Presbyteries triall, or, The occasion and motives of conversion to the Catholique faith of a person of quality in Scotland ; to which is svbioyned, A little tovch-stone of the Presbyterian covenant

PRESBYTERIES TRIALL

CHAP. I. That God by the confusion of Errour, stirres vp many to seek the Truth.

SO great and admirable is the goodnesse of God, that (as S. Augustin hath observed) he would not permit sin to be in the world,* 1.1 vnlesse he did draw good from it: And so infinit is his power ioyn'd with that goodnesse, that from the worst, and most wicked actions, he can, and doth extract the greatest goods. Ioseph did acknowledge in him∣self the experience of this truth, when he said to his brethren, who had vnnaturally sold him: you thought euil against me,* 1.2 but God hath turn'd it vnto good, that he might exalt me, as you see this day, and preserue much people. But this truth

is more admirably seen in that most horrible crime of the Iewes, of crucifying the Lord of glory; out of which God did extract the grea∣test of all goods; to wit the Exaltation of Christ, and the Redemption of mankind.

Since then that Heresy is confessed by all Christians, not only to be evill, but one of the greatest evils, as being the corruption of a most excellent good, to witt the divine faith: Gods goodnesse would never permitt it to arise, and for a tyme to continue against the true faith, & the holy Church; vnlesse he cowld and did make it tend to the good of both. S. Paul tou∣cheth this matter, when he saith to the Corin∣thians:* 1.3 Heresies must be, that they which are ap∣prooved may be made manifest among you. That they must be; proceeds, by the permission of God, from the vickednesse, and free choise of man, and from the malice of the Devill, whom our Saviour calls the Enemy,* 1.4 who sowes tares in the field, where he had sowen the good seed. That Heresies are turn'd into good, pro∣ceeds from the goodnesse, and special provi∣dence of God, who of evil worketh good; as he doth here, making heresies tend to the ma∣nifestation of those, who are approved, and constant in the faith.

But the providence and goodnesse of God is specially wonderfull in this matter, that he doth not only draw good from Heresy, but also he makes it, against its owne nature & intent, to serve for the further manifestation of the truth: and he turn's all the plots and cunning design's of

the Authours and Promoovers of falshood, to the ruine and confusion both of it, and of them∣selves; and to the exaltation, of that, whereof they intended so eagerly the destruction. This was evident of old in the Arrians; who vsed all slight and might to obscure, and extinguish, the great mystery of the holy Trinity. But it did never shyne so brightly, neither was it so fully discussed, & clearly vnderstood, till the Ar∣rians begun to bark against it, as S. Augustin speaks.* 1.5 So that by the many fold grace of our Saviour, that, which the Enemy intends for hurt, & destruction; God turn's into help, and advantage.

These things, for the most part, are now (by the goodnesse of God) become very evident in the Scottish Covenant, and Presbytery, which prospered so much for a time: and yet at leuth are come to nought, notwithstanding all the wise & deepe plots that were so subtilly deuised for the standing and aduancing of them: And notwithstanding the great power of Armies, which did raise, and vphold them in these Nations: And by which they should in a Martial, rather then Apostolique manner haue been propagated troughout the world, as the Ministers, & some others fondly imagined, but more foolishly bragged. The great Covenan∣ters also haue been much disappoynted, and come short of their design's. There was nothing, wherein they so much gloryed, as in their prosperity, and in the ruine, which fell vpon all their opposers; whereby they avowed publi∣quely

