before; that sin is not hurtfull to him that actually believeth; and therfore when the faithfull do sin, they [b] 1.183 diminish not the glory of God, all the danger of sin being the evell example to our neighbour; That David when he [c] 1.184 committed adultery, was and remained the Child of God; that sin is [d] 1.185 pardoned as soon as committed▪ the believing Protestant having received forgivness of all his sins past and to come. And that [e] 1.186 there is no work better then other: to make water, to wash dishes, to be a Sower, or an Apostle, all is one to please God. That he who [f] 1.187 doth once truly believe, cannot afterwards fall from the grace of God, or loose his faith by any sins; and ther∣fore faith is either [g] 1.188 perpetual, or no faith.

What a wide gap is opened by this wicked doctrin to all kind of vice, libertinism, and rebellion, is more visible in it self, then considered by well meaning Protestants, who may tax the most dissolut of their brethren with being evill Christi∣stians, but must withall confess them to be good Protestants, as not violating the principles of their Religion, by which they are encouraged to justify the most wicked actions, by their sole belief in Christ, without any regard to the morality of good works, or to the alleigance and obedience due to Maje∣sty or Magistrasy. That which makes most men carefull in God's service, is the vncertainty of their saluation, and feare of his displeasure by their dayly sins; but Protestants are rid of all those perplexities and troubles by their assurance of being justified and saved by only faith, which makes adulteries, Mur∣thers, rebellions &c. either no sins at all in them, or so venial that they are no sooner committed then pardoned, by a more plenary Jndulgence and Jubilee, then ever the Pope pretended to have power to grant, and without obligation of any satisfacti∣on, almes, fasting, or prayer for past offences, or any purpose of future amendment, that purpose being rendred not only su∣perfluous by their faith, but ridiculous by their doctrin, either of the impossibility of keeping God's Commandments, or by their Tenet of the necessary springing of good works from faith. And because this their Evangelical liberty, and indem∣nity

is not consistent with the words of St. Peter 2. Pet. 1. Bre∣thren labour the more that by good works you may make sure your vocation, They either make that Epistle apocryphall, or leave out of the Text in their Translations those two words, good works.

It is commonly sayd that though many stats-men be Atheists, yet they will never permit Atheism to be made the legal Re∣ligion of the state, because they know that men who do not believe there is a God, or providence, cannot be kept in awe of the government, or brought to observe any other laws but their own appetits, seing they neither feare punishment nor ex∣pect rewad in an other life for vice or virtue, and without this feare and hopes, the multitude cannot be govern'd in this world. The same reason concludeth that Protestant Politians ought not to make Protestancy the Religion of the state, civil government being rendred as difficult and contemptible by an indulgent and over-confident belief, as by non at all; He who persuads him∣self that faith alone is sufficient assurance of his saluation, and that such a faith once possess'd, can not be lost, will not a∣voyd the occasion, or resist the temptation of finning for his pleasure or profit; nor omit the oportunity of rebelling when∣soever it is offered with probability of success: so he be cauti∣ous in his vices and villanies, his justifying saith makes all his designs and devices conscientious; and if he can save him-self from being hang'd, his Protestant belief will secure him from being damn'd, or droun'd in Hell. How impossible it is to go∣vern a multitude where this is the Religion not only permitted but promoted,* 1.189 is evident by our late distempers. Could Tan∣ners, Tinkers, Taylors, Coblers, and Bruers, domineer, and possess peacebly these tree Kingdoms, and murther our lawfull and innocent King by a formality of Religion, laws, and justi∣ce, had not their wicked practises bin countenanced by the Protestant principles, and look't vpon as a restauration of Pro∣testancy vnto it's primitive purity? It is credibly reported of their Ring-leader and Regicide Cromwell, that he dyed without

remors of conscience, or signs of repentance for his monstruous villanies, because (sayd he to his Protestant Divine that assisted him in his last sickness) I am sure to be saved, seing I had once justifying faith, and could never loose it. Every resolut Rogue may attempt the most horrid crimes with hopes of prevailing amongst men whose principles are so presuming vpon mercy, and so applyable to mis-chief.

I know it will be answered by them in whom education hath created zeale for the protestant religion, or interest hath rendred obstinat in maintaining the same, that the principles and articles of protestancy are mistaken, and misapplyed not only by vs Catholiks, but even by those protestant Authors last quoted in the margents. To which we reply. 1. That no∣thing is more preiudiciall to the soule, and good government, then a religion subiect to so many mistakes, and so generally, and plausibly mistaken by it's own greatest Doctors. 2. We say that our being mistaken, is but their privat opinion which opinion though it were back't by a publick Act of their Church can pretend (at most,) but to probability; and so much they must also grant to our contrary censure, and Judgment of their justifying faith: and seing that of two probable opinions the generality of men follow that which favors most their particu∣lar inclinations, and interests, very few protestants will vary from the most favorable explanation, of iustifying faith, or will wave the comfort that the 11. Article of the Church of England affords to them in that particular, calling or canonising it a most wholsom doctrin, and very full of comfort.

K. James was a wise, and fore-seing Prince, and in the conference at Hampton-Court did countenance the Dean of Pauls, and the Bishop of London disputing against Doctor Rey∣nolds and others, that maintained the assurance of salvation (or predestination) by the protestant justifying faith; and yet not withstanding the King's dislike (noless politik then religious) of a principle so damnable to the soule, and dangerous to the state, it would not be condemned, nor censured, unless the 39.

Articles of religion, and the whole frame of English protestan∣cy were overthrown, as Doctor Reynolds made appeare; And indeed Mr. Perkins doth demonstrat (in his reformed Catholick (pag. 39.) the necessary connexion and continuance of the as∣surance of salvation with the protestant doctrin of justifying faith, in these words.

If vpon every aboad in sin the party be again vncertain of his salvation, then was the former certainty no certainty at all. For (his sin notwithstanding) he yet remembreth his former supposed certainty, and therfore if he was once truly assured, he can not during every his aboad in sin forget, how that he was so assured, which his only re∣membrance therof suffiseth to continue, and preserve his for∣mer supposed certainty even during his aboad in sin.

So that if Cromwel by his justifying faith was once sure of his salvation, or predestination, Protestants must believe he could never loose that assurance, and must grant that he went to heaven without any punishment (even in Purgatory) for his murthers, periury, hypocrysy, adulteries &c. Such a belief must needs raise other Cromwells; for who will not venture his life for a Crown, by the most vnjust means, when he is sure to be cron'd in God's glory, though, he miss of his ayme in this world, and perish in the attempt?

As it cannot be denyed but that these, and the like dan∣gerous consequences do naturally flow from this principle of Protestancy, so we must acknowledg and admire the extraordi∣nary skill and constancy of them▪ who sit at the helme, and steer the ship of this great Common-wealth so stedily in so tur∣bulent a sea, and stormy weather, against the most violent cur∣rents of perverse inclinations and principles: long may they con∣tinue their prosperous course; but surely them-selves do appre∣hend that at long running, no human industry will be able to escape the rocks and shelves wher vpon this great ship must be driven, If our Pilots, and Parliaments will be overruled by the loud and rude outcrys of the Scumme of the people, against Toleration, or liberty of conscience; and will think it sound

policy to condescend to their zeale, and raise protestancy to the height of it's principles, in particular to the purity of their justifying faith▪ which is of so great virtue, that it hath made Regicides and Rebells Saints in England, and Lords in Ireland; working in that miserable Kingdom stranger miracles, then are read of, in the Ghospel. It hath changed the very essence or nature of things, and defined Innocency and nocency by such new notions, that Adam before his fall (had he bin an Irish Catholik) would have bin declared nocent; wheras every Pro∣testant, however so guilty of rebellion and murther, is a Child of grace, and favour: no sin or crime must be imputed to him, his justifying faith saves and salves all▪ It hath turn'd a Con∣vention of Cromwell's officers into a Cavaleer House of Com∣mons: And though it hath not remov'd mountains, yet it hath ••••mov'd the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 nobility and gentry that had bin active in the King's service, unto mountains; and deprived most of them (since the King's restauration) of that smale pittance which had bin allowed to them by Cromwell, in Conaght. It hath made the rebellious and the Royal interest, on and the same thing, because forsoo••h, both are called an English and Protestant interests; and for as much as Oliver and Henry Cromwell were En∣glish Protestants, it's declared to be the King's interest that not only Cromwell's Officers, but that him-self, his son, and their Trusties and Assignes, ought to possess and enjoy Irish Cavaleers estates.

In England also this justifying faith hath wrought wonders; for though it hath not restored no one the ••ares he lost, and loft on the Pillory for his sedition, yet hath it restored him to such credit, that his word against Protestant Bishops and Catholik Cavaleers, is like to be made the vote of the House of Commons: and an other Presbiterian that formerly headed the table of London against the King, hath kindled such a fire in ••arliament that can hardly be quenched without the bloud of Innocents. And truly I should admire that such a Ca∣valeer Parliament as this is, doth not punish Presbiterian Per∣secutors as french Pensioners (for that by their persecution

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

slow in a Treaty of Confederacy with England, seing non can have greater security of performance of articles then was gi∣ven to the then Confederats of Irland, which signified nothing but a breach of the publick faith.

We shall not presume to discourse further of this subject then our Alleigance and affection lead vs to vindicat the Go∣vernment. How it agreeth with the Rules of Policy to make Ireland Protestant, many Protestants dispute, most resolve that Irish Popery would be a surer support to our King's soveraig∣nity in Irland then English and Scotsh Presbitery, or a forc't and feign'd conversion of Cromwell's Creatures to Prelacy and Monarchy. The great Earle of Strafford's opinion was, that it is the King of England's Interest, to make Irland a counter∣poyse against all rebellious attempts of his Protestant subjects; and to that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that the Irish ought to be countenanc'd even in their Religion, it's principles being so favorable to Monarchy, and irreconciliable to Presbitery; and by consequence therby all combinations and Covenants between Scotsh and English Sectaries may be prevented or suppressed, and the King with∣out any charge or care (only by ••ot persecuting Papists for their conscience) may secure the Irish to him-self; who if tre∣ated like other Subjects, would never think of domestick con∣spiracies, or seek foreign protections.

And as for England, we hope it shal never feele again the effects of Presbiterian policy, and piety, nor be govern'd by another long Parliament; yet he who best vnderstands the af∣faires and constitution of the Kingdoms, thinks it part of his trust and duty, to bid the Royalists be vigilant in their stati∣ons, and charges, not only for preventing and suppressing plots and insurrections, but much more to beware of Godly Par∣liaments composed of the purer sort of Protestants;* 1.190 such as her tofore by reforming and reducing Protestancy to it's primiti∣ve purity, and coherency with it's fundamental principles, ha∣ve in these Kingdoms destroyed both Monarchy, and morality. It seems (by the caution of this great Minister) these men

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

and Jacobus Andreas ad cap. 21. Lucae.* 1.191

And Luther him-self acknowledg the world groweth dayly worse, men are now more revengfull, covetous, licentious then they were ever before in the Papacy: And before, when we were seduced by the Pope, every man did willingly follow good works and now every man neither saith, nor knoweth any thing but how to get all to him-self by exactions, pillage, theft, lying, usury &c. And in his Colloq. Mensal. Germ. fol. 55. It is a wonderfull thing and full of scandal, that from the time in which the true doctrin of the Ghospel was first re∣called to light, the world should dayly grow wors.

Mr. Stubbes in his motives to good works, printend an. 1596. in his epi∣stle to the Lord Major of London, saith, that after his travaile in compassing all England round about, I found the people in most parts dissolut, proud, envious malisious covetous, ambiti∣ous, carless of good works &c.

Mr. Richard Jeffery in his Sermon at Paul's Cross 7. Octo∣ber printed 1604. pag. 31. saith.

I may freely speak what J have plainly seen in the cours of some travailes, and obser∣vation of some courses, that in Flanders was never more drunkness, in Italy more wantoness, in Iury more hypo∣cricy, in Turky more impiety, in Tartary more iniquity, then is practised generally in England, particularly in London; all this is seen in on of the worst ages wherin these Roman Catholick Religion was professed, see our Adversaries the Centurists Cent. 7. c. 7. col. 181. who say:

Although in this age the wor∣ship of God was darkn'd with man's traditions, and super∣stisions, yet the study to serve God and to live Godly and justly, was not wanting to the miserable common people &c. They were so attentive to their prayers as they bestowed al∣most the whole day there in &c. They did exhibit to the Magistrat due obedience, they were most studious of amity, concord, and Society, so as they would easily remit injuries, all of them were carefull to spend their time in honest va∣cation,

and labour, to the poore and strangers they were most courteous, and liberal, and in their judgments and contracts most true.

And Bucer in his Scripta Anglicana pag. 24. saith

The greatest part of the Reformed Ghospelers seemed to look after nothing by the Ghospel, but to be rid of that yoke of disci∣plin which was remaining in the Papacy, and to do all things according, to the lust of their flesh:

It was not then vn∣pleasing to them to heare that we are Iustified by faith in Christ, not by good works, which they in no wise did affect. We Ca∣tholicks do not pretend to have no evill-livers in our Church; but this we may say with truth, and (I hope) without offen∣ce, that the difference between Protestant and Catholick ••••••ll-livers is, that when Protestants sin, they do nothing but what they are encouraged vnto by their justifying faith, and the ot∣her principles of their Religion; but when Catholicks sin, they go against the known Tenets of their faith and profession. Even our Pardons, and Jndulgences, how-ever so plenary, are so far from encouraging vs to a continuance or relapse of sin∣ning, that they involue as a precedent and necessary condition, a serious and sincere repentance of our former offences, and a∣firm purpose and resolution of never returning to the like cri∣mes; and after all is don, we pretend to no such vndoubted certainty of being pardon'd either by confession or Indulgen∣ces (because we are not certain whether we do al as we ought) as Protestants presume to have of their justification and salua∣tion by only faith.

The nature of this justifying faith▪ and of other Prote∣stant principles considered▪ We Catholicks have reason to thanck God▪ that the prudence ••f the Prince, and moderation of his Ministers is so extraordinary, that it keeps the indiscreed zeal of a multitude so strangly principl'd, if not as much with in the limits of Christianity, and civility towards their fellow sub∣jects, as were to be wished, yet so that the execution of the sanguinary and penal statuts is not altogeather so distructive,

as the Presbiterians and others endeavor. Untill the genera∣lity of these Nations reflect vpon the impiety of the first Re∣formers, and vpon their own mistakes in preferring the mad fancies of a few dissolute Friars (concerning the nature of Chri∣stian faith) before the constant Testimony and doctrin of the whole visible Church, we cannot expect that they who govern so mistaken a multitude, can make justice the rule of the pu∣blick Decrees, which depend of the concurrence and acceptan∣ce of men, whose greatest care is to promote Protestancy and persecute Popery.

SECT. IX. Protestants mistaken in the consistency of Christian faith, humility, Charity, peace either in Church or state, with their making Scripture as in∣terpreted by privat persons, or fallible Synods, or fancied general Councells (composed of all discen∣ting Christian Churches) the rule of faith, and Iudg of Controversies in Religion. How every Protestant is a Pope; and how much also they are overseen in making the 39. Articles or the oath of Supremacy a distinctive sign of Loyalty to our Protestant Kings.

LVther, Zuinglius, Calvin, Cranmer and all others that pretended to reform the doctrin of the Church of Rome, seing they could not prove their new Religi∣ons, or Reformations by testimonies from antiqui∣ty, or by probability of Reason, were inforc't to imitat the example of all Heretiks, who (as S. Austin says

l. 1. de Trin. c. 3.) endeavour to defend their falls and deceitfull opi∣nions out of the Scriptures. If on shall ask any Heretick (saith that ancient Father Vincentius lyr: l. 1. cons. Haer. c. 35.) from whence, do you prove, from whence do you teach, that I ought to forsake the vniuersal and ancient faith of the Catholik Church? Pre∣sently he answereth, scriptum est, It is written; and forthwith he prepareth a thousand testimonies, a thousand examples, a thousand authorities, from the law, from the Apostles, from the Prophets. This shift is so ordinary and notorious, that Luther him-self (postill. Wittemberg. in 2. con. 8. Dom. post Trin. fol. 118. Dom. post Trin. fol. 118.) affirmeth,

the sacred Scripture is the book of Heretiks, because Heretiks are accustomed to appeale to that book, neither did there arise at any time any he∣resy so pestiferous, and so foolish, which did not endeavor to hide it self under the vaile, of Scripture.

And yet Luther, Calvin, Cranmer &c. finding nothing to say for them-selves, either in History, or Fathers: and seing Tradition so cleerly bent against them, that they could not name as much as on Parish or person which ever professed their pro∣testant doctrines, they appeal'd from the word of God (pro∣posed by the visible and Catholick Church and Coun••••ls) to their own Canon and Translations of Scripture; and from that sense of Scripture which the Church and Councells had fol∣low'd for 1500. years, to that which their own privat spirit, temporal interest, or fallacious reason di••••••ted to them-selves; and so did others that followed their examples, making every privat Protestant, or at least every refor••••d Congregation Judg of Scripture, Church, Councells, and Fathers; In so much that Luther (tom. 2. Wittemberg. cap. de Sacram. fol. 375. setteth down this rule for all Protestants to be directed 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪

The Governors of Churches and Pastors of Christ's sheep 〈◊〉〈◊〉 indeed power to teach, but the sheep must judge wh••••••er they propose the voice of Christ, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of strangers &c. Wherfore let Popes, Bishops, Councells, &c. decree, order, enact what they please, we shal not hinder, but we who are Christ's

sheep and heare his voice, will judge whether they propose things true and agreable to the voice of our Pastor; and they must yeeld to us, and subscribe and obey our sentence, and censure.

Calvin, though contrary to Luth•••• in many other things, yet in this doth agree, as being the ground wherupon all protestant Reformations must rely; in his lib. 4. Institut. cap. 9. §. 8. he says,

The definitions of Councels must be examined by Scripture, and Scripture interpreted by his rules and Spirit. The same is maintained by the Church of England as appears in the defence of the 39. Articles prin∣ted by authority 1633. wherin it is sayd pag. 103. Autho∣rity is given to the Church, and to every member of sound judgment in the same, to judg controversies of faith &c. And this is not the privat opinion of our Church, but also the judgment of our godly brethren in foreign Nations.

And by Mr. Bilson Bishop of Winchester (in his true difference &c. part. 2. pag. 353.) The people must be Discerners, and Judges of that which is taught.

How inconsistent this doctrin is with Christian faith, is evident by the pretended fallibility and fall of the visible Church which all Protestants do suppose, and must maintain, to make good the necessity and lawfullness of their own interpreta∣tions, and Reformations. For if the Roman Catholik, and ever Visible Church may, and from time to time hath erred (as the Church of England declares in the 39. Articles) no reformed Congregations, whether Lutheran, Presbiterian, or Prelatick can have infallible certainty but that them-selves have fallen into as great errors, as those which they have pretended to reform in the Roman Church: And if they have not infal∣lible certainty of the truth of their reformed doctrin, they can not pretend to Christianity of faith, that involves an assurance of truth▪ which assurance is impossible, if that the Church can be mistaken in it's proposall. So that Christianity of faith, in∣cluding as an essential requisit the vndoubted assurance of the truth of what is proposed by the Church▪ as revealed by God,

and Protestancy necessarily supposing fallibility, or possibility of error in that same Church and proposal; Christian faith is ther by rendred impossible, and the Protestant Doctrin demon∣strated 〈◊〉〈◊〉 be inconsistent with the nature of Catholick Religi∣on, with the certainty of Divine faith, and with the Autho∣rity of Christ's Church.

Neither is the Protestant doctrin in this particular less con∣sistent with Christian charity, and humility, then with Ca∣tholick faith. For, what judgment can be more rash, injuri∣ous, and contrary to Christian charity, then to assert, that so many holy and learned Doctors as have bin, and are confessed Papists (and even the whole visible Church for the space at least of 1000. years) could either ignorantly mistake, or would wilfully forsake the true sence of God's word, so cleerly shin∣ing in Scripture as every petty Protestant doth pretend? or what is more repugnant 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Christian modesty and humility, then that homely Doctors, and half witted wits should preferr their own privat opinions in matters of faith, before the com∣mon consent and belief of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Fathers of the Church, the De∣finitions of general Councels, the Tradition and testimony of so many ages? Jt is both a ridiculous and sad spectacle to see, how every student of the University that hath learn'•• to con∣ster 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉〈◊〉, or to quibble or scribble some-what in Greek, English or Latin, takes vpon him to talk of Reli∣gion, and to censure St. 〈◊〉〈◊〉, St. Austin, St. Christom &c. and contemn both ancient and modern Catholick Avthors, pre∣ferring before the whole Church, him-self, and his Po••antick Tutors, or Fellows▪ of Oxford, and Cambrige Coll••g••s. Nay the illiterat people, even the women are grown to that height of spiritual pride (an infallible 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Heresy) that they pitty our Popish ignorance, and fancy they can 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ with the Text of their English Bibles (falsly translated, and fondly interpreted) the greatest Roman Divines. So true is the saying of St. Hierom (in Epist. ad Paulinum) Scripture is the only art which all people teach before they have learn't. The pratling woman,

the old doting man &c. And therfore (advers. Lucifer.) bids men not flatter them-selves with quoting Scripture to confirm their opini∣ons, seing the Devill him-self made vse of God's word; which con∣sists more in the sense then in the letter.

How impossible is it to govern peaceably so pratling and presuming a Protestant multitude either in Church or state, is too manifest by the last experiences in England, wher the en∣deavours of reducing this Protestant arrogancy to some kind of reason, was the occasion, and object of the Rebellion. King Charles I. and his Councel for attempting to make the inferiors subordinat to their superiors, in doctrin and disciplin, and the subjects obedient to the laws of the land, were aspers'd as Pa∣pists, and destroy'd as enemies to the Evangelical liberty of Protestancy, and as subverters of the fundamental principles of the Reformation. Popish rebellions happen because the Pro∣motors therof fall from that fervor of their faith, and devotion which they ought to practise; but the English Protestant Re∣bellion was raised and continued by the most devout, pure, fervent, and zealous sort of Protestants, in persuance and main∣tenance of their Religion. Other rebellions are commonly vn∣expected chances, springing from a sudain fury or feare of des∣perat people, but the late Rebellion was, and is to this day, pre∣tended by many to have bin a pious, and sober proceeding (the King's murther only excepted) of the prudent and Re∣ligious men of the Nation, assembl'd in Parliament; and is so justifiable by the principles of Protestancy, that he must be thought not only a wise but a fortunat King of England that can prevent or suppress the like revolution in his Reign, so long as Protestancy doth reign with him.

The reason is as manifest as the experience, and the cause as the effect. For, if a Common-wealth were so instituted that every privat person might pretend (by his birth-right or Privi∣lege) to admit of no other Iudg or Interpreter of the laws, but him-self, or at least might lawfully and legaly appeale from all Courts of Judicature (even from the highest which is the

Parliament) to his own privat Judgment, what intollerable confusion would it breed? what justice, subordination, peace, propriety, or prosperity, could be expected in such a govern∣ment? The same laws and authority which ought to decide all differences, would be the subject and occasion of perpetual quarrells. This is the condition and constitution of Protestant Churches and States. Every privat person is a supreme Iudg of Religion, and sole Interpreter of Scripture; he may appeale both from Soveraigns; and Bishops; from their temporal and Ecclesiastical laws to his own privat judgment, or spirit; and him-self must determin the difference and conclude whether the Decrees of Church and State be agreable to God's word that is, to his own Interpretation therof, which commonly is byassed by privat interest, or some singular fancy of his own. And though the Governors and Clergy of his Church and Country tell him, he ought to suspend his judgment, and sub∣mit the same to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Parliament, or to a general Councel, not like that of Trent, but to one composed of all Nations and Christian Congregations, called by the joynt author••••y of all temporal Princes (but in the mean time he must 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to the Decrees of the Church and state, wherof he is a member) when they inculcat this lesson vnto a zealous Protestant•• 〈…〉〈…〉 not so simple as to believe that they who read this 〈◊〉〈◊〉, speak as they think or that they believe any such general Coun∣cel is possible; for that every 〈◊〉〈◊〉 knows, temporal Princes will never agree about the President, time, place, and other circumstances of such a Counce•••• and though they should, (and the Turck and other Infidels give way to such a s••spiti∣ous Assembly of Christians) yet when they m••t••, nothing could be resolu'd ••or want of their agrement in a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of judging of controversies; every sect ••••icking to it's own principles and pro∣per sence of Scripture. So tha•• every Protestant vnderstands the design of this doctrin to be but a fetch of their own Cler∣gy, to make it-self in the mean time sol•• Judg of Religion, contrary to the principles and privileges of Protestancy, and

therfore laugh at the folly of such a proposal, and pretext. We Roman Catholicks need no such Devices, nor delays: we are content to submit to such general Councels, as may be had; our Popes and Councels define according to the tradition and sense of Scripture of the true Church; our Censures must sup∣pose known causes, and crimes; and if with all these cautions the Pop's spiritual jurisdiction is thought to be so dangerous to the soveraignty of Kings, and peace of subjects (least forsooth, it might be indirectly applyed to temporal matters) that all Protestants vpon that score renounce the Papal authority; with how much more reason ought every one to renounce his own judicature of Religion and Scripture tyed to no rules, but to his own discretion, and to an indiscernable and privat spirit. There is greater danger that Protestants may abuse this spiritual Soveraignty, by an indirect application therof to temporal af∣faires, then the Pope his; who being a stranger, and at such a distance, can not (if he would) have the conveniencies, o∣portunities, and occasions of plotting rebellion, which Natives and subjects may lay hold on, with less danger of a discovery, and greater hopes of success.

It is sayd that in time of a Parliament wherin many of the lower House stood vpon higher termes then was thought convenient for the state, though warranted by the purest Pro∣testancy, a Gentleman presented a petition to King James, who seemed to admire that any would sue to him, in a time ther were (as his Majesty said) three hundred Kings sitting in the House of Commons, and therfore bid the Gentleman repaire thither for relief. We see in the late long Parliament how so∣me few membres of the House of Commons prevail'd against K. Charles I. in his own Court and Citty, by making them-selves popular, vpon the score of the Protestant Religion, and Scrip∣ture. How afterwards these and their faction were supplanted by Cromwell's sense of Scripture, and how that he wanted on∣ly the name of King. How after his death every Commander had hopes to succeed him in this power and Protectorship, and

without question some might, had not the Duke of Albermal•• bin so honest. We have grounds therfore to say that every Protestant that hath wit, and valor, and will take hould of the advantages of his Religion, may hope to be a King, or Pro∣tector; and we cannot but admire that any states-man doth ex∣cept against the Roman Catholick Tenets, for admitting of one Pope, wheras according to the ground and principles of all Protestant Reformations, there are as many Popes as Pro••••stants, and every one of them much more absolute then the Bishops of Rome, and their supremacy less consistent whith the security of Princes, and peace of the people, then his spiritual juris∣diction.

Besids; the stay and security of a state consists in a dis∣creet distribution of publick charges and employments; and this, in the choyce of persons qualified with such signs of con∣science, and loyalty, as can hardly be counterfeited, or mis∣applied; wherof the principal is the profession of the Religion of the state; therfore we see non trusted in weighty affaires of the Common-wealth, but such as are of the Prince his Reli∣gion. But if that Religion have no certain rule, or only such a rule that maks men of no certain Religion, it can be no more a sign of conscience and loyalty, or fit to direct ••he King and Councell in their choyce of persons for their purpose and ••ust, then a plume of feathers, or a garniture of ribands fancied for it's colours. The reason is obvious and concluding▪ because the security of a King, and the prosperity of his Kingdoms, is grounded vpon the loyalty of his subjects, and servants, who are intrusted with secret designs, and publick employments, both in the civill and military list; their loyalty is directed by their conscience; their conscience by their Religion; their Re∣ligion by their rule of faith: If therfore their rule of faith be but their own fancy of Scripture, or Scripture as it is inter∣preted by every man's privat judgment, without any obligati∣on of conscience to submit to the contrary interpretation of their national Syn•••• or Church (because neither of them pre∣tend

to be infallible) then loyalty, conscience, religion, go∣vernment, and King, are as subject to the changes of fortune, and animosities of faction, as the fickle fancy of every privat person is apt to vary according to his weackness of Iudgment, or strength of passion, and to declare for that party which will be most for his interest.

This inconstancy of the reformed Religions is acknowled∣ged by them-selves. Duditius a learned and zealous protestant, quoted and highly commended by Beza for his piety and ele∣gant witt (ep. 1. ad Andraeam Duditium pag. 13.) lamenteth the condition of his reformed Brethren, in these words.

They are carryed about with every wind of doctrin, now to this part, now to that; whose Religion what it is to day you may perhaps know, but what it will be to morrow, neither you nor they can certainly tell. & pag. 5. ep. Bezae cit. In what head of Religion do they agree that impugn the Roman Bishop? If you examin all from the head to the foot you shal almost find nothing affirmed by on, which another will not averr to be wicked. And, their Divines do dayly differ from them-selves, Menstruam fidem habentes, coyning a monthly faith.

"Now what smale hopes there are of remedying, this mis-fortune, Sands ingeniously confesseth in his relation (fol. 82.))

The Papists have the Pope as a common Father, Adviser, and Conductor, to reconcile their jarrs, to decide their differences, to draw their Religion by consent of Coun∣cels vnto vnity &c. wheras on the contrary side Protestants are as severed or rather scattered troups, each drawing a∣diverse way, without any means to pacify their quarrels: no Patriarch; one or more, to have a common superintendance or care of their Churches for correspondency and vnity; no ordinary way to assemble a generall Councel of their part, the only hope remaining ever to assuage their contention.

To this we may add the saying of Melancton, as remarkable as true, Quos fugiamus habemus, sed quos sequamur non intelli∣gimus, we know who we should avoyd (meaning the Papists)

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

Religions is, to believe what you think fit according to your best vnderstanding of a writing you can not vnderstand by any human and privat industry of your own, and will not learn from any publik authority of the Church, because by follow∣ing the interpretation of the Church you fancy that you may be mistaken) so that for feare of being mistaken in, or by pu∣blick authority, the protestant either falls into obstinacy in his own privat opinion, or into an indifferency for all opinions, and so becoms to be an Heretick, or of no Religion.

Among the protestant Confessions of faith, the 39. Ar∣ticles of the prelatick Church of England is estem'd an excel∣lent piece; and yet the same Articles acknowledg that the visible Church of God hath erred, and may err from time to time; and by consequence the prelatick may have erred in this very as∣sertion, as in most of the 39. Articles. How this acknowled∣ged vncertainty of truth can agree with the certainty or Chri∣stianity of faith, or with any hopes of salvation, I can not comprehend. But albeit these articles seem as insufficient for salvation, as men are vncertain of their truth, yet are they thought usefull to the government; for, though they want the substance, (that is, the certainty) of faith, yet they have the face of religion, and formality of law; because they talk of God, Christ, Trinity &c. And are confirmed by acts of Parlia∣ment. But that which makes them to be so much insisted vpon, is, that they are so indifferent, and appliable to all Protestant Religions, that with much reason he is censured a very wilfull Presbiterian, and fanatick, who will not submit, and subscri∣be to articles so indulgent, and indifferent. Therfore not on∣ly now but formerly in the beginning of all distempers groun∣ded vpon Diversitie of Protestant opinions, it was thought good policy to commit the 39. Articles to the press, therby to plea∣se all dissenting parties; and this hath bin practised not only in Queen Elizabeth, and King Iames Reigns, but also in King Charles I. an 1640. when the rebellion began to break forth, and was cloak't with the authority of a legall Parliament, as

well as with the zeal of the Protestant Religion against the Church of England. And an. 1633. when the Symptoms of that rebellion were first discerned, there was printed, by special Com∣mand, a Book setting forth, the agreement of the 39. Articles with the doctrin of other reformed, but rebellious Churches of France, Germany, Netherlands, Basil, Bohemia, Swethland, Suitzerland &c. The Title of the book is, the Faith, Doctrin, and Religion, professed and protected in the realm of England and Dominions of the same, expressed in the Articles &c. The sayd Articles analized into propositions; and the propositions proved to be agreable both to the writen word of God, and to the extant confessions of all the neighbour Churches Chri∣stianly reformed. Perused, and by the lawfull authority of the Church of England, allowed to be publick, London. printed by John Legatt. 1633.

So that no mervaile if the 39. Articles have not proved to be a better antidot against Rebellion, then we have seen by experience, they being so agreable to the doctrin of Churches raised and maintained by rebellious people and principles against their vndoubted lawfull Soveraigns.

The French Hugonot Ministers in their assembly at Bema 1572. decree that in every citty all should sweare not to lay down arms as long as they should see them persecute the do∣ctrin of salvation &c. In the mean time to govern them-selves by their own protestants rules. See Sutcliff in his answer to a li∣bel supplicatory. pag. 194.

See the Catholick doctrin of the Church of England art. 19. pag. 94. agreeing here in with Confes. Helvet. 2. Saxon. art. 11. Wittemberg. art. 32. Sueu. art. 15. all quoted ibid. pag. 95. Dresterus the Protestant writer in part. 2. Nullenarii sexti pag. 661. acknowledgeth that all the warrs of Germany against the Emperour and lawfull Soveraigns happned ex mutatione Religio∣nis Pontificiae in Lutheranam. See Crispinus of the Churches estate pag. 509. how the reformed Church of Basil was founded by the rebellion of some Burgesses against the Catholick Sena∣tors

whom they ejected &c. The Rebellion of Holland and the other Protestant Provinces, is well known, as also of Geneva, Zuitzers, or Helvetians. See Chitreus in Cron. an. 1593. & 1594. pag. 74. & seq. How the King of Swethland being a Catholick, was by his Subjects the Lutherans forc't so content him-self with Mass in his in his privat Chapell, and to assent, that no Ca∣tholick should beare office in that Kingdom, and at length an other made King.

We may say without either vanity or flattery, that were it possible to maintain the Soveraignty of a King, the peace and prosperity of a people togeather with the principles of Prote∣stancy, the English Nation would have don it, wanting nei∣ther witt or judgment to find out the expedients after long experience (of 100. years) since the pulling down of Popery; and yet we see that nothwithstanding the wisedom of them who govern, the learning of the Clergy, the worth of the gentry, the sincerity of the common sort, and the natural inclination to loyalty of the whole Nation, since Protestancy came among vs we have violated the laws of nature and Nations, we have by publick acts of State don many things, wherof but one perpetrated by a privat person (whithout any countenance from the governement) were sufficient to make not only him-self, but his whole family, and Country infamous; Murthers of Soveraigns by a formality of justice, breach of publick faith for the Protestant interest, were never heard of in England, nor acted by English men vntil they were Protestants: Therfore the infamy, and reproach therof must be left at the doores of the English Protestant Church, without blaming our English Nation, or nature. It is the nature of an arbitrary Religion to pervert good natures; It confounds the state more then any arbitrary government. The worst of arbitrary governments have some regard to the honour, and word of the Prince, and to the publick faith. An arbitrary religion dispenseth with all▪ An arbitrary government is reduced to one supreme; an arbi∣trary government doth pretend reason for the Prince his Com∣Commands,

an arbitrary Religion by pretending to be above reason, commands against reason.

How arbitrary and applicable all Protestant Religions are to every particular interest, and fancy, notwithstanding their publick professions and confessions of faith, is visible by the 39. Articles of the Church of England, that hitherto could neither setle the judgments of subjects in any on certain belief, nor tye them to their duty and alleigance to the lawfull Prin∣ce, though the sayd articles wanted no countenance of law to gain for them authority; And yet the profession of the 39. Articles togeather with the oath of supremacy, is made the distinctive sign of truth and loyalty in our English Monarchy. But the Articles being applicable to contrary religions and in∣terests, and an oath asserting a thin•• so incredible as the spiri∣tual supremacy of a lay Soveraign, must needs expose the go∣vernment to continual dangers that flow from a plausible and popular tenderness of conscience, and from the contempt of so indifferent and improbable a Religion; and therfore though ma∣ny do abhorr, yet few do admire, our late King's mis-fortune, his Majesty having grounded his Soveraignty, and security vp∣on Councellors, servants, and souldiers (of whose fidelity he had no other evidence but the profession of 39. Articles so vn∣certain, that they signified nothing, and dispensed with every thing) and an oath of a jurisdiction so incredible, that they who took it either vnderstood not what they swore, or if they did (by swearing a known vntruth) disposed them-selves to violat all oaths of alleigance, and learn't in all other promises to preferr profit before performance, conveniency before con∣science▪ Were not this true, and were the prelatik Religion (with all it's laws, and oath's) capable of establishing Mo∣narchs, or of making subjects loyal, and servants faithfull, how were it possible that so just and innocent a King as Charles 1. (The ancientest by succession and inheritance of all Christen∣dom) should be so generally and vnworthyly betray'd by them that profess'd the 39. Articles, and took the oaths of suprema∣cy

and alleigance? By the laws of the land it is enacted, (and accordingly practised,) that non be permitted to vote in Par∣liament, or trusted with any employment in the state, who professeth not the prelatick Protestant Religion, and swears not the Supremacy and Alleigance: And yet we see how litle this Religion and oaths wrought vpon the generality of these King∣doms, or availed the late King. None that vnderstands the genius of the English Nation will believe, that by nature they are so base, and treacherous, as of late the world hath obser∣ved. Therfore what they have don amiss, so contrary to the generosity, and honesty of their dispositions, and to the rules of Christianity, must be attributed to their Religion. Wher∣fore it must be concluded, that any outward sign, though it be but a red scarf, or garniture of ribands of the King's co∣lours, doth engage and confirm more the subjects and souldiers in their duty, and loyalty, then the 39. Prelatick Articles, and the oath of supremacy. A Rebell, or Roundhead, may, t'is true, weare the King's colours, but not with so great dan∣ger to his Majesty, or dommage to the publick, as when he professeth the King's Religion. Very few Englishmen will fly from the King's colours they once weare and profess to esteem, but many that profess the 39. Articles will fight against the Prelatick interpretation therof, for their own privat sense, and against that of the King and Church of England: So appli∣cable are the 39. Articles to all dissenting Reformations, and so pliable to every Rebellion that is grounded vpon any pre∣tence of Scripture.

SECT. X. How the fundamental principles of the Protestant Reformations maturely examined, and strictly fol∣lowed, have led the most learned Protestants of the world, to Iudaisme, Atheisme, Arianisme, Mahometanisme &c. and their best modern wits and writers to admit of no other Rule of Reli∣gion but Natural Reason; and the Protestants Churches of Poland, Hungary, and Transilva∣nia, to deny the Mystery of the Trinity.

SEbastian Castalio, termed by Osiander (in epitom. pag. 753.) Vir apprimè doctus, linguarum peritissi∣mus. Ranked by Doctor Humfrey (In vita Ivelli pag. 265.) with Luther and Zuinglius; and pla∣ced by Pantaleon (in Chronographia pag. 123.) amongst the Fathers and lights of the Church; this great and learned Protestant, having considered the Prophecies mentioned in Scripture, of the conversion of Kings and Nations by the Christian Church, and of it's happy state, splendor, and continuance, and compared all with the very foundation and first principle of protestancy, to wit, with the protestant supposition of a generall apostacy, and fall of the visible Church from the true faith, and their remaining in superstition and idolatry for so many centuries of years, together with the invisibility of the Protestant Church vntill Luther, and (by consequence) it's not

converting any visible Kings or nations from Paganisme to Christianity; having I say, maturely considered these things, was so perplex'd, and doubtfull in point of God's providence and veracity, that he came at length to believe nothing, as may be seen in his Preface of the great latin Bible dedicated to K. Edward 6. where he saith:

verily we must confess, eyther that these things shall be performed herafter, or have bin already, or that God is to be accused of lying: If any may answer that they have bin performed; I will demand of him, when? If he sayd in the Apostles time; I will demand how it chanceth, that neither then the knowledg of God was altogether perfect, and after in so short space vanished away, which was promised to be eternall, and more abundant then the flouds of the sea? And concludeth; the more I peruse the Scriptures, the less do I find the same performed, howsoever you vnderstand the same prophecies.

Martin Bucer one of the primitive and prime Protestants, And an Apostle of the English reformation, of whom Sir Iohn Cheek K. Edward 6. Master, says, the world scarce had his fellow, and whom Arch-bishop Whitgift (in his defence &c. pag. 522.) termeth a Reverend, learned, painfull, sound Father &c. this great Bucer after his first Apostasy from his Dominican order, and Catholik Religion, became a Lutheran; afterwards a Zvinglian; as appaereth in his epistle 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Norimb. & ad Ess••ingenses; Then he returned again to be a Lutheran, as may be seen in the Acts of the Synod holden at Luther's house in Wittemberg. an. 1539. and in Bucer's own Comentaries vpon the 6. John. and 26. Ma∣thew, where he asketh pardon of God and the Church, for that he deceived so many with the error of Zuinglius, and the Sa∣cramentarians; And notwithstanding this open repentance, he returned again to the same Zuinglianism in England, and ther∣fore is reprehended by Schlusselburg (in Theol. Calv. lib. 2. fol. 70.) At length seeing the incertainty of Christianity wherunto by protestancy he had driven him-self, and others that stuck to it's principles, at the houre of his death he embraced Judaisme,

as they who were present therat, testify, saith Prateolus (pag. 107.) He declared long before to Dudley Earle of Warwick, that he doubted whether all was true that the Evangelists relate of Christ. wherof see hertofore. part. 1.

David George who for many years had bin a pious and publik Professor of Protestancy at Basil, and [a] 1.192 called a man of God, for his notorious charity to the poore and sick, consi∣dering and comparing the aforesaid doctrin of protestancy with the prophecies of Scripture concerning the visible Church, be∣came a blasphemous Apostata; and affirming our Saviour to have bin a seducer, drew many Protestants to his opinion, convin∣cing them by their own principles, and this argument. [b] 1.193 Jf the doctrin of Christ and his Apostles had bin true and perfect, the Church which they planted should have continued, &c. But now it is manifest that Antichrist hath subverted the doctrin of the Apostles and the Church by them begun; as is evident in the Papacy: therfore the doctrin of the Apostles was falls and imperfect.

Bernardin Ochin one of them whose opinions were Oracles to the Composers of the 39. Articles of Religion, and the li∣turgy of the Church of England, so much celebrated for his learning and piety, that the Protector Seamor and Arch-bishop Cranmer called him out of Germany, to help them in their Protestant reformation; termed by Bishop Bale a light of the Church, and England happy whilst it had him, miserable when it lost him, highly commended for learning and virtue by Simlerus, and Sleydan l. 9. fol. 297. and by Calvin l. de scandalis, &c. This Ochin whom as Calvin writ, all Italy could not match, this light whose presence made England happy, and whose absence made it miserable; this very Ochin, considering well the principles of protestancy, became a Jew; concluding that Christ never had a Church vpon earth. When I did (saith he in praefat. Dialo∣gorum) consider how Christ by his power, wisdom, and goodness had founded and established his Church, washed it with his bloud, and enriched it with his spirit; and again discerned how the same was (funditus eversa) vtterly over thrown, I could not but wonder,

and being desirous to know the cause, J found there had bin Popes. And proceeding from this conceipt of the Popes prevailing a∣gainst Christ in vtter overthrow of the whole visible Church, he concludeth that he who founded and purchased the Church with such pains, and at so deere a rate, could not be Christ, because he wanted power or providence to preserve it, and ther∣fore Ochin tourned Iew and taught circumsion and Polygamy.

Upon the same motives [c] 1.194 Adam Neuserus a most lear∣ned Protestant, and chief Pastor of Heydelbergh, turned Turk, and was circumsised at Constantinople, persuading many of his flock to become Mahometans. [d] 1.195 Allemanus esteemed, and beloved by Beza for his learning, seing that the predictions of the Prophets were not fulfilled in the Protestant Churches, and being resolved not to be a Papist, held that the Messias was not come, and so renouncing Christianity became a blasphe∣mous Iew.

Calvin, the Oracle of Protestant learning, and the most plausible Reformer of Popery, is not only by Catholicks but by sundry Protestants charged with Judaism, in so much that the famous Protestant Writer Egidius Hunnius Doctor and pu∣blick Professor in the University of Wittembergh, and chief Dis∣putant in the conference of Ratisbone against the Catholicks, writ a Book intituled Calvinus Judaizans: And another Pro∣testant book was printed 1586▪ and reprinted 1592. the Au∣thor wherof is the learned Ioannes Modestinus, and it's Title, A Demonstration out of God's word, that the Calvinists are not Christians, but only baptized Jews and Mahometans: and an ot∣her very learned Protestant John Scutz (in lib. 50. causarum cap. 48.) affirmeth, Mahometism, Arianism, and Calvinis∣m, to be brothers and Sisters, and three pair of hose made of one cloath.

The Calvinists do, and may say the same of the Lutherans, and of every other Sect of Protestants; they are all made of one cloath, and differ only in the fashion, according to the diver∣sity of their fancies. They all agree in cloathing and cover∣ing their errors with Scripture, but some like one mode, some an other. Calvin and his faction seem to approve most of the Arian, to which also most Protestants incline, by reason of difficulty they find in the Mystery of the Trinity, explained after the Catholick manner; But non of them will tye him∣self to an others fashion, seing their Rule of faith is their own fancy. Wherfore notwithstanding the Confessions of faith of their sundry Churches, they do not hold them-selves obliged to Profess that, or any faith longer then it agreeth with every on's privat sense of Scripture, which he changes as often as fur∣ther

study, information, or seeming reason moves him to the contrary. So that not only Mahometism, Arianism, and Calvinism, are three paire of hose made of one Cloath, accor∣ding to Scutz expression, but his Lutheranism, and all other Protestant Reformations are remnants of the same piece, with different trimmings and patches; and though they be hose this day, to morrow they would perhaps be Turbants, or Jews garments, had not those formes and fashions bin so generally cry'd down, as ridiculous in these parts of the world, that the learned Protestants, who think them more Religious then their own, despaire of ever making them the mode. So true it is, that the bare letter of Scripture without Tradition (the rule of faith) makes men Hereticks, Turcks, Jews, and the worst of Infidells.

The learned Protestants who are not Iews, Turks, or A∣rians, become Atheists, or meer Rationalists; Because there is not any thing moves learned men so much either to A∣theism, or to have no Religion but naturall reason, as the di∣versity of Religions, and the confessed vncertainty of such as are professed. The interpretation of Scripture and Fathers be∣ing left by their principles of the Reformation to every par∣ticular person's discretion, maks Protestants differ as much in Christian belief as in human opinions, concerning any ordinary, and obscure matter; and their supposition of the fall of the vi∣sible Church into errors of doctrin, togeather with the ac∣knowledged fallibility, and vncertainty of their own Congrega∣tions, takes away (as we proved in the last Section) all cer∣tainty, and Christianity of belief. What doubt therfore can be made but that such learned Protestants as turn not Jews, Mahometans, or Arians, will either become Atheists, Socinians, or meer Rationalists? such as observe that the Prophecies sett-down in Scripture concerning the spendor, extent, and propa∣gation of Christ's Church vpon Earth, are not accomplished in their own petty Reformations, and withall are so peevish, and maliciously bent against the Roman Catholick faith, as not to

examin it's truth, turn Jews, Mahometans, or Atheists; But such as are ashamed or afraid to renounce the name of Chri∣stians, and yet are as obstinat against the Roman Catholick do∣ctrin, as the aforsaid Protestants, fall from on reformed sect to an other; and at length perceiving there is no reason to pre∣ferr on before an other, renounce all, and rely only vpon their own reason; most of them follow Chillingworth, Fauck∣land, Stilling-fleet, and become Socinians, denying or doubting of Christ's Divinity, and are driven to that impiety, partly by the incoherency of the Protestant Tenets, and partly by their contempt of Tradition; but most of all by the foolish pre∣sumption of their own wit and judgment, and by that secret pride so manifest in Protestants, and proper to Hereticks.

There is not any one Protestant Writer, in whose works you may not find this heretical Strain. Neither is it to be ad∣mired that men whose Religion is occasioned by pride, and grounded vpon singularity of judgment, do betray and de∣clare those passions in their discourses, they being the chief in∣gredients of their Symbols and the Conclusions most cleerly deduced from their principles. I will omit all others at pre∣sent, and only mention a passage of Socinus against Volanus (pa. 2.) wherin you may see to what a pass Protestants are brought by their own proud and privat spirit, and by their contempt of Catholick Tradition. Thus therfore he saith.

To what pur∣pose should I answer that which thou borrowest from the Papists &c. especially where thou opposest to vs the perpe∣tuall consent of the Church? very excellently doubtless in this behalf hath Hosius (a Papist) discours'd against you, wounding you with your own sword. And therfore you are no less fals in urging against us, the Churches perpetual consent (for the Divinity of Christ) then are the Papists in their vrging therof against you and vs. And ibid. pag. 222. We propose to vs in this question (concerning the Divinity of Christ) non for Master or Interpreter, but only the holy Ghost &c. we do not think that we are to stand to the judgment

of any men though never so learned, of any Councels though in shew never so holy, and lawfully assembled, of any visi∣ble Church, though never so perfect and vniversall.

Even Uolanus himself disputing against the Iesuits, is inforced to reject the examples, sayings, and deeds, of Athanasius, Hierom, Austin, Theodoret, and other Fathers, whose authority he now oppo∣seth against vs, as sacred. Thus much have I thought good to remember, that Volanus may receive answer from himself, when he so often inforceth against vs the authority of learned men, and the consent of the Church, &c. And truly Socinus doth defend his error concerning Christ, with as many and as cleer texts of Scripture (not vnderstood in the sense of the Roman Catholick Church) as any point of Protestancy is maintained by other Protestants.

The Puritans (now called Presbiterians) vse the same way of arguing against the Prelatiks, and with no less success, then socinus against Volanus, as may be seen in Cartwright in his se∣cond reply against episcopacy (p. 1. pag. 484.) And that it may appear (saith he) how justly we call this Canon of the Councell (the first generall of Nice, in the Canon touching the Metro∣politan which the Prelatiks vrged in favor of Episcopacy) vnto the tuch stone of the word of God, let it be considered &c. In the same Councell appeareth that to those chosen of the ministery vnmar∣ried, it was not lawfull to take any wife afterwards &c. Paphnu∣tius sheweth, that not only this was before that Councell, but was an ancient Tradition of the Church, in which both him-felf and the whole Councell rested &c. If the ancient Tradition of the Church can not authorise this, neither can ancient custome authorise the other.

The Prelatick Clergy would fain hould Episcopacy by virtue of Tradition, and of the authority of the Nicen Coun∣cell, and yet would have Priests marry, contrary to the same tradition, and authority. In like manner, as the same Mr. Cart∣wright well observeth (ibid. pag. 582.) the Bishops of the Church of England would needs have the Nicen Councell be of sufficient authority to maintain Arch-Bishops, but not the

Pope, wheras the on is as cleerly expressed as the other, and no less necessary for the government of the Church.

If (saith he) an Arch-Bishop be necessary for calling a Provincial Councell, when the Bishops are divided; it is necessary there be also a Pope, which may call a generall Councell when di∣vision is among the Arch-Bishops; for when the Churches of one Province be divided from other (as you ask me, so I ask you) who shall assemble them togeather? who shall ad∣monish them of their duties, when they are assembled? If you can find a way how this may be don without a Pope, the way is also found, wherby the Church is disburdned of the Archbishop.

When Prelaticks dispute with Presbiterians about Episco∣pacy and ceremonies &c. they extoll the four first general Coun∣cells; but when they dispute with Roman Catholicks, about the vnmarried life of Priests, the Pop's supremacy, or any other point of Popery, then they extenuate the authority of the same Councells, and will admitt of no other rule of faith but Scripture. So that a Prelatick Protestant against Presbiterians is a Papist, and against Papists is a Presbiterian: what he is, or would be if both did argue against him at the same time, is not well known to me (nor as I suppose to him-self;) but if he admits of the two main pillars wherby protestancy is supported, which are the pre∣tended fall and fallibility of the visible Church, and the arbi∣trary interpretation of Scripture, he may be any thing he plea∣ses; and (to speak more modestly of him then Modestinus of Calvinists) he is in a faire way to be a baptised Iew, Mahome∣tan, or Arian, and can not miss that way, if he will be gui∣ded by the Protestant principles, and follow the track of the most learned of the reformation. Both Luther [a] 1.196 and Calvin dislik't the word Trinity, on sayd it sounded couldly, the other barbarously; and Luther by omitting in his Translation of the new Testament this Text of Scripture. There-be three which give witness in heaven, the Father, the word, and the holy Ghost, and these three be one, sheweth how little inclined he was to be∣lieve

that sacred Mystery; and by saying that his soule hated Homusion and that the Arians did very well (b) 1.197 to reject that new and profane word from the rules of faith, he declareth how his Protestant rule and reformation doth direct men to heresy and to all kind of infidelity; for, there is not a more refined heresy then Scripture mis-interpreted, and mis-applyed; and Scripture may be as easily mis-interpreted and mis applyed ag∣ainst the Trinity, or the second Person's equality, and consubstan∣tiality, as applied to any on point of Protestancy. The Anti-Trinitarians of Poland, Transilvania and Hungary think them∣selves as good Calvinists as any French Hugonots, and better Protestants then English Prelaticks, or German Lutherans; becau∣se they not only agree with all reformed Churches in the Fun∣damentalls of Protestancy (that is, in supposing the Apostacy of the Catholick Church, and in reforming it by privat autho∣rity, and their own interpretation of Scripture) but go a step further in the Reformation, by denying the Trinity. By the principles of Protestancy, and the practise of the first Protestant Reformers, it is left to the choyce and discretion of every par∣ticular Church and person, what articles of Popery are fitt to be rejected by their privat interpretation of Scripture: and in∣deed it is impossible for men not tyed to any rule but to their own fancies of Scripture, to agree in the points of Popery what to reject or retain. They who confine with the Turk's Dominions, venture to deny the Trinity, and the Divinity of Christ, and laugh at their brethrens arguments (against their impiety) as deduced only from Tradition, Councells, and Fathers and call them old Roman raggs long since torn in pieces (by the Protestants them-selves) in other points of Protestancy &c. Hi sunt vetusti panni quos vos laceratis in aliis fidei articulis &c. & lacerata jamdudum calceamenta. (Nullus & Nemo H. 9.) They are (say they) patcht showes worn out long agon, but heer in England, France &c. where no neighboring Nations deny the Trinity, or Incarnation, Protestants make those Mi∣steries fundamental articles of faith; but in Transilvania, and

Hungary, The principles of Protestancy are not kept in such awe as heer, they make bold there to apply Scripture against any mysteries of Christianity.

Wherfore we must not admire that they (as Mr. Hooker tells vs Eccles. Pol••••. l. 4. pag. 183.) Of the reformed Churches of Poland,* 1.198 think the very belief of the Trinity to be a part of Anti-Christian corruption, and that the Pop's triple Crown is a sensible mark wherby the world might know him to be that misticall Beast spoken of in the Revelation, in no respect so much as in his doctrin of the Trinity: Nor when they say that St. Athanasius his Symbol is the Symbol of Sathan; and brag that Luther did scarce vntile the Babilonian Jower (of Rome) but that they do vtterly demolish it, and dig vp its very foundation. By which words they give cleerly to vnderstand, that the Protestants of Germany, England, Denmark &c. are but superficial Protestants and are as yet far short of that substantial, and fundamental Reformation wher∣vnto the principles of Protestancy, and the Protestant rule of faith, or an arbitrary interpretation of Scripture, doth direct, and incline all Churches of the Reformation. As for our En∣glish Presbiterians and Fanaticks, they agree with the Polonian, Hungarian, and Transilvanian protestant Arrians, and Anti-Trinitarians, in believing the Protestant Reformations can not be pious, and perfect, so long as they retain any on point of Popery; and indeed there is as much reason and ground in Scripture to reject all, as any on; and the Protestant princi∣ples warant the deniall of the Trinity, and Incarnation, as well as of the Mass and Transubstantiation. The prelaticks percei∣ve this to be true, and therfore in the 39. Articles (to avoyd scandal and discredit) profess the belief of many mysteries, that according to the very foundation of their Reformation they ought to deny; and though they seem not to be guilty of impiety in their resolution of retaining some, yet are they con∣victed of incoherency in not rejecting all, as we shall now ma∣nifestly prove.

SECT. XI. How the indifferency, or rather inclination, of Pro∣testancy to all kind of infidelity, is further de∣monstrated by the Prelatick doctrin, and distin∣ction of fundamental and not fundamental articles of faith. The design of their fundamental distin∣ction layd open. The Roman Catholick, the sole Catholick Church; and how it hath the authority of iudging all controversies of Religion.

VNity of doctrin being a confessed mark of the true Church, which is called One in relation to one and the same faith; and Protestants perceiving they want this vni∣ty, and the means to bring them to it, (eve∣ry particular Church and person challenging a right to interpret Scripture after his own manner, as well as Luther and Calvin &c. who could not as∣sume to them-selves that liberty without granting it to others) and that not only their sundry Churches and confessions differ extreamly in doctrin, but even the members of one and the same Congregation agree not among them-selves in the expla∣nation of their Articles, nor in the Authority of their Church, to command and determin, what articles ought to be belie∣ved; this I say considered by Protestants, some of their chief writers (and particularly the English Prelaticks) have invented a distinction wherby they hope to foole their flocks, and make

them believe, that there is not only an vnity, but an vniver∣sality of faith amongst all dissenting Protestants, and by con∣sequence that they are true Catholicks. They divide therfore the articles of Christian Religion into fundamentall, and not fundamentall. Fundamentall they call those, wherin all Christi∣ans do agree: not fundamentall they make every article wherof them-selves, or any other Christians doubt, how ever so fun∣damentall it may be held by the rest. By which doctrin they make Arians, N••••torians, and all ancient Hereticks, good Ca∣tholicks, and their errors not fundamentall, or destructive to salvation, because forsooth they are Christians, though deny the consubstantiality of Christ. This is no wrested conse∣quence of ours, but their own confessed Tenet.

The great prelatick writer Doctor Morton late Bishop of Duresme, in his approved and applauded book, of the King∣dom of Jsrael, and of the Church, dedicated to Queen Elizabeth (pag. 94) sayth, The Churches of Arians are to be accounted the Church of God, because they do hould the foundation of the Ghospell which is faith in JESUS Christ the son of God and Saviour of the world. And pag. 91. He giveth this general rule. Wher∣soever a company of men do joyntly and publickly by worshipping the true God in Christ, profess the substance of Christian Religion, which is faith in JESUS Christ the Son of God, and Saviour of the world, ther is a true Church, notwithstanding any corruption what soever &c. Thus they plead for the Arrians declaring in their favour that consubstantiality of the son, or his being the na∣tural son of God, is not the substance of Christian belief. A man would think that the real presence of Christ in the Sacra∣ment, is a substantial point of faith, seing ther of dependeth the reality of our Sacrifice, the feeding or famishing of our soules, and the verifying or falsifying of Christ's plain and express words; and yet Bishop Iewel the greatest piller of the Church of Eng∣land, in his Apology for the same (pag. 101. edit. 1600.) ob∣••erving that Protestants were divided in the belief of that my∣stery, tells vs it is but a matter of indifferency; The Lutherans and

Zuinglians, saith he, are both sides Christians, good friends, and Bre∣thren; they vary not between them-selves vpon the principles and foun∣dations of our Religions, &c. But vpon one only question (the real presence) neither weighty, nor great. Doctor Reynolds in his 5. Conclusion annexed to his conference (pag 722.) affirmeth the real presence to be but as it were the grudging of a litle ague, if o∣therwise the party hould the Christian faith. And all Protestants conspire in this heretical shift, because their change and choyce of articles of faith can not be maintained by any other way, but by denying that therby they touch the foundation of Chri∣stian Religion. So Luther defended his Consubstantiation, as may be seen in Amandus Polanus in his Synop. pag. 446. And Iaco∣bus Acontius (lib. 3. Stratagematum Sathanae pag. 135.) saith: It's evident concerning as well those who hould the real presence of Christ's Body in the bread, as those others which deny it, that al∣though of necessity one part do err, yet both are in way of saluation, if in other things they be obedient to God.

Jn this Protestant distinction we must distinguish two things. 1. The design. 2. The doctrin wherupon Protestants ground their design. In this Section J will discover the design, and declare the weakness therof. In the next I will demonstrat the falshood of the doctrin wherby they intended to carry on their design. Protestants proceed in this affair as weak Mini¦sters of state; when they find by experience they have bin mi∣staken in taking their measures, and in the management of pu∣blick concerns, they would fain be reconciled, and make strict leagues with such Potentats as formerly they had disobliged, and them-selves now stand in need of their friendship, and fan∣cy they can effect all by inculcating vnto them general notions of a common danger, grounded vpon the power and pride of some neighbouring and emulous Prince. So Prelaticks reflec∣ting vpon the weackness of their cause occasion'd through the dissentions of the Reformed Religions, and vpon the incohe∣rency of their own 39. Articles with the foundation and liber∣ty of Protestancy, would fain (by a generall notion of Christianity)

vnite all heretical Churches to them-selves against the Roman Catholicks pretended pride and power. In which proceedings they commit two great indiscretions. 1. They do not consi∣der how they have disobliged the Greek, and most of the East¦ern Churches, by declaring in their 39. Articles the doctrin of the Holy Ghost's procession from the Father, and not from the son to be heresy; though now (too late) they would fain moderat the censure, as also be reconciled to all Sects of Protestants in Europe. 2. At the same time they endeavour to make this league offensive and defensive against the Roman Catholick Church; [a] 1.199 their chief writers profess there is no cause to qua∣rell with that Church, because it is also a Christian Congrega∣tion, and differs from Protestants only in things indifferent, a∣mong which they place even the Worship of Images, the Sacri∣fice of the Mass, the communion under one kind, the Pop's supre∣macy &c. Whe••ce it must needs follow that their Protestant separation from the Roman Church can not be justifyed, as confessedly not having sufficient ground to break the commu∣nion of the Church vpon the score of doctrin acknowledged by them-selves to be lawful, and therfore their Protestant Refor∣mations must be concluded schismatical.

This their Prelatick moderation towards our Roman Ca∣tholick doctrin is the effect of a necessary compliance with our Adversaries, condemned hereticks; not of any Christian charity that they bear to our principles, or persons, as appeareth by their quite contrary expressions in other occasions, and by the seve∣rity of their statutes against Priests, and Papists. They can hard∣ly excuse the errors of Arrians, Nestorians, &c. And yet accuse

vs of heresy; nor can they maintain the Greek worshipping of Images, to be lawfull, and yet condemn the same in vs as idolatry.

But that which they most press against the Roman Catho∣lick Church, and wherin all sectaries dissenting from it, are con∣cerned to ioyn with Protestants, is, that we say, ourselves are the sole Catholicks, and the Pope and general Councels supre∣me Judges of hereticks. Rather then admit our Church to be the Catholick, they cantonize God's Church into dissenting con∣gregations, and canonize for Orthodox all sects of hereticks, though they have no subordination, connexion, or communi∣cation among themselves, much less that care of the common good, that is among the Suitzers, whose Commonwealth they would fain make a patern of Christ's Church. To this end they sent their Agents to Ieremias Patriarch of Constantinople, and in their printed books make honorable mention of Nestorius, Di∣oscorus, Eutiches, and other hereticks brood, and branches, that are dispers'd in Egypt, Ethiopia, and East Jndies, as if they had bin their Brethren (wheras they do not know their Tenets) and brag of their numbers in comparison wherof they say the Romanists are but few, and, at the best, but a part of the vni∣versal Church; and if a part, they ought not to judg of the whole, if they do, their sentence must be slighted as invalid and par∣tiall.

And though the Schismaticks, and Hereticks of the Greek Church whom the Protestants so much courted, have by a par∣ticular definitive sentence of I••••••mias their Patriarch, disown'd the doctrin, and refused the communion of all Protestants, yet are the so deserted and despised reformed Churches, compell'd to maintain the indifferency of the eastern heresies, even of those which the Greeks them-selves twelue times recanted (having bin so many times reconciled to the Church of Rome) though now again revolted, and returned to some of their former er∣rors, but not without a visible marke of God's indignation and justice. Protestants therfore are content to excuse the errors

of the Greeks, and of all other Christians, though Hereticks, hoping therby to obtain for them-selves the name of Catholiks; and are so kind as not to exclude any that professeth Christ (even after the Arrian manner) from their Protestant commu∣nion; not doubting but that for a return of civility, them-selves will by virtue of that general appellation of Christians, be countenanced by the enemies of the Church of Rome, and protected from it's severity. But the Greek Patriarch smelt their design; and though a Rebell against the sea of Rome, yet he condemned the Protestant doctrin, and contemned their flattery; giving them to vnderstand, that the truth of Religion is never annexed to many dissenting Churches, and that their agre∣ment in Protestant fundamentalls can not be an argument of Ca∣tholick vnity or vniversality. And to be rid of future impor∣tunities, condemned their opinions as heresies, declaring how different they are from those of the Greek Church, as appea∣reth by his Sententia definitiva.

Jeremiae Patriarchae Constantinopolotani sententia definiti∣tiva de doctrina & Religione Wittembergensium Theologo∣rum, &c; edit. an. 1586. in this Book, the Greeks de∣test the Protestant Religion, wherof see further Hospini∣an in Histor. Sacram. part. 2. and Responsio Basilii Magni Ducis Muscoviae &c. an. 1570. it appeareth by a Trea∣tise set forth even by the Protestant Divines of Wittem∣berg intituled Acta Theologorum Wittembergensium, & Ie∣remiae Patriarchae Constantinop. de Augustana Confessione &c. That the Greek Church yet to this day professeth and teacheth invocation of Saints and Angells (pag. 55. 102.128.) Reliques, pag. 244. & 368. worshipping of Ima∣ges (pag. 243.244.247. & 251.) Transsubstantiation (pag. 86.96.100.240.318.) Sacrifice (pag. 102 104) The signifying ceremonies of the Mass (pag. 97.99.100.) Auricular Confession. in praefat. & in lib. pag. 87 130. Confirmation with Chrisme (pag. 78.238.) ex∣treme

Vnction (pag. 242.326.) All the seaven Sacra∣ments (pag. 77.242.) prayer for the dead (pag. 93.102.109.) Sacrifice for the dead (pag. 95.104.) Monachis∣me (pag. 132.257.) That Priests may not marry af∣ter orders taken, (pag. 129.) See Sir Edward Sands also in his relation &c. On the last leaf but five where he confirms all we have related here of the Greeks concurrence in Religion with the Roman Church.

As for the Protestant Doctors and Prelats exceptions against the Roman Church and Councells not being Catholick or Universall, they can be of no force; because their own Logici∣ans may cleer the mistake ••y putting them in mind of the de∣finition of Catholick or Universal, which is, vnum in multis, one in many; for ••n••••••rsality requireth two, and but two conditi∣ons vnity, or ide••••ity of form, and multitude of Subjects. That a Church therfore be Universal or Catholick, it is necessary and sufficient there be an vnity or identity of form (which is faith) and multitude of subjects, which are the Professors of that faith. Whether the subject of the form which is called universall, be more or less (so they be many) is not material as to the natu∣re and denomination of Universal, or Catholick, though there were but 200. men living, homo (say Logicians) would be as much Universal as now it is, with so many millions of men: In like man••er we say, though there were but 200. men in the world professing the true faith, that faith would be still Universal or Catholick, because it would be still one and the sa∣me in many; and 200. are as properly many, though not so many, as 200. millions. We grant that it hath bin prophecied the multitude of believers should be very numerous, and spread over the whole world, and accordingly it hath bin fulfill'd, and now Roman Catholicks are every where multiplied; yet there hath bin a time when the Catholicks were but few, and in the later days they will not be many in respect of Heretiks,

but still it was and will be the Catholick Church. Therfore it can not be an argument that a Church in not Catholick or Universal, because ther ar more Pagans, and Professors of Here∣sies, then of the true Religion.. Their being more hereticks in number, is consistent with the being of many faithfull houl∣ding the Apostolick faith, and no more is requisit for a Ca∣tholick or Universal Church.

But sure Protestants forget the invisibility of their own, when they except against the Universality of ours. If theirs was Catholick or Universal when they were so few, that for the space at least of 1000. years not one Protestant could be found in the whole world, they have no reason to deny the deno∣mination of Catholick to the Roman, which always hath bin so conspicuous and numerous. If they will proceed coherent∣ly, and say that for those 1000. years before Luther, ther was no Catholick Church, then they must not only reform, but al∣ter and cut short the Apostles Creed, and blot out (at least for those 1000. years) that article, J believe in the Catholick Church.

And as Protestants have no reason to believe that the vni∣versality or Catholicism of the Church consists not so much in the number of persons, as in the antiquity and identity of faith of the Professors with that of the Apostles, so have they not any reason to object partiality, and illegality against the testimony and judicature of the Roman Church and Councells when they censure Protestant opinions. Not partiality, because when a Iudg or wittness giveth sentence or evidence against his own natural inclination and interest,* 1.200 there can be no suspition of partiality, nor lawfull exception against his sentence or testi∣mony, as too much favoring himself, or his relations; And truly if Roman Catholicks did judge of controversies of faith accor∣ding to their own natural inclination and interest, and had not in their definitions and testimonies a greater regard to conscien∣ce then conveniency, they would never witness or define that Priests ought not to marry, or that Kings and Bishops ought

to be subject to the Pope in spirituall affaires, or that men ought to abstain from flesh so many days in the week, or that ther is no bread or wine in the Sacrament notwithstanding the ap∣pearance of both; neither would they part with their lands and mony vpon the score of Purgatory; or maintain that privat men or Churches must not take the liberty to themselves of de∣ciding controversies of Religion, but on the contrary beleeve that generall Councells are infallible even when they define mat∣ters contrary to our sense and inclinations. Roman Catholicks are made of flesh and bloud, they are naturally as averse from these thoughts, and submissions, and find as great difficulty in conforming their judgments and testimonies thervnto as Pro∣testants. Therfore they cannot be partial in condemning Pro∣testants, for not believing these things, vnless they be also par∣tial against themselves; and nothing but the evidence of their own obligation ••o believe these things, strengthned by the gra∣ce of God, could prevaile with so many learned and sober men as have bin and are known to be among Roman Catholicks, to be partial against themselves, or to judg and wittness (contrary to their own natural inclinations and temporal interest) for Pope∣ry against Protestancy.

SVBSECT II. Of the Iustice and legality of our Roman Censures against Protestancy.* 1.201

NOw as to the legality of the proceedings and censures of the Roman Catholick Church a∣gainst Protestancy, it is as manifest as lawfull witnesses, and cleer evidences can make any judgment either in law or equity. In all controversie•• both of law and Religion, the

Courts and Church must ground their sentences vpon mat∣ter of fact. All disputes of faith must be reduced vnto,* 1.202 and decided by this matter of fact. Whether Christ our Sa∣viour, and his Apostles taught such doctrin? Whether he revealed the reformed, not the Roman sense of Scripture? This being a thing don 1600. years since, neither party can produce new eyes or eare witnesses pretending to an immediat knowledg of what then Christ and his Apostles preach't. That immediat evidence en∣ded with the begining of the second age, and we must begin our proof with this last, and proceed to examin our witnesses by a retrogradation from this present age to the first, because the only proof of things which are beyond the reach of our knowledg and memory, is the Tradition and testimonies of o∣thers, vpon which we must rely, or resolve not to believe any thing, even of our-selves, as our names, families, Countries, or of this world, and much less of the next. Let us begin ther∣fore with the Reformed Protestant Churches, and ask them what witnesses have they in this 16. Century to prove that Christ and his Apostles were Protestants, or taught their refor∣med sense of Scripture? They will answer, they have as many witnesses as ther are Protestants. We demand their cause of knowledge? such of them as in matters of Religion make any use of reason, will not pretend that they know it by privat re∣velation, or by their own proper interpretation of God's Law, (those are neither Court nor Church evidences) but will ans∣wer that their Parents and Pastors tould them, Christ and his A∣postles were Protestants and these were tould so by others their Parents and Pastors, vntill passing some few descents, they co∣me to Luther, or Calvin, or Cranmer &c. There they must stop; for, Luther, Calvin, and Cranmer did not pretend that their Parents or Pastors testifyed to them that Protestancy was the true Religion, them-selves having bin the first Inventors or Revivers therof, after that it had bin (by their own con∣fessions) at least 1000. years buried, and their Church had bin invisible, or enchanted.

Jt is a remarkable thing that never any ancient Heretick, or modern Reformer of the Catholick doctrin, could name an inmmedia•• Pre••••cessor, much less any Church, from which he received his Religion▪ and reformed interpretation of Scrip∣ture. Opti••••s that ancient Father (••. 2. contra ••arme••.) says, That Donatus was a son without a Father a Successor without a Predecessor, filius sine Patre, sequens sine Anteceden••e: the same we may say of Luther, Calvin Cranmer &c. And seing ther must be a Succession of faith as well as of me••, and that as one who can not prove his Father or family to be noble by the te∣stimonies and tradition of others, can not pretend to nobility of descent, or to right of inheritance, so can not Luther, Cal∣vin or Cranmer and their followers, pretend to antiquity of faith, or to be of the Catholick family of Christ without a legal testimony and tradition of their spiritual descent, which tradition or testimony they confess to be wanting. Mr. Napper in his Treatise vpon the Revelations pag. 43. The Pop's King∣dome hath had power over all Christians, from the time of Pope Silvester and the Emperour Constantine for these 1260. years. And pag. ••4••. From the time of Constantine vntill these our days, even 1260. years, the Pope and his Clergy hath possessed the outward visible Church of Christians. And their chief Doctors ingeniously acknowledg, that their Churches were either so ob∣scure, or so opprest, that notwithstanding their own serious examinati••••, and diligent search into all histories both sacred and profane, they can not find in the space of at least 1300. years as much as a record or Tradition of any on person to beare witness that their faith, sense of Scripture, or Reforma∣tion, was preach't by Christ and his Apostles. Sebastianus Fran∣cus in ep. de Abrog. Statutis ecclesiast. saith Statim post Apostolos &c. Presently after the Apostles times, all things were turne•• vpside down &c. And that for certain through the work of Anti-christ, the externall Church togeather with the faith and the Sacraments va∣nished away presently after the Apostles departure, and that for these

1400. years the Church hath bin no wher externall and visible.

Peter Martyr so much commended by Calvin, and sent for by Cranmer to help to frame the Religion of the Church of Eng∣land, pag. 462. of his work de caelibatu & votis, saith; as for the judgment of the Fathers, because our Adversaires (the Pa∣pists) both in this and other controversies are accustomed to appeale to them, J do not think it the part of a Christian to appeale from the Scriptures of God, to the judgments of men. And pag. 476. So long as we go no further then the Coun∣cells and Fathers, we shall always remain in the same errors.

This Sophister would faine make Protestants believe that the question is, whether the Fathers sense of Scriptures ought to be preferred before the sense of the Protestants? them-selves con∣fess that both Councells and Fathers are contrary to their in∣terpretation. Whitaker on of the learned'st Protestants that e∣ver writ, answering Duraeus, and acknowledging the truth of the assertion, coms off with this poore evasion (l. 7. pag. 478. Jt is sufficient for us to know, by conferring the Popish doctrin with Scripture, that they do not agree, let Histories say what they list. So litle do the Ecclesiastical Annals favour Protestancy, that never any point therof is mentioned without mentioning also how it began, and was comdemned as heresy.

Now let Protestants examin our Roman Catholick witnes∣ses; we do not stop (as they must) at the last age 1500. we produce in every Century of years the most eminent persons for Sanctity and learning that then lived, who not only pro∣fessed our faith living, but also dying, as by the Traditions of all Christendom, their own writings, and the confession of our Adversaries is manifest, wherof the Divines of Magdeburg, her∣tofore quoted, writ copiously in their Centuries. These Fa∣thers and Doctors of the Church in each respective Century, delivered the Roman Catholick faith to the next succeeding, not as a privat opinion of their own, but as the publick, pure, primitive, Apostolick saith, which they had received as such from the precedent age, confirmed by the vnanimous testi∣mony

of their known Catholick immediat Predecessours. What exceptions or objections can Protestants pretend against the holy and learned Fathers, so impartial Iudges and witnesses? They could not be ignorant of what was the publick and vniversal faith, or Church in their times; and they were men of so great integrity, that they would not for any temporal interest conceale the truth in a matter, wherof depended eternity. They were not angry (saith S. Augustin disputing against the Pelagians, advers. Julian. l. 2. prope finem & lib. 3. c. 17. & lib. 4. c. 12.) neither at you or vs; what they have found in the Church, that they have holden, they have taught what they have learn't, what they have received from their fore-fa∣thers they have delivered to posterity. The most learned Protestants decline the Fathers judgment and testimony for no other reason but because they find them to be Roman Catholicks in their wri∣tings; so that the question is not whether they by for vs, but whether their testimony for vs, averring that the Roman Catho∣lick sense of Scripture is the same which Christ and his Apo∣stles deliuered, ought to be preferred before the contrary testi∣mony of Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, or of the other Convocati∣ons and Parliaments of England of Edward 6. and Queen Eliza∣beth, who prove not their reformed sense of Scripture by ancient tradition, but by a new arbitrary interpretation of Scripture. And in what Court of Judicature would such an vncertain guess, pass for a legal proof? Wheras tradition is the only evidence wherby the greatest civil controversies even of regal successions and titles are decided in the Protestants Courts: Therfore it ought not to be excluded as superfluous or superstitious from the Church.

SVBSET III.

AS to their exception that the Roman Catholick Church is but a part,* 1.203 and ought not to be ju∣dge of all other Christians, we answer, that not by all Christians, but by on part, were all con∣troversies in the Church decided since the Apo∣stles times and the other part which did not sub∣mitt to the judgment of that one, in matters of faith and dis∣ciplin, were censured hereticks. That the Judgment and censu∣res in all ages were issued but by on part, and this, the Roman Catholick party that lived in communion with the Bishop of Rome, and the Councells that acknowledged his jurisdiction, we prove by the confessed examples of every Century.

In the first, the controversy of the legal ceremonies was determined by S. Peter and the Apostles in a Councell wherin S. Peter presided Act. 15.

In the second Century the Christians were divided about celebrating E'aster, the controversy was decided by S. Victor Bishop of Rome, as S. Peter's successor; and because the Chur∣ches of Asia would not conform themselves to his sentence, he excommunicated them. (Euseb. l. 5. hist. c. 23. & 24.) And though S. Irenaeus approved not of S. Victor's severity, yet he never que∣stioned his jurisdiction or supremacy, or the legality of his cen∣sures. And because some Christians persisted obstinatly in not conforming to the Pop's Decree of celebrating Easter, they were for that obstinacy declared hereticks, and as such numbred in Catalogues by S. Epiphanius, haeres. 50. S. Augustin, haeres. 26. and by Tertullian de praescript. in fine, and called Quarto-decimans.

In the third Century, by the Pope Cornelius and his Roman Councell the Novatian heresy was condemned (Euseb. ex ver∣sione Rufini, lib. 6. histor. cap. 33.) and though there were not

as many Bishops in that Roman Councell, as at Trent, yet the whole Church thought the authority sufficient and legal to de∣clare the Novatians hereticks. The same Pope and Stephen his Successour condemned such Christians as thought and taught that they who had bin baptised by hereticks, ought to be re∣baptised.

In the forth Century, the Arian heresy was condemned by the Councell of Nice, wherin were but 318. Bishops, who∣se testimony was thought sufficient, and legal against a far gre∣ater number of Arius his faction, because the Councell's testimo∣ny was confirmed by a Tradition, and by the authority of St. Silvester Bishop of Rome, whose legats presided in that As∣sembly· In the same Century was condemned the Heresy of Macedonius against the Holy Ghost, by a Councell in Constan∣tinople confirmed by the authority of St. Damasus Bishop of Rome. Photius in lib. de septem Synodis.

In the fifth Century was condemned the heresy of Nesto∣rius in the Ephesin Councell, wherin presided Cyrillus in the name of Pope Celestin. (Evagrius lib. 1. cap. 4.) And a litle af∣ter was condemned the heresy of Eutiches in the Councell of Calcedon, wherin also presided the Legats of Pope Leo. (Evag∣rius lib. 2. cap. 4.) And the whole Councell petitioned to the Bishop of Rome for his confirmation of their Acts. (tom. 2. Concil. & Breviarium Liberati) In the same fifth age was condemned the heresy of the Pelagians, by authority of the Bishops of Rome. The Pelagian heresy (saith St. Austin lib. 2. Retract. c. 50.) with it's authors was convicted and condemned by the Roman Bishops Jnnocent, and Zozimus, with concurrence (or at the instance) of the Councells of Africk. And Prosper in Chronico an. 420. A Councell being holden at Carthage of 217. Bis∣hops, the Synodal Decrees were sent to Pope Zozimus, which being approved, the Pelagian heresy was condemned in the whole world.

In the sixt Century many heresies were condemned in the 5. Synod.

In the 7. Century and sixt Synod were condemned the

Monothelits, wherin presided the Pop's Legats, though the Em∣peror was present, and subscribed, but after all the Bishops; not as a Judge, but as on who consented and submitted to their judgment.

In the 8. Century and 7. Synod of 350. Bishops, were de∣clared and condemned as hereticks, they, who opposed the wor∣ship of Jmages, wherin also presided the Pop's Legats, wherof Photius saith: This sacred and great Councell condemned a barba∣rous heresy newly invented by wicked and execrable men. &c. For they did terme the adorable Image of Christ, (wherby erronious ido∣latry is excluded) an Idol, &c.

In the 9. Century and 8. Synod many controversies were de∣cided, and the Pop's Legats presided. The Emperor was pre∣sent, and subscrib'd, but after the Legats and Patriarchs; and plainly acknowledged that the judgment of Religious Contro∣versies apertain'd not to him, and that by subscribing, he only testifyed his Consent.

In the 10. Century we read of no heresy, but of the Greeks Schism.

In the 11. Century, Pope Leo the 9. in a Councell at Ver∣celli, and Pope Nicolas 2. in a Councell at Rome of 113. Bi∣shops, condemned the heresy of Berengarius, against the real pre∣sence, and Transsubstantiation. (Lanfrancus lib. 1. contra Bereng.) This Berengarius was no great scholler, as Archbishop Guido says, but very ambitious, and thought to acquire fame by his new opinion. After twice recanting and returning to his heresy, in his last sickness perceiving his end to draw neer, Iohn Gerson relates these his last words. My God. Thou wilt this day appeare to my salvation, as J hope, for my repentance; or to my damnation, as I feare, for deceiving with pervers doctrin others whom afterwards I could not reduce to the truth of thy Sacrament.

In the 12. Century Jnnocent the second Bishop of Rome, condemned the heresy of Peter Abaylard. (see S. Bernard. epist 194.) And Pope Eugenius 3. condemned the error of Gilbert Porreta∣nus in the Councell of Rhems. (see S. Bern. serm. 80. in Cantica.)

In the 13. Century, Pope Innocent 3. condemned the error of Ioachim the Abbot, in the Lateran Councell. And afterwards Pope Gregory 10. in the Generall Councell of Lions, condem∣ned the Greeks error.

In the 14. Century Pope Clement 5. condemned the errors of the Begards, in the Councell of Vienna.

In the 15. Century the errors of Iohn Hus, and Iohn Whic∣liff were condemned in the Councell of Constance by Pope Mar∣tin 5. And the errors of the Greeks in the Councell of Floren∣ce, by Pope Eugenius 4.

Now what reason can Protestants give why Pius. 4. Bishop of Rome, and the Councell of Trent (though of his calling and party) might not condemn the opinion of Protestants, as law∣fully and legaly, as his Predecessors had don in every age the like opinions of other Reformers? Both condemners and con∣demned were Christians, for hereticks must be baptised, other∣wise they are rather Pagans then hereticks: The condemned Chri∣stians were often Patriarchs and Bishops, some-times as many as the Condemners; and yet neither could their Plea of Christia∣nity, or pretence of Scripture, or parity in dignity, or equali∣ty in number, exempt them from the validity and legality of the Roman Censures, vnto which if they did not submit, all the Catholick world held them for obstinat hereticks. Therfore we may not, without contradicting both reason and authority, the common sense of the Church, and the general custom of Chri∣stian antiquity, allow the exceptions which Protestants plead against the Pope, and the Councell of his Bishops, that forsooth they are but a part of the Catholick Church, and therfore as party concerned, incompetent Judges and witnesses in contro∣versies of Christian Religion.

We have seen the weakness and ill success of the prote∣stant design in this distinction of fundamentall and not fundamen∣tall articles of faith, and how they are rejected as hereticks by the Greeck Schismaticks, and other sectaries whom they courted to be admitted as a part of their Church, we have also proved the

vnreasonableness of their exceptions against the testimony and censures of the Roman Bishops and Councells: Now we will view the distinction it self, and prove that by the protestant do∣ctrin of fundamentalls, the very foundation of Christian Religion is destroyed, and nothing believed with Divine faith.

SECT. XII. God's veracity is denyed by Protestancy, and by the Prelatick distinction and doctrin of fundamentall and not fundamentall articles of faith.

THe foundation of Christian Religion is, the be∣lief of God's veracity. The belief of God's ve∣racity consists not only in acknowledging that whatsoever God saith, is true; (that was ne∣ver denyed by any heretick, and yet all here∣ticks deny his veracity) but consists in acknow∣ledging also that whatsoever doctrin is sufficiently proposed as spoken or revealed by God, is infallibly true, and that God is the Author of the same. To avoyd all disputes concerning the sufficiency of the proposal of God's revelations, we will condes∣cend so far to our Protestants Adversaries, as to make them∣selves Judges therof, provided they will be so Religious and ra∣tional, as to grant, that to Divine Majesty ought not be deny∣ed a prerogative which by the dictamen of reason, the laws of nature, and the practise of themselves, and of all Nations, is due and exhibited to Majesty, and Magistracy, and to all temporal Soveraigns; Viz. To speak and declare their mind by the mouth of others, their inferiour Officers and Ministers; wherfore as sub∣jects do judge it a sufficient proposal of the regal authority, and confess them-selves are obliged to believe that their Sove∣raign speaks and commands, when certain officers (known by the

vsual marks and badges of their Master's Soveraignty, and their own military, or civil charges) propose his orders, either by pro∣clamation, letters patents, or otherwise: so Protestants will acknow∣ledg that all Christians are bound to believe it i•• a sufficient propo∣sal of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 existence of Divine Revelation, and that God speaks or commands, whensoever his mind is declared to them by that Church, and Ministers, who beare (at least) as authentick mar∣ks and badges of God's authority, and of their own ministe∣ry, to evidence their trust and jurisdiction, as the Officers of sta∣te and Justice do in a Republick or 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Government: In a word, all that we desire of Protestants is, that they will give as much credit and respect to God, as to Princes, and no less to the Ministers of God's Church, then to Senators, or to the Officers of a King's Court.

But their fundamental distinction dispenseth with all such duties, and leads them a quite contrary way; 〈…〉〈…〉 not obliged to believe the mysteries of faith as they are proposed by the Roman Catholick Church (though the sayd Church be more authentickly waranted thervnto by God then any Ministers or Magistra•• are waranted to 〈…〉〈…〉 of state by their Prince) vnless it be clearly evident 〈…〉〈…〉 (evi∣dently credible will not serve their turn) that God revealed what the Church proposeth as his word and command. Such Doctri∣nes of the Roman Church as they fancy cleer, or self evident, either by their owne privat spirit and discourse, or by the vna∣nimous and general acknowledgment of all Christians, such and only such do Protestants believe as points of faith, and call them fundamental articles, or articles necessary for salvation; all others either they hould only as probable opinions, and things of indif∣ferency, or reject as superfluous and superstitious. And because the mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation are generally profes∣sed in these parts of Europe by all Christians (though not by all in the Catholick sense, but with certain interpretations,) Ther∣fore the learned Prelatick Protestant Writers, both ancient and modern, reduce all the articles, and the total summe of Catho∣lick

faith, and of the foure first generall Councells, to a belief of the Trinity and Incarnation; that is to some Kind of faith (though it be but the Arian) in JESUS Christ the Son of God,* 1.204 and Sa∣viour of the world, as Doctor Morton Bishop of Duresme, and others teach, who vpon this score maintain that the Arian Chur∣ches (and by consequence all ancient hereticks) are to be ac∣counpted members of the Church of God: We have quoted their words num. 3. of the precedent section.

That no King's Ministers, or Magistrats, have so authen∣tick marks and badges to evidence in them-selves their Master's authority for exercising their respective charges, and jurisdictions, as the Roman Catholick Church hath of being entrusted and apointed by God to deliver his Divine doctrin, declare his sense of Scripture, and decide Religious controversies, is ma∣nifest by the signs and marks of God's Church, compared with the marks, and badges of Princes Officiers. Omitting many other marks of the true Church, J will touch but three, which are Conversion of Kings and Nations from paganism to Christianity; Succession of Pastors, and doctrin, from the Apostles, to this present; and miracles. All these are visible only in the Roman Ca∣tholick Church, and are more authentick (because they can∣not be easily counterfeited) then any human euidences, even the most esteemed, which is the King's hand and Seale. To say because some pretended miracles have bin impostures, no mi∣racles at all are true, or none ought to be credited, is no less vnreasonable, then to cry down all current money, becau∣se there is some fals coyne, and is as ridiculous and rebellious, as to disobey and reject all royall commissions and orders of Councell, because some may, or have bin counterfeited, and subreptitiously obtained. But suppose (as Protestants pretend) that miracles were ceased; I hope the Conversion of so many Nations and Kings of the Gentils to Christianity, and a conti∣nuall succession of the Roman doctrin and Pastors, are neither ceased, not counterfeited; no other Church but the Roman Catholick hath these signes of God's providence; and as non

can deny but that they are more convincing arguments, and greater evidences of the super-natural Ministery and jurisdic∣tion which the Roman Church doth claim, then any human signes, badges, or commissions can be of the Royal authority, exercised by King's officiers either civil or military, so like∣wise it must be acknowledged that there is a cleerer and greater obligation vpon men to submit their judgments and wills to the definitions and Decrees of the Roman Catholick Church and Councells, proposing or declaring God's revelations and com∣mands, then there can be vpon subjects to obey the orders of temporal Souveraigns, published, or proclaimed by their chief Ministers, and subordinat officers.

* 1.205Therfore as it is notorious Rebellion in subjects against their King's authority, to contemn his commands when they are pro∣posed by Ministers that shew his commissions, so is it manifest heresy, and a denial of God's veracity, to contemn or doubt of the doctrin proposed as Divine by the Roman Catholick Church, so authentickly qualified with the aforesaid supernatural marks: And as it is want of duty and alleigance in subjects, and a ridiculous excuse for not obeying Orders, to pretend they have not cleer evidence that the King signed them▪ or (for all they know) that his Minister, or Officer may be an Impostor, and his commission or warrant counterfeit, so must it be con∣cluded want of christian belief, and excess of hereticall obsti∣nacy in Protestants, to excuse their contempt of the Roman Catholick doctrin, and authority, by pretending a possibility of mistake in the same Church, because forsooth, they are not convinced of it's infallibility, and authority by a Demon∣stration, or revelation so evident, that though they would, they cannot deny it. Such evidences are not necessary nor e∣ven compatible with Christian belief, as shall be proved heraf∣ter: less are sufficient to convince them-selves and all rational men of a strickt obligation to believe and obey a temporal Prince, and Magistrat; and sure they are vnreasonable if they imagin God deserves, less belief, duty, and subjection, then Princes.

That Protestants believe not their own Churches, or Congre∣gations, with out doubts and feares of being mistaken in the reformed doctrin, and authority of proposing the same, we do not admire, because not any on of their churches doth pretend to infallibility, nor could hitherto, or can yet shew any sign or seale of God for their sense of Scripture, or reformations; but that they should think them-selves obliged to take a Herald or Trompeters Coat, and a Constable or Cathpol's staffe, and o∣ther such badges (so easily counterfeited) for sufficient eviden∣ces of the King's authority, and yet except against the authen∣tickness of the conversion of Kings and Nations, the Succession and sanctity of Pastors, and doctrin of the Roman Catholick Church. Which are things that cannot be counterfeited, must needs be the effect of prejudice and passion, proceeding from want of christianity, especialy when they see that others as learned, cau∣tious, and conscientious, as them-selves, after weighing all ob∣jections and circumstances, submit their judgments to the suf∣ficiency of these signs, for making the Roman Catholick au∣thority authentickly Divine, and that we believe what is pro∣posed, with out the least suspition or feare either of fraud or frailty in the Roman Catholick Councells, which are the Pro∣posers and Ministers of God's word.

Besids; if Protestants did consider the nature of Veracity,and God's Providence,* 1.206 they would never doubt of the applica∣tion of his power to preserve the Roman Catholick Church from error, seing it hath so many signs of his truth and Mini∣stery, as the conversion of Nations, succession and Sanctity of doctrin and Doctors, miracles, vnity of faith, &c. For, Ve∣racity (as Aristotle and all Philosophers define it) is a Virtue in∣clining to speak truth: And he is not inclined to speak truth that countenanceth falshood in so particular a manner as God doth the doctrin and jurisdiction of the Roman Catholick Church. A King that might, if he would and yet doth not hinder his Ambassadors, and Ministers, or any other persons, from abu∣sing other Princes, or his own Subjects by their speaking or

commanding in his Majesties name, or at least in speaking other-wise then he really intended they should, and had prescribed by his commission or instructions; such a King I say, is not inclined to speak truth, because he willingly permits his officers, or others that pretend to speak in his name (or really do speak by his Orders) to vtter falshood, and misinterpret his words and meaning, notwithstanding that he may easily pre∣vent that fraud and frailty, and reapeth no benefit by either, an evident argument that he is not avers to such false practises. No Protestant doubts but that my Lord Chancellor speaks truly the King's mind and sense when he pursues his Majesties speech in Parliament in his Royal presence, and hearing; and to think other-wise, would be not only to tax my Lord Chancellor with folly, but the King with an inclination to falshood, and a fault unbeseeming the dignity of a Prince, the care and charge of the Country's Father, as also the sincerity and veracity of an honest man.

