Mercy & truth. Or Charity maintayned by Catholiques. By way of reply vpon an answere lately framed by D. Potter to a treatise which had formerly proued, that charity was mistaken by Protestants: with the want whereof Catholiques are vniustly charged for affirming, that Protestancy vnrepented destroyes saluation. Deuided into tvvo parts.

CHAP. III.

THE Protestants(a) neuer in∣tended to erect a new Church, but to purge the Old; The Reformation did not change the substāce of Re∣ligion, but only cleansed it from corrupt, and impure Qualities. Therfore (say we) the visible Church extāt be∣fore those your cleansing dayes, had & still hath the substance of Religion; and so according to your owne ground we are safe, if you can pos∣sibly be saued. But we haue no such dependan∣ce vpon you. Nay, the same Confession which acquits vs, condemnes your selues. For while you confesse a Reformatiō of the Old Church, and neyther doe, nor can specify any Visible Church, which in your opinion needed no Re∣formation; you must affirme, that the Church which you intended to reforme, was indeed the Visible Catholique Church; if so, then you cannot deny but that you departed from the Catholique Church, & are guilty of Schisme, yea and of Heresy. For if the Catholique Church was infected with erroneous doctrine which nee∣ded

Reformation; it followes, that the errours were Vniuersall, and that the Reformation con∣ming after those errours, must want Vniuer∣sality of Place and Tyme, and therefore be bran∣ded with the marke of Heresy. For in true Di∣uinity a new, and no Church are all one. More∣ouer, the very Nature, & Essence of the Church requiring true fayth, it is impossible to alter any lest point of fayth, without changing the sub∣stance of the Church, and Religion; and ther∣fore to reforme the Church in matters of faith, is as if you should reforme a man by depriuing him of a reasonable Soule, whereby he is a man; And a Reformed Catholique are termes no lesse repugnant, then a reasonable vnreasona∣ble creature, or a destroied existing thing. Wher∣fore to say, the Reformation did not change the substance of Religion, but only cleansed it from corrupt and impure qualities, are meer wordes to deceaue simple soules. And it is a lamentable case, that you can neuer be brought from such ridiculous similitudes, as heere you bring of Naaman, who was stil the same man before and after he was cured of his leprosy; Of a field o∣uergrowne with weeds, thistles &c. (and your Brethren are full of twenty such childish pre∣tended illustrations:) whereas euery body knowes that leprosy is accidental to a man, and weeds to a field, but Fayth is essentiall to the Church; and that Affirmation, or Negation of any one reuealed Truth whatsoeuer, are diffe∣rences

no lesse essentiall in fayth, then reaso∣nable and vnreasonable in liuing Creatures. And Fayth it selfe being an accident and quality con∣sisting in Affirmation, or Negation; to cleanse it from the corrupt and impure quality of affirming, or denying; is to cleanse it from its own Nature, and Essence; which is not to reforme, but to de∣stroy it. Lastly, from this your forced Confes∣sion, not to erect a new Church, but to purge the Old, we must inferre that the Roman Church, which you sought to purge, was the Old Church, and the Catholike Church of Christ. For if you found any other Old visible Catholike Church, which needed no Reformation, then you ney∣ther intended to erect a new Church, nor to purge the Old.

2. You say, the things which Protestants(b) belieue on their part, and wherin they iudge the life and substance of Religion to be comprized, are most, if not all of them, so euidently and indisputably true, that their Aduersaries themselues do auow, and re∣ceiue them as well as they. If this be true, and that the said Verities make vp the fayth of Protestants (as you speake) then what needed you a Re∣formation to teach men the fayth of Prote∣stants, which they belieued before Protestants appeared? Or how can you be excused from Schisme, who diuided your selues from that vi∣sible Church, which belieued those verities which make vp your fayth? You say, If all other Christians could be coutent(c) to keepe within these

generall bounds, the wofull Schismes and ruptures of Christendome might be more easily healed. O words most powerfull to condemne your selues, who were not content to keep within those generall bounds, which you confesse we belieued, but would attempt new Reformations, although with so wofull Schismes and Ruptures of Chri∣stendome, as you hold worthy to be lamented with teares of bloud! If our errors were not fundamentall, your Reformation could not be necessary to saluation; as when the wound or disease is knowne not to be deadly, the cure cannot be necessary to the conseruation of life.

3. The Reformation which zealous Ca∣tholiques did desire, and with whose words you vainely load your Margent, were not in fayth but manners. For which if it be lawfull to for∣sake a Church, no Church shall remaine vn∣forsaken. But of this I haue spoken in the First Part. Luther was iustly cut of by Excommunica∣tion, as a pernicious member: which yet was not done, till the Pope had vsed all meanes to reclaime him. Prouincial or Nationall Synods may seeke to reforme abuses in manners, and endeauour that the fayth already established be conserued: but if they go about to reforme the Catholique Church in any one point, they de∣serue the name of Conuenticles, and not of Councels.

4. What meane you when you say; that you left the(e) Church of Rome in nothing she holds

of Christ, or of Apostolique Tradition? Do you ad∣mit Traditions? Are they fallible or infallible? For if they be infallible, then may they be part of the Rule of fayth. If fallible, they are not Apo∣stolique.

5. You goe then about to proue, that our doctrines are, First, doubtfull and perplexed opi∣nions. 2. Doctrines vnnecessary, and forraine to the fayth: and 3. Nouelties vnknowne to Antiquity.