and frequently, that their cause was clearly owned by Heauen. All their discourses, and sermons, were nothing but Panegyriques of that great ingyring light (as they tearm'd it) which God had made shyne to them, above all other Nations. They did bragge not a litle, that they were Gods Covenanted people, and he their Covenanting God, which high privi∣ledge no nation else could claime. Their wis∣dome in their counsels, & diligence in execu∣tions, were highly esteem'd, and much cry'd vp by many. There seem'd nothing in humane prudence fitting for the advancment of their cause, but they try'd it: And nothing could ap∣peare a crosse, and hinderance to their designs, but they provyded for it. And yet notwithstan∣ding all these pretended priuiledges, exploits, and diligences: the Covenanting Presbyterians haue been brought to confusion, their prospe∣rity so much bragged of, hath quickly turn'd into adversity, and their self conceated wis∣dome,* 1.6 hath now appear'd to all men to be ma∣nifest folly. For God, who takes th2 wise, in their own craftinesse: and dissipats the counsels of the froward, as it is in Iob, hath made that witty or crafty course, which they took, for their own standing; tend to their ruine: and hath caused their fall to proceed from those, whom they least, or in no wise suspected: that is from their own Covenanting, and Leagued Brethren, whom they had of purpose raised, and vphol∣den, to be a prop to themselues, and a ruin to their Enemies. And now is verifyed in them

that, which S. Paul foretold, showld befall to all false Teachers, and Seducers.* 1.7 They shall not long prevaile, for their folly shall be made manifest to all men. Yea, it hath not only plea∣sed God to bring the Covenant and Presbytery to such a stay, and to frustrate the designs of their Promoters; but he, who drawes good out of evil, hath drawen this good from them, amidst the many deplorable evils, which they haue directly brought vpon this Nation: That many, who were not sensible of the great er∣rour, wherein they were lying, haue been awakned (as it vere) out of a dead sleep, by the huge confusion of the Covenant and Presbyte∣ry, and so, seeing their own danger, haue been stirred vp to seeing for the truth, and to see the day of God, as S. Augustin speaks.* 1.8 Amongst which number his vnspeakable goodnesse hath been pleased to make me one, who by all ap∣parance, would haue liv'd and dyed in a grosse security of the religion, wherein I was bred: if the Covenant & Presbytery, by their confu∣sions, changes, and violence had not furiously endeavoured to dispossesse me of many points, which I formerly beleev'd (as I was taught) for vndoubted truths: and by that means pres∣sed me to make an earnest search to informe my self of the true grounds of these alterations, and to find some setled ground, whereon I might safely rely, for the Salvation of my soule, and not be tossed to an fro, with every wind of do∣ctrine, in the wickednesse of men, and circum∣vention of errour.

Whilst there was nothing, but some lit∣tle jarres betwixt the Bishops and a few Mi∣nisters, for conformity to the 5. articles of Perth: which concerned kneeling at Com∣munion, privat Baptisme, Confirmation of children, observation of Christmasse, and of some few festival dayes; I was never moved to doubt of the religion publiquely professed. For these dissensions were not, (as I conceaved) in substantial points: neither was the manner of them very vehement and rigorous, by reason of the Bishops temper, who did not vrge these things violently, though establish'd both by) Ecclesiastical and Civil lawes. Besid's the Ministers who oppos'd them were but few, and not considerable, either for learning or pru∣dence, in regard of those, who were of a con∣trary iudgement. All this time, I liv'd in a deepe security, in an implicit faith of the Church of of Scotland, and its doctrine; imagining that it was the very same, which was taught by Christ, and his Apostles. But so soone as that great stor∣me of the Covenant did arise, none got leave to sleep any longer at rest, in that barke: all were awakned by these unskilfull Mariners, to whom we had rashly trusted our soules: who fell at such oddes and dissensions amongst themselv's, that hardly ever such confusion and noise was heard or seen: every one of them contradicting, condemning and accursing another, and ma∣king such factions, that they seem'd to thirst af∣ter nothing but blood, with which they may be sufficiently glutted, since they begun. This

tempest and confusion hath brought such shi∣pwracke vpon the Church (to speak nothing of the miseries of the Countrey) that many of sound iudgement, seing the danger, haue been mo∣v'd to abandon that confus'd and sinking vessell, and putt themselv's in one more solidly built, and govern'd by more sober, wise, and discreet Pilots.

This confusion was the occasion of my first doubt, which made me begin to examin the particular points of these new dissenssions; and to try the ground, whereon our religion, so easily shaken, was weakly founded. And fin∣ding, that all was built vpon the sand, I made there after a diligent search, to find out that true religion, and holy Church, which Christ the wise Master builder had promised in the Scrip∣tures, to build vpon a Rocke, which could not be shaken; neither by the deceits of men, nor by the power & malice of the Devil.