* 1.207Seing therfore God is as much inclined to speak truth as any thing can be to love it self (for God is truth by essence) if it be against the dignity of a Prince, and against the nature of human veracity and honesty, (which is but a shadow of the Divine) to permit falshood in Ministers of state or in ser∣vants sent but of ordinary errands, when their Masters can ea∣sily prevent it; how much more repugnant must it be to the nature of God, and to his Divine veracity, to permit the Ro∣man Church, in his own presence, name, and hearing, tell lyes, and disguise them and it self, with so probable and plausible signes of his Divine truth, and Commission, as to seale it's do∣ctrin with marks, and miracles so vndeniably supernatural, that the most learned Protestants acknowledg they are, and can only bewrought by God's power? light can as litle concurre to pro∣duce darkness, as truth to favor falshood. Even men that love truth, hate to heare others tell lyes, and do contradict vntru∣ths, if them-selves be present, and quoted for Authors of the stories; They will not entertain servants given to that vice, nor

permit them weare their livery, much less employ them in matters of concern, wherin they may abuse their Master's word and prejudice his friends, or Tenants.

Can Protestants then imagin that God doth not only per∣mit the Roman Catholick Church to weare his livery, and his authority, but that he doth promote the stories, and lies of that Church (in case it's doctrin be fals,) for the space of so many ages with so great signes and testimonies of his Divine approbation, that the wisest and wairiest men of the world (af∣ter much study and examination) did, and do still preferr it before all other Religions? Do they think that God is not as much concern'd in preventing frauds, faults, and frailties in his Ministers, and Messengers, as temporal Princes are concern'd in the credit, and truth of theirs? Wherfore if Protestants judg it a breach of faith, or want of truth and worth in a temporal Prince not to endeavor (to the vtmost of his power) that his Mini∣sters and messengers deceive not his subjects, and Allies, by mistaking, or misapplying his Commands, or demands; they can not but see the absurdity of believing that God doth per∣mit Ministers, and Messengers so supernaturaly qualified as tho∣se of the Roman Church are, to err in proposing his revela∣tions vnto all man kind; his Veracity being as highly concern'd in the infallibility of the Proposers, as his power makes him capable of preventing their human mistakes, and of confoun∣ding the Devill's malice.

But Protestants have found out a new device,* 1.208 and de∣fence of their distinction. They grant it is against God's Ve∣racity to permit the Roman Catholick Church to err in proposing the Fundamental articles of faith, that is, such articles as Pro∣testants fancy absolutly necessary for saluation; which are (say they) that Scripture is the word of God, and JESUS Christ the son of God, and Redeemer of the world, some add the Mystery of the Trinity: (hitherto we could never obtain from them a more exact Cathalogue of their Protestant Fundamentals) As for the other doctrines of the Roman Catholick Church

〈◊〉〈◊〉 and proposed as Divine, Protestants think they may be denyed and questioned, without any offence to God, deny∣al or doubt of his veracity. I could never heare any other rea∣son, or disp••rity for this their distinction, but that the measure of the infallibility of the Church ought to be our salvation, be∣cause it was the end proposed by God in the institution and constitution of his Church.

In such articles therfore (say they) as are absolutly nece∣ssary for salvation, the Church cannot but be infallible in the proposal; otherwise we could not believe them (and consequent∣ly not be saved) because we can not be sure that God revea∣led them.

But this their Fundamental distinction still destroys the foun∣dation of Christian belief, which is God's veracity. They ma∣ke their own conveniency, and not God's veracity, the mo∣tive of crediting the Mysteries of faith; as if truth it self, or God's inclination to speak truth, could be greater in on matter then other; or that the belief of any article could be more Fundamental, or of greater importance, and necessity for salvation, then to believe that God is as much concerned and as neces∣sarily inclined to speak truth as well by the mouth of his Church, as if him-self spoke immediatly, as well also in the least matter, as in the greatest; and by consequence he is as much engaged to preserve the Church from error in on, as in the other. So that to believe the testimony or proposal of the Church in a matter absolutly necessary for salvation, and not to believe it in a matter not absolutly necessary (when equaly proposed by the same testimony, and authority) is as much as to say, that God can speak by his Church, litle vntruths, but not great vntruths, or that he may permit his veracity to be violated, or vitiated in litle, but not in great matters; as if forsooth, the authority and infallibility of the Church were to be measured by the matter it proposeth, and not by the manner and supernatural marks of the proposal and by the dig∣nity of the speaker.

More over; their pretence of the Churches fallibility in not Fundamental articles, hath no solid ground; for the Pro∣testant Church is either fallible or infallible in saying so, and in it's doctrin of Fundamentals; if fallible, non can prudently rely thervpon, either in this, or in any other matters of faith; if infallible, then the Protestant distinction of Fundamentals must be a fundamental article of faith, because they admit not any Church to be infallible in articles that are not fundamental. And yet the same Protestants say the Roman Catholick Church is also infallible in fundamentals; but the Roman Catholick, and Protestant Church contradict on the other in this doctrin of fundamentals, Therfore one of both must erre; and that on must be the Protestant, because it maintains that two Chur∣ches teaching contradictory doctrins, may both be infallible therin. Add hervnto, that if the Roman Catholick Church be infallible in fundamentals, or in all articles necessary for salvation, how can Protestants excuse their reformation and se∣paration, from the guilt of a grievous sin, and schism? so vn∣charitable a breach is not justifiable by less then damnable or dangerous doctrin in the Church that is forsaken; And what damnable doctrin or danger of damnation could, or can be in adhearing to the Roman Church, it being confessedly infalli∣ble in Fundamentals; that is, in all things necessary for salvation?

If therfore God's veracity is denyed (even according to the Protestants doctrin and distinction) by saying that the Church is fallible in fundamentals, it can be for no other reason, but because the fundamental articles are sufficiently proposed by the Church as revealed by God; and seing the not fundamen∣tal articles are proposed by the same Church and testimony, and (by consequence) as sufficiently as the fundamental, Pro∣testants must grant that God's veracity is no less denyed by main∣taining the fallibility of the Church in not Fundamentals, then in Fundamentals. So that they must either acknowledg the in∣fallibility of the Church in all articles and matters of faith, whether absolutly necessary, or not necessary for salvation; or

deny God's veracity, and the foundation of all Christian belief.

SECT. XIII. The same further demonstrated, and proved, that neither the Protestant faith, nor the faith lately asserted in a book called sure footing in Christia∣nity, is Christian belief: where also is treated of the resolution of faith.

NOt the ma••••er believed, but the Motive and manner of believing, makes a belief Chri∣stian. There may be an historical, or imagi∣nary faith of Christ, as well as Divine and real; that is, men may believe the mysteries of Christianity, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 they believe the roman history, and fancy that such a belief is not human, but Di∣vine. This we maintain to be the Protestants case and faith, which is not grounded vpon Divine revelation, but vpon hu∣man persuasion and vpon an imaginary evidence of God's re∣velation. They assent not to the mystery of the Trinity, or to any other, because God revealed it, but because they think it vndeniably evident (either by the publick confession of all Chri∣stians, or by the privat suggestion of their own spirit, or by the principles of natural reason, or by their pretended cleerness of Scripture) that God revealed such mysteries as they are plea∣sed to make choyce of, for the Articles or fundamentals of their Reformations. And therfore according to the diversity of the evidences wherupon they build their faith, the Protestant sects are framed, and divided, into Prelaticks, whose Motive and evi∣dence

is the concurrence of all Christians in their fundamentals of Christianity; and into Fanatiks (amongst whom we inclu∣de Presbiterians &c.) who rely vpon the evidence of their spi∣rit, and the cleerness of Scripture; and into Socinians, who make evident reason the rule of their Religion &c.

That these Protestant persuasions are not grounded vpon Divine revelation, or vpon God's Authority, and veracity, we proove, because it is impossible to make an authority the motive of our belief, vnless we believe all things that are equaly pro∣posed and delivered to vs as depending of, and asserted by that authority. St. Austin says non can believe that the Ghospel of St. Matthew is the word of God, vnless he doth likewise believe that the Acts of the Apostles is the word of God; be∣cause they are both delivered as God's word by the same autho∣rity. The same testimony, and the same visible Church which delivered to the first Protestants the mystery of the Trinity and Incarnation, as revealed by God, delivered also to them Transubstantiation, Purgatory &c. as revealed by God; and they or their followers can not pretend to have any other testi∣mony for the engagement of God's veracity, in certifying them of the truth, and revelation of the articles they retain, but the same testimony which delivered to them the articles they re∣ject. Therfore the reality and Divinity of the revelation be∣ing equally testified and applicable by on and the same testimo∣ny to both articles, aswell to the retained as to the rejected, it is impossible that Protestants can believe those they reta••••••, moved thervnto by God's veracity, or for being revealed by God; seing the same veracity, and revelation is equally and as cleerly applyed by the testimony of the Catholick visible Church to the other articles which they reject as not revealed.

If you ask a learned Protestant why doth he believe the mystery of the Trinity, or Incarnation? He will answer (as all Hereticks ever did aswell as Catholicks) because God reve∣aled it? But if you inquire further, why doth he believe that God revealed it? He will tell you, because it is manifest in

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

SVBSECT I.

I Am right sorry to number among Prote∣stants and Manichees (who hould also this error of believing nothing which they did not fancy to be self evident) the Author of a book called sure footing in Christianity who will needs have it self evident (by virtue forsooth of tradition) that God revealed all the points of our Roman Catholick doctrin. Jt's pitty he stumbled so irrecoverably at his very first step, pretending to see so cleerly, and tread so surely vpon a plain ground: had he bin as wary in the choice of his principles, as he is witty in deducing his conclusions, I should have followed him as an excellent Guide; but he striving to raise Christian faith vnto a greater height of evidence then is consistent with it's nature, and with our merit and liberty, or convenient for the Government of God's Church, he hath fallen into the Fundamental error, and foundation of Protestancy, but yet with this difference, that albeit he agreeth with Protestants in making cleer evidence of the revelation, the ground or rule of faith, and by conse∣quence in destroying all Christian belief, yet he takes a con∣trary way from them: Protestants by reducing their evidence to very few points, reject most of the articles of the Roman Catholick Church, as incredible; but the Author of the sure footing, by amplifying, and applying his evidence to every ar∣ticle of our faith, makes them all more then credible, that is self evident. He and Protestants agree in the rule, but differr in the application. Neither of them will believe any thing but what they fancy evident; but on party fancies all is evident; the other fancies litle or nothing is evident. Jf they vnder∣stand

on another, they may soon come to an accord, and the sequell of their principle will be, to take away all Christian be∣lief: for Christian belief must of necessity involue some obscu∣rity in that Act (or at least formality) wherby we assent vnto the mystery believed. Otherwise if the essence, or nature of Christian faith were consistent with cleer evidence, and with the want of all obscurity, why may it not be sayd that the blessed have faith in heaven? nay, why may it not be sayd that the second person of the Trinity hath ••aith ab 〈◊〉〈◊〉, if it be suf∣ficient for faith that on assent•• to truth for 〈…〉〈…〉, and speaking of an other, though 〈◊〉〈◊〉 evidently 〈…〉〈…〉, and sees also that the other speaks.

The sure footing therfore doth faile and 〈…〉〈…〉 ••eason of the Author's confounding the evidence of our obligation to belieue the articles proposed by the Church, with the eviden••e of God's, revealing them by the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 proposal of the Church. The te∣stimony of the Church confirmed by so many supernatural sig∣nes, makes it cleerly euident to vs, that we are bound to be∣lieve, God revealed all the doctrin delivered as his▪ by the tra∣dition and testimony of the Church; but the tradition or sig∣nes of the Church do not make 〈◊〉〈◊〉 or self 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that God hath de facto revealed 〈…〉〈…〉, which the Church proposeth as Divine. It is moraly evident that God revealed it, but not Metaphysicaly evident, according to Schoolmens ex∣pression. This moral evidence of God's revealing what the Church proposeth, induceth a cl••••r and evident obligation vpon the will and soul of man to adheare▪ as vnalterably to the doctrin of the Church, as if we had metaphysical or cleer evidence that God revealed the same; and the motiue of our faith, and of this adhesion is God's veracity; because it is manifest by the very light of Nature that we ought to be∣lieve God would not permit such a miraculous and moral evi∣dence of his own revealing, or speaking the mysteries of chri∣stianity by the mouth of our Church vnless he did realy spe∣ake by the same Church. For want of this doctrin and distin∣ction,

many vnderstand not how a man can possibly or at least prudently adheare or assent to an object with greater assurance then he sees cleer reason for. If by cleer reason for an assent of Divine faith, be meant that the truth of the mystery assen∣ted vnto, must of necessity be cleer to the Assenter either in it self, or in it's necessaire connection with the Revelation, it is a gross mystake; for that the difference between an assent grounded vpon cleer evidence of the truth, or of reason, and an assent grounded vpon Divine authority is, that the first is a cleer in∣tellectual sight of the truth itself, the second is not so, but a cleer sight of our own obligation of assenting to the truth re∣vealed or related, because wee see cleer and convincing signs of the sincerity and veracity of the Author or relator. Now our obligation of believing God to be the Author of the doctrin of the Church, being evident to ourselves, we are bound to as∣sent to the same Doctrin according to the evidence of our ob∣ligation, that is with greather assurance then appearance of the truth. The evidence of our obligation to assent, is a sufficient ground for our assurance of the truth assented vnto.

Wherfore albeit some Catholick Divines have pretended to maintain in their schoole disputations,* 1.209 that God by the in∣finitness of his supernatural power, may concurr to an Act of faith, though the existence of the revelation itself were evident to the believer; yet (besides that most of them speak irresolut∣ly, and incoherently in that point) they all grant that our Chri∣stian faith must always involve obscurity in it's assent, and that that faith which would have evidence both of the existence of the revelation, and of the revealers veracity, would be an other kind of faith much differring from our Christian and Catho∣lick. Besides: we ought to consider that it is one thing to dis∣pute in schooles of what God may do, and an other thing to believe in the Church what he hath don. In the schooles they dispute even of impossibilities, because they make it their bu∣siness to exercise witt in speculations; but in the Catholick Church our chief business consists in believing and practising

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

The reason why Faith doth require a mixture of obscu∣rity, or want of cleer evidence▪ is, because to believe, is to trust him whom you believe for the truth signified by his words; and if you did see the truth in it self, or know that it cannot be separated from the words spoken, you can no more trust the speaker for the truth so connected with his words, then trust him for the money, you know to be contained in a pur∣se, which he delivers vnto your hands: for though you do not see the money, you see the purse, wherin you have cleer evi∣dence the money is contained. To believe therfore, is to take on's word for the truth (as you do his bond or bill for mo∣ney) for which you have no other security but his worth and veracity; and the greater ons worth, and veracity is, the more you ought to rely vpon it, and doubt the less of his perfor∣mance; and therfore if you require any greater assurance, or evidence of the truth, then his supposed inclination to the same, or his veracity, you do him a great injury, and resolve not to trust, or believe him. Wherfore God's worth veracity, or in∣clination to truth, being infinit, we ought not to exact a cleer sight of the truth it self, nor of any things evidently connected therwith; if we do, we neither trust nor believe him: his incli∣nation therfore to truth being infinit, we ought not to retain the least suspition or feare of being deceived either by himself, or by the Church whervnto he gives the charge and signes of declaring and proposing his word to vs: because he who is in∣finitly inclined to speak truth, is inclined to do it, not only when himself speaks, but every way that truth can be spoken, or by every person and Organ that may be prudently taken to speak by his commission. The Roman Church therfore being prudently taken for the Organ of God's voice, it is as impossi∣ble we should be misledd by it's doctrin, as it is that God should go against his infinit inclination to truth, or should violat his own veracity. Had God's veracity bin limited to his own per∣sonal, or immediat speech, and not extended to what-soever he delivers by the mouth and ministery of others and of his

Church, it had not bin infinit, his credit would have ended with Christ's preaching to the Apostles; and though they we∣re bound to believe their Master, non could be obliged to be∣lieve them. But seing God's veracity is infinit, and his words must continue for ever, they can be as little confined to the per∣sons or Pastors of any on certain age, as infinit veracity to on particular truth, or infinit excellency and goodness to any one degree of perfection. Now seing that God's worth and veraci∣ty, or his infinit inclination to speak truth, cannot be greatet in on matter, nor in on age, then in an other; and that accor∣ding to on's inclination to any thing, must be the application of his power to effect it, we must conclude that God is as much engaged by his worth and goodness, and as much inclined by his veracity, and as much applied by his omnipotency, to speak truth by the mouth of the Church,* 1.210 as by his own, and in the least matter as much as in the greatest, and in every succeeding age as in that of the Apostles, and that vnless his worth, wis∣dom, veracity, goodness, and omnipotency faile, that Church which beareth the miraculous marks of his authority, and ex∣erciseth his ministery, must be infallible in proposing and de∣claring his will and word in all Controversies whatsoever. So that they who grant the Church 〈◊〉〈◊〉 infallible only in funda∣mental articles of faith, deny God•• ••oodness, worth, veracity, and omnipotency: and they who believe not the doctrin of the Roman Catholick Church, as the word of God, (because for∣sooth, they have not cleer evidence, that it is the word of God) do no more believe, nor trust God in the other they assent vnto, then he who says he believes and trusts a man, whose word or writing he will not take for 100. pounds, vn∣less he delivers to him at the same time that summe of mon∣ey not only sealed, but seen in a bag.

The reason of this last assertion is cleer; because one of the differences between the word of God and the word of men is, that you mistrust men for the truth, though you heare their own voice, and have evidence that they speak, the imperfecti∣on

of their nature, making their speech subject to falshood, and themselves to frailty, therfore we may mistrust their veracity, and doubt they be mistaken, or deceive vs, though they pre∣tend and profess to speak nothing but truth. It is not so with God, whose nature being infinitly perfect, and truth it self, it is manifest by natural reason that he can neither be mistaken, nor deceive vs by his words, and by consequence if we knew evidently that him-self speaks, or that the words or doctrin vttered by the Church, are his, we can no more mistrust or not believe him, then mistrust his Deity, or feare a flaw in his perfections, and fraud in his proceedings. So that Protestants resolving not to believe the doctrin of the Church of Rome (made sufficiently credible by supernatural signes to be Divine) vntill it be made cleerly evident to them that it is the word of God, resolve their faith into heretical obstinacy, because they resolve, not to believe or trust God, that evidence which they exact, not being compatible with the merit, trust, obscurity, and obsequiousness of Christian belief, nor with the duty of ratio∣nall Creatures.* 1.211 They may be compared to some Irish or Scotch Rebells, refusing to obey the King's Lieu-tenant, and Commis∣sioners, because for-sooth they have not clear evidence, that the commissions and commands are signed by the King, though they see his Majesty's hand and seale for the authority set over them, which also is obeyd and acknowledged by the better sort, and greater part of both Nations, yet the Rebells will not submit to any Orders, vnless the King leave England, go in person to rule them, and satisfie every particular fellow, that he hath named such a Lieu-tenant or Commissioner, or vnless his Majesty will immediatly by him-self exercise his royal Jurisdiction, signe and seale his commissions in their sight. &c.

Some will think there is a great disparity in the compa∣rison;* 1.212 for that God may without trouble or prejudice to him-self reveale his will and pleasure to every particular person, which Kings can no more do, then be in many places at one time. Therfore what inconveniency can it be that God make evi∣dent

to every particular person, either by a clear signe of his presence, or by an evident proof of his spirit, which doctrin is Divine, which not, without obliging men to believe that the Roman Catholick or any other Church is infallible and can not propose falshood for God's word? To this we ans∣wer, that God might not only reveale his mysteries, to every person, but save us also without subordination to any Church or Pastors, or dependency of Sacraments; but all Christians agree that he hath bin pleased not to do so, so that the que∣stion is not what he could have don, but what he hath don. But it appears by the light of reason, that ther is a certain distance, and decorum due to Majesty and superiority, by vir∣tue wherof God, (or even a Creature, that is supreme in any government) may command his inferiors and subjects by sub∣ordinat officers, and warant these officer's authority by some outward signes and seales of his Soveraignty, which signes (though they may be possibly counterfeited, yet) oblige the People so governed to obey Ministers so qualified, as submis∣sively as if him-self had immediatly delivered his own commands. Wherfore though it were possible that a King might without trouble write, and deliver all his o••ders immediatly, or with∣out the assistance of Secretaries, Ministers, and Messengers, yet it were not fit; And why the Protestant Doctors that write of this subject, should think fit, that God ought to deprive him-self of a decency, and decorum (due even to human Ma∣jesty) to humor their curiosity, or to comply with their ob∣stinacy, J can not comprehended, nor attribute to any other thing but to want of humility, and excess of heresy, the ma∣lice wherof consists in contemning God's authority, and deny∣ing his veracity when sufficiently appearing in the Church; and though not self evidently, yet so convincingly as to make our obligation of submitting thervnto, evident. Jt is therfore a∣gross absurdity to think, or say, that the reverence due to the Divine authority, obligeth vs, not to submit, or not as∣sent therunto, vnless it be more then moraly evident (and

by consequence more them sufficiently evident) vnto us, that we can not be mistaken in our submission, or assent. For, hence would follow, the greater the authority is, the more slow we ought to be in submitting therunto, or (which is the same) the more inclined God is to truth and the more power¦full he is to practise the same and to keep the Church stedy to truth, the more slow we ought to be, in believing the Church or God's known Ministers and Messengers.

SECT. XIV. Reasons for liberty of Conscience; and how much both Piety and Policy is mistaken in making Prelatick Protestancy the Religion of the state by continuing and pressing the sanguinary and pe∣nal statutes against the Roman Catholick faith, and the Act of vniformity against sectaries.

THere is not any thing more damnable to sou∣les, or more dangerous to states, then to ma∣ke the laws of the land, the rule of faith, and temporal statuts the ground of spiritual jurisdiction. It is endeed Christian piety to fence and favour Religion with Imperial e∣dicts, and Royal Decrees; and therfore it was prophecied of the Church, Kings shall be thy nursing Fathers, and Queens thy Mothers;* 1.213 but to found the belief of eternal verities and of Christian Religion vpon temporal statuts, and to frame the doctrin of the Church, and the Caracter of the Clergy accor∣ding to Acts of Parliament, and to the interest of the Prince

is neither piety nor policy in lawfull, and vndoubted Soveraigns. What Queen Elizabeth did to salue the sore of her illegitimacy was as great a prejudice (and ought as litle be made a presi∣dent) to the royall family of the Stewards, as Oliver Cromwel's Tyrany; the laws and Religion of both, equaly tending to it's total ruin, and exclusion from the Crown, with this only difference, that Queen Elizabeth destroy'd the Stewards, by reforming the Old Religion, whervpon their right was groun∣ded, but Cromwell destroy'd them by reforming the New Re∣ligion, whervnto they had conformed, and wherby they en∣deavored to setle their Throne.

And indeed Souveraigns can expect no greater security, or better success then the Royal family of the Stewards hath had, whilst the Religion which their Subjects profess, hath no other certainty, or setlement, but what is received from an arbitrary interpretation of Scripture, confirmed by temporal statuts. That the Protestant prelatick Religion hath no other rule but this, and the laws of the Lands, is manifest by so many chan∣ges of it's articles, liturgy, caracter, and Translations of Scrip∣ture, by publick and Parliamentory authority; That it hath no certainty from it's own principle••▪ is manifest by the ack∣nowledged fallibility of that Church, and by the liberty of interpreting God's word, and by the prerogative of judging controversies of faith which the Tenets of all the Reforma∣tions and example of the first Reformers allow to any par∣ticular person, that will claim the privilege of a reformed Christian, or the spirit of a godly or guifted Protestant.

This liberty of professing, and the vncertainty of prote∣stancy, having proved in all places and persons wherunto it had access, a seed of rebellion, destructive not only of the sub∣stance of Religion, but of the tye of alleigance; it was thought necessary for the preservation of Princes, and the peace of their subjects, to reduce the variety (and regulat the extravagancy) of the dissenting reformed doctrines, into publick professions of protestancy, as sutable to the interest of the souveraigns,

and inclinations of the subjects, and customs of their Coun∣tries, as could be devised. And because the government of England continued Monarchical, and that Episcopacy doth favor Monarchy, and is essential to Parliaments, the prote∣stancy of the Church of England was made prelatick, notwith∣standing, the incoherency of Episcopacy with the very foun∣dation of the first and pure pretended reformations. And seing ther is such antipathy between the caracter of Episcopacy, and the principles of protestancy, that the Church of England in the beginning of Q. Elizabeths reign durst not claim that cara∣cter, or any spiritual jurisdiction, by succession from the Apo∣stles, and their successors the ensuing Catholick Bishops, it was content to receive both, as also the confirmation of it's prelatick doctrin, from an vnheard-of spiritual supremacy of a lay Prince, and from Acts of Parliament; and so was it made the legal Re∣ligion of the state, contrary to the principles both of the an∣cient Catholick faith and of the new protestant reformations.

How contrary this setlement of prelatick protestancy by a persecution of Popery, is to Christian piety, may easily ap∣peare to them who will remember what hath bin sayd herto∣fore of the sanctity, antiquity, and continuall succession of the Roman Catholick Religion from the Apostles to this present, and reflect vpon the principles, begining, and progress, of protestancy in general, and of the prelatick in particular. How inconsistent with policy it is, to press by the severity of laws a profession so generally dislik't, as the prelatick (it being con∣trary to the ancient Religion, and not agreeing with the new Reformations) experience hath demonstrated, when not only all foreign Roman Catholick Princes and people stood neuters, (not much concerned whether Protestant Prelacy, or Presbytery should prevaile in England; they pittied indeed the Royal family, and wish'd them good success against their rebellious subjects, but this they wish'd to them as Princes, not as Prela∣tiks) not only, Isay, foreign Catholicks were neuters, but all the Protestant Churches abroad were more inclined to favor

the Presbiterian and fanatick English and Scotch Congregations, then the King's Religion; for that they come neerer to them and to the primitive and fundamental principles of Protestancy.

The reason why the Prelatick persuasion is so odious to the reformed Churches abroad, and so opposed by Presbiterians and other Protestant Congregations at home, is, because the forma∣lity of it's ceremonies, and the legality of it's discipline are in∣compatible with the primitive spirit, liberty, and principles of protestancy. The protestant Bishops would fain Lord it over their brethren, not content with the name and power of Pro∣testant superintendents, they strive to imitat the authory and se∣verity of the Catholick Episcopal jurisdiction, in their Courts, and do what they can to retain a ceremonious decency in there Churches, but neither is agreable with the nature and spirit of the Protestant Reformations, which consist in an indepen∣dency and exemption from all spiritual superiority and ceremo∣nie of a particular person being supreme Judge and Inter∣preter of Scripture. This spiritual judicature is the spiritual birth-right of every Protestant, and the ground wherupon Luther and his followers raised their reformations, and their new sense of the Ghospel. Wherfore the res••rai•• of this Protestant evan∣gelical liberty, and birth-right, by the rigor of our lawes in favor of the prelatick jurisdiction, and disciplin, must needs make the law-makers and their religion as odious to all zealous Protestants, as liberty of opinion and fancied Scripture are deere to a stubborn and humor••om peop••••▪

Let it then be maturely considered whether any thing can be more daungerous to the safety of the Soveraign, or to the tranquillity of the state, then to enact lawes in a protestant Commonweale, or Kingdom, wherby the very foundation and birth-right of Protestancy is made penal, and the most Reli∣gious observers of the protestant rule of faith are rendred in∣capable of all employments both in Church and state? And that all this violence is practised to support a Creed, the 39. ar∣ticles of a doubtful sense, and a Clergy of a doubtful ca∣racter,

even according to their own prelatick principles, and according to the primitive principles of protestancy, and to vphould a Church that professeth it's own fall and fal∣libility, and therfore (for all it self knows) is no true Church, but may be mistaken in it's doctrin, and lead all that rely vpon it's ministery, and instruction, into eternal damnation, and can give no satisfaction, or security to such as are of their com∣munion, nor produce any thing for justifying the severity of these proceedings, but a Parliaments Act of vniformity, and other temporal statuts. To which every Presbiterian and fanatick doth answer, that lawes enacted in favor of Religion, do suppose, not make, the Religion reasonable; for, though reason be the ground of all human lawes, yet no human lawes can be the ground of Religion.

When all this is maturely considered, it will doubtless appeare to be a sad case, that a poore man who desires to be saved, and informed of the true Church, and of Christ's do∣ctrin, and conform himself therunto, shall be compell'd by for∣feitures imprisonment and banishment &c. to the prelatick do∣••trin and Church of England, and shall have no other reason 〈◊〉〈◊〉 redress given him for this violence, and punishments, but that he doth not conform to the Religion established by the lawes of the Land. So much was alleadged for the Idolls, and Religion of the Pagan Emperous, and vpon the same ground (of law) did they persecute the primitive Christians; Doubt∣less all Quakers, Presbiterians, and non Conformists think them∣seves as glorious sufferers, as the holy primitive Martyrs and Confessors; which persuasion in so great and zealous a multi∣tude, can not be voyd of daunger, and ought to be remedyed more by reason then rigor; for though from Roman Catho∣licks (whose principles are peaceable, and incline them to suf∣fer persecution with patience) no great prejudice may be fea∣red (if they will be directed by their profession) yet expe∣rience hath taught, that all Protestant sectaries have inherited from their first Patriarchs Luther, Calvin, Crammer &c. the spi∣rit

of sedition and rebellion, which is involved in the very foun∣dation of protestancy; Luther openly declared so much at the Diet of Worms in presence of the Emperour Charles 5. (Who had objected against him tumults and disorders as vndeniable effects of his doctrin) misapplying the words of our saviour, Non veni pacem mittere, sed gladium, as if dissention, and rebel∣lion had bin a mark of the true Ghospel. On the other side, the Presbiterians do imitate the bloudy proceedings and prin∣ciples of their 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Fathers Zuinglius and Calvin, in deposing of Kings,* 1.214 and Magistrats, and make good the saying of Zuin∣glius, Evangelium vult sanguinem, the Reformation must be main∣tained by bloud. So that the sanguinary statuts in favor of pre∣latick protestancy, and the bloudy principles of Presbitery in in pursuance of their seditious spirit, clashing togeather, will make fine work among Christians and the prelatick Clergy, which ought by their admonitions and censures, to compose these dis∣orders, and be Authors of peace, are despised as no Clergy, and their caracter is made the subject of discord, and dispute. And the Protestant Bishops, which ought to exercise the authority whervnto they pretend, retire, and recurr to the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Courts for the spirituality, as well as for the legality of their jurisdic∣tion and function, and confess in plain termes their Churches frailty and fallibility in doctrin, and leave the state to shift for it self, deprived of th•••••• helps which Catholick Princes receive from the Roman Church and Clergys censures, wherwith re∣bellious subjects are terrified, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉, or return to their duty.

SVBSECT I.

NEither is the daunger of disturbing the tranquillity of the state for supporting the Prelatick doctrin and ca∣racter by temporal lawes, confin'd only to Presbite∣rians and Fanatiks; the Prelatiks them-selves (if interest prevaile

not more with them then conscience, and coherency) can not but change their Religion into a contrary persuasion, when they observe, that the mean between Popery and Presbytery (wherin they place Prelatick protestancy, and the truth of chri∣stianity) hath no solid foundation, or colour of reason. For what can be more absurd then to pretend, that as moral virtue is a mean or mixture of two extremes, so the truth of Christian Religion is a mean between two contrary opinions, or a mixture of Popery, and Presbitery, which are two extremes involving contradictory Tenets. Morality, I confess is a mediocrity and a kind of Mixture: For, liberality (for example) doth seeme to participat some thing of covetousness, and some thing of pro∣digality, which are extreme different; but Christianity being truth and Divine truth, is no mean between the two, but one of the two extremes; it is no mixture, because truth admits no mix∣ture of falshood; nor division, it can be but on one side. Therfore when a Presbiterian or Fanatick saith, that Scripture is the on∣ly rule of faith, and Judge of Controversies, the Catholick say∣es it is not; not both, but one of them speaks truth, Yet the Prelatick would f••ain stand like a Christian moderator or neu∣ter between both parties, and reconcile their Contradictions, by reducing them to a third doctrin, or to a mean between truth and falshood: and the mean is, to grant both the contradicto∣ry propositions, and collogue with both sides.

And indeed that is the mean, wherin Prelatick Protestan∣cy doth consist; when their writers defend it against Presbite∣rians, they grant the doctrin of Papists; when they answer and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 against Papists, they maintain the doctrin of Presbiterians, for there is no other mean to reconcile, or be reconciled to con∣tradictions, but to maintain both. And this was the custom of Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, &c. and is the ordinary practise of the ablest Prelaticks in their books of Controversy. I remit you to one of their greatest Champions, my Lord Bishop of Down, in his Dissuasive from Popery; you need not run through the whole book, read but his first Section, and you will heare him

say first, that Scripture alone is the foundation or rule of faith, and after, that it is not; Then again, that it is nothing els but Scrip∣ture together with the Creeds, and the foure first Councells. It is as impossible therfore that a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 man should be in his judg∣ment a Prelatick Protestant, as it is he should believe that God revealed contradictions. Wherfore if interest and conveniency hath not a greater 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vpon his profession of faith, then conscience, or coherency (even to the principles of the Refor∣mation) he will not continue a prelatick, nor make temporal statuts his rule of faith, but will either (according to the pru∣dent dictamen of a good conscience) become a Roman Catho∣lick, or (according to the rigor of the purest Protestant con∣sequences) become a ranck Presbiterian, or Fanatick.

I report me therfore to the judgment of all moderat and sober persons, whether it be piety or policy, to engage the au∣thority of a Protest•••••• soveraign, and Parliament, in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the severity of lawes against subjects for not professing the prelatick Reformation, which the most learned men therof can not maintain without granting manifest contradictions, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 pra∣ctise without condemning the fundamental principles 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Pro∣testancy? I must confess that the Presb••••erian, Fanatick, or any other arbitrary Religion (that is Religion directed by the let∣ter of Scripture, subject to every man's privat interpretation) will at length destroy the state, if ther be not a limit set to the indiscreet zeale, and extravagant f••ncies of every particular person, and Congregation that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to the purity of a Re∣formation, but I can hardly believe that temporal lawes are a proper and efficatious meanes to refrain that spiritual liberty, which (according to the Principles of protestancy) is due by the Ghospel to every Protestant, and not subject to any hu∣man authority.* 1.215

As for that much celebrated, and generaly practised expedient and distinc••••on of Brentius, and the Divines of Wittemberg, saying, that though it belongs to every privat person to judg of Doctrin and Reli∣gion, and to distinguish the true from fals; yet between the Prince and

privat man is this difference, that as the privat man hath privat authority of judging, and deciding the doctrin of Religion, so the Prince hath publick. And through-out the whole book doth defend that the secular Prince is obliged to force his subjects (even with punishment of death) to that Religion and sense of Scripture which he jud∣geth true, and also that the subjects are bound to stick to their own contrary sense of Scripture, and Religion; this expedient, I say, doth not prevent the daunger, or remedie the desease of a politick body, sick of protestancy, but doth increase the dis∣temper and renders it incurable. And though in some parts of our more northern Climat, several Protestant Princes have pur∣chased some quiet by the severity of their lawes, in favor of the sects which they profess, yet that quiet, proceeding from want of curiosity in the people of examining the truth, or from want of courage to profess it, we can not expect in the English Monarchy the like acquiescense, and success; the British Nations are naturaly serious, and scrupulous in the scrutin•• of Religion, and either zealous, or seditious in the mainte∣nance therof. Wherfore it imports no less then the peace of these nations, that the Act of vniformity be not the rule of their Religion.

Seing therfore it is the nature of Protestancy (as of all o∣ther Religions, grounded vpon voluntary and privat interpre∣tations of an obscure writing) to breed disorders and confusi∣on in all Common-wealths, wherin the liberty of interpreting that writing is not restrained by law; and if restrained by law, the legislative power is opposed, and it's authority contemned as contrary to the law, and word of God; and this opposition is waranted by the principles of protestancy, which exempt all reformed Christians from any conscientious obligation of sub∣mitting to Church or state Governors in matters of Religion; supposing I say, this to be the nature of Protestancy, it is ap∣parent how contrary it is to policy to enact or continue lawes against the profession of the Roman Catholick faith, which a∣lone amongst all Christian Religions needeth not the support

of human lawes, or of temporal statutes, to make it the Reli∣gion of the soule, or to setle the Common-wealth, as appeareth by the feare of Prelaticks to grant liberty of conscience to Pa∣pists. For the space of 1000. years did our English Ancestors profess the Roman faith, and in all that time they never had the least contention in the state about matters of Religion; and in the space of these last 100. years there had bin more Re∣bellions, more deposing and murthering of Soveraigns in this one litle Island of great Britanny vpon the accompt of Prote∣stancy, then hath bin since Christ's birth, in the whole world vpon the accompt of Popery.

Wherfore seing that one of the differences between Pope∣ry and Protestancy is, that although Popery be co〈…〉〈…〉y to li∣berty of opinion, to sensuality, and depraved inclinations, yet is it so plausible and popular, that Protestants (notwithstanding the legal incapacities 〈◊〉〈◊〉 penalties which they lay vpon Papists) are afraid it will spread over the whole Kingdom in a short time (and therfore call it a growing Religion) it is evident that it increaseth by the reasonableness and sanctity of it's princi∣ples, and without the help of law, or countenance of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 go∣vernment; nay against the greatest severity of law, and against the known inclination of the Soveraign, in such a measure, that the King and Parliament have thought of new remedies against the grouth therof: But Protestancy (especialy the Pre∣latick) notwithstanding all it's liberty of opinion, and preten∣ded assurance of being saved by only faith without the trou∣ble of pennance, fasting, or other mortifications of the flesh, with all the favor of the lawes, and countenance of the Go∣vernment, can not be made the Religion of the state. Of three parts of England the one is Prelatick Protestant in their judgments: and the two parts which are not, will sooner beco∣me Papists then Prelaticks, Now whether it be sound policy to persecute the Roman Religion by law, which doth increase against law, and to endeavor to setle by law the Prelatick Re∣ligion, which so lately hath occasioned the abolishing of all

lawes, we humbly submit to the consideration of them who sit at the helme.

Besids, one of the greatest prejudices, that a Prince or Common-wealth can suffer, is to be deprived of loyal, con∣scientious, and able men's services, either in civil or military em∣ployments. By the penal and sanguinary Statuts, the King and Country deprive them-selves of many servitors of approved loy∣alty, wisdom, and eminent abilities, and not only deprive them∣selves of such servitors, but by virtue of legal incapacities set vpon Papists, enable every ambitious man, or discontended fa∣ction to asperse the King and his chief Ministers with favoring fo••••ooth Popery, if they do not exercise cruelty, and the ri∣gor of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sanguinary and penal Statuts against deserving per∣sons, or 〈◊〉〈◊〉 least if they shew them any countenance, how-e∣ver so meriting, and vsefull they have bin in the worst of ti∣mes, and may prove to be again if this Protestant zeale should prevaile; for it is alwayes the fore-runner of rebellion, and is now become so rash, that it attempteth to asperse my Lord Late Chancellor with favoring Popery, who is a pillar and pa∣t••rn o•• Protestancy. Perhaps his Lordship's gentle nature, great wisdom, justice, and integrity, might incline him to thinck that lawes made by Queen Elizabeth for excluding the Stewards from the Crown, and for destroying that Religion and party wherby their title was supported, are now superfluous, and disrespectfull to the Royal Family, that Reigns; but such as have the honor to know him best, assure us his L••p is no great friend to P••pists. Lastly, whosoever will call vnto mind the mis-chief which but a few members of the House of Commons of the long Parliament wrought against the late King, and will observe how popular others of the same stamp are now, and how apt the giddy multitude is, to be fool'd again into Re∣bellion by the like madd zeale against Popery, will be of o∣pinion, that not any on thing can be of so great prejudice to the peace and prosperity of England, as the continuance of la∣wes, which (if executed) make the Nation and Government

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

SVBSECT II. Queen Marys, and the Inquisitions severity against Protestancy, can be no President or excuse for the Statuts against Popery.

I Will conclude this matter with answering the vulgar Objection made for vindication of the penal and sanguina∣ry lawes of Queen Elizabeth against Roman Catholicks, grounded vpon a parity of the like lawes executed by Queen Mary and the Jnquisition against Protestants. The disparity will discover the fallacy, and dissolue the force of their argu∣ment. Neither Queen Mary, nor the Jnquisition made any lawes against Protestants; they were made by the first Christi∣an Emperours, and accepted by all Catholick Kings into the statuts of their Kingdoms, and confirmed by their Parliaments. The ancient Christian Soveraigns not only believed that the Roman faith was the Apostolick, but found by experience the same Roman Catholick faith had peaceable principles, agre∣abl•• ••o just Government, and therfore they enacted lawes of death, infamy, confiscation of goods &c. against all such as pre∣sumed to alter that doctrin, declaring such as contradicted the Tenets therof, to be Innovators and Hereticks.

When protestancy began in England, they who preach't the new doctrin, (being conscious of their own guilt, and of having incurred the penalties of these ancient Christian lawes, then in force against Innovators and Hereticks, and in particular against the mar∣riage of Priests with Nuns proceeded other-wise. Zozomen hist. lib. 6. cap. 3. affirmeth how that the Christian Emperour Jovinian who was in course the third Emperour after Constantin the Great published an Edict that who allured a Nun to mariage should be therfore punished with the loss of his head. And this

law is yet extant C••d. l. de Episcopis & C••••ricis) But they I say petitio- to the Parliament of Edward ••. to have those 〈◊〉〈◊〉 repealed (wher¦by you may see how they acknowledged their own doctrin was Heresy) whervpon they wer•• dispensed with to marry, and all the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 lawes against Her••tick••, and heresi••••▪ were repealed▪ Queen Mary succeeding, restored the ancient lawes that had bin repealed by King Ed••••••d 6. togeather with the ancient Reli∣gion, but she was not the Author of them, as Queen Eliza∣beth was of the penal and sanguinary statuts against Priests and Roman Catholicks, which never had bin heard of before her time in a Christian Kingdom, or Common-wealth.

Jn like manner the Inquisition ma•••• no new lawes against Protestants, neither do they sentence them to death▪ they only declare, that they are Innovators of the ancient Catholick doct∣rin or Hereticks; and then the secular Magistrats do execute the temporal lawes in fo••••e against such persons. If protestants had not found themselves guilty of heresy, why were they so solicitious to have the lawe••▪ ••hat had bin ••••acted against he∣reticks, (not lately, but during those ven••••••ble 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the pri••••tive Church) repealed? why did 〈…〉〈…〉 if their doct•••••• was the ••••me with that of ••he ancient Fathers that lived in times wherin the Imperial lawes were made, and in force? what needed they to except against lawes which had bin enacted to favour the doctrin of those Fathers with whom they pretend to agree? Queen Mary therfore and the Inquisition, who proceeded ac•• willing to those ancient ••••wes a∣gainst protestants, did nothing but what all Christian and Ca∣tholick Emperours and Kings had don for the space of 1300. years against hereticks.

But Queen Elizabeth took the quite contrary way; she observed that according to the principles of Christianity, as al∣so according to the ancient and modern lawes of England, her self could not enjoy the Crown (having bin declared illegiti∣mat by sundry Acts of Parliament never repealed) nor the Ste∣wards be excluded, they being the lawfull and immediat Heirs;

and because▪ the Queen of Scots, from whom they derived their title, was a Catholick, Queen Elizabeth made her-self and En∣gland, Protestant; that is, by Acts of Parliament, she declared that all the Catholick Emperours, Kings, and Churches, of the world for almost 1300. years, had bin superstitious and Ido∣latrous; that the Bishop of Rome, was Anti-Christ; the Ca∣tholick Clergy, Cheats; the sea of Rome, the whore of Babylon; spiritual Jurisdiction, a shee and secular supremacy; the sacrifice of Christ's body and bloud, a blasphemy; five of the seaven Sacraments, human invention and corrupt following of the A∣postles; Priesthood, and Episcopacy, nothing but a lay Ministery authorised vnder the Soveraign's great se••le; all lawfull Priests, and Bishops, Traytors; all Catholicks, Hereticks; &c. And all these absurdities were made legal in England, to make her Father's marriage with Anne Bullen seem lawfull, wheras it had bin declared null and invalid by so many Parliaments of Eng∣land, that her self durst not attempt an immediat and cleer re∣peale of Acts so notoriously inconsistent with the right that herself pretended ••o the Crown.

T••at 〈…〉〈…〉 and men who expected favors from her) should so metamorphose sacred things into profane, Scripture into fancy, and illegitimacy into legitimacy, we do no•• ad∣mire, neither is it strange that illiterat people after a Century of years, continuance and education in such a Religion, should be zealous in the maintenance therof, or that a Clergy, which hath no other livelyhood, nor hopes of promotion but by ju∣stifying these proceedings, should endeavor to continue her la∣wes against orthodox Christianity, and the known truth, for their own interest, are frailties incident to men; but that the nobility and Gentry of England (being so well vers'd in their own Chronikles, and in the Histories of other Nations) that persons of so much witt, knowledg, and judgment, should not when they meet in Parliament, move and resolve to restore Christianity, and rectify so gross and vulgar mistakes, especialy since the family against whose succession the statuts had bin in∣troduced,

is restored to the Crown; this 〈◊〉〈◊〉, or obli∣vion, I say, of the English 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and nobility, i•• hardly excusable. And if the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 will not be moved out of cha∣rity to their fellow subjects and 〈◊〉〈◊〉, to abolish the san∣guinary and penal Laws against Roman Catholicks, let them do it out of civility to the Royal Family, against whose par∣ty and Title so injust Laws were ••••acted. There is not ther∣fore any thing 〈◊〉〈◊〉 more Queen Elizabeths penal statuts, then to compare 〈◊〉〈◊〉 wi••h Queen Mari•••• and the Inquisiti∣ons proceedings against Protestants. It's now time that we pass from the examination of protestant principles, to the discovery of the frauds and ••••••••••fications, wherwith the pr••••atick Clergy doth disguise them, and divert their flocks from reflecting v∣pon those sad effects which they have wrought, and must work, wheresoever they are 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Religion of the sta••e.

A TREATISE OF RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT

THE THIRD PART. Containing a plain discovery of the Protestant Clergies frauds, and falsifications, wherby alone their doctrin is supported, and made credible. The conscience and conveniency of restoring or to∣lerating the Roman Catho∣lick Religion▪ demon∣strated.

SECT. I. That either the learned Protestant, or Roman Catho∣lick Clergy are Cheats, and how every illiterat pro∣testant may easily discern by wich of the two Cler∣gie•• he is cheated: and therfore is obliged vnder pain of damnation to examin so neer a concern, and to renounce the doctrin and communion of that Church wherin he is cheated.

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

of the true Church being so conspicuous and manifest by such eminent and visible marks, Christ might well forbid the faithfull to communicat with Hereticks and Schismaticks, for that their conventicles 〈◊〉〈◊〉 never be mistaken for the whole, or even a part of the Catholick Church, vnless men ••ill be so simple as to take their ••are word when they say, Hic est Christus, aut illic: wheras if it were possible for learned men to be innocently mistaken, Christ's command had not bin obli∣gatory; for, in such •• case we were not bound to believe that Christ is rather in one Church then other, seing each Church had reason sufficient to excuse learned parties from schism, and ••••resy? But it being impossible that God should command vs to believe on Congregation of Christians, and not believe o∣thers, that pretend also to be the true Church of Christ, with∣out confirming the testimony and doctrin of that one Con∣gregation, which he bids vs believe and preferr before the rest with such cleer signes of the truth, and so evident marks of Divine authority, that the others, compared therwith, can have no probability; two things must be granted. 1. (that the Ca∣tholi•••• Church of Christ cannot be composed of all, or any dissenting Congregations. 2. That the one only Congregation which is the true and Catholick Church, can never be so eclip∣sed, but that it must appeare much more eminent in sanctity, miracles, conversion of Nations, and much more credible in it's testimonies, then any other. Wherfore we conclude that either the learned protestant clergy or the catholick must be cheats; seing that notwithstanding the evident and eminent signes and marks of God's Church can not be found in both, or in any two Congrega∣tions dissenting in their doctrin and rule of faith, yet each of them make their illiterat flocks believe, that their own is the true Church of God, whervpon the signes and seales of his au∣thority, and veracity do cleerly shine.

No human art, or industry, if not born-out with more then ordinary and notorious impudencie, can pretend to dis∣credit, or darken the spendor of true Miracles, Sanctity, Succes∣si••••

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

become Masters of the Comerce, as shall be proved. I hope these considerations will invite and incite them to examin which of both the Clergies, (the Roman Catholick that petitions for, ••r the Prelatick Protestant that opposeth liberty of conscience) are the cheats? And▪ that they may find it out withou•• much trouble, I have thought sit to lett them know, there is not any one controversy between them and vs, which hath not bin handled in English, and argued to the full on both sides: now the summe of our disputes being this, whether the primitive Church was Roman Catholick, or rather Protestant, in the con∣troverted points, as Praying to Saints, Transsubstantiation, Pur∣gatory, worship of Images, the Canonicall letter, and sense of Scrip∣tur••, &c. To decide the Controversy, each side quotes the words of Scripture, Councells and Fathers, because the true do∣ctrine hath bin preserved, and recorded in these writings. Let him therfore that doubts of the sense of the Text, and of the sincerity of him that quotes it, compare the Authors words with the 〈…〉〈…〉 he will infallibly find out who is the Cheat. For he that doth corrupt the words, or change the sense of Scrip••••re, Councells, and Fathers, doth not stick to the doctrin of the primitive Church▪

And because I have spent some time (both before and after my conversion to the Catholick faith) in examining the falsifications, and frauds of Protestants, and their objections a∣gainst Papists in the same kind, I may speak with more assu∣rance then others who have not so much experience; and do protest that I never thought it possible (before I found it was so de facto) that men pretending not only to the name of re∣formed Christianity, but to the Reality and Sanctity of an E∣piscopal caracter, and charge of soules, could be so vnconside∣rable, vnworthy and vncharitable in matters of eternity, as I have ••ound the Protestant writers, and in particular the prelaticks of the Church of England. Let any who desires to satisfie his conscience or curiosity, pervse and compare either the books of Jevel and Harding; or of Bishop Morton, and Father Pesons▪

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

the nature or essence of a body? Or whether quantity be a thing distinct from that which we call a corporeal substance.

SVBSECT I. VVith what impudency and hipocrisy Bishop Ievell and other prelatick writers began to maintain the Protestancy of the Church of England? And how they were blamed for appealing to antiquity by some of their own Brethren.

TO manifest the impudency and hypocrisy, wherwith Prelatick Protestancy was broach't and imposed vpon the layty in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths reign, I will begin with Bishop Jevell's famous challenge, and his Seconds, that offered to maintain the primitive antiquity of Protestancy, and the novelty of Popery. His words are. As I sayd before, I say again, I am content to yeeld and sub∣scribe, if any of our learned Adversaries, or if all the learned men that be alive, be able to bring one sufficient sentence out of any one Catholick Doctor or Father, or out of any old Generall Councell &c. for the space of 600. years after Christ, &c Protesting also that he affirmeth thus much, not as carried away with the heat of zeale, but as moved with the simple truth, least any of you should happily be deceived and think there is more weight on the other side then in conclusion will be found, &c. And then he brake into this ve∣hement Apostrophe. O mercifull God! who could think that there could be so much wilfulness in the heart of man. Then exclaimes, O Gregory! O Austin! O Hierom! O Chrysostom! O Leo! O Dionise! O Anacl••tus! O Calixtus! O Paul! O Christ? Jf we be 〈◊〉〈◊〉

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

* 1.216 acknowledged the impossibility of defending the Protestant Re∣ligion by Tradition, or by any monuments o•• examples from antiquity, or by the sayings of Fathers and Councells. Inso∣much that Archbishop Whitgift in his defence against the reply of Cartwright pag. 472. & 473. doth not stick to say, that almost all the Bishops and learned Writers of the Greek and Latin Church▪ for the most part, were spotted with the doctrin of free will▪ oftner it, of invocation of Saints &c. And from thence infers that in no age since the Apostles time any company of Bis∣hops held so perfect and so sound doctrin in all points as the Bishops of England at this day. And Mr. Fulk in his reionder to Bris∣tow pag. 7. I confess that Ambrose, Austin, Hierom (all three Fathers, to whom B.p Iewell appealed) held invocation of Saints to be lawfull. And B.p Bale acknowledgeth that St. Gregory (the first of Iewell's chosen Iudges) by his indulgences establis∣hed pilgrimages to Images; and that St. Leo (an other of Ievell's Fathers▪) allowed the worship of Images.

And Doctor Humfrey, Iesuitismi part 1. rat. 5. pag. 626. cannot deny but that S. Gregory taught Transsubstantiation. And Mr. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in his Papisto m••t, edit. 1606. pag. 143. saith, We are 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that the mystery of iniquity did work in S••▪ Paul's time, and fell not a sleep so soon as Paul was dead &c. And therfore no mer∣mail though pervsing Councells and Fathers, we find the print of the Popes feet. And Mr. Napper in his Treatise vpon the Revela∣tion dedicated to King Iames▪ pag. 68. & 145. affirmeth that Popery or the Anti-christian Kingdom did continue 1260. years vniversaly without any debatable contradiction▪ The Pope and his Clergy, during that time possessing the outward visible Church. So that it was not one or two Fathers, or Councells, but all Christendom which professed the Roman Catholick saith, for these 1••00. years past. And even Mr. Whitaker himself, lib. 6. contra Duraeum pag. 123. (notwithstanding his vndertaking to maintain Ievells challenge and bold assertion) was forc'd at length to submit, but by a profane expression, saying, that the Popish Religion is a patch't coverlet of the Fathers errors sowed together.

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

have them read their English falsified Scripture (the subject of controversies, and support of errors) and will not permit them to pervse the true authentick translation, and all this to the end nothing but fraud and fancy may be the rule of the Protestant faith. These and all other the like observations which can not but occurr to them who frequent their Churches, or company, must needs induce men to suspect the weakness of their cause, and the guilt of their conscience, though there had bin no e∣vidences, that they are Falsifiers. But seing their are as many e∣vidences against them, as there are Chapters in Catholick Books of controversies, and that the Books are easily had, and vnder∣stood, I see not how any Protestant, how ever so illiterat, can be excused from eternall damnation, by pretending the integri∣ty of his Clergy, or his own insufficiency to examin their sincerity.

When many accuse a man of high Treason, and offer to prove it to his face, not only by sundry honest and legal witt∣nesses but vnder his own hand writing, it would be censured treachery or great carlesness in the Ministers of state, to slight such an accusation and evidence, though the person accused, vn∣till then▪ had bin trusted, and reputed a loyal subject: This is our case with the Protestant writers: we have no quarrel a∣gainst them but Religion; we charge them in publick writing with the highest Treason (the murthering of the soules of So∣veraigns and subjects) with corrupting God's word; with rebelling against the Divine authority, so authentickly appearing in the Roman Catholick Church. And these Treasons we offer to prove face to face, not only by legal witness, but by their Bibles and Books. We have no grudge to them but this only of damning soules, by treacherous dealing; and desire that so important an accusation may come to a publick hearing, If their interest, and industry can divert the layty from so great a con∣cern, that layty must be treacherous to themselves, and censu∣red very carless of their own salvation.

And to the end it may not be objected that these are

are but 〈◊〉〈◊〉 words,* 1.217 I have resolved to descend to particular crimes. I 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the persons, their Books, I quote their own words, I prove them to be no innocent mistakes, but wilfull and wicked falsifications and fraud••; not committed by one, or few 〈…〉〈…〉 of Religion against vs▪ not in our time▪ but alway•••• 〈…〉〈…〉 but the whole body in their 〈…〉〈…〉 only by connivance and permission, but also by contrivance••▪ and positive approbation, not only petty 〈◊〉〈◊〉 differences, but of ancient condemned heresies, which the Protestant writers maintain as orthodox doctrin, not∣withstanding that 〈…〉〈…〉, S. Hierom, and other Doctors of God's Church censure the opinions as notorious he∣resies, and the Authors as hereticks. This is the summe of the Accusations, contained in this third part of our Treatise: and if we be not mistaken, deserues a Trial, as well for the satis∣faction of privat 〈◊〉〈◊〉 conscience, as 〈◊〉〈◊〉 for the probability there is of publick conveniency, it being very improbable, that I, or any man who pretends to the least degree of worth, or witt, would charge with so many particular grievous crimes, so numerous and powe••••ull a party as the Protestant Clergy is, without 〈…〉〈…〉 undeniable evidences. If the Protestant Cler∣gy be found guylty, besides the salvation of soules (which will be obtained by renouncing their errors, and is that we all ought principaly to ayme at) these Nations will be happy in this world by their revenues. If they be not guilty, they and their Reli∣gion will gain great credit, and I nothing but the infamy of being a notorious Jmpostor. I know not what others may think of me, but I shall never think that any other can be so witless and wicked, as to take so much paines as I have don in com∣posing, and be at so great charge of publishing this Treatise, without manifest profe•• of the truth therof; for if my allegati∣ons be not true I can have no further design, or hopes, but of infamy to my self, and of honor, and credit to my Adversaries, and an addition of strength to the cause I do impugne: all which must follow, and fall vpon me, if the learned Protestant Cler∣gy

be not proved to be as great Cheats, as I pretend they are.

But its strange what deepe impressions education doth make in mens minds, and how partial and passionat these Nations are tendred by Protestancy. They will not believe that their Pro∣testant Writers are wilfull Falsifiers, as for example that Doctor Jeremy Taylor (a man that hath writ so many spiritual Books foorsooth, and rules of Morality) is guilty of maintaining the Protestant Religion by aboue 150. shamefull vnexcusable cor∣ruptions and falsifications, in his litle Dissuasive. And when he, the Author, his Jrish Convocation,* 1.218 and the English Pro∣testant Church, that Applauder of the work, are challenged in print by sundry Catholick Writers to make good any one of those falsifications, all the world (besides Protestants) ob∣serve they have not a word to answer; and by consequence themselves must now confess, that their Religion is damnable, seing it can not be otherwise maintained then by falshood; not∣withstanding J say there can be no hopes of salvation in such a Church, no tollerable excuse for such imposturs, yet the wri∣ters, and writings are cryed vp, and still in credit, because they maintain that mistaken Reformation wherin Protestant▪ have bin brought vp. And though this particular case of Do∣ctor Taylors (one of the ablest Protestant Divines now living) is sufficient to demonstrat the falshood of all Protestants, and Protestancy in general, yet for information and proofe, that his ••rrors fell not by chance from his pen, and that he hath not changed the arguments, but is constant to the ancient falsify∣ing Method, the only way of all his Predecessours the Prote∣stant Writers, I will give particular instances of the most re∣nowned from Luther to Taylor himself, that is from the very first to the last.

But before I set down the particulars of Protestant falsi∣fications I will prove in general, that the Roman Catholicks can not be prudently suspected of the like practises, and that Protestants are cleerly convicted therof.

SECT. II. That there can be no reason to suspect the sincerity of the Roman Catholick Clergy in matters of Re∣ligion; and that Protestancy can not be maintained otherwise then by impostures; wherof there are such evidences, that to give the Protestant Clergy any credit in matters of their Religion, is a suf∣ficient cause of damnation.

SVBSECT I.

THE first part of this assertion 〈◊〉〈◊〉 easily proved; because that which may prudently induce men to suspect the sincerity of any Clergy in pro∣posing the Mysteries of Christian Religion, and the true sense of Scripture, is temporal interest viz, when by changing and corrupting the an∣cient 〈◊〉〈◊〉, the Clergy 〈◊〉〈◊〉 obtain honours, and conveni∣ences, wher of they might despaire if they are raised aboue the meaness or mediocrity of their birth and fortune: such were the first Protestant-Bishops, and Reformers, not one of them that J can learn of, was born a Gentleman; neither could they expect to be raised to any great employment either in Church or state, vnless they had embroyled both, and fish't in trou∣bled waters; and such also were they who preten••ed to reform the ancient doctrin in former ages. If we search into the Ec∣clesiasticall history, we shall find that Hereticks always devised

novelties, to make them-selves considerable by dividing the Church into schisms and factions (according to the vulgar saying Divide & impera) after that they had bin disapointed of some dignity whervnto they pretended; and therfore Saint Augustin (lib, de Pastoribus cap. 8.) doth attribute all heresies to pride. Theobutes one of the first hereticks, having bin refu∣sed a Bishoprick (saith Aegisippus) began to corrupt and per∣turbe the Church. After him Simon Magus broach't his dam∣nable doctrines, because the Apostles would not sell to him the spiritual caracter of Episcopacy. Act. 8. Then followed Valentinus, of whom Tertullian gives this testimony to those of his Sect, Valentinus expected to be a Bishop for his wit and Elo∣quence, but being postponed, he broke from the rule of the Church, as ambitious and revengefull minds vse to do. The same saith St. Epiphanius (haeres. 42.) of Marcion; Theodoret of Montanus, Novatian, Arius, and Aerius, Socrates of Salbatius; Waldensis of Wacleff; the same we say of Luther, Calvin, Cranmer &c. But the Roman Catholick Clergy are commonly persons of quality that are not put to the shifts of hereticks, that is, of inventing new doctrin; their birth helps to raise them to the dignity of the Church, and none can be made a secular Priest, that hath not a patrimony wherwith to subsist. Besides, it is an acknowledged difference between the two controverted Religions, that the Roman Catholick is so ancient, that even they who charge it with novelty, can not tell when it began; and grant that it hath bin at least these 1000. years generaly embraced by the visible Church, as the very same which Christ and his Apostles taught; the Protestant Reformation on the contrary, is so modern, that they who brag of it's antiquity, can go no further then Luther, and Calvin, or Cranmer. Hen∣ce it must be concluded, that as in temporal Common-wealths, they can not be questioned as Usurpers, or suspected as Cheats, whose possession and succession is so ancient that no memory occurreth to the contrary; and moreover, shew publick records, and sentences of the Courts of Judicature, sign'd with the great

seale of the Soveraing in confirmation of their Estates, and Tit∣les, against divers pretender•• in sundry ages 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in the Roman Catholick Church, the doctrin and dignity of our Bishops ha∣ving bin derived 〈…〉〈…〉, and tradition, 〈…〉〈…〉 the contrary, and having bin confirm•••• 〈…〉〈…〉 of general Councels, yet extant vpon reco••d 〈…〉〈…〉 hereticks, and signed with God's great seal••, Miracles; there can be no objection, but obstinacy, against the truth therof; nor no prudent ground to suspect the integrity, and sincerity of our Clergy, in main∣taining as well their doctrin, as the revenues which were be∣stowed vpon them for supporting that doctrin and their Mi∣nistery.

Men who have such vndeniable and publick evidences, to shew for the truth of their doctrin, and for their right to the tem∣poralities of the Church, can not be pres••••ed to forge or fal∣sify scripture, records, Councells, or Fathers, for maintaining their right or reverences: they need no such practises, which would rather prejudice, then profit their cause. To what end should Catholick Bishops forge records of their Consecration, when their very Adversaries confess the validity, and legality therof to be so authentik, that their chief study is, how to de∣rive their own Caracter from ours! To what purpose should we falsify the ancient Councells and Fathers, when all the Pro∣testant writers, who have any conscience or knowledge, grant they are for us? And 〈◊〉〈◊〉 such of them as are vers'd in antiquity, will not have their reformation tryed by Fathers and Councells, but by Scripture alone. Why should we cor∣rupt the letter of Scripture, when our Adversaries grant our latin vulgata, to be the most true and authentik Translation therof, as we have proved heretofore? Why should we alter the Roman Catholik sense of Scripture, that is as ancient as the letter, and delivered to us by the same testimony and tradition, as God's true meaning? But the protestant Clergy, who are but vpstarts by brith and doctrin, can not be great in Church

or state otherwise then by inventing and promoting new reli∣gions, and to that end do corrupt the letter, and change the sense of Scripture, which was delivered to the primitive Church: pretending that the true Church of Christ was invisible, and that the protestant evidences and miracles perished by rea∣son of the iniquity of the times, and the persecution of Popes. But let us come to the triall, and to particular instances of their false dealing.

SVBSECT II. Of Edward 6. Protestant and prelatick Clergies frauds falsifications and formes of ordination, their hypo∣crisy, incontinency, Atheism &c And whether it be fit to terme them, and others like them, Cheats, when they are convicted of willfull false dealing in matters of Religion?

CIvility is a branch of Charity, and therfore ought to be extended to all men: but if a man did observe either in Church or Court, that a disguised Cut-purse o•• Cut-throate doth great mischief, I am of opinion the observer is bound in conscience to advertise both Church and Court of his vilanies, and without any ceremony to tell every one down right, such a person that you take for a nobleman, or Gentle∣man, is a Cheat, and a Murtherer, therfore trust him not, a∣voyd his company. Jf the Protestant Clergy teach, and coun∣tenance false and damnable doctrin, they are Cut-purses and Cut-throaths; they exhaust the treasure of these Kingdoms, and cheat the King and his Subjects of a very great revenue, They

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

and writ a book in defence of the real presence;* 1.219 in Edward the sixts time he professed protestancy, and writ against the real presence, both which books Bishop Bonner produced in judg∣ment against him: In the begining of this yong King's reign he seemed to be a Lutheran, but in the latter end therof, a Zuinglian; and altered accordingly the Common prayer booke which himself had composed; and changed the 39. Articles of the Church, according to the humor of that faction which prevailed in the state. He made no more conscience of con∣demning to death An Ascue for denying the real presence an. 31. of K. Henry 8. then of professing himself to be of her belief in the reign of K. Edward 6. and pressed that yong King very importunely to seale a warrant for burning of her Mayd Ioane of Kent (alias Ioane Knell) for that she denyed Christ took flesh of the B. Virgin. But Joane Knell (when Cranmer pro∣nounced sentence against her) reproached him for his incon∣stancy in religion; telling that he condemned not long before An Ascue her mistress for a peece of bread, and now condem∣ned her self for a pecce of flesh. And as he was now come to believe the first which he then had condemned, so would he come in time to believe the second &c. And 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it is to be observed that Cranmer persuaded the King to sign the warrant against Ioane Knell when there was no law in England to put any one to death for heresy, because it was after that all penall statuts against heretiks had bin repealed, and that favor was granted at Cranmer's and the first reformers, own request, and solicitations, not daring to profess or preach their novelties be∣fore they might be secured by such a repeal from the severity of the lawes.

We have seen heretofore how he divorced K. Henry from Q. Catherin by his own authority, and married him to An Bullen, And afterwar•• ••••clared in Parliament that An Bullen was not true wife to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 King; how he married him to An of Cleve,* 1.220 and with in the compass of one yeare came again to the Parliament, and sayd she was never true wife to his Majesty

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

in again.* 1.221 And this was objected by Nicolas Heath Archbishop of York and Lord Chancellor of England in his speech to the Parliament against the bringing in of Protestancy 1. Eliz. which speech (saith learned Knot in his comment vpon Brerely p. 87.) was read by him who told this to Knot, and had seen divers of King Edward ••. service books, some with (is) some with (signifieth) and some with a blanck in the place. Lastly, how could Cranmer, how could they tha•• ••oyn'd with him, be igno∣rant that th••••r reformed doctrin was plain heresy, seing they kn••w it was notorious novelty, and that many points therof had bin condemned as hereticall by the primitive Catholick Church, and by lawes of the first Christian Emperours? How could they excuse the abolishing of the Sacrifice of the Mass by their Common prayer, and the caracter of Priesthood and Episcopacy, by devising a new form of Ordination, contai∣ing 〈◊〉〈◊〉 a syllable expressing the function either of Priest or Bishop▪ contrary to all formes and Ritualls both of the Greek, Latin▪ and all other Christian Churches.

〈◊〉〈◊〉 though their Successours (since his Majesties restau∣ration) have acknowledged the invalidity of their Protestant formes of ordination by amending them in their new Book authoris'd by the late▪ Act of Vniformity; for the forme of ordaining a Bishop is corrected thus, Receive the holy Ghost for the Office and work of a Bishop &c. The forme of ordaining a Priest, thus, Receive the holy Ghost for the Office of a Priest &c. yet this correcting comes too late for the past Ordinations, and vnseasonably for the future also, because none can give a priestly or Episcopal caracter which himself hath not, and though the forme thus altered in their late edition be valid in it self, yet can it not be validly applyed by laymen, or (which is the same) by Ministers ordained by an invalid forme.

What could move the present prelatik Church of En∣gland to change their form of ordaining Priests and Bishops after a hundred years and above, but the evidence, and ack∣nowledgment of it's nullity? espetially if we consider with what

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

in preaching is extoll'd by Fox; and yet if you ob∣serve his proofs therof, you will find that he was rather, a Comedian then a Christian in the pulpit; where in steed of so∣lid discourses deduced from Scriptures, and Fathers, he enter∣t••••••••d his Audience with scurilous jests, and some times groun∣ded his Sermons vpon a play at cards, and kept great stir with the King of Clubs, the Ase of harts, and the like foolish ••taff•• good enough for the Heresies he displayed; other times 〈◊〉〈◊〉 raysed at the ••ass, calling the real presence the Maribone 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••nd this so ridicolously, that none but children applau∣ded 〈◊〉〈◊〉 profane way of preaching; by what Fox himself con∣••ess•••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 his way, you may fancy him to be another Hugh P••••••••. But from his Sermons let vs go to his virtues. Notwith∣standing his great zeale in preaching and promoting the 〈…〉〈…〉 recanted his doctrin therof twice, once before Car∣d••••••l 〈…〉〈…〉 second time before Arch-Bishop Warham, and others 〈◊〉〈◊〉 K. Henry 8. declared against the Popes su∣premacy▪ 〈◊〉〈◊〉, at the procurement of his Vicar Generall 〈…〉〈…〉 of his Phisi••••an D.r Butte•• was named to the Bis∣hoprick of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 but soon deprived therof by the same 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ as an vnguilty and profane fellow, his impiety was pro∣ved by many instances, wherof one was, eating of flesh on good friday, without any pretext of sickness. After King Henry 8. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 he sided with Hooper and Rogers for Puritanisme against Cranmer and Ridley, who were then great stiklers for the pre∣latick disciplin, therby to domineer over the Ministers who had bin in Germany; and so would Latimer also, if they both had not opposed his restitution to the Bishoprick of Worces••••••.

Thus kept vnder by his two great Adversaries, he 〈◊〉〈◊〉 thought by the Dutchess of Somersett a likely person (in ho∣pes of recovering his ancient dignity and reverences) to inveigh against her Brother in law the Lord Admirall (whom she mortaly hated) and to reprehend publikly in the pulpit his ambition, charging him also with dangerous designes against his Majesty and the Protector; and though the Lord Admiral

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

to be restored to Worcester; but after Ridley was in possession of the sea of London, he laught at Latimer, and ioyn'd with 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to keep him humble without Bishoprick or benefice, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 hath bin sayd. After K. Edward 6. death▪ Ridley was very 〈◊〉〈◊〉 against Q. Mary, and preach't against her title, adding ••ith all she was so earnest a Papist, that she refused to heare 〈…〉〈…〉 to her; which injury notwithstanding she would have ••ardon'd him, if he had given any signes of true repen∣•••••••••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 a fair triall, and confutation of his heresies, he 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of a bag of powder which his Brother in law delivered 〈…〉〈…〉 at the stake, the sooner to be dispatch't of his torment; 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Fox saith the design took no effect, his martyrdom was 〈◊〉〈◊〉, which happened by accident, and that he cryed 〈…〉〈…〉, and desired the people to let the fire 〈…〉〈…〉.

〈…〉〈…〉 of this man••s spirit by a part of his fare∣well to the 〈…〉〈…〉 London, set down by Fox thus.* 1.222 Harken 〈…〉〈…〉 of Babylon, thou wicked limb of Anti-christ, 〈…〉〈…〉 sta••est thou down, and makest havock of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Prophet's 〈◊〉〈◊〉 &c. Thy God which is thy work of thy words, and whom thou sayest thou hast power to make; that thy d••••f and dumb God, I say, will not in deed,* 1.223 nor can not make 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to escape the revengfull hand of the high and almighty God &c. O thou wh••rish Drabbe, thou shalt never escape. In steed of my fare∣well to thee now, I say, Fye vpon thee, fye vpon thee filty Drabbe, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 all thy false Prophets.

Of Hooper, Rogers, Poynet, Bale, and Co••erdales hypocrisy, and impiety.

JOhn Hooper (by Fox his relation) was a Priest in Oxford, in the daies of King Henry 8. (infected with Luthera∣nisme by books that came from Germany) and lived in

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

when he was arraigned for his heresies, he spoke to he Lord Chancellor and Iudges so grossy, carnaly, and ab∣surdly of his marriage with the Burgundian wench, that his 〈…〉〈…〉, though he se••s not down his words, yet acknow∣ledgeth that the whole Court cryed tha•••• vpon him, calling him beast, &c. we shall heare more of this man in the follo∣wing story of his Camerade Rogers.

John Rogers was a priest also (saith Iohn Fox) in the ti∣me of King Henry 8. when Luther's doctrin began first to be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in England, which he having read,* 1.224 and finding himself by the spirit therof inclined to some novelties in Religion, and to marry, he went into Flanders, and there became Chaplyn •••• the English Merchants in Antverp: there also he fell ac∣quainted with VVilliam Tyndal, and Miles Coverdale, two o∣ther English Priests of the same humor, and retired thither for the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••nd; Rogers and Coverdale, assisted Tyndal in falsifying the Scripture, and setting forth his English Translation, after∣wards condemned by Act of Parliament, for erronious, false, and wick••••▪ After that Tyndal was burned in Flanders, in the yeare 1536. Rogers repaired to VVittemberg in Saxony, to live with Martyn Luther, by whom he was confirmed in his Reli∣gion, and provided of a duch wife, which, as Fox testifyeth, brought him forth no less then eight children in very few years; with which load of wife and children after both King Henry 8. and Luther were dead (for they dyed both with in the compass of one yeare) Roger•• returned into England to∣ge••ther with Friar Martyn Bucer, and his wench; resolved to accommodat them-selves in all points to the Protector's will, and to any Religion that should be established by the laws of the land; and accordingly they forsook the Doctrin of their old Master Luther, and embraced that of Zwinglius, as being the more favored and countenanced by the Protector.

Both Hooper and Rogers came with hopes of ruling the Church of England, because they thought them-selves more learned in the Reformation then Cranmer, and Ridley, who

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

As Ridley had bin intruded into Bonners Bishoprick of London, so Poynet was thrust into Gardiners of Winchester,* 1.225 •• better Scholler (saith Heylin pag. 161.) then a Bishop. He had ta∣ken a wi••e in Edward 6. time, and not content 〈◊〉〈◊〉 (du∣••ing her life) married another,* 1.226 whose Husband 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Butcher actualy living; whether she had left her husband for some discontent, or disease, I do not know; but between the Bishop and the Butcher became a great suit in law about the woman, that the Bishop kept and claimed as his wife; but at length he was forced to restore her to the Butcher; which Bishop Gar∣diner hearing from some of the Lords, he replyed that their Lordships (he hoped) would command Poynet to restore him his Bishoprick, as they had ordered him to restore his wife to the Butcher: It seems in those primitive times of Protestan∣••••, the purity of the reformed doctrin was practised in mar∣••••ages, as wel as in other matters; for though Bishop Poynet, re∣ceived not the benefit of that Protestant liberty which he sued for, and his Lordship knew was due by the principles of that Religion, yet it was granted to Sir Ralph Sadler,* 1.227 by common consent of the English Church and Parliament: for one Ma∣thew Barrow, having bin through jealousy driven beyond seas for some time, his wife married her Lover Sir Ralph, the hus∣band returns and claims his wife, but sentence was given in favour of Sir Ralph Sadler,* 1.228 who was declared to be her lawfull husband, and Mathew Barrow lest at liberty to marry whom ••e pleased: This decree is agreable to the principles of Prote∣stancy, as may be seen in this Treatise (part. 2. Sect. 2. ••num. 3.) neither is it credible so learned a Protestant Bishop as Poynet, would contest in a legal way with the Butcher, for a thing not allowed by the reformed Church, wherof he was so emi∣nent a Prelat, and one of the first English Reformers.

John Bale Bishop of Ossory was a Carmelite friar, who hea∣ring of the liberty which the Protestant Reformation gave to Priests and Religious persons to marry, forsook his Mona∣stical and Catholick profession, and made a formal abjuration

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

of the Bible, condemned by act of Parliament, and Fox (pag. 1427.) sets down the proclamation of K. Henry 8. and the publick instrument of the Bishops, prohibiting again (an. 1••46) Tyndal and Coverdales Translation of the new Te∣stament; notwithstanding all this, Coverdale the corrup∣ter of the Bible, was by Cranmer's means made the Corrector of his own and Tyndal's Translation (which went by the name of the Bible of Mathew.) And he set out the same again, with litle or no alteration of the Text, and it was called the Bible of the large Volume,* 1.229 with which work the ho∣nest party of the Clergy, were as much offended aswith Ma∣thew's Bible, as being the same or at least no less fraudulent and fals, and yet it was not corrected in K. Henry 8. dayes, and was imposed vpon England as authentick Scripture, in K. Edward 6. and Q. Elizabeths reigns; and is that in substance which was reprinted by order of the Convocation an. 1562. by some caled the Bishops Bible.

This Bible thus caled, as also of the large Volume,* 1.230 was printed first at Paris (Fox relates the story) That some heresies having bin discovered therin, Co∣verdale was sent for, who did oversee the printing of his own and Tyndal's work; but having some warning of what would follow, saith Fox, he with other English, posted away from Paris as fast as they could, to save them-selves, leaving be∣hind them all their Bibles, of the great Volume, &c. but after they had recovered some of the same Bibles, which the Lieutenant Criminal of Paris had not burnt with the rest (moved therunto by covetousness) they reprinted the same Bible in London, but yet not without great loss and trouble, for the hatred of the Bishops, namely Stephen Gar∣diner and his fellows, who mightily did stomack and ma∣lign the printing therof.

This is Fox his own story of the English Translation of Scripture, which Protestants hold to be the true word of God, though it was burnt as fals and he∣retical in France, and condemned as such by act of Parlia∣ment in England, and two Thousand falsifications discovered

in the new Testament 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by learned▪ 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Bishop of D••∣resme.

* 1.231Sanders ••••counts how Miles Coverdale hearing that the University of Oxford was much bent against 〈◊〉〈◊〉 reformation in Edward 6. 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ and that 〈…〉〈…〉 ••aught at Coverdale for keeping 〈…〉〈…〉 have bin his wife; he came to confute and to conv•••••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 famous University, and there in the pulpit told his audience, he would 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Con∣troversie of the Real presence: having therfore first vehemently in∣veighed against such as murmured at his keeping a woman▪ which he termed va•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉, he added, that he ought to be cre∣dited in the dispute of the Eucharist, for that having inquired into the diversity of opinions, and examined the Catholicks Transubstantiation, the Lutherans Impa••ation, the Zuingli••ns ••••re figurative presence, the Calvinists addition to 〈…〉〈…〉 certain efficacy, and energy of grace, he could deli••er 〈◊〉〈◊〉 them what he had found out at last after 14 years stud•• 〈…〉〈…〉 matter: having spoken thus in very good earnest, most then thought he was distracted, for non in his 〈◊〉〈◊〉 could seriously endea∣vor to persuade Christians to build their 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vpon a f••llo∣ws fancy 〈◊〉〈◊〉 confessed, him-self knew not what to believe for the space of 14 years vntill that present▪ wherin at length he professed to take a new way of his own, different from all others that vntill then had bin professed either by Roman Ca∣tholiks, or others. But if Protestants take his fals Translation for 〈◊〉〈◊〉 word of God, with 〈◊〉〈◊〉 doubt they will not scruple to take his fantastical opinion for the sense of Scripture, and rely ••pon his fond Interpretation of these words, This is my body.

These were the prime Apostles and first Founders of the Protestant Church of England▪ this the Scripture which they delivered to the people for God's word; These the men whose sincerity the English Clergy doth now defend, imitat, and rely ••pon; men, who to enjoy Benefices and women, persua∣ded silly soules to become the Devill's Martyrs in Q. Maries

dayes; making them believe that Tindal and Coverdales fal•• Translations were the very word of God, and every on's pri∣vat Interpretation the right sense of the holy Ghost. This the poore people erroneously and obstinatly maintained, after that such of these their Masters as could escape, fled begond the seas, and left their Proselits in the lurch, when them-selves could not any longer enjoy Bishopricks and wenches here in England, Ambition and sensuality led them into novelties, which most of them-selves knew to be heresies, though once ingaged therin (according to the custom of hereticks) many refused to recant, and would needs cast them-selves into the fire, to dye, forsooth, with their honour which they vainly imagined lay at the stake, and could not be preserved, if them-selves were not tyed to a stake.

Fox tells us how Laurence Sanders a Priest was so fond of his wench and child, that seing his litle son, rejoyced more to have such a boy, then if 2000. pounds were given him &c. saying what man fearing God, would not lose his life present, rather then by prolonging it here, he should adjudge this boy to be a bastard, his wife a whore, and him-self a whore-monger, yea (saith he) if there were no other cause for which a man of my estate should lose his life, yet who would not give it to avouch this Child to be legitimat, and his mothers marriage to be law∣full and holy; vpon such motives was the obstinacy of this Clergy grounded in dying.

How litle the poore Tinkers, Tan∣ners, Coblers, Spinsers, and simple women could say for the er∣rors in maintenance wherof they would needs dye, you may guess by their incontinent Priests, and their Patriarch,* 1.232 and A∣postle Cranmer's answers for his new saith; which I will copy out of Fox himself, who excuseth the weakness and absurdity therof, by saying (pag. 2053.) that he believes the Notary (who was Bishop Ievell chosen by Cranmer him-self) did con∣ceale the Arch-bishop's answers, to favour the sea of Rome. But then Fox ought to have supplied Ievell••' defect, and have shewed how Cranmer might, (and probably did) answer the

popish arguments; and not con••••••t him-self with telling us that the reporter leaveth the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 raw and weak on Doctor Cranmer's side. Thus then saith Fox.

SVBSECT IV. Talke between Doctor Martyn and the Arch-Bishop, related by Fox.

DOctor Martin.

You have told here a long glorious tale &c. you say you have once sworn to K. Henry 8. against the Pope's Iurisdiction, and ther••••••e you may never forsweare the same &c. Here Mr. Cranmer I will ask you a question or two; what if you made a•• Oath to a Harlot to live with her in continual adultery, ought you to keep it?

Cranmer.

I think no.

Doctor Martyn.

Herod did swear what soever his har•••••• asked of him, he would give her, and he gave her Iohn Baptist's head &c. Then Mr. Cranmer, you can no less confess but that you ought not to have conscience of every oath, but if it be just, lawfull, and advisedly taken.

Cranmer.

So was my oath.

Martyn.

That is not so; for first it was vnjust, for it ten∣ded to the taking away of an other man's right: It was not lawfull, for the law•• of God and the Church were against it. Besides, it was not voluntary, for every man and woman were compell'd to take it.

Cranmer.

It pleaseth you to say so.

Martyn.

Let all the world be Judge, But Sir, you that pre∣tend to have such a conscience to break an Oath, I pray you did you never swear and break the same?

Cranmer.

I remember not.

Martyn.

J will help your memory; did you never swear obedience to the Sea of Rome?

Cranmer.

In deed I did once swear vnto the same.

Martyn.

Yea that you did twice, as appeareth by records and writings here ready to be shewed.

Cranmer.

But I remember J saved all by a Protestation that I made, by the Councell of the best learned men I could get at that time.

Martyn.

Hearken good people what this man saith, he ma∣de a protestation on day, to keep never a whit of that which he would swear the next day: was this the part of a christi∣an man? But will you have the truth of the matter? King Henry 8. even then meant the lamentable change, which after you see came to pass: and to further his pittifull proceedings from the divorcement of his most lawfull wife, to the dete∣stable departing from the vnity of Christ's Church, this man made the foresaid protestation; and on the other side he letted not to make two solemne oathes quite contrary, and why? for otherwise by the lawes and Canons of this Realm, he could not aspire to the Archbishoprick of Canterbury.

Cranmer.

I protest before you all, there was never man ca∣me more vnwilling to a Bishoprick then I did to that: In so much that when King Henry 8. did send for me in post, that J should come over, I prolong'd my Iourney by seaven weeks at the least, thinking that he would be forgetfull of me in the mean time.

Martyn.

You declare well by the way, that the King took you to be a man of a good conscience, who could not find within all his Realm, any man that would set forth his stran∣ge attempts, but was inforced to send for you in post to co∣me out of Germany; what may we conjecture therby, but that there was a compact between you (being then Queen An's Chaplyn) and the King: give me the Archbishoprick of Can∣terbury, and J will give you licence to live in adultery.

Cranmer.

You say not true.

Martyn.

Let your protestation joyned with the rest of your Talks, give Judgment. 〈…〉〈…〉. Of that your execrable perjury, and his coloured, and too shamfully suffe∣red adultery, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 heresy and all mis-chief to this Realm.

And now to answer 〈…〉〈…〉 of your Oration wherin you bring 〈◊〉〈◊〉 God's 〈…〉〈…〉 you have it on your side, and no man ells, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Pope hath devised a new Scripture contrary to the Scriptures of God, you play here in as the Pharisees did, which cryed alwais Verbum Domini, Ver∣bum Domini, when they mean nothing so. This bettereth not your case, because you say, you have God's word for you: for so Basilides, and Photinus the Hereticks sayd, that they had God's word to maintain there Heresy. So Nestorius, so Ma∣cedonius, so Pelagius, and briefly all the Hereticks that ever were; yea and so the Devill being Father of Heresies, allead∣ged God's word for him, saying, Scriptum est, it is writen: so sayd he to Christ mitt•• to deorsum, cast thy self downward, saith he; and so taught you to cast all things downward, down with the Sacrament, down with Muss, down with the Armes of Christ; and vp with a Lion, and a Dog, down with Ab∣byes, down with Chauntrers, down with Hospitalls and Col∣ledges, down with fasting and prayer, yea down with all that is good and Godly &c. And therfore tell us not, you have God's word, for God had given us by his word a mark to know that your teaching proceeded not of God, but of the Devill &c. For Christ sayd there shal come against his Church r••vening wolves, and false Apostles: And by their fruits ye shall know them. What be their fruits St. Paul de∣clareth, After the flesh they walk in concupiscence, and vncleaness they contemn Potentates &c. Whether these be not the fruits of your Ghospel, I referr me to this worshipfull Audience; whe∣ther the sayd Ghospel began not with perjury, proceeded with adultery, was maintained with heresy, and ended in Conspiracy.

Now Sir, two points more I marked in your raging discourse that you made here: the one against the holy Sacra∣ment,

the other against the Pope's Iurisdiction, and the Au∣thority of the Sea Apostolick. Touching the first, you say you have God's word with you, yea and all Doctors. I would here ask but one Question of you: whether God's word be contrary to it self, and whether the Doctors teach doctrin con∣trary to them-selves, or no▪ For, you Mr. Cranmer, have taught in this High Sacrament of the Altar three contrary doctrins, and you pretend in every one Verbum Domini the word of God.

Cranmer.

Nay I taught but two contrary doctrins in the same.

Martyn.

What doctrin taught you when you condemned Lambert the Sacramentary in the King's presence in Whitehall?

Cranmer.

I maintained then the Popish doctrin.

Martyn.

That is to say the Catholick and Universal doctrin of Christ's Church; and how when King Henry dyed? did you not translate Justus Jonas Book?

Cranmer.

J did so.

Martyn.

Then there you defended an other doctrin touching the Sacrament: by the same token, that you sent to Lynne your printer, that wheras in the first print there was an affirmative that is to say, Christ's body realy in the Sacrament, you sent then to your printer to put in a Not, wherby it came miracu∣lously to pass, that Christ's body was clean conveyed out of the Sacrament.

Cranmer.

I remember there were two prints of my said Book, but where the same (Not) was put in, I can not tell.

Martyn.

Then from a Lutheran you became a Zwinglian, which is the vilest heresy of all in the high mystery of the Sa∣crament, and for the same heresy you did help to burn Lam∣bert the Sacramentary, which you now call the Catholick faith and God's word.

Cranmer.

I grant that then J believed otherwise then J do now, and so J did vntill my Lord of London Doctor Ridley did conferr with me, and by sundry persuasions and authori∣ties

of Doctors, ••••••ew me quite from my opinion.

Martyn.

Now Sir as ••ouching the last part of your Oraci∣on, you denyed that the Pope's Holiness was supreme head of the Church of Christ.

Cranmer.

J did so.

Martyn.

Who say you 〈…〉〈…〉 head?

Cranmer.

Christ.

Martyn.

But whom hath Christ 〈◊〉〈◊〉 here in earth his Vic•••• and head of his Church?

Cranmer.

No body.

Martyn.

Ah, why ••ould you not King Henry this when you made him supreme head? and now no body is. This is trea∣son against his own person, as you then made him.

Cranmer.

I mean not but every King in his own Realm and Dominion is supreme head, and so was he supreme head of the Church of Christ in England.

Martyn.

Is this always true? and was it ever so?

Cranmer.

Jt was so.

Martyn.

Then what say you by Nero: he was the mightiest Prince vpon the earth after Christ was ascended. Was he the head of Christ's Church?

Cranmer.

Nero was Peter's head.

Martyn.

I ask whether Nero was head of the Church or no? If he were not, it is falls that you said before, that all Prin∣ces be and ever were heads of the Church within their Realms.

Cranmer.

Nay, it is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 for Nero was head of the Church, that is, in worldly respect of the temporal bodies of men, of whom the Church consisteth: for so he beheaded Peter and the Apostles. And the Turck too is head of the Church of Turky.

Martyn.

Then he that beheaded the heads of the Church, and crucified the Apostles, was head of Christ's Church; and h•• that was never member of the Church, is head of the Church, by your new found vnderstanding of God's word.

After th••se and divers other questions to the same pur∣pose,

Doctor Brooks Bishop of Glocester spoke thus to Cran∣mer, you have bin conferred with all, not once, nor twice, but often times, you have bin oft lovingly admonis'd, you have oft bin secretly disputed with and the last year, in the open schoo∣les, in open disputations you have bin openly convicted, you have bin openly driven out of the schooles with hisses; your Book which you brag you made seaven years agoe, and no man answered it, Marcus Antonius hath sufficiently detected, and confuted, and you persist still in your wonted heresy; Wher∣fore (being so oft admonished, conferred withall, and convi∣cted) if you deny you to be the man whom the Apostle noteth (haereticum hominem) hear then what Origen saith, who wrote above 1300. years agoe, and interpreteth the saying of the Apostle in this wise (in Apologia Pamphili) Haereticus est omnis ille habendus qui Christo se credere profitetur, & aliter de Chri∣sti veritate sentit quam se habet Ecclesiastica traditio. He is to be deemed an heretick who professeth to believe in Christ, and yet jud∣geth otherwise of Christ's truth then the tradition of the Church doth hould &c. Wherfore I can no other but put you in the num∣ber of them whom Chrysostom spake of saying, Heare o thou Christian man; wilt thou do more then Christ? Christ confuted the Pharisees, yet could he not put them to silence: & fortior es tu Chri∣sto? and art thou stronger then Christ? &c. Thus much have I sayd, not for you M.r Cranmer, for my hope I conceived of you, is now gon and past, but in some what to satisfie the rude and vnlearned people, that they perceiving your arrogant lying, and lying arrogancy, may the better eschew your de∣testable and abominable schism.

Two things I wish the Reader did observe in this con∣ference, 1. What a faire Trial Cranmer and all other prote∣testants had before they were sentenced to death for heresy in Q. Maries dayes: they were heard speak for them-selves, and reason for their opinions in publick; such as desired it, had time and Books given them to answer; and further time to correct their answers; wheras Catholick Priests are not per∣mitted

to reason for their Religion in publick by word of mouth, much less are they allowed time or books to defend the same by writing. 2. How litle the most learned protestants could or can say for their pre••ended 〈…〉〈…〉? and by con∣sequence how obstinat they 〈…〉〈…〉 vpon that ac∣count; and how well Origens 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of hereticks agreed, to Cranmer, Ridley, and the rest of their learned Martyrs, and to all the Protestant Clergy, seing they reject Ecclesiastical Tra∣dition, and that sense of Scripture which the Church delive∣red from age to age, following their own privat fancies, and fond Interpretations. But from their Martyrised Clergy, let vs go to the Confessors and Doctors of their Church in Q. Maries days, who were the same that revived protestancy in Queene Elizabeths reign.

SECT: III. Of the Protestant Clergy in Queen Maries Reign, the same that afterwards founde•• Qeeen Eliza∣beths Church. The•••• frauds, Factions, Cheats, and changes of the English Protestant Religion during their Exile in Germany.