6. You pretend they are doubtfull, and say: The Roman Doctours doe not fully and absolutly a∣gree in any one point among themselues, but only in such points wherin they agree with vs. If a manifest vntruth be a good proofe, your Argument con∣uinceth. If you thinke, that disagreement in matters not defined by the Church, argues dif∣ference in matters of fayth, you shew small rea∣ding in our Deuines, who euen in all those Ar∣ticles wherein you agree with vs, haue many different, and contrary Opinions concerning points not defined: as about some speculatiue questions concerning the Deity, the Blessed Tri∣nity, Incarnation; yea there are more disputes a∣bout those high Mysteries wherin you agree with vs, then in others wherin we disagree: and yet you grant, that such disputes do not argue those maine points to be doubtfull. And so you must answere your owne instance, by which you might as well proue, that Philosophers do not agree whether there be such things as Time, Motion, Quantity, Heauens, Elements, &c. be∣cause

in many particulars concerning those things, they cannot agree.

7. In the second place you affirme our do∣ctrines to be vnnecessary and superfluous: because a very small measure of explicite knowledge is of ab∣solute necessity. But this is very cleerly nothing at all to the purpose. For our Question is not what euery one is obliged explicitely to belieue, but whether euery one be not obliged, not to dis∣belieue, or deny any one point sufficiently pro∣pounded by the Church, as a diuine Truth. Nei∣ther do we treate of ignorance of some points, but of plaine opposition, and contradiction both between you and vs, and also among your sel∣ues. You cite Bellarmine, saying: The Apostles neuer vsed(g) to preach openly to the people, other things, then the Articles of the Apostles Creed, the Ten Commaundments, and some of the Sacraments, because these are simply necessary, and profitable for all men: the rest besides, such as a man may be saued without them. Heere you stop, leauing out the words immediately following, which are dire∣ctly against you. So that (sayth Bellarmine) he haue(h) a will ready to imbrace and belieue them, whensoeuer they shall be sufficiently propounded to him by the Church. Besides, you falsifie Bellarmine when you make him say, that the Apostles neuer vsed to preach to the people other things then the Ar∣ticles of the Apostles Creed, the commandments, and some of the Sacraments, because these are simply ne∣cessary, and profitable for all men; But he sayth dire∣ctly

the contrary, namely; that the Apostles preached to all, some things which were not necessary, but only profitable to all (and therfore not superfluous as you say;) whereas yet he ex∣pressely affirmes the knowledge of the Creed, commandments, and some sacraments to be ne∣cessary to all. I wonder what pleasure you can take in corrupting Authors, to your owne dis∣credit? Now since we must haue, as Bellar∣mine rightly teacheth, a will ready to imbrace whatsoeuer is propounded by the Church; it fol∣loweth, that notwithstanding your Confi∣dence to the contrary, we cannot but except against your publique Seruice, or Liturgy. I haue neither will nor leisure to examine parti∣culars: but Exceptions inough offer themselues to any mans first Consideration. The very oc∣casion and end for which it was framed, pro∣ceeded out of an Hereticall spirit, to oppose the true Visible Church: It was turned into English vpon an hereticall perswasion, and a popular insinuation, and a crafty affectation to inueigle the humor of the people, that publique Prayers were vnlawfull in an vnknowne tongue. It lea∣ueth out Prayers both for deceased sinners, and to glorious Saints, blotting diuers of them out of their Calendar; and hath abrogated their fe∣stiuall dayes: and the like they haue done con∣cerning fasts, except those few which they vouchsafe to like: It abolisheth all memory of S. Peters Successour: It treateth only of two Sa∣craments,

excluding the rest; and in the one it omitteth most of our Ceremonies, as supersti∣tious: in the other it professeth not to giue any thing but the substance of Bread and wine. It administreth to Lay people both kinds, as neces∣sary by the institution of Christ our Lord: Masse, or Sacrifice it hath none: It reades and belieues Scripture heretically translated: It mentioneth no Reliques of Saints: And in a word, it is both in the whole Body, and designe, and in euery point a profession of a Church, and fayth con∣trary to Catholiques, and implies a condemna∣tion of our Liturgy as superstitious, & your selfe boldly say: We cannot, we(i) dare not communi∣cate with Rome in her publique Liturgy, which is ma∣nifestly polluted with grosse superstitions; and there∣fore wee Catholiques also can no more ap∣proue your practise and Liturgy, then we can imbrace your Doctrine, and fayth. I said that I had no desire to examine the particulars of your Liturgy, neither is it needfull. For we may iudge of the rest, by the very first words, or Introite of your Seruice, beginning with a Text, for which you cite Ezech. 18. At what time soeuer a sinner doth repent him of his sinnes from the bottome of his heart, I will put all his wickednes out of my re∣membrance, sayth the Lord. But there is no such sentence in Ezechiel, whose words are these, e∣uen in the Bible of the Protestants: But if the wicked will turne from all his sinnes which he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that

which is lawfull and right, he shall surely liue, he shall not die: All his Transgressions which he hath com∣mitted, they shall not be mentioned vnto him: in the righteousnes which he hath done, he shall liue. Your first Reformers, the soule of whose Church was solifidian Iustification, were loth to heare of possibility to keep all the Commandments, of working Righteousnes, or liuing in the Righteousnes which he hath wrought; as also they were vnwilling to particularize with the Prophet, what is required to true Repentance, knowing full well, the different opinions of their first Progenitors about this point of Re∣pentance, and therfore they thought best to cor∣rupt this Text. And which is more strange, in your seruice-Booke translated into Latin, and printed in London, Per assignationem Francisci Florae, the sentence is cited at large as it is in the Prophet, and therfore the corruption still re∣mayning in the English to deceiue the Vnlear∣ned, is more inexcusable. Neither (in the same Introite) is the allegation of Ioel. 2. much more truly made: Rent your hearts, & not your garments, and turne to the Lord your God &c. Out of which place, you know men are wont to declaime a∣gainst our corporall Penance of Fasting, Wat∣ching, Hayre-cloth, Disciplines &c. but, euen according to your owne Translation, the words are: Turne you euen to me with all your heart, and with fasting, and with weeping, and with mourning; And rent your hearts, and not your garments &c.

where I belieue you will confesse that your o∣mission was not vsed to no purpose.