Having then after a serious, equitable and zealous search of the truth, found it by Gods grace, to be, where the Ministers clamours, and my education made me least suspect it was: And therefore being to abandon that religion, and particular new, inconstant confus'd Church, wherein I was bred; and to incorporat my self into the vniuersal, ancient, perpetual and inva∣riable Church, protected alway's from heaven, against the gates of Hell; I thought fitting to to recollect the occasion and reasons of my hap∣py change: both for the contentment of my own mind, that I may briefly see, what I have

long and diligently sought after; and for the sa∣tisfaction of others, who perhaps may imagine I had done rashly, desiring earnestly God may be glorifyed in both.

The reasons, which mov'd me to think strange of our religion, were these following, all which I saw with my eyes. 1. The Ministers Inconstan∣cy in Doctrine. 2. Their Dissensions 3. Their con∣tradicting their owne Principales. 4. Their Cruelty over mens consciences. 5. Disobedience to Civil Magistrats, with a shew of Godlinesse, without any effect or truth of it.

CHAP. II. Of the Ministers Inconstancy; and of the Alterations made by the late Presby∣terian Reformation.

THERE is hardly any thing that makes people to stumble more at religion, then the often changing of it: and nothing makes them more apprehensive of their Pastours fal∣shood, then their levity and inconstancy in their doctrines and practises. For how can people think that religion true and solid, which they see is never constant, but is alway's changing like the Moone? And how can they but suspect their Pastours to be false prophets, whom they heare at diverse times teaching them contrary doctrines? For it's evident by the light of reason, that such lighsnesse and inconstancy, especially,

when it is accompayn'd with a proper con∣demnation of their own former doctrines and practises, is a reall open confession of their for∣mer errours, if not of formal deceit's. And the∣refore it shewes them to be either deceitfull, or at least blind Guides, to neither of which, can people either prudently or safely intrust, their soules. If such wandering and erring Guides, after some experience had of them, would not be followed nor trusted in earthly voyages: How much lesse are these to be followed or trusted in our voyage to heaven, which is of greater concernment?

As lightnesse and inconstancy are farre from the office of true Apostles, so they are alwayes proper to false Teachers and Prophets. S. Paul writing to the Corinthians freeth himself, and other true pastours from such imputations.* 1.9 Did I vse, saith he, lightnesse? or was my preaching It is, and it is not: for the son of God Iesus Christ, who was preached by vs among you, by me, and Sylvanus, and Timothee, was not: It is, and it is not, but. It is was in him. But vpon the other part the same S. Paul writing to Timothee, shewes that all false Teachers are light and incōstant. Evil men,* 1.10 saith he, and seducers prosper to the worse: erring & driving into errour. This is the worst & most de∣plorable kinde of inconstancy, which proceeds from evil to worse: which is too evident in the Presbyterians, who haue abrogated condem∣ned and deformed many things, which their first Reformers had left vntouched, allowed and practised, as shall be presently seen. For

vnder vaine imagination of a new Reformation, they haue gone further from the truth; and vn∣der pretext of attayning greater purity, they ha∣ve plung'd themselves more deeply into the puddle of errour.

First then, they changed the governement of the Church by Bishops which had continued a good time, and was established both by Civil and Ecclesiastique lawes: yea, they did not only change and abrogate the governement of Bis∣hops; but they condemned also their very office as vnlawfull and Antichristian; and forced others to swear and subscribe to their sentence. And in place of Episcopacy, they brought in a parity of Ministers, and a forme of discipline, which they call Presbytery: Declaring that this was the only governement conforme to the word of God, and which Christ had or∣dain'd for his Church: to which sentence also all behoved to sweare, And therefore, to the two marks of the Church, ordinarly assign'd by Pro∣testants, the Presbyterians ioyn'd their disci∣pline as the third: whereby they declared, that all Protestant Churches, which wanted this go∣vernement, were not true, or at least pure Churches of Christ. So that, they made their Presbyterian discipline, a substantial point of doctrine; the contrary whereof was taught, believed, and practised in the Bishops time in the Isle of Britaine, and in all places, where the Lutheran Protestants lives. And what ever was the practise of the French Calvinists, yet they did not definitiu'ly declare the office of Bishop

to be Antichristian; but kept society with these Protestant Churches, where Episcopal gover∣nement was established, and wrote most res∣pectiv'ly vnto the Bishops themselves: as may be seen in the Survey of the new discipline.