AS many of the English Protestant Clergy of King Eduard 6. as escaped the severity of the ancient lawes made against Hereticks, which were revived by Queen Mary, retired them∣selves to Germany and Zuitzerland, but found not that pitty and welcom they expected from their Brethren of the Reformation; The English had ma∣de

a Religion of their own, which was neither fully Luthe∣ran Zwinglian, nor Calvinian; their Liturgy was dislick't by all;* 1.233 only their doctrin against the Real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament was approved by some Zuinglians, but so condemned by the Lutherans, that their Martyrs who suffe∣red in England vpon that score, were called the Devill's martyrs by other Protestants; and they who harbour'd any of their banished Clergy in Germany,* 1.234 were hated by their reformed-neighbors. For stopping the course (saith Heylin) of these vn∣charitable Censures, it was thought fit to translate from English in∣to Latin, Cranmers Book of the Sacrament, and forthwith see it printed; but he doth not tell us which of Cranmer's Books; that of Henry 8. or that of King Edward 6.? We may be su∣re if he means Cranmer's Book of King Henry 8. time his book and words were altered, that they might agree with the Lu∣theran Consubstantiation in Germany, which Cranmer durst not defend in his Book of Henry▪ 8. date; and his Book of Edward 6. was wholy Zuinglian or Sacramentarian, which could not please Lutherans. So that the good English Church and Cler∣gy in Germany, made them-selves and Cranmer Lutherans, to avoyd persecution, and obtain favour in their sufferings, after having maintained the quite contrary doctrin in their own Countrey, and exhorted their flocks to dye for that Religion which them-selves now disowned.

This is not all, the like course was taken also at Geneva (saith Heylin) by the English exiles,* 1.235 by publishing in the La∣tin tongue a discours writ by Bishop Ridley on the self same argument (the Sacrament of the Altar) to the end it might appear vnto all the world how much their Brethren had bin wronged in these odious calumnies. So that the English Pro∣testant Clergy in Germany, among the Lutherans printed a Book, and in Geneva a Calvinian discours concerning the real presence, and owned both as the doctrin of the Church of En∣gland; for Ridley (as you may observe in his disputation at Oxford set down at large by Fox in his Acts and Monuments)

was a Calvinist in that ••oint. Was not this a Holy Church that taught contrary 〈…〉〈…〉 at least doctrin so vncertain that it might be applyed 〈◊〉〈◊〉 contrary Tenets? was it not a sin∣cere and sacred Clergy, that could fra•••• them-selves and the profession of their 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to all 〈◊〉〈◊〉 how ever so disagree∣ing? But let us proceed.

The greatest number of the••e exiled Confessors were re∣ceived in Franckford vpon condition th••y should conform them-selves vnto the French Hugenots in doctrin and ceremonies,* 1.236 which the holy men did so readily, that Doctor Heylin (who relates all these passages) doubts whether the conditions were imposed vpon them by the Magistrats, or ••ought by them-selves. The chief heads of this English Congregation at Franc∣ford were Wittingham, Williams, Goodman, Wood, and Sutton, to whom afterward•• came Knox and White••ead. The first thing they did was, to alter and dis-figure (saith Heyl••••) the En∣glish Liturgy, which proceeding was not approved of by Grin∣dall, Horn, Sandys, Chambers, and Pakhurst: Calvin therfore was consulted as their common Father, his answer was, that in the English Liturgy, he had observed many 〈◊〉〈◊〉 fooleries: that being, therwas not manifest impiety in it, it had bin to∣lerated for a reason, because at first it could not otherwise be admitted: but however though it was lawfull to begin with such beggarly rudiments, yet it behooved the learned, grave, and godly Ministers of Christ, to endeavour farther, and set forth somthing more refi••ed from filth and vncleaness.

How great a Cheat Calvin was, had bin partly sayd he∣retofore, but whosoever desires to be fully informed of his particular villanies, and hypocrisy, let him read his life writen by Ierom Bolseck Anno 1577. There he will find how Calvin continued to practise his execrable Sodomy, adul∣tery &c. How he compassed the Heretick Servetus his death vnder the pretence of Heresy, though Calvin him-self wrot a book a litle before to prove that no Heretick ought to be put to death for his Religion; but the true cause o•• his quarell to

Servetus was the frauds and falsifications that Servetus had dis∣covered in Calvin's Institutions, and published them. How he banished from Geneva divers Ministers, and Gentlemen that did not favour his way, and how he forged letters, and suborned an Italian, to make Peter Wald••••••••••, and the Bal••asars, Traytors; but they cleered them-selves, and the Lords of Bern gave publick Testimony of their innocency, and of Calvin's knavery. How this Cheat (to make him-self famous) de∣vised divers letters and other works in praise of him-self, and published them vnder the name of one Galatius, and others. But Peter Veretus Minister of Lausa••a found out the truth, and threatned to discredit Calvin, who (to pacify Veretus) writ to him that it was expedient by such means to get in credit for their cause, and that he meant shortly to do as much in the commendation of him, and Farellus also, and so stopt his mouth. How Calvin after that he had broken and defaced the Jmages of Christ, and Saints in Geneva, caused his own picture to be set vp in divers places, and vsed also to give litle pictures and Images of him-self to Gentle-women and Gentle-men to carry about their necks. And when on tould him that some thought much of this, he answered, he that cannot abide it, let him burst for enuy. And twenty more the like. But from their Apostle Calvin, let us return to his flock the En∣glish exiled Clergy.

This Sentence of Calvin (saith Heylin) was of such pre∣valency with all the rest of that party,* 1.237 that such who formerly did approve, did afterwards as much dislike the English Li∣turgy; and those who at first had conceived only a dislike, grew afterwards into an open detestation of it. But in the end, to give content to such as remained affected to the former Li∣turgy, it was agreed vpon that a mixt form, consisting partly of the order of Geneva, and partly of the Book of England, should be digested, and received till the first of April, consi∣deration in the mean time to be had of some other cours which should be permanent, and oblidging for the time to come.

Here the Reader may observe the hipocrisy, and impie∣ty of this Protestant Cler••••▪ In England they imposed this Liturgy vpon the whole Kingdom, as agreable to the word of God, and the work was pretended to have bin composed by the assistence of the Holy Ghost (words of the Statut wherby it was made legal) and thousands of Catholicks were slain in many shires of England by the Protector's forces, be∣cause they would no•• accept of it in steed of the Mass; and now they who preach'd, and press'd this violence against Re∣cusants, contemn and reject their own doctrin and disciplin. But as soon as Queen Elizabeth was in possession of the Crown these very men who in Germany had so often changed, and condemned their English Liturgy and Religion, now (to be∣come Bishops) turned again in England with the times, and were the chief 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of that Church.* 1.238 Horn was named to the Sea of Winchester, Grindal to that of London, Sandys to Worcester, Parkhurst to Norwich; and Whitehead was offered (if you believe Heylin) the Archbishoprick of Canterbury &c. And being thus exalted, were never contented, vntil they had penal and sanguinary Statuts enacted against Priest•• and Popish Recusants, for not conforming to that doctrin and Liturgy these godly Prelats had so much sleighted and altered in Ger∣many, and postpon'd to ••••lvin's disciplin: and were ready to do the same or wors again in England, if occasion had bin offered.

After that the English Liturgy had bin thus forsaken and despised in Germany, D.r K••x, who had bin Schoolmaster and Almon••er to King Edward 6. arrived at Franckford▪ and could with no patience (saith Heylin) endure the rejection of that Liturgy, in the drawing vp wherof him-self had a principal hand, and therfore disturbes the new disciplin; Wittingham and Knox procured an Order from the Magistrat against Kox his des••ign; but Kox accuseth Knox for treason against the Em∣perour, and therfore Knox is commanded by the Senat to de∣part from Franckford▪ Kox procures Whitehead to be chosen for

the principal Pastor, appoints two Ministers for Elders, and foure Deacons for Assistants; then gives an account to Calvin, excusing him-self that he had proceeded so far without his consent. By the way you may see that Kox was then a good Calvinist in disciplin, though afterwards he became a Prelatick 1. Eliz. when he got the Bishoprick of Ely. Whitehead not able to rule such a contentious Congregation, resign'd his pla∣ce to Horn, between whom and on Ashley were such facti∣ons and divisions, that Horn with his Elders were forc't to for∣sake their Offices; and Ashleys party got the better,* 1.239 and com∣posed a Book of disciplin, according to the rules wherof the Congregation was govern'd. The Magistrat not able to agree the difference, sends for Cox and Sandys to compose it, but to no purpose: They who stood for Ashley's new disciplin, got the power into their hands, whervpon Horn and Chambers de∣part to Strazburg.

Such were the troubles and disorders (saith Heylin) in the Church of Franckford, occasioned first by a dislike of their publick Liturgy, before which they prefer∣red the nakedness and simplicity of the French and Gene∣vian Churches, and afterwards continued by the opposition made by the general Body of the Congregation against such as were appointed to be Pastors and Rulers over them.

An other argument of the sincerity, and Religion of this Clergy is, that during the Reign of Queen Mary in England they taught and printed that the Government of women is against the Law of nature, and not to be endured by Christi∣ans; but as soon as she dyed, they writ and preached the quite contrary in favour of Queen Elizabeth, whom they were not content to make temporal head of the common-wealth, but supreme Governess of the Church in all Spiritual affaires; we have seen their proceedings in Queen Maries days, now to Queen Elizabeths.

SECT: IV. Abominable Frauds, and willful Falsifications of the Protestant Clergy in Queen Elizabeths reign, to maintain their doctrin, set forth vnder the name of an Apology, and defence of the Church of England.

AFter that Queen Elizabeth (by giving ho∣pes to the Earl of Arundell that she would marry him,* 1.240 and by promising▪ other fa∣vours to the Duke of Norfolck) had by their solicitations gained most of the no∣bility,* 1.241 and the Lords and Gentlemen who had the managing of elections in their se∣veral Counties, had retained such men for 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the House of Commons, as they conceived mo•••• likely to com∣ply with the Queens new design in reviving that Religion, which but five years before, them-selves and the whole King∣dom had rejected as damnable heresy and groundless novelty, devised by some l••w'd revolted Friars▪ and Priests▪ and had observed how all sober and conscien••ious men we•••• troubled to see so shamefull a change, introduced only for maintaining the weakness of a title against the cleer right of the Stewards; and fearing least this scruple might spread, and work vpon the consciences of the illiterat multitude,* 1.242 it was thought fit to command Bishop Iewell (the fittest man for so impudent an vndertaking) to assert the antiquity of the particular Tenets of the New Church of England; and so in forme of a Chal∣lenge against all Roman Catholicks he published at Paules Cross

that the Religion which the Queen and Parliament had then established by Law, was no novelty, nor new invented sense of Scripture, but the same which our Saviour and his Apostles delivered to the Church, and all Orthodox Christians held for the first 600. years; which thing he vndertook to demon∣strat by vndeniable Testimonies of the Holy Fathers that lived in those six first Centuries.

The words of this Challenge we have set down heretofore,* 1.243 as also the confutation therof. One Rastal having writ against this challenge, Iewell togeather with the rest of the Bishops, and learned Protestant Clergy, composed that famous Apolo∣gy for the Church of England both in Latin and English; it came out first in the name of their whole Church, though I believe Iewell had the wording of it, because afterwards his name was set to it, and to the defence therof; but without doubt all the able men of the English Clergy had their hands and heads in the work. Against it divers appeared in print, Stapleton, Sanders, and Harding: whervpon (saith Dean Wal∣singham in his search of Religion pag. 166.) Mr. Iewel within few years after set forth the reply to D.r Harding, which was esteemed to have bin made by joynt labours of the most lear∣ned men in England, both in London, and the Vniversities.

But in these their labours they were convicted of a thou∣sand and odd falsifications,* 1.244 and yet (saith Harding) of 26. ar∣ticles, only five have passed our examination: Imagin then what number is like to rise of the whole work; I will mention but one or two of every controversy, I hope that is sufficient to prove, that no one point wherin Protestants differ from Ro∣man Catholicks, can be maintained, even by the most learned Protestants, without frauds, falshoods, and impostures, And do choose to instance particulars out of this Apology, and de∣fence of the Church of England, because it is not only the work of their first Bishops and Clergy,* 1.245 and the very bulwork of their Church, but (as D.r Heylin truly says) the Magazin from whence all the Protestant Controversies since that

time have furnished them-selves with arguments and authorities. We will omit most of their corruptions of Scripture in the A∣pology because we have convicted them el••••where of that cri∣me; but that they may not imagin we what matter even in this work of theirs, let the curious read 〈…〉〈…〉 Epistle to M.r Jewell, set before his return 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vntruth••, where he tells him, you have falsifyed and mangled the very Text of Holy Scrip∣ture, namely of Saint Paule, in one Chapter nine times; as the rea∣der may see in the third article of his Book fol. 107.

SVBSECT I. The Protestant Clergy convicted of falshood in their Apology concerning Communion vnder one kind.

BIshop Iewell and his Associats maintain with most Pro∣testants, that to receive the B. Sacrament 〈◊〉〈◊〉 one kind only, is against the institution of Christ•• and therfore could not be allowed nor practised by the Church, nor ever was, during the first six hundred years. So that the Con∣troversy between the Church of England, and Harding, is, whe∣ther in the first 600. years after Christ any Communion were ministred vnder one kind,* 1.246 or no▪ which they (vnder the name of M.r Jewell) deny, against whom Harding giveth an instance out of the Ecclesiastical History of one Serapian, that was Communicated in his death vnder one kind only. Mr. Iewell seing him-self convicted, replieth; That it is not our que∣stion, we vnderstand not of privat Communion, but of publick in the Church; and yet in the first proposing of the Question there was no mention of the Church, or Publick; and the whole con∣troversy between Catholicks and Protestants is, whether with

out breach of Christ's Institution, any man might communi∣cat vnder one kind only.

Then Mr. Iewell is demanded whether if it may be pro∣ved that sick persons have received the Communion vnder one kind in the Church, it will satisfie him? wher to he answereth, no: saying, the only thing that I denied is, that yee are not able to bring any one sufficient example, or authority,* 1.247 that ever the whole people received the Communion in open Church in one kind within that time; then he is vrged further, whether if it can be pro∣ved that in closs chappels, and Oratories, in wilderness and caves, in time of persecution the communion was practised vn∣der one kind, this would satisfie him, for so muc•• as this pro∣veth Christ's Institution not to forbid Communion vnder o∣ne kind? But M.r Iewel leapeth also from this, saying, the que∣stion is whether the Holy Communion were ever ministred openly in the Church? It being manifest that for the first 300. years vntill Constantin's time, the Christians in most places, particularly at Rome, had no open Churches, but privat O∣ratories, and caves. At length being demanded whether Infants receaving the Communion vnder one kind openly in the Church, was a sufficient example? Jewel answereth, Mr. Harding maketh his whole plea vpon an Jnfant, and yet of Infants, as he knoweth, I spake nothing.

Mr. Harding presseth him with the example of the two disciples,* 1.248 to whom Christ our Saviour did give the Communion vnder one kind only at Emaus, as by the Text of Scripture, and Jnterpretation of ancient Fathers is plain, he alledgeth al∣so the examples of S.t Ambrose, and S.t Basil, who receaved the Sacrament vnder one kind, though they were Priests. Wher∣unto M.r Iewel answereth,

this is not to the purpose, for the question is moved, of lay people, M.r Harding bring∣eth examples of Christ, and two disciples who were of the number of 72. and therfore it may well be thought they were ministers, and not of the lay sort, I demanded of the layty, M.r Harding answereth of St. Ambrose, and St. Basil

which were Bishops.

Which evasion is not only fraudulent, but foolish, as if, forsooth, Priests and Bishops might receive and communicat vnder one kind, lay men might not: But any weak answer is sufficient for credulous people to persist in obstinacy.

At length being convicted by his Adversary of an ex∣ample where the layty and whole people receaved openly vn∣der one kind, and in the Church, he answereth, this is not sufficient, for, saith he,

the point demanded is, that the Sacrament was never ministred vnto the people vnder one kind onl•• in any Congregation, or in open order and vsa∣ge of any Church, and that it will not follow that this was the common order of the Church.

By which new ad∣dition of Common, Order, and Vsage, the whole state of the Question is changed, and Iewel convicted as you see▪ of ma∣ny frauds, and falshoods. And not only he, but all the Pro∣testant Clergy, who notwithstanding the acknowledged evi∣dence, and their conviction (by these examples and many others, wherof they are not ignorant) that Christ did not com∣mand the Communion to be given vnder both kinds to the Layty (nor even to Priests when they do not o••••er Sacrifice) yet are they so inconscionable as to impose vpon illiterat people, that they ought not to be of the Roman Catholick Church, because we deprive them (contrary to Christ's In∣stitution and precept) of one half of the Communion, with∣out which they cannot be saved.

SVBSECT II. How Iewel and the Church of England make the very same Holy Fathers they appealed vnto in other matters, wicked Hereticks, because they condemned Priests marriage.

JEwel's Adversaries having quoted against his bould asser∣tions the vnanswerable sayings of sundry Fathers of the first 600. years condemning the marriage of Priests and Votaries; the English Clergy, (by Jewel's pen) rather then acknowledg their error, and relinquish their wenches,* 1.249 and pre∣tended wives, resolved to declare the holy Fathers Hereticks, saying,

divers of the holy Fathers have writen ouer b••sely, J will not say vildly and scandalously, of the state of matrimo∣ny in generall, calling it in all kind of men, fornication, an evill thing, and like to adultery: Therfore J say they may much less be taken as indifferent Iudges in Priests mar∣riages.

So that the Church of England in their Apology, and Protestants now a days would fain make the ancient Fathers, and all who write against the marriage of Priests, to be those hereticks St Paul sayd would teach doctrin of Devills,* 1.250 and spea∣ke against marriage in generall; witness Iewell with the first Bi∣shops and Clergy of Queen Elizabeth. But because Jewell, and his fellow Bishops would not seem to want examples of holy Bishops that were actualy husbands, they corrupt the Ecclesiasticall History, and bely the Authors therof (Niceph. lib. 10. Hist. c. 10. Zozon. lib. 5. c. 11. Cassiod. lib. 6. cap. 14.) and pretend that they recount how Eusychius Bishop (saith Iewel) of Cesaraea, dyed in martyrdom,* 1.251 having mar∣ried

a wife a litle before; wheras the sayd Authors have not on word of his being Bishop, or Priest; but rather do evi∣dently shew that he was a lay nobleman, Patricius Cesaraeae Cap∣padociae, a Sentaor's son of that Citty, highly commended, for that having newly married a wife, yet was so constant in his martyrdom. In like manner do they falsify (Apol. 2. c. 8.) St. Gregory Nazianzen, Pretending he saith, speaking of his own Father, that a good and diligent Bishop doth serve in the Mi∣nistery never the worse for that he is married, but rather the better; and this falsification being objected by Harding, Iewel and his Camerades, prove it by pretending that St. Gregory acknow∣ledged his mother was his father's Teacher, and leader in Ec∣clesiastical functions (as perhaps some Protestant Bishops wives are) wheras it is evident that the Saint spoke of his father when he was not a Christian, and because he was converted by his Mother, a•• St. Monica converted St. Austin's Father, see Harding detect. fol. 63.

SVBSECT III. Bishop Iewel and his Associats wickedness in Char∣ging Cardinal Hosius and all Catholicks with a contempt of Holy Scripture against their own knowledg, and after that they had bin admonis∣hed of the imposture.

CArdinal Hosius in his Book de expresso verbo Dei, as also in an other de haeresibus, against Brentius; complain'd of the multitude of Sects and Heresies sprung vp in our days, all of them pretending Scripture for their ground. So

far forth that Luther him-self seing the event therof, sayd the Bible was now become liber haereticorum, the Book of Here∣ticks: and then further the same Cardinal shewing that there was a new later brood sprung vp of Zuinck feldian Hereticks, who by pretence of Scripture did take away all authority of wri∣ten Scriptures, persuading men only to attend to inspirations and inward revelations, alleadging for that their doctrin the words of the Psalm, J will hear what the Lord speaketh in me, and many other such Texts misconstred; Mr. Iewel and the English Protestant Clergy would needs publish this as Hosius his own words, sense, and meaning, with great out-cryes and invectives against both him, the Pope, and all Catholicks, as though we had bin of opinion that all writen Scriptures were to be rejected: (as may be seen in his Apology both in Latin and English, and Doctor Harding's confutation of the same:) and notwithstanding that before this Apology was printed in Latin they were told of his mistake, yet they would needs have it pass.

And when the sayd Apology was translated into English, they were put again in mind of his malitious and fraudulent dealing, and earnestly desired to correct this wilfull mistake, but they rather did aggravate the calumny then confess their er∣ror; for they commanded it should be printed, and sought by some additions in the English Text more then was in the Latin, to justify this former villany;

Harken saith the Apo∣logy how holily, and how Godly on Hosius writeth of this matter, a Bishop in Polonia, as he testifyeth of him-self,* 1.252 a man doubtless well spoken, and not vnlearned, and a very sharp and stout Maintainer of that side. Thou wilt mer∣vail I suppose how any good man could either conceive so wickedly, or write so dispitefully of those words, which he knew proceeded from God's mouth, and especialy in such sort as he would not have it seem his own privat opinion alone, but the common opinion of all that Band. He dis∣sembleth, J grant you indeed, and hideth what he is, and

setteth forth the matter so, as though it were not he and his side, but the Zuink feldian Hereticks that so did speak: We (saith he) will bid away with the Scriptures, wherof we see brought, not only divers, but all contrary Interpretati∣ons; we will hear God speak, rather then resort to the naked elements, or bare words of the Scripture &c.

Having writen this and other such speeches as proceed∣ing from Hosius; Iewel and his Camerades conclude thus. This is Hosius his saying, vttered togeather with the same spirit, and the sa∣me mind, wherwith in times past Montanus and Marcion were moved &c. And then exclaims against all Papists in these words? what shall J say here, O ye principall posts of Religion? and ye Arch-Governors of Christ's Church? Is this your reverence which you giue to God's word? to bid them avant away &c. no mervaile if these men dispise us and all our doings, which set so litle by God him-self, and his infallible saying. Thus they write and inveigh against Hosius, and all the Roman Church, even after they knew, and had bin twice admonished that the whole ground was fals and forged by them-selves.

Hosius his own words are, there is sprung vp a certain new kind of Prophets, who have not bin afraid by the authority of Scrip∣ture, to take away all authority from the Scripture. Behould whi∣ther Satan at length hath brought this matter &c. And after, Nihil Scripturâ sanctius, &c. Nothing is more holy then Scripture, nothing more noble or excellent, there is nothing next to God himself more worthy of all veneration and reverence: but what thing can there be so holy, which the enemy of man-kind may not abuse to man's destruction &c. Thus Hosius: how hardly his words could be wrested, or mistaken by Iewel and his Confederats, all the world may see, and ought to detest a Reformation, that can not be otherwise maintain'd, then by such palpable impostu∣••es.

SVBSECT IV. Falsificatïons and Frauds against the Bishop of Rome his supremacy.

JEwel and his Associats cyting a Constitution of the Em∣perour Iustinian, against the Pope's supremacy, say:* 1.253 The Emperours words stand thus, Sancimus &c. Senioris Romae Papam, primum esse omnium Sacerdotum: Beatissimum autem Archi-Episcopum Constantinopolios novae Romae secundum habere locum: which words Mr. Iewel Englisheth thus, We ordain that the Pope of the elder Rome shall be the first of all Priests, and that the most holy Arch-bishop of Constantinople, which is named new Ro∣me, have the second place. Of which Mr. Iewell and the En∣glish Church inferr, that the Pope's Authority, and preemi∣nency in those days consisted only in sitting in the first place; and that this dignity also was given him by the secular power of the Emperour: First, Iewell and his Camerades, by ••n &c. did hope to make the Emperour spiritual head of the Church, and by consequence derive the same prerogative to all secular Princes in their own Dominions; for they fraudulently omit∣ted the words wherby the whole matter is cleered; the words as they stand in the Constitution of Iustinian, are these: Sanci∣mus secundum Canonum definitiones, sanctissimum senioris Romae Papam, primum esse omnium Sacerdotum &c. we do ordain, accor∣ding to the determination of the Canons &c. But had they not concealed these words, they had discovered the weackness of their doctrin of the Queen's supremacy, because those few words according to the definition of the Canons, import, that this ordination or declaration of the Emperour was grounded vp∣on the authority of the Canons of the Church, which he did but confirm, and command the execution of the Decrees and

Declarations of Councells by his Imperial power.

The second fraud is, that they translate, primum esse om∣nium Sacerdotum, thus, that he shall be the first of all Priests:, wher∣as the Emperour vseth the present tense, declaring that the Po∣pe is the Chief of all Priests, not shall be. By Iewel's falls Translation they intended to impose vpon such as vnderstand not Latin (or at least are so careless as not to compare this Text with the English) that Popes had not bin the first or chief of all Priests before that Decree of Iustinian; and that spirituall supremacy came to them by vertue therof.

Not content with this fraud, they add an other in the very next words of this Constitution, which are these: We or∣dain also that the most Holy Arch-Bishop of Justiniana the first, which is our Country, shall have for ever vnder his Iurisdiction the Bishops of the Provinces, of Dacia, Dania, Dardania, Mysia, and Panonia, and that they shall be invested by him, and he only by his own Councell, and that he in the Provinces subject vnto him, shal have the place of the Apostolick sea of Rome &c. Out of which words Mr. Iewel and his English Prelatick Clergy inferr thus, Heere we see the Bishop of Iustiniana set in as high authority and power with in his own Iurisdiction, as the Bishop of Rome with in his. But had they bin as honest as the Protestant Layty take them to be, all the world might have seen the Roman truth, and their falshood; for they deceitfully cut of the ensuing words that expound and declare the whole matter: the words cut of are, secundum ea quae sanctus Papa Vigilius constituit; we ordain that these things shall be don and observed▪ according to that which the Holy Pope Vigilius had constituted; so that as in the former decree the Emperour professeth him-self to have or∣dained according to the definitions of the Canons, so here in particular he professeth to have confirmed the Constitutions of the holy Pope Vigilius, who had made the Arch-Bishop of Iu∣stiniana to be his legat, and to hould the place of the Aposto∣lic•• Sea of Rome in those Provinces: not vnlike to that of St. Gregory,* 1.254 who according to venerable Bede in his history, gave

the like Authority to St. Augustin our first Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, by which Concession they have always bin called Legati nati sedis Apostolicae.

Not content to conceale the words and the truth of Im∣perial Decrees, and Ecclesiastical Histories, Iewel and the En∣glish Clergy were neither ashamed nor afraid to corrupt Scrip∣ture to the same purpose against the Pope's supremacy. For, pre∣tending that the words of Christ to St. Peter, Thou art a Rock,* 1.255 and upon this Rock will I build my Church, and again, feed my Lambs, feed my sheep, were spoken as well to all the Apostles as to St. Peter; in the Apology of the Church of England, is quoted for profe hereof an other saying of our Saviour, Quod vni dico, omnibus dico, that which I say to one, I say to all, which sentence is not found in Scripture, but an otherlike it, though to an other purpose, to wit, about the watchfulness which our Saviour would have all men vse for the day of Iudgment Quod vobis dico, omnibus dico, vigilate:* 1.256 That which I say to you (here present) I speak to all (both absent and to come) be watchfull of this day, wherof Mr. Iewel, and his Collegues could not be ignorant; and yet thus he insulted, Mr. Harding affirmeth, That to the rest of the Apostles it was not sayd at all feed ye &c. to Peter and to non els was it sayd feed my Lambs, feed my sheep: yet Christ him-self saith quod vni dico, omnibus dico, that y say to one I say to all: And quoted for it Marck the 13.

SVBSECT V. Frauds and fond devices of the protestant Clergy of En∣gland to deny and discredit the Sacrifice of the Mass.

DOctor Harding having proved out of the Testimony of Leontius Bishop of Cyprus that John the holy Patriarch

of Alexandria sayd Mass, and received alone, Iewel and his Ca∣merades answer thus. A streight case for Mr. Harding to run to Alexandria a thousand miles beyond all Christendom so seck his Mass. As if at that time Alexandria were not almost in the midd'st of Christendom, or though it had bin in the midd'st of In∣fidells, as if that could be an argument of any force against the truth of Christian doctrin, which was no less pure when it was preached and practised amongst Jdolaters, then at this present among Christians.

Doctor Stapleton confuting some objections of the English Apology against Harding, quotes both his words and Iewell's thus; St. Andrew the Apostle (saith Mr. Harding) touching the substance of the Mass, worshiping God every day with the same service as Priests now do in celebrating the external Sacrifice of the Church. Mr. Iewel thus answereth; The 6. vntruth, S. Andrew sayd the Communion, not the Mass. Mr. Har∣ding▪ saith further, They shall find the same most plainly treated of and a form of Mass much agreable to that which is vsed in these days, set forth by St. Dyonise scholler to St. Paul. Mr. Iewell, The ninth vntruth, It is the very form of the Communion, and nothing like the privat Mass. Mr. Harding again: I referr them insteed of many, to the two Fathers Basil and Chrysostom. who∣se Masses be lest to posterity in these times. Mr. Iewell, the 11. vntruth; they contain the very order of the Communion. Mr. Harding yet further. Among all other Fathers Cyrillus Hieroso∣limitanus is not to be passed over lightly, who at large expoun∣deth the whole Mass vsed in Hierusalem in his time, the sa∣me which now we find in ould St. Clement long before him and others. Mr. Iewell, the 12. vntruth, It is the very express order of the Communion. And after this ••••••••ulous manner of contradicting without confuting Doctor Harding's particular in∣stances, Iewell exclaims, O Mr. Harding is it not possible your Religion,* 1.257 may stand without lyes? so many vntruths in so litle roo∣me, without the shame of the world, without feare of God &c.

His fond fraud is detected, and his vntruths returned

vpon him-self by D.r Stapleton, who tells Bishop Jewell, that in the Catholick sense the Mass and Communion are the self same thing in substance, the Communion being a principal part of the Mass, without which there is no sacrificie: for which cause the Priest always communicateth either alone or with others, when company doth offer it self, or are prepared for it, and consequently it is a fraud saith he (M.r Jewell) to put a contradiction between Communion and privat Mass, as though the one could not stand with the other; saying that the forenamed Fathers which are cited to have sayd Mass, sayd the Communion, and no Mass, where as we (saith M.r Sta∣••••••ton) hould that they did both, and sayd the one and the other, that is, they celebrated the dayly sacrificie and ther∣withall did communicat.

But if M.r Iewell mean of the English Communion, wher in no external Sacrifice, nor real presence of Christ's body is acknowledged or believed, then proveth D.r Stapleton, that the foresaid Fathers cannot possibly be vnderstood to speak of that Communion, for that in their said Liturgies they do ma∣ke express mention of the Real presence of Christ's flesh therin, and of the offering vp (as the express words of S. Andrew are) of the Sacred body and bloud of Christ our Saviour in Sacri∣fice vnto God his Father. And moreover in St. Dionise his Mass there is express mention of Oblation and Consecration of the Misteries, of prayer for the Dead, of Altars, Censing,* 1.258 Com∣munion and memory of Saints; all which things are not in the English Liturgy or Communion, and much more. He sheweth the same in the Mass or Liturgies of St. Basil, and St. Chrysostom; where, after the Oblation made of the Sacrifice, commemo∣ration is made also of the blessed Saints in heaven, and namely of our B. Lady, and St. John Baptist, and of the Saint of the day, and of prayer for the Dead: which last clause St. Cyrill doth explicat more particularly, saying:

when we offer vp this Sacrifice, after (the Oblation) we make mention of those which have departed this life before vs; And first of the

Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, and Martyrs, that by their prayers and intercessions, Almighty God may receive our prayers, And then we pray for the Holy Fathers and Bi∣shops departed, and lastly we pray for all men which among us have deceased, believing it to be a great relief of soules for whom the intercession of that Holy and dread∣full Sacrifice, which is layd vpon the Altar, is offered.

These are the words of St. Cyrill, whervpon Mr. Staple∣ton demandeth: Is this the express order of your Communion?

Here you see (saith he) is Oblation, Sacrifice, Altar prayer to Saints, prayer for the Dead, and is all this don in your En∣glish Communion? And now I hope we may with more reason exclaim against Iewell and the Church of England▪ then they did against 〈◊〉〈◊〉, is it not possible your Religion may stand without l••es?

SVBSECT VI. Prelatick Falsifications and Corruptions of Scripture to make the Pope Antichrist, and Succession of Bishops, a mark of the Beast.

ONe of the things which most troubled Bishop Iewell, and the first Protestant Prelats of Queen Elizabeth, was there notorious want of Episcopal Caracter, and suc∣cession derived from the Apostles; all the true Bishops of En∣gland refusing to ordain them, after that them-selves had bin violently deprived of their Seas by the Queen's Command,* 1.259 for not conforming to her she supremacy, and new doctrin. Mr. Jewell therfore and his Camerades, observing how much their cause was prejudiced by this want of Succession, published and

preached many things to discredit the same; and to that pur∣pose in the defence of the Apology of the Church of England, th•••• write thus. By succession Christ saith that desolation shall 〈…〉〈…〉 the Holy place,* 1.260 and Anti-Christ shall press into the room 〈…〉〈…〉: and for proof they note in the margent, Mat. 24. And in the same defence (pag. 127.) they say, of Succession St. Paul saith to the faithfull at Ephesus, I know that after my de∣parture hence ravening wolves shall enter, and succeed me, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of your selves there shall (by succession) spring vp men speak∣ing perversly. Wheras St. Paul hath never a word of succession 〈◊〉〈◊〉 succeeding, neither is there any mention of succession in Mat∣thew 24. But the quite contrary is evident by the nature of the thing it self, for that Antichrist entring by violence, shall 〈◊〉〈◊〉 dissolue all lawfull succession of Priests, and Bishops con∣tinued from the Apostles time to his time, then enter himself by succession; which point seemeth to have bin foretould by St. Paul * 1.261 to the Thessalonians * 1.262 when he saith, that except defection (or Apostacy) go before, (which is an open breach from orderly succession and subordination) the man of sin shall not be revealed. So that Succession which by all the an∣cient and Holy Doctors is believed and defended to be a mark of the true Church, is affirmed by Iewell and the first Prote∣stant Bishops to be a mark of Anti-Christ, and to prove this their non sense, they are pleased to falsify Scripture; and all this was don, because they knew them-selves wanted succession and imposition of Episcopal hands, and were made Bishops only by the Queen's letters patents, and dispensation with the inha∣bility of their very state and condition, and legitimated, or made legal by an Act of Parliament 8. Elizabeth 1.

SVBSECT VII. Prelatick Falsifications to prove that Popes may, and have decreed Heresies.

IN the Apology of the Church of England part. ••. cap. 5. Iewell and the English Clergy affirm, that Pope Iohn 22. held a wicked and detestable opinion of the life to come, and Jmmortality of the soule, which accusation they had out of Calvin, whose words are, that Pope Iohn affirmed man's soule to be mortal; This being proved to be a lye, by Doctor Harding; Iewell and his Clergy replyed in the defence of the Apology thus, Gerson writeth in Sermons Paschali; Pope John

2••. to have decreed that the soules of the wicked should not be pu∣nished before the day of the last Iudgment, by which words,* 1.263 as you shall see, insteed of cleering one fals accusation against Iohn 22 they bring in another; for Gerson hath no such words; but the true controversy was indeed, whether the soules of the just (not of the wicked) should see God face to face, before the day of Iudgment, or not; wherin Pope Iohn being Reader of Divinity in France, before he was Pope, inclined to the nega∣tive part: the Controversy was decided after Pope Iohn's death i•• the extravagant of Pope Benedictus.

Not content with this Jmposture they add an other grea∣ter in confirmation of their former Charge, fathering in the same and these ensuing words vpon the Councell of Constance

Quinimo Ioannes Papa 22. yea Pope Iohn the two and twen∣tith,* 1.264 held and believed obstinatly that the soule of man did dye with the body, and was extinguished as the soules of the bruit Beasts. And more over he sayd, that a man once dead, is not to rise again, no not at the last day.

First this Testimony doth not touch Pope Iohn 22. at all but an Anti-Pope Iohn vsurping the Popedom, and calling him-self Iohn 23. and this a hundred years after Pope Iohn 22.

2. These words are not words of the Councell, but words of an accusation vsed by a certain man that did accuse him in the Councell of Constance, vnder the name Baltazar de Cossa calling him-self Iohn 23. where laying against him 35. articles, concerning his wicked life, before he took vpon him the sayd name of Pope, which Articles were proved, but not this point of Heresy.

SVBSECT VIII. Prelatick Falsifications to prove that Popes have insulted over Kings.

THe Apology of the Church of England doth set forth how a Pope commanded the Emperour to go by him at his hors bridle, and the French King to hould his stirrop, and the like, which Mr. Harding proveth to be lyes; then it says that the Pope hurled vnder his table Francis Dandalus the Duke of Venise, King of Creta and Cyprus, fast-bound with chains, to feed of bones among his doggs. But neit∣her Francis Dandalus was Duke of Venice, when he was sent to the Pope in this Embassage, neither was he King of Creta nor Cyprus, that name (of King) not being tollerable in the free State of Venice; and as for the Duke at that time, his na∣me was Johannes Superantius, and Dandalus was but a privat man, sent Embassador to Clement 5. then Pope to obtain the revocation of an Jnterdict, which was layd vpon the sayd Citty; and finding the Pope some what hard to yeeld to his supplication, he devised of him-self this Stratagem, to cause an Iron chain to be put about his own neck, and to creep in vp∣on his hands and knees while the Pope was at dinner, and there lay down vnder the Table,* 1.265 and would not rise vntill he had obtained pardon and remission for his Country: and this Doctor Harding proveth out of the principal Authors and wri∣ters of the Venetian Commonwealth.

SVBSECT IX. Prelatick Falsifications to prove that S. Austin the Apo∣stle of our English Saxons was an hypocrit, and no Saint; as also to discredit Catholick writers.

BIshop Iewell and his Prelatick Clergy in their reply to the Objections against their Apology for the Church of Eng∣land (pag. 185.) speak thus of St. Austin the Monk and Apostle of England: He was a man, as is judged by them that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and knew him, neither of an Apostolicall spirit, nor any way 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to be called a Saint, but an hypocrit, and a supperstitious 〈◊〉〈◊〉, cruell, bloudy, and proud out of measure. There is no ••riting extant of any man, that saw him and knew him alive, but only of St. Gregory the Great,* 1.266 who commended him excee∣dingly; and of St. Bede that lived not very long after him, who writeth also much of his Sanctity and miracles: who then 〈◊〉〈◊〉 those who lived with him and knowing him, did Iudge him to be so bad a man? Iewell citeth only in the margent Greffey of Monmouth, who lived neer six hundred years after St. Austins dayes.

Bishop Iewell and his Camerades say also that Ioannes de Magistris (he would have sayd Martinus) writ in his Book de Temperantia, that fornication is no sin; but this Author houlds the quite contrary, and proveth it by six several conclusions,* 1.267 and by St. Paul saying that it excludeth from the Kingdom of heaven; but yet for that he saith in the beginning,* 1.268 Argui∣tur quod non, it may be objected to the contrary, the Apologists foolishly and fraudulently accuse (in this Author) Roman Ca∣tholicks with damnable doctrin. Much more might be sayd of their fals dealing in this Apology, defence, and reply, of the Church of England; but we remit the curious to Doctor Harding, Stapleton &c.

SVBSECT X. Of the protestant prelatick Clergies frauds, and fal∣sifications of Scripture, and alterations of their 39. Articles of Religion, to make the people be∣lieve that they have true Priests and Bishops in the Church of England.

THe point most insisted vpon by Dr. H••rding, Stap••••∣t••n &c: and all 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Catholick 〈◊〉〈◊〉 their Boo•••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the 〈…〉〈…〉 and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Church of England▪ was, that it could not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Church, because it had not any one true Bishop, and according to St. Hierom (saith Harding) 〈◊〉〈◊〉 non est quae non habet 〈◊〉〈◊〉, which word 〈◊〉〈◊〉 signifieth Bishop as well as 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ That the Church of England had 〈◊〉〈◊〉 (in the beginning of Queen Eli∣za•••••••• Reign, whom Harding and Stapleton writ against it) as much as one Bishop validly consecrated, they proved; because not one of them was consecrated by a true Bishop, or by im∣position of Episcopal hands: and if they durst say they were▪ Harding and Stapleton chalenged them to name him. Who hath layd hands on you? how and by whom are you consecrated (saith Harding and Stapleton? How chanced then (Mr· Iewell) that you and your fellowes bearing your selves for Bishops &c. have taken vpon you that Office without any Imposition of hands? J ask not who gave you Bishopricks, but who made you Bishops? Me thinks Iewell and his Camerades, the first Pro∣testant Bishops, might easily have answered, by only naming the person who consecrated them, and the place of their con∣secration: But not a word of this point. Iewell indeed once

attempted to answer something,* 1.269 but it had bin better for him∣self and his Companions, he had sayd nothing, for, his silence to the question might have bin interpreted a slighting of the de∣mand, by the Bigots of his Church, that endeavor to make the most palpable absurdities probable answers in this and other Controversies.

Iewell therfore saith, himself was a Bishop by the free and accustomed Canonical election of the whole Chapter of ••••lesbury; but to the question how he, or Parker, together with the first Bishops, were consecrated; or by whom? not one 〈◊〉〈◊〉. After having first contented himself (and by conse∣••••nce Arch-bishop Parker and his other Camerades that were ••••••stioned) with a bare election of the Chapter, insteed of an Episcopal consecration, yet he adds our Bishops are made in form 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Order, as they have bin ever, by free election of the Chapter, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 consecration of the Arch-bishop, and three other Bishops.

Heere we may observe both fraud and folly: because he doth not answer to the question: his adversary askes him how himself and the first protestant Bishops (wherof Arch-bishop 〈◊〉〈◊〉 was one, and the chief) were consecrated, and by whom? 〈◊〉〈◊〉 lieu of answering, Arch-bishop Parker, my self, and the other 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Bishop were consecrated by such a man, and in such a place, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 his Adversary, our Bishops are made by consecration of the Arch-bishop &c. Perhaps he meant that Arch-bishop Parker con∣••••••rated himself, by imposition of his own hands: therfore Harding tells him, and how I pray you was your Arch-bishop him∣self consecrated. (For that was the question and main point of the Controversy) what three Bishops were there in the realm to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 hands on him? &c. There were antient Bishops enough in England, who either were not required, or refused to conse∣crate you. (He alludes to the Bishop of Landaff, who re∣fused to consecrate them at the nags-head, and to the Irish Arch-Bishop Creagh, who refused also to lay hands on them, though they offered him his liberty, being then prisoner in the Tower, if he would do them that favor.

What Parker, Horn, Jewell, and none of the first Bishop•• could do, but some fiue or six yeares after their pretended con∣consecration; their successors of the Church of England have don, above fifty yeares after. They shewed in the yeare 1613. a Register not only with the names of Parker's Consecrators, but with a description of the tapestry on the east-side of the Chap∣pell, read 〈…〉〈…〉, Sermon, Communion, concourse of peo∣ple, &c. at the solemnity of his consecration at Lambeth for∣sooth, and yet neither Parker himself, nor any Protestant, or Catholick ever heard of such a solemnity, Consecration, or Con∣secrators, when both parties were so highly engaged about the na∣mes, of the place and persons; and made it the subject of prin∣ted Bookes▪ and all this their contest was in a time that it might have been soon ended by 〈◊〉〈◊〉, or Horn's only writing (in their answers to 〈…〉〈…〉 of their Adversaries) the na∣mes of 〈…〉〈…〉 place of their Consecration, with∣out troubling themselves with copying 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Registers, the richness of the tapestry, or the color of the cloath, &c. men∣mentioned by M.r Mason, to make the fable credible by so common and ordinary stuff, seing he durst not venture upon more individual circumstances.

But because no Protestant can believe so great 〈◊〉〈◊〉 was kept about ••••thing, M.r Mason, Primat Bramhall, D.r Heylin, and all other modern prelatick writers, endeavor to persuade the layty of the Church of England, that the dispute between Harding and Jewell, Stapleton and Horn, was not about the validity, but concerning the legality of the first Protestant Bis∣hops consecration; because, forsooth, Bishop Bon••er, in his plea, and Controvertists in their bookes, only pretended that there was no law 1. Eliz. to warrant Edward 6. forme of con∣secrating Bishops; Q. Mary having repealed the same with the booke of Ordination, which Stapleton and the rest fancied was not revived with that of the common prayer 2. Elizab. by act of Parliament. But though this evasion hath bin sufficiently confuted by the Author of the nullity of the Prelatick Clergy and

〈◊〉〈◊〉 of England against Primat Bramhall, yet I admire he o∣mitted these ensuing words of D.r Stapleton's, which demon∣strate our Catholick exceptions were not grounded upon Staple∣ton's persuasion of the want of Laws or statuts then in force, for confirming the forme, or Booke of Ordination; but they were ••••ther grounded upon a cleere evidence that though the sayd forme and Book of ordination was legal then, yet there had bin 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Consecration at all performed.

For thus saith D.r Stapleton to Horn pretended Bishop of ••••••chester, It is not the Princes only pleasure that maketh a Bishop,* 1.270 〈◊〉〈◊〉 there must be free election, without either forcing the Clergy to 〈◊〉〈◊〉, or forcing the Chosen (it seems Horn payd a good summ 〈◊〉〈◊〉 his Bishoprick) to filthy bribery, and also there must follow a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 consecration, which you and all your Fellowes do lack, and ther∣•••••••• you are indeed no true Bishops, neither by the law of the Church, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 yet by the law of the realm, for want of due consecration, ex∣pressly required by an act of Parliament renewed in this Queenes d••yes, in suffragan Bishops, much more in you;* 1.271 By which words 〈◊〉〈◊〉 appeares that the exception was not grounded vpon D.r Sta∣••••••ton or any other Catholicks persuasion that Q. Elizabeth had not sufficiently renewed the booke and forme of ordination, by 〈◊〉〈◊〉 act of Parliament 1. Eliz. but on the quite contrary; and that though there was an act, yet the Bishops could not be va∣••••••ly consecrated according to that Act of Parliament (that Sta∣pleton says was renewed 1. Eliz.) for want of a true Bishop to ••••ercise that function, not for want of any Law to authorise ••piscopal consecration; all the Catholick Bishops who were na∣med in her first commission having refused to act by her order and her Majesties Dispensation (in her second commission) not only with her own statute, but with the very state and condi∣tion of the Protestant Consecrators, who were not Bishops, could not be of force to give them a spiritual caracter.

Wherfore M.r Parker, Grindall, Horn, Jewell and the rest of the first Bishops, who understood better their own conditi∣on then their Successours would seeme now to do, resolved in

their 〈◊〉〈◊〉 1562. to publish the 39. Articles made by Cranmer and his Junra, but with some alteration and addition; especially to that article wherin they speak of the Sacraments▪ for wheras Cranmers 25. or 26. article says nothing of Holy or∣ders by Imposition of Hands, or any visible sign, or ceremony re∣quired therin, Parker and his Bishops having taken vpon them∣selves that calling without any such ceremony of Imposition of Episcopal hands, declared; that God ordained not any visible sign or ceremony for the five last commonly called Sacraments, wherof Holy Orders is one. This alteration and addition you may see in D.r Heylin's appendix to Ecclesia restaurat••, pag. 189. And by order of the same Convocation was printed the Scrip∣ture, and in that their edition of 1562. Ordination by imposition of hands was translated ordination by election, as you may see part. 1. and part. 2. of this Treatise. And though Cranmer cared as litle for any visible signes or ceremonies in ordina•••••••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the other first Pro∣testant Reformers, and according to their 〈◊〉〈◊〉 had abjured the Priestly and Episcopal caracter which he had received among Ca∣tholicks▪ 〈◊〉〈◊〉 you may gather by his own words related by John Fox in his degradation,* 1.272 thus:

Then a Barbar dipped his hair round about, and the Bishop scraped the tops of his fin∣gers were he had bin annointed, wherin Bishop Bonner be∣haved himself as rougly, and vnmanerly, as the other Bishop was to him soft and gentle. Whiles they were thus doing, All this (quoth the Archbishop) needed not, I had my self don with this 〈◊〉〈◊〉 long ago.

Albeit I say Cranmer cared not for any Epis∣copal Ordination which he had received in the Catholick Church, yet he did not think to make the denial therof an article of the Protestant faith; but Q. Elizabeths English Church in their Convocation 1562. seing they could not obtain the Episcopal caracter by Imposition of true Bishops hands, thought 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to make it a part of the Protestant belief, that no such vi∣sible 〈◊〉〈◊〉 or ceremony was necessary, or instituted by Christ; and ther∣fore concluded holy Orders was not a Sacrament. And though the prelatick Clergy now teach and practise the contrary, and

〈◊〉〈◊〉 K. Iame's reign Ordination by imposition of hands was restored to the Text of Scripture, and by consequence ordination by election, declared to be a Cheat, or corruption; yet this change of the matter doth no more make them now true Priests and Bishops, then their last change of their forme of Ordination, since the most happy restauration of K. Charles the 2.

SVBSECT XI. In Advertisment to the Reader concerning Bishop Iewell.

BEcause Jewell was the most famous and learned man of the Church of England,* 1.273 in so much that M.r Hooker termes him the worthiest Divine that Christendom bred for 〈◊〉〈◊〉 hundred yeares past, and that his Apology and defence of the Church of England was the work of that whole Clergy; and that Withaker after Iewell's death, sayd to Campian,* 1.274 Jewell's chal∣••••••ge and speech concerning the first 600. yeares was most true, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 all the Church of England did stand to it; and that Heylin 〈◊〉〈◊〉 all the Protestant Controversors since Iewell take from his Apology and defence, their arguments and authority; Because 〈◊〉〈◊〉, the man is such a pillar of English Protestancy, and most 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that Religion pin their Faith upon his sleeve, and work; and think the Holy Ghost directed his pen, in his Apology and defence of their Prelatick Church, I thought fit to let them Know, that they who were intimatly acquainted with him, give this testimony of him; he was first a Catholick, and continued so untill Protestancy was made the religion of the state in Edward 6: Reign; then he turned Protestant, and remained so untill Queen Maries dayes, then he abjured protestancy as heresy, and seemed to be so forward and zealous in professing the Roman faith, that he was

permitted to be one of the Notaries of Cranmer, and Ridleys di••••putations in the Vniversity▪* 1.275 D.r Heylin sayes all this his for∣wardness in Popery proceeded from feare.

When Queen Elizabeth succeeded in the Kingdom, Je∣well embraced her Religion and writ what you haue seen against our Religion, which himself had twice professed as the only Catholick: This much is confessed on all sides. Chark or Fulk (I know not which of them is Author) in the Answer to the Censure (Edit. 1583. fol. 78.) complains

that as Papists say Luther was the son of an Incubus or the Divill, and dyed drunk▪ Oecolampadius was killed by the Devill, or by his own hands; Peter Martyr, had a familiar; Martin Bucer consulted with his Cow and his Calf; so they say that Iewell had all his know∣ledge from his Cat, or from a Weesel, and dyed recanting his opinions, embracing a Popish Cross, with protestation that he sinned against his own conscience and knowledge.

That Jewell sinned against his own conscience and know∣ledge, is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by his falsifications which we have set down, having bin himself a learned man, and besides having bin ad∣vertised of them by others, and therfore his mistakes could not proceed from ignorance. And that he said to some of his friends who put him in minde of his fals dealing, the Protestant Religion could not be otherwise defended, we have heard credibly repor∣ted, as also how he replied to his Amanuensis, that excepted against some of his falsifications, that not one Reader amongst a thousand would examin his corruptions, and Translations, or compare them with the Text, all which makes it ••••••dible enough that he went against his knowledge; but for my own part I am not beholding to the relation of others for my ill opinion of Jewell, I am convinced that he was a wilfull falsifier, and Impostar, and do Iudge his own writings to be the best evidence therof; If he recanted at his death, I hope he was saved, though he hath bin the damnation, I feare, of millions, that have bin seduced by his Books. And as for his cat, and his Wesel, I dispute not whether the Devill vsed

to conferr with him in such shapes; But I am sure the sub∣stance of his Apology, and the manner of defending his doctin, could proceed from no better Author; and I belieue every ra∣tional man will be of the same opinion, if he peruse and exa∣min his workes.

SVBSECT XII. Examples of learned Protestants converted to the Roman Catholick Religion by observing the Frauds, and falshoods of the Apology of Iewell, and of the Protestant Clergy for the prelatick Church of England.

THough it is to be feared that millions of soules have perished by the falsifications and frauds of Iewell, and of the Protestant Clergy, in publishing and maintai∣ning (even to this day) their Apology and defence of the Church of England, yet many have bin saved by occasion of the notoriousness of the falshoods therin contained. I will spe∣••••fy only three, mentioned by the learned Author of the three conversions of England, who had it from their own mouthes; ••••mitting others (saith he) which for just respects may not be named. Heare his own words.

The first is S.r Thomas Copely,* 1.276 who oftentimes hath rela∣ted unto me with much comfort of his soule, how that being a zealous Protestant, and very familiar to the Earle of Lei∣cester, in the beginning of this Queenes dayes, when M.r Ie∣well's Book was newly come forth, and being also learned himself in the latin tongue, took paines to examin several leaves therof, and finding many falshoods therin, which were inexcusable (as they seemed to him) he conferred the same

with the Earle; who willed him that the next time M.r Ie∣well dined at his table, he should take occasion after dinner to propose the same; which he did soon after; and receiving certain trifling answers from M.r Iewell,* 1.277 he waxed more hot, and urged the matter more earnestly▪ which Iewell perceiving, told him in effect, that Papists were Papists, and so they were to be dealt with all, and other answer he could not get: which thing made the good Gentleman make a new resolution with himself, and to take that happy course which he did to leave his Countrey and many great Commodities which he enioyed therin, to enjoy the liberty of conscience for salvation of his soule.

The second example, which I remember of my own knowledge, is M.r Doctor Stevens, a learned man yet alive, who being Secretary, or Chaplyn to M.r Iewell (for I re∣member, not well whether) and a forward man in Pro∣testant Religion at that tyme, espied certain false allegations in his Master's Book, whilst it was yet vnder the print in London, wherof advertising him by letters. (for that he supposed it might be by oversight) the other commanded notwithstanding the print to go forward, and passed it over as it was, which this man seeing, that had a conscience and sought the truth indeed, resolved to take another way of finding it out: and having found it in the Catholick Church, where only it is to be found, he resolved also to follow it, and so he did, and went voluntarily into banishment for the same, where yet he liveth vnto this day in Finance, with good re∣putation both of learning and godliness.

The third example that I call to mind, is the worthy man before named M.r William Reynolds, who being first an ear∣nest Professor and Preacher of Protestant Religion in Eng∣land, he fell in the end to read over M.r Iewell's book, and did translate some part therof into latin, but before he had passed half over, he found such stuff as made him greatly mislike of the whole Religion; and so he leaving his hopes

and commodities in England, went over the sea into these parts, and the last yeare of Iubily, to wit 1575. he came to Rome and brought that book with him, and presented both himself and it to the Tribunal of Inquisition, of his own free motion and accord &c. And himself after abso∣lution received from his former errors (which he with great humility and zeale required, and myself also at that time did speak with him in that place) he returned into France and Flanders, and there lived many years with singular edification for his rare virtue, and learning, and how heartily indeed he was converted, may well appeare by his zealous writings, both in Latin and English in defence of Catholick Religion. Thus much the Author of the three Conversions.

I am credibly informed by a person then present, that Primat Bramhall and some of his Majesties Chaplains (who now are Bishops (persuaded or endeavored to persuade our most gratious Soveraign Charles 2. (who was then at Bruges) that this Doctor Reynolds was made a Papist by disputing with an other Doctor Reynolds whom he intended to make a Prote∣stant, And that the Roman Catholick Doctor Reynolds, at the same time turned Protestant. Some think this story was feigned to make the King believe that there is as much to say for the Protestant religion, as for the Catholick: And to the end his Majesty might not reflect vpon the falshood of a Re∣ligion forsaken out of meere conscience by it's greatest Doctors, when they were most applauded, and when they had reason to expect the richest Benefites, and greatest honours.

From the Apology of the Church of England, we will pass to John Fox his Acts and Monuments, a Book no less commended by the Protestant Clergy then the former, because by frauds and lyes it serves their turn to foole the well mea∣ning Layty, who take it to be a true Ecclesiasticall History of the persecuted Church of Christ.

SECT. V. Frauds, follies, and falsifications of Iohn Fox his Acts and Monuments, and of his Magdeburgian Masters in their Centuries; the litle sincerity of the English Church and Clergy in countenancing such falls dealing.

AFter that Luther and Calvin's desperat shift (of the invisibility of Christ's Church for more then a thousand years before their pre∣tended reformations) had bin evidently con∣futed,* 1.278 as not only impossible, but as repug∣nant also to Scripture, which compares the Church to a Citty placed vpon a mountain, and a shining Sun &c. Their schollers vndertook to shew a succession of the Protestant Church; and to that purpose some drunken Germans (as any sober man must judge them to have bin by their writings) whose names were Flaccus Illyricus, Joannes Vigan∣dus, Matheus Judex, and Basilius Faber, met togeather in some warme stoue of Magdeburg, and there tipling took vpon them to Iudge of the writings, doctrin, and miracles of all the ancient Fathers from the first Century to the last: Of the very next Century to the Apostles these merry Companions were pleased to give this Censure in the very title of the Chapter, Inclina∣tio Doctrinae complectens peculiares & incommodas opiniones, stipulas, & errores Doctorum quae palam quidem, hoc est, scriptis tradita sunt. The declining of Christ and his Apostles doctrin, conteining the peculiar and incommodious opinions of Doctors,* 1.279 their errors, straw, and stubble, which were left publickly by them, that is to say, in their writings. And thus they Censure St. Iraeneus, Tertullian,

Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Methodius, &c. saying they abuse and wrest the Scriptures intolerably, and grossly to favor po∣pish opinions. These foure merry saxons reprehend Ignatius St. Iohn's scholler for vsing the phrase offerre & sacrificium im∣••olare: St. Cyprian for saying, sacerdotem vice Christi fungi, & Deo patri sacrificium offerre. St. Martial scholler of the Apostles saying, sacrificium Deo Creatori offertur in Ara. Martial in Ep. ad Burdegal: and so all other points, wherin Protestants and Catho∣licks do disagree, calling the antient Fathers stubble Doctors: the same they say of St. Basil, Lactantius, Gregory Nissen, Hilary, Nazianzen, Ambrose, Ephrem, and Hierom &c. and pretend their doctrin to be against Scripture, and the Miracles they re∣late to be either forged, or Diabolicall, or at least wrought by God to punish the credulity of Christians: But the errors of ancient condemned Hereticks, to be the true and sincere primitive faith, and produce no other proof for this their drunken foolery, but their own presumption, and privat in∣terpretation of Scripture.

Wherfore Valentia,* 1.280 (a learned Jesuit) compared these Magdeburgian Centurists, (and indeed ti's the case of all other Protestant writers) to fellowes accused or suspected of theft, heresy, or any other crime, who willingly present themselves before the Magistrat, or Senat of the Citty; And there first of all for their cleering, should bring in for witnesses against themselves the best, learned, most grave, and most ho∣nest men of all that Citty, to testify that they indeed are Thieves and hereticks, or the like, but yet having so don, would endeavor to refute all these again, by only saying, that these men so highly esteemed and commended for their integrity, spoke rashly and incommodiously, and knew not what they testified against them, or at least were in a dream; and that the accused persons alone ought to be believed against them all. Might not these men be thought mad, or drunk, that would take such a course of defence? And yet this is the course and case of the Magdeburgians, who citing first the gra∣vest

and most ancient Fathers of Christendom against them∣selves, do reiect the same again with this only Iest, and con∣tumely, that they speak incommodiously, ignorantly, and were stubble Doctors,* 1.281 opiniones incommodae, naevi, stipulae, &c. Docto∣rum. Cyprian, say they; speaketh without Scripture, Cyprian doth feign superstitiously, Cyprian doth Iudge naughtily, Tertullian doth erre. Few in ancient times did write perspicuously and with Iudgment.* 1.282 And of the whole multitude of Doctors of the second age, which was neerest to the Apostles, they are pleased to say, Al∣beit this age was neerest to the Apostles, yet the doctrin of Christ and his Apostles began to be not a litle darkned therin, and many monstrous and incommodious opinions are every where found to be spread by the Doctors therof. Then of the third age they say, the further that we go from the Apostles age, the more stubble we shall find to have bin added to the purity of the Christian doctrin. So that you may see what these foure drunken Germans judge of suc∣ceeding ages, of the greatest Doctors, and of the whole Ca∣tholick Church, and what credit their writings deserve.

John Fox in his Acts and Monuments doth imitat the example of these Dutch drunken Centurists his Masters, not only in this impudent foolery, but also in their fraudulent dealing of concealing and cutting off many of the Testimonies of the Holy Fathers, least the multitude and cleerness of the authorities should give our Catholick cause too much credit: but he dissenteth from the Magdeburgians in saying, that the true Church of Christ is both visible, and invisible; visible to them that are in her, and invisible to them that are out of her. So that according to Fox,* 1.283 heathens and heretiks, (that are out of the Church) can not see her, nor be converted, or con∣vinced by those visible and supernatural signs, wherewith God hath made her remarkable and conspicuous, to the end that such as are not in her, may see her, and be converted; a thing so much inculcated by the ancient Fathers, that they say very few, or none of the meanest capacities, can be excused by in∣vincible ignorance from damnation. But let vs see what an Jma∣ginary

Church of Protestants he fancies and builds in the Aire.

And first we may observe that for the first twelve hun∣dred years after Christ (not finding as much as one Parish of Protestants in the whole world) Fox doth not name any Church or Congregation but the Roman Catholick. But from Pope Innocentius the 3. time downwards, Fox beginneth, and bringeth forth for the true Church a rablement of condemned Sectaries, dissenting in opinions, and professions, not only from the Catholik, but also from the Protestant reformations; and divided among themselves, cohering in no other form, or succession, but that one sprung vp by chance after the other, which (as his adversary tells him) he tieth togeather in a Catalogue, or list, as Sampson's foxes were, by the tailes.* 1.284 This list or Catalogue he setteth down in his protestation to the Church of England; telling first that even during the time of the last 400. years from Pope Innocentius downwards, the true Church of Christ (he meanes the Protestant which vntill then had bin wholy invisible) durst not openly appeare in the face of the world, being oppressed by Tyrany. But yet that it re∣mained from time to time visible in certain chosen members that not only bare secret good affection to sincere doctrin, but stood also in the defence of truth against the Church of Rome. But if his Protestant Church was invisible to them that were out of her, and by consequence to Papists, it needed not feare their Popish Tyra∣ny, by which it could be no more prejudiced then Spirits, or men shut vp in enchanted Castles.

In which Catalogue (saith Fox) first to pretermit Bertramus, and Beringarius which were before Pope Innocentius. 3. a learned multitude of sufficient witnesses heere might be produced, whose names are neither obscure, nor doctrin vnknown; as Ioakim Abbot of Cala∣bria; Almaricus a learned Bishop that was judged an heretick for holding against Images: besides the Martyrs of Alsatia, of whom we read 100. to be burned by Pope Jnnocentius in one day.

Add likewise to these the Waldenses, and Albi∣genses; Besides divers others standing against the Pope an 1240.

&c. Then he addeth to these some privat persons (for the most part Catholiks) as Dantes the Jtalian Poet, Armacanus, Occham, &c. and finaly embraceth in his Church the Lollards, Wickleffians, Hussits, and all other Sectaries vntill he comes to Luther, Zuinglius, and Calvin, &c. all of them disagreeing in opinion, and every one pretending his own opinion to be the true Catholick faith. And this is the visible succession of Fox's Church, and the subject of his Ecclesiasticall History: wherby he pretends to no greater antiquity then of 400. years, nor can he prove any other vnity of faith, then their impug∣ning the Pope and the Roman Catholick Doctrin, not vnani∣mously,* 1.285 but some one point, some another, disagreeing in most among themselves. I will briefly refute these his lyes, and re∣veale his fraud. Bertram was a Monk, lived and dyed a Ro∣man Catholick above 800. years agone; after his death some of his followers forged a litle pamphlet in his name, savoring or favoring the Berengarian heresy: but the fraud was presently discovered, and rejected. Berengarius recanted his heresy, and dyed a penitent Catholick. Ioachim an old man half out of his wits, was censured by the Pope for certain fond prophecies, and some errors also about the Blessed Trinity. Almaricus was never Bishop, but only of Fox his making; he was condem∣ned for many other heresies besides holding against Images, as for teaching there is no resurrection of Bodies at all. 2. That there is no paradise, nor hell. 3. That the body of Christ is not in the Sacrament.* 1.286 4. That God spake as much in Ovid, as in Austin &c. As for his Martyrs in Alsatia, they who relate that story say: certain Hereticks to the number of 80. were burned in Argentina in Zwitzerland,* 1.287 for that they denyed forni∣cation to be any sin at all, for that it is a natural act. &c.

As for the Waldenses or poore men of Lions, they held do∣ctrins which Protestants do not own. 1. That all carnal con∣cupiscence and conjunction is lawfull, when lust doth burn vs. 2. That all oathes are vnlawfull. 3. That no Iudgment of life and death is permitted to Christians. 4. That the Creed of the

Apostles is to be contemned &c.

The Albigensis were another Sect of hereticks, rysing some 30. or 40. yeares after the Waldenses an. 1216. and their begi∣ning was at a Town called Albigium, neere Tolosa. They agreed with Protestants in the deniall of the Popes supremacy, pur∣gatory, and some other points, but differed in many; as first, they held with the Manichees that there are two Gods, one good and another evill. 2. They denyed all resurrection of the body: and that it was in vain for Christians to vse any kind of prayer at all▪ & 3. That external baptism was an idle cere∣mony, and to be rejected as superfluous. 4. they held the transmigration of soules &c.

As for Wickleffs opinions, by Fox his own relation (pag. 400.) they are different from the Protestant articles. And the Lollards held that Lucifer with the rest of his Angells were in∣juriously thrust out of heaven by Michael and his,* 1.288 and con∣sequently to be restored again at the day of Iudgment; and that Michael and his Angells are to be damned. That our Lady could not beare Christ and remain a Virgin. That God doth not punish any wickedness don vnder ground. And therfore in caves and Cellars they were accustomed to exercise all abo∣mination. And Tritemius relates how one Gisla a yong woman of their sect, coming to be burned for heresy, being asked whether she were a Virgin or no? she answered that above ground she was, but vnder ground not.

These and the like impurities and impieties John Fox would fain impose vpon Protestants as the primitive Christia∣nity, and doctrin of the true Church: the Wretches that suf∣fered for maintaining these blasphemies, are Fox his Martyrs; and their obstinacy in dying for these fooleries, togeather with the propagation of Luther and Calvin's sensual Tenets, and some dreams and fancies of crackt brain fellowes, are the Mi∣racles of his Church. Three Miracles he notes in Luther,; To stand against the Pope (saith he) was a great Miracle;* 1.289 to prevaile against the Pope a greater; to dye vntouched, may seem greatest of

all &c. Which three Miracles he may find in Marcion, Ma∣homet, Cromwell, and in every Rebell or Malefactor that hath escaped the fire, or Gallowes, by fortune, favor, or faction. Then he addeth:

another time as Luther was sitting in a certain place vpon his stoole, a great stone was in the vault, over his head where he did sit, which being stayd miraculously so long as he was sitting, as soon as he was vp, immediatly fell vp∣on the place where he satt, able to have crusht him all in peeces if it had light vpon him.

Now if Fox did prove that this great stone was stayed miraculously from falling vpon Luther, some∣thing it were; but how can he make that appeare? he may as well maintain that every stone, or tyle falling from a decayed building, was miraculously stayed from falling vpon every man's head that passeth vnder, and escapes such casual and dayly dangers.

But to the end you may be rightly informed of John Fox his judgment and spirit in discerning and describing su∣pernaturall things; I will relate a miracle or revelation that happned to himself, in his own words.

And first you must know that he was resolved to prove by Scrip••ure that Pope Boniface 8. was Anti-Christ, and to that purpose quotes a Text out of the 20, chapter of the Apocalips, and then maketh his account thus. The binding vp of Sathan after peace given to the Church (counting from the 30. year of Christ) was an. Dom. 294. which lasted for 1000. years, vntill an. 1294. about which year Pope Boniface 8. was made Pope &c.

This he endeavored to confirm out of the 13. Chapter of the Apocalips, where it is sayd, that power was given by the dra∣gon to the Beast (to wit to Anti-Christ) to speak blasphemy and to do what listeth him for 42. months; which make (as all men know) 3. years and a half: and is the time allotted by S.t Iohn (according to all the ancient Fathers ••nterpretati∣ons) to the reign of Anti-Christ, in the end of the world: But John Fox will needs have the number of the 42. months to import 294. years, that is, every month 7. years, or (as

he fantastically calls it) a sabbaoth of years;* 1.290 for proof wherof he describes a revelation of his own thus.

Because the matter (saith he) being of no small importance, greatly appertai∣neth vnto the publik vtility of the Church, and least any should misdoubt me herein to follow any privat interpreta∣tion of my own, I thought Good to communicat to the Reader that which hath bin imparted to me in the opening of these mysticall numbers in the foresaid Book of Revela∣tion contained, by occasion as followeth &c.

As I was in hand with these Histories &c. Being ve∣xed and turmoiled in Spirit about the reckning of these num∣bers and years, it so happened vpon a Sunday in the mor∣ning, lying in my bed, and musing about these numbers; suddenly it was answered to my mynd, as with a Majesty, thus inwardly saying within me, Thou fool, count these months by Sabbaoths as the weeks of Daniel are counted by Sab∣boths. The Lord I take to witness, thus it was; wherupon thus being admonished, I began to recken the 42. months by Sabboths, first of the months, and▪ that would not serve; and then by Sabboths of years, and then I began to feele some probable vnderstanding, yet not satisfied herewith, I re∣paired to certain Merchants of my acquaintance. (Of whom one is departed, a true and faithfull servant of the Lord, the other two yet alive, and witnesses hereof) to whom the number of these foresaid months being propounded, and examined by Sabboths of years, the whole summ was found to surmount to 294. years, conteining the full and just time of the foresaid persecutions, neither more nor less &c.

And thus you have the revelation made to John Fox, which he saith that he relateth vnto vs, for that we shall not misdoubt the truth therof, nor think that he followeth any privat Interpretation of his own, but that it came from God immediatly: as if every fanatik did not fancy and pretend the same. And this is the dream of John Fox in his bed.

The second ridiculous point is that he went to three mer∣chants

to conferr this revelation and that they approved there of. The third point is open falshood, and folly, where he saith that this number of 294. conteineth the full and just time of the first persecutions of Christians vnder Pagan Emperors, neither more nor less; seing that from Christ to the victory of Constantin against Maxentius, there are assigned by Eusebius 318. years, and yet did not this persecution cease then nei∣ther; but continued vnder Licinius, and other Tyrants, for di∣vers years after, see then how just these numbers fall out, neither more nor less: all which being considered, I find no one thing so true or credible in all this revelation (saith the Au∣thor of the three Conversions, who confuted Fox his Acts and Monuments) as those words of the spirit vnto him, saying, Thou fool: for▪ that this maketh him a fool indeed by reve∣lation.

What credit Protestants give to Fox his revelations I do not know, but sure Iam, they give too much to his rela∣tions: notwithstanding the absurdity of the whole work in composing a Catholick Church of condemned hereticks, with∣out subordination or succession; and making wicked Male∣factors, C••••••st's Martyrs; the Protestant Clergy (who could not be ignorant of so abominable a deceit) cryed vp the book as a most godly and sincere history, and by publick authority en∣deavored to make it authentick, placing one in every Parish Church like a fifth Ghospell, recommending the reading ther∣of to all persons both in their houses and Congregations. All this was don with design to make the Roman Catholick reli∣gion odious, and to exasperat the generality of the people against the Priests and professors of the same. And though judicious Readers may easily discern in perusing the Book, the weaknes of the Author, and of the cause he vndertakes to maintain, yet the vulgar sort are much taken with both, and doubt not but that Protestants have as much reason to put Catholiks to death, as Catholiks had to punish those mad fellows whom Iohn Fox calls Martyrs, and would needs dy rather then recall

those blasphemies against God, or submit their fond opinions to that sense of Scripture which our Saviour and his Apostles delivered to the Church; and had bin derived by the publick Testimony and vndeniable Tradition both of holy Fathers and general Councells from one age to an other vntill this present.

To the end silly seduced souls may see their mistake, and how litle credit Iohn Fox his Protestant Church and Martyrs deserve, compared with the Roman-Catholick, I will set down his Calendar.

SVBSECT I. The Foxian Calendar.

THe number of all his saints are 456. wherof Bishops Martyrs 5. to wit, Cranmer, Ridley, Hooper, Farrar, and another whom I remember not. What litle credit they deserved, we have shewed heretofore, every one of them changing his religion with the times; and their opinions ha∣ving bin confuted as heresy in vniversities by publick disputa∣tions. Bishops Confessors 1. Virgin Martyrs none. Mayd Mar∣tyrs 3. Kings and Queens Martyrs and Confessors 1. (who was Edward. 6.) other men and women Martyrs 393. other men and women Confessors 5••. These were of divers sects and opinions, and contrary in many points one to the other, as for example, Waldesians and Albigensians 13. Lollards, and Wick∣leffians 36. Hussits and Lutherans 78. Zuinglians and Calvinists 268. Anabaptists, Puritans, and doubtfull of what sect. 59.

Again of these were husbandmen, Weavers, sawyers, shoo∣makers, Curriers, smiths and other such like occupations 282. poore women and spinsters 64. Apostata Monks and Friars 25. Apostata Priests 38. Ministers 10. publick Malefactors, and condemned by the lawes for such 19.

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

of age, running away from his Master, and finding an old English Bible (sincerely translated you may be sure) lying in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Chappell of Burntwood, fell to reading therof, and therby presently became a Protestant in divers opinions, and would needs burn for the same.

Rawling White is recounted by Fox to have bin an old poore fisherman in Wales,* 1.291 and hearing of certain new fresh do∣ctrin to be had out of the Scriptures in English, and grieved that himself was not able to read them, he put his litle boy to schoole to learn to read, which being somewhat instructed in that art, he caused him to read Scriptures vnto him, and pro∣fitted so much therin with in a litle time, that the old fisher∣man began to be a preacher, and so leaving his occupation, went vp and down Wales with his boy after him bearing the Bible, out of which he took vpon him to preach at every town and Tavern therof, seeking therby to pervert such as were no wiser then himself, nor could he be restrained from this folly vntill the Bishop of Cardiff apprehended him,* 1.292 whom afterwards they were forced to burn, for that he stood ob∣stinat in his fantasticall opinions, which were extravagant, and ••••••rce agreed with any sect of Protestancy. We have seen he∣retofore how Laurence Sanders the married Priest seing a litle bastard of his, was so tenderly affected therunto, as in great vehemency of spirit he sayd to the standers by, what ma•••• of my vocation, would not dy to make this litle boy legitimat, and prove his mother to be no whore? And indeed such of the Protestant Clergy as were executed, were brought to the stake for the love they had to their wenches and bastards, and be∣cause they thought it was against their honor to recant. It's remarkable that of some hundreds of Heresiarchs who have since the preaching of the Apostles risen against the doctrin of the Catholick Church, not above two or three (wherof Be∣r••••garius was one) would recall their opinions: no marvaile therfore if Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley &c. should be so obstinat.

These motives and persons I say, well considered, ratio∣nal

Protestants will find no parity between Foxian and Catholick Martyrs, nor any reason to persecute Priests and Papists by their new Statuts, because Protestants, and sectaries were persecuted by Q. Mary,* 1.293 and other temporal Soveraigns accor∣ding to the ancient Laws of all Christendom. They will find a parity between Fox his Martyrs and Fanaticks; for the old Protestants were look't vpon in those days when they first began, as themselves look now vpon fanatiks and Quakers; only with this difference, that these may complain of harder measure now received from their prelatick Brethren, then pre∣latick Protestants from papists; because prelatiks have nothing against presbitery, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 &c. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that their doctrin, and conventicles are prohibited by the tem••••••al l••••es of the Land, which can not be a competent rule of faith; they can not condemn them by, any P••••••••stant general Councells, an∣cient Tradition, or by the primitive Protestant principles, or by any sense of Scripture ever yet held to be Catholick by the visible Church of Christendom; wheras Roman Catholicks did, and may censure prelatick Protestants by every one of these rules, and do demonstra•••• that their prelatick reformation is contrary to all the Testimonies and evidences of Christian and Catholick antiquity.

SVBSECT II. VVillfull falsifications committed by Iohn Fox in his acts and Monuments.

FOx having searched and inquired after Protestants, and their Church, and not finding any one person he durst call by that name for the first 1200. years after Christ, and that particularly here in England the Roman Catholick Religion (as his learned adversary proves) had continued the

very same (notwithstanding many temporal changes) from our first conversion vntill K. Henry 8. and Q▪ Elizabeths reigns, and was that very faith which we papists now profess; rather 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Fox would confess this truth, he resolved to falsify and corrupt venerable Bede's Ecclesiastical History,* 1.294 and a pro∣vincial Synod of the English Clergy held at Hartford by Theo∣do•••••• Arch-bishop of Canterbury, in the year 673. the decrees wherof he doth so alter, that comparing them with themselves ••s they are in St. Bede (whom Fox pretends to follow) they do not seem to be the same: and this he doth also to dis∣credit the Catholick Church of England, charging it with de∣creeing a condemned heresy about keeping of Easter.* 1.295 The first decree of this synod was (saith Fox) that Easter day should be vnformally kept and observed throughout the whole realm vpon one certain day, videlicet Prima 14. Luna mensis prioris. That is to say, vpon the first 14. moon, or day of the moon of the first month, to wit of March: which is just as the Iewes do observe it, contrary to the Councell of Nice.

Well then, let vs see what the words of St. Bede himself are in this synodical Decree, Primum Capitulum, saith he, rela∣ting it out of the words of the Canons themselves, vt Sanctum diem Paschae in communi omnes servemus, Dominica post 14. Lu∣nam primi mensis. The first article of our decrees (saith the Coun∣cell) is, that we do all in common observe the holy day of Easter vpon the sunday next after the fourteenth moon of the first month. This is quite contrary to that which Fox relateth, he putting out Dominica which maketh or marreth all the matter, and then for post decimam quartam lunam, written at large in Bede, he putteth in, prima 14. luna, short in numbers, only to make it more obscure, adding prima of his own, and putting out post, from the words of this Councell, more over he addeth of his own, these words, vpon one certain day, which the De∣cree hath not, meaning therby that this 14. day must be ob∣served with such certainty as it may not be altered or differred to any Sunday, in which consisteth the heresy of the Quarta

decimans, and therby to make the ancient Church of England in St. Theodores time, guilty of that heresy.

To favour the doctrin and practice of Protestants in putting away their wives for fornication▪ and marrying an other, he quotes the tenth Decree of the same synod, and sets down such words only as seemed to authorise his error; and then, breaketh off,* 1.296 as if the Decree ended there. Thus he citeth the Canon, Tenthly, that no man put away his wife for any cause, except for fornication, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the rule of the Ghospell: and there stops:* 1.297 wheras the Canon is, Nullus conjuge•••• propriam nisi (vt sanctum Evangelium docet) fornicationis causa relinquat. Quod si quisquam propri••m expulerit ••••njugem legiti••o sibi matrimonio con∣junctam, si Christianus esse recte voluerit, nulli▪ 〈…〉〈…〉: sed ita permaneat••aut propriae reconcilietur Conjugi.

Let no man leave his own wife, but only, as the holy Ghospell teacheth vs, for the cause of fornication▪ and if any man should put away his wife, that is joyned to him by lawfull marriage, if he will be a true Christian, let him not marry another, but either remain so in continency, or be reconciled to his own wife again.

Hee wasteth much paper in discrediting Pope Gregory the 7. by Protestants called Pope Hildebrand) whom notwithstan∣ding,* 1.298 the chief writers of his time exceedingly commend for a Saint, and a learned man; as you may see in Bellarmin. But Fox saith,* 1.299 Antoninus writeth that Hildebrand, as he lay a dying, desired one of his Cardinals to go to the Emperour, and desire him forg••••••ness, absolving both him and his partners from excommuni∣cation &c. Which he relateth to the end his Reader might think that the Pope went against his conscience in excommu∣nicating the Emperour; and that St. Antoninus believed the same story to be true: wheras St. Antoninus his words are, that it was reported how Gregory 7. had sent a Cardinal to the Em∣perour, and to all the Church, to wish him Indulgence; which yet for many causes (saith Antoninus) I do not believe to be true. These words honest Fox omitteth. And it is recorded by an

Impartiall German Author that Pope Gregory 7. last words, lying on his death-bed in Salerno, were these, Dilexi Iustitiam 〈…〉〈…〉 iniquitatem, propteria morior in exilio &c.* 1.300 I have loved 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and hated iniquity, and for this do I dy in banishment. Being driven away from his Sea by the violence of the Em∣perour.

I read and find (saith Fox) that in a Councell holden ••t Rome by Pope Hildebrand, and other Bishops, they did 〈◊〉〈◊〉 three things. 1. That no Priests hereafter should marry wives. ••. Th•••• all such as were marryed should be divorced. 3. That none h••••••fter should be admitted to the order of Priesthood, but should 〈◊〉〈◊〉 perpetual chastity. But he quoteth not one Author for 〈◊〉〈◊〉 three lyes; and in the lines immediatly following, where 〈◊〉〈◊〉 down in English the Copy of Pope Gregory 7. Bull 〈◊〉〈◊〉 this matter, he sufficiently proves his own sayings to be lyes: for thus saith the Bull: If there be any Priests, Deacons or 〈◊〉〈◊〉 deacons, that will still remain in the sin of fornication (which 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is not applicable to marriage) we forbid them the 〈…〉〈…〉, till they amend and repent. But if they persever in their sin, we charge that none presume to hear their service. And ••••cordingly it 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Canon. Officium Symoniacorum,* 1.301 & in 〈…〉〈…〉, scienter nullo modo recipiatis. And Tritemius relateth the matter thus. Pope Gregory forbad men to hear the m••st of such Priests, as were known to have Concubines. But Fox 〈◊〉〈◊〉 other Protestants would needs face vs down that Hilde∣br••••d was the first who prohibited Priests marriage: wheras Origen above 1400. years ago tells even of the Greek Church: 〈◊〉〈◊〉 solius est offerre Sacrificium qui perpetuae se devoverit castitati. To him only belongeth to offer sacrifice, who hath vowed himself to p••••petual chastity. And Eusebius one of the first Councell of Nice, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of them who were made Priests, being married, that it becommeth them to contain themselves for the time to come from all dealing with wives. And Marianus Scotus speaking of Gregory 7. and of that Roman Synod, being in his own time, saith: Pope Gregory 7. having made a Synod, did according to the decree of St.

Peter, and St. Clem••••t his successor, and of other holy fathers, for∣bid vnto Clergy men &c. to have wives,* 1.302 or dwell with women. And Pope Alexander 2. and Pope Nicholas. 2. Predecessors to Gregory 7. made the same decree that Hildebrand did, as appea∣reth in their Canons yet ex••ant.

It were both endless and needless to set down all John Fox his willfull lyes, the fraudulent and ••••olish tricks and de∣vices wherwith he and the Protestant Clergy abuse the layty and illiterat people, making 〈◊〉〈◊〉 believe that in all ages there hath bin a Church teaching and professing the Protestant do∣ctrin: and because some of the hereticks (to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••••ckleffians, Hussits, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Lollards) whom he names Martyrs, and witnesses of his Evangelical truth, were condemned not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by the Church▪ but by Acts of Parlia••••nt, he tell••••h you that though the statu••s 〈…〉〈…〉 persons, preaching divers sermons, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 herelies, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 doctrin, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 er∣rors, to the blemish of Christian faith &c▪ yet notwithstanding whosoever readeth histories, and the 〈…〉〈…〉 of 〈…〉〈…〉 see these to be no false teachers, 〈…〉〈…〉 the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 &c. and to have taught no other 〈…〉〈…〉 then now 〈…〉〈…〉 their own preachers in 〈…〉〈…〉. And 〈…〉〈…〉 Sr John 〈…〉〈…〉 is pro∣duced by Fox as a witness for the Protestant 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and a chief member of that Church, and he in his professi•••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 faith, said▪ 〈…〉〈…〉 Church I believe to be divided into three sorts, or compan•••••• 〈…〉〈…〉 now in heaven &c. the second sort are in 〈…〉〈…〉 of God; and a full delivera••••e of paine. The 〈…〉〈…〉 earth &c. Iohn Fox to this speech of Purgatory addeth 〈◊〉〈◊〉 parenthesis of his own, as if it had bin part of Ol∣dcastles profession of faith (if any such 〈…〉〈…〉 Scriptures) fea∣ring his Reader might take notice how Sr. 〈…〉〈…〉 was no Protestant. And such frauds he vseth in most other occasions, as you may see in the three Conver••••••ns of England writ to confute his acts and Monuments; and from whence we have borrowed most of what hath bin sayd concerning Fox and his

Martyrs. Now we will treat of others no less fals and deceit∣full in maintaining the Protestant Religion.

SVBSECT. III. Doctor Chark's falsification of St. Austin, and how he excuseth Luther's doctrin of the law∣fulness of adultery, and incest.

DOctor Chark was so great a pillar of protestancy in Q. Elizabeths days, that he was thought the fittest man to dispute against learned Campian in the Tower; but 〈◊〉〈◊〉 behaved himself in that occasion very insolently, igno∣••••••••, and vncharitably, he writ a ••ook in answer to the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, which was published of himself, Luther, Calvin, Beza, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••any other falsifications of Mr. Chark, to defend 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Protes••••nt doctrin, his adversary objects (pag. 122.•• that 〈…〉〈…〉 St. Augustin's Text about the doctrin of con∣••••••scence▪ where the Censure had alleadged besides the Testi∣••••ny of many other Fathers, one most plain out of that great 〈◊〉〈◊〉 saying; concupiscence is not sin in the regenerate,* 1.303 if consent 〈◊〉〈◊〉 yeelded vnto her for accomplishment of vnlawfull works: Mr. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 alleadgeth another authority out of St. Austin in the same 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ that doth, as he says, expound his meaning; for thus 〈◊〉〈◊〉 writeth: Augustin's place is expounded by himself afterward, saying, concupiscence is not so forgiven in baptism, that it is not sin, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that it is not imputed as sin; where the word sin in the first place is put in by Mr. Chark; for that St. Austin's words are, D••••itti Concupiscentiam carnis in Baptismo, non ut non sit, sed ut in peccatum non imputetur; quamvis reatu suo jam soluto, manet 〈◊〉〈◊〉; Concupiscence is forgiven in Baptisme, not so that it is not (or remain not in the regenerat) but that it be not imputed as

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

SVBSECT. IV. Falsifications of Cranmer and Peter Martyr against Transubstantiation, and the Sacrifice of the Mass &c.

AFter that Cranmer had bin publikly convinced both by Scripture, and Fathers, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 his disputation at Oxford (••s will appeare to any that will read even his friend 〈◊〉〈◊〉 concerning that subject) the Catholick disputants obje∣••••ed falsifications, and corruptions of his in the Books which 〈◊〉〈◊〉 had composed against the real presence; one was, that wheras 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Martyr, who flourished in the beginning of the second 〈◊〉〈◊〉, answering to them who sayd the Christians adored bread, 〈◊〉〈◊〉, we do not take this for common bread and drink, but like as ••••sus Christ our Saviour Incarnat by the word of God, had flesh and 〈…〉〈…〉 Salvation; even so we be taught the food where-with our 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and blood is nourished by alteration,* 1.304 when it is consecrated by the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of his prayer instituted by him, to be the flesh and blood of the same Jesus Incarnat. Cranmer thus translated the words of that ancient Father, Bread water and wine are not to be taken as other 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and drinks be, but they be ordained purposly to give thanks to 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and therfore be called Eucharistia, and be called the Body and blood of Christ, and that it is lawfull for none to eat and drink of them but that profess Christ; and live according to the same; and yet that meat and drink is changed into our flesh and Blood, and nourisheth our bodys:* 1.305 After Cranmer's confessing that the former Catholicks Translation was the right, he excuseth his villany, saying, he did not translate Justin word by word, (wheras he set down all as Justin's words) but only gave the meaning; let any Protestant be Iudge whether he gave Iustin's meaning. You have corrupted Emissenus (saith Doctor Weston to Cranmer) for insteed of cibis sati••ndus, that is, to be filled

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

hath pro omni paena, for all pain, your Book omitteth many things there.

Thus you see Brethren (saith Doctor Weston) the truth stedfast and invincible: you see also the craft and deceit of hereticks. And thus concludeth Fox himself the disputation with Cranmer.

Doctor Chedley did also object to Cranmer his corruption of St. Hillaries words, putting in, vero sub Mysterio, for verè sub mysterio, by which the whole sense was altered; because verè sub mysterio sheweth that we do truly receive in the mystery of the Sa∣crament. Christ's flesh and blood; and vero sub mysterio,* 1.306 proves only the reality or verity of a Sacrament or a mystery, not of the body and blood of Christ. To this after many excuses Cranmer answered, that the change of one letter for an other was but •• small matter. But Weston told that Pastor was a Bishop, and ••••stor a Baker, and yet there was but one letters change.

As for Peter Martyr's falsifications they appear sufficiently 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the places themsel•••••• which Fox alleadgeth for him out of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 or twelve Fathers, in his disputations at Oxford an. 1549. wherof the reader will scarce find one truly cited in all res∣pects, but that either the words next going before, or imme∣diatly following (making wholy against Protestants) are pur∣••••sely left out, and others put in, or mistranslated; as hath bin evidently demonstrated part. 3. c. 19. & 20. & 21. of the ••••eatise of the three conversions of England; and therfore we ••••••••eare what every one may see in a Book no less obvious then profitable.

SECT VI. How some Protestant 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in Q. Elizabeths time, seing their fellowes were proved Falsifiers, waved the Testimonies of the ancient Fathers, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the others continued their former course of falsifying both Fathers and Councells.

THE discovery of Iewell's 〈◊〉〈◊〉 other mens falsi∣ficati••••••, made some Protestant writers more wary, and take an other course for defence of their Religion▪ which was to recurr to the let∣ter of Scripture, con••••••ning the true sense therof delivered by 〈…〉〈…〉▪ and practise of the Catholick Church, doctrin 〈…〉〈…〉 primi••••ve Fathers, and General Co••••cells; but these vpstarts knowing their new fan∣cies 〈…〉〈…〉 agreable therunto Insteed of the ancient faith of Christendom, they resolved to mai••••ain 〈◊〉〈◊〉 condemned heresies, following in this manner of proceeding their first Apo∣stles Luther, Calvin, &c. who would admit of nothing but the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Scripture interpreted by themselves, after an 〈…〉〈…〉 manner. We will instance 〈◊〉〈◊〉 three, Doctor Wi••aker, Arch-bishop VVhitgift, and Doctor Fulk, omit∣ting many others.

Doctor VVhitaker in his answer to Doctor

Sanders de∣monstrations (pag. 21.) saith, we repose no such confidence in the Fathers writings, that we take any certain proof of Religion from them, because we place all our faith and Re∣ligion, not in human, but in divine authority: if therfore you bring vs what some Father hath taught, or what the Fathers vniversaly all together have delivered, the same

(except it be approved by Testimony of Scriptures) it avai∣leth nothing, it convinceth nothing. For, the Fathers are such witnesses as they have also need of the Scriptures to be their witnesses, if deceived by error. &c.

And Yet this same Whitaker vndertook to maintain Bishop Jewell's Challenge by Fathers, and Councells.

Archbishop Whitgift was no less but rather more injurious; for in his defence of the Prelatick Church against the Puritan Cartwright (pag. 402. & 473.) he is not ashamed to say, that all the learned Bishops and learned writers of the Greek and latin Church, for the most part, where spotted with the doctrin of free will, Invocation of Saints &c. And thence inferrs that in no age since the Apostles time any company of Bishops held so perfect and sound doctrin in all points, as himself, and his fellow Bishops of England. To what impiety and impudency are men driven by defending heretical novelties?* 1.307 Doctor Bristow alleadgeth the Testimonies of S. Epiphanius, S. Hierom, and S. Austin, condemning the he∣resies of Aerius, Iovinian, and Vigilantius against fasting days commanded by the Church, prayer for the dead, prayer to Saints, against the honoring of their Reliques, against prefer∣ring Virginity before Matrimony, &c. Doctor Fulk answereth that Epiphanius and Augustin were deceived in recording those for Heresies which are not; and that Hierom rather raild then reaso∣ned; and that Vigilantius was a good man, and his opinions sound. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Chrysostom is alledged for the Mass, saying the Apostles ••••creed,* 1.308 that in the Sacrifice of the Altar there should be made prayers for the departed. Fulk answereth: where he saith it was decreed by the Apostles, he must pardon us for crediting him, becau∣se he cannot shew it us out of the Acts and writings of the Apostles. And divers other Fathers being quoted to confirm St. Chryso¦••••••m's testimony,

Fulk says:* 1.309 who is witness that this is the Tradition of the Apostles▪ you will say Tertullian, Cyprian, Austin, Hierom, and a great many more: But I would learn why the Lord would not have this set forth by Mathew, Mark, Luke, or Paul? why they were not chosen scribes

hereof, rather then Tertullian, Cyprian, Hierom Austin, and others such as you name.