8. You speake among other things of Ima∣ges, & we grant that God may be worshipped with∣out an Image. But we say, that he cannot be truly worshipped by any one, who denieth worship of Images, because true worship of God cannot stand with any one Heresy. It is highly good, & lawfull, and a most holy thing to pray to God; but yet if one should belieue, that we may not also pray to liuing men, your selfe would I thinke condemne him for an Heretique, because all Christians intreate their Brethren to pray for them: By which example all your instances (pag. 72.) may be answered. Your saying out of Bellarminine that the worship, and Inuocati∣on of Saints was brought into the Church, ra∣ther by custom then any Precept, is answered heer∣after n. 12. And I would gladly know by what authority your Church can inioyne secret Cō∣fession in some case, as (heere pag. 72.) you say she doth, if Christ haue left it free? Can a hu∣mane law oblige men to reueale their secret sin∣nes, in Confession? especially since they know not whether your Ministers will not thinke themselues obliged to acquaint some Officer therewith, in case the Penitent disclose any cri∣me punishable by the Lawes of the Realme. To which propose I could tell you strange and true stories: as contrarily because Catholikes belieue the Sacrament of Confession to haue been insti∣tuted

by our Sauiour Christ, as necessary to Sal∣uation, they consequently teach, that the Seale and Secret thereof is so sacred and inuiolable, that the Pope himselfe cannot dispense therein, though it were to saue his owne life. And now, to follow your wandrings, you may know that we doe not hinder, but giue free leaue to vn∣learned persons to say their prayers in a known language: but the Church doth celebrate pu∣blique Seruice in one of the learned Tongues, for weighty reasons, which haue been learned∣ly set downe by our Catholique Writers. And if nothing must be read but what the People, yea learned men vnderstand, you must giue o∣uer reading in publique, euen in English, di∣uers Psalmes of Dauid, the Prophets, the Apo∣calyps, and other parts of Scriptures, the sense and meaning wherof the people vnderstand no more, then if they were read in Hebrew. Nay, to vnderstand the words, and not the sense, is not free from danger, because they may by thē conceaue some errour, as we daily see by the exāple of Sectaries, & in that vngracious crea∣ture, who lately out of Scripture, as he thought, murthered his Mother, and Brother, for being cause of his Idolatry in kneeling at the Com∣munion. Happy had it beene both for him, and a thousand more, if the sacred Scriptu∣res in English were not so common among them, but were read with due circumspection, and not without approbation of such as can

iudge better of them, then themselues. And in very truth it seemes strange, & not only not safe but euen shamefull, that, for example, the Boo∣kes of Leuiticus, and the Canticles, besids many passages in other Bookes, should he promiscu∣ously made subiect to the vulgar eyes of sensual, and vnmortifyed people, who morally will be sure to make no other vse thereof, then to hurt themselues, together with the abusing & pro∣phaning so holy a thing, as euery word of holy Scripture is in it selfe.

9. Now, to come to your other particulars; we acknowledge and professe all Merits to be the gift of God, and therfore they cannot with∣draw vs from relying on him. You cite Bellar∣mine, saying: It is safest, not to trust(m) to a mans owne Merits, but wholy and solely to cast himselfe on the mercy of Iesus-Christ. But doth Bellarmine say, that it is safest to relye on Gods Mercy a∣lone, and to deny all Merits, as Protestants do? This indeed were to your purpose. But let vs heare Bellarmine rightly cited: It is (sayth he) most safe to place(n) al our trust in the sole mercy & Benignity of God. Heere you stay. But Bellarmine goes on, and sayth: I explicate my sayd Proposi∣tion: for it is not to be so vnderstood as if a man with all his forces ought not to attend to good workes: Or that we ought not to confide in them, as if they were not true Iustice, or could not vndergo the Iudgment of God (for no wonder if Gods owne gifts, as all our merits are, may endure his examination.)

but we only say, that it is more safe, as it were to for∣get our former Merits, and to looke onely vpon the mercy of God; Both because no man can without a re∣uelation certaynely know that he hath true merits, or that he is to perseuere in them to the end: And also, because in this place of Temptation nothing is more easy then to conceyue Pride by the consideration of our good workes. I leaue it therefore to any mans cō∣sideration, what sincerity you haue vsed in al∣ledging Bellarmine.

10 In the last place you affirme, that our doctrines are confessed(o) Nouelties, and you go about to proue it by a few instances; all which being either nothing to the purpose, or plainely mistaken, or manifestly vntrue, do excellently proue against your selfe, how ancient our Reli∣gion is. Your instance about the Popes infalli∣bility, is not to the purpose of prouing that the Roman Church teacheth any Nouelty. For Bel∣larmine, out of whom you cite a few Authours who teach that the Popes Decrees without a Councell are not infallible, sayth: That, that Do∣ctrine(p) is yet tolerated by the Church, though he affirme it to be erroneous, and the next degree to Heresy. The same Answere serues for your o∣ther example concerning the Popes Authority aboue that of a Generall Councell, of which Bellarmine sayth: They are not properly Heretiques who hold the contrary; but(q) they cannot be excused from great temerity. And you are not ignorāt, but that euen those who defend these doctrines do