Secondly. After the change and abolition of the old governement of the Church: They pro∣ceeded next to abolish all sett prayers, all the orders and directions, which were ordain'd by I Knox, the first Fundatour or Reformer of this Church, for administration of the Sacraments, and of Mariage: yea all sett formes of prayer were disallowed, and cancelled, vpon pretext that they nourished tepidity, and smoothered the fervour of the Spirit, according to which, all persons were ordain'd to pray; albeit often∣tymes it prov'd the Spirit of giddinesse: as ap∣pear'd by their frequent Tautologies and ba∣blings. But it had not been so much matter for abrogating M^r Knox his prayers, if they had not been too bold with the most excellent of all prayers, made by our B. Saviour himself, and recommended by him to all Christians. For although the Ministers were accustomed be∣fore, to end their imperfect prayers, as they spoke, in that most perfect forme of prayer, ma∣de by Christ, which was also the practise of their first Reformers,* 1.11 as may be seen in Knox Chro∣nicle, at the conclusion of the prayer for a be∣nediction to the Superintendent: yet it was left off any more to be said by these new Presby∣terian Reformers: & the rest of the bre∣thren thought it most secure for their own

own standing to follow their Leaders. Albeit they cashiered all other sett prayers, yet they might have excepted this, both for the excel∣lenty of it, and the dignity of the Authour. They indeed spoke nothing publickely and directly against it; till one of their prime Apost∣les did not stick to call the frequent vse of it, most irreverently, a Papistical charme.

Thirdly they changed not only the prayers, but also the manner of singing psalmes; for they tooke away and abolished the hymne of Glory to the Father and to the Son &c. with which the Psalme was ordinarly concluded, ac∣cording to the custome, which was kept from the beginning of the Reformation. This was not done by any formal act but (as a Minister spoke) by a desuetude of the principal Covenanters, whose example the rest of the Ministers follo∣wed. But there was one thing which hapned in this matter not vnworthy of remark, and is very famous throughout the countrey: For whilst the people of a Parish, in Anguse, were sin∣ging at the conclusion of a psalme, Glory to the Father and to the Son &c. as not knowing of the new alterations; they were presently interrup∣ted by their Minister, who cry'd aloud No more Glory to the Father, No more Glory &c. which accident rendred the Presbyterians very ridi∣culous to the old Protestants.

Fourthly, they proceeded further, and strook at the roote of the Christian faith, to witt the Apostles Creed, denying it to be Apostolicall: The contrairy whereof we was taught in our

yonger yeares, as was believed troughout the whole Christian world. And after they had thus denyed the letter, and authority of it, they proceeded next to corrupt the sense of that Ar∣ticle He descended into hell, as we shall see shor∣tly. Their inconstancy and changes may be in∣stanced, in diverse other points and practises, as in their taking the Communion sitting, and con∣demning kneeling as vnlawfull. Their deui∣ding of the bread among themselues, wherein they place no small purity of their religion, and not taking it out of the Ministers hand, as the custome was before. Their condemning pri∣vate Cōmunion and private Baptisme, although administrated vpon extream necessity; which I found to be pernicious errours, especially in so far, as concern's Baptisme. Their condemning as superstitious, the religious observation of Christmasse, and of all other festival dayes &c. All which are not only contrary to the doctrine of the most famous Protestant Churches abroad, but also were contrary to the doctrine, lawes & practises of this Church at home. By which inconstancy of the Ministers, and the alterations made by thē; the people was not only miserably tossed to and fro, and carried about with vio∣lent winds of new doctrines: but also they knew not what to believe, and almost loos'd all belief, since they saw, that many points, which they believ'd before, being taught them by their own Pastours, were now condemned by the same Pastours, who are very like vnto these whom the Apostle S. Iude calls wandering star∣res.