This desperat shift of slighting the ancient Fathers Testi∣mony was the ordinary way of answering Catholick Books for many years: but some of the Protestant Writers observing how the wise and well meaning persons of their own Religi∣on were not satisfied therewith, and that there could no rea∣son be given why any Christian should rather believe a Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin, Beza, Peter Martyr, Thomas Cran∣mer, Chark, Fulk, Whitaker, or VVhitgift, then a Cyprian, a Tertullian, Basil, Hierom, Chrysostom, an Ambrose, or an Austin, especially in a matter of fact (such as our controversies are, to wit, whether the Apostles and the true Church taught this or that sense of Scripture, and doctrin) seeing these holy and lea••••ed Fathers lived in the primitive times, and more then 12. or 13. hundred years neerer to the Apostles, then the afore∣sayd Protestant Doctors, and by consequence might be more easily and exactly informed. Some of the Protestant Writers, I say, observing how much their cause was prejudiced by this conte•••••••• of antiquity▪ and Fathers, resolved 〈◊〉〈◊〉 more to try Iewell's Method, and see whether their impudency in falsifying, might have better success then his, either for want of courage and means in Catholicks to manifest their corruptions, or for the hopes they had to discredit our Testimony, and suppress such 〈◊〉〈◊〉 as we should venture to print and publish against themselves, and the states Religion which they maintained. But no sooner came any Protestant Book to sight, but by God's assistance it was answered with all possible speed, and it's falsifications discovered, and some of our Catholick writers made it their business to manifest the frauds and four beries of Protestant Controversor••; one of ours say's,

To declare that this spirit of fals dealing,* 1.310 ioyned with necessity, and misery of their bad cause, is common not only vnto him, (Mor∣ton) but vnto many of his brethren, and must needs be vnto all them, whensoever they take pen in hand to defend the

same, for that one ly cannot be defended without an other; therfore I do produce ten several witnesses, two of them called Bishops, M.r Iewell, and M.r Horn; five inferior Ministers, M.r Iohn Fox, M.r Calfeild, M.r Hanmer, M.r Chark, and M.r Perkins; and might have named five times more, three lay men also and Knights, that have written against us, Sir Francis Hastings, S.r Philip Mornay, and S.r Edward Cook, alledging not one, but sundry examples out of each of their works; and might inlarge myself to a volume in that argument, if I would say what I have found in their and their Brethrens works in this kind &c.

Any man who desires to be rightly informed in this im∣portant matter of the Protestant Clergys true, or fals dea∣ling in religion, may peruse and conferr the Books on both sides, I will not detain my Reader longer with Q. Elizabeths Writers, being to treat of the same again, when we answer the like objections of Protestants against Catholick Writers: yet J can not omit to let him see in one person the hypocrisy of many, in one, I say, that professeth (as commonly they all do) so much sincerity in treating of Controversies, as might seem to excuse the necessity of any further inquiry, if his fourberies had not bin manifested to the world, not only by his accusers, but by his own answers; so weake and imperti∣nent they are, that they conclude nothing but his obstinacy in ••••thering to his former errors, though he be evidently convi∣cted of being an Impostor. The writer I speak of is VVillet,* 1.311 who (as you have seen heretofore) makes this protesta∣tion.

I take God to witness, before whom I must render account &c. that the same faith and religion which I defend, is taught in the more substantial points by those Histories, Councells, Fathers, that lived within five or six hundred years after Christ. And pag. 264.) it is most notoriously evident that for the grossest points of popery, as Transub∣stantiation, Sacrifice of the Mass, worshiping of Images, Iu∣stification by works, the supremacy of the Pope, prohibition

of Priests marriage, they (Papists) have no shew of any evidence from Fathers within five hundred years after Christ.

And yet this very man being pressed with St. Augu∣stin, and the Church in his time holding of popish doctrin, doth grant it, and says, that can not prejudice protestancy, for that the pure time of the primitive Church extended not much be∣yond the age of the Apostles.* 1.312 So that he whom before you heard take God to witness that the Church was so pure for the first five or 6. hundred years, that Papists had no colour for their Tenets, in Fathers, or Councells, now doth confess not only that St. Austin, but the whole Church was infected with po∣pery not long after the age of the Apostles.

The honest Willet divideth his book of answer and satis∣faction into foure several parts,* 1.313 in the first he setteth down 13. vntruths objected by his adversary as notoriously wilfull; in the second as many objected contradictions; in the third, the like number of falsifications of Authors, and in the fourth thirteen corruptions of Scripture: I will mention but two or three, and leave my Reader to judge of the man's honesty by his answers▪ pag. 29. his adversary doth object against him these words of his, taken out of his Synopsis pag. 609. The Mass pro∣miseth sufficient redemption to the wicked that have spent their life in drunkeness, adultery &c. if they come to the Church and hear Mass, and take holy Bread, and holy water, &c. though they never pray, nor repent, nor hear the word preached. Which words being confessed by Mr. Willet to be his, his adversary doth accuse him of willfull lying, or intolerable ignorance, for that in no Roman Catholick writer in the world, shall he find this pro∣position, or the parts therof.

Willet answers not to the particular charge, but taketh oc∣casion for more then a dozen pages together, to prove that the Roman doctrin doth not favor virtue, or good manners, more then the Protestant, nor yet so much; alledging for his proof, that, to hold the Commandements to be impossible, and that the first motions of concupiscence be sin without consent, and

that a man is sure of his predestination by faith; and the like Protestant doctrins, are causes of much virtue among them, as the contrary doctrins held by Papists, are causes of wicked life on their parts. So he answereth to his accusation with so manifest an absurdity as to say, that men are inclined to ob∣serve God's Commandments by holding it impossible to keep them, wheras (if they be not mad) that principle must dissuade them from attempting any such observation, seeing it is a mad∣ness to endeavor an impossibility, and to believe that God doth command things impossible. Of their assurance of predestina∣tion, and justification, we have proved heretofore, how incon∣sistent it is with good works, moral virtue,* 1.314 the salvation of the soul, and tranquillity of the state.

And as for their making the first motions of concupis∣cence a sin without consent, it is the sink and source from whence Protestants suck most of their errors. From hence they inferr, that all the best actions of man are infected with mor∣tal crime, because they pass through the stinking Channell of human corruption, hence they deny the merit of good works wrought by grace, hence the impossibility of fulfilling God's Commandments for that every action of the just is of it's own nature a transgression of his Laws. Hence no inherent but a vain imputative Justice, hence the justification by faith alone; hence no freedom of will to perform any morall good; no liberty in man to cooperat with God when he first mo∣veth, awaketh and calleth him out of the state of sin &c. But let's return from Willet's absurdities to his falsifications.

I let pass his falsifying S. Bernard to make him say, that the Pope is Antichrist,* 1.315 by applying the words of the Apoca∣lyps. The beast to which a mouth was given speaketh blasphemies, doth sit in Peter's Chaire; it being evident that Saint Bernard applyed those words not to any true Pope but to an Anti-Pope called Petrus Leonis, because he entred by violence into that Sea. I likewise pretermit his fraud and folly in saying,* 1.316 your doctrin in prohibiting and restraining marriage to your Clergy,

how it helpeth to holiness▪ 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Bernard w••ll 〈◊〉〈◊〉 saying. Tol∣le de Ecclesia 〈…〉〈…〉 &c. Wheras S. Bernard speaks in defence of the 〈…〉〈…〉 against 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Hereticks of his time 〈…〉〈…〉 never drea∣med 〈…〉〈…〉 marry, himself having bin a votary and vnto 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Monk.

Letting 〈◊〉〈◊〉 I say th••se, I will only mention how he ac∣cuseth all Catholicks of heresy, for defending the lawfulness of the vow of voluntary 〈…〉〈…〉 against vs, that it was the heresy of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉〈◊〉,* 1.317 to persuade men to cast away their riches; S. Austin and all other Authors tell vs, that the sayd Pelagians and Maniche••s were not condemned of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 for persuading men to give away their riches, but for maintaining that all rich men were bound to forsake all their riches, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that otherwise they could not go to heaven: But now 〈…〉〈…〉 shew the sincerity of the English Protestant Clergy since the beginning of King Iames his reign vntill this present.

SECT. VII. Falsifications and frauds of the prelatick English Clergy to maintain protestancy, since the be∣gining of King Iames.

SVBSECT I. Their corruptions of Scripture (for maintaining their caracter) continued in the Bible, though com∣manded by King Iames it should be reviewed and corrected.

THe English Protestant Translations of Scrip∣ture had bin so cryed down as fals and cor∣rupt, by Catholicks, and acknowledged such by many learned Protestants, that King Iames commanded a review and reformation of those Translations which had passed for God's word in King Edward 6. and Qveen Elizabeths days; the work was vndertaken by the Prelatick Clergy, not so much for zeale of truth, as for a shew of compliance with his Majesty, who protested in the Conference at Hampton-Court, he never had seen an English Bible truly translated. And because the Catho∣licks insisted much vpon two main points in their former Con∣troversies, wherin they observed the illiterat sort of people had bin most abused by the English Translators of Scripture, to wit, by their translating Jmages for Idols, and Ordination by

Election, for Ordination by imposition of hands, (by the first wherof the Roman Catholick Religion was generally held by the simple sort to be Idolatry; and by th•• second▪ the Prote∣stant Prelatick, Clergy were mistaken for Priests and Bishops, 〈…〉〈…〉 never had received any Episcopal, Ordination▪ but what they challenged by the Quee∣nes 〈…〉〈…〉, election, and by an act of Parliament 8. E∣liz. 1.) because I say these two ••••••sifications were so palpably frau∣dul••nt, and so frequently objected, they were for meer shame corrected in the new Translation, se•• forth by order of King James. And then appeared the forged Register of Mason to supply the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of that falsification, and to make the world believe, that the first Protestant Bishops, Parker, Jewell, Horn, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 had bin consecrated by imposition of Episcopal hands with great solemnity, and all due formalities at Lambeth: wheras for the space of above ••0. years before that time (as hath 〈◊〉〈◊〉 said ••••••tofore) no man could tell, or hear where, or by whom these men had bin made Bishops, (for at the Nags-head they were rejected by L••••daf; and S••ories consecrating form (in the same place) was ridiculous) notwithstanding that it had bin, the greatest controversy between Catholicks and Prote∣stants, and the name of the place, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 continually demanded in print. If an authentick Register▪ 〈◊〉〈◊〉 my credible witness had bin produced when some such 〈◊〉〈◊〉, was called for by D.r Harding, and 〈…〉〈…〉 50. ye••rs before Mason appeared in print, the dispute had bin ended 〈…〉〈…〉 great ho∣nour of the Prelaticks, and Confusion of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉: but they were answered only with an Act of Parliament (8. Eliz. 1.) declaring that whatsoever had bin don in virtue of the great soule of England and the Queens supremacy, was well don, and should stand legal, and valid.

The falsification of Images for Idols was corrected t'is true in the new Testament, but in the ould (exod. 20.4.) and in the ten Commandments, and Catechisms for Children, they 〈…〉〈…〉 corruptions, translating graven Images,

for graven thing, against all Texts, Hebrew, Greek, and La∣••••n; for that the hebrew word pesel is the very same that sculp∣•••••• in latin, that is, a graven or carved thing, and the Greek 〈◊〉〈◊〉 eid••••lon an Jdol. So that by this fals and wicked practise, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Protestant Clergy doth still endeavor to discredit the Ro∣••••n Catholick Religion, and therby continue their own au∣••••ority, and Beneficies, making the layty believe (contrary to their own consciences, and corrections in the new Testa∣••••••••) that popery is Idolatry, for admitting worship of Images; 〈◊〉〈◊〉 if Image and Idol were the same thing, and equally forbid∣den by Scripture, and God's Commandements.

To confirm their flocks in this persuasion they tell them the reason why Catholicks leave out some repetitions of the first Commandement in their Catechismes, is, because they know that to worship Images, is against Scripture; wheras in our Latin and many vulgar Roman Catechismes, nothing is omitted; and in such short ones, wherin all the words are not expresly mentioned, it's don only, not to charge Childrens memories with more, then with the substance of every Com∣mandement; and the substance of the first consists in the first ••ords therof. In the last Commandement also we put in brief only these words. Thou shalt not covet an other man's goods, Omitting Oxes, and Asses &c. If our design had bin to corrupt 〈◊〉〈◊〉 conceale the words, and sense of Scripture in the first com∣••••••dement (in favor of Images) we would not have set down the Text so cleerly in any of our larger Catechismes, and much less in our Latin and vulgar Translations of the Bible.* 1.318

Hence it followeth that we do not take away the second Commandement, as Protestants object, who begin the second precept from these words. Thou shalt not make to thee a graven thing &c. which we make part of the first, and with S. Austin (q. 71. in Exodum) we divide the first table into three precepts directing vs to God; the second into seaven, belonging to our selves vpon this reason among others, because to make or have

any graven thing or similitude of any creature to the end to adore it as God, were indeed to have a strange God, which is forbid in the first words of the first Commandment; and so all that followeth to the commination and promise, forbiddeth false Gods, and appeareth to be but one precept in substance. But the desire and internal consent to adultery, and theft, differ altogeather as much as the external acts of the same sins; and therfore seing adultery and theft, are forbidden by two distinct precepts, the prohibition of the internal desire doth also requi∣re two precepts.

To maintain their heresies against the single life of Priests, as also against the excellency of Virginity, vowes of Chastity, free will, and the possibility of Keeping God's Commandments▪ they corrupt the Text of Math. 19.11. translating contrary to all Copies both Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. All men can not receive this saying, in steed of all men do not receive this saying▪ for we may have the gift of continency if we will: S. Austin (lib. de gratia & lib. arbit. c. 4.) faith, whosoever have not this gift given them, it is either for that they will not have it, or that they fulfill not that which they will; and they that have this gift or attain to this word, have it of God and their own freewill. And Origen explaining this very text (tract. 7. in Math.) saith, this gift is given to all that ask for it.

To authorise the Protestant error of Iustification and Sal∣vation by faith only, set down as an article of saith in the 39. of the Church of England, they translate Luc. 18.4••. Receive thy sight, thy faith hath saved thee; insteed of Receive thy sight, thy faith hath made thee whole; it being cleere that the blind man who answered Christ's question, desired corporal sight, and that our Saviour accordingly granted what he asked in the same manner, and with the same words he did to others that he cu∣red of the same disease; (Mark. 10.52. Luke 8.48. & 50.) which places are corrected and rightly translated, but as they did in the translation of Images for Idols, leave some places vn∣corrected, so they thought fit to do in this particular, to the end some places or other of their Scripture might remain still

••••••tore against Popery: as (Rom. 11.4,) they translate for B••al; the Jmage of Baal &c.

Acts 19.24. they translate for Temples of Diana, Shrines▪ 〈◊〉〈◊〉 make shrines of saints Bodies, and of other Reliques, odious; ••nd (vers. 35.) they add Image to the Text (which is not in any Copy Greek, or Latin) to condemn the worship of Ima∣ges. And (Chap. 20. v. 28.) to attribute the rule and Go∣vernment of the Church to the King principaly, and more pro∣perly then to Bishops, Insteed of rule the Church of God, they translate take heed therfore vnto your selves and to all the flock▪ over the which the holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the Church of God. And with the same fraud and flattery they translate (1. Pet. 2.13.) Be subject to every human Creature for God, thus, Submit your selves to every ordinance of man for the Lords sake, as though it were all one to be subject and obey every temporal Prince in things lawfull, and to obey every ordinan∣ce, and by consequence in spiritual, as well as in temporal ma∣ters. In the same place also wheras in K. Edward 6. dayes the En∣glish Bible had; To the King as chief head; in Q. Elizabeth (who affected not the title of head of the Church) as having preemi∣••••••••; because King Iames insisted much vpon a spiritual supre∣macy, they translated to the King as supreme. To maintain this error that Priests may have wives, they translate. 1. Cor. 9. v. 5. for woman, wife, as if St. Paul had bin married, wheras it is evident in the 7. chapter of this same Epistle v. 8. that he was not married, I say therfore to the vnmarried and widdows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. And the same word which here they translate wife, in cap. 7. v. 1. they translate woman, because St. Paul saith there it is good for a man not to touch a wo∣man, but here to translate wife was not for their purpose. In the same Epistle cap. 11. v. 2. contrary to both Greek, and Latin, they translate for Keep the Traditions as I have delivered them to you; Keep ordinances &c.

1. Cor. 15. v. 10. they add to this text, I have laboured more abundantly then all they, yet not I, but the grace of God with

me, they add, I say, the grace of God (which is) with me. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that where the Apostle rather sayd, the grace of God labor∣red whi••h him, and consequently he with the grace of God which proveth 〈…〉〈…〉, they by ad∣ding (which is) to the Text, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 have it seeme that the Apostle did nothing at all, but was moved like a thing with∣out li••e or will, and thus they prove by Scripture the Prote∣stant errors. Ephesians 1. v. 6. For, he hath gratified vs, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••••lde vs gratious, or conduct us with gra••e; they translate, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 hath made vs accepted in the beloved, against inherent grace▪ in favour of the Protestant error of imputative justice.

Epist. Philip. cap. 4. v. 3. For, sincere Companion help those wo∣men &c. They translate true yoke-fellow help those woman, t•• make men believe that St. Paul had recommended those per∣sons to his wife who indeed had none 1. Cor. 7. v. 8.

Nothwithstanding the discipline of the Church of Eng∣land is contrary to that of the Calvinists, because reason o•• state, and the constitution of Parliaments requireth Bishops; yet the doctrin therof is Zuinglian, and Calvinian in most points, and Doctor Abbots Archbishop of Canterbury (who had the greatest hand in correcting the Bible by King Iames his order) was Calvin's great admirer,* 1.319 as may be seen in his books. One of Calvin's blasphemies against Christ is, that he feared and suffered the paines of hell, nay and des∣paired vpon the Cross▪ (and in that sense doth explain his des∣cent into hell, admitting of no other) That this blasphemy might be authorised by Scripture, Cranmer, and the whole Clergy and Church of England after him, in their edition of Tyndal, and Coverdales Bible an. 1562. in the epistle to the Hebrews chap. 5. vers. 7. corrupt St. Paul's words speaking of Christ praying vpon the cross, He was heard for his reverence, thus, he was heard in that he feared, to maintain their blasphe∣mous paradox that our Saviour should have feared and felt the paines of hell vpon the Cross.

To confirm also this wicked doctrin, and confute Lyn••••

〈◊〉〈◊〉 j••••trum, and Purgatory, Dr. Abbots, Archbishop of Cant. and the other Translators of the Bible, corrupt 1. Pet. 3. v. 〈…〉〈…〉 for wheras the words of Scripture are quickened (or alive) 〈…〉〈…〉, (or soule) in the which spirit comming he preached 〈…〉〈…〉 also that were in prison: They translate, quickned by the spirit; by which also he went, and preached vnto the spirits 〈…〉〈…〉: This Translation was so gross that Doctor Montagu••, ••ishop of Chichester and No••wich, reprehended for it Sir Hen∣•••• will, to whose care the translating of St. Peter's epistle committed; but Sir Henry Savill told him plainly that Doctor Abbots, and Dr. Smith Bishop of Glocester, corrupted and altered the Translation of this place, which himself had sincerly performed. In pursuance of this their Calvinian he∣••••sy, and corruption, they pervert the Text of Gen. 37. v. 35. translating graue for hell; Protestants denying more places for soules after this life then heaven for the just, and hell for the wicked; and being ashamed to say that the holy Patriarch 〈◊〉〈◊〉 was damned, or that he despared of his saluation, when he sayd, I will go down to my son into hell, mourning, Gen. 37. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 35. They translate, I will go down into the grave vnto my 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ mourning; and rather then confess a third place (and by consequence Purgatory) after this life, they father non-sence vpon Iacob, and the Holy Ghost, as though Iacob thought that his son Ios••ph had bin buried in a grave, whereas Iacob th••ught and sayd immediatly before (vers. 33.) an evill beast hath devoured him. And therfore he must necessarily have me∣•••••• that he would dye, and go where he thought the soule of his son Joseph to be; which was neither in heaven (for then he would rather have ascended thither Ioyfull, then descen∣ded to any place mourning) neither did he mean the hell of the damned, for that had bin desperation; but to a low place where the lust soules then remained, which was called Ly••n∣•••••• Patrum, or Abraham's Bosom; the way of the holies as Saint Paul speaketh, being not yet made open, because our Saviour Christ was to dedicat and begin the entrance in his own per∣son,

and by his passion to open heaven. Tertullian (lib. •••• advers. Marc••••••.) saith, I know the bosom of Abraham was 〈◊〉〈◊〉 heavenly place, but only the higher Hell, or the higher part of hell▪ from which speech of the F••ther•• 〈…〉〈…〉 afterward that other ••ame Lymbas Patr•••••• that is, the very 〈◊〉〈◊〉, or vppermost and outmost part of hell, where the Fathers of the Old Te∣stament rested.

The words of St. Peter. 2. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 1. v. ••5. And I will do my dilige•••••••• to have you often after my decease also, that you may keep a memory of these things▪ seemed to Protestants so plain in favour of his praying for the Christians after his decease, that King Iames his Translators change them into these, Moreover I will endeavor that you may be able after my decease, to have these things alwayes to remembrance.

We ask Protestants why do they wrest this place of the Psalme, and corrupt Scripture against the honour which ought to be given to Saints? Psalme 138. Thy friends O God are b••∣••ome exceeding honorable, their prin••edo•• is exceedingly strengthned which is Saint Hierom's translation from the Hebrew, confir∣med by the great Rabbin R. Salomon, and the Greek Text•• and never excepted against by any learned Father of the Church vntill the Protestant Translators were pleased to alter it thus; How pretious are thy thoughts 〈◊〉〈◊〉 O God, how great is the summe of them; as if multiplicity of thoughts were an admirable excellency in God, wheras his 〈◊〉〈◊〉 admit••s not many▪ but rather one comprehensive knowledge without composition and therfore the Holy Ghost would not have sayd of them (in the next verse) that they are more in number then the Sands which expression may be properly applyed to the Saints, but not to Gods thoughts. To this demand Protestants answer first, that the Saints do not heare us, and yet they grant that Devills and evill Spirits heare witches, Conjurers, or Magiti∣ans when they are called vpon; and shall we think, that the evill Spirits are enabled by nature,* 1.320 and permitted by God to. heare, what they are invited to work mischief••, and that the

Blessed Spirits are deaf, and have their power of doing good ••••strained, when we devoutly pray vnto them? They tell us we injure Christ by praying to Saints. If it be no injury to Christ's merits and mediation, to pray vnto holy men vpon 〈◊〉〈◊〉, or to recommend our selves vnto their prayers, why should it be an injury to pray to the Saints who are in he∣aven? Jf the Apostles and Martyrs (saith St. Hierom against Vigil••ntius dwelling in corruptible flesh, could pray for others, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 they ought to be carefull for themselves, how much more af∣•••••• their Crowns, Victories, and Triumphs? They tell us that according to Esay (63.) Abraham knoweth vs not, and Jsrael is ignorant of vs; we answer with St. Hierom, that those holy Fathers knew not the Iewes with the knowledge of approbation or liking, because they had abandoned the law of God;* 1.321 so our Saviour saith the foolish Virgins were not known, nes••io vos.

Doctor Reynolds giveth a reason why we pray to the li∣ving and not to the departed. Because saith he,* 1.322 the living may vnderstand our griefs either by word or message, the Saints can have no notice of them. Therfore they cannot make par∣ticular intercession for us, or we use any supplication to them. But these two wayes of knowledge are not proper only to the living in this world; The Saints of heaven also vnderstand our afflictions by word and sight,* 1.323 when being (as St. Am∣brose and St. Hierom teacheth they may be) by incredible swift∣ness and celerity of motion every where present and conver∣•••••••• amongst us: being as St. Ambrose addeth, beholders of our life and actions, they see our distress, and heare the com∣plaints we make. They know our estate by message also and report of others; by the report (saith Saint Austin) of the soules that depart from hence,* 1.324 and by report of the Angels God's trusty messengers, and our faithfull Guardians, who have dayly intercourse between them and vs. Besides, the Saints resident in heaven have certain knowledge of our actions and thoughts, as far forth as it may be needfull for us, and expedient to them, according to that of St. Gregory, what can

they be there ignorant of, where they know him that knoweth all things. Every Saint (nature not being abolished, but perfe∣cted by grace) has a natural desire to know the state of their friends, to vnderstand the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 they make vnto them, and therfore (to fullfill the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of 〈…〉〈…〉) they must have notice of them. 〈…〉〈…〉 in heaven rejoyce at the conversion of a sinner, and by 〈◊〉〈◊〉 are not ignorant therof. How can we Jmagin 〈…〉〈…〉 Blessed parents, and other relatio•••• of sinners can be ignorant of their repentance.* 1.325 Ther∣fore St. Gregory Nazianzen, and St. Austin say, that God o∣peneth and revealeth to the Saints 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to his intire friends what∣soever is behoofull for them ••o know. And according to this not only the holy Doctors of the Christian Catholick Church but the Iewes did invoke Saints departed. Jacob sayd, the Angell which hath delivered me from all evills, bless these children. (Gen. 48.) Job was councelled to pray to the Saints, Call if there be any who will answer thee, and turn to some of the Saints. (Iob. 5.) Moyses intreated the patronage of the Patriarchs in these words, Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel thy servants. The like did Daniel (Dan. 3.) Take not away thy mercy from us, for Abraham, thy beloved, and Isaac thy Servant, and Is∣••••el thy holy one; and King Salomon, Remember O Lord David, and all his mildness; which God himself approved 4. Reg. 19. I will guard this citty for my own sake, and for David my Ser∣vant's sake. St. Gregory Nazianzen implored the helpe of St. Basil; St. Ierom of St. Paul••; St. Gregory Nyssen of St. Theodore; St. Austin of St. Cyprian; St. Athanasius prayed to our Blessed Lady thus, Jncline thy eare to our prayers and forget not thy peo∣ple; O Lady, Mistress, Queen••, and Mother of God, pray for vs. And St. Austin, O Blessed Mary receive our prayers, obtain our suits, for thou art the special hope of sinners. St. Ephrem invoca∣teth her by the name of hope, refuge, advocate, safety, and Me∣diatrix of the world. And must we preferr Doctor Abbots, and the English Clergyes corruptions before all these eviden∣ces of Scriptures and Fathers? To conclude this matter, J ad∣mire

how Protestants can Imagin that Cranmer, Abbots, and their Camerades, who conspired to falsifie Scripture, or the Ministers that continue to preach their falsifications, for true scripture, did or do scruple to maintain their pretended E∣••••••••opal caracter 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the forged Registers which Archbishop 〈◊〉〈◊〉 produced to the Priests in prison, of Parker and the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Protestants Bishops ordination at Lambeth. I hope men 〈◊〉〈◊〉 contrive, continue, and countenance so horrid a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the corrupting of publick Scripture, may be presumed 〈…〉〈…〉, and foist into privat Registers a fictitious consecra∣tion, therby to enjoy their revenues; but as it was never heard of before Archbishop Abbot's time,* 1.326 so was it no sooner pro∣••••ced then suspected and contradicted by ancient and consci∣••••tious persons, who lived in London when this Consecration at ••ambeth is pretended to have bin celebrated, and yet they never heard a syllable of so rare a novelty, notwithstanding their continual inquiry into a matter, wherin both Catholicks and Protestants were so much concerned.

Let this suffice for a tast of those innumerable corrupti∣ons and falsifications which yet are continued in the English Bible, though reviewed and corrected by King Iames his com∣mand, and passeth now current in these Kingdomes among Protestants, for the word of God, wheras it is the word and work of men; not only by reason of their false Translations but much more of their vngodly and fond interpretations, contrary to the true sense of Scripture delivered by the holy Ghost in the primitive Church, and ever since continued by tradition among Catholicks, and visible in the writings of the Fathers and General Councells.

The Prelatick Clergyes design in this new Translation was, to keep (as J sayd before) their authority, and the Church Livings which they had vsurped, by gaining Credit for their new Episcopacy and ceremonies against puritans, or presbiterians; and for their Protestant doctrin against the Ca∣tholicks; but fearing that their corruptions would be observed

by both partyes, in their epistl•• dedicatory to King James, they desire his Majesties protection, for that on the one side we shall be traduced (say they) by Popish persons at home or abroad, who therfore will 〈…〉〈…〉 Jnstruments to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 God's holy 〈…〉〈…〉 the people, when they desire still to keepe 〈…〉〈…〉; on the other side we shall be 〈…〉〈…〉 who run their 〈◊〉〈◊〉 wayes &c. But truly I 〈◊〉〈◊〉 no reason why they should Iud•••• so rashly of Roman Catholicks, 〈…〉〈…〉 to persuade the King, and the whole world, that we are so impious and envious, as to conceale from the people the light of the Gho∣spell, seeing we stick to the old letter and sense of Scripture; without altering the Text, or rejecting any parts therof, or devising new Interpretations▪ and we are dayly imployed not only in preaching and explaining God's word in Europe, but forsake our own Countreyes and conveniences, and travell with great difficulties and dangers both by Sea and Land, to Asia, Afrik, America, and the Antipodes, with no other possible design but to publish the doctrin of Christ, and enlighten the Nations of Gentill•• who are in 〈…〉〈…〉: ignorance: And as for their self-conceited presbit••••ian 〈…〉〈…〉 Brethren, who run▪ their own wayes in translating and interpreting Scrip∣ture, we do not excuse them, but only say, that we see no reason why prelaticks should 〈…〉〈…〉 for a fault whe∣rof themselves are no less guilty. Do not prelaticks run their own wayes, as well as those other Sectaries, in transla∣ting the Bible? Do they stick to either the Greek, Latin, or Hebrew Text? Do they not leape from one language and Co∣py to an other; accept and reject what they please? Do they not fancy a sense of their own, every iot as contrary to that of the Catholick and ancient Church, as that of their Bre∣thren, the Presbiterians, and others, is acknowledged to be? And yet they are nether more learned, nor more skilfull in tongues, nor more godly then those they so much contemn, and blame.

But to the end every Christian may more cleerly discern 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Cheat, and divert himself with some variety in the me∣thod of this tedious, but convincing argument, I will give 〈◊〉〈◊〉 a brief relation of a remarkable passage, much to the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 purpose, which happned in the beginning of King James 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Reign; by which he may in one man's case, see the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and sincerity of all the Protestant prelatick Church and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in King Iames his time; and Iudge what satisfaction 〈◊〉〈◊〉 may have in this world, or whether they may expect 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in the next, by relying vpon the authority and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Prelatick Protestant Church of England.

SVBSECT. II. Of Deane VValsingham's search into matters of Re∣ligion before his change to the Catholick: how he repaired for a Resolution of his doubes to King Iames, as to the head of the Church; who remitted him to the Lord of Canterbury: and he to other men; and how after finding no sa∣tisfaction, he betook himself to the reading of Catholick and Protestant Authors for discerning on what side was the true or false Dealing.

I Will reduce into as narrow a compass as I can, Deane Walsingham's relation which he dedicated to K. Iames; con∣cluding his epistle with these words

most humbly on my

Knees I beseech your Royal Majesty, to pardon me this 〈◊〉〈◊〉 resolution, wherunto I protest, vpon my soule and Con∣science, that no earthly motive drew me, but only my love and obedience▪ 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to him that is King of all Kings &c.

That 〈…〉〈…〉 (pag. 〈…〉〈…〉, as you have seen▪ to change my Iudgment, and yeild to the manifest evi∣dence of truth, which I found to be on the Catholick side, and nothing 〈…〉〈…〉 shift••, and deceits on the con∣trary. This 〈◊〉〈◊〉 speake here, Good 〈◊〉〈◊〉, as in the sight of Almighty God, and as in truth of conscience I have found▪ and no way out of passion, or evill affection, or wordly respects: in which every man will easily see how much I prejudice my self by this new course taken: But that both reason and Religion, prudence, and all true piety doth ••••••quire, that the everlasting salvation of our soules should be preferred before all other human respects whatsoever: which is the true and sincere cause of this my resolution. And this I desire thee (Good Christian Reader••) to believe, and as∣sure thy self to be most true, as a•• the last day, when we shall all appeare before the Tribunal of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Saviour, and all hearts be made known, will evidently appeare.

In his preface to the Reader he gives an account of his Protestant education and Religion, wherin 〈◊〉〈◊〉 was so zealous, that he took all occasions to deale with others either for their confirmation, or gaining to 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ and to this effect was wont to send Books of that profession to any that would read them. By which occasion it fell out, that one of his ac••quaintance that seemed backward in the acceptance of a Book, was content to receive it from him vpon condition (saith he) that I should promise him to read an other Book he would lend me, wherof I accepted. This book was inittuled a De∣fence of the Censure given vpon two bookes of William Chark, and Meredith Hanmer, Ministers; which book I litle esteemed at that time, thinking it should serve me for some disport, espe∣cialy

for gathering out some absurdities against Papists, wher∣••ith I did Imagin all their books to be abundantly stuffed. But finding whersoever I lighted, certain passages which I could 〈◊〉〈◊〉 well digest, and many proofs alledged wherunto I could 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••••swer▪ I cast ••t of••en aside; and then took it in hand again 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••oon after I felt my self so strangely troubled and tur∣••••••led in Iudgment and conscience vpon the reading therof, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 my soule had taken pills indeed, and could not beare 〈…〉〈…〉. I conferred divers of my difficulties with 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••••nisters, without specifying that I had them out of such 〈◊〉〈◊〉, but they could give me very litle satisfaction, or 〈◊〉〈◊〉 at all. Wherupon I made divers Iourneys to London, 〈…〉〈…〉 to see Books of sundry sorts, as also to conferre with 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of my friends. And having wearied my self in this sort 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the space of divers mo••thes, at last I betooke my self to a ••ore strange resolution, but yet such as then seemed to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 most necessary for appeasing of my mind; and this was, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 so much as I had taken two or three several times the oath 〈◊〉〈◊〉 supremacy, first to the Queene, and afterward to his Ma∣jesty that now reigneth, I 〈◊〉〈◊〉 persuade my self that my best comfort of conscience would come from the superiour powers; but especialy from his learned Majesty, who governed the Crown, as from God's Lieutenant and substitute in all cau∣ses and affaires whatsoever.

Wherfore after much deliberation, not daring to conferr ••ith any Papist, or almost to entertain any Good thought 〈◊〉〈◊〉 them, or of their Religion, I determined with my self to ••ake a short memorial vnto his sayd Majesty, and to deliver him the summ of my afflictions and doubts, together with the ••••ok it self, which had bin the cause therof; and to entreat him by his supreme authority to give order for my sound sa∣tisfaction therin; and so binding vp the old book in the co∣meliest manner I could, I got me to London, and thence to Greenwich and there after many difficulties of audience, I ex∣hibited the same together with my Memorial, both tyed and

conjoyned in one, as his Majesty was going to the Chappel vpon Good friday in the morning in the yeare 1604.

Deane 〈…〉〈…〉 difficulties 〈…〉〈…〉 Book.

MY 〈…〉〈…〉 the Author's complaint that Catholiks ••••ving 〈…〉〈…〉 offers of some j••st tryall of their and 〈…〉〈…〉 Religion in En∣gland, either by publick disputation▪ free writing▪ or printing, they could never yet be admitted vnto any; which made me much to mervaile, vpon what cause or ground this should be so long denyed; for that supposing our Protestant Religion to be true, as I was persuaded, I could not see why this p••••blick tryall might not be, and ought not to be granted. Mo∣reover I saw, and considered, that wheras his Majesty soon after his coming into England, was resolved gratiously to heare the differences that were between his own subjects, and to that effect yeelded for three or four days most honorable audience in his own person, to heare and Iudge the conten∣tions between the Protestants and puritans; yet notwithstan∣ding in this conference the Papists had no place at all; which was marked by many, and divers also spoke therof. Wher∣fore vpon these considerations I was much troubled, doubting lest this straitness vsed in not admitting Papists to any kind of this equal offered tryall, might have some mystery in it; and that all things went not so cleere indeed on our side, as I had hitherto believed.

* 1.327My second▪ difficulty was about the tryall of spirits, whether they be of God, or no? the Author of the Defence joyning roundly with M.r Chark▪ offered to stand to all law∣full tryall whatsoever; and therupon taketh in hand to prove that Protestants have no sure ground or way to try an here∣tical, or Catholick spirit; and that Catholicks have many,

wherof he setteth down nine, shewing first that the only way offered by Protestants, of only Scripture, is no way at all; and that, for divers reasons; one among the rest, that all here∣tick••▪ both old and new, have professed this way &c. which, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it were admitted to be the best, and that Scripture 〈◊〉〈◊〉 neither corrupted in the letter, nor perverted in the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by Protestants, yet could not that way of tryall, advance 〈◊〉〈◊〉 advantage their cause; because the Catholicks have express 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Scripture for themselves, and Protestants no express 〈…〉〈…〉 for their Tenets. As for example, Catholicks have 〈◊〉〈◊〉 This is my Body, for Transubstantiation (Mat. 26.) 〈◊〉〈◊〉 man is justifyed by workes and not by faith only (Jacob. 2.) for ••••••tification by Good workes. Whose sins you forgive are forgi∣•••••• &c. (Joan. 20.) for absolution. The doers of the Law 〈◊〉〈◊〉 be justified. (Rom. 2.) for the possibility of observing the Commandements. vow ye and render your vowes (Psalm. 75.) for votaries. Keep the traditions which you have learned either by word or epistle (••. Thess. 2.) for vnwritten Traditions &c. Pro∣testants have not one express text in all Scripture for their Tenets.

My third difficulty was about the first beginners of our Protestant doctrin, to wit Luther with his schollers Zuinglius, C••••oldstadius, Oecolampadius, Calvin, Beza, &c. for that albeit Religion is not to be measured by the life of the Teacher, yet I considered, that whensoever God did send any men ex∣t••••ordinarily to reform his Church, they were alwayes com∣••only of more eminent virtue in their lives, then others, as 〈◊〉〈◊〉 seen by all the Patriarchs and Prophets, by St. John Bap∣ti••••, and others in succeeding ages. But now for these men be∣fore named, Luther and the rest, this writer of the Defence doth shew by very great testimonies, that they were men far inferiour vnto the common sort of honest men; that Luther had his reformation against the Mass, Intercession of Saints &c. from the Devill, from whom also Zuinglius received his opi∣nion against the real presence, and Transubstantiation; that Calvin

followed therin Zwinglius, and we in England embrace the same. That Hierom Bolse•• Doctor of Physi•• many yeare•• in Geneua, and other places round ••bout, in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 time, when himself was a 〈…〉〈…〉 things both of 〈…〉〈…〉 his falshood▪ might be so easily 〈…〉〈…〉 As that Iohn Cal∣vin was 〈…〉〈…〉 with a burning ••••••ron for 〈…〉〈…〉 in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 who preserved 〈…〉〈…〉;* 1.328 and that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 was testifyed by publick record of the said Citty of Noy••••••▪ and that this was registred by Monsieur Bertilier Secretary of the Councell of Geneva vnder a publick and sworn 〈◊〉〈◊〉 hand; he relates many things of Calvin's excessive ambition▪ intollerable hypocrisy, delicat niceness, and lascivious carna••••••.

* 1.329As for Beza who lived when Bolsek's book was written, he reporteth many enormous things, as that he kept both a boy and a Queane, Andebertus, and Candida: that he ran away with a Taylor's wife that dwelt in Calen••••r street in Paris, ••he robbing her husband to accompany him and that he continued the like life after, keeping an harlot called 〈◊〉〈◊〉, together with his own wife, and killing his own Child begotten vpon her, to cover the sin, by letting her blood above measure, and many other soul things, which I avoyd to name for loathsomness.

My fourth difficulty was tha•• the Defence of the Cens•••••• sheweth how our Church of England doth receive and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 for Brethren such as could never agree, nor cannot at the day,* 1.330 in sundry substantial points of doctrin, as the book pro∣ves by their confessions, protestations, and writings one against the other▪ as also by sundry Synods, and Protestant Coun∣cells,* 1.331 wherin the one hath condemned the other. And name∣ly he citeth this saying of Luther among many other. I do protest before God and the world, that I do not agree with them "(the Sacramentarians, which is our Religion of England.)

〈…〉〈…〉 will, while the world standeth; but will have my hand•• 〈…〉〈…〉 the blood of those sheep which these hereticks do drive 〈…〉〈…〉, and kill.

〈…〉〈…〉 it was possible that Luther, 〈…〉〈…〉 with God's holy spirit 〈…〉〈…〉 so manifestly condemn us 〈…〉〈…〉, for 〈◊〉〈◊〉 hereticks, that hold him for 〈…〉〈…〉, and 〈…〉〈…〉 very same doctrin, as doctrin 〈…〉〈…〉 for pernitious heresy▪ This 〈…〉〈…〉 I might have some 〈…〉〈…〉▪

〈◊〉〈◊〉 fifth difficulty was M.r Fulk, and our Protestant 〈◊〉〈◊〉 contempt of the holy Fathers, and of Traditions: 〈…〉〈…〉 I fell vpon this account,* 1.332 whether it were more 〈…〉〈…〉 me to adventure my soul with Fulk, and our 〈…〉〈…〉, or with the antient Fathers, and whether it 〈…〉〈…〉 probable that they should know what passed in 〈…〉〈…〉 Church better then St. Cyprian, St. Austin &c. 〈…〉〈…〉 troubled me as I thought every day a year 〈…〉〈…〉.

〈…〉〈…〉 was about M.r Chark: against whom 〈…〉〈…〉 was written, who seemed to me 〈…〉〈…〉 very 〈…〉〈…〉 impugning the same, for that 〈…〉〈…〉 not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to any of the difficulties, as to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 seemed, and much less in his reply to the defence 〈◊〉〈◊〉 afterward I 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to see.

The substance of Dean Walsingham's memorial to the King.

〈◊〉〈◊〉 a certain memorial (as I may call it) wherin I 〈◊〉〈◊〉 comprehended as compendiously as then I could, some chief 〈◊〉〈◊〉 principal causes of my doubts, and difficulties before 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and contained in that book, desiring his Highness,

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

〈…〉〈…〉 Mr. Doctor Covell told me it was your 〈…〉〈…〉 should go home vntill your Grace sent for 〈…〉〈…〉 sayd, J gave no such order, Doctor Cavell is 〈…〉〈…〉 sayd, J vnderstood your Grace so. 〈…〉〈…〉 Lord tu••ning 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to the Knight,* 1.333 sayd with an angry 〈…〉〈…〉 as soon as J came to the Court to day the first word 〈…〉〈…〉 spake vnto me, he asked me what I had don with him, 〈…〉〈…〉 book▪ you are a fellow indeed, we have dealt 〈…〉〈…〉 thou art a bold Companion to deliver such a book 〈…〉〈…〉. Then J began to speak, and to yeeld my reasons 〈…〉〈…〉 but my Lord proceeded in his wrathfull speeches, and 〈…〉〈…〉 and angry words, he added, I will even send 〈…〉〈…〉 thou art worthy to be set on the pillory, and to 〈…〉〈…〉 for a libelling Knave as thou art. I answe∣•••••• 〈…〉〈…〉 your Grace, J hope I have not deserved 〈…〉〈…〉. I have set my hand to that which I 〈…〉〈…〉, I desire, my Lord, but to be taught the truth. 〈…〉〈…〉 sayd thou be taught? thou art a foolish bold knave, 〈…〉〈…〉 as thou art, before I have don with 〈◊〉〈◊〉.

〈…〉〈…〉 Lord had chafed and spoken largely his 〈…〉〈…〉 he had put me in a bodily feare,* 1.334 the Knight 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Corner began to speak and say, my Lord he will be 〈…〉〈…〉; Mr. Walsingham I dare say, is sorry for his 〈◊〉〈◊〉 you shall see he will conform himself as he should. 〈…〉〈…〉 yet stil continued in his rough and angry 〈…〉〈…〉, no man forsooth, will serve you but the King to 〈…〉〈…〉 allpunc; I answered, may it please your Grace to 〈…〉〈…〉 reasons why I came chiefly to the King: then sayd 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Lord; why what hast thou to do with the King? what 〈…〉〈…〉 if thou wer•• hanged like a foolish Knave as thou art? 〈…〉〈…〉 other such like vehement and threatning speeches; 〈…〉〈…〉 the end he sayd, come near (for that all this 〈…〉〈…〉 stood a loof.)

And then he called for his Secretary or Notary saying, 〈…〉〈…〉 indignation to me, Come, come you hither, I will examin

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

〈◊〉〈◊〉 Lord, •• will write to the Commissary that he shall not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 or hinder you in any thing, and so calling for pen 〈…〉〈…〉 his letter, the summ wherof was this.

〈…〉〈…〉 the Bearer hereof seemeth to be somewhat 〈…〉〈…〉 towards popery▪ we will that you appoint some 〈…〉〈…〉 and learned Divine who may conferr with him, and 〈…〉〈…〉 his doubts: but let all things be so don as 〈…〉〈…〉 not be discouraged, nor his infirmity divulged▪ 〈…〉〈…〉 sayd my Lord, you see what I have written, 〈…〉〈…〉 〈…〉〈…〉 any way prejudice you &c. I doubt not but 〈…〉〈…〉 come again, you will be wel resolved, and 〈…〉〈…〉: I hope so my Lord, sayd I; you go to 〈…〉〈…〉 my Lord? yes and it please your Lordship 〈…〉〈…〉 that is vvell, sayd my Lord. And thus having 〈…〉〈…〉 my Lords letter, he bid me farewell: and then 〈…〉〈…〉 leave of Doctor Covell, he spake very kindly to me, 〈…〉〈…〉▪ I hope when you come again Mr. Walsingham, you 〈…〉〈…〉 of another mind, and all shall be well. And so from 〈…〉〈…〉 I passed to London, and from thence the next day 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Countrey, somewhat to satisfie my friends, and to 〈…〉〈…〉 what the rumors raised about me.

〈◊〉〈◊〉 Walsinghams address to Mr. Rolfe, 〈…〉〈…〉 of St. Albans: And of his 〈◊〉〈◊〉 with Doctor Downham, and an other 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Protestant Clergy; and his perusal of Mr. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Books recommanded to him by my Lord of 〈…〉〈…〉; and of the answer of the Defence 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Censure.

MR. Walsingham thus dispatcht without any Satisfacti∣on of his doubts,* 1.335 he began to distrust and sus∣pect the Protestant Clergy and Religion: but howe∣••••••

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

〈…〉〈…〉 that I had read the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the 〈…〉〈…〉 had driven me into many doubts, 〈…〉〈…〉 I declared how that Book 〈…〉〈…〉 whom 〈…〉〈…〉 to be a man of God) to have 〈…〉〈…〉 the Church of Rome,* 1.336 by the ins••igation of the 〈…〉〈…〉 had much Conference &c. which of true, surely 〈…〉〈…〉 to be of some better faith and Religion 〈…〉〈…〉 have the original and begining from the D••vil. 〈…〉〈…〉 common practise of the Papists to 〈…〉〈…〉 of God, and I think I ha•••• the answer to that book. 〈…〉〈…〉 (sayd Mr. VV••lsingham) have a sight of that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 And now being dinner time Mr. Doctor sayd he 〈…〉〈…〉 with Mr. Arch-Deacon, and so he left me, not 〈…〉〈…〉 it seemed, to have any further conference with 〈…〉〈…〉 made me conceive an hard opinion of Mr. Doctors 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉〈◊〉, who perceiving in what state I was, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••dolatry, Antichrist &c. would seeme so willing as he 〈◊〉〈◊〉 withdraw himself: But meeting Mr. Rolfe, he wished 〈◊〉〈◊〉 any wise so expect Doctor Downham, which J 〈…〉〈…〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 with him to his house in Company of one or two 〈◊〉〈◊〉 more.

〈◊〉〈◊〉 Mr. VValsingham came to Dr. Downham house at 〈…〉〈…〉 shewed him some of Luthers works,* 1.337 wherin he 〈…〉〈…〉 worst things ther he had noted out of the defence 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Censure, and the Doctor alwayes dive••ted him from the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the truth and from comparing his notes with the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 The next day morning an other Minister came to 〈…〉〈…〉, whom he made acquainted with Mr. 〈…〉〈…〉, who thervpon desired 〈◊〉〈◊〉 have some conference 〈…〉〈…〉 perplexed soul; and having related to that ancient 〈…〉〈…〉 doubts, the remedy he applied was to inveigh 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Papists obstinacy, vntrue dealing, Jndulgences &c. 〈…〉〈…〉 word to answer Mr. VValsinghams difficulties: who 〈…〉〈…〉 the answer to the defence of the Censure, took his 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Doctor Downham.

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

men by the Jnstigation of some who were far blinded with 〈◊〉〈◊〉 against them.

Mr. Bell's second Book called a Survey of Popery, Mr. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 pervsed, because he had promised, and took no 〈◊〉〈◊〉 some corruptions he had found therin of St. Chrysostom, 〈…〉〈…〉 of Nice, St. Austin, St. Gregory &c. with a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to shew them to my Lord of Canterbury, who did 〈◊〉〈◊〉 esteem the Author, and extoll the Book. He read 〈◊〉〈◊〉 third book of Mr. Bell's, called the downfall of popery, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 he found also many falsifications to maintain 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and against popes: wherof one was this. Antoninus 〈◊〉〈◊〉 bishop of Florence affirmeth (saith Mr. Bell (pag. 40.) 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Pope Martin the fifth dispensed with one, who had contracted 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••••••summated matrimony with his own natural and full sister 〈…〉〈…〉 Father and Mother,* 1.338 citing these words of Antoninus 〈…〉〈…〉, cum quadam ejus Germana, which he englished as 〈◊〉〈◊〉 have heard, his own natural and full sister &c. cutting of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the sentence that ensued, and confuted his falsification, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 cognoverat fornicariè, whom he had known in fornication: 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the sentence in Antoninus is, that Pope Martyn the 3. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 a great suit and long deliberation, did dispence with one 〈…〉〈…〉 married with the sister of her, whom he had known in fornication, that is to say, with his concubines sister: which dispensation (saith Antoninus) was hardly granted: and one thei•• reason of the grant was (saith he) for that the par∣•••••••• could not be separated without great scandal, nor were fit to enter into Religion.

Now as to Mr. Chark's answer or reply to the defence of the Censure, which Doctor Downham had lent vnto me,* 1.339 I found therin no satisfaction, for I saw in effect (saith Mr. Walsingham) nothing but a colerick Jnvective against the Au∣thor of the defence, telling him first and facing him down that the cause why there was no publick disputation, was in him and his fellowes, as being afraid to come to that tryal. Which kind of answer contented me not, for that I expected

he would have sayd, that disputation should be procured, and that he and all the rest of our Clergy would ioyn in that suit to her Ma∣jesty that then was. Secondly, to all the ways set down by the defence for trying of a Catholick and heretical spirit, he sayd only, that he and his, would be tryed by Scriptures; wheras the Controversies would be about the sense and Jnterpretation of Scripture.

Thirdly, to that of Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin, Beza, their lives and doctrines, which principaly I desired to see discussed, he seemed to me to answer scarce any thing to the purpose, but ran into a great exclamation of popish slanderers, and against the absurdities of Indulgences &c. which were not now in que∣stion: he ought to have examined the place out of Luther's own writings about himself and others, both for life and do∣ctrin: but this was not don, only in general he would seem to excuse matters, or rather to divert the reader from atten∣tion vnto them with this florish of words.

As for Berengari••s (saith Chark) Huss, Wicleff, Luther, &c. we measure them according to those times wherin the Lord stirred them vp,* 1.340 and according to that measure of grace and light he bestow∣ed vpon them, and whatsoever were their Jmperfections, therin we do not justifie them, but give God the praise of his work, and leave them to their place as men; yet we may and will thus far defend them against that doggish tooth of your•••• that in the principal points of faith, wher∣upon dependeth salvation, they were found with Athana∣sius, and all other holy men of God.

These words J say, may be as well applyed (as an Apology) to Turks, Ie∣wes, and all hereticks, as to Luther, Calvin, Beza, Cranmer; for Turks, Iewes and all hereticks agree with Catholicks and Athanasius in some points of faith; though in their imperfe∣ctions (as blasphemies, Iudaisme, Turcisme, heresy &c.) They do not agree with Athanasius, and therin we do not justifie them. Were not this a good excuse thought J with my self? And is it not a goodly Church that admits of such compa∣nions,

and fraternity? saith VValsingham. What he meant ••••en he sayd in the principal points of faith wherupon depen∣deth salvation, I could not tell, seeing he giveth no certain rule to know them. And besides I considered that Luther and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Lutherans do affirm in their Books, even to this day, that we ••scan••ants of England are damned hereticks, for denying the real pre〈…〉〈…〉. And on the contrary side we say that they are good protestants, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 holy men, and our Brethren, though they hold the real presence, which we deny, and condemn for Idolatry. To all the rest of my difficulties J found in effect no substantial answer at all.

Mr. VValsinghams last appearance before my Lord of Canterbury and his Doctors.

THe prefixed time of my appearance drawing neere, I repaired to London, and vpon the last day of Easter term I went to Lambeth to present my self to my Lord, who was not yet come from Westminster, though in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 absence there sate, as I vnderstood, divers Doctors, and Pr••lats about matters of Religion in his house at Lambeth. At length my Lord came home, and a great train with him, coming out of his garden he cast his eye vpon me, and pre∣sently said vnto me with a friendly countenanee, and somewhat a low voice, now Mr. VValsingham how do you, are you satis∣fied? To whom I answered, no truly my Lord, I am not yet satisfied, wherunto he replyed nothing, but went and sate down at his table in the parlor, together with his Doctors and Prelats about him, whither after a litle time, I was cal∣led, and then my Lord began to explain my case vnto them, how I desired to be satisfied in matters of fact conteined in the defence, what paines his Lordship had taken with me, and others at his appointment, and finaly that he had delivered vnto me two books of Mr. Bell's, written against the Papists, to satisfie me withall; and then he called me closs vnto him

at the tables end, and asked me very seriously whether J had read them, and what I thought of them?

To this I answered that I had read them over with dili∣gence, and that my Iudgment was that the Author was a gol∣den Bell, but his sound like as of a brazen Candlestick, which I sayd in respect of the many golden advices, inferences, Corol∣laries, and the golden sentences, which he mentioned so often in his books; but that his sound was no better then of brass, according to the Apostle's similitude, for that he seemed not only to have no charity in his writings, but neither truth nor sincerity in his Allegations.

The Arch-bishop hearing me call him a golden Bell in the first part of my answer, seemed much contented, saying, that is well, but hearing the second, demanded? why so? And Doctor Barlow Dean of Chester (afterwards Bishop of Lincoln) looking back vpon me with more displeasure, as it seemed, then the rest, sayd, why, what say you to Mr. Bell? and all the other Doctors in like manner cast their eyes vpon me.* 1.341 But I gave the reason 〈◊〉〈◊〉 mentioned. And then my Lord answering, and willing me to shew wherin I had made that observation, J layd forth vpon the table before them the two books that I had perused, turning to the places of St. Chry∣sostom, St. Augustin, and other Fathers, which I pretended to have bin vntruly alledged by him, presupposing that my Lord would presently h••••e commanded the said Fathers works to have bin brought forth out of his study, and the places quo∣ted to be examined in all their presence: but no such matter ensued: for my Lord having slightly looked over the places in Bell, as he citeth them, he layed them down again, and the Doctors took them vp to peruse, in which mean space his Lorship began to talk somewhat privatly and mildly with me concerning things, objected by the defence of the Censure against Luther &c.

My Lord began to talk vnto Doctor Barlow, who this while with the rest was looking on Bell's Books, and began

to speak somwhat concerning them, seeming to maintain some∣what a good opinion of Bell's fidelity, which yet appeared not to be great with my Lord himself, as by some conjectures I gathered. But none of them, as I said, so much as once of∣fered to call for the Fathers works themselves, to examin the places, which was my desire. But after some few words to and fro among themselves, my Lord commanded me to stand a side whilst they talked.

Wherupon I retired my self by litle and litle down to the lower end of the parlour, that they might confer more freely; they talked together of this and other matters: and after some litle time &c. my Lord began to speak with a high and angry voyce, concerning me, and my affaires; and loo∣king toward me complained of my importunity and obstina∣cy, and sayd to the Doctors, that he would send me to pri∣son, and therupon calling for his pursuivant, or apparitor, (which presently appeared) said, let a mittimus be made to send him to the Chink &c.

But then came vnto me from the other side of the par∣lour the Knight of the Corner mentioned before,* 1.342 who out of ••••ew of great compassion and extraordinary friendship, began with divers temporal reasons to persuade me not to meddle further in these matters, but accommodat my self to my Lord's will, and I should find his Grace a good Lord vnto me, and ready to perform as occasion should be offered &c. After a litle time they rose from the table, and standing on foot, my Lord shewed himself much displeased, talked again of me and of my busines, threatning to send me to prison; but after that again he retired himself into a window together with Do∣ctor Barlow, who having conferred some litle space together, my Lord called me vnto him, and insinuating vnto me that the sayd Doctor had intreated for some favor towards me, sayd, well, Mr. VValsingham, J am content you shall conferr these places with Doctor Barlow, who will take some paines with you to resolve you; and then turning vnto Mr. Doctor, he

sayd vnto him, you can shew him (Mr. Deane) Chrysostom both in greek and Latin, (and so might his Grace also, but durst not) willing me to repaire vnto him for conference, and dismissed me, with saying only that J should return vnto him in the end of the next term; and indeed his dismission was such, and with such countenance and speech, as it seemed to me he could not well determin what to do with me, being weary of me, and of my suite, and that he would have bin content to be handsomly rid of me.

Upon the next day J repaired to VVestminster to Mr. Do∣ctor Barlow, who after even song went vp with me to his study, and there at my request opened first one of St. Austin's Tomes, wherin the Book de bono viduitatis is contained, and there sought for the place before named, cyted by Mr. Bell, and falling vpon the words alledged by him, read them, and would have seemed to defend them, as there they lye. But when J pressed him to have him go forward, and to read the words ensuing, which do explicat St. Austin's meaning, and wholy overthrow Mr. Bell's purpose, he was vnwilling at that time to pass any further, especialy his man coming to tell him that it was now supper time: and so with courteous words, he dismissed me, saying nothwithstanding that if at any other time I should come vnto him, he would be glad to spend an houre, and take 〈◊〉〈◊〉 some further paines with me. But J thought with my self, to what end should J come vnto him, and trouble both him and my self, as J had don many others in the same cause before: for that I seemed to perceive now how litle they were able or willing to give me that sa∣tisfaction in these points, which I demanded about my doubts, and scruples; and with this I departed from him, not mea∣ning to return again for the present, but to take some other course as afterwards I did: which was, to examin books on both sides for finding out truth or falsity, begining first with the writings of the protestants, and afterward of Catholicks.

This is the substance of the historical part of Mr. VVal∣singham's

search into Religion. In the progress of his book he sets down those frauds, and willfull corruptions which he found in perusing the works of Luther, Calvin, Jewell, Fox, ••••••low, VVillet, Chark, Fulk, Hastings and other protestant ••••iters: and acknowledgeth the truth and sincerity which he 〈◊〉〈◊〉 with, in the Catholicks; wherupon he resolved to re∣••ounce protestancy, and the conveniencies that therby he might ••••pect, preferring the good of his soul, which he believed could not be saved out of the Roman Catholick Church, be∣fore all temporal respects. To satisfy his friends, and the world, in this resolution, he published the foresaid Treatise, and be∣came a Catholick Priest, and by his good example and paines taken in this Kingdom, converted many of his seduced Coun∣treymen. He lived to be of very great age, dying but few years since, bidding always those with whom he conversed, not to credit, or trust any of the protestant Clergy in mat∣ters of Religion, how ever so sincere they may seem to be in other affaires.

SVBSECT. III. Reflexions vpon Mr. VValsingham's relation.

THe first Reflexion is. How education, and a persuasion of the truth grounded therupon, can not be safely or prudently relyed vpon in matters of that one only faith, without which it is impossible to please God, and be saved; especialy when we acknowledge the fallibility of our Church, and have reasons to suspect our Clergys sincerity. The protestant Church of England doth acknowledge it's own fallibility, and that Clergys interest and intrigues in vphol∣ding a Religion wherby alone they may live above the mean∣ness of their parentage, and patrimony, together with our Catholick continual exceptions and proofs against it's novelty,

and libertinism, and the publick offers of learned disinteres∣sed, and conscientious persons to demonstrat how much lay-Protestants are abused by their Clergy, and mistaken in their fancied Scripture and reformed Doctrin (in case the state wil give way to a faire tryal) doth leave no room for the illi∣terat layties ordinary excuse, to wit, that they are not ob∣liged to study Controversies, or read the Fathers; so much is not exacted of them, they are bound notwithstanding to examin (every one according to his capacity) which of the two Clergys, Protestant or Catholick, do corrupt and fal∣sify Scripture, the Fathers and Councells; or if that dili∣gence be not compatible with the meanes, and condition of many of them, no more is required of such, then to observe which of both partyes and Clergyes hinders, or is most back∣ward in coming to a publick tryal therof, this (being but matter of fact, discernable by the eye, without Metaphysical speculation, or historical erudition) can not in conscience be rejected or neglected by any Christian, learned or vnlear∣ned. Though Mr. VValsingham was a protestant Divine, yet he never had read any Catholick Books, and by consequence was (before he lighted vpon the defence of the Censure) as ignorant in our Tenets as any lay-protestant, and as avers from reading our Controversies: yet being a conscientious, and judicious person, he thought himself bound vnder pain of damnation, to examin whether what that Book said of Protestants, was true: Particularly when he reflected vpon their putting of, and declining all publick disputations con∣cerning Religion, and their persecuting such as offered to dispute.

2. Reflexion. How easily a company or Corporation of necessitous and mean persons do conspire and concurr in a beneficial fraud; and how difficult it is to make them con∣fess a fault, in the maintenance wherof their fortunes are con∣cerned, and by consequence how accomptable the protestant layty is to God, for not mistrusting and examining the truth

and sincerity of their own Clergy, being so indigent and so interessed persons, and so confidently charged and so frequent∣ly caught with falshoods? what fraud can be more visible then to make men believe that so infamous and dissolute per∣sons as Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin, Cranmer and Beza, &c. were Saints, sent by God to restore his Church vnto it's pri∣mitive doctrin, and spirit? or that they, and all protestants do agree in all matters of faith, against Papists. Their dissen∣tions, vices, and wickedness are so manifest, that they can not be denyed without impudency, and without giving the lye to the whole world, and contradicting their own wri∣tings. And yet the Arch-bishop of Canterbury and his Junta of Divines, would face down Mr. Walsingham, that there was no such matter; and because the poore man humbly petitio∣ned to have the matter decided, by comparing their own books (which were in the next roome) with his notes, he was censured and called a foolish bold Knave, impudent fellow, s••••cy Companion &c. and threatned with prison and pillary. And for that they durst not betray the weakness of their cause by so publick and violent proceedings against a known protestant, who desired to continue one of themselves, if protestancy did not prove to be a mistake of Christianity, the Arch-bishop (to be shut of him) sent him to the Commissary of St. Al∣bans to be resolved, forsooth, whether Luther acknowledged in his Books that he began the protestant Reformation, and impugned the Mass, adoration of the Sacrament, Invocation of Saints &c. moved therunto by the devill's arguments, in a real conference between himself and sathan; as if this passage and others of Luther's and Calvin's works were not to be found in London, or in his Graces Library at Lambeth, as well as at St. Albans? And after that by his own importunity Mr. Walsingham had obtained of Doctor Covell to shew him Luther's book wherin he acknowledged this conference and conviction of the Devill's arguments,* 1.343 that the Doctor should interrupt him, and divert the whole discourse with a rush,

you see I have this book and many such like.

3. Reflexion. By what particular indirect means, cavills, and Calumnies, the Arch-bishop himself endeavored to main∣tain the protestant Religion, and discredit the Catholick, de∣livering to Mr. Walsingham Mr. Bell's libell against the Iesuits, as an invincible fortress against the Roman faith; and his other book full of corruptions and falsifications, as a very sincere and solid piece; which falsifications being shewed to them all sitting in their Junta, and Iudgment about that affaire, the Arch-bishop durst not send into his study for the Fathers works that were affirmed by Mr. Walsingham to have bin cor∣rupted by Bell and Calvin,* 1.344 &c. His Lordship's confessed pra∣ctise also of burning Catholick Books argues the weaknes of the protestant cause, and proves how much they are afraid their own false dealing, and the impiety of their principles should be discovered.

4. Reflexion. That Mr. Walsingham's case hath bin and is revived and practised now every day, when any conscien∣tious protestant begins to doubt of the safety and sincerity of his Religion. The protestant Clergy tells him that he is in a sure way of salvation, and yet this assertion is against one of their articles of faith, to wit, that which acknowledgeth their Church is fallible in proposing Christ's doctrin and the true sense of Scripture, and by consequence, (for all they know) themselves may be in damnable errors. Then they tell him the Papists are Jdolaters, worship Anti-Christ, &c. that our Books of Controversyes are full of lyes, and fables; and to make good these their impostures, they not only corrupt our Au∣thors, but translate into English all infamous libells, though they treat not of controversies, as the Jansenists Letters, Pala∣fox his relations: and for the renegat Fr. Paulo his history of the Councell of Trent,* 1.345 they swear it is the most exact and sincere work of this age, wheras Cardinal Palavicino, in his answer to the same, and in the very begining, hath set down 300. of Fr: Paulo's vntruths in matter of fact, so palpable▪ that they

seem inexcusable in him, and render others guilty of vnpar∣donable rashness, and obstinacy, who credit so mistaken or malicious an Author, and preferr his bare word before the vnanimous Testimony of all Christendom, that hath accepted the definitions of the Councell as Catholick truths; which they would never have don, had they bin such as Fr: Paul•• describes. Js it likely that the Bishops, Embassadors, and Pre∣lats, of so different nations, and subjects to Princes of so con∣trary Interests, who were present at the Councill, and recom∣mended to their flocks, and friends the decrees of Trent as sa∣cred, would conspire to cheat and damne their Souveraigns, relations, and neighbors? Or that they knew not better how matters went in the Councill, or were not more impar∣tial in relating them, then one Apost••ta Friar, or those per∣sons from whom he pretends to have received his papers and intelligence? with such pittifull frauds and fashoods are many poor protestant soules deluded, and seduced into eternal dam∣nation; which they deserve for believing their own Clergy without any further examination of the scruples and doubts which common sense and natural reason doth raise in every one of them that converseth with Roman Catholicks, or ob∣serveth the incoherency and inconstancy of protestancy, to∣gether with it's singularity and pride of Spirit, contemning the primitive true sense of Scripture declared by vniversal Tradition, and the vnanimous consent of all orthodox Fathers and Councills. Perditio tua ex te Jsrael.

5. Reflexion. One of my Lord of Canterburyes reasons to Mr. Walsingham against crediting the Popish book was, do you not know when two men go to law together, one will speak the worst he can by the other? And though this ought not to be practised in law suites, much less in controversies of Religion, yet seeing my Lord would have protestants read our books with that prejudice, reason doth dictat that theirs ought not to be read without caution; especially Seeing every protestant ••eader makes himself supreme Judge of Controversies of Re∣ligion,

and no Judge ought to give sentence before both sides be heard. Suppose therfore that the protestant and Catholick Clergy are engaged not only in a dispute of Religion, but in a suit of Law, to wit, whether the revenues of the Church of the three Kingdoms belong of right rather to the present possessors, then to the ancient proprietors? neither party (say you) ought to be Iudge in his own cause, who then must decide the business? The Layty; Content, let my Lord Chancellor of England (notwithstanding his known Jnclina∣tion to favor and promote protes••••••cy) be named head of a Committee, for examining, and deciding the question. Let it be tryed in publik Court, which of the two parties are guil∣ty of counterfeiting evidences? that is, of changing the an∣cient letter and sense of Scripture, and of corrupting and fal∣sifying the Catholick Fathers and Councells. It is but matter of fact, and may be soon resolved. We have given our charge against our Adversaries long since, in our printed Books, and in this do renew the same. Let the Court command them to put in their answer.

And because the Protestant Clergy hath alwayes endea∣vored to make vs odious and obnoxious to the state, as vn∣natural subjects and ill patriots, and will strive now to per∣suade the world that our zeale in manifesting their frauds and falsifications, proceeds not from a desire of manifesting the truth, but from covetousness of possessing their lands, we doubt not but that in case reason and equity appeareth to be on the Catholick side, the Catholick Clergy will resign vnto his Majesty all their claim and right to the Church livings of the three Kingdoms, to be freely disposed of in pious and publik vses, as he and his Parliament will think most fit for the honor of God, and defence of this Monarchy against forrein enemies, and seditious subjects. Wherin we do no more then duty, and our Brethren did in the like occasion in Q. Maries reign. And as our offer can have no design but duty, so this Tryal can not be against conscience, and may

prove to be of great consequence, both for the salvation of soules, and satisfaction of his Majestyes subjects. It can not be against the tenderness of Protestant consciences, because Roman Catholicks (who pretend to a greater certainty of doctrin, as believing the Roman Catholick Church to be in∣fallible) have admitted of such a tryal in France an. 1600. in presence of the King, (then a Catholick) the princes, and of all the Court; and hath bin translated into English in the third part of the 3. Conversions. In hopes that Protestants may be moved by such an example, and follow the same Me∣thod, I will set down the summe of the Tryal.

SVBSECT. IV. A brief relation of a Tryal held in France about Religion, wherof the Lord Chancellor of France was Moderator.

IN the year 1600. there came forth a book in Paris vn∣der the name of Monsieur de Plessis, a Hugonot, and Go∣vernor of Samur, against the Mass; which book making great shew (as the fashion is) of abundance and ostentation of Fathers, Councells, Doctors, and stories for his purpose, great admiration seemed to be conceived therof, and the Pro∣testants every where began to tryumph of so famous a work, (Iust as our prelatiks have don of late, when Doctor Ieremy Taylor's Dissuasive from Popery was published in Ireland, prin∣ted and reprinted in England) wherupon divers Catholick learned men took occasion to examin the sayd book, of Plessis, (as others have don lately with Doctor Taylors Dissuasive) and fin∣ding many most egregious deceits, shifts, and falsifications therin,* 1.346 divers books were written against it, and one in particular by a

French Iesuit, discovering at least a thousand falshoods of his part. And the Bishop of Eureux (afterwards Cardinal Pe∣ron) Protested vpon his honor in the pulpit, that he could shew more then 500. Falsifications in the Book for his part.

Hereupon the Duke of Bovillon, Monsieur Rosny, Mr. Di∣giers and other Protestant Lords, began to call for a tryal of the truth, for that it seemed to touch all their honors, as well as that of their Protestant Religion. It were to be wish'd that some of our English Protestant Nobility and Gentry did imitat the French Hugonots, rather in this example of the sense they shewed both of honor and conscience, then in the fashion of their cloaths, cringies and congies. The English Protestants▪ have more reason to vindicat Doctor Taylor's Dis∣suasive from the aspersions of frauds, and falsifications layd to that Bishop's charge, then the french Hugonots, had to vin∣dicat de Plessis his Book, which was but the work of a Lay∣man, or at least not set out by order of the Hugonot Clergy, as Bishop Taylor's Dissuasive was resolved vpon, and published by order of the Protestant prelatik Convocation of Ireland, and both the book, and Taylor the Author, or Amanuensis, so much applauded in England, that the Dissuasive hath often bin printed at London, and the Dissuader's picture (in his Canonical habit) placed in the beginning of his book, with a stern and severe countenance, as if he were sharply repre∣hending St. Ignatius and his learned Jesuits, for cheating and selling of soules; of which crime they are accused with Mottos set vnder and over their pictures, after Taylor's preface. If you add to this insulting dress the impudent drift of the book, which is to dissuade all the Irish, and English Catholicks from popery, you will find that the credit and Religion of prela∣tik Protestants is more deeply engaged in maintaining the truth of Bishop Taylor's cause, then the French Hugonots in vindicating Monsieur de Plessis, and defending his book against the Mass. But to our story.

Though Plessis had challenged Peron to prove the falsifi∣cations

that Peron had layd to his charge, yet when he saw that Peron accepted of the challenge, Plessis began to shrink and seek delayes, but by the King's express command both par∣ties appeared before his Majesty at Fontainbleau, where Plessis came with five or Six Ministers on his side, to which sort of people, it seems, he gave too much credit, and vpon their word, took all his arguments, as appeareth by the words of Peron. After that Peron had offered to shew 500. enormous and open falsifications in his only book of the Mass, he ad∣deth;

and moreover, I say, if that after this our conference ended, he will take vpon him for his part to choose amongst all his citations of his Book or Books, any such authori∣ties as he thinketh most sure against vs, I do bind my self for conclusion of all, to refute the whole choice, and to shew that neither in his sayd Book against the Mass, nor in his Treatise of the Church, nor in his Common-wealth of Traditions, is there to be found so much as any one place among them all, which is not either falsly cited, or impertinent to the matter, or vnprofitably alledged &c. neither do J hereby pretend to blame him for any other thing, then that he hath bin over credulous in believing the fals relations and Collections of others that have endea∣vored to abuse the industry and authority of his pen.

This disputation (saith Peron in his answer to Plessis Challenge) shall not be like to others in former times, where∣in were examined matters of doctrin, and the truth therof, &c. In examination wherof the shifts and sleights of the Dis∣puters, and other disguising of the matters, might make the truth vncertain to the hearers. But all Questions in this dis∣putation shall only be questions of fact, whether places be truly alledged or no? for tryal wherof it shall only be need∣full to bring eyes for Iudges to behold whether the citations which we do accuse of falshood, be so indeed in the Authors as Plessis hath alledged in his Book: And yet of the over∣throw of these so many Falsifications gathered together, en∣sueth

the overthrow and dishonor of the cause which is de∣fended by such weapons. And consequently we are much bound to the holy providence of of Almighty God,* 1.347 that he hath permitted in this last assault of Hereticks, the Ministers of France, to have layd all the heads of their fals Impostures and deceitfull dealings vpon one Body, to the end they may be all cut off at one blow: and that the simple people by them abused, seeing discovered the false and vnfaithfull dealings of those vpon whose fidelity they grounded their faith, may forsake them hereafter, and return to that faith which is the pillar and sure ground of all truth. This is an excellent Me∣thod, and Peron's words may be very well applied to B. Tay∣lor's Dissuasive from Popery. But to our relation.

The Iudges of the conference were besides the Chancel∣lor of France, who was Moderator, the president de Tou, a neere Kinsman to Plessis, Monsieur Pitheu, his great friend, and Monsieur le Fevre Master of the Prince of Conde, all Catholicks. On the other side for the Protestants were named the president Calignon Chancellor of Navarre, and Monsieur de Fresne Conaye president, and Monsieur Causabon Reader to his Majesty in Paris, all earnest and learned Protestants.

The day before the tryal, Peron, to deale more plainly and like a friend, sent vnto Plessis 60. places taken out of his book, vpon which he meant to press him, and as his words are to begin the play, of which 60. Plessis choose out 19. that seemed to him most defensible. But the next day the tryal being begun; after Peron had declared there were foure thou∣sand places falsified in Plessis his Book, only 9. of the 19. could be examined, though they sate 6. houres, and all Iud∣ged against Plessis by common consent; wherupon Plessis fell sick that night, vomiting blood &c. and could be never got to proceed in the tryal, and went from Paris to Samur without ta∣king leave of the King, or seeing the Lord Chancellor. This proof of wilfull Falsifications (wherby alone it seems protestancy can be maintained every where els as well as in England)

occasioned the conversion of very many in France, as the King's Lieutenant in Limoge, and his wife, with divers of the nobility, and no few Ministers, wherof one was Tirius a Scotch∣man, master of a Colledge in Nismes; and an other who was Nephew to John Calvin.

The Coppy of a letter written by a person of quality about this conference.

SIR. Heere hath bin some foure dayes past a great Confe∣rence at Fontainbleau between Monsieur Peron Bishop of Eureux, and Monsieur Plessis Mornay Governor of Sa∣mur. The King with many Princes were present, and Iudges chosen and appointed for both parties. In the end Plessis Mor∣nay was vtterly disproved and confounded by a general con∣sent of both sides, and shamed; in so much as the King rose vp from his place, and swore Ventre Gry he had heard and seen enough of Plessis falsities, and that by Act of Parliament he would cause his books to be burned, saying that himself had all his youth time bin abused and carried away with their corruptions &c.

The Hugonots are struck more dead with this accident then if they had lost a battle of 40. thousand men, and Ples∣sis Mornay himself is faln sick vpon it, vomits blood, and looks like himself &c. Paris 10. May. 1600.

King Henry 4. letter to the Duke of Espernon vpon the same subject.

MY friend. The Diocess of Eureux hath overcom Sa∣mur; and the sweet manner of proceeding that hath bin vsed, hath taken away all occasion to say that any force hath bin vsed beside the only force of truth. The

Bearer hereof was present at the combat, who will inform you what mervailes J have don therin. Certainly it is one of the greatest blows that hath bin given for the Church of God this long time for the manifestation of this error. By this means we shall reduce more in one year of them that are se∣parated from the Church, then by any other way in fifty years. There were a large discourse to be made of each their actions, but the same were too long to write. The Beare•• will tell you the manner which J would have all my servants to observe for reaping fruit of this holy work. Good night my friend. And for that I know what pleasure you will take hereof you are the only man to whom J have written it, This ••. of May 1600.

HENRY.

The Authors falsified and the sentence given against Plessis.

THe 〈◊〉〈◊〉 places or Authors corrupted by Plessis and his Minist••••••, went 〈◊〉〈◊〉 about the real presence▪ Duran∣dus against Transubstantiation; St. Chrysostom against prayer to 〈◊〉〈◊〉, twice. 〈…〉〈…〉 against prayer to Saints. St. Cyril against worshiping the holy Cross. The Code or Im∣perial 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to the same 〈…〉〈…〉 against honoring our B. Lady. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 against worshiping of Images. The par∣ticulars wherof, may be seen in the printed Acts of this Con∣ference, and in the three Conversions part 3. translated into English. But to satisfie the curiosity of many▪ J will copy the abridgment of the Judges sentence, which was delivered immediatly after Conference by the Secretaries to divers persons of quality. Vpon the first two places of Scotus and Durandu•• the sentence was, that Monsieur Plessis had taken the objection for the resolution. Vpon the places of St. Chrysostom, That he had left out that which he should have put in. Vpon the fifth place

of St. Hierom, That he ought to have alledged the passage entire 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it was in the Author; vpon the six place of St. Cyril, that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 passage alledged out of St. Cyril was not to be found in him. The seaventh place out of the Emperors Theodorus and Valens, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Plessi•• had alledged truly Crinitus, but that Crinitus was abu∣••••••. Vpon the eight place out of St. Bernard, That it had bin 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Plessis had cited the place distinctly as it lay in the Author, with 〈…〉〈…〉 of any thing in the midst. And finaly vpon the ninth 〈◊〉〈◊〉 out of Theodoret against Images, That the passage alledged 〈◊〉〈◊〉 not to be vnderstood of Images, but of Idols; and that this 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by the words which Plessis had omitted in his allegation. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 this suffice for French falsifications, let vs return to the English, wherof there is such abundance, and so great variety, ••hat J can hardly resolve which to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vpon.

SECT. VIII. Protestant falsifications to persuade that the Roman Catholick doctrin is inconsistent with the Sove∣raignty and safety of Kings, and with civil Society between Catholicks and Protestants.

THe Protestant Clergy seeing their frauds and falsifications of Scripture, Fathers, and Coun∣cells cleerly discouered, and that after Queen Elizabeths death they had no reason to make Catholik Religion odious to the line of the Stewards (our Tenets favoring their right against the deceased Queen, and other Pro∣testants pretences) resolved vpon an other way to secure their Church-livings against the title and claim of the Roman Cler∣gy; which was, to maintain in their Books, that it is im∣possible for a Papist to be a good Subject, because (say Pro∣testants)

it is a principle among them, that in some cas•••• the Pope may depose a King: So that now the Protestant preachers are become shrewd Polititians, and defend their do∣ctrin and revenues by reasons of state. One of the chief of these Church-Polititians was Thomas Morton, late Bishop of Du∣resme, more famous for his wicked impostures, then for his many volumes. He began with a Treatise of Rebellion and Equi∣vocation, which having bin answered, and restored vpon him∣self and his Protestants in the begining of K. James his reign; and his wilfull falshoods layd open to the world, he set forth a pamphlet, which he called a preamble of his (promised, but never performed) Reply; and in that Preamble omits almost all the material accusations and objections of his adversary F. Persons: and to such few as himself had attempted to answer, he added new lyes and impostures, or layd the fault of his own former falsifications, vpon his Brethren, who joyned with him in the work, as euery one may see in F. Persons Quiet and sober Reckning with Mr. Morton, out of which we will borrow some few examples.

Bishop Morton's falsifications about the lawfulness of Killing a Tyrant.

AN other like trick he playeth vs (saith Persons) abu∣sing a place of Doctor Boucher the French man,* 3.1 de Justa abdicatione &c. therby to make all Catholicks Odious, as allowing his doctrin. He cites Bouchers words thus. Tyran∣num occidere honestum est, quod cuivis impune facere permittitur, quod ex communi consensu dico. And then he Englisheth the same thus; any man may lawfully murther a Tyrant, which I defend by common consent. But he that shall read the place in the Au∣thor himself, shall find that he holdeth the very contrary, to wit, that a privat man may not kill a Tyrant that is not first Iudged and declared to be a publick enemy by the Common∣wealth.

And he proveth the same at large out of Scripture, and by the Decree of the Councell of Constance. But the words which I say by common consent, are added by Morton, and not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 be found in the Author. Morton excuseth his fraud and folly by saying the like are in other Chapters as Mirum esse in affir∣••••••••do consensum, which words are of other matters, and spo∣ken vpon other occasions, and not annexed to the former sen∣tence of Doctor Boucher.

B••· Morton's Falsification of Catholicks against the Soveraignty of Princes; and how he excuseth himself with saying he received it from the Arch-bishop of Canterbury.

BIshop Morton in his Book of Discovery pag. 8. set down this fals proposition; That all Catholick Priests did profess a prerogative of the people over Princes; for proof therof he citeth this position of Mr. Reynolds in the place aforesayd,* 3.2 Rex humana creatura est, qaia ab hominibus constituta: and englis∣heth it in this manner, A King is but a creature of man's crea∣tion, where you see first, that in the Translation he addeth, but, and man's creation of himself, for that the latin hath no such adversative clause as but, nor creation, but rather the word c••••stitution. Secondly, these words are not the words of Mr. Reynolds, but only cited by him out of S. Peter. And thirdly they are alledged here by Morton to a quite contrary sense from the whole drift, discourse, and meaning of the Author, which was to extoll and magnifie the authority of Princes, as descen∣ding from God, and not to debase the same. For proof here∣of whosoever will look vpon the book, and place it self before mentioned, shall find that Mr. Reynolds purpose therin is, to prove that albeit earthly principality be called by the Apostle humana Creaturae, yet that it is originally from God, and by his commandement to be obeyed.

Morton's Answer.

* 3.3THis allegation is of all which yet J have found most obnoxious, and liable vnto taxation; which (God knoweth that J lye not) J received from suggestion, as the Author therof R. C. can 〈◊〉〈◊〉. For 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that time I had not that Ros••••ns, alias Reynolds; neither by that present importunity of occasions could J seek after him, which I confess, is greatly exorbitant, for I recei∣ved it as a testimony debasing the authority of Kings: so 〈◊〉〈◊〉

When J was advertised (saith Persons) that R. C. did signify Ric. Cant. J was driven into a far greater mervaile, how Mr. Morton could be permitted to publish such a maner (the thing having to pass the view of R. C. his officers) and how he could presume to have more care of his own credit,* 3.4 then of the others that is head and Cheiftain.

But though the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury did suggest this calumny to Morton, it's probable he did not English 〈◊〉〈◊〉 for him, but left that labour to himself. The truth is, the Arch-Bishop, and Morton, and all the Protestant Clergy were resolved to make Catholicks and their Religion odious by any means whatsoever; and finding they could not do it with truth, it was judged convenient for preserving aboue two Mil∣lions Sterl. per an. for themselves and their Children, to ef∣fect it by falshood.

And to the same intent and purpose did their whole pre∣latik Synod held at London 1603. (Can. 30.) contrive and con∣spire in a notable cosenage, trumpery, and calumny against the Roman Catholik doctrin; when giving the reason (to sa∣tisfie puritans) why they retain the vse of the sign of the Cross in Baptism? they sayd they do it, because the same hath bi•• ever accompanied (among the prelatick Protestants) with suf∣ficient cautions and exceptions against all popish error and super∣stition; and forsooth, that the world may vnderstand from what Popish error they have freed the same, they signify, that

the Church of England since the abolishing of popery, have ever held and taught, that the sign of the Cross vsed in baptism, is no part of the substance of that Sacrament, and that the Infant baptised is by virtue of baptism (before it 〈◊〉〈◊〉 signed with the sign of the Cross) received into the Congr••gation of Christ's Flock, as a perfect member therof, and not by any power ascribed to the sign of the Cross &c. ••••erupon they conclude, that the vse of the sign of the Cross in Baptism, being thus purged from all popish superstition, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and reduced in the Church of England to the primary 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of it &c. is to be reverently retained and vsed.

Thus teach 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in their foresaid Synod. And yet it can not be shewed 〈◊〉〈◊〉 as in one particular Roman Catholick Doctor or 〈◊〉〈◊〉, that the sign of the Cross is an essential or substan∣•••••••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Baptism. Witnes K. James,* 3.5 (nay the Bishops th••••selves that make this their imposture the ground of a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of their Church) who in the Conference of Hampton 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sayd, that he vnderstood by the Bishops, yea and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it himself to be true, that the papists themselves did never 〈◊〉〈◊〉 any 〈◊〉〈◊〉 or spiritual grace to the sign of the Cross in Bap∣tism▪ Is it possible that lay people can be so ignorantly de∣••••t, and dull, as to let a Clergy enjoy millions of reve∣•••••• ••pon such notoriously fals, and forged evidences?

The protestant Falsification to persuade that the Ca∣non law doth warrant deposition of Kings by the Pope.

MAster Morton in his discovery pag. 34. hath these words.* 3.6 Except (saith the Romish pretence) there were a way of deposing Apostata Princes, God had not provided sufficiently for his Church. And for this he citeth the Con∣stitution extravagant of Pope Bonifacius, and saith, this objection is

in your extravagants, and so it may be called, because it rangeth extra, that is without the bounds of God's ordinance. &c.

Heere first this sentence is not in the Popes extravagant at all, but only in a certain addition to the ordinary Gloss, or Commentary of Iohn Picard; which addition was made by Petrus Bertrandus a late writer. Secondly, this Commen∣tary sayes nothing of deposing Apostata princes, but only affir∣ming the foresaid opinion of Canonists to be true, that Christ was Lord absolutely in his life over all, not only in spiritual authority, but in temporal also, he inferreth therby, Christ should not have sufficiently provided for the Government of his Church and Kingdom vpon earth, nisi vnicum post se tal•••• Vicarium reliquisset, qui haec omnia posset, except he had left some such one Vicar after him as should be able to perform al these things, according as necessity shall require; which later clause Mr. Morton cut of, as he added the other abou••▪ Apostata Princes.

Bishop Morton in his preamble pag. 110. doth answer thus.

For citing the extravagant of the Pope, an ingenious reader would have vnderstood a figure called Synecdoche, where the part is put for the whole, as when we say, this man shall not come vnder my roof, meaning by roof which is but a part of my house, the whole house it self: so here by extravagants might have bin meant the whole body of their Constitutions, which contain both extravagants and Glos∣ses. &c.

This is the first part of his answer, that we must vnderstand him by a figure, pars pro toto, as if a man should say in di∣vinity, the Scripture hath this or that, because Tyndales Glos∣ses, or some Commentaries, or annotations vpon it have. But indeed here is no Synecdoche, but only the figure of plain lying; for, neither are the extravagant Constitutions of Popes, parts of the Glosses, nor are the Glosses parts of the Constitu∣tions; and much less may additions, or annotations be ac∣compted any part at all of the same.

The second part of his answer is no less fraudulent.* 3.7 Pope Gregory 13. (saith Morton) hath ratified the foresaid Glosses and annotations, with priviledge, and authority equivalent and answerable to the authority of the Decretals and extravagants themselves; wherof he inferreth, that whether a man do cite ••••cretals, Extravagants, Glosses, and annotations, all is one, for that all have equivalent authority.

Pope Gregory 13. being demanded licence to print the Canon law a new; prefixed an epistle before the decretals of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 with this title, ad futuram rei memoriam, wherin he 〈◊〉〈◊〉 licence to Paulus Constabilis to review the same, and to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 printer to print it exactly according to the Roman exem∣••••••, saying among other things, therupon. Vt hoc Iuris Ca∣••••••ci corpus fideliter & incorrupté juxta exemplar Romae impres∣•••••• ••mprun•• possit: That the Canon law may be faithfully 〈◊〉〈◊〉 without corruption printed, according to the Copy set 〈◊〉〈◊〉 at Rome. So that Mr. Morton will needs have this 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of printing, an equalling the credit and authority of all 〈◊〉〈◊〉 things printed. As for his adding the words Apostata princes, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••yes, though they be not in the text of the Glosses, yet 〈◊〉〈◊〉 matter handled in that Gloss may be extended to them.

Protestant Falsification, to persuade that Catho∣liks may cheat any excommunicated persons of their lawfull debts.

WIll you heare a case or two more (saith Parsons) out of the Canon law, how dexterous Sir Thoma•• is in corrupting that which he loveth not. You 〈◊〉〈◊〉 read in the fourth page of his pamphlet or preamble an an∣cient decree (for so he calleth it) alledged by him out of Gratian in the Gloss, determining that though a man hath sworn to pay money to one that is excommunicated, yet is he not bound to pay the same, and he citeth the latin text

thus: Si juravi me soluturum alicui pecuniam, qui excommunio••∣tur, non teneor ei solvere. If I have sworn to pay money to any man that is excommunicated, I am not bound to pay it: ad∣ding this reason, quia qualitercunque poss••mus, debemus ••exare malo••▪ vt cess••nt a m••••o, because we ought to vex evil men by what means soever we may, to the end they may cease from doing evil.

The truth of this matter is, that these words be not found in any text of law, or decision of any pope, or Coun∣cell; but words of the Gloss that contein only a certain ob∣jection vpon a Clause of a Canon, concerning promise to be observed to one that is excommunicated, after the promise was made, and the objection 〈◊〉〈◊〉 doubt is made in these word•• by the Author of the Gloss or Commentary 〈…〉〈…〉 quid 〈◊〉〈◊〉 si juravi &c. But what will you say if J have 〈…〉〈…〉 to any person, or have promised the same vnder 〈…〉〈…〉, and in the mean space be to whom I made the 〈…〉〈…〉 excom∣municated, am I bound to pay the same or not 〈…〉〈…〉 que∣stion, and then he argueth on both sides, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 for the ne∣gative, videtur quod non, it seems J am not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Canon law saith (causa 25. q. 6.) that we ought 〈…〉〈…〉 wicked men &c. But afterwards coming to give his 〈…〉〈…〉 solution, he saith thus, veriu•• credo quod licet ille non habeat 〈◊〉〈◊〉 petendi, tamen debet ei solui. I do believe the truer opinion to be, that al∣beit be, that is so excommunicated, have no right to demand his money, yet is the other bound to pay him; so that Morton▪ imposeth vpon his 〈◊〉〈◊〉, the objection for the resolution, cutting of deceitfully the first words, sed quid dici••, si jura•••• &c. and alledging the reason of the objection quia qualitercunque possu∣mus &c. for the reason of the solution. Morton answereth, the truth is I took these allegations vpon credit &c. of one Stock a learned preacher (saith he) of London.* 3.8 And Stock beginneth his recognisance thus, I Richard Stock brought this allegation with some others, to the Author of the discovery &c. So like ho∣nest fellows they divide the same between them, Stock for his

fraudulent lending, and Morton for his beggarly borrowing, and without doubt improving of the fraud: it being incredible 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Stock would deliver it as Morton sets is down.

Bp▪ Morton's Falsification, to persuade that Catho∣tholiks hold it lawfull to murther and massacre Protestants.

IN the 6. page of Morton's discovery, he hath this grievous 〈…〉〈…〉 out of the Canon law against Catholiks. 〈◊〉〈◊〉, felij vel consanguinei non dicuntur, sed juxta legem, sit 〈◊〉〈◊〉 super 〈◊〉〈◊〉, vt fundas sanguinem ipsorum. And then he 〈◊〉〈◊〉 thus, Apud Grat. Gloss. in decret. lib. 5. ex decret. Greg. 9. 〈…〉〈…〉. cap. legi. Which words he englisheth thus, 〈…〉〈…〉 termed either Children, or kindred, but according 〈…〉〈…〉, thy hand must be against them to spill their blood. 〈…〉〈…〉 in the Margent he setteth down this special prin∣•••••• note, The professed bloody Massacre against the Protestants with∣•••••• distinction of sex or Kindred.