vnanimously consent against you, that the Pope is Head of the Church. But I pray you, what Consequence is it? Some Authors deny, or doubt of the Popes Infallibility, or his Autho∣rity ouer a Generall Councell: Ergo, these do∣ctrines are Nouelties? May not priuate men be mikaken, euen in doctrines which of themsel∣ues are most ancient; as is knowne by expe∣rience in many Truths, which both you and we maintaine? For how many Bookes of Scripture were once doubted of by some, which now your selues receiue as Canonicall? Are you ther∣fore Nouelists? You ouerlash then, when you say: Aboue a thousand(r) yeares after Christ, the Popes iudgment was not esteemed infallible, nor his authority aboue that of a generall Councell: and espe∣cially when you cite Bellarmine to make good your sayings. And your affirming out of Bellar∣mine (de Indulg. l. 2. c. 17.) that Eugenius the 3. (who began his Papacy 1145.) was(s) the first that granted Indulgences, is a huge vntruth, and falsi∣fication of Bellarmine, who in that very place, directly, expresly, purposely, proues that other Popes before Eugenius granted Indulgences, & names them in particular. Wheras you say that the Councels of Constance and Basil, decreed the Councell to be aboue the Pope; you might haue seene the Answere in Bellarmine in the same Booke which you(t) cite; that these two Coun∣cels at that time were not lawfull Councels, or sufficient to define any matters of Fayth.

11. You say, Many of them (meaning Ca∣tholique Doctours) yield also, that Papall In∣dulgences are things vnknowne to all Antiquity. And to proue this, you alledge Bellarmine,(u) who cites Durand, S. Antoninus, and Roffensis. Neither do these three, which you by I know not what figure call many, say as you do, that Indulgen∣ces are things vnknowne to all Antiquity; but only for the first fiue hundred yeares, as Bellar∣mine sayth in the place by you cited, & therfore you take to your selfe a strange priuiledge to multiply persons, and enlarge tymes: and yet these Authors do not deny Indulgences. And as Bellarmine answeres: We ought not to say that In∣dulgences are not indeed Ancient, because two or three Catholiques haue not read of them in Ancient Authors. And you may, with greater shew, deny diuers Bookes of Scripture, which more then three Writers did not only say, they were not receiued by Antiquity; but did expresly reiect them. As for the thing it selfe, Bellarmine shew∣eth, that Indulgences are no lesse ancient then the(y) beginning of the Church of Christ: & that your owne Protestants confesse, that it is hard to know when they began, which is a signe of Antiquity, not of Nouelty. But we can tell you, when, and who, first began to oppose Indulgences, namely the Waldenses, who appea∣red about the yeare 1170. And therfore the marke of Nouelty, & Heresy must fall not vpon the defenders, but the impugners of Indulgēces.

12. You say out of Bellarmine, that Leo the Third was the first that euer Canonized any Saint, as before (pag. 72.) you alleaged out of him, that the worship of Saints, was brought into the Church rather by Custome then by any Precept; and in your Margent you cite him in Latin saying: Saints began to be(z) worshipped in the vniuersall Church rather by Custome then by Precept. But Bel∣larmine doth not there treate in generall of worship of Saints, but only handling the Que∣stion, Cuius sit &c. To whom doth it belong to Ca∣nonize Saints, and prouing that it belongs to the Pope to Canonize them for the whole Church, and not for some particular Diocesse alone; in answere to an Obiection, that there are many worshipped for Saints, who were not Cano∣nized by the Pope, he hath these words: I ans∣were, that the Ancient Saints began to be worship∣ped in the Vniuersall Church, not so much by any Law, as by Custome: Where you breake off. But Bellarmine goeth forward, and sayth: But as other Customes haue the force of a Law by the tacite Con∣sent of the Prince, without which they are of no force &c. So the Worship of any Saint generally introduced by the Custome of the Churches, hath force from the tacite, or expresse Approbation of the Pope. First then, you conceale the Question of which Bel∣larmine treated. Secondly, you leaue out (Vete∣res) Ancient Saints, and say only Saints, and yet (Ancient) sheweth he spoke not of all Saints, but of some who were not expresly Canoni∣zed,

or Commaunded to be held for Saintes, wheras diuers others haue been Canonized by direct commaund to belieue that they are hap∣py. Thirdly, in your Translation, you leaue out Vniuersall, & only put Church; wheras Bellarmine § Primo modo, expresly teacheth: That in an∣cient time euery Bishop might Canonize Saints for his particular Diocesse, and de facto, they did command some Feasts to be kept, as Bellarmine proues; which shewes, that the worship of Saints was held both to be lawfull, and was to some particular persons cōmanded. Fourthly, you leaue out Bellarmines words; That the Wor∣ship of some Saint generally introduced by the custome of the Churches, growes to haue the force of a Law, or Precept, by the tacite, or expresse Ap∣probation of the Pope; which is contrary to that, which you cited out of Bellarmine; The worship and Inuocation of Saints was brought into the Church, rather by Custome, then any Precpt. And now to come to your former Obiection out of Bellarmine, what is it to your purpose if he affir∣me that Leo the third was the first that euer Cano∣nized any Saint? Doth he affirme that Leo was the first that taught Worship, and Inuocation of Saints? Or that such worship was not practised by Custome, yea & by Precept before his Time, as we haue seeme out of his words it was? Bel∣larmine speakes only of such forme and solemni∣ty of Canonization as afterwards was vsed: Which makes nothing for your purpose, to

proue that our doctrine of Worship, or Inuocation of Saints, is a Nouelty. If one should affirme that the solēnity of Crowning Kings, was not vsed in all places, or tymes alike; should he therfore deny the Antiquity of Kings, or that Obedien∣ce is due to them? You may see not onely the errour, but the danger also of such discourse.