Hauing thought seriously vpon these things, I made this reflection with my self. How can this Scottish Church, which changeth like the Moone, and is as vnstedfast as the wind; be the true Church of Christ which must be firme and stedfast as a rocke? How can these Ministers, who drawes, yea driwes the people into such varieties of faith,* 1.12 be the true Apostles of Christ; seing they were established (as S. Paul testifies) to conserve the people into the Vnity of Faith? They must be false Pastours, who do tosse the people to and fro with the inconstant winds of their new doctrines: since true Pastours were ordain'd by Christ to keep the people into the constant profession of the old doctrin, which was once delivered, and generally professed throughout the world, and to preserve them from such tossings. As the scripture sheweth that inconstancy and lightnesse, belongs to false Teachers; so I found that the holy Fathers did observe it by experience.* 1.13 S. Ireneus saith: They delight to find out, every day some new thing. Let vs now see their inconstant doctrin. &c. But 5. Hiero. most pithily describs their humour. The feet (saith he) of those who erre,* 1.14 are alway's wave∣ring, neither are the footsteps sure, which are against the truth: but they run here and there, and are caried about with euery wind of new doctrin, whilst they passe from one falshood, into another falshood. Therefore seeing the great inconstan∣cy, and changes of the Scottish Church: I desi∣red to find out a more constant, and skifull Gui∣de to rely vpon, to lead me vnto the kingdome of heauen.

CHAP. III. Of the Ministers Dissensions and Divisions.

AS the Inconstancy of a Church in faith and doctrine, gives iust occasion to many, of doubting and stumbling at it's religion; so Dis∣sensions and Divisions, which necessarly flow from such Inconstancy, are no lesse, but rather more sensible evils, and gives greater and more vniuersal scandals. For there are many, who would take no notice of Inconstancy; and yet are awakned by the confusion, that ever at∣tends Dissension and Division.

It's evident by the light of reason, that no∣thing becomes more the house of God, then vnity and order: and that confusion and dissen∣sion, are only fitting for Babel, or the house of the Devil: and as Vnity tends to preservation, so Dissension hastens to destruction. Therefore our B. Saviour being to found his Church, which was to be a heavenly house vpon earth, of ad∣mirable order, and to stand for ever; did pray most earnestly for the Vnity of it,* 1.15 by which he knew it would be both beautifyed and conser∣ved. Yea, he sheweth, that by the admirable Vnity of his Church; the world showld know,* 1.16 that he was sent from heaven, and be made to believe in him. Therefore these Churches, which haue no Vnity, but are torne by Dissensions and Divisions: cannot be the true Church of Christ, neither can they long laste. As Vnity doth de∣signe,

beautifie, and conserve the true Church; so Dissension points out, deformes, and ever at lenth destroies all false Churches. Our Saviour saith;* 1.17 Every kingdome divided against it self, shall be made desolate. And S. Paul: If yow bite and eate one an other; take heede you be not consumed one of an other. And that this division and de∣struction befalls to all false Churches: Luther himself doth testifie. A kingdome, saith he divi∣ded in it self,* 1.18 cannot stand: neither did Heretiques at any tyme perish by force or art, but by their owne mutuall dissensions: neither doth Christ our Lord fight against them by other armes, then by sending among them the Spirit of giddinesse and dissension.

Now, what miserable dissensions have hap∣pened these yeares by past, into the Church of Scotland, by which it hath been much defor∣med, and a considerable part of it destroyed; are knowen far and neare, at home and abroad. For these dissentious haue been, for matter, manner, and the miserable effects that have flo∣wed from them, very remarkable. The matter of them concern'd no lesse points, then the Governement of the Church established by Christ, the authority of the Apostles Creed, the vse of the Sacraments, of private Baptisme and Communion, the vse of our Lords prayer, and of Glory to the Father, the keeping of holy dayes, and the rest of the articles of Perth, the Covenant it self, the Heade spring of all Dissen∣sions, and the authority of the Civil Magistrate &c. But the forme and manner of these dissen∣sions,