First of all is to be considered that this Gloss or 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Canon law, which here is both vntruly cited, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 malitiously applied, is vpon a Canon begining, si quis Epis∣copus; which Canon is taken out of the third Councell of Car∣th••ge, wherin the famous Doctor St. Austin was present, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 device of the Canon is, that if any Bishop should institute hereticks or pagans for his heires, whether they were Kinsmen or 〈◊〉〈◊〉; ei Anathema dicatur, let him be accursed &c. now the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 yeilding a reason of this severity, saith, Quia isti haere∣t•••• ••am non dicuntur filij vel consanguinei, vnde dicitur in lege, si 〈◊〉〈◊〉 tuus, & amicus tuus, & vxor tua depravare voluerit ve∣ritatem, sit manus tua super illos; For that these hereticks are not n••w called Children or Kinsfolks, therfore as such they cannot be made Inheritors by eccles••astical men. Wherupon it is sayd in the law (of Deuteronomy) if thy Brother, or friend, or wife will go about

to deprave the truth, let thy hand be vpon them. And presently he citeth to the same effect the authority of St. Hie∣rom in an other Canon and volume of the law, where the holy Doctor excusing to his friend Riparius a Priest, his earnest de∣sire and zeal to have Vigilantius▪ the heretik punished by his Bishops, alledgeth divers examples of severity in like cases out of the Scriptures, as of Phinees, Elias▪ Symon Chananaeus; St. Pe∣ter, St. Paul, and lastly citeth also the aforesaid words of God's ordinance in Deuteronomy, If thy Brother, thy friend, thy wife, &c. shall go about to pervert thee from God's true worship &c. heare him not, nor conceal him, but bring him 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Judgme•••• and let thy hand be vpon him first, and then after the hand of all the people &c. which is to be vnderstood accordi•••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the form of Law appointed afterwards in the 17. Chap••••••, that he be orderly brought forth to Iudgment, and 〈…〉〈…〉 sen∣tence is past against him, he which heard or 〈…〉〈…〉 com∣mit the sin, and is a witness against him, must 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the first stone at him, and the rest must follow. And this also doth the ordinary Gloss of Lyranus, and others vpon those texts of Scripture declare.

And now let the Judicious Reade•• consi•••••• how many corruptions this Protestant Bishop hath vsed to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 forth to his purpose this one litle distracted Text for proof of profes∣sed bloody massacres, in ended by Catholicks against Prote∣stants. For first, he corrupteth the words of the Gloss, lea∣ving out the beginning Quia isti Haeretici, which 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to the vnderstanding of the Author's meaning; as also he lest out the reaso•• ••••ledged by the Gloss out of God's own words in Deuteronomy, to wit the wilfull corruption of his truth. Then he corrupteth the meaning both of the Gloss and Canon, de∣praving that to a wicked sense of bloody massacring without di∣stinction of sex or Kindred, which the Canon and Councell of Carthage with St. Austin, meant only of civil punishment against heretiks, to wit, that they should not be made heires to Ec∣clesiastical men. He perverteth in like manner St. Hieriom's

intent, which was that heretiks and namely Vigilantius, for denying the lawfulness of praying to Saints, worshipping th••ir Reliques &c.) should be punished but by order and form of Law and not that any one shall Kill an other, and much less by bloody mas∣sacres. Lastly he presumeth to re••ort the very words of God himself in the Law, by translating fundas sanguinem ipsorum, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 their blood, in steed of shed their blood, for that to spill 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is always in Scripture taken in the worst sense, for mur∣th••••••ng or killing vnjustly.

The good Bishop remits vs for an answer to the allega∣•••••••• of this place of Gratian, to his friend Stock once more. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Stock doth not take vpon him to justifie any thing therin 〈◊〉〈◊〉 then the citation to be true, which notwithstanding is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 as every one may see in the Text. Morton in his pre∣amble denyeth the foresaid Canon to have bin decreed in the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Councel of Carthage. therfore (saith he) must his 〈◊〉〈◊〉 own terms of falshood, fraud, treachery, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vpon himself. But let any one peruse the said Councell, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 he will find decreed in the 13. Canon. Vt Episcopi vel Cle∣ric•• &c. That neither Bishops nor Clergy men shall bestow any of their goods vpon any that be not Catholikly Christians, though they be their Kinsfolks. And the Councell of Hippo where St. Austin was Bishop, which Councell professeth to m••ke Abbreviationes Concilij Carthaginensis tertii, an abridgment of the third Carthage Councell, hath this Canon, That Bishops and Clergy men shall bestow nothing of their goods vpon any but such as are Catholiks.

Bp. Morton's Falsification to assert the King's supremacy.

POpe Leo writing to a true Catholik Emperor (saith Morton) hath these words. You may not be ignorant that your princely power is given vnto you, not only

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

extinguished: The oblation of Sacrifice (the Mass) is in∣termitted, the hollowing of Chrysm is ceased, and all 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Mysteries of our Religion have withdrawn themselves from the parricidial hands of those heretiks that have mur∣••hered their own Father•• and Patriarch Proterius, burned his 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and cast the ashes into the ayre.

This then was the cause and occasion wherin the holy 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Leo did implore the help and secular arm of Leo the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, for chastising these turbulent heretiks, for the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Church. And is this all that is exacted of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by the Supremacy? Is this the substance of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉? we know the English Prelatik Clergy are now asha∣•••••• to acknowledg that their own spiritual caracter and juris∣••••••tion is d••••ived from Queen Elizabeth's shee supremacy; but 〈…〉〈…〉 they did own (8. Eliz.) what now they 〈◊〉〈◊〉 every man may see how vngratfully and confidently 〈◊〉〈◊〉 contradict what is extant in the Act of Parliament 8. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and in their Episcopal Oath of homage, wherin it is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that all spiritual Jurisdiction, supreme power, order, 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and authority, over all the state Ecclesiastical of their 〈…〉〈…〉, is in the Kings of England: and that in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the prerogative they may by their Letters patents 〈◊〉〈◊〉 only authorise Arch-Bishops, and Bishops to consecrat 〈…〉〈…〉 Caracter, but that they may authorise any 〈…〉〈…〉 not Bishops to consecrat and make any men 〈…〉〈…〉 Arch-Bishops, as appeareth by the words of the 〈…〉〈…〉 and herevpon all ambiguities of Arch-Bishop Parker▪ 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Cammerades consecrations, were answered▪ and they 〈◊〉〈◊〉 declared to be Bishops, because the Queen had in her let∣•••••••• patents dispensed with all causes of doubts, imperfection, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 disability that might in any wise be objected against the same, and with the very state and condition of the Consecra∣tor••▪ who indeed were no bishops as hath bin proved.* 3.9

It being then manifest that none can give what himself hath not, if the Kings of England can give to a lay man or to

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

〈◊〉〈◊〉 falsifications set down together by Bp. Morton to prove that we hold Popes can not be deposed nor be Hereticks.

THe Authors of the doctrin of deposing Kings in case of heresy (saith Morton) do profess concerning Popes,* 3.10 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that they cannot possibly be heretiks, as Popes, and consequently can not be deposed:* 3.11 not saith Bellarmin by any 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ecclesiastical or temporal, no not by all Bishops assem∣•••••••• in a Councell: not saith Carerius, though he should 〈◊〉〈◊〉 any thing prejudicial to the vniversal state of the Church; 〈◊〉〈◊〉, saith Azorius, though he should neglect the Canons ••cclesiastical, or pervert the lawes of Kings: not, saith 〈…〉〈…〉, though he should carry infinit multitude of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 with him to hell. And these forenamed Authors do 〈…〉〈…〉 for confirmation of this doctrin, the vniversal 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Romish ••••••ines and Canonists, for the space of 〈…〉〈…〉 years.

〈◊〉〈◊〉 these 〈◊〉〈◊〉 are as many notorious and shamless lyes, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 be 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and Authors named by Morton. For first, 〈…〉〈…〉 which he mentioneth there in the Text, to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Bellarmi••••, 〈◊〉〈◊〉, Azor, and Gratian,* 3.12 do expressly 〈…〉〈…〉 hold the contrary to that he affirmeth out 〈…〉〈…〉 that they teach and prove by many arguments, 〈…〉〈…〉 may fall into heresies, and for the same be 〈…〉〈…〉 the Church, or rather are ipso facto dep••sed, and 〈…〉〈…〉 to declared by the Church. But yet not content with 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Morton citeth other foure or five Authors in the Margent, 〈◊〉〈◊〉, Valentia, Salmeron, Canus, Stapleton, and Costerius; all 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in the very place by him cited▪ are expressly against 〈◊〉〈◊〉 And is not this strange dealing? Js it not a strange Re∣ligion that must be supported by falshood? Are not they strange men, that give a Million Sterl. per an. to a Clergy for thus de∣ceiving and deluding their Flocks, and damning their soules

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

〈◊〉〈◊〉 opinions, or against the practise of the Church even 〈◊〉〈◊〉 general Councells, accepted and connived at by the tempo∣•••••• Soveraigns themselves the effects of such opinions may be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 securely suppressed by s••lencing the Doctors▪ then by 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the doctrin.

〈◊〉〈◊〉 popular and plausible ••n opinion it is, that God 〈…〉〈…〉 his Church and people, to defend themselves, 〈…〉〈…〉 their litle Children from being erroneously 〈…〉〈…〉 the force and violence of an heathen or hereticall 〈…〉〈…〉 may be seen in the Author▪ that treat of this 〈…〉〈…〉 that if it be not lawfull to oppose the change 〈…〉〈…〉 without 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the sin and scandal of 〈…〉〈…〉 would have 〈…〉〈…〉 greater regard to the 〈…〉〈…〉 one▪ or few Princes▪ then to the eternal salva∣•••••••• 〈…〉〈…〉 souls; And though it were granted 〈…〉〈…〉 were come 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of discretion, did run 〈…〉〈…〉 the rigor of persecutions, 〈…〉〈…〉 any other Religion 〈…〉〈…〉 heresy 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Prince doth introduce 〈…〉〈…〉 their succee••••ng posterity) must perish 〈…〉〈…〉 not appearing in their defence, 〈…〉〈…〉 change of true Religion.

〈…〉〈…〉 innocent posterity from 〈…〉〈…〉 answers (in his Treatise of 〈…〉〈…〉 vnder colo•••• of Religion ••dit. 〈…〉〈…〉 nothing so likly to entail true 〈…〉〈…〉 posterity, as their Ancestors 〈…〉〈…〉 their sufferings, wh•••• they shall heare, and be assured 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Testimony, th•••• their fore••fathers thus hoped in God, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 choose to dye, or suffer, rather then to rebell 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the King. Besides (saith 〈◊〉〈◊〉) the gratest preju∣•••••••• which that posterity can suffer by their Ancestors non ••••••••••tance, is 〈…〉〈…〉 be brought vp in a contrary Religion, to heare that 〈…〉〈…〉, but sure not to have their eares deaf∣•••• against all 〈◊〉〈◊〉, when they shall be represented. He

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

〈…〉〈…〉 they, whose predecessors were most zealous 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and suffered for their faith. The first Earle of South-〈◊〉〈◊〉 suffered much for opposing Seamor, when he, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 planted Protestancy in England. And yet we see 〈…〉〈…〉 influence this hath vpon his posterity; and this is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of most of the Nobility, and even of the Royal 〈◊〉〈◊〉.

〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Doctor saith, Posterity have not their eares 〈…〉〈…〉 other Religions when they shall be represented. 〈…〉〈…〉 and England they have. It's treason by the law 〈◊〉〈◊〉 with any of our King's Subjects concerning the truth 〈…〉〈…〉 Roman Catholiks Religion: and we know what other 〈…〉〈…〉 taken not only to deaf, but to blind them from 〈…〉〈…〉 the evidences produced against the falshood of 〈…〉〈…〉 with Protestants may consider such as we present 〈…〉〈…〉 book. Doctor Hammond could not be 〈…〉〈…〉 much himself contributed to make his Countrey-〈…〉〈…〉 and blind in Religion, especialy after that Mr. 〈…〉〈…〉 exposed his mistakes, or wilfull falsifications, to the 〈…〉〈…〉. But 〈◊〉〈◊〉 return to the question.

〈…〉〈…〉 granted and maintained by Protestant Authors 〈…〉〈…〉 Soveraign, or bloudy Tyrant (whose 〈…〉〈…〉 and practises reach no further then the body) 〈…〉〈…〉 resisted, and deposed, they will find 〈…〉〈…〉 to give a reason why the soul may not claim 〈…〉〈…〉; vnless they believe that the soul is 〈…〉〈…〉 that there is no such thing as Eternity.

Besides; such Catholiks as maintain that the Pope in case 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and persecution, may depose Kings, or at least 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that ipso facto they are deposed by God (who gives 〈◊〉〈◊〉 their power and Iurisdiction not to destroy▪ but to edify) 〈◊〉〈◊〉 them to flatter the Pope therby, for that they make 〈…〉〈…〉 himself more subject to deposition, then Kings; be∣cause the Pope must be deposed for any heretical opinion he 〈◊〉〈◊〉; Kings (say they) can not, vnless they force their sub∣jects

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

〈◊〉〈◊〉 considerable parts and Princes of Christendom; that our ••••••••rnment and people seem to apprehend their own 〈◊〉〈◊〉 against vs Catholiks doth make vs the object of a 〈…〉〈…〉, and doth gain for themselves nothing but a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 enmity of such powerfull Monarchs as have any sense, 〈…〉〈…〉 the Roman Religion.

••••condly, Though a King should persecute Catholiks, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and sanguinary laws compell his Subjects to profess 〈◊〉〈◊〉, if this persecution be pleasing to the generality of his 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Pope's Censures and sentences can not be of much 〈◊〉〈◊〉 prejudice, or deprive him of his dominions; and as 〈…〉〈…〉 Apostolik's temporal power, it neither is so 〈…〉〈…〉 it self, nor so applicable to these our remote 〈…〉〈…〉 to deserve to be made the object of our Protestant 〈…〉〈…〉, or fe••rs; we see how litle Q. Elizabeth valued 〈…〉〈…〉; because she had the affection of her 〈…〉〈…〉 we search into history, we shall find that the 〈…〉〈…〉 Rome his censures never prejudiced any Soveraign 〈…〉〈…〉 not first lost the hearts of his own people. The Pope 〈…〉〈…〉 aw (by his sentences and excommunica∣•••••••• 〈…〉〈…〉 of the Italian Princes, and Common-wealths; 〈…〉〈…〉 have demonstrated how vneffectual his 〈…〉〈…〉, even against those petty Princes, and 〈…〉〈…〉; what need therfore powerful and 〈…〉〈…〉 Princes and nations fear a Iurisdiction they 〈…〉〈…〉, seing▪ the so much talked of papal 〈…〉〈…〉 so litle prevail against Catholiks that own it? 〈◊〉〈◊〉 other reason why the Popes spiritual supremacy is not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 dangerous, is, because they who acknowldge the power, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 themselves the liberty of judging of the lawfulness of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••pplication, and to know whether it be justly exercised by 〈…〉〈…〉; whose censures and sentences are limited to so 〈◊〉〈◊〉 causes, and conditions known to every Catholik Lawyer 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Divin, that they can hardly disturbe a state, if any of the previous admonitions and requisit formalities be omitted;

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

were acknowledged) would employ it now as willin∣•••••• to the advantage of the english Monarchy, as his 〈◊〉〈◊〉 did in the reign of Q. Mary, by condescending that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Church revenues may be spent in more pious and publik 〈◊〉〈◊〉 then they are at present.

Notwithstanding the visible advantages which 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vnto all Catholik Soveraigns by admitting the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Pope's spiritual Iurisdiction in their Kingdoms and ••••minions, and the litle or no danger which therby can come 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••••otestant Princes; yet because Q. Elizabeth was proceeded 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by the Sea of Rome (whose case was very different from 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Stewards, vndoubted heires of the Crown) no 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of England (saith the Protestant Clergy) must trust 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Roman Catholicks; so many and so malignant are 〈◊〉〈◊〉 suggestions and suspitions which these Ministers endeavor 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in privy Councellors, and the members of Parliaments 〈◊〉〈◊〉, (and all this to reape the benefit of the Church lands 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••••••••selves) that a fancyed possibility (without any 〈◊〉〈◊〉) of disturbing the peace and Government, is preached 〈◊〉〈◊〉 printed by these Sir Polls, to be a sufficient reason of state 〈…〉〈…〉 Roman Catholiks vncapable of serving the state; 〈◊〉〈◊〉 which is wors, they have lately endeavored (by their 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in Court, Countrey, and Parliament▪) to question the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 prerogative, and his Councell's prudence for publishing 〈…〉〈…〉 (which he had promised at Breda) in favor of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 conferences: so conscious they are of their own guilt, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 they doubt not but the least countenance shewed to 〈◊〉〈◊〉, will discover the frauds wherby themselves deprive 〈◊〉〈◊〉 estate of so vast a revenue. And because the chief Ministers 〈◊〉〈◊〉 state are (out of their piety, or policy) inclined to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 moderation towards tender consciences, and the Protestant 〈◊〉〈◊〉 dare not oppose it directly, they cease not (by means of some false Brethren, and debaucht Friars) to render all good intentions for our relief vneffectual, by inculcating the necessity of a publik instrument, not much differing from the

Oath of alleagiance which they framed in King James his reign, that insteed of acknowledging the Kings temporal Soveraignty▪ gives him an vnheard of jurisdiction over souls; or at least, (by reason of the ambiguous and offensive wording therof) doth engage even Catholiks as will take it▪ in an endless quar∣rell with their spiritual Superiors, without rendring therby any service to their temporal Soveraign, but rather making them∣selves vnfit to appeare for his, or their own right in Ecclesia∣sticall Catholik Courts.

Therfore as well to satisfie the State concerning our alle∣giance and fidelity to our King, as to avoyd the obloquys▪ and artifices of the Protestant Clergy, we humbly offer to his Majesty and his Ministers 〈◊〉〈◊〉, that we shall swear or sign any instrument or engagement 〈◊〉〈◊〉 fidelity to him, which Catholik Subjects sweare or sign to their Catholik soveraigns. To exact more strict obedience from so inconsiderable a party as we are vnder a Protestant Prince, against the Bishop of Rome's pretention, then any Catholiks of the world think fit either in conscience or pruden•••••• to give to their own 〈◊〉〈◊〉, seems not necessary, and would savor more 〈◊〉〈◊〉 presumption in vs against the Church of Rome, then of affection to the Crown of England.

3. They who teach that Kings 〈…〉〈…〉 d••posed for he∣resy, maintain they may be also d••posed 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Tyranny; and notwithstanding that 〈…〉〈…〉 their Soveraigns taxes, Tyranny, then their opinion••▪ 〈◊〉〈◊〉; yet because Popes seldom countenance Subject•• complaints and pro∣ceedings against their Princes pretended Tyranny, none fears to be deposed as Tyrants. How litle Popes have intermedled with Protestant Princes (if not persecutors) is visible to the whole world; If therfore Catholik Kings apprehended no dan∣ger or prejudice from the Bishop of Rome his censures against Tyranny (because they are so sparing of them) notwithstan∣ding the inclination of their Subjects to solicit and obey such Censures, I see no cause protestants Kings have to fear Cen∣s••••••s

for heresy, wherof the Sea Apostolik is no less sparing. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 he answered that Catholik princes (by the principles of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Religion, or at least by reason of the probability and p••••sibility of the opinions against heresy and Tyranny) must 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the hazard of being thaught deposable in those cases: we 〈◊〉〈◊〉 protestants to consider, whether it be reasonable in them 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of us poore English, or Irish Subjects, a Declaration 〈◊〉〈◊〉 those opinions which the most powerfull Catholik 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Christendom dare not contradict (for fear either of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Christianity, or of vndergoing the censures of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Consistory) notwithstanding their temporal concern 〈◊〉〈◊〉 countenance a persuasion that seems to check their regal 〈◊〉〈◊〉?

Never any King had, or can have, more reason to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Bellarmin's opinion, or other such like, then the French 〈◊〉〈◊〉 since the loss of Navarr, and the Troubles of the 〈…〉〈…〉 yet whensoever the Parliament of Paris, and the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Sorbon censured the same opinions, the King and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of France were so far from giving them thanks, that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 disowned and declared voyd their Censures, condemning 〈◊〉〈◊〉 for intermedling in the matter, and vnder pain of his 〈◊〉〈◊〉 indignation, and of being held for seditious, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the publik repose, commanded them and all 〈◊〉〈◊〉, not to move or dispute any questions of that nature, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the right either of Popes, or of temporal Soveraigns,* 3.13 〈◊〉〈◊〉 be seen at large in Monsieur Bouchet, a French Author, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Richerist, and therfore not to be suspected of favoring 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Sea of Rome. And as for the Church of France, it is so 〈◊〉〈◊〉 from such disputes as every one may Judg by Cardinal 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Oration in name of the whole Clergy to the states of th•••• Kingdom. Two years ago Monsieur Talon (the Kings Att••rney) objected to some Doctors of Sorbon, that their Faculty held the doctrin of the deposition of Kings; but they declared that though some particular members of the Vniver∣sity had long since taught the doctrin, yet the Faculty never

resolved the question. True it is that the Kings of France per∣mit not their Subjects now to preach or publish any such do∣ctrin, and Iudg that prohibition to be a sufficient security a∣gainst it; and I see no reason why protestant Kings should not think the same a sufficient security for themselves: and questi∣onless they would, did not over-offi••ious persons misinform the Ministers of state, by imposing vpon them that the Church of France doth practise such Oaths, engagements, or Rem••••∣strances as the Parliament of Paris (a secular Court) would fain have pressed vpon the French Clergy king since, and the Jansenists lately; but now dare not mention any such thing▪ the Pope having lately censured their presumption of inter∣medling with matters aboue their jurisdiction; and the King not giving them thanks for their officiousness.

Protestants can not cleere their Religion from the doctrin, and danger of deposing Soveraigns, and disposing of their Kingdoms.

NOw that we have cleered (〈…〉〈…〉 Roman Catholik Religion from the aspersions of our 〈…〉〈…〉, and shew∣ed how 〈◊〉〈◊〉 dangerous the Pope's spi••••••ual supremacy can be to the temporal Soveraignty, even of protestant Princes I would willingly vnderstand how the protestant and prelatik Clergy, can vindicat their own principles 〈…〉〈…〉 from deposing of as many Monarch•• and Magistrat•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 did not conform to their Reformations whersoever they p••••vailed? Let them name but one protestant Kingdom, Principality, Commonwealth or Citty, wherin protestancy hath not bin promoted by rebel∣lion, and exclusion of the lawfull Soveraign or Magistrat? let them read the Histories of Germany, Geneva, France, England, Holland, Suethland, Suitzerland, Vallies of Sa••••y, Scotland, &c.

〈◊〉〈◊〉 they will find that as we do not exaggegrat, so they can 〈◊〉〈◊〉 excuse the crime, or except any of this number from no∣torious guilt therof. So vniversal a conspiracy against lawfull S••••eraigns in nations so distant and different, agreeing almost 〈◊〉〈◊〉 nothing but in the fundamental grounds of protestancy, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 particularly in their maxim of the lawfulness to rayse 〈◊〉〈◊〉 settle the reformation vpon the ruins of all superiority, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 spiritual and temporal that will not submit to the arbi∣•••••••••• interpretation of Scripture of every Protestant prevailing 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ must needs be a convincing proof, that nothing can 〈◊〉〈◊〉 allyed to rebellion then the Protestant Religion; which 〈◊〉〈◊〉 content to depose only Catholik Kings for Popery, doth 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the same authority against their own protestant Kings 〈…〉〈…〉 they conform not even their reformed Tenets to the 〈…〉〈…〉 fancies of an illiterat giddy multitude.

And even the Cavaleers (the wisest and most faithfull 〈◊〉〈◊〉) have given sufficient ground for men to suspect, 〈…〉〈…〉 think it no discredit to their prelatick Religion, nor 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to themselves, to trouble and question their Kings 〈◊〉〈◊〉 he and his privy Councell should think fit to vse a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 moderation towards Papists; their late speeches in the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Commons against his Majesties Declaration is too cleer 〈…〉〈…〉 for this censure. Let themselves now be Judges, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Roman Catholik Religion, notwithstanding its 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ of the Popes spiritual supremacy, be not more 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••o Kings, then the best Protestant Reformations, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Papal spiritual Iurisdiction over souls be not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 with a temporal Soveraignty in Kings over their 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ They will find this difference between both Religions, that the Roman Catholik admits of and submits to Soveraignty however so addicted the Soveraigns are to Protestancy, even the most precise Papists allow not of resistance against the royal authority in any case, but only in that of forcing conscience by persecution: but both Presbyterian and Prelatik Protestants think it lawfull to depose their Soveraigns if the Soveraigns

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

SECT. X. That Protestants could never prove any of the wil∣full falsifications wherwith they charge Roman Catholik writers; but themselves are convicted of that Crime whersoever they attempted to make good their charge against vs.

SOME Protestants (either out of ignorance or malice) confound our Index expurga∣torius with wilfull falsifications of ancient Fathers, ād modern Authors; wheras the sayd Index is a professed correcting (not of the Fathers, but) of modern Authors opinions, and Comments; no concealed corrupting of their writings. It doth not change any thing in ancient Fathers works, though Protestants themselves confess 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of them have ambiguous and erroneous sentences, but such are either sufficiently explained, or corrected by themselves in other ••••••ces, or condemned by the ancient Church, and the gene∣•••••• concurrence and consent of the other Fathers teaching and ••••••••ifying the contrary to be Catholick doctrin. So that we 〈◊〉〈◊〉 excuse our Adversaries either ignorance or impudence when they say we make the Fathers speake what is most plea∣sing to vs, by our Index Expurgatorius.* 3.14 This you may see solidly proved against Bishop Taylors Calumnies, and falsifica∣tions in his Dissuasive: and the thing is evident by the Index it self, and the rules therof. Kemnitius and other Protestants object some few texts of Scripture in the vulgar latin which they pretend were changed by vs, and corrupted: But Cardi∣nal

Bellarmin answers to all the objections so well,* 3.15 that nothing can be replyed, and all the world must confess we Roman Catholiks translated not any thing in that version to favor our Religion against Protestants, seing our Latin Vulgata hath his vsed in the Church 1••. hundred years before their pretended reformation was heard of Iewell, Morton, and others object that Zozimus,* 3.16 Bonifacius, and Celestinus, (three Popes that lived in Saint 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••ime) and are much commended by him for holy men) forged, a Canon of the first Councell of Nice in favor of their own supremacy; but they are sufficient∣ly cleered from that aspersion by all Catholick Writers; who agree in this; that the heretiks did corrupt and Conceal some Canons of that Councell which are now wanting. But as for that of appeales to the Pope (which was the 〈…〉〈…〉) it is in the Canons of the Counc••ll 〈…〉〈…〉 wayes held (especialy in the west Church) for 〈…〉〈…〉 of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Councell, because the same 〈…〉〈…〉 both; And St. Austin himself did appeale to 〈…〉〈…〉 those three Popes (whom Protestants would 〈◊〉〈◊〉 make 〈◊〉〈◊〉) in the cause of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Bishop of 〈…〉〈…〉 in his own Epistle about that matter.

Bellarmin accused by Sutcliff of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the ge∣neral Councell of Calcedon 〈◊〉〈◊〉 favor of the Pope's s••••remacy) one of the foure first, and received in England by act of a Protestant Par∣liament.

MR. Sutcliff in his Challenge and defence of the same, chargeth Cardinal Bellarmin with many falsifications,* 3.17 which you may see re••orted vpon himself in Walsin∣gham's Search of Religion; I will relate but one which is the third in Sutcliff's order; In the same Book and Chapter (saith

Sutcliff) Bellarmin falsifyeth the acts of the Councell of Calcedon.* 3.18 And for proof of this falsification he sayes, wheras Bellarmin 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that the Councell acknowldedged and called Pope Leo 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Ecclesias, Head of the Church. Which name (saith Bellar∣••••••) the Councell of Calcedon (about 1200. years past) doth 〈◊〉〈◊〉 an epistle to Pope Leo, saying, quibus tu velut membris 〈◊〉〈◊〉 praeras, over whom you as head over the members do beare 〈◊〉〈◊〉 And in the first action of the Councell the Roman Church 〈◊〉〈◊〉, the Head of all Churches; Sutcliff letting pass this last, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vpon the words, quibus tu velut membris caput praeeras, saying, that, this is referred to certain Priests of Leo his order, in which Rank he shewed himself principal &c. so as he saith that these words of the Councell do acknowledge only that Leo 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of certain Priests, but not of the Bishops gathered 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in that Councell. But this is a foolish fancy and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 fraud of Sutcliff, as appeareth by the very letter and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Councell to Pope Leo, who after praysing God 〈◊〉〈◊〉 favor and providence in gathering together, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 themselves at Calcedon, preferring the notifying of their 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of faith, before their Countrey, and labour som Journey; add,* 3.19 over which Priests (or Bishops assembled in this Councell) you did preside as head over the members by those which 〈◊〉〈◊〉 your place, to wit, by his legats, of whom Leo sayd in his Epistle to the Councell, In these Brothers Paschasius and Lucen∣•••••• Bishops, Boniface, and Basilius Priests, who are directed by 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Apostolick Sea, your fraternity may think that I preside in the 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ And these legats, though two of them were but Priests, took place of all Bishops, and were acknowledged of so absolute authority, that they pronounced sentence against D••••scorus the Heretik thus in the Popes name:

The most holy Pope Leo head of the vniversal Church, by vs his Legats, the holy Synod consenting, being indued with the dignity of Peter the Apostle, who is called the Foundation of the Church, the Rock of faith, and Doorekeeper of the hea∣venly Kingdom, have deprived Dioscorus of Episcopal digni∣ty,

and all priestly function.

Now this Councell of Calcedon having bin received in England by act of Parliament (1. Eliz.) and never yet repealed, I see not how Priests can be legaly punished, or Catholiks persecuted for acknowledging the Po∣pe's spiritual Iurisdiction in these Kingdoms, and maintaining that he is head of the Catholik Church, St. Peter's Successor, and Christ's Vicar vpon earth; much less how could Doctor Sutcliff charge Bellarmin with falsifying the Councell that con∣••esseth the same doctrin in so cleer termes.

SVBSECT. I. How Protestants are convicted by Bellarmin of holding twenty ancient condemned heresies, and how Sutcliff, and Bishop Morton to cleere them of six only (fourteen it seems they c••••fess) do fal∣sify the Fathers, and Catholik Authors about the worshipping of Images.

CArdinal Bellarmin (lib. 4. de notis Ecclesi•• cap. 9.) pro∣ves that Protestants are heretiks, because they hold ma∣ny old heresies condemned as such by the ancient Ca∣tholik Church, wherof he sets down twenty. One is that of Xenaias a Persian, who (saith Bellarmin cit.) was the first that did openly affirm, the Images of Christ and his Saints ought not to be worshiped, as wittnesseth Nicephorus lib. 17. cap. 27. Do∣ctor Sutclif sayes that Nicephorus is falsifyed:* 3.20 which is most fals, for that Nicephorus writing many horrible things of this Xenaias; as that he faigned himself to be a Priest, yea and got a Bishoprik before he was baptised, amongst others saith. This

Xenaias did first of all others (O audacious soul and impudent tongue) belch out that voice, that the Images of Christ, and those that have bin acceptable vnto him, are not to be worshiped. And this he sayd so, is a truth so vndeniable and generaly recei∣ved, that even the Protestant Authors that write the Eccle∣siastical history, confess it, as Functius in his seaventh book of Commentaries vpon his Chronicle an. 494. saith. Porro is Xe∣naias primus in Ecclesia bellum contra Imagines indixit.

Two Pelagian heresies imputed to Protestants, and how they falsify to cleer themselves of the one, and say nothing of the other.

WHeras the Pelagians (saith Bellarmin,* 3.21 according to St. Austin and St. Hierom) taught two here∣sies among others, 1. That every sin though never so litle, is mortal. 2. That there is no original sin in man, especialy in Infants of Lawfull parents; The first, all ••rotestants teach; the last Zuinglius, Bucer, and Calvin; but with this difference, that Zuinglius doth absolutely deny original sin to be in any man; Bucer and Calvin do only deny the same in the Children of the Faithfull, whom they say to be born Saints and saved without Baptism.

Now Doctor Morton not being able to deny the first heresy to be common to Pelagians and protestants, would faine make Bel∣la•••••••• a falsifier in the second, setting down Bellarmin's words both in Latin and English corruptly, and contrary to his plain 〈◊〉〈◊〉 (as may be seen in Bellarmin's Text) thus,* 3.22 The Pe∣lag••••••s did teach that there was no original sin in men, and espe∣cialy in the Children of the faithfull, the same doth Bucer and Cal∣vin teach; as though he had sayd, that Calvin had denyed with the Pelagians that there is any original sin at all in men, much less in the Children of the faithfull: and had made no distin∣ction between Zuinglius and Calvins, and Bucers opinions. And

Morton by this fraud would make his Reader believe he had cleered Protestants from both the pelagian-heresies, wheras he cleeres them not from either. Hear Bellarmin's own words, which are: Pelagiani duo inter alia docebant. 1. non esse in homini∣bus peccatum originale & praecipuè in filijs fidelium &c.

Hoc docet Zuinglius, Bucerus, Calvinus, lib. 4. instit. c. 15. §. 20. Nisi quod Zuinglius negat simpliciter peccatum originale in quolibet homine &c. Bucerus autem & Calvinus, solum in filijt fidelium negant peccatum originale, quos dicunt Sanctos nasci; sal∣vari etiam sine Baptismo. Vide. Belar. de notis Ecclesia cap. 9. §. 14.

Two Novatian heresies imputed to Protestants, the one they answer with silence, the other with falsifying.

WHeras Cardinal Bellarmin to prove that Protestants do agree with the old Novatian 〈◊〉〈◊〉, alledgeth two particular instances, the one in denying the power of the Church to remit sins by priestly absolution, or the Sacrament of Pennance; the other in denying the vse of holy Chrism in the Sacrament of Confirmation:* 3.23 Bishop Morton having nothing to answer to the second, replyeth only to the first by an equivocation and falsification; for he endeavoreth to confound the Sacrament of pennance with privat repentance, or sorrow, sighs, tears &c. for sins; and makes beleive that Bellarmin contradicts himself when he grants that Protestants admit the later, though they reject•• the Sacrament of pennance▪ and to embroyle the Reader, and excuse the Novati••ns as if they held but one error, cuts short Belarmin's words, praecipuus error, and post Baptismum; Novatianorum praecipuus error erat &c.

The Manichean heresy against Free will imputed to Protestants, and how pittifully answered by Bishop Morton.

ST. Hierom, and St. Austin;* 3.24 (saith Belarmin) accuse the Manicheans for condemning the nature of man, and de∣priving it of free will, and ascribing the original and be∣ginning of sin vnto the nature of man, and not to free will. The same is taught openly by all Sectaries. Thus Belarmin. Mor∣ton sets down St. Hierom. and St. Austin's words as if they were Belarmin's, being loath to have such great Fathers tax himself and his prelatiks with heresy.* 3.25 Then he sayes Belarmin accuseth Calvin of this heresy, wheras Belarmin accuseth all Protestants or sectaries, not only Calvin; and accuseth Calvin in particu∣lar of an other Manichean heresy, to wit, of reprehending and condemning Abraham and other Saints of the old Testament, to which Morton answereth nothing. Lastly he thinks to excuse Calvin and free him from the Manichees heresy, by saying that Belarmin himself confesseth he granted free will to man in his first Creation, though he lost it by sin: as if it were not also the Manichees heresy to deny free will to man after the fall of Adam.

How Bp. Morton answers to Belarmin's imputa∣tion of Arianism vnto Protestants.

BElarmin quotes St. Epiphanius and St. Austin charging the Arians not only with the heresy of denying the son to be equal with the Father;* 3.26 but also with denying vnwritten Traditions to be the word of God; and sayes that all the sectaries or Protestants of our times teach the second er∣ror, though not the first, at least so cleerly. The honest Bis∣hop Morton acknowledgeth the second, because he sayes no∣thing

to the charge; and cavills about the first; quoting an other Book and Chapter of Belarmin, wherin he chargeth Bullinger. But as for rejecting vnwritten Traditions Morton seems to be well pleased with the charge and rest contented therin, not only with the sense of the Arians, but of Nesto∣rius,* 3.27 Dioscorus, and Eutiches, whom Belarmin couples with Pro∣testants both for contemning doctrin delivered by Tradition, and for their sacrileges against the Sacraments, Altars, Priests, Monks, Votaries &c. saying that Protestants do commit the very same villanies against these sacred things and persons, that D••∣natists and all those other heretiks had exercised. To all which Morton answereth with silence.

How Morton falsifyeth and abuseth Belarmin, who imputes the denyal of Christ's real Presence in the Sacrament to Protestants.

* 3.28IMmediatly after the Apostles, St. Ignatius the Martyr sayes that the Simonian and Menandrian heretiks did not admit Eucharistias & oblaciones, for that they did not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Iesus Christ, which sentence (saith Belarmin) is quoted by Theodoret in 3. Dialog. out of St. Ignatius his Epistle to the Christians of Smirna, where notwithstanding it is not now found. Belarmin is of opinion that these ancient heretiks denyed the real presence rather as a consequence drawen from their denyal of the Incarnation, then as doubting of the signification or efficacy of Christ's words; and that they differed in this from Protestants, that these deny Christ's flesh to be in the Sacrament though they acknowledge he had true flesh, but the ancient heretiks deny Christ's flesh to be in the Sacrament because he had no flesh. And here Morton pretends that Belarmin contradicts himself, and withall abuseth Calvin; who, as Morton sayth, doth grant the real presence, nay that Belarmin confesseth he grants the same.

But Morton corrupteth and abuseth Belarmin both in the allegation and Translation. In steed of Belarmin's words by vs here cited, he puts in only these as Belarmin's, which sentence is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by Theodoret in 3. Dialog. but is not now to be found in Theodo∣••••••. Making the Reader believe by falsifying Belarmin, That the Testimony of Theodoret was not to be found in Theodoret; and ••herfore he left out the mention of St. Ignatius his Epistle 〈…〉〈…〉; wheras the Testimony is in Theodoret now 〈◊〉〈◊〉 both in Greek and Latin, though it be not in St. Igna∣•••••••• his Epistle.

As for Belarmins contradicting himself in saying that Cal∣vin doth admit, and deny the real presence,* 3.29 it is no contradi∣ction of Belarmins, but a true assertion of Calvin's Contradi∣ction••▪ For both Belarmin and Valentia convince him of most evi∣d•••••• and palpable contradictions in this matter, he seeking to say something different not only from Luther, but also from 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and Zuinglius, therby to make a sect of his own, but yet not finding wherin to subsist or be permanent, speaks non-se••••••▪ and Contradictions: for proof wherof Belarmin doth set down seven several propositions of his about this matter, each one of them different from the other, and some of them so contradictory, as by no possible means they may be re∣conciled, or stand together. As first, That the flesh of Christ is only 〈◊〉〈◊〉 heaven, and that in so certain and determinat a place, as it 〈◊〉〈◊〉 as distant from the bread, as the highest heaven is from the earth: and then, this notwithstanding, he saith, that in the supper the true body of Christ is exhibited vnto the faithfull, and not only a sign. Yea that the very substance of Christs Body is given. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to that again he saith that notwithstanding the distance be∣tw•••••• the Body of Christ, and the Sacramental signes, yet are they joy••••d together by so miraculous and inexplicable means, as neither tongue nor pen can explicat the same; and then further, That we must not beleive that this conjunction is by any real coming down of Christs Body vnto us, but by a certain Substantial force derived from his flesh by his Spirit. Where he seemeth to say that the

conjunction is made, not in the substance, but in some essen∣tial quality. And so in the fifth place more cleerly he saith, that it is made by apprehension of faith only, wherby he contra∣dicteth all that he sayd before of real and substantial conjun∣ction.* 3.30 And in the sixth place he confirmeth more the same by saying; that wicked m••n receive not the Body at all, quia Cor∣pus Christi solo ore fidei accipitur, for that the Body of Christ is only received by the mouth of faith. And in the seventh and last place he concludeth, that this Sacrament doth not give the Body of Christ, or faith vnto any that hath it not already, but only 〈◊〉〈◊〉 testifie and confirm that now it is there, and is but a sign or seale (to vse his words) of that which is there already.* 3.31 And this being the variety ād vanity of Calvin in this matter, it proveth not contradiction in Belarmin, but in Calvin himself▪ whose in∣constancy and contradictions all they who ••••plain the belief of the Church of England imitat in this 〈◊〉〈◊〉, as every one may see in primat Vsher, Bishop 〈◊〉〈◊〉 (in his Treatise of Transubstantiation) and others.

And now to conclude this matter, we may ask Prote∣stants,* 3.32 as the Emperor Theodosius did 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Reformers and Innovators of his time, whether they believed the ancient Fa∣thers held the true doctrin of Christ and his Apostles, and they answering affirmatively, he replyed, Examinemus ergo do∣ctrinam vestram ad illorum scripta, Let us examin your doctrin by their writings; Let us Judge that to be heresy, which they placed in the Catalogue of heresies; and if so, Protestants must not blame us when we call them hereticks, for maintaining Justification by only faith, with the Simonians, and E••nomians; God to be the Author of sin, with the Florinians; that women may be, and are Priests, and Popes, with the P••putians; that concupiscence is a sin, with Proclus 1 that the true Church was invi∣sible,* 3.33 with the Donatists; that men must not fast the Lent, pray nor offer sacrifice for the Dead, with the Aerians; That Saints ought not to be prayed vnto, themselves nor their Reliques honoured, nor their Images worshipped, with Vigilantius &c. These and other

••rotestant doctrins are recorded as heresies by St. Irenaeus, St. Epiphanius, St. Hierom, St. Austin, and other Fathers, as you may see in Belarmin; and the prelatick writers confess their Testimony, but contemn their authority.

F••lsifications objected against Cardinal Baronius by Mr. Sutcliff.

THat sincere Protestants may see how litle their Clergy can say against Catholick Authors writings in this point of willfully falsifying Fathers or others, J will set down 〈◊〉〈◊〉 some of the principal falsifications objected against 〈◊〉〈◊〉, whose work of the Ecclesiastical History depending al∣••••••••ther vpon the true quotations of the holy Fathers, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Authors, might be the subject of Protestant cavills, had 〈◊〉〈◊〉 bin very sincere; yet notwithstanding all his ingenuity 〈◊〉〈◊〉 termes him a Cardinal forger, and lyar, and one of all 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that ever he read that most impudently abuseth and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 scriptures contrary to the intention of the holy Ghost &c. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 his preface, and then setteth down 52. falsifications and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of his.

The first wilfull falsification wherwith Sutcliff chargeth 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is, that in the first page of his first Tome he placeth the Image of the Roman Church in form of a woman with a heavy wodden Cross on her shoulders &c·

This is a nota∣ble lye (saith Mr. Sutcliff) for that the Roman Church that now is possessed of the triple Crown, was never subject to the Cross of Christ Jesus, for that the Pope claimeth a pow∣er above all Emperors, liveth in delights &c.

His second charge of wilfull falsification is, that wheras the sayd picture had two great keyes of the Popes cellar (as Mr. Sutcliff saith) hanging down vnder it, he lyeth impudently, saith Sutcliff, where he signifieth that Christ gave the Keyes to the Pope and his adherents &c.

His third charge is, that wheras the sayd picture had written vnder it on the one side vicit. haereses, and on the other side subegit Gentes, Mr. Sutcliff objecteth this for a wilfull fal∣sification, saying that this later Roman Church hath not subdued heresies, but is overgrown it self with heresies.

The fourth charge of wilfull falsification is, that Mr. Sutcliff supposing Baronius and the Pope do mean to worship that wodden Cross layd vpon the pictures shoulders, he saith, that if Baronius mean the true Church, he lyeth, for that the true Church did never worship any woodden Cross.

The fifth charge is about these words subegit Gentes vn∣der the picture, this is a lye (saith Mr. Sutcliff) for that Sa∣racens, Turks, and Gentils, have prevailed against the Pope and his followers &c. regaining the Holy Land.

The sixth charge is that the holy Ghost hovereth over the triple Crown, the B. Virgin sitteth with her Son in her lap; St. Peter and St. Paul support the worship of our B. Lady; which are all (saith Sutcliff) notorious lyes, for that Christ is no lon∣ger an Infant &c. And are not these substantial charges of wilfull falsifications to be placed in the first rank? Had he found matter to discredit Baronius he would never detain, nor divert his Reader with the picture, but would have entred presently into the History.

But now in his seaventh charge, he will not trifle. Sixtus the Fifth (saith Sutcliff) in his decretal epistle prefixed before Ba∣ronius his books, saith, that he faithfully and diligently reported the story of the Church &c. Now you must know that this Epistle made decretal by Sutcliff, is only a licence and privilege for Ba∣ronius to print the Book.

Wheras our beloued Son An∣tony Cardinal Garaffa (saith the Pope) Prefect of the Apo∣stolick Library, hath related vnto vs, that the first volume of our Ecclesiastical History is now ready to be set forth, and that it is a work no less learnedly then faithfully written &c. we do give you leave to print the same &c.

With his eight charge of wilfull falsification, he is resol∣ved

to destroy the whole work of Baronius.

The year (saith Sutcliff) and precise time of Christ's Nativity being the ground of all his work, it must needs follow that if he faile in that, then his whole Book is nothing but a pack of lyes: but that he hath erred in that point, is very probable; for that E∣piphanius saith our Saviour was born when Augustus and Sil∣va•••••• were Consuls: but Severus writeth that he was born when Sabinius and Ruffinus were Consuls; but Baronius follow∣eth neither of these two, but Cassiodorus.

Is not this a wise charge of falsifying? And yet Sutcliff is mistaken in his charge though it be nothing material to the History of the Begining and progress of Christian Religion, Conversion of Nations, Councells;* 3.34 condemnation of heresies &c. Epiphanius is of Ba∣ronius his opinion as well as Cassiodorus, Chrysostom, Orosius, Beda, and most of the ancient writers. All his other Charges are very foolish, not considering whether Baronius relate things of himself, or from others, and when Sutcliff denyes the au∣thority, he doth not confute it with better authority, or rea∣son, but by Scoffing and contempt, and yet he accuseth Ba∣ronius of lyes and forgery, because he relates what other men of credit, and great authority say in matters of History or do∣ctrin.* 3.35 As for example he accuseth Baronius of wilfull lying for that out of Euthymius he relateth that Dives (Luke 16.) was called Ninensis who also held it was a story, and not a parable. Then his 50. charge is, Baronius would make his Rea∣der believe that our Saviour did celebrate his passeover in S. John Evangelist's house, but Symon Metaphrastes denyeth it, which is al∣ledged by Baronius as a grave witness. His last two charges are.* 3.36 1. Baronius says Missa is derived from the Hebrew or Chaldee word: but Belarmin his fellow telleth him he is de∣ceived. 2. Baronius doth report▪ out of Gregory of Tours this ••able, that divers making thongs did put them about the pil∣lar wherto Christ was tyed when he was scourged, and the same did heal divers diseases. And with this sound charge he ends his 52. of wilfull falsifications against Baronius.

What I desire the Protestant Reader should observe in the charges of wilfull falsifications and lyes which they print against our Catholick Authors is, the difference between our charges against them, and of theirs against us. We charge Protestants with heresies, and with corrupting Scripture, Fa∣thers, and Councells, to prove heresies, and we demonstrat the same so home, that either they omit to answer the cor∣ruptions and falsifications objected, or answer them with ad∣ding new falsifications to the old, as hath bin manifest hitherto; but the Protestant writers objections against us are either fri∣volous, impertinent, or forged by themselves. And when they can find no matter to carp at in such works as those of Baronius and Belarmin, wherin there is such a multitude and variety of quotations, and relations, it may be well imagined how litle they will find in modern Catholick writers, who for the most part borrow from those two Cardinals what they say in Controversies of Religion. Had Luther, Calvin, Beza, Kemnitius, Melancton, and Jewell, bin as sincere in their wri∣tings against Catholicks, as Canisius, Coccius, Bellarmin, Gual∣terus, Peron, and Baronius are against Protestants, we could not have discovered so many palpable falsifications in the later Pro∣testant writers as our Books manifest to the world; wherof I have sayd more, J fear, then my Readers will have pati∣ence to peruse. Yet I shall entreat them for the Conclusion of this matter to permit me to mention somewhat of Luther's, and Calvin's sincerity, the two chief Apostles of the Prote∣stant Reformation; and of two others, the most eminent Pre∣lats and writers of the Church of England, Usher and Laud, one called the Irish Saint, the other the English Martyr. When such Primats are proved Falsifiers, we need not examin further the writings of the Inferior Clergy, and petty Ministers, but remit the ••ealous defenders of their sincerity to such Books as discover their frauds, and are easily found, wherof we have given heretofore a Catalogue.

SECT. XI. Calumnies and Falsifications of Luther, Calvin, Archbishop Laud, and Primat Vsher to discre∣dit Catholick Religion, against their own know∣ledge and conscience.

LUther (in postilla ad Evang. Dominicoe An∣nuntiationis) saith,* 3.37 Among the Papists every one maketh recourse vnto Mary, expecting from her more favour and grace then from Christ himself. Calvin saith, every Papist hath chosen peculiar Saints to whom he hath devoted himself as to so many helping Gods, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 are their Gods now according to the number of their Cittyes, as the Prophet vpbraided the Jsraelits, but according to the number of their very persons.

This our Popish Babylon (saith Luther) hath so far ex∣tinguished faith in this Sacrament (of Pennance) as with a shamless forehead she denyeth faith to be necessary;* 3.38 nay fur∣ther she hath with an Anti-christian impiety defended that it is an heresy, if any man affirme faith to be necessary: His Scholler Philip Melancton saith the same, The School-Doctors have foolishly and wickedly taught that sins are for∣given without faith.

Without doubt the illiterat Prote∣stants (who all take Luther to be a Saint at least do not be∣lieve him to be an Jmpostor) question not but that Roman Catholicks are such men as Luther, Calvin &c. describe them; and will not so much as turn to the Councell of Trent, or to any other Book where our Tenets are to be found;* 3.39 there they might see that we hold faith to be the beginning and founda∣tion

of man's saluation,* 3.40 and the root of all Justification, with∣out which it is impossible to please God &c. And in him that doth repent, it is of necessity that faith go before pennance.

Concerning the necessity of Grace, Luther, saith, The Papists do teach that a man may keep the Commandements of God with the proper forces of nature, without God's grace.

Concerning the immortality of the soul he saith, The Papists at this day do not believe at all the Immortality of the soul. And again in the Lateran Councell that was celebrated in the year 1515. in time of Pope Julius, it was first of all known and decreed, that the resurrection of the Dead was to be believed.

Of this wicked Friars corruptions of Scripture see Zuinglius tom. 2. ad Luth. de s••c. fol. 412. and many more Authors. As for Fathers and Councells he did not value them so much as to trouble himself with falsifying, or corrupting their writings, though sometimes (to impose vpon illiterat people that the holy Fathers were hereticks, or ignorant) he endeavors in his writings, to discredit their per∣sons, and condemn their doctrin. See what he sayes of them hertofore part. 1. & 2.

SVBSECT. II. Of Calvin's calumnies against Catholicks and their Doctrin.

MR. Walsingham in his search (pag. 152.) acknowledg∣eth he had such an opinion of Calvin's Sanctity and sincerity, that having read in his Institutions cap. 11. lib. 1. That in the first 500. years after Christ there were never any Images in Christian Churches, both himself and other Mi∣nisters

did often alledge the same as a certain truth to such as knew less then themselves; but perceiving that the Papists laugh∣ed at them for it, he began to doubt, and after examina∣tion of twenty Authors or witnesses within the first 500. years which Coccius citeth against Calvin, he found them truly cited, and Calvin a Lyar.

How litle Calvin valued the practise or doctrin of the ancient Church, he declareth lib. 3. Instit. c. 5. §. 10. where he saith:

when the adversaries object against me that prayer for the Dead hath bin vsed above 1300. years, I ask them again by what word of God, revelation, or example it 〈◊〉〈◊〉 bin so vsed? &c. But the very old Fathers themselves that prayed for the dead, did see that herein they wanted both Commandment of God, and lawfull example. So as 〈◊〉〈◊〉 accuseth all the holy Fathers (because they were Papists) of superstition.

In all the Hymns and Litanies of the Papists (saith Cal∣••••••) there is never any mention of Christ:* 3.41 but wheras always they pray to dead Saints, the name of Christ never occurreth.

And yet this Impostor could not be ignorant that our Litanies begin Kyrie eleison, Christe eleison, Lord have mercy ••pon us, Christ have mercy vpon us, Christe audi nos, Christe exaudi 〈◊〉〈◊〉 &c. And our hymns he knew were made by St. Ambrose, St. Gregory, Prudentius, Sedulius, and other ancient Fathers, and conclude, Gloria tibi Domine qui natus es de Virgine &c.

In the very same Book and Chapter Calvin affirmeth that is the third Councell of Carthage, wherin St. Austin was pre∣sent, it was forbiden that we should say Sancte Petre ora pro no∣bis, which is fals: it was indeed decreed, Quod cum Altari as∣sistitur, semper ad patrem dirigatur Oratio, That when the Priest did assist at the Altar, he should offer his prayer and sacrifice to God the Father.

The Papists do shamefully and impiously define (saith Calvin) that dayly pennance must only be don for venial sin.* 3.42 As though we taught that for mortal sin pennance was not necessary.

Jn the

same place he saith the Papists speak not at all (when they treat of pennance) of the internal renovation of mind, which bringeth true amendment of life: and again ibid. 29. they hold that they are reconciled once only by the grace of God when they are Baptised, post Baptismum resurgendum esse per satisfactiones, but after baptism a man must rise again (from sin) by satisfactions.

Wheras this impudent fellow knew well enough that we hold all rising from sin, or reconciliation vnto God, whether before or after baptism, must be by Grace; and that satisfactions only are for temporal punishments, after the guilt of sin is remitted by Reconciliation.

In his institutions (l. 4. c. 7.) he saith that Pope Iohn 2••. affirmed mens souls to be mortal,* 3.43 and to perish together with the Body vntill the day of resurrection, which calumny we have confuted hertofore.

In the same Institutions (l. 4. c. 13. §. 12.) talking of Monastical life and Evangelical Councells, he writeth in this resolute manner, Nulli vnquam veterum hoc in mentem 〈◊〉〈◊〉 &c.

It never came into the cogitations of any of the ancient Fathers to affirm••, that Christ did councell any thing, but rather they do all cry with one voyce, that there was never any one least word vttered by Christ▪ that is not of necessity to be obeyed &c. out of which words he inferreth that there is no state of perfection to be aspired vnto more one then other, nor any thing left us by way of Councell, but that all is com∣manded by way of precept.* 3.44

And yet St. Paul saith (and by con∣sequence with him all the ancient Church and Fathers) talking of virginity, I have no precept of our Lord, but I give Councell &c.

In the sayd institutions lib. 4. cap. 19. §. 11. Calvin saith of the Papists, praeterita aqua, & nullo numero habita, vnum oleum in Baptismo magni faciunt. They letting pass and esteeming no∣thing at all the water of Baptism, do only magnify their oyle of Chrism. And yet he knew well that the Roman Catholicks hold the vse of water to be most absolutely necessary to the Sub∣stance of Baptism, and not the holy oyle. I hope Protestants

will reflect vpon these things, and consider whether it be pro∣bable or possible that God would send such men as these two Impostors, to reform his Church; men without conscience, 〈◊〉〈◊〉, sincerity, or christianity.

SVBSECT. III. Frauds, falsifications, and calumnies of Primat Vsher against the real presence and Transubstantiation.

THe Popes name (saith M•• Vsher) in whose dayes this gross opinion of the oral eating and drinking of Christ in the Sacrament drew it's first breath, was Gregory the 〈◊〉〈◊〉. In a man of less erudition and learning then Mr. Vsher, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 assertion might be called a simple mistake, but in him, it 〈◊〉〈◊〉 be a notorious fraud, and wilfull falsification of as many 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Fathers, as he had perused, and (to his knowledge) delivered the doctrin of the real presence, and Transubstantiation. In particular he doth corrupt Justin the Martyr his words to Antoninus the Emperor, as Cranmer had don formerly,* 3.45 wherof 〈◊〉〈◊〉 have treated part. 3. and remit the Reader thereunto, as also to Malones reply against Vsher's answer pag. 236. St. Cyprian 〈◊〉〈◊〉 before Gregory 2. many hundred years, and yet Mr. Vsher 〈◊〉〈◊〉 not be ignorant how he declared the belief of the Ca∣tholick Church in these words, This bread which our Lord gave 〈◊〉〈◊〉 his Disciples, being by the almighty power of the word changed, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in outward shape, but in nature, is made flesh. St. Austin also was a long time before Gregory 2. and he cleers all doubts both of the Mass and Transubstantiation, thus; This is that which we say &c. to wit, that the Sacrifice of the Church doth consist of two things, that is to say, the visible form or species of the elements, and the invisible flesh and bloud of our Lord JESVS Christ,

the Sacrament and the thing of the Sacrament. Knowing and believing (saith St. Cyril Hierosol.) most assuredly, that what appeareth bread is not bread, though it seem so to the tast, but it is the body of Christ; and what appeareth 〈…〉〈…〉 the tast doth Judge it to be, but the bloud of Christ.

Mr. Vsher's Falsifications against Confession.

ST. Basil (saith Mr. Vsher) maketh the groans of the heart to be a sufficient Confession; so doth St. Ambrose the tears of the penitent. Tears, saith he, doth wash the sin which the voyce is ashamed to confess. Weeping doth provide both for pard•••• and for shamefactness. And St. Austin,* 3.46 what have J to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 with men that they should hear my confessions, as though they should heale all my disea∣ses.

Mr. Vsher not content to impose this sentence vpon the mistaken Protestants as if it had declared the superfluity and novelty of Sacramental Confession, wheras St. Basil speaketh of David, and St. Ambrose of St. Peter, (who by tears obtained pardon for his denying Christ) before the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Con∣fession; not content I say to misinterpret their meaning, he corrupts the words by a fals translation, to make good his own fals Interpretation, adding the word our twice to the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, for our shamefactness, and for 〈…〉〈…〉, endeavoring therby to draw the meaning of the Fathers from David and St. Peter vnto all others, even after the Institution and precept of Sa∣cramental Confession. And as for St. Austin he speaketh of that publick Confession which in his Book he made of such sins as had bin forgiven him in Baptism, and therfore needed not to be confessed to a Priest.

It is a strange thing how learned Protestants well versed in the Fathers date impose such wrested Texts vpon men who are resolved to examin them, and to let the world see what the Fathers have cleerly delivered, Mr. Vsher could not be so ignorant as now his partners would have him seem to be,

〈…〉〈…〉 positive doctrin of these three Fathers concerning Con∣••••ssion. St. Basil declares his own belief and of the whole Church,* 3.47 〈…〉〈…〉 words. Sins must necessarily be opened vnto them, vnto whom 〈…〉〈…〉 of God's Mysteries is committed. St. Ambrose;

If 〈…〉〈…〉 to the justified, confess thy sin, For a shamefast confession 〈…〉〈…〉, dissolueth the knot of iniquity St. Austin exhorting to con∣fession saith, Is it therfore sayd without cause, whatsoever you shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven? are the Keyes therof without cause given to the Church of God? &c. who so doth repent, let him repent throughly: let him shew his greif by tears; let him present his life to God by the Priest, let him prevent God's Iudgment by Confession. &c. And therfore he that will confess his sins for the obtaining of Grace let him seek out a Priest who hath skill to bind and loose &c. let him consider the quality of the crime, in place, in time, in continuance, in variety of persons, and with what temptation he fell into sin, and how often &c.

All this variety must be confessed. And is it not very strange that Mr. Vsher should quote these holy Doctors against themselves, and his own conscience? But the Protestant Religion cannot 〈◊〉〈◊〉 otherwise maintained, nor the prelatick Clergy enjoy two millions sterling of yearly revenue. All the other Fathers speak after the same manner: as for example, St. Gregory of Nyssa,* 3.48 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Priest for a partner and Companion of thine affliction, as 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Father; shew vnto him boldly the things that are hidden; 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the secrets of thy soul, as shewing thy secret wounds vnto thy physitian. He will have a care both of thy credit, and of thy 〈◊〉〈◊〉.

Against Absolution of sins.

MR. Vsher pag. 138. of his answer to the Jesuits Chal∣lenge is not ashamed to accuse the Roman Catholick Church with this notorious calumny, holding (if you believe him) that the sinner is immediatly acquitted before God

(by the Priest's absolution) how soever that sound conversion of heart be wanting in him, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 otherwise would be requisit. And grounds vpon this imposture his bringing many ancient Fathers to prove against Papists, that it is not in the power of the Priest to absolve a sinner who hath not true faith, and repen∣tance in his soul; as if this were not the express doctrin of all Roman Catholicks. And vpon this same imposture he groun∣deth also his foolish expression, that our High Priest fitteth in the Temple of God,* 3.49 as God, and all his Creatures as so many Demy-gods vnder him. If what he layeth to our charge were true, he might have raised us a degree higher, for that God himself doth not absolve men from their sins, if they do not repent; or if sound conversion of heart be wanting.

Pag. 125. & seq. he would fain persuade that loosing of men by the Iudgment of the Priest, is by the Fathers generaly ac∣counted nothing els but a restoring of men to the peace of the Church, and an admitting of them to the Lord's table again. And that in the dayes not only of St. Cyprian, but of Alcuinus, Deacons in the Priest's absence were allowed to reconcile peni∣tents.* 3.50 But this fraud is discovered, (I can not presume him ignorant) for that neither St. Cyprian, nor Alcuinus do speak of reconciling penitents in the Sacrament of pennance, but only of releasing them from Censures, and temporal penitences, or punishments, wherwith they had bin bound by the positive and publick Decree of the Church, which might be performed not only by a Deacon, but by a letter to the penitent, though never so far of and absent; And therfore can not be an abso∣lution from sins, which requireth the penitent's presence, and appertaineth to the office of Priesthood inseparably, Jus enim hoc solis sacerdotibus permissum est, saith St. Ambrose.

Against Purgatory.

MR. Vsher having seen how plainly the doctrin of Pur∣gatory, (that is a third place for purging of venial sins,

〈◊〉〈◊〉 satisfying for mortal sins wherof the guilt but not the whole 〈◊〉〈◊〉 punishment is pardoned) is delivered by the primi∣••••ve Church and Fathers, and that the examples and histories 〈◊〉〈◊〉 so great and holy a Doctor as St. Gregory to that purpose, 〈…〉〈…〉 be well denyed, doth fraudulently change the state of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••uestion, to make his Readers believe, that the dispute 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Popish Purgatory, is not whether sins and souls 〈◊〉〈◊〉 be temporaly punished in the other life, but whether 〈◊〉〈◊〉 are punished by material fier, or whether the place of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 punishment be a part of Hell? Wheras all the world 〈◊〉〈◊〉 we leave these things to be disputed in schooles, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 not determined by the Church.

Whereas pag. 176. of his Answer, Mr. Vsher saith, neither 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it to be passed over, that in those apparitions and revela∣••••ons related by Gregory, there is no mention made of any 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Lodge in Hell appointed for Purgatory of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 (which is that which the Church of Rome now striveth 〈◊〉〈◊〉) &c. And by this imposture of his, that in the time of Otto 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Frisingensis and other modern Authors (who dispute whether 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••••rgatory was a place or part of hell) would fain make Pro∣••••stants believe that the Roman Catholick doctrin of Purgatory 〈◊〉〈◊〉 not ancient: wheras he could not be ignorant that St. Ber∣na•••• (who lived before Otto Frisingensis) rehearsing and refu∣••••ng the heresies of the petrobusians, saith; They do not believe that there remaineth any Purgatory fier after death, but will have the soul as soon as it is out of the body, to pass either to rest, or els to damnation, but let them inquire of him who sayd, that there is a kind of sin which shall not be forgiven in this world nor the world to come, to what end did he say this if there be no remission nor cleansing of sin in the other world?

But others much ancienter spoke cleerly of Purgatory. St. Gregory of Nyssa; The Divine providence hath ordained that man after sin should return to his ancient felicity, either purified in this life by prayer &c. or after his death cleansed in the furnace of Purgatory fire. St. Basil. in cap. 9. Esay. St. Cyril Alexandr. in Ioan. 15.

v. 2. St. Gregory Nazian. St. Ambrose, St. Austin, St. Hierom, Origines, Tertullian, St. Hilary, and most of the Fathers, whose sayings Mr. Vsher did see in Belarmin, and yet without men∣tioning any particular, tells vs, that the Testimonies which the Cardinal bringeth, belong to the point of praying for the dead only (as if praying for the ease and relief of the dead did not necessarily conclude Purgatory) or vnto the fire of affliction in this world, or vnto that of the last day, or to the fire of Hell, or (mark the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 absolute and rational answ••••) to some other fier, then that which 〈…〉〈…〉.

Mr. Vsher concludes his controversy of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 with these words,

and so vnto this day the Romish Purgatory is rejected as well by the Gracious, as by the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and Russians, the Cophites, and Abassins, the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and Ar∣menians, together with the Syrians and 〈…〉〈…〉 sub∣ject to the Patriarchs of Antioch, and 〈…〉〈…〉 and Palestian•• vnto the East Indies.

This is strange 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in maintaining a falshood contradicted both by the Protestant relations of the Eastern Religions, and by the Declaration•• of the Patriarchs and other learned Writers of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Pro∣vinces.

Against VVorshipping of Saints and their Reliques.

THe Iesuits (saith Mr. Vsher pag. 420.) were wont indeed 〈…〉〈…〉 men commonly with an idle 〈…〉〈…〉, and l••••ria, but now they confess it to be the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the most and wisest, that it is one and the self same vertue that containeth both latria, and Dulia.

Heere Mr. Vsher is convicted of two notorious frauds; 1. To make his illiterat Reader believe that no act appertaining to the vertue of Religion, can any way relate vnto Creatures, though it have the Creator for it's prime motive, he seems to suppose that the Iesuits now recant, and grant that the honor which Catholicks give to Saints, as they are God's

〈◊〉〈◊〉, can not be an act of Religion,* 3.51 wheras there is no 〈◊〉〈◊〉 difficulty nor dispute in that a man should honor God 〈◊〉〈◊〉 his Saints, by two distinct acts of the same vertue of 〈◊〉〈◊〉, then in that the love of God, and of our neighbour, 〈…〉〈…〉 two acts of one vertue, called Charity. The second 〈…〉〈…〉 he would fain persuade, that latria, and Dulia is a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 distinction, and delusion of the Jesuits; and that no 〈◊〉〈◊〉 worship, however so inferior, can be communicated 〈…〉〈…〉, without committing of Idolatry. But the Church 〈◊〉〈◊〉 England by the pen of it's defender Bishop Jewell, tells 〈…〉〈…〉, we only adore Christ as very God••, but we 〈…〉〈…〉 the Sacrament, we worship the word of 〈…〉〈…〉 all other like things in such religious wise to Christ 〈◊〉〈◊〉.

〈…〉〈…〉 Church and Fathers (not only the Jesuits) 〈…〉〈…〉 distinction of Latria and Dalia, that is, suprem, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 religious worship: the suprem▪ that is, Latria, is due 〈…〉〈…〉, as the suprem civil worship to the King••: the 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ which is Dulia, is due to Saints, Bishops, Priests &c. 〈…〉〈…〉 of that religious and supernatural excellency, or 〈◊〉〈◊〉, which God hath given them. And to Saints we pray 〈◊〉〈◊〉 God's servants, not as to Gods, as Mr. Vsher would 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Pro••estant••. We are calumniated by him as St. Hierom, St. Austin, and all Catholicks were by Vigilantius, and Faustus Manichean Heretick. St. Austin his words are.* 3.52 The here∣••••ck Faustus doth calumniat us, because we honor the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 or reliques of Martyrs, affirming that we have them for our Idols. The Christian people doth celebrat with religious 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the memories of Martyrs, therby to stir vp them∣••••••ves to their imitation, and that they may be assisted with their prayers, and made partakers of their merits. But with the worship termed in Greek latria, and which the latin language can not express in one word,* 3.53 (it being a certain subjection and servitude due properly to the Deity only,) we do not honor any but God alone &c.

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

Coilyridians, who holding our Lady for a Deity,* 3.54 adored her 〈◊〉〈◊〉 latria, and offered sacrifice vnto her. And yet he doth 〈◊〉〈◊〉 how St. Epiphanius in that very disputation inveighed 〈◊〉〈◊〉 against such as did not honor our Lady with due 〈…〉〈…〉, but let our Lord be adored, saith he; 〈…〉〈…〉 none adore her as God: for though she be 〈…〉〈…〉, and most worthy of honor, yet not worthy to be 〈…〉〈…〉 wit with latria, And the same Saint condemneth as 〈◊〉〈◊〉 those who do not give due honor to the mother of God, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 who give her that of latria. For as these (saith he) 〈…〉〈…〉 Imaginations of Mary do sow pernicious 〈…〉〈…〉 in mens minds,* 3.55 so these others inclining too much to the 〈…〉〈…〉 to be in the wrong. So that we see 〈…〉〈…〉 of Latria and Dulia is no Idle invention of the 〈…〉〈…〉 necessary doctrin of the ancient Fathers.

Against prayer to Saints.

MR. Vhser in his answer to the Iesuits chalenge, treating of this controversy, proceeded with the same fraud he vsed in that of Purgatory. Finding that the ancient 〈◊〉〈◊〉 prayed to Saints, and that God wrought many mira∣•••••• at their shrines, and Reliques, he endeavors to change the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the question, and place the whole controversy in points 〈◊〉〈◊〉; making his Reader believe, that we Roman 〈◊〉〈◊〉 now a dayes do not believe as the ancient Church, but 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that the souls of Martyrs are present at their shrines, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 when miracles are wrought; and other things 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the manner of their intercession, and knowledge of our 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and prayers; so that saith Mr. Usher (pag. 405.) to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 good the Popish manner of praying vnto Saints, that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 at the first was but probable and problematical (to wit 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sayings of the Master of the sentences, Scotus, Biel, and other schoole Divines) must now be held to be de fide.

This calumny and fraud is cleerly confuted by the words

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

Concede nobis Domine quaesumus, veniam delictorum, & 〈…〉〈…〉 sanctis quorum hodie solemnia celebramus, talem nobis 〈◊〉〈◊〉 denotionem, vt ad eorum pervenire mer••amur societatem. 〈…〉〈…〉 ••orum merita, quos propria impediunt scelera; excuset 〈◊〉〈◊〉 accusat quos actio▪ & qui ijs tribuisti coelestis palmam 〈…〉〈…〉 nobis veniam non deneges peccati: Grant us O Lord we 〈…〉〈…〉, remission of our sins, and by the intercession of the Saints 〈◊〉〈◊〉 solemnity we celebrat, bestow vpon us such devotion that we 〈◊〉〈◊〉 serve to attain vnto their fellowship. And immediatly fol∣••oweth; let their merits help us that are hindred by our own sins. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 their intercession excuse us, who are accused by our own 〈◊〉〈◊〉: and thou o Lord who hast bestowed vpon them the palme 〈◊〉〈◊〉 heauenly triumph, deny not vnto us the pardon of our sins. 〈…〉〈…〉 (pag. 408.) quite omitting the first part of 〈…〉〈…〉, translateth the later part as if it were rather an 〈◊〉〈◊〉 then a supplication, thus, can their merits help us, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 own sins hinder? can their intercession excuse us,* 3.56 whose 〈◊〉〈◊〉 doth accuse themselves? But thou who hast bestowed vpon 〈◊〉〈◊〉 palme of thy heavenly triumph, deny not vnto us the 〈…〉〈…〉 sins. You see how he adds interrogations, and makes 〈◊〉〈◊〉 on his own head, and not only translates the latin 〈…〉〈…〉 fraudulently, but changeth the whole sense, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 into the Text At insteed of &, and tu, which is not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 latin; and makes the whole order,, of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 as also that of the Benedictin Monks, hereticks, as 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of that which no Roman Catholick ever called in 〈◊〉〈◊〉. What credit, think you doth such a man as this deserve 〈◊〉〈◊〉 collections of antiquities, when they agree not with his 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Protestant Religion? he who venters to contradict a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 so generaly known, and to corrupt a writing so common 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in so many Libraries and Books, what will he not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 or hath not don, in Papers and Copies which he fancies 〈◊〉〈◊〉 must take vpon his sole word and Testimony? Whosoever desires to have a full view of Primat Vsher's vnsincere dealing in maintaining protestancy (which we attribute more to the

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

of the Roman Church (whose words he quotes) were of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that (as the Greeks expressed themselves) it was a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 not simply fundamental.* 3.57

〈◊〉〈◊〉 for his Lordship's backwardness in denying the Greeks 〈…〉〈…〉 Church (that is, of accusing them of heresy) 〈◊〉〈◊〉 forsooth, they seem to maintain the equality and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the persons; so great a prelat and writer ought 〈◊〉〈◊〉 known that a Church may be a fals and heretical 〈◊〉〈◊〉 for denying the generation and procession, as well as 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the equality and consubstantiality of the persons: 〈◊〉〈◊〉 indeed can the one be denyed without denying the other. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 task is, to examin the Bishop's sincerity, not his 〈◊〉〈◊〉

〈◊〉〈◊〉 first fraud is, to pretend that Catholick Authors 〈◊〉〈◊〉 him in the Protestant distinction of fundamental and 〈…〉〈…〉 articles; wheras we hold every article (by 〈…〉〈…〉 motive, though not of the matter) to be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that is, of necessity the matter (how ever so small) 〈◊〉〈◊〉 believed by us vnder pain of Damnation, whensoever 〈…〉〈…〉 proposed to us as revealed by God; or (which 〈…〉〈…〉) whensoever we know any matter to be either 〈…〉〈…〉 Scripture, or declared by Catholick Tradition, or 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by the Church, we are bound to believe it, and can 〈◊〉〈◊〉 if we deny or doubt of it. So that doctrin which 〈…〉〈…〉 grievous ••rror in the greek Church, we must call it plain 〈◊〉〈◊〉 which makes them no Church: because their error hath 〈…〉〈…〉 heresy by the Church.

〈◊〉〈◊〉 second fraud in this matter, is, that he conceals from 〈…〉〈…〉 the true state of the question, and abuseth the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••uthors he cites, as if they had vnderstood it as his 〈…〉〈…〉 doth set it down, or had excused the modern Greeks 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and argues with their sayings and authority in favor of p••••••estancy. The question is, whether the modern Greeks 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that the holy Ghost proceeds from the son as well as 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Father. The Bishop pretends they do, and that they

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

〈◊〉〈◊〉 pain of Damnation, and proved this saying by these words 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Austin, this is a thing founded;* 3.58 An erring Disputant is to be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 with in other questions not diligently digested, nor yet made firm 〈◊〉〈◊〉 authority of the Church; there, error is to be born with but 〈◊〉〈◊〉 not to go so farr that it should labour to shake the very 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Church. The Bishop sayes this can not be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the definition of the Church (though St. Austin 〈◊〉〈◊〉 expressly of the authority therof) but of Scripture.* 3.59 But 〈◊〉〈◊〉 afterwards the words might be vnderstood of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Church, or general Councells; to the end that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 might not imagin St. Austin thought such definitions were 〈◊〉〈◊〉, or vnquestionable, he adds,* 3.60 But plain Scripture with 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sense, or a full demonstrative argument must have room 〈◊〉〈◊〉 a wrangling and erring disputer may not be allowed it. And 〈◊〉〈◊〉 neither of these but may convince the definition of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 if it be ill founded.* 3.61 And to shew that this is no fancy of 〈◊〉〈◊〉, but the doctrin of St. Austin, he quotes his words 〈◊〉〈◊〉 see them in the margent with an F. referring the word 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to Scripture. So that if you believe the Bishop and rely 〈◊〉〈◊〉 his quotations, St. Austin doubted not but that the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Church in general Councells may be contrary to 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and confuted by full demonstrative arguments.

I confess that when I read this page and part of Bp. Laud's 〈◊〉〈◊〉 with Fisher, I found my self much troubled, vntill 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the matter, and then I resolved never more to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 him, or any Protestant writer, however so Saint-like or 〈◊〉〈◊〉, by report, or in appearance. The truth is, St. Austin 〈◊〉〈◊〉 place cited by the Bishop, hath nothing at all either 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Scripture, or evident sense, or demonstrative argu∣••••••ts; but addressing his speech to the Manicheans, he writes 〈◊〉〈◊〉, Apud vos autem vbi nihil horum est quod me invitet ac 〈◊〉〈◊〉, sola personat veritatis pollicitatio, and then follow the words 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by the Bishop, quae quidem si tam manifesta monstratur &c. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 truth so bragd of and promised by the Manicheans to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 demonstrated, in that epistle called Fundamentum, saith

St. Austin, if it be demonstrated to be so cleer &c. is to be preferred; where you see St. Austin's quae, referred not to Scripture, but to that fictitious truth which the Manichees pretended to be in their doctrin. Nay St. Austin is so far from doubting of the infallibility of the Church, and general Coun∣cells in that very place quoted by the Bishop, that he disputes ex professo against the possibility of its erring, or of its defini∣tions being contrary to Scripture, and sayes, that if the do∣ctrin of the Catholick Church could be contrary to Scripture, he should not be able to believe rationaly, and infallibly, ei∣ther the one or the other: not the Scriptures, because he re∣ceives them only vpon the authority of the Church; Not the Church, whose authority is infringed by Scripture, which is suposed to be brought against her. Si ad Evangelium me tenes, ego ad eos me teneam, quibus praecipientibus Evangelio credidi; & his jubentibus tibi omnino non credam. Quod si forte in Evangelio aliquid in apertissimum de Manichaei Apostolatu invenire potueris, infirmabis mihi Catholicorum authoritatem, qui jubent vt tibi non credam; qua infirmata, jam nec Evangelio credere poter••; quia per eos illi credideram: ita nihil apud me valebit, quicquid inde protu∣l••ris. Quapropter si nihil manifestum de Manichaei Apostolatu in Evangelio reperitur, Catholicis potius credam quam tibi: si a••tem inde aliquid manifestum pro Manichaeo legeris, nec illis nec tibi: illis quīa de te mihi mentiti sunt: Tibi autem, qui eam scripturam mihi profers, cui per illos credideram, qui mihi mentiti sunt. Aug. cont. Epist. Fundament. cap. 4. Wherfore St. Austin doth not suppose (as the Bishop pretends) that Scripture or reason can be con∣trary to the definitions of the Church; he professedly teaches the contrary in the very place cited, and vses the alledged words quae quidem si tam manifesta monstratur &c. only ex sup∣positione impossibili, in the same manner as St. Paul speaketh (Gal. 1.) Jf an Angell from heaven teach otherwise, then we have taught you, let him be accursed. St. Paul well knew it was impossible that an Angell from heaven should teach contrary to the Ghospel; and so did St. Austin that the definitions of

a general Councel should be contrary to Scripture, or reason, as appeareth by his own discours against the Manichees.

Vincentius Li••inensis abused by Mr. Laud, to prove the fallibility of the Church, pretending, that learned Father supposed and sayd she might change into Lupanar errorum; à strumpet or stewes of errors.

BUt A. C. tells us further (saith Mr. Laud) that if one may deny or doubtfully dispute against any determina∣tion of the Church, then may he also against an other,* 3.62 and so against all;* 3.63 since all are made firm to us by one and the same divine revelation, sufficiently applyed by one and the same full authority of the Church; which being weakned in any one, can not be firm in another. First, A. C. borrowed the for∣mer part of this out of Vincentius Lirinensis, and as that learned Father vses it, I subscribe to it; but not as A. C. applyes it. For Vincentius speaks there de Catholico Dogmate, of Catholick Maxims &c. which are properly fundamental: (but here the Bis∣hop is mistaken, for Vincentius speaks also of not fundamentals, as of the celebrating of Easter according to St. Victor's decree; the not rebaptizing of those who had bin baptized by hereticks &c.) now in this sense, saith the Bishop, give way to every ca∣villing disputer to deny or quarrel at the maxims of Christian Reli∣gion &c.

And why may he not then take liberty to do the like of any other, till he have shaken all? But this hinders not the Church her self; nor any appointed by the Church, to examin her own decrees, and to see that she keep the principles of her faith vnblemished and vncorrupted; for if she do not so, but novitia veteribus, new doctrins be added to the old, the Church which is Sacrarium veritatis, may be changed in Lupanar errorum, I am loath to english it.* 3.64

Hitherto

the modest Bishop,* 3.65 who quotes Vincent. Lirin. in his Margent, for his lupanar errorum, &c. and for the whole discours.

Vincentius Lirinensis is so far from expressing any fear or sus∣pition of danger that the Church should be changed into lu∣panar errorum, a stews of errors, by addition of novelties, or falling from the primitive doctrin, that as if he had foreseen this corruption of his meaning, and cutting short his words practised by Mr. Laud, he declares in that very place by him quoted, that only hereticks and vngodly men can entertain any such thoughts of Christs spouse, sed avertat hoc a suorum menti∣bus divina pietas, sitque hoc potius impiorum furor, these are his words, and concealed by the Bishop: who also striks out of Vincentius Lirin: other words wherby it did appear what a kind of kee∣per the Church is of the truths deposited with her, and how litle danger there is of corrupting the old, or admitting of new doctrin. The Bishop (pag. 38.) sets down the sentence thus, Ecclesia depositorum apud se dogmatum Custos &c. Denique quid vnquam Conciliorum Decretis enisa est; nisi vt quod antea sim∣pliciter credebatur, hoc idem postea diligentius crederetur, &c. But in Vincentius Lirinensis,* 3.66 It is thus, Christi vero Eoclesia sedula & cauta depositorum apud se dogmatum Custos; here first he skips over these two words sedula & cauta, diligent and wary, because they spoiled his plot of persuading us that the Church might by negligence of its Pastors be insensibly changed, and corrup∣ted.

To the same intent he conceales with an &c. the rest that followes, which would have cleered all, and left no room for the Bishops fraud: for Vincentius Lirin: his words are, But the Church of Christ is a diligent Depositary or Keeper of the truths committed to her, never changes any thing at all in them, lessens nothing, adds nothing; nether cuts away things necessary, nor adjoyns things superfluous; neither looseth what is hers, nor vsurpes what belongs to others.

Let any Christian or ho∣nest Pagan Iudge, whether these words be not Diametri∣cally contrary to what the Bishop pretends vnto in this passage, viz. suspition and possibility of the Churches adding novitia

veteribus, novelties to the old doctrin; of making a change of that faith she first received from Christ and his Apostles, and of becoming Lupanar errorum; which this good man and holy Martyr sayes he is loath to english; and yet leaves out, cuts, and corrupts the Latin text of set purpose, to fix vpon Christs Espouse the greatest infamy.

How Bp. Laud falsifies Occham to infringe St. Au∣stins authority concerning the infallibility of the Church in succeeding ages as well as in that of the Apostles: and is forced by his error to resolve his prelatick faith into the light of Scripture, and the privat Spirit of Fanaticks, which he palliates vnder the name of grace, and therby warrants all rebellions against Church and state.

AN act of divine faith must be prudent, that is, men are not bound to believe any article therof, (v. g. that Scripture is the word of God) vnless there evi∣dently appear prudent and sufficient motives to exclude all moral possibility that any but God is the Author of the do∣ctrin proposed to be believed. These motives of credibility we call the signs of the Church, and are the miracles of Christ and his Disciples, sanctity and succession of his doctrin and Doctors, Conversion of Kings and nations to christianity &c. These signs or motives of credibility,* 3.67 though they do not evi∣dence demonstratively that our faith is true, or that the Church or Congregation of men wherin they be found, is the Catho∣lick, yet they demonstrat an obligation in us of believing it, as we have proved elsewhere: in so much that if no such signs or motives of credibility had bin, none would be bound to believe any point of Christian Religion with certainty of faith;

and therfore St. Austin sayd he would not believe the Scripture,* 3.68 had he not bin moved therunto by the authority of the Church; because Scripture of it self hath no sufficient arguments and signs to ground a prudent and undoubted belief of its being the word of God; but the signs and motives of credibility invest the Church with sufficient authority to declare both that, and all other mysteries of faith, and to make our Ecclesiastical Mini∣stery and Mission more authentikly divin, then any Regal Commissions or human Badges can set forth the truth and dig∣nity of Ministers of state, and officers of war. Therfore, as not to believe, or to contemn men so qualified, when they com∣mand in the Kings name, is by the light of reason and con∣sent of all nations, judged obstinacy and rebellion, (not to be excused by pretending ignorance, or want of greater evi∣dence then those vsual signs of their employments afford,) so must it be obstinat heresy not to believe that what is proposed by the Church (qualified with the aforesaid signs) is revealed by God.

This supposed, the main Controversy between Protestants and Catholicks is, about the resolution of Christian faith, for though both parties pretend that they believe because God re∣vealed to the Prophets, and Apostles the Mysteries of faith, yet we say that Protestants can not shew how it may be pru∣dently believed that Christ preached or revealed any such do∣ctrin as is pretended, vnless it be acknowledged that the Church of every succeeding age was, and this present is, as truly and realy (though perhaps not so highly quoad modum) infallible in delivering the Apostles doctrin, as the Apostles were in de∣livering that of Christ. We do not say that Tradition or the Testimony of the Church, confirmed by the foresaid signs, is the prime motive, and last resolution of faith, but that the Tra∣dition and Testimony of the present Church is infallible, to the end it may infallibly apply the prime motive, (which is Gods veracity) to vs; and we prudently assent thervnto.

But the Bishop denying this, is driven with Presbyte∣rians

and Fanaticks to an inbred••light of Scripture, and to the privat Fanatick spirit; with this only difference, that where they say they are infallibly resolved that Scripture is the word of God, by the Testimony of the Spirit within them, his Lordship (pag. 83.84.) averrs he hath the same assurance by grace. And because we object, and admire that no Catholick could ever perceive this inward and inbred light of Scripture, wherby all Protestants pretend they are assured it is the word of God, he concurrs (pag. 86,) with Fanatitks in telling vs, that blind eyes can not, and pervers eyes will not see it. Its strange his Lordship did not foresee the sad effects which this Pro∣testant principle and presumption wrought against himself, and his Prelatick Church, within a very short time after he writ this doctrin, and applyed the same against the Roman Catho∣licks. He might be sure it would be retorted against the Church of England; for why may not every Protestant Sectary pretend, that the Prelatick Church of England is as blind and pervers in not seing the light of Scripture, as Luther and Laud pretend the Roman Catholick is? It is but every particular mans fan∣cy, and word; no other proof is required by Protestants; nor indeed can any better be produced to make good, that so ma∣ny honest and learned searchers of Scripture as have bin and are in the Roman Catholick Church, can not, or will not see the pretended light of Scripture, so largely diffused among Pro∣testants, and distributed to every Fanatick, Presbyterian, and Prelatick, whose faith can not be maintained without this rash judgment, and most dangerous consequences, as prejudicial both to Church and state, as our late distempers have manifested.

But now to Mr. Lauds falsifications. To prove that the Tradition of the Church is not infallible, and that the words of St. Augustin, Ego vero Evangelio non crederem nisi me Catho∣licae Ecclesiae commoveret authoritas, should be vnderstood of the Church in the time of the Apostles only, the Bishop sayes, Some of our own Authors will not endure it should be otherwise meant by St. Austin, save of the Church in the time of the Apost∣les,

only,* 3.69 and in proof of this he cites Occham in the Margent thus. Occham Dial. part. 1. l. 1. c. 4. and sets down these as his words, Intelligitur solum de Ecclesia quae fuit tempore Apostolo∣rum.* 3.70 Jt is vnderstood only of the Church which was in the Apo∣stles time. Wheras Occham in the very place quoted, holds the quite contrary, and sayes expresly, that the Church wher∣of St· Austin speaks in that sentence, containes not only the Apostles, but also the Church successively from the times of the Apostles to that very time wherin St. Austin wrote those words, as every one may see by his sentence truly related in our margent: And indeed St. Austin speaks of that Church which sayd to him noli credere Manichaeo, and had succession of Bishops of Rome, which the Church had not in the Apost∣les time.

Divers Frauds and Falsifications of Bishop Laud to defend that Protestants are not Schismaticks.

MR. Fisher having pressed Bishop Laud with that ordi∣nary and vnanswerable argument, proving Protestants to be Schismatiks, because they separated themselves from the Roman Catholick Church, obstinatly holding divers opinions contrary to the ancient and generaly received faith, many wherof had bin condemned as heresies in former ages by General Councells, and all orthodox Christians; his Lord∣ship answers, 1. That the Roman Church is not the Catholick Church. We reply that when Luther and Calvin began their pretended reformations, such only as were in communion with the Church and Bishop of Rome, were held to be Catholicks; all others having bin declared Schismaticks, or hereticks; and for that reason the first Reformers did not claim to be mem∣bers of the Greeks, or of any other Christian••Church then extant; but acknowledge they found no men of their reformed belief, and therfore separated themselves from the whole world;

as Luther and Calvin expresly say, and we have proved, shew∣ing they did not agree in all points with the Waldenses, Wickl••ffians, Greeks, or any other visible Congregation of Christians. Therfore they separated themselves (by inventing and following contrary opinions) from all visible Churches, and by consequence from the true one, if they will grant there is a true one vpon earth, as the Bishop would seem to ack∣nowledge.

Was it not lawfull saith he (pag. 149.) for Juda to re∣form her self when Israel would not joyn? sure it was, or els the Prophet deceives me,* 3.71 that sayes expresly though Israel transgress, let not Juda sin. Here his Lordship supposeth two absurdities. 1. That Juda reformed its doctrin (which is the only question) 2. That the Catholicks are to represent the ten tribes, (because forsooth they are more numerous) and Protestants Juda: wheras no paralel can be more pat then the Protestants compared with the ten tribes, who left Jerusalem, and the High Priest, and rebelled with Jeroboam; which King out of vngodly policy, the better to secure his vsurped Crown (just as Queen Elizabeth) caused the people to desert the old and true Religion, set vp new Priests, Sacrifices &c.

But his Lordship reflecting vpon these and other things, thought necessary (because he saw that himself and his party would be driven to the ten tribes at length) to defend they were a Church, even after their schism or separation; for that there were some true prophets among them, as Elias Elizeus &c. and thousands that had not bowed knees to Baal: not obser∣ving that such Prophets and others who continued faithfull, were of the true Church of Juda, though they could not go to Jerusalem; and were no more of the ten Tribes Religion, then the Greek Roman Catholicks are of Mahomets, or En∣glish Papists of the Protestant. And wheras the Bishop's adver∣sary tells him that particular Churches may not pretend to reform themselves and condemn others of error in faith, (especialy their acknowledged spiritual Superiors) when the

need of reformation is only questionable;* 3.72 and this was so evident •• confutation of protestancy, and so convincing a proof of all their Churches schisms, that his Lordship thought fit to con∣ceal those words. (When the need is questionable) in his rela∣tion of his adversaries argument; and after omitting and con∣cealing the force therof, endeavors to answer as well as he can. That the first Protestant reformers were subject to the Roman Catholick Church and prelats in spiritual affaires, is confessed by themselves; and that without any sufficient cause, or pro∣bable pretext, they rebelled against that superiority and Iuris∣diction, is also evident; vnless we should grant (as the Bis∣hop with all sectaries, sayes pag. 86.) that all Christendom (Protestants only excepted) are so blind or pervers, that they can not, or will not see the light of the Scripture, and by consequence, their own Idolatry and superstition. And this his, and other such mens sensless assertion, must pass for good evidence, and be a sufficient warrant for Jnferiors to renounce their obedience, and reform the doctrin of their Superiors, and of the whole visible Church, without incurring the Cen∣sure or guilt of Schism, and heresy.

Mr. Laud denyeth that in ancient times the Bishop of Rome was Superior to other Bishops out of his own Patriar∣chat, which extended no further (saith he) then to Jtaly, and the adjacent Islands. And to make good this equality of Patriarchs with the Pope, he quotes (num. 170.) the law, A patriarcha non datur appellatio. Then he sayes (pag. 171.) that in those ancient times of the Church government, Britanie was never subject to the Sea of Rome,* 3.73 and that Pope Vrban the 2. accounted his worthy predecessor in the Sea of Canterbury (St. Anselm) as his own Com-peere, and sayd he was as the Apostolick and Patriarch of the other world.

The greatest fraud committed in treating matters of Reli∣gion is, to assert a notorious falshood so confidently that the truth can not be questioned, or examined without doubting whether the relator have either soul or shame. Who can Ima∣gin

that a man pretending not only to be an Arch-bishop, but a Patriarch, would endeavor to maintain Religion by such impostures? Britain saith Mr. Laud,* 3.74 was never subject to the Sea of Rome No! How then came Venerable Bede to tell us that an. 673. St. Wilford Arch-bishop of York, being vnjustly deprived of his Bishoprick, appealed to the Sea Apostolick, was heard by Pope Agatho, and by virtue of his sentence restored to his Bishoprick? How comes St. Gregory the great to write thus to St. Austin our English Apostle.* 3.75 Seing by the good∣nes of God, and our industry, the new English Church is brought vnto the faith of Christ, we grant to you the vse of the Pall (the proper badge or sign of Archiepiscopal dignity) to wear it when you say Mass; and we condescend that you ordain twelve Bishops vnder your Jurisdiction; yet so that the Bishop of London be consecrated hereafter by a Synod of his own Bishops, and receive his Pall from this holy Aposto∣lical Sea, wherin I, by the authority of God, do now serve.* 3.76 Our will likewise is, that you send a Bishop to York, to whom we intend also to give the Pall, (that is, to make him Arch-bishop) but to you shall be subject not only the Bishops you make, and he of York, but all the Bishops of Britain. If Vrban the 2. sayd St. Anselm of Canterbury was a Patriarch, none can deny but that he received that dignity and his Iurisdiction from Saint Gregory, as the others of the East, did from the Sea of Rome.

That the Patriarchs of the East were subject and did ap∣peal to the Bishop of Rome, is evident in the Ecclesiastical History; and as for the law of not appealing from a Patriarch, Mr. Laud could not be ignorant it was intended for the infe∣rior Clergy, who (of ordinary cours) were not to appeal further then to the primat of their province; for so the Coun∣cell of Afrik determins.