13. When one reades in your Booke these words in a different letter; Not any one ancient Writer(b) reckons precisely seauen Sacraments; the first Authour that mentions that number is Peter Lombard, and the first Councell, that of Florence: and in your Margent, the names of Valentia, and Bellarmine; Who would not thinke that in the opinion of these Authors no ancient Writer before Lombard belieued that there were seauen Sacraments, neither more nor fewer? Which is most vntrue, and against their formall words, & expresse intentiōs. For thus saith Valentia in the very same place which you(c) cite: The same Assertion, (that there are seauen Sacraments) is proued by the Authority of Fathers. For although the more ancient Writers do not number seauen Sa∣craments, all together in one place: yet it may be easi∣ly shewed, especially by the testimony of S. Augustine that they did acknowledge euery one of these Ceremo∣nies to be a Sacrament. Thus Valentia in generall, and then he proues euery one of the seauen Sa∣craments, out of particular places of S. Augu∣stine, S. Cyprian, S. Ambrose, Innocentius the first, Chrysostome, Bode, and Dionysius Areopagita. Now

tell me, whether Valentia say: Not any one An∣cient Writer reckons precisely seauen Sacraments? Doth he not proue out of S. Augustine euery one of the seauen Sacraments in particular, as you could not but see in the very place cited by you? Is it all one to say: Not any one Ancient Writer reckons precisely seauen Sacraments, as you corrupt these Authors, and to say; The Ancient Wri∣ters do not number seauen Sacraments all togea∣ther in one place? Neither is your falsifying of Bellarmine lesse remarkable, who hauing said that the number of seauen Sacraments is pro∣ued out of Scriptures, and ancient Fathers, pre∣miseth this Obseruation: That, Our Aduersaries ought not to require of vs, that(d) we shew in Scri∣ptures and Fathers the NAME of seauen Sacra∣ments: For neither can they shew the Name of two, or three, or fower: for the Scriptures and Fathers did not write a Catechisme, as now we do, by reason of the multitude of Heresies, but only deliuered the things themselues in diuers places: Neither is this proper to Sacraments, but common to many other things. For the Scripture reckons the miracles of our Sauiour, but neuer reckons how many there be: It deliuers the Ar∣ticles of Fayth, but neuer sayth how many they be: The Apostles afterward published the Creed of twelue Ar∣ticles for some particular causes. In like manner they cannot know out of Scripture, how many Canonicall Brokes there be: But Councels afterward set downe the Canon, and the particular number, which they had learned by Tradition. And afterward he notes:

That it is sufficient if we can shew out of Fathers and Scriptures, that the Definition of a Sacrament doth a∣gree neither to more nor fewer Rites, then seauen. By which words it is cleere, that when Bellarmine sayth, Lombard was the first that named the number of seauen Sacramēts, he only meaneth, as he explicates himselfe, of the name of Seauen; as Protestants will not find in all Antiquity the name of two Sacramēts. So that from the words of Valentia and Bellarmine, as they are indeed, nothing can be gathered, except your very vn∣conscionable Dealing.

14. What you cite out of Bellarmine, that(e) Scotus teacheth Transubstantiation to haue been neyther named, nor made an Article of fayth before the Councell of Lateran, doth not proue it to be a Nouelty, but only that Scotus did thinke it was not so expressely declared before that Coun∣cell; which (sayth Bellarmine) he affirmed be∣cause he had not read the Councell of Rome vn∣der Gregory the Seauenth, nor had obserued the consent of Fathers. It is a fond thing to say, that euery Truth is a Nouelty, which the Church as occasion serueth doth declare more expressely then before. And if all Truthes must be decla∣red alike at all tymes, vnder payne of being ac∣counted Nouelties; what will become of Lu∣thers Reformation, wherby he pretended to teach the world so many things which he falsly, & impiously blasphemed to haue been for solōg time buried in obliuion, and ouer-whelmed

with corruption?

15. You cite Peter Lombard and S. Thomas, as if they affirmed Sacrifice in the(f) Eucharist to be no other, but the image or Commemoration of our Sauiours Sacrifice vpon the Crosse. But your con∣science cannot but tell you, that these Authors neuer doubted whether the Masse be a true Sa∣crifice or no, and therefore the Question which they propounded is, Whether Christ in the Masse be immolated, or(g) killed? and according to this sense they answere, that he is immolated in figure, because the vnbloudy Oblation of the Eucharist, is a representation of our Saui∣ours bloudy Oblation, or Immolation on the Crosse. And that this is so, you might haue seen in S. Thomas in that very place which you(h) cite, where he teacheth that in this manner of being killed, or immolated in figure, Christ might haue been sayd to haue been immolated in the figures of the Old Testament, which did prefigure his death; and yet you will not ac∣knowledge your selfe so perfectly Zwingliani∣zed, that you will from hence inferre, that there is no more in the Eucharist then in the empty figures of the Old Law: and though you did, yet it would not serue your turne, for euen di∣uers of those figures were truly & properly Sa∣crifices; and therefore though the Eucharist were but a Commemoration, yet it might be a true Sacrifice withall.

16. You alledge Lindanus, that(i) in for∣mer

Ages, for 1200. yeares, the holy Cup was ad∣ministred to the Laity. But you deceiue your Reader; for Lindanus plainely sayth; That both kinds were giuen to the Laity almost euery where, but yet not euery where. Which is sufficient agaynst you, who say, it is agaynst the institution of Christ not to giue both kinds to the Laity. And I shewed before, that in the raigne of King E∣dward the Sixth, Communion in one kind was permitted; and that Melancthon & Luther held it as a thing indifferent.