hath overcome the matter: for it hath been so great, and confus'd, that it turned the eyes of all the world, to looke vpon that strange and bloody Theater, which was thereby erected in great Britaine, and to take special notice of the diverse representations made vpon it. All hath been done on each side, that ton∣gues and hands could do, to defame and des∣troy one an other. Three famous Kingdomes have been thereby miserably embroyl'd, in shedding their owne blood, and brought to horrible confusion. And besids the alterations, that have happened in the State: these Dissen∣sions haue made great desolation and destru∣ction in the Church. For the Presbyterians, by their strong assaults, have destroyed the late English Episcopal Church, which was esteem'd so glorious: and the Independents againe, who sprung vp from the Presbyterians, have by their strong oppositions to Presbytery,* 1.19 much weakned it, and taken the power of stinging from that snake, as the Christian Moderatour calls it.

Moreover, the Presbyterians, so soone as they had perfected their work of destroying the Church of the old Protestants: fell presently into Dissensions among themselves, which were attēded by Divisiōs, whereby they are now cut into small pieces. The first Dissension appeared, when some of the most able Ministers among them, opposed the vnexpected reformation; that is, the abolishing of the hymne of Glory to the Father, and takeing away the vse of our

Lords prayer, and such other innovations: for which opposition, covered with other pretexts, these Ministers were deposed. Then, in the last Nationall Assembly, at S. Andrew's, in the yeare 1651. there appear'd a new sect, which, of Presbyterian Protestants, became Presbyte∣rian Protestatours; protesting against the Au∣thority of that assembly. This Protestation hath made great division amongst them; so, that the two factions will hardly sit together in Synods; but keeps their conventions a part. Diverse bit∣ter invectiues have past since that time, betwixt these two parties: but the Civil power is so strong, and provident, that it keeps them from biting one another. Now lately againe, new di∣visions have risen. For some of the chief Pro∣testatours, have abandonned altogether Pres∣byt'ry and Covenant, as humane inventions (although before, they preached and cryed them vp, as divine and cleare truths) and have rendered themselves Independents. And some of these, after a little pause in Independency, that they may attayne yet to a greater purity, which they imagin doth consist in going further from Popery, are become Anabaptists.

But among all these Changelings, there are two Ministers in the North most famous; be∣cause one of them was esteemed very learned, and both of them were very zealous Covenan∣ting Presbyterians, who by word and work, violently forced others to be like to themselves. They commonly styl'd the Independents, erro∣nious Sectarians, periur'd persons, and Cove∣nant-breakers.

Any word spokē against the Co∣venant or Presbytery, was called by them hor∣rible blasphemy. And yet, shortly after the In∣dependents became Maisters, they begun to extoll highly a new light, that had appeared vnto them; and on a suddaine they quitted both Covenant and Presbytery, as humane inven∣tions, and became Independents. This change so vnexpected, was the cause of much admira∣tion to many, and of many observations; but this, which I heard a friend make, before some company, seem'd to me most remarkable. Either (said he) these Ministers were ignorant, before their chāge, of the falshood, which they now ac∣knowledge in the Covenant and Presbytery; or they were not ignorant, but knew the falshood of thē? If they where ignorant: Then they were scarcely worthy to be Ministers, much lesse to be esteemed of so great learning, as one of them was reputed heretofore, and both are now de∣clared to be, by their new preferments to the highest places of dignity and learning, that can be had in a Colledge or an Vniversity. Were these men Maisters in Israel, and yet vere igno∣rant of a question, that had been so long in agi∣tation, for which there had been so much trouble and bloodshed? Did they not know so much; as what Governement Christ had established in his Church? If they were igno∣rant of the falshood, which they now acknow∣ledge to be in the Covenant and Presbytery: Then in the time of their ignorance, they could have no cleare and certaine knowledge of the