His Lordship, without doubt did see also how in that very Councell it is acknowledged that Bishops in their own causes might appeal to Rome.

* 3.77Mr. Fisher askt the Bishop, Quo Judice doth it appear that the Church of Rome hath erred in matters of faith? as not thinking it equity that protestants in their own cause should be Accusers, witnesses, and Iudges of the Roman Church. He answers, there is as litle reason or equity that any man who is to be accused, should be the accused, and yet wittness and Judge in his own cause. Fisher replyes that, the Church of Rome is the principal and Mother Church; and that therfore though it be against common equity that subjects and Children should be Accusers, Witnesses, Iudges, and Executioners against their Prince, and mother, in any case; yet is it not absurd that in some cases the Prince or mother may accuse, witness, Iudge, and if need be, execute Iustice against vnjust and rebellious, or evil Children, especialy if the prince, or mother be infalli∣ble. But the Controversy being at length reduced vnto this, whether the Church might not err in doctrin, as Princes and parents do in governing their subjects and Children, Mr. Fisher sayes, it can not, and proves it by that of St. Mathew 16.18. That Hell gates shall never be able to prevail against the Church. The Bishop sayes this is to be vnderstood that errors (which are meant by Hell gates) shall never be able to prevail against the Church in Fundamental Articles; and confirms this his saying by one of St. Austin, quoting his words thus, pugnare potest, expugnari non potest; wheras if his Lordship had bin pleased to set down St. Austins words sincerly as he ought, the case had bin cleerly decided. St. Austins words are, Ipsa est Ecclesia sancta, Eccle∣sia vna, Ecclesia vera, Ecclesia Catholica, contra omnes haereses pug∣nans. And then come in pugnare potest, expugnari tamen non potest. The Church fights against all heresies, contrary to every arti∣cle, and by consequence whether Fundamental or not; and yet expugnari non potest; she can not be overcome.

All heresies, saith the Saint depart from her as vnprofitable branches cut of from the vine: but she remains still in her root, in her vines, in her charity; the gates of Hell shall not overcome her.

All this (as not being for his Lordships purpose, who challenged

all our party to shew one Father for 1200. years after Christ, that concluded the infallibility of the Church out of Mathew 16.18.) is concealed by the Bishop from his Reader.

The like fraud is practised by this Lordship in answe∣ring to that Text of St. Irenaeus,* 3.78

ad hanc Ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem, necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam; hoc est, eos qui sunt vndique fideles: in qua semper ab his qui sunt vndique, conservata est ea quae est ab Apostolis Traditio.

These words he sets down in the Margent, and doth English them thus, To this Church (he speaks of Rome) fot the more powerfull principality of it, tis necessary that every Church, that is, the faithfull (vndique) round about, should have re∣cours. (Laud pag. 182.) First he translates vndique (which signifies (ordinarily) from all places, parts, and every where) round about; to the end St. Irenaeus might be thought to make the Sea of Romes principality a bare primacy of order, and precedency; and then confine its Iurisdiction to Italy, Sardinia, and Corsica; but hereby he would make the Saint speak non∣sense, for he vsed this argument against the Gnosticks in France, and other hereticks, and gives us this rule of Christianity, that the doctrin or Tradition of the Roman Church is the touch∣stone of all Apostolical doctrin. If therfore vndique in this place doth signify no more then round about Rome, and therby the more powerfull principality Irenaeus speaks of, be restrained to precedency; and the Roman Iurisdiction to sole Italy and its Islands; he must have argued thus,

Tis necessary that Italy, Sardinia, and Corsica, should have recours to Rome for its Bishops precedency of place, or in regard of his Patriarchal power within Italy and the adjacent Islands; Therfore the Gnosticks in France, and all other hereticks, of the world, are convinced of heresy for not having recours to the Sea of Rome. This would be a far fetcht consequence, and as vn∣worthy St. Irenaeus found Iudgment, as its necessary to de∣fend Mr. Lauds false comment, and Religion.

Yet to make this appear not so improbable an interpre∣tation,

Mr. Laud (pag. 181. tells us that Irenaeus was a Bishop of the Gallican Church, and a very vnlikly man to captivat the liberty of that Church vnder the more powerfull principality of Rome; as if forsooth, the so much talkt of liberties of the Gal∣lican Church (which were not claimed or thought on vntill 1300. years after St. Irenaeus his time) could move him to limit the Popes spiritual Iurisdiction to Italy; or that the Gallican liberties did exclude it now from France. These are too gross mistakes, and can hardly be excused by ignorance in so knowing a person as Mr. Laud is thought to have bin.* 3.79

After the same manner doth he abuse St. Gregory Na∣zianzen, who speaking of the Roman Church saith, Vetus Ro∣ma ab antiquis temporibus habet rectam fidem. & semper eam reti∣net, sicut decet vrbem quae toti orbi praesidet, semper de Deo inte∣gram fidem habere. These words the good Bishop translates thus into English (pag. 12.)

Ancient Rome from of old hath the right faith, and alwayes holds it, as becomes the Citty which is governess over the whole world to have an en∣tire faith in, and concerning God.

But (saith his Lord∣ship) there is no promise nor prophecy in St. Gregory, that Rome shall ever so do, And to make this the more cleer to his illiterat English Reader, he leaves out the word ever in the later part of his Translation, and in his gloss vpon the sen∣tence omitts the same word again, saying only, it became that Citty very well to keep the faith sound and entire. But How long? Semper (saith St. Gregory) for ever. Therfore Bishop Laud thought fit to conceal that semper. At length he ack∣nowledgeth a double semper in S. Gregory, but misplaceth the later. His words are plain (saith he) semper decet &c. wheras St. Gregory saith not, semper decet &c. (it alwayes becomes) but decet, it be∣comes that Citty which Governs the whole world,* 3.80 semper de Deo integram fidem habere▪ alwayes to have the entire faith of God. Now who sees not a manifest difference betwixt these two propositions, It alwayes becomes that Citty to hold the entire faith. And It becomes that Citty to hold the entire faith alwayes

The first only signifies, the keeping of the faith entire (when∣soever it is don) is a thing well becoming the Citty of Rome. The second signifies, to keepe the faith so that it must never fail, or cease to keep it entire, is a thing well becoming the City which Go∣verns the whole world. Besides, the Government wherof St. Gregory speaks, must be vnderstood of souls, or spiritual; be∣cause Roma vetus did not govern in his time, temporaly, se∣ing the Emperour resided in New Rome, that is Constantinople. Therfore St. Gregorys words are to be vnderstood of the Popes spiritual Iurisdiction, who governed the souls of the whole world as supreme Pastor vnder Christ.

But Patriarch Laud can not endure this, and will needs haue all Bishops; (or at least all Patriarchs) equal with the Bishop of Rome, by Christs institution; and proves it (p. 200) by the authority of St. Hierom, whom Mr. Laud mistakes; for the St. speaks only of the caracter of Episcopacy, and sayes that all Bishops are ejusdem Sacerdotii, ejusdem meriti,* 3.81 and by Gersons Book de Auferibilitate Papae:

when Gerson, saith he, writ this Tract de Auferibilitate Papae, sure he thought the Church might continue in a very good being without a Monarchical head. Therfore, in his Judgment, the Church is not by any command or institution of Christ, Monar∣chical. Gerson par. 1.154.

Answ. Gerson that famous Chancellor of Paris writ that Book in time of Schismes and Troubles, wherin for the peace of the Church, doubtfull Popes may be deposed, as al∣so Hereticks.* 3.82 But Gerson never meant that a Pope may be so deposed as none other should succeed, he defends the contra∣ry earnestly and expresly consid. 8. His words are:

Any civil monarchy or regal Government may be taken away, or changed into an Aristocracy, the law still continuing in force: but it is not so in the Church; which was founded by Christ in one supreme Monarch throughout the world: Because Christ Instituted no other Government vnchangeably Mo∣narchicall, and as it were regal, besides the Church.

Can any

words be more express against Mr. Lauds assertion; and yet his assertion is so positive, that I have known a Catholick Divine deceived by his authority in this particular; but after examination wondred at the Bishops confidence.

I conclude this matter of Protestant falsifications with this fair offer; let the learned men of that side shew but any one saying of any ancient Orthodox Father,* 3.83 or Councell, quoted by the reformed writers of any Nation or quality what∣soever, to confirm protestancy; and if it be not found either impertinent, or corrupted by addition, omission, translation, or concealing the words going before, or coming after, wher∣vpon depends the true meaning of the Text, let them J say but shew one of these that speaks cleerly in favour of Prote∣stancy, and I will confess in print that J have bin mistaken in the opinion I have of their Religion, and of its want of truth. But if not as much as one Orthodox Doctor, can be produced to support their Tenets, and the credit of Prote∣stant writers, I hope they will not take it in ill part, that we advise our Contreymen, and all Christians to renounce their Conduct and Communion.

SECT. XII. VVhether it be piety or policy to permit the Prote∣stant Clergy of these three Kingdoms to enjoy the Church Revenues, for maintaining (by such Frauds, and Falsifications as hitherto have bin alledged) the doctrin of the Church of England; which also they acknowledge to be fallible, and by consequence (for all they know) fals; and how the said revenues may be conscientiously ap∣plyed to the vse and ease of the people, without any danger of sacrilege, or any disturbance to the Government, if a publick Trial of both Clergies sincerity be allowed, and liberty of Conscience granted.

THat it cannot be piety in a Prince or people, to cast away so vast a Treasure vpon so vncer∣tain a Religion and Clergy, as we have pro∣ved the Protestant to be, needs no proof. Neither is there any doubt but that it was po∣licy, though not piety, in Q. Elizabeth (whose title could not stand with popery) to bestow the sayd revenues vpon any men that would call them∣selves a Clergy, and engage to fool the vulgar sort with fals Scripture for framing a Religion or reformation agreable to her title and interest, against the Royal line of the Stewards,

lawfull heires of this Monarchy. As litle question can be made, that the present possessors, and pretenders of Bishopricks, and Benefices, will endeavor to justify and continue Q. Elizabeths cours, though the case be altered; and that such of the layty as have vnlawfull designs in their hearts, will side with the Bis∣hops, and strive to gain, or make a party, and win the hearts of ignorant and seditious people, by pretending great zeal for that prelatick Religion wherby Q. Elizabeth vsurped the Crown, and her Creatures the revenues of the Church; not despairing but that as she by the advice of her Councel and Clergy forc't, or foold this Nation out of their loyalty, and duty to the Stewards (by pretending that popery is Idolatry) so them∣selves may vpon any occasion, (and perhaps vpon the mo∣tion of liberty of conscience) have the like success against K. Charles the second, as Q. Elizabeth had against the Queen of Scots. This is the only objection can be made against liberty of Conscience, from which (say they) will spring Popery and will be the plea of policy against piety, in case the falshood of pre∣latick protestancy, and the frauds of the faction interested therin, should be as zealously cryed down, as we presume it to be cleerly discovered in this Treatise.

Our answer to this plea is. 1. That liberty of conscience, and legal changes of Religion in England, have bin alwayes made by Acts of Parliament, as we may see in the statuts of K. Henry 8. K. Edward 6. Q. Mary, and Q. Elizabeth; and against resolutions taken▪ in so legal and general a way, no re∣bellious designs have ever prevailed in this Monarchy; nor can; because in a Parliament is involved the free consent and con∣currence of the Prince and people; and in case it should be judg∣ed conscionable and convenient that liberty of Conscience be granted to all Christians, (though thereby it could be feared the Roman Catholick Religion would be restored to these Kingdoms) it must be at the instance of the people, and by vote of Parliament; for that the Royal family, and the privy Councel are at present nothing inclin'd to Popery: But we

hope and pray that in time God may open his Majesties and his Councells eyes to see the Divin truth, and the Temporal conveniences annexed to the ancient faith wherof this Monar∣chy hath bin so long deprived. 2. The case between the Queen of Scots, and her Royal issue now reigning, is very different; for albeit her right was as cleer (according not only to Catholick principles, but to Acts of our Protestant Parliaments) as it is, that a man can not have two Wives at once, or that Q. Elizabeths mother could not be wife to K. Henry 8. during Q. Catherins life, nor her self legitimat; yet the Protestant principles, and her Fathers Testament, seemed to favor her succession; and the Queen of Scots mariage to the Dolphin of France made the En∣glish▪ (even Catholicks) more slow then they would have bin otherwise, in declaring for her right in the due time (which was a litle before, and immediatly after Q. Mary dyed) be∣cause they were not inclined to be subject to a French King, or governed by his Viceroy. None of these circumstances and considerations now concurring, it is not likely that designing or discontented persons can take any advantage against the royal family that now reigns, in case liberty of conscience, or even the restoring of the Roman Religion should be judged con∣scientious, and convenient by the Parliament.

3. The Protestant Clergys sincerity is now much more suspected, and the common people less incensed against popery, then in Queen Elizabeths dayes; when the Protestant Bishops and Ministers Sermons, and Bibles made men believe, that Images were Idols, the Pope Anti-Christ; Priests, Traytors, Agents for the King of Spaine &c. which things now are discovered to be calumnies and impostures; for the Bible making Images Idols, is corrected by publick authority; the Pope known to be a civil person, like other men, not the beast of the Apo∣calyps: Nor Rome the whore of Babylon: Priests have ser∣ved the King faithfully at home and abroad; and if any of them hath in our late troubles negotiated with the King of Spain, or his Ministers, it was then intended, and since hath

proved, and bin owned by our gratious Soveraign to have had bin for his Majesties, and his Royal Highness benefit; and (when they were in exile) in order to their subsistance and restauration; not any way against their interest. Wherfore seing the people of these nations are naturaly inclined to piety, though whilst they were abused by the Protestant Clergy, and countenanced by the interest of an illegitimat Prince, they did persecute Priests and popery as the greatest obstacles of peace and salvation; yet now, seing they are better informed, and that in this particular of our desire to apply the Church reve∣nues to the Crown for the defence of this Empire against all forreign and domestick Disturbers, we can have no design but duty to our King, and love to our Countrey, there can be no ground to fear, that the bare word or clamors of interested Adversaries, will disturb the Government, or incense a well meaning multitude against Papists, Priests, or any other per∣sons that desire nothing but a peacable and publick Conference in order to liberty of Conscience, and to ease these Nations of those heavy burthens vnder which they grone. And indeed it concerns so much the soul and state, the publick good, and all privat persons to examin, whether English men (after so many changes) may not, and have not bin mistaken in mat∣ters of Religion, and misled by education, that we have rea∣son to hope some worthy and zealous Protestants will be pleased, (for their own, and the worlds satisfaction) to move in Par∣liament, that our objections against the novelty of their do∣ctrin, and the sincerity of their Clergy, may be taken into Consideration, and a publick Tryall allowed for the discovery either of their Cheat, or of our Calumny. If I be found a Ca∣lumniator (no other joyned with me in this work) I do engage in the word of a Christian, to present my self to due punishment, in case J escape the pestilence, wherunto J have resolved to expose my self for the benefit and salvation of my brethren; but if the Protestant learned Clergy be found Cheats, I humbly and only beg, that the revenues which they possess

may be better bestowed; not vpon the Catholick Clergy, but vpon the Crown, for the defence and ease of the Countrey. If the Protestant Religion be true, by a fair Tryal it can re∣ceive no damage, nor the state incurr any danger: if false, besides the conversion of souls to the Catholick truth, the Commonwealth may declare (to whom it appertains) the ne∣cessity there is of seising vpon the Church livings for the pre∣servation of the people; and by their approbation conscien∣tiously enjoy the same.

And albeit never any Protestant contributed to the foun∣dation of Bishopricks, or Benefices; but that all such pious works in these Kingdoms have bin founded by our Roman Catholick predecessors, with an express obligation of prayer for the souls in Purgatory, and of preaching the Roman Re∣ligion; yet I question not but that they who (by vertue of the last wills and Testaments of the Founders, and long pre∣scription of lawfull Predecessors,) ought to be in possession of the Temporalities of the Church, are so good Patriots and dutifull subjects, as to declare they will resign their right vnto his Majesty, whensoever these three Kingdoms will think fit to grant liberty of Conscience, or to return the ancient true Re∣ligion; and therby the world may be satisfyed, that our quarrell with the Protestant Clergy is not for lands, but for souls; and of this we have given heretofore sufficient evidence in the change of Religion made by Q. Mary; having then resigned our Abbeys,* 3.84 and impropriations to the Crown; wheras the Protestant Cler∣gy in these great warrs never presented the King with any Do∣native out of their vast fines and revenues. This backwardnes of the Bishops in so pressing a Conjuncture, together with the present poverty of the people, and the dangers wherunto these nations are cast for want of a publick revenue, (which ought to be independant of taxes that can not be seasonably and se∣curely raysed, when they are most necessary) do not only justify, but exact a scrutiny into the right wherby the sacred patrimony of the Church is possessed by men that neither ex∣pose

their persons, nor open their purses for the defence of their King and Countrey, notwithstanding▪ that his Majesty, the Nobility, and people are so deeply engaged for the safe∣ty, honor, and trade of this Empire in a defensive war against the vnited powers of most powerfull Enemies; and that the Parliament was forcit (for want of other means) to feed the King, and be his faithfull souldiers, with smoak of Chym∣nys, whilst a mean Ministery raised by Q. Elizabeth▪ in op∣position to the Royal family of the Stewards, doth swallow vp the substance of these Kingdoms.* 3.85

How ridiculous it is to hear these Protestant Ministers cry out Sacrilege, at this our proposal, as if they had any spiri∣tual caracter, or any right to what they possess; or though they had, as if the Church ought not to contribute in cases of extreme necessity, to the defence of the Commonwealth. The vndoubted Catholick Clergy will rid the layty of any scruple of Sacrilege, for applying the goods of the Church, to the ne∣cessary defence of the Countrey▪ We know the ancient Pa∣stors and Bishops of Gods Church did not scruple (in such cases) to sell the very Chalices and vestments of the Altars; much less to spend their revenues for the safety of their Flock. But indeed they had no wives, nor Children, and therfore needed not be solicitous to buy estates for their sons; or to setle jointures on their wives, or to rayse portions for their daughters out of the patrimony of the Church, which of right belongs to the poor▪ and who is more poore then our soldiers, and seamen? or then Husbandmen and Tradesmen that hi∣therto contributed; nay then our King, that sacrificeth his revenue to the maintenance of the land forces, and navy?

* 3.86

But if the Protestant Clergy be confident of the Iustice of their cause, why do they not come to a tryal? why do they oppose liberty of Conscience? why do they with so many artifices decline reasoning and delude the people? 〈◊〉〈◊〉 their Religion be true, we Roman Catholicks will not ••••pine at their riches,* 3.87 nor at the rigor of the laws made by Queen Elizabeth against our Religion, and against the inte∣rest of the Stewards; or at least we will not be such fools as not to be hastily and heartily converted to protestancy, seing therby we may not only be saved, but share with the Pro∣testant Clergy, enjoy very many conveniences, and free our selves from the penalties and incapacities wherunto we are sub∣ject for being Papists; Herein they may believe us, there being no likelyhood we shall be obstinat against a truth (if protestancy appear in our desired Conference to be a truth) every way so advantagious to our selves. But an ill cause dreads nothing so much as a free and publick hearing;* 3.88 since pro∣testancy was intruded into England by Q. Elizabeth, the Ca∣tholicks have continually petitioned and pressed for a publick trial, but never could obtain that favor.

Arch-bishop Laud (pag. 445.) against Fisher, gives this reason, that the King and the Church of England had no rea∣son to admit of a publick dispute with the English Romish Clergy,

till they shall be able to shew it vnder the seal or powers of Rome, That that Church will submit to a third, who

may be an indifferent Judge between them and us, or a General Councell; which Councell though general, he sayes (pag. 194.) is not infallible.

And as for any other indiffe∣rent, and infallible Judge, the Bishop thinkes there is none as yet in the world; and yet its certain that a Iudge or Coun∣cell that is not believed infallible, is not for the purpose, be∣cause neither party can be obliged to submit their judgments to its sentence in matters of faith. So that though the contro∣versy could be decided by a fallible Judge, or Councell, we should remain still divided; and that, the Bishop well knew; but some thing he must have sayd to divert the well meaning Protestant layty from questioning the sufficiency or sincerity of their own Clergy, observing their backwardnes in giving satisfaction to our so just demand. And yet we granted to them in Q. Maries reign as free a disputation as they desired; we gave them their choice of books and notaries, and time, not only to put in their arguments and answers in writing, but to review and correct what they dislik't vpon more mature de∣liberation.

To Arch-bishop Lauds reason for not allowing a Confe∣rence, is answered, that we desire so much the salvation of souls and service of the state, that we will give vnder our own hands and seals (the powers of Rome we cannot Command) that if Protestants will admit of such a Trial as was granted to them in England, and to their party in France (which we have related in this Treatise) we are content to submit to my Lord keeper of England and other noble persons judgments therin: And let our Adversaries choos either to argue or an∣swer; let them object falsifications of Scripture and Fathers against us; or answer to such as we shall charge them withall. And if they cannot maintain their Reformation without such fraudulent dealing as we object against them, let them loose the Church revenues; if we can not defend our Religion without the lik fraud, let us not only be debarred from liber∣ty of Conscience but loose our lives. Notwithstanding my

Lord keepers known inclination to favor Protestancy, we will not except against his, and the Committees sentence; so con∣fident are we of the justice of our cause. If they refuse so fair an offer, though they keep their revenues, without doubt they will forfeit their credit, and be as much lost in the opinion of their own Prelaticks, as of Fanaticks. And as the Protestant Clergys diffidence must breed doubts, and di∣minish the esteem of the Pastors in the mynds of their flocks, so may it give the Protestant layty full assurance there can be no danger in embracing our Religion, which so learned per∣sons as are in the Protestant Clergy, dare not encounter.

Besides, the late change of their prelatick formes of Ordination hath so discredited their caracter of priesthood,* 3.89 and Episcopacy, that no sober lay-man will fight for a priestly function confessed by the Priests themselves to be invalid: and what confession of invalidity can be more plain, then to add vnto their old forms the words Priest and Bishop, forc't therunto by the arguments of their Adversaries,* 3.90 demonstra∣ting that neither of those functions had bin hitherto sufficient∣ly expressed in their Rituals; and by consequence that the ca∣racter could not be given by forms so vnsignificant, and so imperfect? I have often considered what could move the Clergy of the Church of England to condemn (in this par∣ticular of their form of Ordination) their first Protestant An∣cestors; and to condescend to their Catholick adversaries, in a matter so important as that of the validity of their priestly and Episcopal caracter, and to acknowledge by this change, (judged hitherto by themselves to be at least, superfluous,) that they who began and perfected the reformation, were grosly mistaken, and themselves misled in one of the most essential points of Christianity, and in one, without which there can be no Church. Had the dispute between them and us, bin about conveniency of disciplin, or decency of Ceremonies, a change in such things, (alterable according to the circum∣stances of time, place and persons) might be pious and pru∣dent,

because it might take away occasion of cavills; but to alter the essential forms of Priesthood and Episcopacy, and to add therunto (now after a Century of years) words which (hitherto wanting) concludes the Nullity of their Church, and Clergy, must rather augment the doubt, then avoyd the cavil. If they were satisfied of the validity of that form wherby themselves since Ed. 6. vntill this present,* 3.91 had bin or∣dained, what needed any addition of Priesthood and Episcopacy, which we argued, and they denyed to be wanting? did they imagin that such an addition would end the dispute? I believe it hath; for it is an acknowledgment that our exceptions were well grounded; but why should they give vs this advantage? J fancy they have hopes that some other Spalato will Aposta∣tize, and then by this new vndoubted form make them real Bishops. Yet that will not serve their turn; their want of spiritual Jurisdiction makes their caracter vseless; and want of jurisdiction together with their errors in Doctrin doth vn-Church a Congregation, as well as want of Orders.

As this want of ordination renders them incapable of the Benefices and Bishopricks which they enjoy; so their corrup∣tions of Scripture, and Falsifications of Councells and Fathers, make them vnworthy: And he can not be a true Christian that will stick to their interest after that he is informed of the nullity of their calling, and of the falshood of their doctrin. Wherfore it will not be in the power of any prelatick politi∣tian to make himself popular vpon the score of patronizing such a cause, or Clergy against Liberty of conscience or Con∣ferences: and the Prelatick caracter and disciplin is to all other Protestant parties as odious, as our late distempers have evi∣denced.

The only objection now remaining is, that Presbyterians and other Sectaries will take the advantage of an Act for Li∣berty of Conscience, or even for a change in Religion (in case the Parliament should resolve vpon it) for crying down of Monarchy. But (as we said) t'is well known these Secta∣ries

either desire Liberty of Conscience, or their animosity is as great against Prelatick Protestancy as against Popery; and if now they be kept in obedience and aw of the government, the King and Parliament will be better able hereafter (in case of any such liberty, or change to keep them to their du∣ty (by the addition of the Church revenues) then they are at present. Besides, it is very certain that among those Secta∣ries many are moral and conscientious persons, and would conform to the truth of the Roman Catholick Religion, had they bin rightly informed, and the Tenets therof had not bin rendred odious and ridiculous by the impostures of Protestant preachers, and the vulgar errors of a homly education; all which obstacles will be easily removed, if Catholicks have li∣berty to speak and reason for themselves. So that consider∣ing the influence which Truth alwayes hath vpon honest dis∣positions (such as our English are) and the prejudice which all men retain against falshood, when it is discovered (and it is not their interest to promote it) I see no danger of draw∣ing the people into a Rebellion vpon the account of Liberty of Conscience, or of opposing a change from Protestancy in∣to the old Religion; especialy seing the generality may hope thereby to see the Church Revenues lawfully and legaly ap∣plyed to their own ease, and against all disturbers of the peace, and Trade of these Nations. Let us therfore have a fair Trial and conference in order to Liberty of Conscience, and then judge of the truth and sincerity of both Clergys, and of both Religions.

Notwithstanding the evident conveniency of this humble proposal, I fear we do in vain flatter our selves with the ho∣pes of a publick Conference. We are inclined to believe what we wish for, notwithstanding that former experience, and our learned Adversaries knowledge of so cleer evidences on our side, casts vs again into despair. Did the busines depend of the vote, of the whole multitude of the Protestant Clergy, we might assure our selves of a conference, because many of the ordi∣nary

Persons are honest, and most so ignorant, that they be∣lieve themselves to be in the right way of saluation; for, they take all that Bishop Jewell, and Iohn Fox say, for truth, ne∣ver examining it further. But the Bishops and great Doctors are of another stamp; I fear their guilt of conscience, will busy them in opposing all Treaties and Trials of Truth; and yet methinks not any one thing should render them more suspected of fraud, and falshood, then so vnreasonable an op∣position. 1. Because it argues diffidence of their cause. 2. Be∣cause their Church being confessedly fallible, and by conse∣quence vncertain of the truth, they ought not to refuse any means wherby men may be further informed therof. Though we Papists believe the Roman Catholick Church infallible in matters of doctrin, yet whensoever our Adversaries desire to conferr about Religion, their Request is granted: nay the Councell of Trent (how ever inconsiderable Protestants make it) invited all the learned Protestants of the world to propose therin all their doubts and difficulties, offering all safety and civility to their persons. And though the infallibility of our Church be not consistent with a submission of our faith to the judgment of a Third in point of doctrin, yet that pre∣rogative doth not debarr us from submitting ourselves in mat∣ter of fact, and falsifications, to a fair trial of indifferent per∣sons. As for the Pope and general Councells not submitting to a Third in controversies with Protestants, it is no pride; but a prerogative of all supreme Magistrats, whether spiritual or temporal, as our Adversaries confess, and contest to be reasonable when their own Bishops deal with Non-conformists; and all Lay Soveraigns must maintain the same, when they treat with their revolted Subjects; which Subjects are judged very vnreasonable if they refuse to treat with their King (of grievances) vnless he submits the controversy to the decision of a Third: and much more intollerable, if no competent Third were to be found, as it is in our case; vnless we think that Turks, Iews, or Pagans, are fit men to judge of Chri∣stian

Religion. Wherefore, if the Church of England thinks it unreasonable, that her Sectaries should not conferr with pre∣latick Divines, unless they have it under the seal and powers of Canterbury, that the Arch-Bishops, or the Convocation will submit to the judgment of a Third; I understand not how Arch-Bishhop Laud could exact the like condition from the Pope or a general Council, before Protestants would confer with Roman Catholicks.

The other reasons alledged for refusing to Roman Catho∣licks a publick Trial of Falsifications, and an amicable Con∣ference of Religion, makes the refusal yet more unreasonable. Popery (saith every Protestant) is a growing Religion; if dis∣putes thereof be admitted, we shall turn all Papists: If they be not persecuted, their profession will prevail: If liberty of con∣science be granted, very few will frequent Protestant Churches. The prelatick Clergys last reason is, Venient Romani & tollent locum nostrum. If we come once to reason the matter with Roman Catholicks, infallibly we shall loose our Revenues. But, I may assiure them that the Roman Clergy covet not their re∣venues; if it be found that we have any right to the Church livings, we will lay our pretensions at his Majesties feet, and Petition the Pope (as we did in Queen Marys days) to leave all to the King and Parliaments disposal, for the ease and de∣fence of our fellow Subjects, and the terror of our Enemies. And as for our Religion being a growing Religion, we cannot deny it, and rejoyce that our Adversaries confess so much; how could it otherwise be the Catholick, or become universal? Protestancy is confined to this Northern Climate, notwithstan∣ding its liberty, of open and sensual allurements; the Ma∣hometan perswasion is propagated by force of Arms, and mul∣tiplicity of Wives; the Greek Schism is but a spite and spleen against the Primacy of Rome, and therefore is justly Become a Slavery to the Turk. No Religion but the Roman Catho∣lick doth grow and flourish, maugre the Storms of outwa••d Persecutions, and the strength of our inward perverse inclina∣tions

aganst it: we follow reason against the appearance of sense, we prefer vertue before vice, the judgment of the Church before our own, and Heaven before Earth; and therefore we are made Strangers in our own Country, Straglers abroad, Tennants at will of our own Estates, and our lives stand at the mercy of every base Informer, that will press the law against our Conscience; and yet in this sad condition and circumstan∣ces, our Religion doth increase, and is acknowledged to be a growing Religion: Ergo it is the true Catholick, and not only the most safe for the Soul, but the most convenient for the State, especially of Great Britain, as now shall more particu∣larly appear.

SECT. XIII. The same further demonstrated, and how by Liberty of Conscience, or by Tolerating the Roman Ca∣tholick Religion by Act of Parliament, the Bri∣tish Monarchy will become the most conside∣rable of all Christendom, Peaceable at Home, and recover its Right Abroad. How evidently it is the mutual Interest of Spain and England to be in a perpetual League against France, and how advantagious it is for Spain to put Flanders into English Hands.

THree things must concurr to make a Monarchy Powerful and Peaceable. 1. Uniformity in Religi∣on, or at least Liberty of Conscience. 2. Great Re∣venues of the Monarch, without empoverishing (by unusual and unimerciful Taxes) the Subjects, unless they be

slaves. 3 Men fit for Sea and Land Service. These Islands af∣ford the last; the other two we want, but may have them (if we will) by an Act of Parliament for Liberty of Conscience, or for tolerating the old Faith of our Ancestors, wherewith this Kingdom flourished in Peace and Prosperity for the space of 1000 years: Such an Act, I mean as may make legal one Profession, but wherein there ought to be a Proviso, that none of another suffer for his Conscience or Religion, especially, for the Roman Catholick.

That without Uniformity in Religion, or without Liberty of Conscience, it is impossible for a Monarchy to be long pea∣ceable, or powerful, is manifest by Reason and Experience. Reason doth dictate, that when Mens minds are Discontented and Oppressed by Persecution for their Conscience, they will hazard their all to be satisfied and saved; their Rebellion against the Soveraign will be thought the ground of their Salvation, or at least the only way to preserve their Posterity from being damned, and brought up in the state false Religion. Expe∣rience doth shew that diversity of Opinions, if but one be permitted, doth not only occasion Domestick differences, as the parting of Man and Wife, of Parents and Children, Bro∣thers and Sisters, &c. But is the cause of publick Inconveni∣encies, as jealousies between Princes and Subjects, from whence proceed civil Wars, which are the greatest obstacle of Prospe∣rity in an Empire, or Commonwealth. Whilst the Hugonots were persecuted in France, France was not so considerable; Here in England we are more afraid of persecuted Presbyte∣rians, Fanaticks, and other Sectaries, than of the French, Danes and Dutch; seeing therefore Liberty, or Uniformity in Re∣ligion is so necessary for the Peace and Power of a Monarchy, all States-men must grant the Religion fittest for the State is that, which is most likely to be generally embraced, if Men may have their free choice. Now whether that be Protestancy, or Popery, is the question. It is not Protestancy, because 'tis now a hundred years and more, since it hath been endeavoured by

all ways imaginable to bring the Subjects of the Crown of England unto an Uniformity in Protestancy, even by Sangui∣nary and Penal Statutes; and yet the design doth not take, and indeed cannot: Because it involves a contradiction; for, to be a Protestant, is to have the liberty of op••ning, and the gift of interpreting Scripture; which Liberty and Prerogative is not consistent with a subjection of Judgment to the Authority and Interpretation of any Church, or Councel; and by consequence not with Unity of Faith. Besides, the Protestant Church (whe∣ther Prelatick, Presbyterian, or Fanatick) is not as much as pretended to be Infallible in Doctrine, or in its Interpretation of Scripture; and it's a great vanity for a Church that professeth Fallibility in explaining the Scriptures, and admitteth a liberty or Latitude of applying the Letter of the same, to every private mans Spirit and Interpretation, to oblige men to any unity, or certainty of Faith, and therefore our Acts of Parliament are so inefficacious. Again▪ Faith is not Christian, unless the Believers hold it certain; and no Believer can hold his own Faith certain, if he submits and comforms his Judgment to the Doctrine and Decrees of a Fallible Church: For that no man can think him∣self certain of what he knows may fail▪ evident therefore it is, that the Protestant Faith is neither Christian nor certain; because the Professors thereof (if they be guided by their con∣fessed fallible Church) must know that their Faith may be False.

The Roman Catholick Church (seeing it is believed Infallible by all Catholicks) may teach a Faith which must be thought by us to be Certain, Conscientious, Christian, and by con∣sequence convenient, fit for both Soul, and State. How con∣scientious and Necessary it is for the Salvation of the Soul, we have proved in this whole Treatise, as also how conveni∣ent for the State; now I will shew the same in a word; and by the confession of our Adversaries. It is a growing Religion say they, therefore (I infer) convenient, and fit for that Uni∣formity of faith, and union of Hearts, which cements the People with their Soveraign, and among themselves: It is in∣deed,

so growing a Religion, that it hath spread it self over the whole world, not by force of Arms, but of truth,* 3.92 not by allowing leud liberty or licentiousness; but by working mira∣cles by professing, and observing abstinence, chastity, poverty and obedience to spiritual and temporal Superiors; by morti∣fying our Passions, and the perverse inclinations of a spiritual pride and proper judgment; this pride and property of judgment (the source of Heresy) we renounce by submitting our opini∣ons to the Church, acknowledging in the same, God's Infalli∣ble assistance, and authority; and this our submission procee∣deth not from simplicity, credulity, or rashness, but we are induced thereunto by evident marks of Gods favour and pro∣vidence clarly appearing in our Roman Catholick Church, and in no other; as Miracles, Conversion of Nations, Succession and Sāctity of Pastors, &c. whereby the most Learned Men of the World, in every Age since the Apostles, have been evidently convinced of an obligation to conform their Faith to a Church so supernaturally qualified; and therefore did prudently be∣lieve that none but God is Author of the Roman Catholick Do∣ctrine; and we judge our selves bound, under pain of damna∣tion, to follow their example. For, these Signs of Divine Pro∣vidence are so far above the force and course of Nature, and so visible to all the World, that not only the Learned, but all sorts of people who are not wilfully obstinate, must con∣fess a sufficient evidence of Gods Commission, and Authority in our Church; and by consequence they deny Gods veracity, who contradict the Doctrine of a Congregation that hath so notorious, and significant badges of his Divine trust for propo∣sing Articles of Faith, and composing all differences in Religi∣on. So that having for our guide a Church of so Authentick Authority, & a Testimony to rely upon, so visibly confirmed by supernatural Miracles, & marks of Gods Commission, the same Church must needs have his Infallible assistance in discharging her trust, of instructing Mankind; wherefore we Catholicks may & do uniformly agree & acquiess in her Difinitions, with

as little fear of being seduced, as of God being the Seducer.

He must be very unreasonable, who (after being informed of these motives of credibility, or marks of Gods Church) will refuse to submit his judgment to so convincing arguments of the Divine Authority; and this is the reason why not only the Natives of one Country, or the Subjects of one Monarch, but whole Kingdoms and Kings of most different tempers, and interests, do so easily, constantly, and unanimously submit and adhear to the Roman Catholick Religon, both now and in former Ages; whereas they who at any time opposed the same, could never agree among themselves, or with them∣selves; but were, and are divided into as many opinions, as there are fancies, or occasions offered of changing their in∣clinations, or of raising their fortunes.

And now our States-men may easily conclude which of both Religions is not only most conscientious for the soul, but most convenient for the power and peace of the State, if they will reflect upon the different ways of planting and preserving both Religions, the Catholick, and Protestant. To omit other examples, let them consider how St. Austin our Apostle of England, arrived at Kent with forty Monks and Preachers, en∣tred into Canterbury (as our Adversary Fox confesseth p. 150.) in procession with a Crucifix carried before him, and singing Litanies; and how they converted that Kingdom and all Eng∣land from Paganism to the very same Roman Catholick Religion we now profess, in every particular; not by force of Arms, or by Frauds of falsifying the Letter and Sense of Scripture;* 3.93 but by working confessed Miracles in confirmation of our Roman Text and Sense of Scripture, which they Preach'd; and by the example of a Godly life. How this same Religion con∣tinued for almost a thousand years in this Island, and in all that time never was there any Rebellion upon the score of our Doctrine, or of Interpreting of Scripture; much less did the Subjects pretend Scripture or the Word of God, to warrant a Superiority over their Sovereign, or to try Him by a formal

Court of Justice. On the other side our Statesmen will find in all Histories, and this Treatise, that in this one Age since Pro∣testancy began, that Reformation hath not entered without Rebellion or Tyrany into any one Kingdom, Country or Ci∣ty; that he who first Preached this Reformation (Luther) did see it divided into more Sects than himself had years, tho' he lived to be an old Man. That never any of these Sects conti∣nued long without embroyling the State. That never Miracle was wrought to confirm any kind of Protestancy; nor the Au∣thor of any of these Sects or Reformations lived with the e∣steem I do not say of holy, but of honest conversation. No marvel therefore if People so naturally honest as the English, cannot be brought to uniformity in a Reformation so unlikely to be Divine, & that was begun by a dissolute and drunken Friar, who had no Rule of Faith but his own fancy; the marvel indeed is, that any sober man can be persuaded 'tis possible to bring pious & prudent men to reject the old Religion (confir∣med with so many supernatural signs & renouned for so long & successful subjection to Lawful Kings) for a new fangled de∣vice introduced into England by an Illegitimate Queen, in op∣position to the Title and known right of our lawful Sovereigns.

Seeing therefore our Adversaries do confess that the Roman Catholick is a growing Religion, even in this groaning and sad condition wherein we are kept in these Kingdoms; who doubts but that if made the Religion of the State, and countenanced by Law, or even tolerated, it will soon grow to such a hight, that all other persuasions will be rendred contemptible, and in∣capable of thwarting the Designs and Decrees that will be re∣solved upon by the King and Parliament? when Law, Religi∣on, and Reason walk hand in hand, there is no room or pre∣text left for Rebellion upon the score of conscience. And what can be more legal than an Act of Parliament? what more a∣greeable to Religion and Reason, than that every man ought to submit his judgment to Authority so Authentikly Divine, and so prudently judged to be Infallible, as that of the Roman

Catholick Ghurch? For, what more convincing arguments can there be of Divine and Infallible authority, than the undenia∣ble Miracles, Sanctity, Succession, both of Doctrine and Doctors, Conversion of Kings and Nations, &c. of the Roman Catholick Church? He who denies any of these, must conse∣quently resolve to believe nothing, and even to doubt of him∣self, of his Parents, Country, and Relations, because no Man hath, or can have, a more credible Testimony, or a more con∣stant Tradition for any one of these particulars concerning his Parents, Country, &c. than he hath for the Miracles wrought in Confirmation of the Authority, Infallibilty, and Doctrine of our Church; the Sanctity and Succession whereof is as evident also as our converting of Kings & Nations from Paganism to Christianity, and cannot be contradicted without questioning at least all humane Faith and History. A Church and Religion so supernaturally qualified, cannot be prudently suspected to be a Cheat, or humane Invention; And if once, I do not say, established, but permitted, in these Kingdoms, its Doctrine needeth not be fenced with Sanguinary Statues, nor favoured by any Penal Laws and Acts of Parliament for Vnifor∣mity; all which rigorous proceedings will be superfluous, as also the continual care and vast charges of suppressing unlaw∣ful Assemblies. The absurd gestures and foolish fancies of eve∣ry humorsom fellow, or Hypocrite, will not then take with the common people, and pass for motions and revelations of the Holy Ghost; neither will silly Tradesmen be heard with pa∣tience in Pulpits prate non-sense, and comment upon Texts of Scripture. All these impieties and disorders I say, will be quasht when liberty is granted to declare unto the ignorant and mis∣informed people, the Roman Catholick truths, and the motives that induce to believe them: and no Nations in the World are more inclined to embrace the truth, and wholsom docu∣ments than these Islands; witness the multitude of our anti∣ent Saints, the magnificence of our Churches, & even the zeal of the present Seekers, and Sectaries, in their mistaken way of Salvation.

By all which it appeareth there would soon be an Unifor∣mity in Religion in these Kingdoms, if the Roman Catholick were Tolerated. That the King would have a considerable and conscientious Revenue (to support the Honour of this Monarchy, and suppress all sinister designs) by the addition of the Church Livings, when resigned by the Roman Clergy, needeth no proof; I believe there will be found more diffi∣culty in His Majesty to accept, than in the Catholick Clergy to offer such a Donative; seeing His Piety is now so great to∣wards unlawful Ministers, doubtless it would be refined in case He did see the mistake. Let us suppose therefore that God hath heard our continual Prayers, and will open the eyes of him and of these Nations, and that they will acknowledge the Errors of their Education; in such a case I say, the Ro∣man Clergy ought to press (and without doubt will) their Re∣venues upon His Majesty and the Commonwealth? 1. To let the World see they seek not so much Worldly Interest as the salvation of Souls. 2. Because the Kings Catholick Ancestors and theit Subjects of the same Profession, founded all the Bi∣shopricks and Benefices of these Kingdoms; and it is a princi∣ple and practice of Roman Catholicks, that in case of necessity, the Heirs of the Founders ought to be maintained and relie∣ved by the Foundations.

But the principal reason to move His Majesty not to re∣ject, and the Roman Catholick Clergy to make so dutiful an offer, is the absolute necessity there is of a greater publick re∣venue, then at present the Crown doth possess. For though the English Valour should force advantagious Articles of Peace from our Enemies, that Peace will not be lasting, unless they see we are in a condition to force the performance as well as the Peace; if at any time a breach of Articles should happen, or new injuries be offered. Nothing is more uncertain than the solemn agreement of Princes: Their Leagues last no longer than until they be at leasure, and recover strength to renew the War; and if one of them wants a constant & considerable

Revenue, he and his Subjects will be contemned and his Domi∣nions made a prey to his more powerful Neighbour, though lately reconciled Friend. The best pledge therefore of a Peace with Foreigners, is our own power: if we rely wholly upon the word of the French, or upon the worth of the Dutch, we shall be mistaken, and repent our credulity.

But shall our power so depend of Parliaments, that before the Lords and Commons can meet, or Ta••es be rais'd, our Ene∣mies may be landed, and our selves so distracted that none knows what to do? Without doubt our power must depend of Acts of Parliament, espicially of one annexing the Church Revenues to the Crown, seeing no other found doth appear. Never Parliament did give greater proofs of love and liberality to a King, than this present; but the more people have given, the less able they are to give; their will is still the same, their ability is not: what then? must Church-men (whose profession ought to be poverty, especially when the State is empoverish'd) think of enjoying Millions of Revenue, and see that the Laity is not able to bear the burden of the War? or must the Fng∣lish Monarchy be reduced to such a condition, that if the French or Dutch will but send a Messenger to have a Place of importance delivered to them, it must be done, because the King hath not Money to maintain a War, and defend His Sub∣jects? I do not say this hath been, but I fear it may be the case of England, if the King's Revenues be not made much more considerable than they are. And how they may be con∣siderably, conscientiously and conveniently raised otherwise than I have proposed (by the Lands of the Church) I do not understand, and wish that others find out a better expedient. As for relying upon extraordinary Taxes and Subsidies, raised from the empoverished, and discontented Laity by new Acts of Parliaments, according to occasions offered, it is not safe; for that such Taxes are look'd upon by all wise men, to be more dangerous than durable, as depending upon a popular Vote and Vogue, whereupon neither the secret and solid designs of

State, nor the Peace of the Monarchy, nor the power of the Monarch (all which require a constant and sure Revenue) can be well built.

Seeing therefore that extraordinary Taxes cannot be made, that ordinary and constant Revenue, which is absolutely neces∣sary for the maintenance of Peace as well as of War, and that the Laity cannot contribute much more than they have done, and that the Revenues of the Clergy may be so conscientiously applied to the Crown, I see not any scruple of Sacriledge that may deter the King or Parliament from such a resolution. There is not one Catholick Divine thinks it Sacriledge to apply sacred things to pious uses; and what use can be more pious, than the publick safety, the defence of King and Country, the ease of poor Subjects, the maintenance of Soldiers and Sea-men that venture their lives for our repose? or then Pensions to their Widows and Children, when themselves perish in the Service? Seeing I say, this is lawful and laudable in all other Countries, I see not why our Bretish Clergy should be excepted from so general a rule, and excepted from so particular a Du∣ty? The Portugal Nation hath been ever most Orthodox and pious; a••d since their late separation from Spain, they have apply'd the Revenues of the Bishopricks to the maintenance of their War against the Castilians; and this, without the Popes positive approbation: How much more lawful would it be for our Catholick Clergy to resign (with the Poprs consent) their Right and Revenues to the King upon so pious and publick a consideration, as Liberty of Consci••nce, and a Toleration of our true Faith? and how rationally may it be presumed the Pope and all therein concerned, will consent thereunto?

But in such a case, how shall the Roman Catholick Clergy be maintained? by Gods Providence, and Christian Charity, as they have been, when our Ancestors were first Converted. How are they now maintained in England, Holland, Japan, and China? Let us not be Solicitous for things of this World; let us seek the Kingdom of Heaven, and we shall not

want. There was never more Piety in the Church, than when the Ministers thereof had no Lands. Let the Finances, or found of the Exchequer be settled in such a manner, that the King need not trouble His Subjects, unless it be upon some very ex∣traordinary occasion, and we may be confident that what can be spared, will not be denied. All must be left to the Piety and Prudence of His Majesty, and His Ministers. Let us who are but Passengers and private persons in this great Ship of the Commonwealth, pray for fair weather, that the Sun of Justice may shine, and discover the dangers both of Soul and State, whereunto these our floating Islands have been driven by the tempestous and cross winds of Protestancy, and leave the rest to God, and to such as he hath placed at the Helm: The mist of Protestant Frauds, and falsifications once disperced, and fals∣hood vanished into its own nothing, through the force and evidence of truth, our Masters will not be necessitated (as now they are) to steer the State according to the deceits of a mer∣cenary Clergy, or to the Decrees of a fallible Church; And as they will enjoy the benefit of our Catholick Doctrine, so we ought not to doubt but that we shall find the effects of their Christan Charity.

* 3.94Peace and Plenty thus established at home, then we may think of our Right and Interest abroad. Its undeniable that the two best Provinces of France (Normandy and Aquitain) are our Kings antient Patrimony, and undoubted Inheritance; neither can his right to that whole Kingdom be much que∣stioned, seeing that the Salick Law (if ever any such thing was) extended no further than Franconia, a Province of Germany; and had it been intended for France, the Line Male of the Kings thereof, had not been so frequently changed: but it seems the French would have one Law for us, and another, or none at all, for themselves. Our antient Kings regarded not this Salick Pretext, they claimed by Law, and conquered by Arms that great Empire; But the difference between the white and red Rose, occasioned the loss of our French Lillies; when those dif∣ferences

were compos'd, and the Titles of York and Lancaster united in King Henry 8. instead of recovering France, he made a breach with Rome; and by the Protestant Reformation, which he began, and his Successors continued, they have been so di∣verted and distracted at home, that they wanted both means and opportunity to prosecute their claim to the best Kingdom of Europe.

And indeed so long as Protestancy doth so much prevail in these Islands, we may despair of having any Dominion in the Catholick Continent. We have had late experience how the two emulous great Crowns of France and Spain conspired to recover (contrary to the ordinary maxims and practises of state) Dunkirk out of our hands; neither was it bestowed upon us with any other intention then of taking it from us when a peace should be concluded, tho' Cardinal Mazarin endeavour'd to make Cromwell believe the contrary. But that which must make our hopes (even of Normandy and Aquitain) quite vanish, is the prejudice which the generality and nobility of France, and of those two mention'd Provinces, retain against the Reforma∣tion which our former Kings not only professed but pressed upon others. The Normans and Gascoins do love our King as their undoubted and natural Prince; but they are so averse from being of his Religion, that they had rather endure the hardships of a Jealous (but Catholick) Government, then try and trust the Faith and Caresses of a Protestant. And truly our proceedings in Ireland, and the Principles whereupon we have grounded the Settlement of that Nation, seem to have so little regard to the performance of Promises, Solemnity of Treaties, and engagements of publick Faith made to Roman Catholicks, that few of that Profession will be induced to take a Protestants word, or trust his Religion in another occasion; seeing that, notwithstanding the Kings inclination, and Declaration to make good his Articles of Peace, such is the priviledge of Protestancy, and the Power or Prerogative it gives to the Protestant Multi∣tude, that a King cannot be just to Papists, without running

the hazard of being injurious to himself, and of loosing his Crown by a Protestant Rebellion. Is it likely that Catholick stran∣gers will become Subjects to this Monarchy, when the Catho∣lick Natives are by our Laws made Strangers, and incapable of Trust or Employment, only because they are Catholicks? Is it credible we shall maintain the Priviledges and Rights of Foreign Catholick Corporations, when we make a Law that no Catho∣lick shall enjoy his own Lands, or freedom in our Corporations, notwithstanding the express Articles of a proclaim'd Peace to the contrary, in favour of the Catholick Natives. Therefore un∣less we resolve to be more moderate in our Religion at home, it is a vanity to claim our Right, or to think of diverting our Ene∣mies abroad. As for designs built upon the Strength of the French Hugonots, they can have no other ground but our desires; that Party is brought so low in France, that the King made his aversion to their Religion, and Themselves, no state secret; and scrupled not to tell their Agents representing Grievances, that though his Grandfather loved them, and his Father feared them, yet he did neither love nor fear them: And truly all that England can expect from them, is but the Presbyterian Prayers of Cha∣renton, and of their other Calvinian Congregations, for the good success of Puritans against Prelaticks and Royalists. But if the Catholick Religion were Restored, or at least Tolerated in these Kingdoms, by Act of Parliament, we should be more formi∣dable to the French Kings, then ever our Ancestors have been, and no less successful. Normandy, and Aquitain, could have then no pretext to except against their Lawful Princes; the Scots (who always hindred) would now help to Conquer the rest of that Kingdom. The Princes of the French Blood could not be kept in such awe, as they are at present, if we had any footing in France, and the odious Name and Faith of Protestants, were (by granting liberty of Conscience) a little sweetned; otherwise if the Princes (who perhaps desire to fa∣vour any Foreigner, whether Protestant or Catholick to make their Cousin less Absolute) did joyn with Protestants, their Power

would be rendred useless, and themselves odious, because they joyned with Persecutors of the Catholick Faith.

Besides; the Spaniard (whose Interest it is to have France divided, and embroil'd) would countenance our Designs, and contribute to our Conquest, if we Tolerated Catholicks; which now he dares not do either for scruple of Conscience, or at least for fear of loosing the Reputation and Name of the Catholick King, that gets him so many grants of Church Reve∣nues, Comiendas, and Cruzadas, and so great Contibutions from the Clergy. If he joyn'd with us (as now we are) in recovering our Right, he would only gain the Name and Opinion of a Fautor of Hereticks, and loose the Donatives and Devotion of his Church Friends, and perhaps the duty of his Lay Subjects. But if England did grant liberty of Conscience, it were much more for his Interest to dispose of his Daughters, and (with them) of Flanders to our Royal Family, than to the German House of Austria.

Hitherto the Polititians of Europe have been employed in keeping the scales equal between France and Spain, to the end neither of those two great Crowns might gain too far upon their Neighbours, and so by degrees devour all petty States and Princes, and afterwards endanger other Monarchs; hence every Crown concerned it self not only in protecting Allies, but in fomenting Rebellions, as Q. Elizabeth did that of Holland, and of the other Vnited Provinces. But of late the case is altered; Holland now Copes with England; the Spaniard hath had so many losses of Armies, Navies, and Kingdoms, that now he is more pittied then feared, or envy'd; and France is arrived to such a height of Power, by uniting to it self the Provinces of Lorain, Alsatia, and Rossillon; the Cities of Perpignan, and Pig∣norole, (the Keys of Spain and Italy) the greatest part of Ar∣tois; And the most important Towns of Flanders, and other Provinces, and moreover the French King hath setled so vast a Revenue upon his Crown, independent of his Parliament, or of the vote of the People, that he and France is become a ter∣ror

to all Christian Princes;* 3.95 which therefore censure our En∣glish Statesmen for not having closed in time with Spain, and for having supported Portugal immediately after our Kings re∣stauration; we should rather (say they) have permitted Spain (by recovering of Portugal) to counterpoise France, and put it self into a condition of revenging the manifold injuries done by the French to the Catholick and British Monarchies, and thereby secure our selves, and frustrate the designs, and at∣tempts which were foreseen would be made by so Powerful, Prudent, and warlike a Monarch as Louis 14. against England, it being the likliest Kingdom to check his greatness, and pre∣vent his being universal Monarch.

Besides, they say we could not but expect a visit from so unquiet, emulous, and neighbouring a Nation as France, in case they were peaceable at home, and Spain busied with Por∣tugal; we having visited them so often heretofore in their own Country and Court, and indeed they never since have been at leasure, nor in a Posture to return us a visit until now. These reasons might have moved us to have had been more kind to Spain, especially seeing our Alliance with Portugal, (for which we forsook Spain) added not the Islands Azores, or Terceras to our Empire, as the World imagin'd it would, the Portugueses not being in a condition to refuse any demands, when they sought our Friendship, and were abandon'd by the rest of the World. This is the Discourse, and Censure of strangers; which, being a meer matter of State, we wave as improper for our Profession. Yet common sense doth tell us, that the Azores, or Terceras could not be easily obtained, (at least not long en∣joyed) by Protestants, seeing the Natives of those Islands are all Catholicks, and rather then live in Persecution under a Pro∣testant Government, would (in all likelihood) have submit∣ted to the Spaniard; and we been Catholicks, or tolerated Ca∣tholicks, without doubt those Islands might have been ours. What little advantages our Soveraigns are like to have in the other World by being Protestants, hath been hitherto sufficienly

declared; in this Section we only shew how much they loose in this World by their Protestant Zeal of not Tolerating the Roman Catholick Religion.

King James (as the World knows) was a very Wise Prince, and thought it was the Interest of England to be in a per∣petual League with Spain against France. How far the Spaniards will engage with us at present, or trust Promises and Ar∣ticles confirm'd by the Protestant publick Faith, I do not know; but if by Act of Parliament we did tolerate Roman Catholicks, it would be evident to the Spaniards themselves that it were greater conveniency and security for the Spanish Mo∣narchy, to Ma••ch continually with the Princes of England,* 3.96 then with the German Austrians; and that it would be more for their purpose to give the Netherlands (which are a vast charge to Spain, and of no concern but to busie France) as a portion with their Infantas to our Kings, then to the Arch-Dukes, or to the Emperors. The reason is clear, Our Kings cannot be diverted from Invading France, and Relieving Flanders, (or Spain it self) by Turks, Swedes, German Princes, or Electors; as the Emperor and Austrians may; our King may secure their Spanish West-India Fleets, & frustrate all Attempts against them, which the Emperors cannot. Our Kings have an Hereditary Right, not only to Normandy, Aquitain, and Anio••, but to all France; and this Right, together with our former Successes in that Kingdom, makes us look upon it still more as our own, then some Titular Kings of Jerusalem do upon the Holy Land; we retain still hopes of Calais, the loss whereof occasioned Q. Maries Death This Hereditary Right and Hopes of recovering France, makes us as irreconciliable to the French, as the Spa∣niards are. The German House of Austria hath no such grudge, or ground of a perpetual and immediate quarrel, against the French; and therefore is not so fit to joyn in a league offensive, and defensive with Spain against the French Kings, as England is: And the Peace of Munster shews that the German Austrians will forsake the Spanish Austrians sometimes, and that their In∣terests

may be separated, as relating to France; but the En∣glish and Spanish Interest (in opposition to France) are not separable. Wherefore, if any shall live to see England Tolerate Catholick Religion, I doubt not but that he will see a more strict League and Alliance between England and Spain, then ever hath been seen between Spain and Austria; not only by Marriages of the Royal Families, but much more by a mutual Wedding of each others Interest; and then we may rationally expect at least Cautionary Towns in Flanders, as convenient Places for our Retreat, and for a free Passage into France, or rather as absolute a Donation of the whole Countrey, as the Arch-Duke Albertus had; whereas, whilst we continue Pro∣testants, or at least Persecutors, neither will the Spaniards hear of such a Proposition, nor the Catholick Natives accept of us, if their Masters would grant it.

The Spaniards understand how interwoven the Interest of their Monarchy is with ours, in case we gave liberty to Catho∣licks; but think it not policy to trust us much upon any other Terms, and desire our Conversion, or a Toleration not only out of Charity, to others, but out of Conveniency to themselves; and therefore they were so earnest with our late King in Spain to renounce his Protestancy; and some attribute to his aversion against the Catholick Profession, the breach of the Spanish Match. We see how they sent three Ambassadors one upon another to demand the late Royal Princess of Orange for the Prince of Spain, not doubting but that in her tender years, she would have been brought to be of her intended Spouse his Religion.

We have indeed been most Happy in the Person and Royal Issue of our Vertuous Queen and Gracious Queen Mother; and yet the French confess they did not that Favour unto us for any Happiness they wished us,* 3.97 but to compass their own ends, and obtain some advantages of our late King, when the Passion of love to his beautiful Spouse, made him forget the reasons he had to be averse from matching in her Family. Our Alliances with Spain are Conjunctions of both Monarchys against an irrecon∣ciliable

and common Enemy, France: They are not only pri∣vate Contracts between the Married Princes, but publick con∣cerns of their Loyal People: The Puritans always oppos'd them, for that they knew Matches with Spain engaged that Monarchy in crossing their Presbyterian Plots, and designs against our Mo∣narchs. They would not have presumed to Rebel against Char∣les the I. had it not been the Interest of the French King to fo∣ment Rebellion against the Lawful Kings of England, and the English Kings of France? Whereas on the contrary, 'tis the in∣terest of Spain to maintain the Right of our Kings, encrease their Power, and offer them Conveniencies and help to recover their own in France. We may therefore say with Truth, that the French King and Ministers seek our Alliance, thereby to lessen our Power: But the Spaniards, to increase it: We must judge of the Intentions of Princes, by their Interests, it is the Interest of Spain that England be Powerful; it is the Interest of the French King to destroy both it, and that Line which claimes a Right to France. We see how much addicted, he and his Mi∣nisters were to the late Usurpers, and Rebels. By their Kind∣ness to Cromwel and to his Sons, it doth appear, they had rather any Line should reign then the Right. And because our Kings Antient Right to France (if they did favour Catholicks) would, in all liklihood, give them footing in Normandy, and Aqui∣tain, some Politians are of opinion that the French Statesmen like well enough of Protestancy in England. How far their Christianity doth incline them to wish our Kings, and these Kingdoms were Catholick, we cannot tell; but their Policy and Proceedings seem not shew any great Zeal for our Con∣version, fearing perhaps that Popery may make us Popular in France, and put us into a condition of recovering our own.

To conclude this matter of State, wherein I am engaged against my Will, by the Impertinency and Importunity of our Adversaries, (pretending that our Cotholick Religion is disad∣vantagious to these Kingdoms)▪ and by reason of the too great influence such humane considerations as these have upon state

Ministers in their choice and settlement of Divine Worship in Commonwealths; I desire the Judicious Reader will reflect upon the Situation and Fertility of these Islands; the honest dis∣position, and Warlike Genius of the Inhabitants; the irreconci∣liable quarrel of the French Kings to ours, the interest of Spain, in promoting these our Rights; and then, after mature consi∣deration, let him be Judge, whether any Monarchy in Chri∣stendom hath such means, and may make such Friends, to raise it self, without injustice, into a great Empire? And what great pity 'tis, that all these means and Friends are rendred unpro∣fitable by our persecuting the old Faith, and by professing a new Religion, that divides us at home, makes our Government odious to such as ought to be our Subjects abroad, and depri∣ves us of the true Friendship and Succours of Spain, whose in∣terest it is that we were, (or at least did Tolerate) Catholicks, and were so considerable as to gain our own, or (by endea∣vouring to regain France) were able to divert the French from invading Spain, Italy, and Flanders.

This is as much as I thought fit (and perhaps more then some will think I ought) to say, in a matter of this nature. But something must have been answered to stop the mouths of our politick Controversors, who continually harp upon this string of reason of state, in their Books against the Roman Catholick Faith; pretending to demonstrate, that it is inconsistent with the Interest and Greatness of our Kings, with the Peace and Prosperity of their Subjects. Therefore leaving this Argument, I will return to that which is more proper for my profession, and shew how manifestly God hath confirm'd our Catholick Faith, (and confuted the Protestant persuasion) by Miracles, which are the greatest Evidence that is consistent with the nature and merit of Christian belief. For every point wherein Protestants & we differ, I will relate Miracles wrought in favour of our Doctrine, and our sense of Scripture, against theirs, not recorded by uncertain or obscure Authors, but by the prime Saints and Doctors of the Catholick Church, in the Ages wherein they lived.

THE FOVRTH PART. The Roman Catholick Religion in every par∣ticular wherin it differs from the Protestant, confirmed by vndeniable Miracles.

SECT. I. That such Miracles as are approved by the Roman Catholick Church in the Canonization of Saints, are true miracles, and the doctrin which they con∣firm, can not be rejected without denying or doub∣ting of Gods Veracity; and how every Protestant doth see true Miracles though he doth not reflect vpon them, in confirmation of the Roman Ca∣tholick Faith.

BY Miracles approved by the Roman Catholick Church, I vnderstand such Miracles as indu∣ced the said Church to canonize and worship for Saints, the persons by whose prayers, or reliques they were wrought. As for other mi∣racles, though I know many not mentioned in the Acts, and Processes of Saints Canoniza∣tions, are true, so doubt I not but some vulgarly reported, may be fals; but that is a thing wholy impertinent to my de∣sign, and the dispute against Protestants? 'Tis sufficient for my

purpose, and their confusion, that some true miracles have bin and are wrought in confirmation of that Roman Catholick Doctrin, which they deny, or doubt of, and we believe.

And first we are to know, that no Confessors (Martyrs have a priviledge, Martyrdom it self being a notorious miracle) are canonized, or worshiped by the Roman Catholick Church, before the Pastors therof see authentick proofs, of supernatural miracles wrought by those Confessors, or their Reliques. A holy life and conversation, if not confirmed by supernatural signs, is not sufficient to canonize a Roman Catholick Saint, because hypocrisy may deceive all human observation, and out∣ward appearances of morality are no infallible evidence of the internal acts wherby men are justifyed, and wherof God alone is witnes and Iudge; and therfore before his declaration and approbation of the persons true sanctity by working vndoubted miracles, none can be honored by the Church as his faithful and beloved servant. In the inquiry, and examination of wit∣nesses concerning the truth of miracles, the care and caution of the Bishops, and other officers, is no less then the impor∣tance of a matter, wherin the credit not only of themselves, but of the whole Catholick Church is concerned; and ther∣fore the quality and capacity of the Jnformers and Jnquisitors is considered, as well as the nature and circumstances of the miracle, and the judgment of able Physitians (when it is a cure) demanded, least some natural accident or art, might pass for a supernatural miracle. And this not only of late, hath bin the practice of the Church, but continualy since the primitive times, as you may read in St. Austin (Breviar. Collat. di. 2. cap. 14.) who also (de oper. Monach. c. 28.) reprehendeth some vain and wicked Monks that for filthy lucre carried about fals, or doubtfull reliques of Martyrs. But the Church always provided Antidots against such Jmpostures; witnes the 14. Ca∣non of the 5. Councell of Carthage against revelations and Re∣liques not approved of, and St. Gregory the Great in his letters to St. Augustin our Apostle of England (ep. 9.) And Innocent. 3. in the Councell of Lateran. c. 2.

And if the same be not exactly observed in these British Kingdoms, it must be attributed to the want of the States per∣mission to the Roman Clergy for exercising that power which Catholick Canons give them, over such as pretend to be Mira∣culists, Prophets, or to have revelations &c. Where the Ro∣man disciplin and doctrin is obeyed, there are officers, or Jn∣quisitors appointed, whose duty it is to inquire after, and exa∣min the life, doctrin, and conversation of such as pretend to have supernatural gifts, and extraordinary illuminations, or to work miracles, which none dares to allow for true, much less print or publish, vntil the fact, and circumstances be maturely examined by the Bishops and their Divines, or by the Jnqui∣sition. Whefore all these diligences being applyed in so many different and distant places, by indifferent and eminent persons, it is as impossible the miracles returned by them as authentick, should be counterfeited, as it is that such men, no way related either among themselves, or to the person of whose life and con∣versation they inquire, and inform, should conspire to discre∣dit and damn themselves for an imposture that can not be con∣cealed, and wherby they are to expect no benefit, but the loss of their benefices, dignities, perpetual imprisonment, and infamy. No marvel therfore if it was never heard that any one miracle related in the process or Bull of any Saints Canoniza∣tion, was found to be fals, or as much as contradicted by any credible Testimony; so wary and circumspect the Church hath always bin, as also the Congregation of Cardinals, and Prelats, to which that charge is committed.

Besides,* 3.98 some miracles are not only credible by relation and Tradition, but so visible and permanent even to this day, that they need no proof but eyes and will to see them. Such are divers Bodys of Saints preserved from corruption, not by Egyptian Mummies, or human art, but by divin power. Such is (to omitt many others) that most stupendious miracle of St. Ianuarius Martyr and Bishop of Beneventum,* 3.99 whose blood kept in a Vial of glass at Naples, is congealed, and looks dull

and dry like earth;* 3.100 but when in the festival of the Saint (or at other times) it is carryed in procession, or layd on the Altar at Mass together with the head, it is liquified and dis∣solved in such sort, that it seemeth to boil, and assume a lively and fresh colour. This happens every year, and never faileth but when some great and general calamity doth immediatly ensue, and fall vpon the City and Kingdom of Naples. By this permanent miracle, which every Protestant Traveller may see, is confirmed our Roman Catholick Religion in general, and in particular the Sacrifice of the Mass, Transubstantiation, prayer to Saints, and the worship of their Reliques.

Other miracles there are so credible (in regard of the Testimony and Tradition wherby they are delivered to vs, and of other remarkable circumstances) that no man in his wits can deny the fact, though Protestants dispute the power, whe∣ther it was a divin,* 3.101 or diabolical. But when the miracle ex∣ceeds the Devils power, then they are puzzeld, and troubled. As for example, Father Marcello Mastrilli a noble man by birth, and a Jesuit by profession, was struck in the temples of the head by a weighty hammer that fell from a great height, and in that condition was carried from the work, wherof he was Overseer, to his bed; where he lay without sens or motion for some days, vntill the houre of his approaching death, to the great grief of all the nobility of Naples his friends, and rela∣tions, who came to the Iesuits Colledge of that City to see this sad spectacle, and the next day to the Church to assist at his funeral, the Altars having bin the night before covered with black, for that his brethren were to say the mass of the dead for his soul, after that the Physitians, and Chyrurgions had given him over, and judged he would expire before the next morning. Some noble men who came early to the Col∣ledge (rather to pray for his soul, then to inquire of his health) were surprized to see him saying Mass at the Altar, and could not credit their eyes, vntill they were informed of the admi∣rable means wherby he was rather revived then recovered. The manner was this.

Jn the dead of the night the Fathers that watched with ••ying Mastrilli, observed, that he not only moved, and tur∣ned towards the wall, but heard him speak; wherat they were astonished; a litle after he sate vp in his bed, called for his cloaths, pen and ink; Then he writ with his own hand, how, at that instant St. Francis Xaverius Apostle of India, China, I••pan &c. and one of the first Companions of St. Ignatius, Founder of the Jesuits, had appeared to him in a pilgrims ha∣bit, but very glorious, and calling him by his name, askt whe∣ther he desired to live, and go preach the Roman Catholick Religion to Japan, as he had formerly promised, but could not persuade the Superiors to send him, he being of a weak constitution, vnfit for that labor, and voyage. Marcello an∣swered, that he resigned himself wholy into Gods hands, to do what was most for his divin glory. Xaverius then told him, it was Gods will he should go to Iapan, and shed his blood for his divin faith in that Countrey, a greater favor (said the Saint) then J deserved, after all my travels and pains. Then he bid Marcello apply the Reliques he had about his neck (which were of the Holy Cross, and of St. Xaverius himself) to his fore; he obeyed; but the Saint told him he mistook the place, and with his own hand applyed them to the contrary side of his head, and suddenly was cured, having first repeated after the Saint a vow of going to Iapan; they who watch't, heard Marcellus his words, but not any others. They ran to acquaint Father Vincentius Caraffa the late General of the Iesuits, who was then but Superior or spiritual Prefect of their house in Naples, and found that holy man vpon his knees at his prayers, but seemed not to be surprised with the news they brought him: whence many concluded that God had revealed the mat∣ter to him before their coming; and granted health to Marcello at Caraffas request: He was indeed a person of extraordinary san∣ctity, as his life and death witness,* 3.102 and had always a great care of Marcellos progress in vertue. Immediatly after this miracu∣lous cure, he began his long Journey, and being respected as a

living Martyr by all the Princes of Italy, by the King of Spain, Viceroys of Portugal and of the Jndies &c. he arrived at length at Iapan, and there suffered a most cruel death, and glorious Martyrdom, as St. Xaverius had told him, wherof and of his mi∣racles and Prophesies there are divers Books written, and many witnesses living.

What can Protestants object against this miracle? will they deny the fact? Thy dare not question the Testimony of a whole Kingdom and City, or of so many persons of quality and integrity, eye witnesses therof. Will they attribute the cure to the power of the Devil? his power doth not reach so far as to deaths doors; at least he must have more time then was in this case, to recall men from thence, and restore them to perfect health. Will they attribute the prophecy of Mastrillos Martyrdom in Japan to the Iesuits craft, and presumption, grounded vpon hopes and conjectures? They have more wit then to pretend and publish a prophetical assurance of a thing subject to so many vncertainties as the infallible performance of so great a Task, and so tedious and dangerous a navigation, by a person of so weak a constitution as Marcello, whose de∣sign (if it were human) might have bin frustrated by as ma∣ny casualites and changes of diet, Climat, &c. as every where occurr in that space of time which is spent before men arrive from Europe to the Antipodes. What if Father Mastrilli had pe∣rished by the way? Jn what a condition would himself and the Jesuits have been, who gave out so confidently that he would be put to death in Japan, according to St. Francis Xaverius his revela∣tion? Js it credible they would venture the credit of their or∣der, and that reputation of integrity which they have gained in the Catholick world, vpon a meer conjecture, and contin∣gency, and without any necessity of thus playing the Prophet? This evidence doth vex peevish Presbyterians, but they must have patience, and confess that the Jesuits are not limbs of Anti-Christ, nor those horns of the Beast wherwith Ministers fool their flocks, and feed themselves: God would never rais

from deaths doors such Jmpostors (as Protestants pretend the Jesuits are) and command them to go preach their doctrin (if fals) to so many remote Nations,* 3.103 nor countenance their Missioners, and Missions with this and many other miracles wrought to confute protestancy, and to confirm our Catholick doctrin.

Though the Magdeburgian Century writers (having re∣liued in every one of the first eleven ages cap. 13. many Popish miracles (as they call them) and not being able to deny the fact) say (as the Pharisees did of our Saviours miracles) that they were either fables, or wrought by the power of Beelzebub, and lying signs wherby the superstition and Idolatry of Popery was confirmed: yet our English Protestants (for the most part) condemn these Germans for this sottish answer, but themselves give another as litle satisfactory. Both their ancient and mo∣dern writers (being ashamed to deny the reality of our mira∣cles, or the supernaturality of the power wherby they are wrought) say, that true miracles are not of force to prove true doctrin, because they are neither infallible, nor inseparable marks of truth. Jn which rash assertion they contradict not only their learned Brethren Calvin, Chamier, and others, but call in question Gods veracity, and maintain the lawfulnes of he∣resy, and infidelity. For, the perfection of veracity (even in men, much more in God) is not a sole inclination of speaking always truth, but includes such an aversion to lying, (and by consequence to all vnnecessary equivocation) that he who is perfectly verax, or a man of truth, can not without violating that vertue, as much as seem to countenance or colour error, and falshood with the least sign of his approbation; much less can God make errors and falshood credible by miracles, or by such an appearance of truth as may not only excuse the mistake of prudent and learned persons, but oblige them in conscience to mistake.

That there is no necessity for God to work miracles in confirmation of errors and fals doctrin, is granted by our Ad∣versaries;

and by consequence they must also grant that he can not use that kind of Equivocation. To say that he may work true miracles in confirmation of a falshood, therby to exer∣cise and shew an absolut power over us his creatures, is as much as to say, he may exercise his power against his own in∣clination to truth, and therby destroy himself by violating his veracity. Besides; though we should suppose this absurdity and contradiction, that God can work a miracle to confirm er∣ror, or falshood, and yet himself by such a supernatural action (which involves his inclination) not be inclined to that error, or falshood, though I say this absurdity and contradiction were supposed, yet can it not be denyed but that by such a mi∣racle, at least we rational Creatures would be inclined to error and falshood; But he who loves truth, (especialy if he loves it infinitly, as God doth) can no more incline others to error, and falshood, then he can incline himself therunto, because he loves truth for it self, and because it is truth, and by conse∣quence (truth being always the same) he must love it in others as well as in himself; and therfore can as litle incline others (by working miracles) to error and falshood, as himself can be inclined to error and falshood.

That men are not only inclined, but obliged in conscience to believe whatsoever they see confirmed by a true miracle, is evident by these Texts of Scripture,* 3.104 Had not I don among them the works which no other man did, they had not sinned. Wo be to thee Corozain, wo be to thee Bethsaida, for had the miracles don among you, bin wrought in Tyrus, and Sidon, they had long since don pennance in sackcloth and ashes.* 3.105 The works which I have don in my Fathers name, beare witness of me. And, though you be∣lieve not me,* 3.106 believe my works. And again, We know that thou art a Teacher come from God, for no man could do these miracles thou dost, except God were with him. And the reason why mi∣racles oblige vs in conscience to believe the doctrin by them confirmed, is, because they are a sufficient and moral evidence of Gods authority, and (as it were) the great Seal wherwith

he warrants his Ministers and the Church, to preach, and pro∣pose his doctrin, and Commands. Now if he could put this seal to any fals doctrin, or therby authorize an erroneous Church, men might prudently doubt whether he doth not do so now de facto, and in every particular; but with such a prudent doubt none is bound to obey any Church authority and by consequence there could be no obstinacy, heresy, or infidelity against Gods revelations, and veracity, how ever so authentickly and suffi∣ciently proposed by miracles, which are the signs and badges of divin authority, and the most authentick marks of the true Church.

To that ordinary objection of Anti-Christs miracles which (though fals and feigned) yet will seem so true to many, that most of the world will be seduced, we answer. 1. That there will be an apparent difference between Anti-christian and our Catholick miracles, though for want of due reflexion, prudence and piety, men will not consider the difference, nor compare his miracles with ours. 2. Christs words and warning of Anti-Christs feigned miracles, is a sufficient evidence of their falshood, becaus we must not credit our selves, or any outward appea∣rances, against the express words of Christ. This is the reason why in the Sacrament of the Altar we are not deceived by the Species or appearance of bread and wine.

Though there were no other argument that Anti-Christs miracles are fals, but this,* 3.107 that the miracles of the Church both in the old and new Testament, are first, and that we have a Caveat to beware of such miracles and miraculists as shall come afterwards to confirm contrary doctrin, whosoever is moved by Anti-Christ or his fore-runners, to forsake the ancient faith and signs of the Church, for novelties how ever so plausibly or prodigiously confirmed, deserve damnation. For, there are two qualities that oblige men in reason and conscience, to pre∣ferr one thing before another, how ever equall they both may seem to be in other respects; 1. priority of time. 2. present pos∣session. We see what priviledges and prerogatives are given by

the law of nature and Nations, to such as are antienter by birth, or nobility, then others▪ and how possession is sayd to be ele∣ven points of the law. These qualities are most properly found in our Roman Catholick doctrin; it is most antient, and al∣ways hath had the precedency of all pretended Reformations, both in time, and in the possession of the hearts of the faith∣ful. The same we say of our Catholick miracles. Therfore we ought to preferr them before any others that shall appear after∣wards in opposition to them.

* 3.108Besides, those miracle so credibly reported that no man can deny them without being guilty of obstinacy, and rashness; and besides those others continualy visible, as that of St. Ja∣nuarius; there is an other kind of true miracles seen (but not observed) by every Protestant, vpon which if they did reflect, as many of them as mean well, would become Roman Catho∣licks.

The difference between true and fals miracles, is, that true miracles are works besides or against the order of nature, and of secundary causes, and therfore may be don only by the divin power; as to receive the dead, to cure diseases of the body, and distempers of the mind, without the application of any natural means, or remedys. And becaus the Devil hath less power over souls then over bodys, the cure of a distemper of the mind, wherof no natural cause appeareth, is a greater and more authen∣tick miracle, then any cure of the body how ever so prodi∣dious. Fals miracles are only such as may be don by the appli∣cation of natural causes, and remedies; as that of Vespasianus, of whom Suetonius recounts that he restored sight to a blind man, and the vse of his feet to a lame man: But Cornelius Tacitus doth acknowledge (lib. 4. Hist.) that the Physitians being con∣sulted, did answer, those diseases were not incurable; and Tertul∣lian (in Apologetico cap. 22.) saith that both the disease and the cure was a work of the Devil. Anti-Christs miracles also will be such as as▪ may be don by the cours and concurrence of natural causes.

That miracles don vpon mens minds are greater then any ••••res, or changes wrought vpon the body,* 3.109 is granted by our Adversaries; and St. Bernard recounts as one of the greatest mi∣racles of St. Malac••ius, that he converted, an obstinat soul to recant his opinion against the real presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament. And for the most remarkable miracle of St. Bernard himself, it is recorded, how with the blessed Sacrament in his hand, he did so terrify William the prowd Duke of Aquitain, that he fell prostrate at his feet; and he whom the most power∣f••ll Monarchs of Christendom could not rule, submitted him∣self to the disposal of a poor Monk, becaus he threatned him with that which in appearance seemed to be, and Protestants hold to ••e no more in reality, or in substance, then a wafer cake. These things supposed as vndeniable in Philosophy and Divinity, it may be easily proved, that every Protestant doth, or at least may see, true miracles in confirmation of our Ro∣man Catholick ••aith. For, without question it is either a mi∣racle of God, or of the Devil, that all the Roman Catholicks (not only now, but) for so many ages past, should (contrary 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the evidence of sense, and to our natural inclination of jud∣ging according to that evidence) adore for our Savior JESUS Christ, that which in appearance is but a wafer cake, or a Cup of wine▪ We are either abused, and seduced by Sathan, or inspired and enabled by the Holy Ghost, to contradict our senses; which contradiction being in a matter so long and so much controverted in publick schools, and general Councells, and a thing wherupon depends our Salvation, we can not ••e presumed (if we err) that we err for want of examining, and comparing the reasons of both sides, Catholick, and Protestant: especialy if we consider the number, learning, and integrity of the Roman Catholick Examiners, and the great difficulty which they (as well as all other men) find, in believing or judging against the evidence of sense, and in denying that to be bread, or wine, which doth smell, look, tast, feel, and feed like bread and wine. Now if we prove that this marvellous and vna∣nimous

contradiction of our senses can not be a miracle of the Devil, protestants must grant it is a miracle of God; and from thence may conclude what censure themselves deserve for being obstinat against our doctrin, and for running with the appearance of sense against the express words of Scripture, confirmed by so supernatural and visible a miracle as our not condescending, or as∣senting to that evidence which we (as men) are naturaly incli∣ned to follow.

It is an vndoubted Maxim wherin both Catholicks and pro∣testants agree, that God only can work vpon the soul (while it is in the body) immediatly, without the help of our senses, or without making impressions vpon the Organs therof. The Devil can not suggest or convey hereticall opinions into our minds otherwise then by so tempering the objects, and tampe∣ring with our senses, that the soul doth willfully, though vn∣warily, embrace deceitful appearances for real truths. His whole power and art consists in humoring the soul in its mistake of these sensual appearances, and allurements, making them to seem vnquestionable evidences; for it would quite destroy his drift, and spoil his market, if the soul did suspect a fallacy, or at least reflect vpon the vanity of sensual objects, and appearances. Wherfore he always inculcats that the best rule in matters of faith, is, not to contradict or contemn (vpon any score what∣soever) the experiments and appearances of sense.

Even in Paradise before mans soul was wounded and weak∣ned, he attemped, and compassed the fall of our first Parents by a fallacy, grounded vpon the evidence or appearance of their senses against Gods word, and warning; God told them they should dye if they did eat of the forbidden fruit; but by the sight and tast of the forbidden fruit, the Devil wrought so vpon their souls, that they believed him and their senses, and preferred that fallacious evidence before Gods express word. And if Sathan prevailed with them in the state of innocency to judge of divin revelations rather by their own senses, then by the li∣teral sense of Gods word, how vnlikely is it that after such suc∣cess

he will tempt their posterity in a contrary manner? or that he will suggest to men, that they ought not to believe their eyes and senses in the Controversy of Transubstantiation; but ra∣ther rely vpon the litteral sense▪ of Christs words, This is my Body? Seing therfore it is a strange and singular miracle, that so many pious and learned men of different tempers, interests, ti∣mes, and Nations, after so frequent and serious debates, in a matter wherupon depends their eternal happiness, should (with∣out any present, or prudent advantage or allurement) resolve to contradict their own senses, and curb their nature, and in∣clinations of judging according to their sight, tast, &c. and that this great miracle can not be attributed to the Devil, whose suggestions and impressions reach not the soul, vnless they be conveyed through our senses, and our selves consent to the sen∣sual solicitations, and appearances wherwith Sathan doth as∣sault, and allure us; it followeth, that our Roman Catholick resistance, and resolution of not condescending to those solici∣tations, and of not crediting such appearances, must be a mira∣cle of God, and the effect of his supernatural grace, not of the Devil, or of any natural power of our own. So that our adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, and our belief of Transub∣stantiation (which are the things Protestants most except against in the Catholick Religion) if they reflect vpon them, will be found to be supernatural miracles, and convincing motives for their Conversion to our Roman Catholick Faith.

Let Protestants number also the particular doctrins wher∣in they differ from Roman Catholicks, and observe how our belief and practise in such particulars go against sensual appea∣rances and pervers inclinations, and they will find we have as many visible miracles as there are doctrinal and practical diffe∣rences in our Church from Protestancy.

To these may be added the general signs or marks of the Church, as our vnity in faith, the continuance, and vniversa∣lity of our doctrin, our Apostolical succession, our conversion of Nations to Christianity &c. No Protestant can rationaly deny

that every one of these is a visible and supernatural miracle, which can be as litle attributed to human industry, as to chance, or fate; For if they might, how comes it to pass that not one of these signs, can or could ever be found in any other Con∣gregation of Christians but ours? This much I thought fit to say, not to satisfy the curiosity, but the conscience, of them who desire to see any one vndeniable miracle that favors Po∣pery. And albeit any one true miracle doth confirm the whole doctrin of our Roman Church, yet J will set down more then one for confirmation of most particulars wherin we differ from Protestants; and begin with what we have in hand, concerning Transubstantiation, and the adoration of Christ in the Sacra∣ment; which our Adversaries pretend to be a kind of Idolatry; for that our selves confess the Species or accidents of bread and wine do remain,* 3.110 and they are creatures by us adored toge∣ther with Christ. Our common and constant answer (wherunto no reply can be given) is, that we adore the Species no more (when we adore Christ in the Sacrament) then the Apostles, and others who conversed with him vpon earth, adored his cloak, or cloaths, when they adored himself!

SECT. II. Of true miracles related in the Ecclesiastical Histo∣ries by men of greatest authority in every age, to confirm the particular mysteries of our Catholick faith, and that sense of Scripture, wherin Roman Catholicks differ from Protestants.

THere is not any thing so evident which is not que∣stioned by obstinate and interested persons. The Protestant layty (in regard of their education) are fixt in the maintenance of Protestancy, the clergy are interested, because it is their livelyhood. Let Ca∣tholick

miracles be never so visible, or credibly reported, Prote∣stants look vpon them as mistakes; and that can be for no other reason, but becaus themselves are setled in a prejudice against the doctrin of the Church of Rome. The Authors that relate Popish miracles are credited in all other matters, and esteemed ••udicious persons; but when they come to that point, they must needs loos their witts, or be judged Jmpostors. To avoyd this Cavil, or confute the Calumny, J have fixed vpon Authors whose wisedom and integrity hath never hitherto bin called in question, even in points of doctrin, and the sole denial of whose Testimony, is held to be a sufficient evidence of heresy, or foolery in the person that contradicts it, and of weaknes in the cause that can not be maintained without so vnreasonable a contradiction. And seing they are credited in matters of faith, J hope they deserve credit in matters of fact.

Of miracles related by St. Chrysostom, St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Austin, St Nylus, St. Cyprian the Martyr, St. Gregory the great, St. Optatus, and others, in confirmation of Transubstantiation, Adoration of Christ in the Sacrament, the Sacri∣fice of the Mass, Communion vnder one Kind, Prayer for the Dead, and Purgatory.

A Certain venerable old man (saith St. Chrysostom) to whom many Mysteries were revealed by God, told,* 3.111 that in time of Sacrifice he once beheld a multitude of Angels with shining garments, compassing the Altar with bowed heads, as soldiers do in presence of their King. Which attendance of An∣gells (saith he in the next words before) was performed by An∣gels at that wonderful table, and compassed it about with reverence, in honor of him that lyeth theron.

* 3.112St. Nilus relateth how St. Chrysostom almost every day had visions of Angels assisting and adoring the Blessed Sacrament vntill the Sacrifice was finished.

St. Gregory Nazianzen recounts how his sister Gorgonia was cured of a diseas after shee was past all hopes of recovery, by pro∣strating her self before the Altar, and calling vpon him who was honored and worshipped therupon.

O admirable thing! (saith he) she presently felt herself delivered from her sicknes, and so she returned eased both in body and mind &c.

* 3.113St. Cyprian reporteth of a certain woman, who (saith he) when she would with vnworthy hands have opened her coffer wherin was (retained according to the ancient custom the Blessed Sacra∣ment vnder the Species of bread) the holy thing of our Lord, fyer did spring vp, wherby she was so terrified, that she durst not touch it.

In the Ecclesiasticall History is recorded this example which Evagrius writ as a thing notorious, and don in his own time.

In the time of the Patriarch Menas (saith he••) there happned a miracle worthy to be remembred. It was an ancient custom in Constantinople when many parcels of the pure and vnspotted body of Christ our God were remaining after Communion, lit∣le Children were called out of the Schools, and were permit∣ted to eat them. It happened, that a litle boy (whose father was a Jew by profession, and a maker of glass by his trade) being among the rest, did eat also his share of the aforesaid reversion of the Blessed Sacrament, but coming somewhat late home, and his parents demanding the cause, the child told innocent∣ly what he had don; which the Jew his Father vnderstan∣ding, he was so enraged, that vnawares to his wife, he cast his litle son into the burning oven wherin he vsed to melt and frame his glass. The mother missing the Child, sought for him for three days together, but hearing no news of him abroad, she returned home with an heavy heart, and sitting down at the work-house door, she began to bewail the los of her son, calling him by his name; the boy hearing and knowing his mothers call, did answer within the oven;

wherat the woman starting, burst the work-house door, and rushing in, espied her Child standing amidst the Coals with∣out receiving any harm. After coming out, being demanded how he escaped burning so long, a woman, said he, came oftentimes vnto me, and brought me water to quench the force of the fyer, wherwith I was invironed, and withall gave me meat as often as I was hungry. This accident being told vnto the Emperor Justinian, he caused the mother and boy to be baptized, which becaus the obstinat father refused to yeild vnto, by the Emperors commandment he was hanged vpon a Gibet.

This and the former example of St. Cyprian, shew that God is not displeased with receiving the Communion vnder one Kind; and that it was a thing indifferent in the primitive Church.

To Confirm the Catholick belief of Transubstantiation,* 3.114 and the real presence of Christs body and blood in the Blessed Sa∣crament, there are very many miracles recounted in the Eccle∣siastical History, as that of St. Gregory the great, who perceiving that a Roman Matron laught at the time she was to receive the Communion, and demanding the cause of her laughter, at so vn∣seasonable a time; she answered she could not but laugh to hear him call the bread which her self had made, the Body of Christ. (She vsed to present the Saint every week with Mass breads) St. Gregory vpon this turned himself to the Altar, and laying the Blessed Sacrament therupon wished all the people to pray with him, that God would be pleased for the confirmation of the Catholick faith, to shew vnto the corporal eyes of all that were there present, that what the woman took for bread, was no bread, but flesh. And accordingly the consecrated Host ap∣peared visibly to be pure flesh. Then beseeching God to restore the Sacrament to the former shew of bread, it forthwith ap∣peared as it was at first, and the woman acknowledging her error, received it with humble and servent devotion.

Primat Vsher is the only writer I ever read,* 3.115 who questio∣ned the truth of this story, but quotes not any one Author, be∣sides

himself, that ever doubted therof; and to make it seem the more improbable, falsifies the Text of Ioannes Diaconus, preten∣ding he says that the Roman Matron found the Sacramental bread turned into the fashion of a fingar, all bloody; wheras Joannes Diaconus only saith it was turned into flesh.* 3.116 The same vnsincere dealing he vseth in discrediting the relation of Pascha∣sius Radbertus, and divers others, concerning a miracle to confirm the same mystery, assuring the ignorant Readers, that Paschasius takes it out of Gesta Anglorum,* 3.117 wheras it is well known, and Mr. Vsher confesseth els where, that Malmsbury who writ Gesta Anglorum, liued almost 300. years after Paschasius.

To discredit the doctrin of Transubstantiation as well as the authority of that holy and most learned man Lanfrancus Arch-bishop of Canterbury, who lived in Berengarius his time, and confuted his heresy with convincing arguments from Scrip∣ture, Fathers, and vndeniable Miracles; Primat Vsher says Lan∣franc was the first that leavened the Church of England with this corrupt doctrin of the carnal presence. But his own Protestant Bre∣thren tell him he is mistaken, and that Transubstantiation is as ancient in the English Church as Cristianity; it being taught by St. Austin the Monk and Apostle of England. Let us hear Lanfranc speak for himself against Vsher, as well as against Be∣rengarius; None, saith he, though but meanly versed in Ecclesiastical History, or the holy Fathers, is ignorant, how God hath confirmed the Catholick doctrin against Berengarius with many miracles. Which writings of Ecclesiasticall History and Fathers (saith Lanfranc) though they arrive not to that most excellent height of authority that we give to Scripture, yet are they sufficient to prove that this faith which we 〈◊〉〈◊〉 profess, hath bin the same with that which all faithfull who went before us held from ancient times.

When this heresy of Berengarius was again revived by Wic∣leff, and the Lollards, in England, our learned Countrey man Thomas Waldensis, who lived in those times, tells us, how God confirmed the doctrin of the real presence, and Transubstan∣tiation in that Kingdom with manifest miracles, and of some

he was an eye witness.

Let us relate, saith he,* 3.118 to the glory of God, what happened in our own time and knowledge. In Norfolk there dyed lately a devout and godly mayd, called of the vulgar sort Ioan Meateless, because she was known never to have tasted any meat or drink, for the space of fiveteen years together, except only the B. Sacrament of the Altar, which she received with great devotion, and with extraor∣dinary Ioy and Iubily of mind every Sunday. And which was most admirable, she was able to find out one only conse∣crated Host amongst a thousand that were not consecrated.

Thus he: and without doubt this last was no less a miracle then the former; because the consecrating of one Host among many depends vpon the intention, and inward determination of the Consecra∣tor, which none but God can know. But from Norfolk let's pass to London.