17. That diuine Sacrifice was celebrated for diuers Ages in a known & vulgar Tongue, you would proue out of(k) Lyra. But what is this to proue our doctrine to be a Nouelty? Do we teach, that there is any diuine Law, eyther for∣bidding, or commanding publique Seruice in a vulgar Tongue? And Lyra in that place tea∣cheth that in these tymes it is more conuenient that it be not celebrated in a known language.

18. That the Fathers generally condemned the worship of Images for feare of Idolatry, and allowed, yea exhorted the people with diligence, to read the Scriptures; You seeke(l) to proue the former part out of Polydore Virgil, and the latter out of Azor; but still with your wonted sincerity. For how often haue you been told that Polydore(m) speakes not of the Ancient Fathers of the New Testamēt, but of those of the Old, naming Moy∣ses, Dauid, and Ezechias, and he proueth at large, that in the New Law, Images are worthily pla∣ced

in Churches, and worshipped; and conclu∣des, demanding what man is so dissolute, and so brazen faced, that wil, or can doubt, or dreame of the contrary? Azor grants, that in the(n) times of S. Chrysostome, Lay-men were conuer∣sant in Scripture, because then they vnderstood Greeke or Latin, in which language the Scriptures were written; wheras now the common people for the most part vnderstand not the Latin Tongue; but such Lay people as vnderstand Greeke or Latin, do with good reason read the Scripture. Who would euer imagine, that in so short a compasse you could haue corrupted so many Authors?

19. What you say in this your Section, to excuse your Brethren from Schisme, we haue ans∣wered in the First Part, and haue confuted all your euasions & similitudes. And whereas you say, that(o) although our errors be not dam∣nable to him, who in simplicity of heart belieueth and professeth them; yet that he, that against fayth and conscience shall goe along with the streame, to pro∣fesse and practise them, because they are but little ones; his case is dangerous, and without repentance despe∣rate. I answere, that if our errors be not funda∣mentall, how can they be damnable: and if they be but litle ones, that is, not fundamentall or dam∣nable, how is it dānable to imbrace them, because they are litle ones, that is, because they are, as in∣deed they are? If they were indeed little ones, & yet by an erroneous cōsciēce were esteemed great ones, to such a man they should indeed be dam∣nable;

but to one that knowes them to be little ones, and with such a knowledge, or cōscience, for some humane respect, of it selfe not damna∣ble, doth yet imbrace them, they are not dam∣nable. For still we suppose that he would not imbrace them, if his Conscience told him, that they were great ones. And who can without smiling read these your words: It is the(p) Do∣ctrine of the Romane Schoole, that veniall sinnes to him that commits them, not of subreption, or of a sud∣den motion, but of presumption that the matter is not of moment, change their kind and become mortall? I pray you what Schoole man teacheth that to commit a veniall sinne, knowing it to be such, makes it become mortall? For in this sense you must alleage this doctrine, if it be to your pur∣pose: and in this sense it being a false doctrine, doth indeed ouerthrow that for which you al∣ledge it; and proues that to imbrace errors not fundamentall, knowing them to be such, cannot be damnable; as it is not a mortall sinne, to do that which one knowes to be but veniall In the meane time you do not reflect, that if your do∣ctrine might passe for true, it would be impossi∣ble for both Catholiques, and Protestants, Luthe∣rans, and Caluinists to be saued. For all these dif∣fer at lest in points not fundamentall, and so you grant vnawares that which chiefly we intend, that of two differing in Religion, both cānot be saued, whether their differēces be great, or smal.

20. I haue told you already, that the Au∣thor

of the Moderate Examination &c. is no Ca∣tholique. That other Treatise entituled, Syllabus aliquot Synodorum &c. I haue not seen, but if the Author pretend, as you say, that both Hugenots, and Catholiques may be saued, he can be no Ca∣tholique.

21. You would faine auoide the note of He∣retiques, which is to be named by Moderne names, deriued for the most part from their first Sect-Maisters. You renounce the names of Lu∣therans, Zwinglians, or Caluinists, and to that purpose you make halfe a Sermon; But words will not serue your turne. For they are no iniu∣rious Nick-names as you say, but names impo∣sed by meere necessity, to distinguish you from those from whom you really differ, and to ex∣presse the variety of your late Reformation. If we speake of Christians, or Catholiques without some addition, no man will dreame of you, but will thinke of vs, who had that Name before Luther appeared, and therefore it cannot ex∣presse the latter Reformation. If you wilbe cal∣led the Reformed Church; still the doubt remay∣nes, whether you meane those who follow Luther, or Caluin, or Zwinglius &c. Neyther will the Reformed Church (if she be in her wits) make her selfe lyable to all errors of Lutherans, Caluinists, Anabaptists, Puritans &c. And in this, your prime man D. Field is more ingenious, while he acknowledgeth a necessity of the na∣me of Lutherans, in these words: Neyther was