I will now relate a story (saith Waldensis) wherof I my self was an eye witness in the Cathedral Church of St. Paul in London, where the venerable Arch-bishop Thomas Arundell of happy memory (the son and Brother to an Erle) sat in Iudgment in his Bishops chair, assisted by Alexander the Prelat of the Church of Norwich, and others. At which time he propounded certain Interrogatories concerning the faith of the Eucharist vnto a Taylor of the parts of Worcestershire, ta∣ken in the crime of heresy; but when as the obstinat fellow could not be persuaded by any reason to embrace the right faith, nor would believe, nor call the consecrated Host any other thing but only holy bread, he was at last commanded to worship the said Host, but the Blasphemous heretick an∣swering sayd, verily a Spider is more worthy to be worshipped then it is, when behold a Monstrous horrible Spider came su∣denly sliding down by her thred from the top of the Church directly vnto the blaspemers mouth, and endeavored very bu∣sily to get entrance even as he was speaking the words; nei∣ther without much adoo could the many hands of the stan∣ders by keep her from entring into the wretch whether he

would or no. Thomas Duke of Oxford and Chancelor of the Realm was there present, and saw this wonder. Then the Arch-bishop stood vp, and declared to all that were present, that the revenging hand of God had denounced the man to be a blasphemer.

* 3.119Harpsfeild relates the same miracle out of the Register of Arch-bishop Arundell; but we may doubt whether that old Re∣gister was not reformed as well as the old Religion, by the Pro∣testant Prelats. Such cleer evidences are seldom preserved entire by the enemies of truth. We see how frequently the very law books and ancient English statuts are corrupted by our English Protestants, to favor the Kings spiritual supremacy, as is largely proved by Persons against Sir Edward Cook, and Bishop Morton, in a particular book against Cook, and in his Sober and quiet Reckoning with Thomas Morton: wherin he discovers the vn∣worthy practises of Justice Cook,* 3.120 and others falsifying the Char∣ters of our ancient Kings &c. As for example that of King K••∣nulphus, pleaded by Humphry Stafford Duke of Buckingham. 1. Henry 7. for the sanctuary of the Monastery of Abindon; which as it is printed by Pinson in Catholick times, says, that Leo then Pope did grant the said immunities and privileges &c. and is yet so read in the Lord Brooks Abridgment tit. Corone; pl. 129. But since King Henry 8. spiritual Headship, Pope Leo hath bin left out in most printed Statuts, and Iudge Cook quotes them so corrupted, as good evidence against the Bishop of Romes jurisdiction, pretending that the Kings, and not the Popes, gave spiritual jurisdictions and immunities.

* 3.121St. Optatus Bishop who lived before St. Austin the Doctor, relates how the Donatists (to vex the Catholicks who did wor∣ship the Blessed Sacrament) cast the consecrated Hosts to their dogs. But they escaped not Gods heavy Iudgment; for, the raging dogs with revenging teeth (saith Optatus) tore their own Masters in peeces, as if they had bin strangers and enemies; yea as if they had known them to be theeves, and men guilty of our Lords Body.

Miracles of the Mass.* 3.122

ST. Austin reporteth of his own time and Countrey, how that one Hesperius having his house infested with wicked Spirits, to the affliction of his beasts and servants, desired (saith St. Austin) in my absence certain of our Priests, that some would go thither &c. one went and offered (saith he) there the Sacrifice of the Body and blood of Christ, praying what he might that the vexation might cease, and God being therupon mercifull, it ceased.

The like miracle doth Theodorus (who lived in the fifth Century) write happened to Coades King of Persia, who being desirous to enter into a Castle placed in the confines of his King∣dom towards India, was hindred by many wicked spirits which haunted the said Fortress; and notwithstanding that as well the Persian Sorcerers, as also those of the Iews, had employed all their magick art, yet could not entrance be obtained. At last a chri∣stian Bishop was called vpon, who with once saying Mass, and making the sign of the Cross, put forthwith to flight the in∣fernal powers, and delivered vp the Castle to the King free from all molestation.

Miracles for Purgatory.

ST. Gregory the Great telleth of a Monk called Justus,* 3.123 who (saith he)

was obsequious to me, and watched with me in my dayly sickness: this man being dead, I appointed the healthfull Host to be offered for his absolution thirty days to∣gether, which don, the said Justus appeared to his Brother by vision, and said, J have bin hitherto evil, but now am well &c. And the Brethren in the Monastery counting the days, found that to be the day on which the thirtith oblation was offered for him.

The same St. Gregory writes how Paschasius Deacon of the Roman Church was tormented with the pains of Purgatory af∣ter* 3.124

death for having adhered vntil neer his death,* 3.125 vnto Lau∣rence the Schismatick, but at length was delivered from those pains by the prayers of St. German Bp. of Capua.

We will not her detain the Reader with more particulars; but confirm the whole bulk of our Roman Catholick Doctrin with the vndeniable miracles of St. Bernard, (a known Papist) against the Petrobrusians, Henricians, and Apostolici, whom Prote∣stants claim as members of their own Church, for denying the real presence, sacrifice of the Mass, extreme vnction, Purgatory, prayer for the dead, prayer to Saints, the Popes authority, wor∣ship of Images, Indulgences &c. Against these hereticks St. Ber∣nard was commanded by the Pope to preach and accompany his legat Cardinal Albericus to the Countrey of Tolosa, where he wrought innumerable miracles to confute, and confound the aforesaid Hereticks, as may be seen in the writers of those times in so much that the Saint in his return declined all Common roads, to avoyd the multitudes of people that flockt to reve∣rence him as an Apostle:* 3.126 Though afterwards in his 241. Epistle to the Tolosians he saith (to keep them constant to the truth, as St. Paul did to the Thessalonians) we thank God for that our coming to you was not in vain, our stay indeed was short with you, but not vnfruitfull, the truth being by us made manifest (non solum in sermone, sed etiam in virtute) not only by preaching but also by power (of working miracles▪) the wolves are deprehended &c.

Of all St. Bernards miracles J will mention but one which Godefridus relateth as an eye witness, and could not without known discovery and discredit have then reported a matter so publick, and of such importance, with so great variety of par∣ticular circumstances, had the thing bin vntrue.

There is (saith this Author) a place in the Countrey of Tolosa called Sarlatum, where, as the Sermon was don, they offered to the servant of God (as every where the vse was) many loaves to bless, which by lifting vp his hand, and making the sign of the Cross, in Gods name blessing, he sayd thus: Jn this you shall know that these things are true, which we, and that those

other are fals,* 3.127 which the Hereticks labor to persuade you &c. And whosoever they be (of your diseased persons) that tast the loaves, they shall be healed, that you may know us to be true Ministers of God. Ganfredus Carotensis, a Bis∣hop, who stood by, added, if they take it with a good faith, they will be healed; St. Bernard sudenly replyed, I do not say so, but whosoever will tast of them will be healed, to the end they may know we are true and sincere ministers of God. And so huge a multitude of diseased persons reco∣vered by tasting the same bread, that over all the Countrey this was divulged &c.

Here we see first: How St. Bernard took those people to be hereticks, and calls them wolves according to the phrase of the Ghospell, becaus they denyed the very same doctrin of the Roman Catholick Church that Protestants do deny; as the real presence, and Transubstantiation, Purgatory, the Popes supremacy, prayer to Saints, worship of Images, Indulgences &c. We see how God declared by true miracles that the Saint was not mistaken in censuring them as hereticks, and by consequence all who ob∣stinatly maintain the same opinions which they did, to be of the same stamp. Osiander a learned Protestant sayes, that though he takes not St. Bernard for a Conjurer, but rather for a holy man, and honours him as a Saint, yet he thinks his miracles were don by the Devil. And though this evasion be most absurd, and vn∣worthy either a Scholler, or a Christian, yet is it the common and best plea of Protestants against such evidences. J say the an∣swer is most absurd. 1. for that St. Bernards miracles exceeded the Devil and natures power. 2. If he was a Saint, God would not have permitted the Devil to abuse him so grosly in a mat∣ter of faith, without the purity and profession wherof there can be no true sanctity. 3. Much less would he have permitted the Devil to make St. Bernard an instrument for the establishing of Jdolatry, and other damnable errors of Popery, in case the contrary belief of Protestants, and Petrobusians be the Catholick: for albeit God hath permitted the Devil to make vse of wicked

men to broach and promote heresys, we never read that he con∣descended so far to his Luciferian pride, as to let him employ Saints in such a ministery, or to confirm falshood by such mi∣racles as St. Bernards; neither indeed is such a permission consi∣stent with Gods veracity, or with our obligation to believe his doctrin, as hath bin proved.

SECT. III. Miracles to confirm the worship, and virtue of the sign of the Cross, recorded by St. Paulinus Bis∣hop of Nola, St. Cyrillus of Ierusalem, St. At••a∣nasius, St. Hierom, St. Gregory Turonensis, Ni∣cephorus and Theodoret in the Ecclesiasticall Hi∣story.

THat the primitive Christians by Tradition from the Apostles vsed to sign themselves frequently with the sign of the Cross, at the beginning and finishing of every work, rising and going to bed, before and after meat, is testified by Ter∣tullian: and St. Cyrill of Jerusalem, sayes, let us not be ashamed to confess Christ crucified, but let the cross be printed confidently in our foreheads with our fingers, as also in all other things: in our bread, in our drink, in going abroad, in returning home, before sleep, when we rise, in travelling, in resting: it is a great gard, given to the poor gratis, to the infirm without trouble, it is a grace given by God, the mark of the faith∣ful, and terror of the Devils. By this sign they have bin triumphed over; shew it boldly; when they see the Cross they remember him that was crucified; they fear him that bruised in peeces the Dragons

head. And even as the Apostles and they who stuck to their do∣ctrin and disciplin, honored and vsed the sign of the Cross, so Simon Magus, Cerinthus, Basilides and all the progeny of hereticks, did, and do abhorr that instrument of our redemption, in so much that St. Paul, declares it to be a mark of heresy, to be an enemy of Christs Cross. And St. Hipolitus, that most ancient and learned Martyr,* 3.128 in his book of the Consummation of the world, sayes, that Antichrist will prohibit men to make the sign of the Cross.* 3.129 And as Simon Magus maintained that the Cross ought not to be honoured, becaus Christ did not realy suffer vpon it, but only his Jmage, and Cerinthus came neer the same error, pretending that IESVS and Christ were different, and that only IESVS suffered, not Christ: Besides that neither IESVS, nor Christ, but Simon Cyreneus, who carried the Cross, suffered vpon the same, and that Christ did shrink away: as these here∣ticks, J say, thought the Cross ought not to be worshipped, becaus they maintained Christ did not suffer death vpon it, so all Christians who believed his real passion and death, did honor the Cross in the primitive Church; and God to confirm this their faith and piety, hath wrought innumerable miracles wherof I shall relate but very few.

The first shall be taken out of Paulinus Bishop of Nolae his writings, a man of such sanctity and credit, that St. Austin, St. Hierom, St. Gregory the great, St. Gregory of Tours, Prosper Aquitanicus, and others say of him he was faithful as Abraham, obedient as Isaac, benign as Jacob, liberal as Melchisedech, discreet and prudent as Ioseph, meek as Moyses, innocent as Samuel, mercifull as David, wise as Salomon, of great courage as Peter, fervent as Paul &c. And so charitable that he made himself a slave in Africk to redeem from barbarous servitude some of his Flock. This holy Bishop Paulinus receiving from the hands of his Kins∣woman Melania a litle peece of the Cross which John Bis∣hop of Ierusalem sent vnto him, it happened that a stable full of hay took fire, and the flames reached to St. Paulinus his hous; he presently took the relique of the Cross, and opposed it to

that furious element,* 3.130 wherupon the devouring flames instantly retired, and the fire was wholy extinguished. Of this miracle St. Paulinus himself composed an elegant poem yet to be seen in his works. A greater miracle the same Saint observes in the holy Cross, which he mentions in a letter to his friend Severus▪ for notwithstanding that (saith he) it was the custom of the Bishops of Ierusalem to present the Pilgrims with litle peeces of the holy Cross, yet by a continual miracle of the Divin power the holy Cross retaining living vertue in a dead matter, did so distri∣bute its wood almost every day to the desires of innumerable people, that it remained as it were vntouched, divided to the receivers, and always entire to those that worship it. The same miracle is obser∣ved by St. Cyril of Ierusalem Catech. 4.10. & 13.

In the same letter to Severus, St. Paulinus doth recount that Christs Cross was known from the others of the thieves cruci∣fied with him, by reviving a dead woman, to whose body it was applyed. And Nicephorus saith that besides this miracle it cu∣red instantly one that was dying.

What a number of miracles St. Anthony the Monk wrought by making the sign of the Cross, every one may see in his life written by the great Champion of the Church St. Athanasius: and the like also of an other Monk St. Hilarin in his life written by St. Hierom▪ one J will relate in his own words.

At that time (saith St. Hierom) the seas transgressed their bounds, vpon the earthquake of the whole world, which hap∣pened after the death of Iulian.

And as if God would threa∣ten men with some new deluge, or els that all things were to return into their first Chaos, so hung the ships, being hoy∣sed vp to the steepy tops of those mountains, which as soon as they of Epidaurus saw, namely those roaring and raging wa∣ves, and that Mass of waters, and that whole mountains were brought in vpon the shoars, by whose rapid flouds (being in fear of that which already in effect they found to be come to pass, that the town would vtterly be overwhelmed, they went vnto the old man (Hilarion) and as if they had bin

going to a battle, they placed him for their Captain vpon the shoar; But assoon as he had made three signs of the Cross vpon the sand, and held vp his hand against the sea, it is incre∣dible to be told into what a huge height it swelled, and stood vp before him, and raging so a long time, and being as it were in a Kind of Indignation at the impediment which it ••ound, it did yet by litle and litle slide back again into it self. And this doth Epidaurus, and all that region proclaim even to this day, and mothers teach it to their Children; that so the me∣mory therof may be delivered over to posterity. That which was said to the Apostles, if you have faith, and shall say to this mountain, transport thy self into the sea, it shall be don, may truly and even literaly be fulfilled now &c. For wherin doth it differ whether a mountain descend into the sea, or els, whether huge mountains of water grow suddenly hard, being as if they were of stone, just before the feet of the old man; and that yet on the other side they should run fluid and soft? The whole City was in a wonder, and the greatness of the miracle was publikly known as far as Salon.

St. Gregory Turonensis tells us how after that a man who conspi∣red with Cyrola the Arian Bishop to feign himself blind,* 3.131 and to say he received sight by his prayers, by Gods just judgment became realy blind; (as Bruleus of Geneva was found dead by Calvins prayers to revive him) and after this cheat was so punished, Eugenius the Catholick Bishop restored to him sight, by making the sign of the Cross.

Sozomen l. 7. c. 25. of his Ecclesiasticall History recounts how St. Donatus Bishop of Evorea in Epirus with making the sign of the Cross killed a monstrous serpent that devoured both man and beast. an. 394.

How efficacious the sign of the Cross is against the temp∣tations and charms of the Devil,* 3.132 may be gathered from many examples of the ecclesiasticall History. I will only mention that notorious fact of Julian the Apostata related by St. Gregory Na∣zianzen, and Theodoret. Julian notwithstanding his Monasticall

profession, entertained ambitious thoughts of succeeding his Bro∣ther Gallus in the Empire, he dealt with a Magitian to know whether fortune would favor him. The Magitian led him to the place where he vsed to conjure, and the Devils appearing vpon his invoking of them, but like themselves, Julian was so frighted,* 3.133 that (according to his own former custom, and that of the primitive Christians) he made the sign of the Cross in his forehead, and the Devils vanished. Wherupon Julian refle∣cting and considering the virtue of that sign, and conferring ther∣of with the Conjurer, this wicked fellow told him, that the De∣vils fright proceeded not from any fear of the Cross, but from a discontent, and detestation of Julians practising so ridiculous an action; and the poor wretch (saith St. Gregory) out of hopes and covetousness of the Empire that the Magitian prognostica∣ted, gave credit to his words.

How many millions of souls are abused by Protestant Mi∣nisters, as Julian was by pagan Magitians? Some Ministers will not admit of the sign of the Cross in Baptism, becaus they hold it to be superstitious; others, though they admit of it in Baptism, yet in all other actions think it ridiculous, and both parties agree in believing that it hath not any virtue against the Devil. Not only our English Protestants, but Osiander, and the Magdeburgian Cen∣turists do justify the speech of the Magitian, and would have us follow the example of Iulian the Apostata, as also the doctrin of the Gentils, whom Arnobius l. 10. contra gentes doth reprove for saying, that though the name of Christ IESVS but heard driveth away wicked spirits &c. yet that was vpon horror and hatred of the name, not vpon grant of greater power.

SECT. IV. Miracles in confirmation of the Catholick worship of Images, related by the most eminent Authors of the ecclesiasticall History, and by the second Ge∣neral Councel of Nice an Dom. 787. wherin as∣sisted 350. Bishops.

OF all Protestant errors, and exceptions against the Roman Catholick Religion, not any is more vnreasonable, and inexcusable then their opi∣nion of the vnlawfullness of worshipping the Images of Christ our Savior, and his Saints.* 3.134 Becaus. 1. They see that the Scripture makes distinction between Images, and Idols, God prohibiting the one, and not only permitting, but commanding his people to place the other in his Temple, even closs to the Arck of his Testament, and that the Brazen serpent wrought mi∣racles, while the Iews lookt vpon it as an Image. 2. They might observe that vpon the very first preaching of the Apostles, St. Pe∣ters shadow (which was the Image of his body) wrought many miracles, vnto which God would never have concurred, had his shadow bin an Jdol, or had there bin in the worship of Images any danger of Jdolatry. And much less would Christ himself have sent his Image to Abagarus King of Edessa, or given his picture to Veronica as all antiquity did believe, and record. 3. They may be ashamed of the first broachers of their Prote∣stant doctrin against the worship of Images, Iews, Saracens, and condemned hereticks, who (as Tarasius proved in the second Councell of Nice) corrupted the holy Scriptures to assert their heresies. But leaving these things we will mention a few mira∣cles.

* 3.135Eusebius and others in the Ecclesiasticall History relate, how the woman that was cured by touching Christs garment, (Math. 9.21.) returning home, set vp for memory of this be∣nefit the statue of Christ, as also her own, adoring him; and that he himself had seen them; and that an vnknown herb did grow at the bottom of Christs statue, which so soon as it came to touch the garment of the statue, did cure all diseases.

In the year 362. Iulian the Apostata (vexed to see this statue worship't, and the worship therof confirmed with so many miracles) commanded the same to be thrown down, and bro∣ken in peeces; and sett vp his own in steed therof▪ but his was immediatly destroyed by fire from heaven,* 3.136 and the Christians gathering together the peeces of Christs statue, placed it in the Church; where it was, as Sozomenus writeth, vnto his time.

The honest Centutists against all truth of History, not ha∣ving the Authority of as much as one Writer thought (by lying impudently) to conceal the evidence of this miracle from the illiterat Protestants; and some English have imitated their example in so shamfull an imposture, saying that Christs statue (not Iulians) was destroyed by fire from heaven.

An other miracle you may read in the second General Coun∣cell of Nice produced by 350. Bishops as an vndeniable evidence against the heresy of the Image-breakers; for the confutation wherof they were assembled, and the miracle happened but some 20. years before. The wicked Iews in the City of Beritus in Syria, crucified the Image of Christ, and peirced with a lance the side therof, whence suddenly issued such abundance of blood and water, that the Churches both of the East and West received re∣liques therof, and with it all diseases were cured. By so great, and so many miracles those obstinat people were converted; and the Church of God appointed a day to celebrat the memory of so notorious a favor; And Athanasius, a learned Bishop of that age, writ a Book intituled De Passione Imaginis Domini.

The conversion of Iews to Christianity hath seldom bin effected without great miracles: None can be mo••e stupendious,

then that which St. Vincent Ferrer (an. 1412.) wrought vpon their whole Synagogue in Salamanca, wherinto he entred with a Crucifix in his hand, on their Saboth, and preaching with great fervor of that mystery. On a suddain both men and women found white Crosses vpon their Cloaths, which made such an impression in their hearts, that they all were baptized, and tur∣ned their Synagogue into a Christian Church, which they cal∣led of the holy Cross. This Saint Vincent was a Dominican Frier, whose preaching against hereticks and Iews God confirmed by miracles, 38. dead were revived by his intercession, he cured all diseases with the sign of the Cross, holy water &c. and was of so great esteem among Catholicks, that when Martin King of Aragon dyed without issue, the naming of a Successor was left to St. Vincent, and all the Competitors acquiesced in his choice. See all this in St. Antoninus tit. 23. cap. 8.

The chief Champion of Gods Church against the heresy of Image-breakers was St. Iohn Damascen, and therfore was so much hated by the Emperor Leo Jauricus (by whose tyranny and Decree that heresy was professed, and the Catholicks persecuted at the instance of a Jew his Favorite) that Iohn Damascen being in high esteem with the Prince of the Saracens at Damasco, the Emperor, by the means of Skilful scribes, counterfeited his hand and sent a letter to the Saracen, pretended to have bin writ by John Damascen to his Majesty inviting him to besiege Damasco, and giving him assurance of assistance and good success. Whereat the Saracen Prince was so enraged, that he commanded Johns right hand to be cut off. The Saint retiring to his Oratory, and prostrated before an Jmage of our Blessed Lady, beggd her in∣tercession for the restitution of that hand which had bin em∣ployed vntill then in defending her sons honor, and her own, against the Iconoclasts, and should continue for the future, if re∣stored, in the same service. Wherupon he seemed to sleep, and had a vision of the Mother of God, and when he waked, found his hand joyned as it had bin formerly to his arm. The Sara∣cen Prince seing the miracle, earnestly intreated him to remain

in his Court, But St. John Damascen retired to the desert, and there writ the praises of our Lady, and three excellent Treati∣ses yet extant in defence of the worship of Images. All which you may see more at large in his life writ by John Patriarck of Ierusalem, and other Authors of those times.

Jn the Ecclesiastical History it is recounted by Zonaras, how in the time that Leo Armenus persecuted Catholicks for worshipping Jmages, his son Sabatius Constantinus, who had bin dumb, came to the statue of St. Gregory Nazianzen, praying in∣wardly in his heart to the Saint, that he might obtain of God the vse of his tong, which immediatly God was pleased to grant.

There is scarce a Countrey or County where the exercise of Catholick Religion is publick, which aboundeth not with Miraculous Jmages.* 3.137 I will only at this time mention that famous miracle don at Sichem, an. 16••4. Related by Iustus Lipsius, and found to bee true by sundry Protestant Gentlemen, attending on the Earle of Hartford Ambassador in Flanders, who did see and conferr, with the party cured, and were satisfied by the pu∣blick and credible testimony given to them of the whole matter, as followeth.

Iohn Clement whose Mother being at her delivery of him, cut, therupon died, leaving behind her this her son lame from his Nativity, and of a monstrous composition of body, his thi∣ghes and feet were contracted and turned towards the forepart of his breast, so as his knees did grow and stick thereto, his body was round or spherical, vnfit to stand, ly or walk. Having from his birth continued in this estate for 20. years, and so known to the Jnhabitants of Bruxells, and other places adjoy∣ning, he was moved in his mind to go to our Ladies Chappel in or neer the town in Brabant called Sicham, where he had heard of many miraculous cures credibly published to have bin don. Being come thither in a Wagon, and having confessed his sins, and received the B. Sacrament, hee did in the end feel his contracted and bound feet to bee loosed and stretched forth, so as presently he stood on his feet, himself and the beholders being

••mazed therat. Many such or greatet miracles have bin don at ••oreto, Zaragoca, Guadalupe &c. Neither can they be denyed 〈◊〉〈◊〉 any who is not either very obstinat or ignorant.

Let the most precise and peevish Protestant in England con∣••••der whether it bee Probable or possible that God would work 〈◊〉〈◊〉 undeniable miracles against his own word▪ and the true sense ••f Scripture; and whether it be not more likely that the Ro∣••an Catholick sense therof (so confirmed) is that which the ••oly Ghost inspired, and meant, rather then the sense of Lu∣••••er, Calvin, Cranmer, or of the Parliament an. 3. & 4. Ed. 6. ••hen all Jmages of Christ and his Saints were commanded by 〈◊〉〈◊〉 express statute to be pulled down; Provided always that the ••ct or any thing therin contained, should not extend to any ••mage or picture set or graven vpon any Tomb in any Church, ••happel, or Churchyard, only for a monument of any King ••rince, Nobleman, or other dead person, which hath not bin ••ommonly reputed and taken for a Saint. So that by the Reli∣••ion and Laws of England, there must not be any sign or mo∣••ument of sanctity left or permitted in Churches, as if God ••id intend profane persons should have greater respect shewed to them in his own house, then his own Servants;* 3.138 and that their having bin eminent in his Divin service, and his testifying the same by evident miracles, were a sufficient cause to break their monuments, and blot their memories out of the hearts of Chri∣stians.

The Protestant Clergy delude their flochs with telling them that civil worship may be given to statues and Jmages of Kings, Princes, and Noblemen; Religious worship may not be given to ••ny Creature however so holy, it being peculiar to God. But Christ teacheth contrary doctrin and says that whosoever receives a Prophet as a Prophet, shall have the reward of a Prophet; if by Religious worship they mean Latria, or that supreme which is due to God alone, we allow their doctrin; but if they take it ••or that reverence which is due to any thing that is holy by sanctification, spiritual grace, caracter, or application to the ser∣vice

of God, we deny it. What do they think not only of Prophets and Apostles, whom the faithfull Religiously worship∣ped, and adored in the old and new Testament, but of inanimat things, as the Temple, the Tabernacle, the Arck, the Propitiatory, the Cherubins, the Altar, the bread of proposition &c. Nay, what do they think of themselves? Doth not every Protestant Bishop teach and inculcat to the people that he is their spiritual Father, and vpon that score expects they should kneel down to him and ask his blessing?* 3.139 Do they not commend as Religious and devout souls such as give them this respect? Is not this a Religious worship? There is not any of their Bishops can pre∣tend that so much ceremony is a civility due to their birth, but they attribute it to their spiritual dignity, and to their suppo∣sed caracter of Episcopacy. We desire no other Kind of wor∣ship be given to our Catholick canonized Bishops, or to Images, then that which the Protestant Bishops claim as due to themsel∣ves, and to their pictures. And yet these men will needs have Popery to be Idolatry, becaus we worship real sanctity with the same ceremony and respect, that they exact for mistaken Episcopacy.

SECT. V. Miracles related by St Austin, St. Ambrose, St Gre∣gory Nazianzen St. Epiphanius, St. Chrysostom, St. Hierom, St. Optatus, St▪ Bede, St▪ Bernard, St. Anselm, and others in confirmation of praying to Saints, and worshiping of their Reliques; and of the vertue of Holy water, of the Sacraments of Confirmation, Confession, and Extreme unction.

ST. Hierom sayes the heretick Eunomius was the first that impugned the worshiping of Saints Reliques,* 3.140 whose error Vigilantius followed, and added an other against

praying to Saints.* 3.141 How ancient the worship of Saints Reliques is, we see by the Epistle of the Church of Smirna concerning the Martyrdom of St. Polycarpus, St. John Evangelists Disciple; whose reliks the Christians gathered (even after his body was burnt) with most fervent devotion. St. Ambrose gives many reasons why reliques ought to be honored.

If you ask me, (saith he) what do you honor in flesh con∣sumed, and turned into dust? I honor in the Martyrs flesh the scarres that he received for Christ; I honor the memory of one that liveth by the perpetuity of his ver∣tue; I honor ashes sanctified by the confession of our Lord;* 3.142 I honor in ashes the seeds of eternity: J honor the body that taught me to love God, and to contemn death for his sake. And why should not Christians honor that body which the Devils fear? &c. Finaly I honor a body that honored Christ in th•• sword, and is to reign with him in heaven. Thus St. Am∣brose; Now to our Miracles.

St. Austin (de Civit. Dei l. 22. c. 8.) telleth how that in the presence of him and others, a devout woman called Palladia, who being sore diseased, and repairing for her health to the mo∣nument of St. Stephen, as soon as she prayed to the Saint, sana surrexit, she received health. And in the same Chapter a little before he relates the like miraculous example of one Florentius of Hippo, and of Eucharius a Priest of Spain, as also of Ten in∣firm persons in his presence miraculously cured; and sundry dead restored to life. In the ninth book of his Confessions cap. 7. he telleth how the dead bodyes of St. Gervasius and Protasius were after many years found vncorrupted; and that at their dead bo∣dies a blind man received his sight. A miracle (saith St. Austin) don at Millan (where the said bodys lay) when I was there, a great number of people being witnesses therof. St. Hierom re∣counteth in the life of St. Hilarion, how his dead body was after ten months found vncorrupted, yeilding forth a fragrant smel. And St. Bede testifieth the same of St. Cuthbert l. 4. hist. cap. 30.

St. Ambrose having had a revelation where the bodys of

the Martyrs St. Gervasius and Protasius lay,* 3.143 placed them with great solemnity in the Church, and they wrought many mira∣cles, which he recounts; among others the Devils were tormen∣ted by the holy Reliques, and were forced to confess that their torments proceeded from the intercession of the Saints; but the Arrians, vexed to see the Catholick faith confirmed by such mi∣racles, endeavored to discredit them by saying the Devils were not realy tormented, and that these were no true miracles, as Protestants say now of our Exorcisms; for which folly and ob∣stinacy they were reprehended by St. Ambrose, as Vigilantius for the same reason is censured by St. Hierom. In like manner ought the Centurists and other Protestants be condemned for discredi∣ting the miracles which St. Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Rufinus relate of St. Babylas, which was, that after bringing of the body of the holy Martyr into the Temple of an Idol, the Jdol cea∣sed to speak, and therfore Iulian the Apostata commanded the body should be removed from thence; The Centurists answer that the Devil was neither silenced nor frighted by the Saint, and presence of his Reliques; but feigned to bee overcome, to the end that superstition might encreas.

St. Gregory Nazianzen saith that St. Cyprians Reliques are omnipotent to work miracles, if applied with faith, as experience doth shew: and (orat. 1. in Iulianum) he relateth how Gallus and Iulianus two Brethren, and Nephews to the Emperor Con∣stantius, joyning to build a famous Church over the Reliques of St. Mamans Martyr, the part which Gallus (a good Catholick) vndertook, went on most prosperously; but the part of Iulian (who was then perverted in his Iudgment, and became after∣wards the Apostata) could never as much as have the founda∣tion layd, for that the earth by continual and vnusual earth∣quakes, did always cast from it self, and in a manner vomit forth all that was layd in it by Iulianus.

And the reason was saith St. Gregory Nazianzen, becaus the Martyrs are so linkt in charity, that St. Mamans would not be honored by him, who in time was to decry the worship of his

Brethren, and disgrace them. But the Centurists above cited say, that God hindred Julianus his fabrick to shew that he was not pleased with the superstitious worship of Martyrs; and yet they do not consider that he was pleased to let Gallus his fabrick prosper. Such fopperies as these we must expect even from lear∣ned men that vndertake to maintain new opinions against the an∣cient doctrin of Gods Church, confirmed by evident miracles.

St. Anselm whom Protestants commend, as one of the wor∣thiest Prelats of the Church both for piety and learning, recoun∣teth in his book of the Miracles of our B. Lady this story.

The Devil (who out of his inveterat hatred, and enuy to man, seeks all means possible to ruin him) took human shape, and put himself into the service of a Nobleman, with whose hu∣mor he did so comply, as in a short time he was steward of his family, and Master of his will: taking the advantage of this fa∣vor he persuaded him to commit many mischiefs, and murthers; walking one day in the fields with some of his servants not much better then himself, he abused a devout Priest, and carried him prisoner to his Castle. At night the Priest signified to him that hee had a busines to impart to his Lordship, in which he was much concerned, but it must be opend to him in presence of all his servants. He longing to know the busines commanded all his servants should be called; and all appeared, the steward only excepted, who retired to his chamber, pretending he was not well; and being pressed to come, answered, he could not stirr: the Priest replyed to the Lord, that the stewards presence was absolutely necessary; wherupon other servants were ordered▪ to bring him in their arms, he still counterfeiting the sick man. When the holy Priest did see him, he commanded, and conjured him in the name of Almighty God, to declare who he was, and to what end he had thrust himself into that Noblemans service. The steward answered, and confessed he was the Devil, and that his end of serving that man was, to procure his destruction and damnation, which he had long before effected, had not the B. Virgin interposed herself, and interceeded to God, for his Con∣version. 〈2 pages missing〉〈2 pages missing〉

of the cure; they could not be mistaken, neither could they have any design in deceiving others by a fals information; neither durst they or the Monk who writ the story, venter to abuse the whole Kingdom with such an imposture that could not be long concealed, or unpunished. So that this being the miracle wherupon Fox did fix, to disgrace all the rest, as also St. Thomas his sancti∣ty; I shall believe them all to be as authentick as any miracles need to be; and as that which both in the French and English, profane and Ecclesiasticall Histories, is recorded, of the King of France his pilgrimage to St. Thomas his Shrine in Canterbury, for the recovery of his son Philips health; in what despair the Fa∣ther and all France were of his life by human remedies, is evi∣dent by his vndertaking so vnusual and dangerous a Iourney, as it was for a King, to put himself into the hands of his reconci∣led enemy, and of so powerfull a Monarch as K. Henry 2. But God that would have all the world take notice of St. Thomas his glory, and of the justice of his cause, disposed so things, that the most Christian King and Kingdom should be beholding to him for the life of the Heir apparent of the crown, who immediatly recovered, and the King (to shew his gratitude for so great a benefit) did give many Lands and privileges in France to the Monks of Canterbury; all this was don in the yeare 1179. and but nine years after his Canonization.

Miracles of Holy water.

* 3.144ST. Pasil testifieth that the vse and blessing of holy water is an Apostolical traditon; neither can it be denyed if we consider these words of St. Alexander Pope, who but 50. years after St. Peter governed the Church. We bless water sprin∣kled with salt for the people, that all being sprinkled with it, may be sanctified and purified: which thing also we ordain as to be don of all Priests. For if the ashes of an Heifer being sprin∣kled with blood,* 3.145 did sanctify and cleans the people, much more water sprinkled with salt, and consecrated with divin prayers doth

sanctify and cleans the people.* 3.146 And if by salt sprinkled by 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the profet, the barrenes of the water was healed, how much ••ore the same salt being consecrated with divin prayers, taketh 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the barrenes of human things, and sanctifieth those which 〈◊〉〈◊〉 defiled, and cleanseth and purgeth, and multiplieth other 〈◊〉〈◊〉 things, and turneth away the deceits of the devil, and ••••sendeth men from the craftines of the evil Ghost. For if by ••••••ching of the hemm of the garment of our savior we do not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 but that the diseased were cured; how much more by the ••••ubt of his holy words or his elements consecrated, by which 〈◊〉〈◊〉 frailty doth receive health both of body and soul. Thus 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Alexander Pope and martyr in the first age of Christianity. ••hat is sayd of holy water, the same is applied by the ancient ••••hers to holy Oil, holy bread, holy Candells, holy Ashes, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Palms, &c. Theodoret (hist: l. 5. c. 21.) telleth that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 dissolved inchantments by sprinkling of holy water, which 〈◊〉〈◊〉 (saith Theodoret) the Devil not induring the vertue of the ••••inkled water fled away. See also the like report made of ••••••charius by Palladius 〈◊〉〈◊〉 historia Lausiaca cap. 19. of miraculous 〈◊〉〈◊〉 wrough by holy water: see St. Gregory lib. 1. Dial. cap. 10. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 St. Bede lib. 4. hist. cap. 4. and Palladius cap. 9. & 20. and ••••••doret in his Theoph. cap. 13. of a memorable miracle don con∣••••••ding Church lights. Read Eusebius hist. lib. 6. cap. 8. S. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 2. lib. 1. contra haereses. haeres. 30. pag. 61. edit. Basil. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 how Josephus (seing fire made unactive by enchantments, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 from burning by witchcraft) called for water, (a world of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 being present) made the sign of the Cross upon it, put his 〈◊〉〈◊〉 into the vessel of the blessed water, saying, In the name of ••••sus of Nazareth, whom my Fathers crucified, let there be vertue 〈◊〉〈◊〉 this water for the dissolving the charms don by these men. Then 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Epiphanius, he took some of the water in his hand, sprin∣•••••••• the several enchanted Furnaces with it, & dissoluta sunt in∣••••••amenta, the witchcraft ceased, the fire burned, the people who 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the wonder, cryed aloud, One God there is, who helpes the Chri∣••••••••ns and so departed.

Epiphanius cited in the precedent page relates an other mi∣racle don by Ioseph, upon a possessed man. Ioseph, saith he, having shut the doores took water in his hands, blessed it with the sign of the Cross, besprinkled the raging man with it, commanded the Devil in the name of IESUS to be go••, and the possessed party was cured. This miracle (saith Epiphanius) the Iews knew, and great talk there was of it: some sayd Iosephus had opened the Ga∣zophylacium, and finding there the name of God writ, did the wonder by force of this name; It was true he did the miracle, but not as the Iews imagined. Thus St. Epiphanius.

Of our Catholick Churches severe inquiry, discovery, and punishment of Counterfeits in this kind and al other sorts of mi∣racles, our Adversaries give testimony: see Osianders epitom. Cen∣tur. 16. pag. 32. And the book intituled, Two Treatises, the first of the lives of Popes, &c. The second of Masse &c. also of fals miracles wherwith Mary de la Visitation Prioresse de la Anunciada of Lisbon, deceived very many, and was discovered and condemned, Englished and printed 1600. And see in the Addition in the end of that book, an other like discovery and punishment in Sevill of one Father. Lion. See also such an other Discovery of fals miracles in St. Tho∣mas Moores dialogue of veneration of Images, Reliques, &c. l. 1. c. 14. so that our Catholick Bishops and Inquisitors are so far from contriving and concealing such practises, that they publish and punish them with extreme rigor. And this our sincerity in publishing fals miracles, is the only evidence Protestants have to say, that the true miracles are fals: for thus they argue against us: such a Nun, or Friars miracles and revelations were fals, as appeareth by our own discovery and punishment of the cheat; therfore we have reason to suspect that none are true; wheras if obstinacy did not prevail with them more then reason, they should have inferred, and believed the quite contrary conclusion. Madre Luisa de Charion notwithstanding her prediction to our late King Charles, that if he did not become a Roman Catholick, he should be the most vnfortunait Prince in the world, after some years of prosperity; Notwithstanding I say, this, and many other predictions, her

continual fasting, and seeming miracles, she was by the Jnquisi∣tion, kept in prison all her life, and never declared innocent, or free from illusions, vntill after her death, when God seemed to approve of her sanctity by vndeniable signs and testimonys.

Miracles of the Sacrament of Confirmation.

COnfirmation is a Sacrament of the new law, as sacred and holy (saith St. Austin lib. 2. contra lit. Peril. c. 104.) as Baptism it self: it is ministred vnto the baptized with the imposition of the hands of a Bishop, and the amoynting with holy Chrism. And therfore St. Vrban Pope and Martyr (an. 227.) in his letter to all Christians saith, All the faithfull ought to receive the holy Ghost after Baptism by the imposition of hands from a Bishop, that they may be found perfect Christians: becaus when the holy Ghost is infused, the faithfull heart is dilated to prudence and con∣stancy. And an other Pope and Martyr (Euseb. cp. ad Episcop. Tust. & Campan.) The Sacrament of imposition of hands is to be had in great reverence, which cannot be don by any other but by the high Priests: neither is it read or known to have bin don by any other in the Apostles tyme, but by the Apostles themselves.* 3.147 And Tertullian (de car∣ni•• resurrect. cap. 8. & in lib. de Bapt.) alluding to the nature of oyl, wherwith we are anointed in the Sacrament, saith, the flesh is anointed that the soul may be consecrated; the flesh is signed that the soul may me be fensed; the flesh by imposition of hands is oversha∣dowed, that the soul by the spirit may be illuminated.

Hitherto Prelatick Protestants according to the 25. article of their 39. of Religion, contemned the holy Sacrament of Con∣firmation as superstitious, and corrupt following of the Apostles; but since Episcopacy was cryed down in England by the Puri∣tans they writ whole Treatises of the necessity and prayses of Confirmation, not so much (I fear) out of any devotion them∣selves have to that Sacrament, as to be end the people may bee devoted to their Episcopal caracter, it being granted that only

Bishops can confirm Christians. Doctor Taylors Discours of Con∣firmation is an excellent Interlude all circumstances considered; He proves the necessity and holines of Confirmation, contrary to the 25. article of his faith; then he proves that only true Bishops can confirm; whence some, say it followes that his Protestant Epis∣copacy is not for that purpose. 3. he pretends that the Jesuits (though he knowe the contrary) are enemies to this holy Sa∣crament. The question between Doctor Smith Bishop of Calcedon, and them was, not whether Confirmation were not necessary when it might be had conveniently; but whether it were so absolutly necessary for salvation, that the Catholicks of England ought to bring vpon themselves new persecutions for maintaining and har∣bouring a Bishop in that Kingdom to confirm them. And Tay∣lor approves (pag. 66.) the same by saying that Confirmation is not absolutly necessary for salvation.

4. It is ridiculous to see how Doctor Taylor quotes Authors and books for Confirmation, that in all other points of doctrin, he rejects as vnworthy of credit: amongst others a book of mi∣racles wherof he believeth not one; the old Ordo Roman•••••• (pag. 24.) St. Iohn Damasc••n. (pag. 76.) Melchiades Pope (pag. 44.) the Apostolical Constitutions (pag. 16.) which in other matters he rejects as apocryphal; Rupertus, (pag. 4. who in any thing not favouring Episcopacy Taylor contemn•• as a Novice▪ and too mo∣dern; St. Bernard the Monk, and St. Malachias▪ the Bishop, two acknowledged Papists 5. He is much troubled to see that these Authors call Confirmation a Sacrament; and knows not how to English Sacramentum; at last he resolves to translate it Rite; and therfore these latin words of the Ordo Romanus which he sets down pag. (24.) Omnino praecavendum esse ut hoc Sacramentum Confirmationis non negligatur, the Bishop doth English thus; we must by all means take heed that the Rite of Confirmation be not neglected. And (pag. 5.) he saith St. Bernard in the life of St. Malachias, my Prodecessor in the See of Down and Connot, reports that it was the care of that Good Prelat to renew the rite of Confir∣mation in his Diocess.

Seing Protestants with Doctor Taylor, value so much the testimony and faith of St. Bernard, let them see how he con∣demned all their opinions against the Roman Catholick faith as heresys in the Petrobusians, Henricians, and Apostolici,* 3.148 and then I hope they will acknowledge their error, in not tolerating Popery. St. Bernard, doth relate in the life of St. Malachias (whose Successor Doctor Taylor is not, either in caracter or Doctrin) that he cured a lunatick child in confirming him with the sacred vnction. A miracle (saith Holinshead) seen and confessed by many hundreds of people, and therupon blown through the world. St. Optatus (l. 2. contra Donatistas) reporteth how the heretick threw out of the window (ampullam Chrismatis) a viall of Chrisme, ho∣ly oyl, to the intent to break it, the which being stayd by an Angels hand, God preserved, and did light safe among the sto∣nes.

A Miracle of the Sacrament of Extreme vnction.

OF the Sacrament of Exteeme vnction St. Austin giveth this testimony. So often as any infirmity chanceth,* 3.149 let him that is sick receive the body and blood of Christ; and after that let him annoint his body, that, that which is written (Iac. 5.14.) may be accomplished in him. Is any sick? let him bring in the Priests, and let them pray over him, annointing him with oyl in the name of our Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sicke▪ And our Lord shall lift him vp: and if he be in sins, they shall be remitted him.

I doubt Doctor Taylor and his prelatick Convocation will not allow in this controversy of Extreme Vnction, the testimony of St. Malacly to be as pious as they did in the former of Confirma∣tion. And if you ask the cause, they can give no other, but that their Episcopacy is not so much concerned in maintaining extreme Vnction, as Confirmation; We shall notwithstanding, relate St. Bernards words, and St. Malachias work, and desire Doctor Taylor to let us know why he thinks the testimony of one, and

the example of the other to be more credibles, and imitable in the point of Episcopacy, then in other articles of Christian do∣ctrin. A noble man (saith St. Bernard in vita Malachiae) dwelled neere the Monastery of Benchor, whose wife being sick, Malachias was requested to anoyl her, which was deferred till morning; afterwards a sudden outcry being made that she was dead, Malachias came, and when he certainly found that she was dead, he was greatly troubled in mind, imputing the falt to himselfe, that she dyed defrauded of the grace of the Sacrament, and lifting vp his hands to heaven sayd, I beseech thee o Lord (&c.) what more! she that was dead opend her eyes (&c.) and Malachias giving thanks praysed God, and anointed her, Knowing sins to be remitted in this Sacrament.

Miracles of the Sacrament of Confession.

* 3.150IT is written (Act. 19.18.) that many of those (primitive Christian) that belived, came confessing and declaring their deeds. Therfore St. Austin sayth to some who thaught it not necessary to confess their sins to Priests, Do ye penance such as is don in the Church, that the Church may pray for you. Let no man say within himself I do it in secret, J do it before God alone: God who pardoneth me, knoweth that I do in my heart.* 3.151 Was it therfore sayd in vain, whatsoever you shall loos in earth, shall be loosed in Heaven? Were the keys given to the Church of God in vain?* 3.152 Do we frustrat the Gho∣spel of God? Do we frustrat the words of Christ? Do we pro∣mise you that which he denyeth? Do we deceive you? And in an other place, there are (saith he) that do think it sufficient for their salvation, if they confess theire sins to God alone, vnto whom nothing is hidden, and every mans conscience lieth open: For they will not, or they are ashamed, or they disdain to shew themselves vnto Priests: Whom yet our Lord hath by Moyses or∣dained to discern between leper and leper. But J wil not have thee deceived with this opinion, and be ashamed therby to con∣fess them vnto the Vice-gerent of our Lord, either languishing with

••hamfastnes, or stiffnecked with indignation. For, of reason in like manner must we admit him for our Judge, which our Lord doth not disdain to be his Vicar.

St. Cyprian saith, I beseech you my brethren,* 3.153 every one to confess his sin whilst yet he that sinneth remaineth in this world, whilst his confession may be admitted, whilst every mans satisfa∣ction and remission given by the Priests, is acceptable vnto our Lord.

St. Basil the great saith, Jt is judged necessary that sins be confessed vnto those to whom is committed the dispensation of the mysteries of God: for so the very penitents of ancient times are found to have confessed their sins vnto holy men. Sundry miracles wrought by God to confirm our Catholick doctrin of the Sacrament of Confession every one may read in Joannes Cli∣macus grad. 4. in S. Petrus Damian. in ep. ad Desiderium. In Petrus Cluniac. lib. 1. de Mirac. cap. 3.4.5. & 6. J will relate one or two out of S. Bede, of whom Fox (pag. 165.) sayes; As tou∣ching the holines and integrity of his life it is not to be doubted: And saith of his learning (ibid.) so notable and famous was the learning of Bede, that the Church of Rome both stood in need of his help, and also required the same, about the discussing of certain controversies apperaining to learning. Moreover the whole Latin Church at that tyme, gave him the mastery in Iudgment and knoweldge of the holy Scriptures. And yet this holy Man who was such a Master in all learning, and Scripture, in his history of the Church of England, recounts Miracles either seen by himself, or so credibly reported that he (being of so sound a Judgment as Fox confesseth) beleived and writ them for authentik, to con∣firm every point of our doctrin wherin we differ from Prote∣stants. Let us hear one of Confession.

In the time of Conrede (saith St. Bede. l. 5. c. 14. hist.) who reigned after King Edilrede, there was a certain Captain in great favor with the King, for his valor, but careless of his soul. Wherfore the King often admonished him to make humble con∣fession of his sins, and amend his life, least by deaths sudain preven∣tion

he might loos time of repentance; but he, notwithstan∣ding this gentle admonition of his Souveraign, deferred his confession. In the mean time being visited with sicknes, the King came to his Chamber (for he loued him tenderly) and exhor∣ted him that at the least now he would confess before he died, No, quoth he, J will not be confessed now, but when J am well recovered I will, least if I should now do it, my fellows would say that I did that for feare of death, which I did not in health. When the King came the next day to visit him, and give him good councel, he cryed out incontinent, with a pitiful and lamentable voice, saying: Alas, what mean you Sir, why come you hither? you are not able to do me any good. The King answered, say not so, see ye play the wise mans part. Nay, saith he J do not rave, but J have here before mine eyes a wicked conscience all wounded and mangled.

And what is the matter, sayd the King; A litle be∣fore you came, quoth he, two beautifull yong men came in and sate down by me, one at my head, the other at my feet; and one of them took a fine book out of his bosom, but litle in quantity, and gave it me to read: Jn the which when I loo∣ked a litle while, I found all the good deeds that ever I had don fair written; and God knoweth they were few in num∣ber, and little in effect▪ when I had don, they took the book of me again, and sayd nothing. Then sudenly came there about me a whole legion of wicked spirits, and besieged the hous round about, and sitting down, replenished every cor∣ner within. Then he that for his foul face and highest seat appeared to be greatest among them, taking, out a book terrible to all mens sight, vnmeasurable for greatnes and for weight importable, commanded one of his black guard to bring it to me to read. When I read a litle I found all the enormous detestable sins that ever I had committed, not only in word and deed, but also in thought, written there in great black letters: and he said to the two faire yong men that sate by me, why sit you here, knowing most certainly that this fellow is ours? They answered, True it is, take him

and lead him away to the bottomless pit of damnation; and with that they vanished away. Immediatly two wicked spirits having fier-pronges in their hands, rose vp, and struck me one in the head and the other in the sole of my feet, the which now with great torment and anguish creep vp into the bowels, and other internal parts of my body, and when they meet to∣gether J shal dy, and be drawn hence by the Devils into Hell without redemption. Thus spake that miserable man lying in extreme desperation, and so dyed out of hand. Jt is evident (saith St. Bede) hee had not these visions for his own sake, whom they availed nothing at all, but for other men, who knowing his lamentable end might be afraid to differr, and prolong the time of Repentance, while they have opportunity and leasure.

In the next Chapter (cap. 15. l. 5.) St. Bede tells of an other damned for differring his confession, thus. I my self (saith Bede) Knew a Religious man (whom would to God I had ne∣ver known) placed in a good and famous Monastery; notwith∣standing he himself, was infamous for his lewd behavior, and loos life. I could tell his name also, if it were worth the tel∣ling. This man was earnestly rebuked of his brethren and Su∣periors of the Monastery, for his enormities, and exhorted to a better trade of life, but all in vain, &c. But as men are wont to say, He that will not come of his own accord within the Church-door, shall run against his will to hell gates, this man being now struck with a very faint diseas, and brought to extremity, called all the Convent about him, and with much lamentation and deep sighs, like a man already damned, began to declare vnto them, that he saw hell gates open, and the devil drouned in a deep dungeon therof and Caiphas and the whole rablement that put Christ to death, cast in flaming fier, hard by him: and next to them (O miserable and wretched man that I am, said he) I see a place of eternall perdition pre∣pared for me, The brethren hearing these wofull words, ex∣horted him earnestly to repent and be sorry for his sins while he was yet alive.

Then he (brought to extreme despair) answered, no, no:

There is no, time for me to amend my former life, especially seing I perceive my judgment is past, and fully compleated al∣ready. With these words he dyed without receiving the Sa∣crament. His body was interred in the farmost part of all the Abby; not one of all the whole Convent durst Say Mass for his soul, nor sing Psalms, nor once say, one Pater noster for him. This chanced of late in the Country of the Bernician••▪ (Northumberland) and was blazed all the Country over: So, that it stired vp many to make quick Confession of their sinfull acts, and not to take days with God. Which God grant it may work also in such as shall read this present story. Hitherto St. Bede, who lived above nine hundred yeares ago.

Thus much of ancient miracles in confirmation of Popery, some whereof were seen, others so vndoubtedly beleived by the greatest Saints and Doctors of Gods Church, that they judged them worthy of being recorded in their writings, to the end po∣sterity might, by giving them credit, take for divin the doctrin which they confirmed. We do not recurr to the primitiye Fa∣thers and times for miracles, out of any want of the like in our dayes, every where now some are so visible, that only foolish Atheism, or obstinacy can deny their supernaturality; we men∣tion the ancient miracles and Fathers for two reasons. 1. To prove that our doctrin is the same, with theirs, and confirmed by the like miracles.* 3.154 2. To convict our Adversaries of obstinacy by their denial, or contempt of the testimony of the holy Doctors and Catholick Church in such things as their spirit doth not fancy; and yet they do admit the same testimony as sufficient and Obli∣gatory in such points of Christianity, as themselves think neces∣sary or convenient for their own reformations, and interpreta∣tions of Scripture. It is ridiculous to see how Calvin (ex. gr.) presseth and wresteth the authority of St. Austin for some parts of his doctrin, and how he sleighteth the same when that holy Doctor speaks against it. To draw St. Austin to countenance the error against freewill: I will relate St. Austin (saith Calvin) in his own

words, and then quoteth his words thus: Primam fuisse libertatem posse non peccare, nostram multo majorem non posse peccare. Wheras the St. Speakes in that pl••ce of our happines in heaven where we shall not be able to sin, and preferres it before the liberty Adam had in Paradise of being able not to sin: his words are, Prima libertus voluntatis erat posse peccare, novissima erit multo major,* 3.155 non posse peccare. Prima immortalitas &c. Here Calvin corrupts the words; insteed of St. Austins Novissima, he puts in, nostra; then leaves out erit, with many other words which made clear St. Austins speech and meaning of the liberty we shall have in heaven; but Cal∣vin makes him speak of our liberty here vpon earth; and is so in∣considerat as to reprehend grievously the Master of the Sentences for following St. Austins sence according to the text. But when St. Austins authority is vrged against him in favor of the Mass, praier for the dead, and Purgatory, and particularly how carefull he was to have Mass sayd for the soul of his Mother St. Monica, that desired him at her death, to remember her in his Sacrifice of the Altar, Calvin saith, it was but an old wives request which her son never examined according to the Scriptures, and after his own privat affection would have the same approved by others.

As Calvin Luther and all, the first Protestant Reformers con∣temn the Catholick Churches authority in matters of doctrin, when it is contrary to their new interpretations, and extravagant fancies of Scripture, so do they and their Successors in that of mi∣racles; Jf any Miracles be recounted that confirm the mysteries which Protestants reject, though delivered by the same Author, and in the same book, they must needs be old wives tales, not duly examined &c. And yet the foolish and fals stories of such a frantick and crackt-braind fellow as Iohn Fox was known to be, and his Acts and Monuments shew him to have bin, are credited by persons that have no other ground to beleive his fables and follies but their education in Protestancy, and aversion to Po∣pery: His lies and simple storyes must pass for a true Ecclesia∣stical History, notwithstanding that they are contradicted by all the Histories of the world, and that many of his Martyrs were

found, following their trades, after that he had described their torments, and deaths very particularly, and patheticaly: his mi∣racles in confirmation of protestancy (and indeed his whole book) are so ridiculous, that I admire some Protestant zealots, if they would have the reformation be thought a Religion, do not sup∣press or reform the work.* 3.156 He tells for a stupendious miracle, that a stone fell from a ruinous building vpon Luthers stool, af∣ter he had bin eased, or weary of sitting vpon it. An other, that a multitude of German Clowns, debauched Clergy men, and libertins, embraced Luthers reformation, it being so indulgent to liberty, sensuality and vice; and that the Bishop of Rome, and other Catholick Prelates Censures did not stop the violent cours and Torrent of their pervers inclinations.* 3.157 He makes dreams revela∣tions, Merchants Expounders of the Apocalyps; and not to seem partial, how himself was made a fool by revelation.

But in steed of suppressing or correcting Fox his foolish Acts and Monuments, the Protestant Clergy have reprinted that book divers times,* 3.158 since his death, with new comments, chronologies, and great commendations of the work; every Parish Church is to have one, and few privat families will endure the want of so great a spiritual treasure. And though the Bishops know it is not only a very absurd piece, but also the chief thing that makes, Purita∣nism, and Presbytery spread, and so popular in England, yet be∣caus it persuades the simple and vulgar sort, that Popery is ido∣latry, they countenance a book so prejudicial to themselves.

Our Catholick miracles are of a different nature, and not related by such lying foolish fellows as Fox, but by the greatest Saints, and wisest men of Gods Church; men so much esteemed for their vertue, learning, and judgment that Protestants them∣selves are ashamed to vndervalue their testimony in matters of faith, and (a fortiori) ought to beleive them in matters of fact, if they intend to believe any thing at all that is not mentioned particu∣larly in Scripture: I say particularly, because Christ our Saviour assured us in generall, (as our Adversaries confess) that miracles should continue in the Church forever, as signs of the true belief (Marc. 16. 20. Ioan. 14.12. 2. Cor. 12.12.

The Conclusion.

I have sayd as much as I think necessary for the information and instruction of such Protestants as desire to know the truth, and do not find my conscience guilty of any one falsification in this whole Treatise: And truly it were a great absurdity in me to commit wittingly that crime which J so much cry down in others. Such mistakes as have crept into the printed book, will J hope, he attributed to the Printer, or Transcriber: I am sure I have bin so diligent in examining the quotations and assertions pro and con the Catholick cause, that want of care cannot be ob∣jected; and if there be no want of sufficiency in the work, that commendation is not due to me, but to the goodnes and evi∣dence of the cause I maintain. For, what acutenes of wit is re∣quisit to defend a Religion that never was impugned but by per∣sons so leud, and vnreasonable, that at the very first appearance of their opposition, they were condemned as hereticks by the whole visible Church that then was? What profundity of judgment can be thought necessary to demonstrat that the ancient primitive let∣ter and sense of Scripture ought to be preferred before the Devils interpretation therof embraced by Luther; or before any new Canon and fancies of the like debauched fryers and Priests? What litle learning is not more then sufficient to discover so palpable frauds and falsifications as the Protestant Writers practise, to make their Reformations seem agreable, to Gods word? What Erudition is so mean that doth not surpass the history of one age, or of Pro∣testancy; a Religion so lately sprung vp, and raysed from the pride, ambition, liberty, and lewdnes of the first reformers, and con∣fined to the Northern parts of this least part of the world? How can such a Religion be Catholick either in length of time, extent of Territories, or Conversion of Nations?

Jts true that for the space of 100. yeares England hath bin so blind as not to see such gross errors; but this misfortune was occasioned by their fondnes of Q. Elizabeth; to make good her title to the Crown they separated themselves from the commu∣nion

of the Church; and when her interest vanished with her death, and for want of posterity, few were living after her long reign, that observed the motives of her reformation; most En∣glishmen beleived the changes she made, had no relation to her illegitimacy, but proceeded from pure zeal of the Ghospell. Her new Clergy both then, and eversince, have endeavored to con∣firm the people in that persuasion, by falsifying Scripture, Coun∣cells, and Fathers; but the discovery of the frauds, and the prin∣ciples of Protestancy practised against the late innocent King, have opend the eyes of many to discern the flaws of the Reformation, and the fallacies of their own education; And now that it is as much the concern of the whole Nation to tolerat the Roman Catholick faith, as it was Q. Elizabeths interest to change it into protestancy, I doubt not but that every particular persons ease in the addition of a revenue to the publick, will excite both con∣science and curiosity to examin, whether the prelatick Religion and Clergy of England, have not more of human invention, then of divin institution? And if after perusing this Treatise, and proposing the arguments and instances therof to their learned Ministery, no satisfactory answer can be given to the particulars wherwith their doctrin and function is charged, to what purpose should men continue in mistakes so damnable to the soul, and dangerous to the state?

But if the Protestant Clergy can divert the Layty from en∣tertaining any thoughts of curiosity, or scruples of conscience in order to the examination of this matter of so great importance, and can make them believe that K. Henry 8. passion to Ann Bullen was a just cause to introduce the Reformation, and to assume the Supremacy; or that the Earle of Hartfords ambition of being absolutly Protector of England, (quite contrary to K. Henry 8. Testament, and to his own Oath of not assuming any power above his Collegues and Tutors of K. Edward 6.) was a divin inspiration to bring in Zuinglius his Sacramentarian Religion into the Realm; or that the Duke of Northumberlands poysoning the yong King, and excluding the next and lawfull heirs from the

Crown, to conferr it vpon his own own son and the Lady Iane Grey (pretending therby to promote his new Zuinglian Ghospell) was the work of the holy Ghost: Or that Q. Elizabeths mur∣ther of the Q. of Scots, and her Parliaments Decrees and endea∣vors to preferr any natural issue of her body to this Empire,* 3.159 be∣fore the legitimat and immediat Heirs, the Stevards (and therby to continue her prelatick Protestancy) were things lawfull accor∣ding to the principles of Christianity, and Catholick faith; If the Protestant Clergy I say can persuade the layty, that all this was lawfull, and agreable to the doctrin which Christ and his Apostles did preach, either they have an abundance of wit, or they that believe them very litle judgment.

A great wit maintained that they may as well make Mahomets Alcoran a plausible Religion in England, and gain therby as great re∣venues as they do by their Reformation, and Protestant Scripture, wherof neither the Canon, letter, or sense is that which God deli∣vered to his Church, as heretofore hath bin proved. I do not speak in rallery (sayd the gentlemen) but seriously,* 3.160 when I say that men who believe the Protestant Religion to be true, may be induced by the same persons and the like reasons, to believe that Maho∣metisme is the true Religion. This hath also bin solidly proved by Doctor Reynolds in his Calvino-Turcismus: and by others also when they demonstrat that Calvinism and Turcism agree in the principall points; and every one knows that the doctrin of the 39. articles, of the Church of England, is the quintessence of Cal∣vins doctrin, and was by him applauded, though he said that (as to Point of disciplin) there were many tolerable fooleries in in that Church and Lyturgy. But let us pursue the Gentlemans parallel of Mahomet and his doctrin,* 3.161 with our English Refor∣mers and their doctrin, and we shall plainly see, that there is as much reason to believe Mahometism, as prelatick Protestancy; and that both these Religious were planted, and propagated by the same means; nay that it is more to be admired how our Coun∣treymen became Protestants, then the Arabians, or Armenians became Turcks. When Mahomet began to preach his doctrin in

the East,* 3.162 Christianity (there) was so discredited, (by being divided into sects, and into so many heresies of Arians, Mani∣chees, Nestorians &c.) that men were disposed (by that diver∣sity of opinions) to follow any new Religion; especialy that of Mahomet, becaus he borrowed something from every Sect; and as the 39. Articles of the Church of England agree in some fundamental points with Catholicks, and also with hereticks, so Mahomet agreeth in the worship of one God with Iews and Chri∣••tians; and in the doctrin and worship of Christ, he comes at ••eer to Christianity as most Arians, and Nestorians, or the Anti∣trinitarian Protestants of Hungary, Poland &c. nay as Bp. Mor∣ton, and some other Prelaticks. But when Luther in Germany, and Cranmer in England began Protestancy,* 3.163 all the west and Latin Church agreed in the Roman Catholick faith; no other Reli∣gion was regarded; and the ••emnants of Wickleff and Hus, were hissed out of the world, at least were nothing so considerable any where, as the above mentioned heresies had bin in the East, when Mahomet began there to preach his Alcoran. So that if he∣resy, or apostacy can have any excuse, Mahometism in its begi∣ning was more excusable then Protestancy, by reason of the more considerable divisions that then were among Christians in matters of doctrin, then when Luther began his Reformation.

Now let us come to particular reflexions vpon both. Maho∣met retained some parts of Scripture as well as Protestants; and had as good grounds to reject what he did not fancy of the let∣ter and sense therof, as Protestants have to be choosers of their own Canon, and interpretation. Mahomet gives as many rules of Morality as Protestants; and though he allows of many wives, Protestants do the same; with this only difference; that Maho∣met says tis lawfull to keep many at once; Protestants say you must keep but one at a time, and that you cannot have the va∣riety of wives men so much desire,* 3.164 without the formality of a divorce; how litle is requisit for the validity and legality of Pro∣testant divorces, we have proved heretofore by the authority and principles of the first Reformers, and the dayly practises of their

Successors. In all other things Mahomets sect is more austere, in fasting, praying, abstaining from wine &c. then Protestancy. And becaus both agree in the incoherency, and absurdity of their principles, both also agree in planting, propagating, and defen∣ding their doctrin not by miracles, or rational arguments, but by force, and sanguinary statuts. And this is the reason why Catho∣licks are as litle permitted to dispute, or reason for the Roman Religion in these Kingdoms, as Christians in Turky; and Priests are as much perseeuted for writing books of Controversies, as Printers and Stationers and severely punished. Thus much as to the paralell of both doctrins.

But If we compare their persons, or vertues, we shall find that Mahomet was an honester man, and deserved more credit then Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, or any of the first Protestant Re∣formers. He never was baptized, at least never professed any Re∣ligion, vntill he composed his own, with the help of an Arian Monk; but all the first Reformers had first professed the Ca∣tholick faith, which afterwards they renounced, pretending that God had forsaken his Church for many ages; and presumed to say that he had authorised and inspired them to reform (without shewing any warrant) that doctrin vnto which their betters in learning, vertue, and judgment actualy submitted, as vnto the true Catholick, and themselves also had embraced as such, vntill their pride and lust prevailed against their conscience. Mahomet married a Widdow, and had made no vows not to marry; the first Re∣formers married Nuns, and themselves also were votaries, Calvin only excepted; but his incontinency was no less scandalous, and notorious, then theirs; having lived in adultery with a Gentle∣woman of Mongis, that left her husband at Lansan•••• to enjoy Calvins Company at Geneva: who attempted also to commit the like sin with the Lady ••ollande of Bredrode, wise to a sickly Nobleman called Iames Borgongue Lord of Fallaise; in so much as she persuaded her husband to leave Geneva, and go to Lansan••••, where she revealed the whole matter. Mahomet tis true was a Cheat, but a mere cunning cheat then Luther, Calvin, or Cranmer,

&c. for by his Dove, or fitts of the falling sickness he made people believe that the holy Ghost appeared and inspired to him the Alcoran; but the Protestant Reformers had not so much to shew for their new doctrin, Canon, Translations, and their new sense of Scripture. Mahomet was constant to his principles; the Prote∣stant Parliament and Reformers were as changable as the times, and humors of the giddy people; and therfore may with more reason then the Turks give the Moon crescent for the Crest of their Religions, as Catholicks do the Cross. Here in England they changed with Henry 8. the Roman faith for Articles of Religion devised by the Kings Majesty. As soon as he dyed they changed that faith into Zuinglianism, to comply with the Protector Somer∣set; within two or three years after they changed Zuinglianism into Calvinianism, at the suit of Calvin, and reformed the Liturgy accordingly. After K. Edward 6. death they returned with Q. Mary to the old faith. With Q. Elizabeth they restored the new, but with some alterations. When K. James succeeded they changed their Translations of Scripture and other things. In K. Charles 1. time, prelatick Protestancy was pulled down by Presbytery, this by Independency &c. Prelatick Protestancy being restored again by K. Charles 2. the formes of Ordination (wherupon depend the validity of the prelatick Ministery, Church, and Sacraments) were not thought sufficient, and therfore are now changed into more Catholick forms; and therby all is left doubtfull, and chan∣geable; for if the Church of England acknowledgeth to have er∣red in a thing of so great importance, what assurance can it have of not erring in all the rest? In a word, Protestants in this one Kingdom, and in this one age, have made mo•••• changes of Re∣ligions, then Mahometans in the ten ages they have continued, and in the greatest part of the world which they have conquered.

These things maturely considered, makes Mahometism, as probable a Religion as the best kind of Protestancy, and ther∣fore it would be no great wonder, if they who believe the Pro∣testant and Prelatick Clergy, and take their word and fancies for true Scripture and Christianity, should alter their belief vpon the

change of that Clergys testimony; acknowledging that hitherto they had bin mistaken, (which they may confess at any time becaus their Church is acknowledged fallible) and that now they find the Turks have the true faith, for that they reject all such books of Scripture, as any Christians ever doubted of (and that as lawfully as the pretended apocrypha, are rejected by Prote∣stants vpon the same ground) and likewise believe all Protestant fundamental points necessary for salvation,* 3.165 seing they believe of Christ as much as Arians, Socinians, and Chillingworth with his Sect of wits; nay as much as the moderat and modern Prelatick writers, who say, that it is sufficient to believe Christ is the word and son of God, which Mahomet never denyed. If any Mahu∣metan Prince could pretend a title to this British Monarchy, (with probability of prevailing) why may not we think he would find the Protestant Clergy as ready to comply with his Religion, (therby to secure their own, and promote his interest) as they were ready to change the Catholick and legal Religion, which was professed in Q. Maries time, for complying with Q. Eliza∣beth, and fortifying her weak title against the legitimat and vn∣doubted Heirs? All things weighed, there is less difference be∣tween Mahumetism and prelatick Protestancy, then between pre∣latick Protestancy and Popery; for that Popery and Protestancy agree only in the name of Christianity, in the motive and manner of faith, they differ, and in the ground therof, as also in the Ca∣non, letter, and Sense of Scripture; but Mahumetism and Prote∣stancy though they agree not in the letter of Scripture, (Protestants admitting into their Canon more books therof then the Turks) yet they both agree in the rule of Religion, (though not in the application,) as also in the rule wherby their Canon and sense of Scripture is discerned, which is, every mans privat judgment in controverted matters; in that point which is not controverted, (to wit, one Deity) the consent and concurrence of the gene∣rality of the world, or evident reason, is the foundation as well of Mahumetism as of protestancy; as also in the point of the im∣mortality of the soul. Therfore I see no impossibility or impro∣bability

(said this great wit) why Mahumetism may not in time be made the Religion of these Nations, without violating the principles, or altering the grounds of Protestancy, and the pre∣latick Clergy be as much applauded,* 3.166 and rewarded for the one change as for the other: The greatest obstacle is, that no Ma∣humetan Prince can pretend a title (even such as Q. Elizabeths was) to the Crown.

God almighty deliver us from so great evils, and open the eyes of them that do not see the precipices wherunto their souls are led by such principles; and grant the learned prelatick Clergy grace to prefer truth before falshood, conscience before conve∣niency, and eternity before the few days which they are to en∣joy Benefices, and Bishopricks. But in case they do not (for fear of loosing their credit and conveniences) recant their errors. J hope the Protestant Layty will have so much curiosity as to examin whether it be possible that so many Catholick Authors as have written books of Controversies, should damn and discredit them∣selves, by forging and feigning Protestant frauds and falsifications, quoting the very places and pages where they are to be found; affirming that without such practices, protestancy cannot be main∣tained; to examin I say whether we Catholicks can be so wicked and witless, as to accuse men of such grievous crimes without hopes of any honor, or profit to our selves, but rather with a certainty of an immediat discovery of our impostures.

If this one thing be maturely considered, the Protestant Layty and their vnlearned Clergy that rely so much vpon the sufficiency and sincerity of Cranmer, Jewel, Fox, Morton, Andrews, Whi∣taker, Fulk, Perkins, Vsher, Laud, Abbots, Chillingworth, Bram∣hall, Cosins, Hamond, Taylor, &c. will believe us, or at least examin, and certainly find most palpable vnexcusable corruptions and contradictions in every one of their own Authors books com∣posed against the Roman doctrin, and conclude with us, that Piety and Policy is mistaken in promoting Protestancy, and persecuting Popery, and that a good revenue, may be conscientiously setled (if legaly demanded) vpon the Crown; and vpon the poor sol∣diers,

and seamen that defend these nations against forreign inva∣sions, and rebellious insurrections: Seing the Pope and his Ro∣man Catholick Clergy, in all likelihood, will be content to resign their right and interest in the Church revenues to his Majesty, as they did in the like occasion to Q. Mary, who notwithstan∣ding the tendernes of her conscience, was satisfied there could be no scruple of Sacriledge in applying (with consent of the true owners) ecclesiastical livings to pious and publick vses.

And now I hope I may conclude this Treatise with hum∣bly desiring a Conference or examination of Protestant and Ca∣tholick books, at least of one for each side; let the quotations of Doctor Taylors Dissuasive be viewed, and that book or any other writ against the Roman Religion, stand for the Protestants sincerity, tis like he writ nothing carelesly, or rashly, his decla∣red drift being to make a whole Nation Protestants, and profes∣sing himself to be only Amanuensis to a prelatick Convocation of reformed Bishops, which in his Preface he compares with that Assembly of the Apostles wherin choyce was made of Iudas his Successor, and sayes the lot of St. Mathias fell vpon himself, and that some other like himself was Barnabas the just. Jf this holy Convocation of Protestant Apostles should set forth a Book that hath more lyes then leaves, I hope men may advise their friends to consider whether a Religion that cannot be maintained but by such men and means, and a Clergy that practiseth such frauds and falsifications, ought to be preferred before a Religion and Clergy that not only professeth (as all others do) to write truth, but presseth to come to a publick trial therof in a ••egall way; and rather then fail herein, are content, that the controversy be decided by them, that are known to be most zealously devoted to Protestancy. I do not instance Bp. Taylors Dissuasive from Po∣pery for the Trial, as if his falsifications to maintain Protestancy were more numerous, or more enormous then those of other writers that have defended the same cause. No. He is more wa••y then many, and more moderat then most of his predeces∣sors, or equalls. But I instance his book to give my adversaries

all the advantages that the learning of the Author and the Au∣thority of a Convocation can afford. Jf they have a better opi∣nion of the sufficiency of Bishop Jevell, then of Bp. Taylor, they may fix rather vpon his Apology for the Church of England, then vpon Doctor Taylors Dissuasive from Popery, authorized by the Church of Ireland. To Jevells Apology we oppose Harding, Sta∣pleton, and Rastalls Answers; To Taylors Dissuasive, Worsley, Len∣gar, and Sergeants Annotations. But if they refuse this offer, as pointing but at two particular Doctors of their Church, let them be pleased to have the truth of their Reformation, and the sin∣cerity of their whole Clergy examined by answering to the frauds and falsifications wherwith I charge their whole Church, and cal∣ling, in this book.

FINIS.

Notes

• * 1.1

  see herfter ••ar: 3. sect▪ 9.
• * 1.2

  Thomas Bo∣nart in Con∣cordia scien∣tiae cum fide.
• * 1.3

  How fallaci¦ous are our philosophi∣cal definiti¦ons and de∣monstrati∣ons concer∣ning the na∣ture and es∣sence of any thing.
• * 1.4

  Jnstanced in the nature or essence of a Body.
• * 1.5

  Pag: 259▪
• * 1.6

  Bonart in concordia pag 301. & 304. & pas∣sim.
• * 1.7

  pag. 297.
• * 1.8

  Bonart lib 5. passim.
• * 1.9

  Wherin con∣sisteth the reasonable∣ness of Re∣ligion.
• * 1.10

  The grounds of peace, piety and policy.
• † 1.11

  ¶ Doctor Philip Nicolai in Comment. de reg∣no Christi, chargeth the Apostles, and the first next succeeding Bishops of Rome, with affectation of the Roman Supremacy. And S. Victor Pope and Mar∣tyr (who lived in the next age to the Apostles) is reprehended by Nutton, Polanus, Spark, and other Protestants, for hauing exceeded his bounds when he took vpon him to excommunicat the Bishops of the East: S. Ireneus found fault with his seuerity, but neuer doubted of his authority.

  The Centurists (Centur. 3. Col. 168.) do condemn S. Stephen Pope and Martyr for vndertaking to threa∣ten excommunication to Helenus, Firmilianus, and all others throughout Cicilia, Capadocia, and Galacia, for rebaptysing Heretiks. And col: 84. They reprehend S. Cyprian for teaching that the Roman Church ought to be acknowledged of all others for the mother and root of the Catholick Church. And Centur. 4. col: 764. they confess that the Councell of Sardis (consisting of 300. Bishops and aboue; assembled from all parts of the world, and wher at, sundry Fathers of the Ni∣cen Councell were present) decreed appeals to the Bishop of Rome.
• [a] 1.12

  M.r Whitaker Lib. de Antichristo contra Sande∣rum pag: 35. answering D.r Sanders (who affirmed and proued that the Roman Church was not chan∣ged during the first 600. yeares after Christ) Whitaker saith: During all that time the Church was pure and flo∣rished, and inuiolably taught, and defended the faith de∣liuered from the Apostles. See the same acknowledged by M.r Fulk in his confutation of Purgatory pag▪ 373. And by Reynolds in his conference with Mr. Hart pag: 443. And Mr. Iewell in his reply to Mr. Harding pag: 246.

  That the Roman faith and the Catholick faith are Synonima, or the same, appeared by
• [b] 1.13

  S. Hieroms words in Apo: 2. adversus Rufinum, who pretending to be a Catholick, S. Hierom demands: What doth he call his faith? That which the Church of Rome holdeth? If he answered, it is the Roman, ergo Catholici sumus; then without doubt we are Catholicks. And ep. 57. ad Da∣masum Papam: Quicumque extra banc domum Agnum co∣mederit, profanus est, & quicumque tecū non colligit spargit. S. Cyprian (lib: 4. epist: 2.) speaks thus to Antonianus. You writ that I should send a Copy of the letters to Cornelius (Pope) to the end that you communicat with him, that is to say, with the Catholick Church▪ And the same S. Cyprian (ibid: Epist: 45. ad Corneli∣um) it seemeth good to us that letters should be sent to all our Colleagues at Rome that they should firm∣ly embrace your communion; that is to say, the Ca∣tholick Church. Et Ibid: Ego nullum primum nisi Chri∣stum sequens, Beatitudini tuae, id est, Cathedrae Petri com∣munione consocior. Super illā Petram aedificatā Ecclesiā scio. And S. Ambrose, de obitu Fratris, reporteth how his Brother Satyrus being desirous to know whether the Bishop to whom he came were Catholick or no, as∣ked him, whether he did communicat with the Ca∣tholick Bishop, hoc est, cum Romana Ecclesia convene∣rit.
• [d] 1.14

  ¶ Theodoret [d] a Greek Father, in his Epistle to Pope Leo, placed before his Commentaries vpon S. Pauls Epistle, saith, behold after all trauel and sweat, I am condemned, being not so much as accused. But I look for sentence of your Apostolik sea, and I humbly be∣seech and require your Holiness in this case to aide me (justum vestrum & rectum appellanti judicium) ap∣pealing to your right and just judgment, and com∣mand me to come before you. And in his Epistle ad Renatum Presbit. he further saith, I beseech thee persuade the most holy Arch Bishop Leo, to exercise his Apostolical authority, and command me to go to your Councel, because that holy Sea hath the go∣vernment of all the Churches of the World. S. Chrysost. in Epist. ad Innocentium Papam saith, I beseech you write that these things so wrongfully don in my absence, and I not refusing judgment, may not be of force, and that those who haue don wrong may be subject to the penalties of the Ecclesiastical lawes, &c. And command vs to be restored to our Church &c. Pope Innocentius in his Epistle to Arcadius the Emperor and his wife, who were aduerse to S. Chrysostom, and took part with Theophilus, (quoted Centur 5. col. 663.) saith. I the last of all, and a sinner, yet hauing the thro∣ne of the great Apostle Peter committed to me, do separat and remoue, thee and her from receauing the immaculat mysteries of Christ our God: and euery Bishop, or any o∣ther of the Clergy which shall presume to minister or giue to you those holy Mysteries after the time that you haue read these present lettres of my Order, I prononce them voyd of their dignity, &c. Arsacius, whom you placed in the Bishops throne in Chrysostoms roome though he be dead, we depose, and command that his name be not written in the role of Bishops. In like manner we depose all other Bishops which of purposed aduice, haue communicated with him &c. To the deposing of Theophilus (Bishop of Alexandria, we add excommunication &c. The Cen∣turists Cent. 5. col. 778. say of the Fathers of that 5. Century, They did affirm erroniously that antiquity had attributed the principality of priestood to the Roman Bis∣hop aboue all. And Col. 782. they set down the general Councell of Calcedons petition to Pope Leo, desiring his Holyness to confirm their Decrees, and [Col: 823.] the words of the Councell of Carthage to Pope In∣nocentius, supplicating that to the statutes of their me∣diocrity might be added the authority of the Sea A∣postolick. They further acknowledged that the Pope summoned S. Athanasius and his aduersaries to ap∣peare at Rome: And that Athanasius obeyed, wherof see also Nicephor. l. 9. c. 6. and hist. Tripartit. l. 4. cap. 6. D. Philip. Nicolai de Regno Christ. l. 2. pag. 149. confesseth, that Julius Pope exercised the supreme spiritual Jurisdiction, as given ex praescripto & jure divino, and as St. Peters Successor; as also Pope Damasus, and Pope Jnnocentius afterwards. See Iulius epistle to the Churches of the East. Cent••r. 4. col. 735. and col. 746. how Pope Julius saith to them, are ye ignorant of the custom to write to vs first, to the end from hence may be determined what is just &c. For, what things wee have received from St. Peter the Apostle, those I signifie to you.
• [e] 1.15

  ¶ Functius (a Protestant writter) in lib. 7. Chro∣nolog. anno Christi 494. saith, Henaias was the first who raised war in the Church against Images. Nicep••▪ in Hist▪ Eccl. lib. 16. c. 27. saith. Henaias iste primus (O audacem animam & os impudens) vocem illam evo∣muit, Christi & eorum qui illi placuere, Imagines vene∣randas non esse. August. haer. 53. Epiphan. haer. 75. mentions Aerius his nouelties against fasting appoint∣ed by the Church, prayer for the dead, &c. Wher∣of M.r Fulk in his answer to a counterfeit Catholick pag 44. c. 41. saith: I will not dissemble &c. Aerius taught that prayer for the dead was unprofitable, as wit∣tnes both Epiphan. and Austin. which they count for an error. S. Aug. de Eccl. dog. c. 73. saith: We belieue that the bodyes of Saints, and chiefly the Reliques of holy Martyrs, ought to be most sincearly honored, as if they had bin members of Christ; if any contradicts this sentence he is belieued not to be a Christian, but an Eunomian or a Vigilantian. S. Aug: lib: 3. c. 4. contra lit. Petil charg∣eth and reproueth Petilian, with his foul mouth, he pro∣ceedeth to the dispraysing of Monks of Monasteries. He also chargeth the Donatists Circumcellions with the same crime saying they use to say what meaneth the name of Monks, shew where it is to be found in Scripture? Aug. in Psalm. 132. S. Hierom contra Vigillan. c. 1. saith: What do the Churches of the East? What those of Egypt▪ and of the Apostolick Sea? Which receaue Priests either Virgins or Continent; or if they haue wiues, they cease to be husbands. S. Epiphanius haer. 59. But you will tell me, that in some places Priests, Deacons and Subdeacons, haue children. But that is not according to the Canon but ac∣cording to mens minds, &c. S. Aust. de vnit Eccl. c. 12. reporteth the Donatists as heretiks, for saith he, they vsed to collect certaine places of Scripture, & ea detorquere in Ecclesiam Dei, that it might seem to haue perished in the whol world. And in Psalm. 101. conc. 2. relateth their words, the Church hath apostatised and perished in all nations; this they say who are not in the Church. [O impudentem vocem.]
• [g] 1.16

  Bishop Ieuell in his sermon at Pauls Cross, and iterated challeng, appeales (for the truth and purity of the Protestant Religion) to S. Gregory the great, Bishop of Rome. And so also doth Whitaker in respons. ad Campian. rat. 5. pag. 50. in behalf of all the English Clergy; his words are, O Campian, the speech of Jeuell was most true and constant when pro∣voking you to the 600. yeares he offered you, &c. It is the offer of us all, the same we do all promise, and will be as good as our vvords; which was to be Catholicks if any Father of the first 600. yeares (wherof S. Gre∣gory the Pope was named) had any sentence in fauour of Popery. Bishop Godvvin
• [h] 1.17

  in his Catalogue of the Bishops of England, pag. 3. saith, that blessed and holy Father S. Gregory was the occasion of replanting the Christian Faith in our Country, The same in sub∣stance saith Whitaker &c. contra Duraeum lib. 5. pag. 394. D.r Humfrey in Iesuitismi part. 2. rat. 5. pag. 624 Gregorius nomine quidem magnus, & re vera magnus Vir magnis & multis divinae gratiae dotibus, &c. M.r Thomas Bell in his suruey of Popery pag. 187. term∣eth him, S. Gregory surnamed the Great, the holy and learned Bishop of Rome. S. Damascen a Father of the Greck Church in Orat. de Defunctis saith, Gre∣gory Bishop of the more ancient Rome (as all haue known) as well for Holiness of life, as learning, ex∣celent and famous.

  Isidore de Scriptor. Eccles. c. 27. saith, Gregory Bish∣op of the Apostolick Sea of Rome &c. was by the grace of the holy Ghost so greatly endued with light of knowledg, as no Doctor of this present age or in tyms past was equal to him. S. Gregories communi∣on with the Bishops of Greece may be seene l. 4. epist. 56. vniversis Episcopis per Hollodiam &c. l. 1. epist. 43. & l. 4. epist. 7. Vniversis Episcopis per Illyricum. d. l. 4. epist. 53. Episcopo Corinthiorum. For the Patriarchs of Constantinople, see l. 7. ep. 64. Ioanni Episcopo Sy∣racusano, ep. 65. For Africk, see in l. 7. ep. 30. & l. 5. ep. 60. His Epistles to Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria, and see l. 4. ep. 3. & l. 6. ep. 32. Dominico Episcopo Cartaginensi. item l. 6. ep. 2. Columbo Episcopo Numidiae.

  For Asia, see his Epis. to Isicius Bishop of Hierusa∣lem l. 9. ep. 40. see further l. 9. ep. 27. Maximiano Episcopo Arabiae. In his epistle to the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch. l. 6. ep. 24.32. & ep. 24.
• [i] 1.18

  See Holinsheads Chronicle vol. 1. l. 5. c. 21. pag. 102. acknowledging how St. Austin Monck re∣stored sight to one that was blind, as Bede recounts it hist. l. 2: c. 2. whervpon the Britans present ther at, acknowledged that his doctrin was true. See Ho∣linshead also pag. 100. and Mr. Fox Act. and mon. printed 1576. pag. 117. and Bishop Godwin in his Catalogue of Bishops, pag. 4. see Holinshead also in his great Chronicle volum. 2. pag. 108. & 109. and Fox cit. pag. 120. & 121.
• [k] 1.19

  This letter of St. Gregor. is extant in Bede hist. l. 1. c. 31. and mentioned by Holinshead pag. 102.
• [l] 1.20

  "Dr. Humfrey in Jesuitismi part. 2. rat. 5. & 627.
• [m] 1.21

  The Century writers of Magdeburg in their 6. Century cap. 10. col. 748. and collecting (elswher in the same Booke) out of St. Gregories own writings by them cited his Popish Tenets, They do in the Index of that 6. Century, after the first edition ther∣of, at the word Gregory, specially set down his sup∣posed Popish errors, as Mass, Purgatory &c. and particularly, with his claim and exercise of Iurisdi∣ction, and Supremacy over all Churches, col. 425. usque ad 432. Concerning his other Popish doctrin, see them c. 10. col. 748.369.376.381.384.364. & seqs. 693. & seq. & col. 425. usque ad 432.
• [n] 1.22

  Ca∣rion "in Chron. l. 4. pag. 567. & seq.
• [o] 1.23

  Luke O∣siander in his Epitome Hist. Eccl. Centur. 6. pag. 288. & seq. & 289. John Bale in Act. Rom. Pontif. edit. Basil. 1558. pag. 44.45.46.47. & Centur. 1. fol. 3.
• * 1.24

  Fulck in his Confutation of Purgatory pag: 333. Mr Willet in his Te∣••rasticon pa∣pismi pag: 122. Osiander in Epit••m. Cen∣tur: 6. pag: 290.
• [a[ 1.25

  Luther in his epist. to his father extant. to. 2. Wittemberg. fol. 269. saith, It seemeth that Sa∣than did forsee somthing in me of what he now suffers, and therfore endeavoured to destroy me by incredible stratagems.
• [b] 1.26

  Mallius Luthers own Scholler in loc. com∣mun. pag. 42. & 43. saith that always after the ap∣paritions of firebrands, in the night to Luther, his head did ake grieuously. And at Coburg one of these appa∣ritions of three flying firebrands was so terrible, that he was almost cast into a sound, in prevention wherof, oyle was distilled into his eare, and his feet rubb'd with hott Cloaths &c.
• [d] 1.27

  See Luthers words "in Sleydan l. 13. fol. 177.
• [e] 1.28

  Luther. in appellatione "prima ad Leonem X. tom. 1. Wittemberg. fol. 219.
• [f] 1.29

  "Luther apud Sleydan. l. 13. fol. 177.178.
• [c] 1.30

  Cochleus▪ a vertuous and learned man, who lived with Luther many years, and writ his life very exactly from year to year, sets down therin as a known truth, how that one day when the Ghospell (Matthew 9.) of Christs casting out a dumb and deaf Devill, was read in the quire, Luther fell down to the ground, and cryed, non sum, non sum, I am not; and without doubt if Luther was possessed, it was not by a dumb Devill.
• [g] 1.31

  Sleidan. l. 1. fol. 10. saith; Martin Luthers Appellation from the Pope being contemned, his offers despised; looking for no more help nor health at the Popes hands, was through extreme necessity brought to appeale from the Bishop of Rome. See also O∣siander in Epitom. cent. 16. c. 25. p. 63.
• [h] 1.32

  Belarm. "praefat. de Consiliis.
• [i] 1.33

  Luther tom. 2. Wittemberg. "fol. 374. & 375.

  The Governors and Pastors of Christs sheep have power to teach, but the sheep must give judgment whether they propose the voice of Christ, or of stran∣gers &c. Let the Pope, Bishops, Councells, &c, ordain what they please we will not hinder it, but the judgment shal remain with us, who are Christs sheep, and heare his voice, whether they propose the truth and things agreable to our Pastor, and they must yeeld, subscribe, and obey our censure and sentence.
• [k] 1.34

  Luther in Colloq. Mensal. fol. 158.
• [l] 1.35

  "Luther in praefat. in tom. Germ.
• [m] 1.36

  Luther tom. Germ. fol. 9. And t. 2. Wittēberg. of an. 1562. lib. de abroganda Missa privata, fol. 244.
• [n] 1.37

  Luther tom. 5. Wittenb. in Galat. c. 1. fol. 290. & in colloq. Mensal. fol. 273.
• [o] 1.38

  Luther tom. 7. Wittenberg. anno 1558. in l. de Missa privata fol. 443. & 228. & tom. 6. Ger. fol. 28. in lib. de Missa angulari.
• [p] 1.39

  Luther in lib. de servo arbitrio contra E∣rasm. in the first edition faith: Lay aside all the ar∣mes of Orthodox antiquity, schooles of Diuinity, authority of Councels and Popes, the consent of so many ages, and of all the Christian people, we receiue nothing but Scripturs, yet so, that we alone haue the authority of interpreting them. That which we interpret is the sence of the holy Ghost, that which others bring, though they be great, though many, proceeds from the spirit of Sathan and madness.
• [q] 1.40

  Mr. Chark in his answer to Censure &c. as also Mr. Fulk in his Treatise against the defence of the Censure pag. 234.
• [r] 1.41

  Sutcliff in his book de vera Cathol. Christi Ecclesia pag. 299. when he saith, Lutherus autem ni∣hil aliud peccavit, quam quod ut homo Germanus & non ita pridem Monachus &c.
• [s] 1.42

  Hospinian in Hist. Sacramentar. part. altera, after that in his prolegomen. had sayd, that Luther was a man adorned vvith excellent gifts, vvith the light of heavenly knowledg, zeale of Gods glory, and raised up to restore the Ghospells light &c. affirmeth fol. 131. That Luther being instructed by the Devill that the Mass vvas vvicked, and being overcom with Sathans arguments, did (therupon) abandon the Mass.
• [t] 1.43

  Luther tom. 7. Wittenberg. an. 1558. fol. 229. setteth down the Devills words saying to Lu∣ther (as being then one vvith the Papists) Behold your bouldness; you do these things in darknes, and abuse the name of the Church &c. And fol. 230. why therfore in the privat Mass dost thou blasphe∣mously goe against the cleer words and institution of Christ &c. And fol: 229. going about to prove that Luther may not in the Mass communicat alone, he aleadgeth the example of the other Sacraments, which a man can not vse for himself, saying, If a man absolues himself it is no Absolution; If he anoints himself it is no Unction: If one marries to himself, it is no mariage &c. Fo, these are your seaven Sacraments (so plainly yet was Luther a Roman Catholik) If therfore a man can not Mini∣ster to himself any of your Sacraments, how com•• that thou canst Minister to thyself alone this greatest Sacrament? &c. Dost thou think that Christ did institute the Sacrament for thee alone, and that in thy privat Mass thou dost consecrat the bo∣dy and bloud of the Lord?
• [v] 1.44

  Joannes Regius in his book intituled Liber Apologeticus &c. under the Title Consideratio Censurae pa. 123. saith of Lu∣thers instruction from the Devill. What doth this availe to confute Luthers doctrin of the word of God? And how doe you know that it vvas an evell spirit vvho told this to Luther? (We know it by Luthers own Con∣fession) or if he vvere an evell spirit it doth not follow that he told lyes, because the Devills speak truth som tyms, vvhen they speak that vvhich the Scripture vvitt∣nesseth.
• [w] 1.45

  D.r Morton in Apolog. Catholica part. 1. l. 2. c. 21. pag. 351. saith: Apud Surium liquet Diabo∣lum in specie Angelica apparuisse statimque Abbatem ut Mis∣sam celebraret hortabatur, alledging there in his mar∣gent, Delrium I••s. lib. 4. de Magia cap. 1. quaest. ••. §. 5.
• [x] 1.46

  Luther in lib. de captiv. Babylon. saith: Whoso∣euer is a Christian let him be most certain that wee are all equaly Priests, that is, we have the same power in mi∣nistring the word and Sacrament. See more of this al∣ledged out of the edition of Jeneua by Cnoglerus in his Symbula tria, pag. 157. And in loc. con. clas. 2. pag. 136. & 138. See also Luther in assert. damnatis per Leonem X. art. 3. where he maintains that women can absolue from sins.
• [y] 1.47

  S. Augustin contra Faustum Manichaeum, lib. 20. cap. 21. saith of the Mass celebrated on Saints days, Although in memory of Martyrs, yet not to Martyrs do we erect Altars. Et lib. 22. de Civitate Dei cap: 10. Vpon which Altars we offer Sacrifice not to Martyrs, but to the God of Martyrs, (& lib. & cap. 27. de Civitate Dei, & contra Faustum Manichaeum libro 20. cap. 2••. For which of the faithfull hath at any tyme heard the Priests standing at the Altar (which in the honor of God is erected upon the body of a Martyr.) to say in seruice tyme: O Peter, Paul or Cyprian, I offer to thee Sacri∣fice. The protestant writers Eusebius & Altkircher us doe confess that the Arians seeing the whole Ca∣tholik Church by unanimous consent offer Sacrifice in the Mass to God the Father (mistaking as Ful∣gentius says lib. 2. ad Monimum cap. 3. that the same was not also offered to the son) argued against Ca∣tholicks, that the Father was greater then the Son, lib. de mystico & incruento Sacrificio adversus abominan∣dam Missae superstitionem, pag. 241. And pag. 236. the same Protestant Author doth acknowledg and set down S. Irenaeus his Argument against Marcion the heretick, deduced from the Churches receiued doc∣trin concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass, and this was in the next age to the Apostles. S. Augustin lib. 9. Confes. cap. 12. sayth, that the Sacrifice of our price was offered for his Mother Monica being dead. And de verb. Apost. serm. 34. That the vniuersal Church doth obserue as deliuered from their Forefathers, to pray for the faithfull deceased in the Sacrifice, and also to offer the Sacrifice for them. Conc. 1. Nicen. Can. 14. saith, the holy Councel hath bin informed that in some places and Cities the Deacons distribute the Sacrament to Priests, neither rule nor custom hath deliuered, that they who haue not power to offer Sa∣crifice, should distribut the body of Christ to them who offer. Concil. Bracarense 3. Can. 3. Concil. 12. Tolet can. 5.
• [1.] 1.48

  S. Augustinus de Civitate Dei lib. "10. cap. 19.
• [2.] 1.49

  S. Cyprian lib. 2. epist. 3. & Aug. "cit. cap. 20.
• [3] 1.50

  Aug. cit. 16. & Concil. Tolet. 1. Can. 5. Cyprian de Coena Dom. post med. Origen in num. hom. 23.
• [4] 1.51

  Cyprian lib. 2. epist. 3. & Augustin. "de Civit. Dei, lib. 16. cap. 22. & passim. Aug.
• [5] 1.52

  de Civit. Dei, lib. 22. cap. 8. & lib. 20. contra Faustum cap. 18. & Hieron. lib. 3. contra Pelag. August. tom. 8. in Psalm. 33. con. 2. saith: Ipse de Corpore et San∣guine suo instituit Sacrificium secundum Ordinem Melchisedech. S. Chrisost. in lib. 1. cor. hom. 24. saith of Christ: Ipsum mutavit Sacrificium, et pro caede bru∣torum, seipsum jussit offerri.
• [6] 1.53

  Aug. in Enchirid. "cap. 110. & de cura pro mortuis, cap. 18.
• [7] 1.54

  Aug. de Civit. Dei, lib. 10. cap. 20. & Cyprian de coena Dom.
• [8] 1.55

  S. Ireneus lib. 4. cap. 32. & August. de "gratia novi Testam. cap. 18.
• [9] 1.56

  Aug. de Civit. Dei lib. 17. cap. 20. S. Clement the Apostles scholler in Apost. Constit. edit. Antverp. 1564. lib. 6. cap. 22. fol. 123.
• [10] 1.57

  Tertulian ad Scapul. cap. ••. saith, Sacri∣ficamus "pro salute Imperatoris.
• [11] 1.58

  Chrysost. "hom. 27. in Acta. Apost. Pro infirmis etiam sacrificamus.
• [12] 1.59

  Aug. de Civit. Dei lib. 22. cap. 8. saith, one went and offered (in the house infected) the Sacrifice of Christs Body, praying that the vexation might cease, and by Gods mercy it ceased immediatly.
• [13] 1.60

  Basil in Liturgia fol. 40. Chrisost. in Mart. Rom. 83. Cyprian de Coena Dom. prope initium. Origen. Athan. &c. quoted by Crastonius cit.
• [a] 1.61

  Osiander a Protestant writer, epist. cent. 16. pag. 90. saith Leonard Keppen on the 7. day of April 1523. brought to Wittemberg nine Nuns from the Monastery Nimptsen, among which num∣ber one was Catharin Boren••, whom afterwards Lu∣ther married. Peter Martyr, and Bucer married Nuns. Luthers example of marriag was followed by all the Dis∣ciples, though professed Monks, not only in Germa∣ny, but in euery other country: Here with us, these Protestant Bishops ensuing, Hoop••r of Worcester, Barlow of Chicester, Dounham of Chester, Scory of Herefort, Barkley of Bath and Wells, Couerdale of Ex∣cester, all Monks; Cranmer of Canterbury, and San∣des of York, Priests.
• [b] 1.62

  S. Austin haeres. 82. saith of Jouinian teaching the Lawfulness of Priests and Votaries mariage. This heresy was (quickly) extinct, neyther could it euer preuail to the deceiuing (so much) as of any (one) Priest. And (lib. 2, retrac. cap. 22.) that Jouinian with his heresy deceiued but only nonnullas Sanctimoniales, some few Nuns. But Lu∣ther deceiued Priests, Monks, and Nuns: or rather they concurred with him to deceiue others.
• [c] 1.63

  Luther de seculari potestate in tom. 6. Germ. saith: Among Christians no man can or ought to be Magistrat, but each one is to other equaly subject &c. Among Christian men none is superior save only Christ▪ And in his Sermons englishd by William Gage, pag. 97. and tom. 7. Wittemberg. fol. 327. he saith, Ther∣fore is Christ our Lord that he may make us such, as himself is, and as he cannot suffer himself to be tyed and bound by laws &c. So also ought not the conscience of a Christian to suffer them.

  Afterwards he taught to moderat this liberty by explaining, that subjects ought to haue an obedience rather of policy then conscience, which is as much to say as to dissemble, and obey when they cannot help it, but if euer they can rebell with probability of suc∣cess, they may do it with a safe conscience. And therfore in the same Sermons pag. 261. he doth ad∣monish we obey the ciuil Magistrat, prouided it be not pretended that it is necessary for saluation to obey.

  Most Protestants follow this obedience of poli∣cy not of conscience, see Whitaker in resp. at Rat. Camp. rat. 8. pag. 154. And Danaeus against Belarmin pag. 1127.
• [d] 1.64

  Luther in Comment. ad cap. 2. ad Galat. saith. When it is taught, Faith in Christ doth indeed ju∣stify, but with all its necessary to keep Gods command∣ments, there Christ is denyed, and faith is abolished; because that which is proper of God alone, is attri∣buted to the commandements of God, or to the Law, See also Luther in Colloq. Mensal. Ger. fol. 152. & 153.

  M.r Willet in his Synopsis Papismi pag. 564. saith. The Law remaineth stil impossible to be kept by vs through the weakness of our flesh; neither doth God giue vs ability to keep it, but Christ hath fulfilled it for vs.

  D.r Whitaker de Eccles. pag. 301. We say that if a man haue an a••t of faith, sins do not hurt him, this truly Luther affirming, this we all say. Hofman de Poe∣nitentiâ edit. 1540. lib. 2. fol. 113. saith, according to the Protestant principles. Whosoeuer truly belieueth, suf∣fereth God to work for him, and dispose eternall life for him; himself taking no labor nor working any thing for himself.
• [a] 1.65

  Lu∣therus lib. de servo arbitrio contra Eras. edit. 1.

  Cnoglerus symbola tria pag. 152. & nullus & ne∣mo G. 6 pag. 153.
• [b] 1.66

  The Catholik Doctrin of the Church of En∣gland pag. 103. in the explanation of the 20. article of Religion, saith; Authority is given to the Church, and to every member of sound judgment in the sa∣me, to judg in controversies of faith, and so in their places to embrase the truth, and to avoyd and im∣prove Antichristianity and errors; and this is not the privat opinion of our Church, but the straight com∣mandment of God him-self particularly to all tea∣chers and hearers of Gods word, and generally unto the whole Church, and also the Iudgment of our Godly Brethren in forreign Countreys.
• [c] 1.67

  Mr. Bilson, Bishop of Winchester in his true difference &c. part. 2. pag. 353. saith, The people must be Discerners and Judg. of that which is taught.

  The Catholik Doctrin of the Church of England art. 19. Proposition 6. pag. 94. saith, The visible Church may, and from tyme to tyme hath errd both in Doctrin and conversation. pag. 95 conclu∣deth, This with us, the Churches in their Confessions do acknowledg.
• * 1.68

  Dr. Whi∣taker de Ec∣cles. pa. 301. We say that if a man ha∣ve an art of faith, sins do not hurt him; this truly Lu∣ther affir∣meth, this we also say.
• [d] 1.69

  Jrenaeus l. 1. c. 5. saith, Videmus nunc & eo∣rum inconstantem Sententiam, cum sint duo vel tres, quemadmodum de iisdem eadem non dicunt. And c. 18. Cum autem discrepant ad invicem, & doctrina, & tra∣ditione, & qui recentiores eorum adnoscuntur, affectant per singulos dies novum aliquid invenire &c. Durum est enim omnium describere sententias.

  Tertullian: de Praescrip. adv. haer. cap. 42. saith, Mentior si non etiam a regulis suis variant inter se, dum vnusquisque proinde modulatur quae accepit, quemadmo∣dum de suo arbitrio composuit &c. Denique inspect hae∣reses omnes in multis cum authoribus suis dissentientes de∣prehunduntur. And see cap. 37. Chrystom. oper. im∣perfect. in Matth. hom. 20. saith, Omnes infideles qui sub Diabolo sunt, non sunt vnum nec vnum sapiunt, sed sunt per diversas opiniones dispersi: alius quidem sic dicit, alius sic, &c. Eo modo perfidia Haereticorum qui nunquam sapiunt vnum, sed quot sunt, tot sententias ha∣bent. Hilar. lib. 7. de Trinit. saith, Haeretici igitur omnes contra Ecclesiam veniunt, sed dum Haeretici om∣nes se invicem vincunt, nihil tamen sibi vincunt: victo∣ria enim eorum, Ecclesiae triumphus ex omnibus est, dum in eo Haeresis contra alteram pugnat &c. S. Athanas. Orat. 1. contra Arianos, saith, Jllud quoque prorsus admirabile, omnes quot sunt Haereses in fingendo, diversa pugnantiaque inter se adferre, nec alibi nisi in falsitate sibi invicem consentire. See the Centurists
• [e] 1.70

  almost in every age attributing the Roman Catholick Mira∣cles to the Devill, V. g. Centur. 9. cap. 13. And Osiander in Epitom. Cent. 9. pag. 63. saith the same, and in particular of St. Bernards, St. Francis's Mira∣cles &c. Whitaker
• [f] 1.71

  de Ecclesia pag. 348. And "Daneus in his answer to Belarm. part. 1. pag. 784.
• [g] 1.72

  Luther in proefat. assertionis articulorum a Leone Pontif. damnatorum, saith: Scripture must be the Iudg of all controuersies; and that it is cleerer then the comments of the Fathers upon it. But that to the proud and vnfaithfull (Papists he meanes) it is obscure. See him also in lib. de servo arbitrio.
• [h] 1.73

  Luther in his Translation, to assert his justifi∣cation by only faith, added to the text of Scripture the word alone, against all Originals and Copies.

  Swinglius to maintain that the Body and Bloud of Christ were not realy present in the Sacrament of the Altar, in steed of Christs words, This is my Body, translateth, This signifieth my Body.

  See herafter more of this, and of the English Bibles corruptions.
• [i] 1.74

  Luther tom. 2. lib. de Ministris Ecclesiae institu∣endis, fol. 368. & 369. & lib. de abrog. Miss. privat. tom. 2. fol. 249. & in lib. de captiv. Babylon. cap. de Ordine.

  Luther in assertionibus damnatis per Leonem cap. 10. art. 13. saith. In the Sacrament of Confession and remission of sin, the Pope doth no more then the meanest Priest, nay, where a Priest is not, every Christian can do as much, though a child or a woman &c. That in the absence of a Priest a child or a woman, and every Christian may absolve is cleer out of Math. 18. Where Christ saith to all Christians, Quodcumque solveritis super terram, &c.
• * 1.75

  An' Bullē's incest and le∣audness was afterwards punished with her death, and that of her brothers of Brue••ton, Weston, Norris, and Sineton, all of the Kings privy Cham∣ber. An∣other escaped death because he advertised his Majesty of her immo∣desty before the mariage.
• * 1.76

  S. Ambrose vseth this ve¦ry argument to the same purpose.
• * 1.77

  Sand. lib. 1.
• * 1.78

  Cochlaeus lib. contra Mori∣son.
• * 1.79

  The Kings of France pretē∣ded to the Gallical li∣berties: and the Kings of Spaine to their Sicilian Monarchy and other pri¦vileges. The kings of En¦gland also when they were Roman Catholiks pre¦tended to the like priviled∣ges, presenta∣tions &c.
• * 1.80

  Stat Henry 8 34. & 35. Be it enacted tha•• all man∣ner of books of the old and new Testa∣ment in Eng∣lish▪ being of the crafty, ••••alce, and ••ntrue Tran∣••lation of William Tyndall, and all other books and writings in the english tongue, tea∣ching or com∣passing any matter of Christian Re∣ligion contra∣ry to that do∣ctrin which since the year of our Lord 1540. is, hath or shall be set forth by his Ma∣jesty is cleerly and vtterly abolished.
• * 1.81

  The first Re∣formers of the Prelatick protestant Church of England.
• * 1.82

  Statut 28. Henry 8 cap 17. an 1536
• * 1.83

  See his letters in Fox. 1279 and in Stow pag. 1036.
• * 1.84

  Doctor Bru∣ges in his post script to D.r Pearson edit. 1660.
• (a) 1.85

  See the ancient Fa¦thers affir∣ming it was the constant practise and principle of Hereticks to appeale to Scripture a∣lone.

  S. Aust••n l de vnit Eccl & lib. cont▪ a Maximinum S. Hilarius l. contra Con∣stantium. S. Basi••ius l.de Spiritu S. c. 27. & 29. S Epiphani••s haer 69▪ 73.
• (b) 1.86

  S. Atha∣nasius in l. 1▪ de decret Ni∣cen. Synodi contra. Euseb.
• (c) 1.87

  S. Epi∣phanius haer. 64. Theodor•••• lib. de haeres.
• (d) 1.88

  August de fide & oper c. 14 & de haer. c. 54.
• * 1.89

  Mat▪ 19.27 1. Cor 7. v. 25.28.38.
• (e) 1.90

  The Pro¦testant Bish∣ops▪ are wel plea∣sed to see themselves religiously worship't or respected, and yet exclaim against Ca∣tholicks for shewing the like respest to Saints.
• [f] 1.91

  See Martin Luther the first founder of Pro∣testancy ep. ad Bohem. in declarat. Euchar. & in ser. de Euch. hath these words. Although truly it were an excellent thing to use both kinds in the Eucharist (and Christ in this thing hath commanded nothing as necessa∣ry) yet it were better to follow peace and vnity which Christ hath commanded vs to follow▪ then to contend a∣bout the kinds.

  And lib. de Captiv. Babyl. Cap. de Euch. They sin not against Christ who vse one kind, seing Christ hath not commanded to vse it, but hath left it to the wil of eve∣ry one, &c.

  Philip Melancton in 2. edit. loc. com. impres. Argent. an. 1525. fol. 78. He erreth that thinketh it impious to eat swin's flesh. As also these things are indifferent and placed in our power, and so I judg of the Eucharist, that they sin not who knowing, and believing this liber∣ty do vse either part of the sign. Bucer alloweth the same indifferency, and Iewel in his reply to Harding pag. 108.109. & 110. John Pezibram a Bohemian Protestant in his book de professione fidei Cathol. cap. 19. Heere fearing God and taking notice of the e∣vil custums of others, I do confess that I do not intend to condemn or censure for hereticks any such persons of the Church as do impugn the communion of the faithful vnder both kinds: which yet of necessity must have don, if he had thought that Christ had recommanded it.
• * 1.92

  The 2. Coun∣cel of Cartha∣ge contradicts this article Can. 2. Om∣nibus placet, that Bishops Priests, and Deacons, &c. abstaine from wives, that what the A∣postles have taught, and hath bin ob∣served by an∣tiquity, we may keep.
• * 1.93

  See Clement l. 6. Constit. Ap. c. 17. & Consil. A••••••r∣can. 10. & Concil. Neo∣cesariense c. 1 & Cons••l Nic. can. 34. And Euseb. de de∣monstrat. E∣vangelica lib. 1▪ c 9. Epiph. haer. 59. ante med. Bas••l ep▪ 1. ad Am∣philocium ca. 6 & epist. 17 ad Paragonū Presbiterum, and Cicil. Hierosolomy▪ Catech 12.
• * 1.94

  See the new Ritual of the Church of England pub∣lished since his Majesties happy restau∣ration.
• * 1.95

  D.r Heylin Eccles. restau. Q. Mary pag. 19.
• * 1.96

  D.r Heylin cit pag. 33.34▪ & 35.
• * 1.97

  Heylin pag. 35▪
• * 1.98

  Cap. 14▪
• * 1.99

  D. Heylin Eccles. resta. in the Histor. Q. Mary pag. 43.
• * 1.100

  Stat. an. 1. &▪ 2. Pbil. & Mar▪ cap. 8.
• * 1.101

  Dr. Heylin Q Elizabeth pag. 107.
• * 1.102

  Act. 14. v. 23. & tom. 5.22.
• * 1.103

  See thee nulity of the Prelatick Clergy of En∣gland cap. 2. and D. Bram∣hal in his vindication therof pa. 92. & pag. 10••.

  Dr. Staple∣ton in his re∣turn of vn∣truths a∣gainst Jewel fol. 130. and in his Coun∣terblast a∣gainst Horn fo. 79 & 301 Dr. Harding Confut. Apol. fol. 57. & 60 & part 2. fol. 59. edit. 1563 & fol. 57. & 59 edi. 1566
• * 1.104

  Stat. 8. Eli∣zabeth. 1.
• * 1.105

  Stat. 8. Eliz. 8.
• * 1.106

  See the nulli∣ty of the Clergy and Church of England edit. 1659.
• * 1.107

  Bramhal in his vindic••∣tion pag. 132.
• * 1.108

  Demonstrat. Discipl. cap. 8. ¶. 1 & 2. pag. 43.
• * 1.109

  2. part.
• * 1.110

  See this Act of Parliamēt in the life of the Queen of Scots, Writ∣ten by Mr. V. dal, and de∣dicated to King James pag. 200. & 201.
• * 1.111

  See 1▪ p. se•• 1.
• * 1.112

  Primat Bramhal's succession and vindication of the Prelatick Clergy was answered by the Author of the nullity of the Church of England, and by an ot∣her book after he had both these āswers by him; and durst not re∣ply: but ra∣ther cōcurred with his Bre∣thren in ad∣ding the words Priests and Bishop to their forms of ordination, as appeareth in their last edi∣tion of the Commō pra∣ier, rites &c. of the Church of England.
• * 1.113

  See in the epistle Dedi∣catory, and our Preface, the Act of Parliament preferring a∣ny natural issue of Queen Elizabeth to the Crown before the royal family of the Ste∣wards.
• * 1.114

  See Udal (a Protestāt) in his history of the Queen of Scots, wher he pro∣ves how the bastard M••rry, by the means of John Knox and others that he em∣ployed; chan∣ged the an∣cient Religion in Scotland to the end him self might be made King by the Prote∣stants; and how after∣wards by the same way he murthered King James his Father, and persecu∣ted King Ja∣mes, and his mother, all vnder the pretext of a Protestant Reformation.
• * 1.115

  Luther in epist. ad Ar∣gentinenses, anno 1525. Christum à nobis primò vulgatumau demus glori∣ari.

  See part 2 sect 5. n. 5. See M.r Bel∣son Bishop of Winchester, in his true di∣fference &c. part. 2. pag. 353.

  See M.r Ro∣gers in the Catholick do∣ctrin of the Church of En¦gland, pag. 103. pervsed ād published by the Law∣ful authority of the Church of England, an. 1633.

  Calvin in Dan c. 6. v. 22. & 23. Abdicant se potestate terreni Principes dū insurgunt cō∣tra Deum &c potius ergo cō¦spicere oportet in illorum ca∣pita, quam ••l∣lis parere &c.
• (a) 1.116

  Perkins in his exposi∣tion vpon the Creed p. 400. vve say that befor the days of Luther, for the space of many hun∣dred years an vniversal A∣postacy over∣spread the vvhole face of the earth, and that our Church vvas not then visi∣ble to the world.

  Mr. Nap∣per upon the revelations, dedicated to King Jams pag. 143. saith, from Constantin's time vntill these our days even 1260; years the Pope and his Clergy hath possessed the out ward vi∣sible Church of christianity.
• [b] 1.117

  vpon thy vvalls ö Jerusalem have I set vvatchmen all the day, and all the night for e∣ver, they shal not be silent Esay 62.6. see Ephes. 4.11.
• (c) 1.118

  Dr. Powel in his consideration of the Pa∣pist's supplication pag, 43. Buchanan. in loc. com. pa. 466. And Whitaker contra Camp. rat. 7. pag. 101. & 102. & contr. Duc. pag. 277. This Whitaker after vainly attempting to shew the beginning of Po∣pery, and seing the insufficiency of his particular in∣stances, doth at length acknowledg his weakness, and runs with the rest of his Protestant Champion•• to divert the Reader from the evidence of truth so deceitful, and silly similituds.
• (d) 1.119

  Luther tom. 2. Wit∣temb. anno 1551. lib. de se. arbit. pag. 434
• [e] 1.120

  Luther in par••a Confess. & to. 3. Germ fol. 55. in Colloq. mons. Germ. fol. 210.
• (f) 1.121

  Mr. Ga∣briel Povvel in his conside∣ration of the Papists sup∣plication pag. 70.
• [g] 1.122

  Fox act. and Mon. pa. 40 Jewel in his Apology p. 4. c. 4.5▪ 2. and in his de∣fence of the Apology edi. 1571. p. 426
• (h) 1.123

  Andreas Muse••lus in praef. in libel∣lum Germ. de Diaboli Ty∣ranide. Nico∣laus Andro∣phius Conc. •• de Luthero.
• [i] 1.124

  Conrad. Schlusletbur. Catal. haeret. l. 13. pa. 314 & seqq.
• (k) 1.125

  M. Cart¦wright in M. whit gifts defence pag. 17.
• [l] 1.126

  Luther contra Regem Angliae, fol. 344. I pass not if a thousand Austins, a thousand Cyprians, a thousand King Henry's Churches stood against me. Et libro de se. arbit. contra Eras. edit. 1. Lay a side all the arms of orthodox antiquities &c. see also nul∣lus and nemo G. 6. pag. 153. And Cnoglerus his sym∣bola tria pag. 152.
• [m] 1.127

  Danaeus pag. 939. in his answer to Belarm. of the confess'd austerity of life of S. Bernard, S. Francis, S. Dominick, the Monks &c. says they we∣re all fools. And M.r Willet who maketh a special Treatise against the austerity of the ancient Fathers in pag. 358. of his Synopsis, reproved S. Bazil, S. Gregory Nazianzen for plucking down themselves by immoderat fasting, and concludeth: Wher in all the Scripturs learn'd these men thus to punish their bodys? Oseander reprehended S. Anthony the Eremit for the same, and saith his Religion was superstition. And Calvin lib. 4 cap. 12. sect. 8. that the austerity of the ancient Fathers, was not excusable and differeth much from God's prescript, and is very dangerous. And Iunius in his animadversions pag. 610. & 611, attributs S. Simon Stilletes his austerity and Miracles to cunjuring melancoly, and his prophecies to sug∣gestion from the Devill.
• [n] 1.128

  Bucer one of the Composers of the Common pray∣er-book and of the Religion of the Church of En∣gland (whom Mr. Withguift Archbishop of Canter∣bury, in his defence pag. 522. termeth a Reverend learned, painfull, sound Father) teacheth in his applauded work of the Kingdom of Christ, and translated into English, that it is lawful to procure liberty by a libel of divorce to marry again, not only in the case of adultery, but in case of the on's departure from the other, in case of homicide, theft or repairing to the company, or banquets of im∣modest persons; likewise in case of incurable infir∣mity of the woman by Child birth, or of the man by lunacy or otherwise. See his own words in the aforsaid work l. 2. c. 26. & 27. pag. 99. & 100. & cap. 28. pag. 101. saies, that who ever will not induce his mind to love his wife with conjugal cha∣rity, that man is commanded by God to put her away and marry an other. And in Math. cap. 19. saith, that the wife repudiated either justly or vn∣justly, if she hath no hopes to return to her hus∣band and desirs to live piously, and wants a hus∣band, may be marryed to an other without sin. The whole University of Cambridg comends this Bucer for a man most holy and truly devine, and this letter of commendations is printed with Bucer's Book, wherin he teacheth this doctrin, see it pag. 944. Luther's words in Serm. de Matrim. are noto∣rious, If the wife will not or can not come, let the mayd come. Et ibd. fol. 123. tom. 5. Wittensb••rg. he is so vehement against the wifes refusal of her hus∣band's bed, that he saith if the Magistrat omit it's duty in punishing her, the husband must imagin that his wife is stole away by theeves, and dead, and con∣sider how to marry an other, for (saith he yet further) we cannot stop St. Paul's mouth &c. his words are plain, that a brother or sister are free from the law of wed lock, if the one depart, or do not consent to dwel with the other, neither doth he say that this may be don once only, but leaveth it free that so often as the case shall require he may either proceed or stay. In which case (as he signifieth to Wittemb. f••l. 112 a man may have ten or more wives fled from him and yet li∣ving. Nay he doubteth not in case of adultery to give liberty even to the offending advlteror to fly into an other country and marry againe. Luther loc. cit. fol. 123. & Melancton consil. Theol. part. 1· pag, 648.
• [o] 1.129

  Mr. Whitgift the Protestant Archbishop of Canter∣bury in his defence pag. 472. saith, The doctrin taught and professed by our Bishops at this day, is much more perfect and sound then it commonly was in any age since the Apostles tims. & pa. 473. asuredly you are not able so recken in any age since the Apostles time any Company of Bishops that taught and held so perfect and sound doctrin in all points, as the Bishops of England do at this ti∣me. In the truth of doctrin our Bishops be not only comparable with the old Bishops, but in ma∣ny degrees to be preferred before them. &c
• [a] 1.130

  Hooker lib. 1. Polit. Eccles, pag. 86. & lib. 2. sect. 5. pag. 192. It is not the word of God which doth or possibly can assure vs that we do wel to think it his word; for if any book of Scripture did give testimony of all, yet stil that Scripture which gives credit to the rest, would require an other Scriptu∣re to give credit vnto it. Neither could we come to any pause wher on to rest, vnless besids Scrip∣ture there were some thing which might assure vs. &c. Which he lib. 3. sect. 8. pag. 146. & lib. 2. sect. 7. pag. 116. Acknowledged to be the authority of God's Church. Whitaker against Stapleton lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 270. saith: The testimony of the spirit being privat and secred, is vnfit to teach and refell others, and therfor we must recurr to Ecclesiasti∣cal Tradition, an argument saith he ibid. cap. 4. pag. 300. Wherby may be argued and convinced what books be Canonical, and what be not. M.r Fulk in his answer to a counterfeit Catholick pag. 5. saith, the Church of Christ hath judgment to discern true writings from counterfeit, and the word of God from the writings of men, and this judgment she hath of the holy Ghost. M, r Jewel in his defence of the Apology pag. 201. And afther the edition of 1571. pa. 242. saith, the Church of God hath the spirit of wisdom wherby to discern true Scripture from false.
• [*] 1.131

  See Pomeran. in Epist. ad Rom. cap. 4. Vitus Theodorus in annot. Test. pag. vl,.

  The Century writers of Magdeburg cent 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. & cent. 2. lib. 3. cap. 4.

  Hafferoferus in loc. Theol. lib. 3. stat. 3. loc. 7. pag. 222. Adamus Fancisci in Margarita Theol. pag. 448. gi∣veth this testimony of the Protestant Church wher∣of him-self was a member. The Apocriphal books of the new Testament are the Epistle to the Hebre∣ws, the Epistle of Iams, the second and third of Iohn, the second of Peter, the Epistle of Iude, and the Apocalyps. And all the Authors heer mentioned give the like testimony in behalf of their Protestant Churches, wherfor we can not but admire Doctor Cossins confidence in affirming a matter so notori∣ously contradicted; and much more the carelesness of them who ground their faith and Canon of Scrip∣ture vpon its not being ever questioned.
• * 1.132

  See Cozins in the 17▪ chap. per to••.
• [a] 1.133

  Salvus Conductus datus Protestantibus sess. 13. & 14. Concil. Trident. Vt Protestantes, de iis rebus quae in ipsa Synodo tractari debent, omni libertate conferre, pro∣ponere, & tractare &c. ac articulos quot illis videbitur, tam scripto quam verbo afferre, proponere, & cum Pa∣tribus, &c. conferre, & absque ullis convitiis, & con∣contumeliis disputare, nec non quando illis placuerit, re∣cedere possint. Placuit praeterea Sanctae Synodo vt si pro majori libertate, ac securitate eorum, certos tam pro commissis, quam pro committendis per eos delictis, Iudi∣ces eis de putari cupiant, illos sibi benevolos nominent, etiamsi de∣licta ipsa quantumcunque enormia ac hoeresim sapientia fuerint.
• * 1.134

  New de∣finitions are not new ar∣ticles of faith
• * 1.135

  See this larg∣ly proued in 3. part of this Treatise.
• * 1.136

  pag. 101. & seq.
• (a) 1.137

  S. Hie∣rom. in lib. de 〈◊〉〈◊〉 illustr. extremo, & in Praefat libro∣rum quos la∣tin••s ••ecit.
• (b) 1.138

  Hierom. epist. 89. ad Aug. quaest 11. inter ep. August. S. Hierom. in his Preface before the new Testa∣ment dedica∣ted to Pope Damasus, Novum opus &c.
• [c] 1.139

  Luther being admonished of his corruption, would not correct his error, but saith tom. 5. Germ. fol. 141. & 144. sic volo, sic jubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas &c. Lutherus ita vult. And concludeth, Therfore the word alone ought to continue in my New Testament, although all Papists run mad, yet they shal not take it from thence. It grieves me that I did not add those two other words, Omnibus, & omnium.

  The Church of England in Edward 6. time, Translated some times This signifieth my Body; other times, this is my Body, other times, neither is nor signifieth, but insteed therof a blanck as not yet re∣solved vpon which was true.

  See Knot in his Protestancy condemned, Edit. 1654. pag. 87.
• * 1.140

  Bible 1562
• * 1.141

  Bible 1562. Cor. 7. v. 1.
• * 1.142

  Bible 1577. & 1579.
• * 1.143

  Chemnit. in examin. part 2. fol. 74.

  Saravia in defens. tra. diversis mini. ••r. gradibus pag 3.

  Jewel in his defence of the Apology 157. pa. 35.
• * 1.144

  Tertullian in lib de praescr. Qui estis vos. vnde & quā∣do venistis? vbi tam diu latuistis S. Hilarius l. 6 de Trinit. ante med. Tarde mihi hos piissimos doct••res aetas nunc ••ujus ••••culi protu∣lit &c. S. Hierom in epist ad Pa∣ma•••• & ••ce an 〈◊〉〈◊〉 p••st quadring 〈◊〉〈◊〉 (now 1600) annos docere nos 〈◊〉〈◊〉 qu••d an••••a neseivimus? Vsque in hāc diem sine isra doctrina mundus chri∣stianus fuit Luther in ••p. ad Irgenti∣neneses au•• 1525. Chri¦stiana nola•• primo vulga tun. audemu. gloriari.
• [a] 1.145

  Georgius Milius in Au∣gust. Confes. explic. art. 7. de ecclesia pag. 137.
• [b] 1.146

  Dr. Feeld in his Treati¦se of the Church lib. 3 cap. 46 Mr. Abr▪ Hart∣well in his report of the Kingdom of Congo, prin∣ted 1597. in his epistle to the reader.
• * 1.147

  Symon Ly∣thus in res∣pons altera ad alteram Gretseri A∣pol. pag. 331 Danaeus con∣tra Belarmin pag. 781.
• (c) 1.148

  The title of Zwingitu, his writing is Pietate & Prudentia in signi Helveti orum Reipu∣blicae, Hulde ricus Zwin∣glius aliique Evangelicae doctrinae Mi∣nistri gratia & pacem a Deo &c. ton: 1. fol. 110 See all these words and much more related by him-self 1. sq ad fol. 123.
• [d] 1.149

  Zwingl. tom. 3 in lib. de subid. Ec∣clesiae fo. 249
• * 1.150

  The Refor∣mers of the English Church.
• * 1.151

  Jn Queen Elizabeth.
• * 1.152

  See the nulli∣ty of the En∣glish Church and Clergy.
• * 1.153

  See this in the new Edition of the Com∣mon prayr book, rit••s &c. of the Church of England.
• [a] 1.154

  In psal. 30. con. 2.
• [b] 1.155

  Esay 2.2.
• [c] 1.156

  Esay 60.16.
• [d] 1.157

  Esay 60.9.
• [e] 1.158

  Esay 60.10.11. & Psalm. 102.15.22. & Esay 62.2.
• [f] 1.159

  Esay 60.6.
• [g] 1.160

  Esay 49.23. And see the marginal notes of the English Bible of 1576. in Esay 49.23.
• [h] 1.161

  Psalm. 2.8.
• [i] 1.162

  The English Bi∣ble 1576. in the marginal notes, saith: The meaning is, that Kings shall be converted to the Ghospel, and bestow their power and authority for preservation of the Church. Luther tom. 4. Wittemb. in Esay 6. folio 234. Kings shall obey and believe the Ghospel, &c. The Church is in perpetual vse of converting others to the faith, &c. For this is signified by her gates being continually open.
• [k] 1.163

  Whitaker in his answer to Mr. William Reynolds in the Preface, pag. 37.
• [l] 1.164

  Centur. 4. col. 292. & 293. vnder the titles de justificatione & bo∣nis operibus, where they conclude saying: J am cogitet pius Lector quam procul haec aetas in hoc Articulo de Apo∣stolorum doctrin•• desciverit.
• (m) 1.165

  Centur. 4. col. 254. Ad hoc Presbyter••m aliquem deputarunt, ad quem qui delique∣runt accedentes, quae gessissent confiterentu••, &c. Ea lege con∣fitentes absolvebat, vt a seipsis poenas commissorum exige∣rent.
• (n) 1.166

  Centur. 4. col. 255. & col. 256.257. are reci∣ted and rejected the particula•• sayings, of Bazil, Am∣brose, Prudentius, Ephrem, Athanasius.
• (o) 1.167

  Centur. 4. col 304. Where are recited and rejected the sayings of Lactantius and S. Ierom.
• (p) 1.168

  See confessed testimo∣nies for Transsubstantiation alleadged by the Centurists. cent. 4. col. 29•• & col. 985. And cent. 5•• col. 517. They say Chrysostom seemeth so confirm Transsubstan∣tiation. And cent. 4. c. 10. col. 985. that Eusebius and Emissenus did speake vnprofitably of Transsubstantia∣tion.
• (q) 1.169

  Chemnitius in his examin part. 2. pag. 29. alledged the severall sayings of S. Austin, S. Ambrose, and S. Gregory Nazianzen affirming the ado••••tion of the Sacrament. And Orat. 11. de Gorgonia sorore, telleth how his deceased sister prostrated her self before the Alter, and calling vpon him who is worship'd on it. (•• miracle) saith he, the departed presently received health. And the Centurists cent. 4. col. 430. do reprove some prayers of S. Ambrose, saying Continent adorationem panis in Sa∣cramento.
• (r) 1.170

  Centur. 3. col. 83. they reprove S. Cy∣prian, saying, Sacerdotem vice Christi fungi, & Deo Patri Sacrificium offerre. They also say that the wri∣tings of S. Ireneus and Ignatius the Apostles scholler, are here in, incommodious and dangerous. And Sebastia. Francus, in his Epist. de abrogandis Statutis omnibus Ecclesiast. affirmeth that presently after the Apostles time the sup∣per of our Lord was turned into a Sacrifice.
• (s) 1.171

  Cen∣tur. 4. col. 456. & 457. & 482. & 1446. Centur. 4. col. 602. & 1250. & 457. And S. Ierom contra Vigi∣lantium, cap. 3. affirmeth the estimation of Reliques to be in his time the received doctrin non vnius vrbis sed totius orbis.
• (v) 1.172

  Hemnitius examin part. 4. pag. 10 Suscipiebant etiam Peregri•••• Nationes ad loca vbi Reliquias Miraculis celebres & claras audiebant.
• (x) 1.173

  Centur. 4. col. 409.
• (z) 1.174

  Mr. Fulk against Heskins, Sanders, &c. pag 657. affirmeth that by report of Pau∣linus, the Cross was by the Bishop of Hierusalem brought forth at Easter (yearly) to be worshiped of the peo∣ple. See Evagrius hist. lib. 4. cap. 25. also Danaeus in respons. ad Belarmini controvers. pag. 1415. affirmeth that Cyril and sundry other Fathers were plainly super∣stitious, and blinded with inchantment of the Crosses adoration.
• (1) 1.175

  See Mr. Covels answer to Burges pag. 130 & 136.
• (2) 1.176

  Cent. 4. col. 616. It is alledged out of the Councel of Neocesa••ea, can. 1. Presbyter si vxorem duxerit, ab ordine suo, illum deponi debere. & col. 486. col. 303. col. 704. & 1293.
• (3) 1.177

  Centur. 5. col. 1274. they charge Gelasius who lived an. 480. saying: Roma∣nam Ecclesiam jure Divino contendit (Gelasius) esse om∣nium primam in epist. ad Brut. &c. cap. 11. And Gela∣sius in decretis cum. 70. Episcopis initis saith: Romana Ecclesia ••alli•• S••••odicis constitut. caeteris Ecclesiis praelata est, sed Evangelica voce Domini, Primatum obtinuit; Tu ••s Petrus inqui••••s, & super hanc Petram, &c.
• (y) 1.178

  Centur. 4. col. 1329. Et Osiander in epi∣tom. cent 4. pag. 454. And Zozimen hist. lib. 6. c. 27. post med. reported of S. Paul the Monk. In dies singu∣los trecentas Orationes Deo, velut tributum quoddam reddi∣dit, ac ne per inprudentiam in numero erraret, trecentis la∣pillis in sinum conjectis, ad singulas preces, singulos inde ejecit lapillos: consumptis igitur lapillis, constabat sibi Ora∣tiones lapillis numero pares abs se expletas esse. And see other like examples of saying prayers by accompt, or numbring of them, in Palladius his historia Lausiaca, cap. 24. & cap. 25.
• [4] 1.179

  Beza cit. apud Sa••••i∣••••am in defen Tract. de di∣v••••sis gradi∣b•••• Ministro∣rum &c. pag. 309.
• [5] 1.180

  Tertull. lib. de praescr. c. 42.
• * 1.181

  Luther in Comment••r. ad. cap. 2. ad Galat. Where it is taught, Faith in Christ doth in deed justify, but it's necessary with all to keep God's Commandments, because it is writen, Jf thou wilt enter into life, keep the Commandments, there Christ is denyed, and saith is abolished, because that which is proper to God alone, is attributed to the Commandments of God, or to the law. When any one propo∣seth Moyses with his Commandments to thee, and would oblige thee to keep them, then thy; with thy Moyses to the Jews. J will have nothing to do with Moyses nor his law, for he is an enemy to Christ. Luther in Collo. mens. Germ. fol. 152. & 153. Si scortus es, si scortator, si Adulter, vel alioquin pec∣cator, crede, & in via salutis ambulas. Cum in pec∣catum demersus es ad summum vsque, si credis, in m••∣dia beatidudine versaris. This doctrin of the Antino∣mian Lutherans togeather with their rejecting the ten Commandments as impertinent to Christians, is censured by the Man••feldian Ministers, Confess. Mansfeld. fol. 39. & 90. And yet the principle from whence all necessarily follows is maintained.

  Mr. Willet in his Synopsis Papismi pag. 564. saith, The law remaineth still impossible to be kept by us, through the weackness of our flesh, neither doth God give us ability to keep it, but Christ hath fulfilled it for us.
• [a] 1.182

  Luther in his Sermons translated into English an. 1578. pag. 147. & 176.
• [b] 1.183

  Acts and Mon. "pag. 1338.
• [c] 1.184

  Mr. Wotten in his answer to the "Popish articles pag. 92. & pag. 41.
• [d] 1.185

  Mr. Fulk against the Remish Testament in Epi. Ioan. Sec. 5. & fol. 447. Dr. Whitaker de Eccles. pag, 301 We say that if a man have an act of faith, sins do not hurt him, this truly Luther affirmeth, this we all say.
• [e] 1.186

  Acts and Mon. pag. 1335. Sinit quisquis vere cre∣dit Deum pro se operari, & disponere sibi vitam aeter∣nam ipse plane ad eam rem nihil operis seu laboris sibi sumens. Hofmannus de paenitentia edit. 1540. l. 2. fol. 113. Whitaker contra Campian. rat. 8. pag. 151. Christus conditionem nobis aliam multo faciliorem pro∣ponit, Crede & salvus eris.
• [f] 1.187

  Dr. Fulk in the Tower disputation against Campian, the second days conference 1. 6.
• [g] 1.188

  Whitaker against Campian "rat. 8. pag. 143. fides aut perpetua est aut nulla est.
• * 1.189

  The Prote∣stant doctrin of justifying faith most dāgerous and damnable
• * 1.190

  My Lord Chancellor in his speech to the Parlia∣ment at Ox∣ford.
• * 1.191

  Luther in po∣stilla super E∣vang. Dom. 1. Advemus. Dominica 26 post Trinit.
• [a] 1.192

  Osiander in epitom. Centur. 16. part 2. pag. 647 saith of David Geor∣ge, vtebatur enim publico vir Dei mini¦sterio Basi∣liensi, egenti∣bus elëemosy nam submi∣nistrebat, aegrotos con∣solabatur &c.
• [b] 1.193

  Historia Georgij Da∣vidis publis∣hed by the Divines of Basil and printed of Antwerp. 1568 si Christi & A∣postolorum doctrina vera & perfecta fuisset &c.
• [c] 1.194

  Osiander in epitom. Centur. 16. pag. 818. Schlus∣selb. in Theol. Calvin l. 1. art. 2. fol. 9.
• [d] 1.195

  Idem Schlussenburg cit. fol. 9. where he brings many other examples of Protestants to the same pur∣pose, as also Osiander centur. 16. pag. 207.208.209. Concerning that known Text, I and my Father are unum, one thing, Ioan. 10.30. Calvin avoydeth it (as the Arians did) saying. Abusi sunt hoc loco veteres vt probarent Christum esse Patri homousion. Neque enim Christus de activitate substantiae disputat, sed de consensu &c. Calvin. in Ioan. 10.

  Calvin in admonit. ad Polonos explant. in Tract. Theol. pag. 794. Sententia Christi, Pater major me est, restricta fuit ad humanam ejus naturam; ego vero non dubito ad totum complexum extendere.

  Stancarus contra Minist. Geneuenses Tigurinos fol. 94. & 95. & 118. & 123. affirmeth that the Refor∣med Churches professing the faith of Geneva and Tigure, be Arian, and saith. Conclusum est ô Cal∣vine, doctrinam tuam de Filio Dei esse plane Aria∣nam, a qua, resilias quam primum te oro atque obsecro.
• [a] 1.196

  The word Trinity is but a humā inventiō and soundeth coul¦dly Luther in Postil ma∣jore Basileae apud Herna∣gium in enar- Evangel. Dom. Trinit. Calvin. ep. 2. ad Polonos in tract. Theo∣log. & pag. 796 saith, Precatio vul∣go trita est, sancta Trini∣tas vnus Deus misere∣re nostri, mihi non placet, ac omnino barbariem sapit.
• (b) 1.197

  Luther in lib. contr•• Jacobū La∣tomum 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 2. W••tte••b. latine edito anno. 1551. The later edi∣tions are alte∣red and cor∣rupted herin, as in many other things.
• * 1.198

  Osiander in Epitom. cent. 16. pag. 169 Symbolum Athanasiivo∣cant doctrinā & fidem Sa∣tanasii; va∣nissime insu∣per jactitant Lutherum vix tectum Babilonicae turris detex isse, se vero ex imis fun∣damentis eam ex scindere.
• [a] 1.199

  Whitaker contra rat. Camp. pag. 78. And in his answer to Mr. William Reynolds cap. 6. pag. 135. art. 136. saith: The Fathers thought by their external disciplin of life to pay the paines due for sin, wherin they derogated not a little from Christ's death &c. Which though it be an errour, yet were they notwithstanding good men and holy Fathers. From whence followeth that Indulgences, Purgatory, Satisfaction, Prayer for the dead, Merit, &c. may be held by learned and ho∣ly men.

  Mr. Bunny in his treatise tending to pacification, sect. 17. pag. 104. excusing some points of po∣pery, and amongst others the worshiping of ima∣ges, saith, in these therfore or such like, whosoever will condemn all those to be none of the Church, that are not fully persuaded therin as we are, &c. committed an vncharitable part towards his Bre∣thren. See Doctor Some against Mr. Penry pag. 176. Tindall act. Mon. pag. 1338. I doubt not but S, Ber∣nard, Francis and many other holy men erred as con∣cerning Mass.

  Mr. Francis Iohnson in Mr. Iacob's defence of the Churches and Ministery of England, &c. pag. 13. Did not Iohn Hus that worthy Champion of Christ and others also of the Martyrs of fore times, say and heare Mass, even to their dying day? &c. Did not divers of them acknowledg, some the Pop's cal∣ling and supremacy, some the 7. Sacraments, some au∣ricular confession? &c. Morgenstein in tract. de Eccle∣sia, &c. pag. 41. These things were pardonable in the Godly, who held the Pope to be the Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, the Papacy for the Church, Saints for mediators, and the Mass for the supper of the Lord. Luther de vtraque specie, saith: If thou coms't to a place were the Commu∣nion is ministred vnder one only kind, take it with others. The like indifferency is affirmed by Melanc∣thon in centur. epist. Theolog. pag. 252. and not deny∣ed by Bishop Iewell in his reply pag. 110. & 106.
• * 1.200

  The Roman Catholick Church is a competent and vnparti∣al Judg of Controversies of Religion.
• * 1.201

  Quid praedi∣••averin•• A∣postoli, quid illis Christus revelaverit &c. non aliter probari debe∣re, nisi per easdem Eccle∣sias quas ipsi condiderunt.
• * 1.202

  Tertul. l. 1. d•• praescri. c. 6.
• * 1.203

  All Christi∣ans were n••∣ver Iudges of Religion, one part always submitted to the judgment of the other that was in obedience to, and in com∣munion with saint Peter's Successor the Bishop of Rome.
• * 1.204

  See Bishop Morton cit. and Bishop Taylor in his Dissuasive pag. 8. edit. Dubl.
• * 1.205

  Protestancy is Heresy.
• * 1.206

  Protestancy contradicts God's vera∣city.
• * 1.207

  The infalli∣bility of the Roman Ca∣tholick Church in matters of faith, proved against Pro∣testants.
• * 1.208

  The Prote∣stant doctrin of fundamen∣talls confuted
• * 1.209

  See Ariagae▪ disp. 4. de fide sec. 4. per totum▪
• * 1.210

  The infal∣libility of the Church pro∣ved by God's veracity.
• * 1.211

  Heresy explained by Rebellion.
• * 1.212

  The vnrea∣sonableness of them who pretend a pri∣vat spirit, ād refuse to sub∣mit to the au∣thority of the Church, for want of clee∣rer evidence then the Ro∣man Catho∣lick hath of God's autho∣rity.
• * 1.213

  Esay. 49.28.
• * 1.214

  Suinglius lib. 4. Epist.
• * 1.215

  Brentius in Confes. Wit∣temb. cap. de Sacra Script. & in Prologo. contra Petrū a S••to.
• * 1.216

  l. 2. sect. 6. pag. 112.

  See heretofore ••. part. sec. 1. how the cen∣turists and o∣ther learned Protestants confess the Councells, and Fathers, defended wor∣ship of Ima∣mages, Tran∣substantiatiō Purgatory, Indulgences, and all other points of Po∣pery.

  Bale in his Act. Rom. Pontif. prin∣ted at Basil 1558. page 44 45.46. confesseth be∣sides, that St. Gregory held the Sacrifice of the Mass, the doctrin of Purgatory, &c.

  See Bale in his Pagea of Popes pag. 27. of S. Leo Doct. Hum∣frey Iesuitis∣simi pag. 1. rat 5. pag. 626.
• * 1.217

  How parti∣cularly the Protestant Clergy ••s charged with frauds, and falsifications in maintain∣ing their Re∣ligion.
• * 1.218

  After Doctor Taylors death his freinds have publis∣hed a second part of his Dissuasive, which is so weack a vin∣dication of the first, that it needs not that Reply which is now in hand by E. W. his Ad∣versary.
• * 1.219

  Fox. pag. 200. vol. 1. num. 2. See hereafter some of his falsifications in particular objected to him by the Catholik Bis∣hops and Do∣ctors at his triall. Dr. Heylin ed. 6. pag 89 Three Con∣vers. of En∣gland Part. 2 pag. 593.
• * 1.220

  See the stat. an. 28. Henr. cap. 7. 1536
• * 1.221

  Mathews his Bible, and the Bible of the large vo∣lume was the worck of Tyndal, and Coverdale, and Rogers, well lickt of Cranmer. Stat. anno Dom. 1547· Ed. 6. an. 1.
• * 1.222

  Fox pag. 1942.
• * 1.223

  Fox in a marginal not vpon this last part, saith Bishop Rid∣leyes profecy vpon the E∣piscopal see op London.
• * 1.224

  Rogers.
• * 1.225

  Of Bishop Poynet.
• * 1.226

  Schism Angl. pag. 216.
• * 1.227

  Schism Angl. Ed 6. pag. 194. & 19••.
• * 1.228

  John Bale writes thus of him self Cent. 5. fol. 245. when I was a boy of twelue year•• old at Nor∣wich, I was thrust into the He•••• of the white Monks, •• Carmelites The word the lord a••••pearing I saw mine own deformity (to wit of being a Priest and a friar) I did presently thē scrape out the cursed carac∣ter of the hor∣rible beast, for that I took vnto me a most faithful wife Doro∣thy, and this not from any man, nor by any man's helpe, but by the special guift and

  Word of Christ. This friar makes Chirst it 〈◊〉〈◊〉 wo∣er for him to marry a Nun; and yet he calls our S. Austin and his chast Monks, toge∣ather vvi••h the vvhole primitive Church of England, a Carnal Sy∣nagogue.

  Osiander in Epitom. cent. 9 10. ••1. pag 454. act. 15. Melan••••••on in disput. de cura Ma∣gistrat. &c. Stows An∣nals pa. 550. Schism An. pag. 17.217 Of Coverdale and his Bible.
• * 1.229

  See Fox pag. 1362. & 1363.
• * 1.230

  pag. 1362.
• * 1.231

  Schism. pag. 217.
• * 1.232

  Fox pag. 136•• first edit,
• * 1.233

  See Dr. Hey∣lins Ecclesia resta 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Queen Mary pag. 80.
• * 1.234

  Melancton in epitom 8. vbi vocife∣rantur qui∣dam, Marty∣res Anglicos, esse Marty∣res diaboli. Jbid. pa. 80
• * 1.235

  Jbidem
• * 1.236

  Heylin. Ec∣clesia restau∣rata in Queen Mary pa 39 & seqq.
• * 1.237

  Heylin cit. pag. 61.
• * 1.238

  Pag. 60. Queen Mary.
• * 1.239

  Heylin cit. pag. 63.
• * 1.240

  Schism Angl. pag. 107.
• * 1.241

  Dr Heylin 1. Eliz. pag. 107.
• * 1.242

  D.r Heylin Eccl: restaur. Q. Elizabeth pag. 103.
• * 1.243

  part. 3. Sect. 1.
• * 1.244

  Harding in his rejoind er∣to Mr. Iewel's reply 1556. in his epistle to the Reader.
• * 1.245

  Dr. Heylin in his Eccles. restaurata hist. Q Eliz. p. 130. & 131
• * 1.246

  Euseb. in Hist. Eccles. lib 6. c. 36. Iewel reply pag. 134.
• * 1.247

  Iewel pag. 132.
• * 1.248

  Luc. 24. Chrysost. ho. 17. in Math. Aug. de con∣sensu Evang. l. 3.6.25. de serm. 140. Theophil. alii
• * 1.249

  Jewel def. of the Apology fol. 222.
• * 1.250

  1. Tim. 4.•• & 3.
• * 1.251

  Apol. defenc▪ pag. 176.
• * 1.252

  Jewel Apol cap. 19 divis. l. & in defen. fol. 517.
• * 1.253

  Reply pag. 239.
• * 1.254

  Bede lib. 1. cap. 27.
• * 1.255

  Scripture corrupted.
• * 1.256

  Math. 13.37·
• * 1.257

  Staplet. re∣turn fol. 32 & 33.
• * 1.258

  Jn vita St. Andreae pet Presbiter•••• Achaiae.
• * 1.259

  See heretofore part. 1.
• * 1.260

  See the defen∣ce pag. 132.
• * 1.261

  S. Cyprian lib. 1. ep. 6. ad magn, Novatian is not in the Church, nor can he be computed a Bis∣hop, who succeeding to none and contemning the Evan∣gelical and Apostolical Tradition, is ordained by him-self. And a litle after, He who succeeds no body, and begins from him-self is a stranger, and profane.
• * 1.262

  Optatus lib. 2. cont. Parmen; There 〈…〉〈…〉 of their own heads without Divin•• disposition 〈◊〉〈◊〉 them-selves over rash people assembled togeather, who make them-selves Prelats, without 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of ordina∣tion, and take vpon them the name of Bishops, and Bishopricks without having received them from any. S. Austin ex quaest. in nov. & 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ Tostam. 100. saith of Hereticks, They pertur••e the order begun from the Apostle Peter, and observed vntill this time by a continuation of succeeding Bishops; they set vp an Order for them-selves without a beginning. And tom. 7. contra epist. Manich. cap. 4. Tenet a•• ipsa Petri Sede &c. vsque ad pr••sentem Episcopatum successio Sa∣cerdotum. See Jren. l. 3. adversus haeres. c. 3.
• * 1.263

  Defence A∣polog. pag. 6••7.
• * 1.264

  In appendic•• Conc. Consta. § in primis. pag. 29.2.
• * 1.265

  Iustinian. l. 4. Histor. Ve∣net. Bemb. Hist. Venet. Sabel. Decad 2. l 1.••20. & Ennead. 9. lib. 8.260.
• * 1.266

  Gregory l. 7. epist 30. Indict. ll. Bede l 2. c. 3. Hist.
• * 1.267

  1. Cor. 16.
• * 1.268

  Apol. of the Church of England part. 4.
• * 1.269

  Iewell de∣fence of the Apology pag. 130.
• * 1.270

  Stapleton Counterblast fol. 30••.30••.
• * 1.271

  An. 1. Eliz. c. 1.
• * 1.272

  Acts and Mon. pag. 2016.
• * 1.273

  Eccles. Polity l. 2. sec. 6. pag. 112.
• * 1.274

  Whitaker in respons. ad rat. Campt. rat. 5. pag. 50.
• * 1.275

  Dr. Heylin Eccl. restaur. q. Eliz. pag. 130.
• * 1.276

  Three Con∣vers: in the relation of the tryall made before the French King. 1600. pag. 55.
• * 1.277

  Jewell's an∣swer to ex∣cuse his wil∣full falsifica∣tions.
• * 1.278

  The Magde∣burgian wri∣ters Centur. 2. & 3. cap. 4. condemn. the Fathers for asserting the Sacrifice of the Mass &c.
• * 1.279

  Centur. 2. c. 4. Centur. 3. c. 4. p. 77. Centur. 4.
• * 1.280

  Valentia his comparison of Protestant writers, and the Magde∣burgians.
• * 1.281

  Cent. 3. c. 4.
• * 1.282

  Magdeburg. in praef Ep. dedic. ad Eliz. Angl. Reg. in Cent. 4. Cent. 2. c. 4. pag. 55.
• * 1.283

  Fox in his protestation to the Church of England, pag. 2. & 3.
• * 1.284

  Fox in Pro∣test. ad Eccl▪ Angl.
• * 1.285

  Tretemius in verbo Bertra∣mus,: Sand de visibili Monarchia haeres. 133. Gerson lib. contra Ro∣mant. Extravagāt de Trin: Gui∣do Carmel. Caesarius Gadnin. lib. 6. hist. Franc.
• * 1.286

  Naucler. in hist.
• * 1.287

  Tritem. in Chron. Mo∣nast. Hir∣sang: Genebr. in Chron. an. 1215. Sylvius lib. 4. de Orig. Bo∣hem. cap▪ ••5. Vsparg. in Chron. an. 1212. Guid. Carm. in hae∣res. Waldens. Antonin p. 3. sum. tit. 11. c. 7. Caesar. 5. dist. dialog. hixemb. hae∣res. Albi Prascol & Sander ibidē.
• * 1.288

  Tritem in Chron. an. Dom. 1315.
• * 1.289

  Fox pag. ••93▪
• * 1.290

  Acts. and mon. pag. 9••.
• * 1.291

  Pag. 1395. & 1555. Fox pag. 1414.
• * 1.292

  Fox pag. 1558.
• * 1.293

  Difference between the persecution of Catholiks and Prote∣stants.
• * 1.294

  Bede 〈◊〉〈◊〉 4▪ cap. 5.
• * 1.295

  Bede lib. 4. hist. cap. 5.
• * 1.296

  Fox 112.
• * 1.297

  Bede lib 4. hist. cap. 5.
• * 1.298

  Fox pag 164
• * 1.299

  Anton. part. 2. tit. 16. c. 1. §. 21.
• * 1.300

  Naucler. ge∣nerat. 37.
• * 1.301

  Distinct. 23. c praeter §. verum apud Anton tit. 16. Tritem. in Chron. an. 1075. Origen. hom. 23. in lib. nu. Euseb. lib. 1. demonstrat Evang. c 9. Marianus Scotus in Chron. an. 1096. & 1. ••. 4. concil. pag. 79.
• * 1.302

  Distinct. 32. vt supra &c. nullus. Iohn Fox in his Acts and monu∣ments is end∣less in lyes. In setting down the dif∣ferēces in do¦ctrin betweē his and the Roman Ca∣tholick Church, he is convinced to have made above 120. lyes, in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 leaves: to wit, from the 12. to the 14. see Per∣sons in his relation of a tryall held in France about religion pag. 60. which he offers to prove one by one, If any of Iohn Fox's friends will ioyn issue with him, vpon that point he is of opinion that the lyes of the Acts and Monuments will surpass those of Iohn Sleydan's History, and of which eleaven thou∣sand were gathered by German writers Fox in his protest. pag. 10. Fox pag. 314. of the old edition. In that of 1632. It is pag. 728.
• * 1.303

  lib. 1. de nupt. & conc. c. 23. & 25.
• * 1.304

  Fox pag. 1617.
• * 1.305

  Fox pag. 1605.
• * 1.306

  Fox pag. 1602.
• * 1.307

  Doctor Fulk against Doct. Bristows mo∣tives pag. 54.
• * 1.308

  Fulk against Bristow's motives pag. 35.
• * 1.309

  Fulk against Allen pag. 303.
• * 1.310

  Persons in his quest. and sober Rock. p. ••96. against •• p Morton▪
• * 1.311

  Willet pag. 263.
• * 1.312

  Willet in his Tetracty∣••••ns defence.
• * 1.313

  See Walsing∣ham's search falsities obje∣cted to Willet·
• * 1.314

  See heretofore part. 1. & 2.
• * 1.315

  Willet Synop∣sis pag. 219. and in his de∣fence pag. •• 142.
• * 1.316

  Bern. ep. 126 St. Bern. 66▪ in Cantis.
• * 1.317

  Willet in his Synopsis pag. 297. Aug ••p. 106 & lib. 5. con∣tra Haustum.
• * 1.318

  Catholicks do not take a∣way the se∣cond Com∣mandement. Se the Remish Test. anot. vpon 20. Exod. 4.
• * 1.319

  Calvin's In∣stit. lib. 2. c▪ 16. ser. 10. & in Cate∣chism.

  That Christ despaired see Calvin in Math. c. ••7. ••. 46. & 47.〈…〉〈…〉. Calvin's words are, sed ab••••••∣dum videtur, Christo elap∣••••m despero∣tionis vocem? Responde•• hanc despo∣rationem 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sensu carnis profecta•••• And again: sed videmus omni ex par∣te fuisse v••∣xatum, vt desperation•• obrutus ab invocando Deo absiste∣ret, quod era•• saluti renun∣ciare.

  Knot in his protestancy condemned pag. 89. S. Chrysostom vpon that place of Esay, I will break the brazen gates and br••ise the Iron barrs in peeces, and will open the treasures darkned &c. so he calleth Hell, saith he (Ho••••. Christus si•• Deus 1.5.) for although is vnto hell, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is held the holy soules and pretious vessels, Abra∣ham, Isaac, and Iacob St. Hierom. in c. 13. esau saith, hell is a place whe∣r•••• soules are included ei∣ther in rest, or in paines, according to the quality of their deserts. Se•• St. Au∣stin in psal. 85. v. 13. Hebrew 9. v. 8. heb. 10.20.

  Doctor Gre∣gory Martyn in his disco∣ver•• pag. 10.
• * 1.320

  The Saints in heaven do heare our prayers.
• * 1.321

  Hieron. ibid.
• * 1.322

  Reynolds 〈◊〉〈◊〉. de Ido. Rom. Eccl. c. 3.
• * 1.323

  Ambr. l de viduis. Hie∣rom. l. contra vigilan.
• * 1.324

  August. l. de cura pro mortuis▪
• * 1.325

  Naz. orat. fun. sor. Gorg. Aug. l. de cura pro mor∣tuis. St. Gre∣gory lib. 5. c. 30. ex••poundeth this of Job. 5.1. that Saints were to be in∣vocated in a Good cause. And it is cleere by the 72. Interpre∣ters, saying, Jnvocate if any will ans¦wer thee, or if thou canst behold any of the holy An∣gells. Theodoret. q. 67. in exod. N••zia. orat. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Basil. Hierom. in Epitaph. Paul••. Nys∣sen. Orat. in Theodor. Aug. de Bap. l. 7. c. 1. Athan. Serm. de Deipara. Aug. Serm. 18 de Sanctis Ephrem orat in ••••ud B. Virginis.
• * 1.326

  Concil. Calce∣donense. act. 11. Fl••viāus post mortem vivit, Mar∣tyr pro nobis Oret.
• * 1.327

  See the de∣fence pag. 28.
• * 1.328

  Defence of of the Censu∣re fol. 81.82. &c.
• * 1.329

  Defence of the Censure fol. 86.87. &c.
• * 1.330

  Defence pag. 73.
• * 1.331

  Luther epi••t. Harnagi••in. tom. 7. Witt. fol. 380.
• * 1.332

  Answer to M.r Charks preface p. 25.
• * 1.333

  How loath the Protestant Clergy is that the King or 〈◊〉〈◊〉 persons should exa∣min their doc∣trin or way of defending it.
• * 1.334

  What chea∣ting and vn∣conscionable ways were taken to fright Dean Walsingham from exami∣ning of the truth.
• * 1.335

  Search into Religion pag. 53.
• * 1.336

  Pag. 65. of Walsin∣gham's search.
• * 1.337

  Search Wals▪ p. 71.
• * 1.338

  Antonin. 3. part. act. 1. c. 11.
• * 1.339

  Search pag. 77. Mr. Walsin∣gham found no satisfa∣ction in the answer of the defence of the Cen∣sure.
• * 1.340

  Search. pag. 78.
• * 1.341

  How the Arch-bishop of Canterbu∣ry and his Assembly of Divines would not conferr Dean Walsin∣gham's notes of Bell's cor¦ruptions with the Fathers quoted, not∣withstanding the books were in their presence, or on the next roome.
• * 1.342

  Perkins.
• * 1.343

  Subsect. 2. num. 19.
• * 1.344

  Subsect. 2. nu. 40.
• * 1.345

  See in the epistle dedica∣tory to the King edit. Angl.
• * 1.346

  P. Fronto Duceus Bur∣deg.
• * 1.347

  Apply this to Bp. Tay∣lors Dissuasi∣ve, wherof himselfe sayes in his preface he was but the Amanuen∣sis, all the Protestant Church of Ireland in a solemn con∣vocation ha∣ving layd their heads together for composing so substantial and convin∣cing a peece.
• * 3.1

  Persons sober reck. pag. 318.
• * 3.2

  Reynold. de justa Reip. auctoritate c. l.
• * 3.3

  Pag. 100.
• * 3.4

  An imposture continued a∣gainst the Catholick do∣ctrin by the national Sy∣nod of the Church of England. see inf.

  See constitu∣tions Eccle∣siast. printed at London by Barker an. 1604. Can. 30. The whole Convo∣cation of the Protestant Clergy con∣victed of fals dealing a∣gainst Catho∣licks.
• * 3.5

  See the sum∣me of the Cō∣ference pag. 37. Thirdly printed an. 1604.
• * 3.6

  Extravag. communium de Major. & obedientiat. vnam san∣ctam.
• * 3.7

  Preamb. p. 11.
• * 3.8

  Preamb. pag. 104.
• * 3.9

  See hereto∣fore.
• * 3.10

  Full satisfa. pag. 38.
• * 3.11

  Bellarm. l. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 2. Carer. l. 1. c. 24. Azor. l. 5. ••. 14. Gratiā Can. si Papa dist. 40.
• * 3.12

  Bellarm. l. 2. de Pontif. ••. 30.
• * 3.13

  Bouchet in Sum. Benefi∣cial. tit. puis∣sance & edit. Paris. 1628. a pag. 812. vsque ad 853 & pag. 844. vsque ad 847.
• * 3.14

  Of the index expurgato∣rius.
• * 3.15

  Bellarm. l. 2. de verbo Dei cap. 12.13.14.
• * 3.16

  Hardings de∣tection l. 4. fol. 249. Aug. l. 2. de gratia Christi c. 2 & 6. & contra Dic. Epist. Pelagij c 4. Concil. Afric. ep. ad Bonifacium. See Baronius tom. 5. Sta∣pletons return of vntruthes art. 4. p. 29. Sanders de visib. Mo¦narch. l. 7. p. 356. Bellarm. l. 2. de Rom. Pon∣tif. c. 24. & 25. Aug. ep. 261.
• * 3.17

  Walsin∣gham's search pag. ••07.
• * 3.18

  Bellarm. l, 2. de Rom. Pon∣tif. cap. 13. §. 7.
• * 3.19

  Tom. 2. Con∣cil. ed. venet. pag. 342. extat. Episto∣la concilij ad Beatum Pa∣pā Leonem de omnibus ge∣stis &c.
• * 3.20

  Sutcliff chal∣lenge 2. part. 2. fol. 159. Niceph. lib. 17. c. 27.
• * 3.21

  Aug. l. 6. contra Ju∣lian. c. 2. & 3. & 4. ad Bonifac. c. 2. & 4. Hierom. l. 2. contra Pela∣gian.
• * 3.22

  Preamb. pag. 63.
• * 3.23

  Preamb. pag. 63 See Parsons sober Recko∣ning with Morton a pag. 159. vsque 166. Belarm. lib. 4. de notis Ec∣clesiae cap. 9. §. Novatia∣norum.
• * 3.24

  Hierom in. praefat. Dia∣logorum con∣tra Pelagia∣nos.

  Aug. de hae∣res. c. 46.
• * 3.25

  Belarm cit. Preamb. pag. 64.
• * 3.26

  Belar cit. § Ariani.
• * 3.27

  Preamb. pag. 64.
• * 3.28

  Belarm l. 1. de Eccles. c. 1.
• * 3.29

  Valentia tom 4. disp. 6. q. 3. p. 1. §. Item. Be∣larm. de Euch l. 1. cap. 1. Belarm cit. cap. 1. Calvins con∣tradictions and non sen∣se in the my∣stery of the Eucharist. Calvin in fine consens. cum Pastor. Figurinis. Calvin in 26 Math. & lib. 4. Instit. c. 17.5. Lib. Instit. cap. 17. §. 5.10. & 32. Lib. 4. Instit. c. 17. §. 5.31. Ibid. § 33.34
• * 3.30

  Ibid. §. 2.5 lib. de Caena cap. 3.
• * 3.31

  See Belarm. lib. 1. de Euch. cap. 1. per tot. & in fin.
• * 3.32

  Zozomenus lib. 7. hist. cap. 12.
• * 3.33

  Belarm. lib 4. de no••is Ec∣clesiae cap 9
• * 3.34

  Apparatus ad Tom. 1. pag. 49.
• * 3.35

  Sutcliff pag. 199.
• * 3.36

  Sutcliff pag. 279.
• * 3.37

  Instit. lib. 2. cap. 20.
• * 3.38

  Luther de Captiuit. Ba∣bylon & in cap. 15▪ Ioan. & in 6. art. against the execrable Bull &c. Melancton disp. de paeni∣tentia. prop. 7.
• * 3.39

  Concil. Trid. Sess. 6. c. 8.
• * 3.40

  Catech. ad Paroch. de paen. Sacram pag. 290. Luther lib. 1. de natura hominis art. 4.

  Luther. lib. contra Ambr. Cathar. Luther. in Concil. Germ. cap. de Anti-Christo.
• * 3.41

  Calvin lib. 3. Instit. c. 20. ••. 21.
• * 3.42

  Calvin Instit. lib. 3. c▪ 4. §. 1.
• * 3.43

  See part. 2.
• * 3.44

  3. Cor. 7.
• * 3.45

  Cyprian ser. de caena Do∣mini.

  See St. Cyril of Hierusa∣lem Cate∣ches. Missa∣gog 4. S. Am∣bros. lib. 4. de Sacram. c. 4. & de ijs qui Mysterijs initiantur c. 6. St. Au∣gust. vide Ca∣nonean do consec, dist. 2.
• * 3.46

  Answer 85.
• * 3.47

  St. Basil. in Regulis bre∣vioribus. In∣terrogatione 288.

  St. Ambrose l. de paenit. cap. 6.

  St. Austin hom. 49. c. 3. Aug. lib. de vera & falsa paenitentia cap. 10. & cap. 14.
• * 3.48

  St. Gregory Nyssen orat. in eos qui du∣rius alios ju∣dicant, Petro Francisco Zeno. Inter∣pret.
• * 3.49

  Pag. 128.
• * 3.50

  St. Ambrose l. 1. de paenit. cap. 2. & ser. 10. in psal. 128.

  St. Hierom. in proverb. cap. 11. saith, it is to be ob∣served that although the∣re be no hope of pardon af∣ter death, yet be there so••e who may be absolved af∣ter death from such light sins as they carried with them out of this li∣fe. They may be absolved I say, either by suffering punishment, or els by the prayer, al∣mes, and masses of their living friends. But to whom so∣ever these things are don, thy are don to them before the last Judgment, and for ligh∣ter faults.

  De hac quae∣stione nihil Ecclesia defi∣niuit, sunt autem multae opiniones. Belarm. lib. 12. de purgat. cap. 6. ini∣tio.

  pag. 178. & passim. St. Bernard ser. 66. in Cant. St. Gregory Nyssen. orat. de mortuis. Purge me o Lord in ths life &c. that I may not stand in need of that amē∣ding fire which is for those who shall be sa∣ued, but so as by fire. Aug. in psal. 37. It is ma∣nifest that they (aged persons dying in smaller sins) being purged, before the day of Judgment, by temporary pains which their souls do suffer; they shall not be deliuered to the punish∣ment of eter∣nal fire. Aug. l. 20. de Ci∣uit. cap. 13. Vsher's An∣swer pag. 179.

  Answer pag. 182. See Sir Edward Sands in his relations cap. 53.54.
• * 3.51

  Hieremias Constantino∣pol. Resp. 1. c. 12. & 13. Gabriel Ale∣xand. ep. ad Clem. 8

  Hypathius Ruthenorum legatus in professione fidei. Graeci Venetiad Card. Gui∣sianum. q 10 Zaga Zab•• Ethiop. in Confessione fidei Aethiop. Gennadius Scholarius &c. Purgato∣rio sec. 1. & 5. Answer pag. 420 Reply against Har∣ding p. 379.
• * 3.52

  St. Austin contra Faust. Manichaeum lib. 20. c. 21.
• * 3.53

  Answer pag. 377. Ma∣thew 4. v. 10,
• * 3.54

  St. Epiphan. Haeres. 79. parag 6. & 7▪
• * 3.55

  Ibid parag. 2.
• * 3.56

  Vsher tran∣slates But thou o Lord, and adds in∣terrogations to help his fraud.

  Adjuvent nos eorum merita quos propria impe∣diunt scelera; excuset in∣tercessio, ac∣cusat quos actio: & qui eis tribuisti caelestis pal∣mam trium∣phi, nobis veniam non deneges pec∣cati.
• * 3.57

  Pag. 24. against Fis∣her.
• * 3.58

  Aug. serm. 14 de verb•• Apostoli. in fine.

  Laud pag. 33
• * 3.59

  Ibid.
• * 3.60

  Pag. 34. B. Laud.
• * 3.61

  E. Quae quidê si tam mani∣festa mon∣••ratur vt in dubium veni∣re non possit, praeponenda est omnibus illis rebus, quibus in Ca∣tholicateneor. Ita si aliquid apertissimū in Evangelis. St. Aug. con∣tra Fund. c. 4.
• * 3.62

  Pag. 38.
• * 3.63

  Vincent. Li∣rin. cap. 23.24. he sayes the Pela∣gians erred in Dogmate fi∣dei, and yet they erred not in a prime maxime, but in a super∣structure. Vin. Lirin. cont. haer. c. 31. Impio∣rum & tur∣piumerrorum lupanar: vbi erat ante ca∣stae & incor∣ruptae Sacra∣rium verita∣tis.
• * 3.64

  Bp. Laud pag. 38.
• * 3.65

  Pag. 39.
• * 3.66

  Christi vero Ecclesia sedu∣la & cauta depositorum Custos, nihil in ijs vnquā permutat, ni¦hil minuit, ni∣hil addit: non amputat ne∣cessaria, non apponit su∣perflua, non amittit sua, non vsurpat allena. Vincent. Li∣rin. cap. 22.
• * 3.67

  Se hertofore part. 2. Ego vero Evangelio non crederem nisi me Ec∣clesiae com∣moveret au∣thoritas.
• * 3.68

  Aug. lib. 1. contra Epist. Fund. c. 5.
• * 3.69

  Bishop Laud pag. 81. edit. 1639.
• * 3.70

  Vbi Ecclesia Catholica Episcopos & populos à tempore A∣postolorum vsque in ho∣di••rnum diem sibimet succe∣dentium im∣portat, & sic accipit nomē Ecclesiae Au∣gustinus cum asserit, quod non crederet Evangelio, ni•••• eum au∣thoritas Ec∣clesiae &c. Ocham Dial. part. 1. lib. 1. cap. 4.
• * 3.71

  Hos. 4.15.
• * 3.72

  A.C. pag. 58.
• * 3.73

  Guilielm. Malmesbur. in prolog. lib. 1. de g••st••s Pontif. Angl. p. 195.
• * 3.74

  St Bed. lib. 5. Eccl. Hist. cap. 20.
• * 3.75

  Bede lib. 1. Eccl. Histor. cap. 29.
• * 3.76

  See this Treatise par. 1. sec· 1. Concil. Afrik. Can. 101. Ut Romam liceat Episco∣pis provoca∣re; & ut Cle∣ricorum cau∣sae apud sua∣rum provin∣ciarum Epis∣copos finian∣tur, etiam litteris nostris ad eundem venerabilis memoriae Zozimum Episcopum datis, insi∣nuari cur••▪ vimus &c.
• * 3.77

  Concil. Afri∣can. ep. ad Bonifac pap. to which St. Austin sub∣scribed.
• * 3.78

  St. Irenaeus l. 3. cap. 3.
• * 3.79

  Gregor. Na∣zian. in Car▪ de vita sua.
• * 3.80

  See D Lauds labyrinth. p. 135. & 136
• * 3.81

  Hierom. ep. ad Eva∣grium.
• * 3.82

  Auferibilis non est us∣que ad con∣summationē saeculi Vica∣rius sponsus Ecclesiae •• quin aliquis certus ei prae∣ficiatur &c. Gerson Con∣sid. 20.
• * 3.83

  A faire offer to Protestants
• * 3.84

  See the peti∣tion and in∣strument of the Catholick Clergyes re∣signation in Doctor Hey∣lins Ecclesia restaurata pag. 43. and the Stat. 1. Mar. and in this Treatise part. 1.
• * 3.85

  No sacrilege to apply the Church reve∣nues to the Crown in some cases.
• * 3.86

  See the Sentence of Pope Julius 3. sent to Queen Mary an. 1554. And the reasons therof set down by Dr. Burges in his book No Sacrilege nor sin &c. 52. & 53. wherof the last reason is, seeing the goods and possessions of the Church, even by the authority of the Canon laws, may be aliened for the redemption of Captives, and that the same may be don by that Church only to whom such pos∣sessions do belong▪ it is fit and reasonable that such dispensations should be granted for continuing of possession already gotten, for so great a good of publick concord and vnity of the Church, and preservation of the State, as well in body as in soul pag. 54. edit. 1660.
• * 3.87

  A publick Trial and Conference desired by Catholicks.
• * 3.88

  See Doctor Allen in his Apol. for the Seminaries. And Per∣sons in his Defence of the Censure. Arch. Lauds reason con∣futed.
• * 3.89

  See the Nul∣lity of the Protestant Church, and Clergy.
• * 3.90

  See also my Erasus ju∣nior▪ and an other book of mine called Erastus seni.
• * 3.91

  See the late or last Editiō of the Com∣mon prayer book since his Maj. happy restauration and there you shall find the words Priest and Bishop put into this their new form; which are not in their old.
• * 3.92

  See the Sect. of the second Part of this Treatise and the first Part, Sect. 1.
• * 3.93

  See 1▪ p. Sect. 1.
• * 3.94

  The King's right to France.
• * 3.95

  My Lord of Clarendons po∣licy censured by all Wise men.
• * 3.96

  One of the King of Spain his Mi∣nisters told me, that the late King Philip 4. had disburs'd for the Defence of the Low Countries, four hundred Milli∣ons of Ducats, which amounts one hundred Millions sterl. All this Trea∣sure was sent out of Spain.
• * 3.97

  Monsieur de Sil∣bon in his 3. Book of Policy▪ Discourse 4 of the Alliance of of Princes, &c. Pag. 295.
• * 3.98

  Perpetual miracles.
• * 3.99

  The miracle of St. Ianua∣rius at Na∣ples.
• * 3.100

  This miracle failed once when it was shewed pri∣vatly to a yong english Lord, and this failing was printed in the Italian Gazets as very strange news.
• * 3.101

  The famous and vndenia∣ble miracle of St▪ Francis Xaverius wrought in the person of Marcello Mastrilli.
• * 3.102

  I was at Lis••on when this holy Martyr em∣barcke there for the East Indy, in order to his further navigation to Japan, some 30. year since▪ and I heard Marcello re∣late his own miraculous cure; and do remember what str••ving there was between Pas∣sengers, and Merchants to ship their goods and persons in the same vessel wherin Mar∣cello was to embark not doubting of its safe arri∣val at Go••; so satisfied were all sorts of peo∣ple of the truth of the miracle, and of the accom∣plishment of his Martyr∣dom in Iapā, revealed to him by St. Xaverius.
• * 3.103

  Whitak de Ecclesia pag. 349. Bp. Laud against Fis∣her pag. 108. Calvin Harm. in Marc. cap. 13. p. 302. miracula sigilla sunt verae doctri∣nae. Nam quis vel cogit & absque blas∣phemia, Deū commodatu∣rum suam propriam vim virtu∣temque men∣dacio? Cha∣mier tom. 2. Controv. lib. 16. cap. 14 p. 677. Gods veraci∣ty questioned by Protestāts, when they answer to the argu∣ment deduced from Roman Catholick miracles. A demonstratiō to prove that God can not permit true true miracles to confirm fals doctrin.
• * 3.104

  Ioan. 15.24. Matth. 11.••••.
• * 3.105

  Ioan. 10.••••.38.
• * 3.106

  Ioan. ••.••••.
• * 3.107

  Anti Christs Miracles are not credi∣ble if compa∣red with ours.
• * 3.108

  Of visible miracles seen thought not observed, by every Prote∣stant, in con∣firmation of our Roman faith.

  The differen∣ce between true and fals miracles.
• * 3.109

  St. Bernard in vita St. Malac. c. 57.
• * 3.110

  See Belarmin de Ecclesia lib. 4. cap. 29.
• * 3.111

  St. Chryso∣stom. de Sa∣cerdotio lib. 6. cap 4. Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament.
• * 3.112

  St. Nilus in ep. ad Ana∣stasium. St. Gregory Naz. Orat. 11. de obit•• Gorgonia.
• * 3.113

  St. Cyprian. in serm. de lapsis. Post medium. Communion vnder one Kind. Evagrius Orthodoxus. lib. 4. c. 35. an. Dom. 552 A miracle for the Com∣munion vn∣der one Kind.
• * 3.114

  Transub∣stantiation. Petrus Diac. & Ioan Diac. in vita••. Gre∣gorij: Gui••∣mūdus Aner∣sanns Episc. lib 3. de Sa∣cram. Euch. St Antonin. in Chron. p. 2. cap. 3. tit. 12. §. 8.
• * 3.115

  Primat Vs∣hers falsifi∣cation•• to dis∣credit this sto∣ry, and the following.
• * 3.116

  Answer pag. 69.
• * 3.117

  Vsher An∣swer pag. 69 Particulam carnis quam super Altare posuera••, ca••∣nem factam reperit. Ioan. Diac. in vita S. Gregor. lib. 2. cap. 41. Vsher in his Catalogue of Authors Vsher An∣swer paeg. 77. Doctor Humphrey in Iesuitismi part. 2. ••at. 5. pag. 5.
• * 3.118

  Thomas Waldensis Tom. 2. de Sacram. Eui char. c. 62.
• * 3.119

  Harpsfeild in Hist. Wic∣leff. cap. 18. ex Waldens. & Regist. Arundell.
• * 3.120

  See Parsons sober Recko∣ning a pag. 508.

  How Prote∣stants falsify and corrupt the very sta∣tuts, and law Books.
• * 3.121

  Optatus Me∣levitanus l. 2 contra Dona∣tistas.
• * 3.122

  Perrexit vnus, obtulit ibi Sacrificiū Corporis & Sanguinis Christi, ••rans quantum po∣tuit, vt cessa∣re•• illa ••exa∣tio, Deoque protinus mi∣s••rant•• cessa∣vit. Aug. de Civitate Dei l. 22 c. 28. Theodorus le∣ctor lib. 2. Coll••ctaneo••rum.
• * 3.123

  Purgatory and Prayer for the Dead. St. Gregory l. 4. Moral▪ c. 55.
• * 3.124

  St. Gregory 4. Dial. 40.
• * 3.125

  Miracles wrought by St. Bernard to confirm every point of the Roman Catholick do∣ctrin. Gofrid. in vi••. S. Bern. lib. 3. c▪ 5. & 6. Willel∣mus Abbas St Nicodo∣rici Remensis l. 1. c. 10. Bernardus Abbas Ba∣nevallis.
• * 3.126

  See the Cen∣turists Cen∣tur. 12. col. 1634.1635. & 1649. al∣ledging St. Bernard gi∣ving Testi∣mony of his own mira∣cles.
• * 3.127

  Osiander in Epit. Cent. 12. l 4. c. 6. pag. 310. saith of St. Bernard, mi∣racula ei pro∣pe infinita à Pontificiis scriptoribus affinguntur, quae ego par∣tim ab otiosis Monachis excogitata puto, partim permissione Dei praestigijs Satani••is effecta exi∣stimo▪ non quod Sanctū Bernardum magum fuisse putem, sed quod vero si∣mile sit Sata∣nam talia miracula ef∣fecisse &c. Tales fuisse puto St. Ber∣nardi visiones & post mortē suam appa∣ritiones, prae∣stigias videli∣cet diabolicas, quibus Satan & ipsi Sancto Bernardo (dum vi∣veret) & aliis illusit. Whitaker de Ecclesia pag. 369. ego quidem Ber∣nardum vere fuisse sanctū existimo. Adomnem progressum atque pro∣motum, ad omnem adi∣tum & exi∣tum, ad vesti∣tum & cal∣ceatum, ad lavacra, ad mensa••, ad lumina & cu∣bilia, quae∣cumque nos conversatio exercet, fron∣tem Crucis signaculo ••e∣rimus, cujus disciplinae si legem expo∣stules scrip∣turam nullā invenies: tra∣ditio tibi prae∣tenditur auc∣trix, consue∣tudo confir∣matrix, fides observatrix. Tertull. de Corona Mili∣tis c. 3. & 4. Cyril. Hiero. Catech. 13. S. Iren. l. 1. c. 20. & 25.
• * 3.128

  Epist. ad Philip. 3.
• * 3.129

  Epiphan. haer. 21 & 28 Theoder. 2. haer. fab· 4. & alij.
• * 3.130

  S. Paulinus natal. 10. S. Felic. S. Paulinus Nol. ep. 11. ad Severum. Ope rante vir∣tute divina jugi miraculo in materia in sensata vim vi••am te∣nens, ita in∣num••ris paene quotidie ho∣minum votis lignum suum commodauit, vt detrimen∣ta non senti∣ret, & quasi intacta per∣manserit, quotidie divi∣d••è sumenti∣bus, & sem∣per tota ve∣nerantibus. Nicephorus lib. 8. cap. 29. S. Hierom in vita S. Hila∣rionis in fin.
• * 3.131

  S. Gregory Turon. 2. hist. 3. Protestant miracles are but Cheats.
• * 3.132

  S. Gregory Nazian. orat. in Ju∣lian. Theodo∣ret. lib. 3. c. 3.
• * 3.133

  Some Prote∣stants agree with pagans and Magi∣tians in con∣temning the sign of the Cross, and maintaining the Devils power a∣gainst it. Osiander Cent. 4. pag. 326. spea∣king of the Devils flying away at Julians ma∣king the sign of the Cross, saith, Dia∣boli simula∣ta sua fuga voluerunt vulgi super∣stitionem con∣firmare, quasi Cruci•• signo Dae∣mones abi∣gantur. The same say the Cen∣turists Cent. 4. col. 1446.
• * 3.134

  Act. 5.15. Evagr. 4. hist. 29▪ St. Damasc. 4. de fide Orthod. 17. Niceph. ••. hist. 7. Me∣taphr. 15. non & in vit•• S. Alexii. Tom. 3. Concil. Ha∣drianus Pa∣pa ad Carol. Magnum Methodius Episcopus apud Ma∣rian. scot. in Chron. an. Dm. 3. S. Be∣dae de loc. sāct. c. 8. & 5.
• * 3.135

  Euseb 7. hist. 14 Ni∣ceph. lib. 10. c. 30. Theo∣philactus in cap. 9. Math.
• * 3.136

  Sozom. lib. 5. cap. 20. ad Meta∣phrast. 20. Octob. Centur. 4. c. 13. col. 1447.
• * 3.137

  Iustus Lip∣sius Diva Sichimiensis edit. Antuerp. an. 1605. cap. 45.
• * 3.138

  The Prote∣stant distin∣ction of civil and Religious worship mis∣applied by Ministers to delude their flocks.

  St. Austin lib. 3. de Trin. c 10. Spea∣king of such holy signs as Images, saith, Hono∣rem tam∣quam reli∣giosa pos∣sunt habere.
• * 3.139

  S. Ambros. sec. 10. Qui imaginem coronat Jm∣peratoris, utique illum honorat, cujus imagi∣nem corona∣uit; & qui statuam con∣tempserit Im∣peratoris, Imperatori utique fecisse videtur inju∣riam.
• * 3.140

  S. Hierom. contra Vigi∣lant.
• * 3.141

  Euseb. hist. lib 4. c. 15. Centuriatores cent. 2. c. 3. col 31. St. Ambrose serm. 39 de sanctis Na∣za••▪ & Celso in fin.
• * 3.142

  Our doctrin of Indulgen∣ces is confir∣med by the same mira∣cles that con∣firm worship of Saints, Pilgrimages &c. because Indulgences are common∣ly annexed to these devo∣tions.
• * 3.143

  S. Ambros. ep. 85 ad Mar. soror. & ser. 93. de Inventione corporum S. Gervasij & Protasij: Ariani di∣cunt, non sunt Daemo∣num vera tormenta, sed ficta & com∣posita ludi bria.

  S. Hierom. contra Vigi∣lant cap. 4. In morem Gentilium, impiorumque Porphyrij▪ & Eunomij, has praestigias Daemonum esse confin••ga••, & non vere clamare Daemon••s, sed simulare tormenta &c.

  S▪ Chrysost. in lib. contra Gentiles, speaking of Babylas, sententiae no∣strae abunde faciunt fidē, quae quoti∣diana à Martyribus eduntur mi∣racula. Cent. 4. cap. 13. col 14••6 Nazianzen. Orat. in Cy∣prian. saith. Omnia potest pulvis Cy¦priani cum fi∣de, ut sciunt hi qui ipsi ex∣perti sunt, & miracula us∣que ad nos transmise∣runt.

  A miracle to confirm the worship and devotion of the Mother of God.
• * 3.144

  S. Basil. de Spirit. S. c. 27 Alexan. 1. ep. 1.
• * 3.145

  Hebr. 9.13.
• * 3.146

  S. Clem. lib. 8. Const. cap 35. Dion de Ec∣cles hier cap de Baptismo. Cyril. Caie•• ch. 3. Cypr. lib. 1. epist. 12. Ambr. lib. 4. de Sacr. c. 5. & l. de iis qui initiant. cap. 3. Epiph. haer. 30. August. hom 27. epist. 50 & Serm. 9. de Sanct & lib. 6. in Jul. c. 8. Conc. Nan∣nit cap. 4.
• * 3.147

  Act. 8.14. & 19.6.
• * 3.148

  Heretofore part. 4.
• * 3.149

  Serm. 215. de temp.
• * 3.150

  Hom. 49. ep. 50. cap. 3. & ho•• 41. & 50. cap. 4. & 5.
• * 3.151

  Mat. 18.18.
• * 3.152

  Ioan. 20.23.
• * 3.153

  De laps. vide ep. 10 & 55. Quaest ••88. in reg. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. vide quaest. 229. & in ep. 3. can. ad Amphil. can. 78. St. Bedes ho∣lines and great learing acknowled∣ged by Iohn Fox: as also his excellen∣cy in the knowledge of Scripture, and yet he never had the least scruple that worship of Jmages was Idola∣try, or that any point of Popery was contrary to Scripture, himself ha∣ving bin a professed Po∣pish Monk, and confessed by Protestāts to be a great Saint.
• * 3.154

  The obstina∣cy of Prote∣stants in re∣jecting and corrupting the ancient Fathers. A notable corruption and impuden∣cy of Calvin Calvin l. 2. Jnst. c. 3.
• * 3.155

  S. Aug. l. de corr. & gra∣tia ad va∣lent. cap. 12. & l. 22. de Civit. Dei c. 30. S Aug. lib. de cura pro mortuis c. 2. & 4.
• * 3.156

  Fox his mi∣racles how ridiculous.
• * 3.157

  See Fox his Act. and Monum pag. 1843. 1844.
• * 3.158

  He that be∣lieveth in me the workes that I do, he shall do, and greater: Ioan. 14.12. In the marginal notes of the English Bi∣ble printed 1576. it is therupon sayd, This is referred to the vvhole bo¦dy of the Church, in vvhom this vertue doth shine for ever.
• * 3.159

  See Mr. Vdal in his book of the life and death of the Queen of Scots, dedi∣cated so K. James.
• * 3.160

  Part. 2. A discourse with Mr Dan. Oneal•• in Flanders.
• * 3.161

  A paralel between Mahome∣tism and Protestancy.
• * 3.162

  See heretofo∣re part. 2. sec. 10. & 11.
• * 3.163

  S. Iohn Da∣mascen de haeres. sayth that Maho∣met granted Christ as the word of God and his son, but withall a Creature, and confessed that he was conceived of the Virgin Mary by vertue of the holy Ghost.
• * 3.164

  See heretofo∣re part. ••. sec. 2.
• * 3.165

  See Hereto∣fore part. 2. sec. 11.
• * 3.166

  See heretofore part 2. sec. 10. how the most learned Protestants of the world became Turcks and Iews sticking to the princi∣ples of Prote∣stancy.