it possible(q) that so great an alteration should be effected, and not carry some remembrance of them, by whome it was procured. And Whitaker sayth: For distinctions sake we are inforced to vse the(r) name of Protestants. And Grauerus giueth a reason why those of the same Sect with him be called Luthe∣rans, saying: The only reason(s) of it is, that we may be distinguished frō Caluinists & Papists, from whom we cannot be distinguished by the generall name eyther of Christiās, or of Orthed oxe, or of Catholiques. And Hospinianus likewise sayth: I abhorre the Schis∣maticall names(t) of Lutherans, Zwinglians, and Caluinist; (marke, the Shismaticall names) yet for distinction sake I will vse these names in this Histo∣ry. The vulgar Obiection which you bring, that amongst vs also there are Franciscans, Domini∣cās, Scotistes Loyalists &c. is pertinent only to cō∣uince you of manifest Nouelty: For those Na∣mes are not imposed to signify difference in fayth, as the Names of Lutherans, Caluinists, are; but eyther diuers Institutes of Religion, as Dominicans, Franciscans &c. or els diuersity of opinions concerning some points not defi∣ned by the Church, as Thomists, Scotists &c. And for as much as these Names be argumēts of new and particular Institutes, and are deriued from particular men, they likewise proue that the names of Lutherans, Caluinists &c. being giuen vpō diuersity in fayth, must argue a new begin∣ning, & a new Sect, and Sect-Maisters concer∣ning Fayth. D. Field is full to our purpose, say∣ing:

We must obserue that they who professe the fayth of Christ(u) haue been somtymes in these latter ages of the Church called after the speciall names of such men as were the Authours, Beginners, and Deuisers of such courses of Monasticall Profession, as they made choyce to follow, as Benedictins, and such like. And in his other words following, he answers your obiection of the Scotists, and Thomists, affir∣ming their differences to haue been in the Controuer∣sies of Religion, not yet determined by consent of the Vniuersall Church. What can be more cleere, that our differences concerne not matters of Fayth, and that the names which you mention of Frā∣ciscans, Dominicans &c. signify a Meanes of that for which they are imposed, and which they are appointed to signify, and therfore proue that the names of Lutherans &c. must signify a Nouclty in fayth?

22. But you say, that the iarres and diuisions betweene(w) the Lntherans, and Caluinists doe little concerne the Church of England, which follow∣eth none but Christ. And doe not Lutherans and Caluinists pretend to follow Christ as well as you? Who shall be Iudge among you? But you may easily be well assured, that as long as you follow him by contrary wayes, you can neuer come where he is. And yet indeed, doe these ••arres little concerne the Church of England? Haue you in your Church none of those who are commonly called Lutherans, Zwinglians, Calui∣nists, Puritans &c. Doth it not behooue you to

consider, whether your Congregation can be One true Church of Christ, while you are in Communion with so many disagreeing Sects? Doth it little concerne you, whether your first Reformers Lutherans, Caluinists, Zwinglians, Puritanes be Heretiques, or no? How can it be, but that the diuisions of Lutherans, and Caluinists must concerne the Church of England? For, your Church cannot agree with them all; & if you side with one part, you must iarre with the other. Or if you agree with none of them, you disagree with all, & so make a greater diuision.

23. And therfore, being really distrustfull of this Answere, you come at length to your maine refuge, namely; that their dissentions(x) are neither many, nor so materiall, as to shake, or touch the foundation. But till you can once tell vs what points will shake the foundation, you cannot be sure whether their dissentions be not such. You say, their(y) difference about Consubstantiation, and Vbiquity is not fundamentall, because both agree, that Christ is really, and truly exhibited to ech faithfull Communicant, and that in his whole Person he is euery where. In this manner you may reconcile all heresies, and say, the Arians or Ne∣storians belieued Christ to be truly God; that is, by reall, and true affection of Charity, as many among you say, Christ is really in the Sacra∣ment, that is, by a reall figure, or by a reall act of fayth, as the Nestorians said of a reall act of Chari∣ty: That euen according to them who deny the

Trinity, there is truly a Father, Sonne, and holy Ghost, as in God there is truly Power, Vnderstan∣ding, and Will; but whether those Persons be really distinct or no, that is (as you say of Con∣substantiation and Vbiquity) a nicecity inscrutable to the wit of man: and so a man may goe discour∣sing of all other Heresies, which haue been con∣demned by the Church. Is there not a maine difference of receiuing our Sauiours body in reall substance, and in figure alone? Or betwixt the immensity of our Sauiours Deity, and the Vbi∣quity of his Humanity, which destroies the My∣steries of his Natiuity Ascension, &c for who can ascend to the place where he is already? You specify only the said difference betwixt Lutherans, and Caluinists, whereas you know there are many more, as about the Canon of Scripture &c. as also between Protestants and Puritans &c. And I could put you in mind of your Brethren, who teach that for diuers Ages the visible Church perished; and yet S. Augu∣stine teacheth, that there is nothing more eui∣dent in Scripture, then the Vniuersality of the Church: as also who deny that Bishops are by diuine Institution; who oppose your whole Hie∣rarchy as Antichristian; who differ from you in the forme of Ordination of Ministers; all which are fundamental points. But I will refer the Reader to the most exact Brereley, who(z) reckons no fewer then seauenty seauen diffe∣rences amōg you, punctually citing the Bookes,

and pages where you may find them. And yet for the present I will set downe some words of Doctor Willet, testifying your differences. From this fountaine (sayth he) haue sprung(a) forth these and such like whirle-points, and bubbles of new doctrine: as for example, that the Scriptures are not meanes concerning God of all that profitably we know: That, they are not alone complete to euerlasting felici∣ty: That, the word of God cannot possibly assure vs what is the word of God: That, there are works of Su∣pererogation: That, the Church of Rome, as it now standeth, is the family of Christ: That, Idolaters and wicked Heretiques are members of the visible Church: (let D. Potter heere remember what himselfe sayth of the Roman Church, and what he rela∣teth about the opinion of M. Hooker and M. Morton, that among Heretiques there may be a true Church:) That, there is in Ordination giuen a indeleble Character: That, they haue power to make Christs body: That, Sacraments are necessary in their place, and no lesse required then beliefe it selfe: That, the soules of Infants dying without Baptisme are dam∣ned &c. Do you thinke, that the necessity of Baptisme, and other Sacraments, the sufficiency of sole Scripture, which your English Clergy professeth at their Ordination, and those other points are but small matters? But besides these, and many more, there are two other maine, ge∣nerall, & transcendent differences among you. The one, whether you do not differ in maine points, which though you deny, yet others af∣firme:

The other, what be maine or fundamen∣tall points. Vpon which two differences, i•• will necessarily follow, that you cannot know, whe∣ther you haue the same substance of fayth, and hope of saluation, or no. But though your diffe∣rences were all reduced to one, and that how small soeuer; that one were sufficient to ex∣clude Vnity of faith among you, as I haue often said, and proued. I haue no mind to spend time in telling you how vn-scholler-like you say: Two brothers(b) in their choller may renounce ech other, and disclaime their amity; yet that heat cannot dissolue their inward, and essentiall relation. For when a mans Brother dyes, doth he loose any essentiall relation? I alwayes thought that essen∣tiall relations were inseparable from the essence to which they belong, and the essence from them; and a man who still remaynes a man, may yet cease to be a Brother: It is therfore no essen∣tiall relation.

24. I grant that Differences in Ceremonies, or discipline, do not alwayes infer diuersity of fayth; yet when one part condemnes the Ri∣tes and discipline of the other as Antichristian, or repugnant to Gods word (as it hapneth a∣mong Protestants,) then differences in Cere∣montes redound to a diuersity in fayth.

25. Luther tempered by(c) mild Melancthon (that honour of Germany) did much relent and re∣mit of his rigour agaynst Zwinglius, and began to approue the good Counsels of peace. If inconstancy

concerning matters of Fayth be Mildnes, Me∣lancton was, I grant, extremely mild, in which respect he was noted euen by Protestāts, & was disliked by Luther. How much Luther relented of his rigour agaynst Zwinglius, let himselfe de∣clare in these words, which you could not but read in Charity-Mistaken. I hauing now one of my feet(d) in the graue, will carry this testimony and glory to the Tribunall of God; That I will with all my heart condemne, and eschew Carolostadius, Zwin∣glius, Oecolampadius, and their disciples; nor will I haue familiarity with any of them eyther by letter, wri∣ting, words, nor deeds, accordingly as the Lord hath commanded. If in Polonia the followers of Luther, and Caluin haue long liued together in concord, as you would haue vs belieue, the thing being really not true; they must thanke the good Ca∣tholique King vnder whome they liue, who is able, and apt to punish when there is great ex∣cesse. But if they had the raynes in their owne hand, what greater concord could be hoped for amongst them in that Kingdome, then is found in other places, where they haue more power? In Polonia there are many Arians, and Trinitarians, who liue in outward concord with the rest; But will you acknowledge them for Brethren to Lutherans, Caluinists, and your selfe? The answere will be hardly made, if you sticke to your owne grounds, and I may well passe on to the rest.

Notes

• (a)

  Pag. 59.
• (b)

  Pag. 61.
• (c)

  pag. 61.62.
• (e)

  pag. 67.
• (g)

  De verb. Dei lib. 4. cap. 11.
• (h)

  Ibid.
• (i)

  Pag. 68.
• (m)

  Pag. 73.
• (n)

  De Ju∣stificat. lib. 5. c. 7. § Sitter∣tia proposi∣tio.
• (o)

  Pag. 13.
• (p)

  De Rom. Pont. l. 4. ç. 1.
• (q)

  De Con∣cil. l. 2. cap. 17. Denique Lateranen∣se.
• (r)

  Pag. 72. Edit. 1.
• (s)

  Pag. 72. Edit. 1.
• (t)

  De Con∣cil. l 2. ç. 19.
• (u)

  De In∣dulg. l. 2. ç. 27.
• (y)

  Vbi su∣pra. ç. 3.
• (z)

  De Sait∣ctorum beat, lib. 1. cap. 8. § v••••.
• (b)

  Pag. 78.
• (c)

  Tom. 4. disp 3. q. 6. p. 2. § Tertie probatur.
• (d)

  Bellarm. de Sacram. lib. 2. ç. 25.
• (e)

  De En∣char. lib. 3. çap. 23.
• (f)

  Pag. 74.
• (g)

  S. Thom. 3. p. q. 83 a. 1. in corp.
• (h)

  Ad 3.
• (i)

  Panopl. lib. 4. part. 2. çap. 56. § Hunc igitur.
• (k)

  In 1. corp. çap. 14.
• (l)

  Pag. 74.
• (m)

  De In∣nent. lib. 6. çap. 13.
• (n)

  Moral. Instit. lib. 8. çap. 26. part. 1. §. Respō∣deo.
• (o)

  Pag. 77.
• (p)

  Pag. 77.
• (q)

  Of the Church lib. 2. cap. 9. p. 59.
• (r)

  In his answer to Reynolds Preface. pag. 44.
• (s)

  In his Absurda Ab∣surdorū &c. in Praefat.
• (t)

  In his Prologome∣na.
• (u)

  Ʋbi sup. pag. 58.
• (w)

  pag. 87.
• (x)

  Pag. 87.
• (y)

  Pag. 90.
• (z)

  Tract. 3. Sect. 7. vnder ••.
• (a)

  In his me∣ditation vpō the 122. Psa. pag. 91.
• (b)

  Pag. 87.
• (c)

  Pag. 93.
• (d)

  Pag. 53.