truth of them How then could they be so vn∣reasonable, as to preach and cry vp these shings as divin truths, and cleare engyring lights? Yea how could they be so vn-Christianly cruel, as to persecute and force others, making them swear these things to be divin truths, whereof them∣selves had no certaine knowledge, and which now they condemne as grosse falshoods, and humane inventions.* 1.20 Our Saviour saith: If the blind lead the blind: both shall fall into the ditch. These men did not only blindly lead, but they did also furiously drive, both the seeing and the blind into the dirch. If it be said that they were not ignorant: but knew well enough the fal∣shood of the Presbyterian Covenanting way, which they followed, and yeelded to the times, for some wordly respects: Then they fall into a worse inconveniency, then before. For by, that means, they would be guilty of most deepe and damnable hypocrisy; since they had not only professed and practized such things, as were directly against their owne conscience, but also fotced many others to doe the same, with oathes against their consciences. Thus he. For my part, I do not know, how to free these Ministers, of one of these imputations. And ma∣ny thinks it probable, that this new light would never have clear'd the eyes of their minds; if the light of some temporall interest had not first illuminated the eyes of their bodies.

Shortly after this separation, there arose scan∣dalous dissensions, betwixt an old Apostle of the Covenant, and one of these new Indepen∣dents;

who had agreed before like Simeon and Levi to do hurt. For neare the space of a yeare, their sermons, preached in the same Church, were nothing, but continual contradictions, rai∣lings and scoffings at one another. What was said by the one in thefore noone, was cōtrould out of the same pulpit, by the other in the after-noone. The Presbyterian did bend all his wits to prove, that Presbytery was iure diuino. And the new convert, would neither have it, to be good nor expedient iure humano. Yea sometymes they would choose the same text, and in the same Church, before the same Auditory; they would with contentious zeal deduce contradictory conclusions, As out of this text:* 1.21 Holynesse beco∣meth thy house, O Lord, the new Independent did amply inferre, that none ought to be acknow∣ledged members of the Church, except those, who were visible saints, And from the same text the old Presbyterian, did strive to shew, that, in the Church, there was both chaffe and wheate, the evill mixed with the good. Some of the people tooke great scandall, and others, especially the old Episcopal Protestants, made good sport of these dissensions. And although, by intercession of some friends, an agreement was made at last, betwixt these two Ministers, to make them abstaine from their publique, and scandalous contradictions; yet, that concord did not laste long, their inward fire did shortly burst forth. For one day, after Sermon, the In∣dependent inviting the people to his Commu∣nion. which he was to give the next Sunday:

he was publickly interrupted by the Presbyte∣rian, who accused him of Apostasy from the Covenant and Presbytery, and straitly charged the people to receive no Communion from him: And with this confusion the meeting en∣ded; but the Ministers bauling continued a space thereafter. The event did shew, that the Presbyterian got the better of this conflict: for the other did not appeare at the day appoynted, to give the Communion, as he had promised. Yet, the fulnesse of the Presbyterians victory was much diminished, by reason, the others place was supplyed by his Colleague, who besids others, had both the Presbyterians daughter and son-in-law for two of his Communicants.

I conceived, that all these dissensions and di∣visions did fall forth by Divin providence, to give people sufficient notice, that a Church of so great confusion, cannot be the true Church of Christ, which ought to be a house of great order and Vnity, and to shew, that these Ministers, who are the Rulers, or rather M s-rulers of such a confus'd Church, and who bragge so much of the Spirit, are not led by the Spirit of God, which is not contrary to himsef▪ but by the Spirit of errour and giddinesse. And although sometymes, the Ministers, to cover the vgly deformity and great scandals of all their dissensions, would pretend, that their diffe∣rences were not in fundamentall points; yet at other times their words did varie, and their actions contradicted ever their words. For they changed their tongue, as the diversity of ques∣tions

did trouble them; or the interest of their cause did presse them. When they were not vr∣ged with their dissensions; then, they cry'd vp Presbytery as the only scepter of Christ, the only governement of the Church iure divino, the only means to vphold Christs Kingdome, and to hold out the wild boare of Anti-Chris∣tianity. It's well knowen also, how necessary and fundamentall a point the Covenant was esteem'd; and how the Ministers put it, very neare, in ballance with the booke of life. But their actions did shew more sensibly, then their words, that they esteem'd their dissensions to be in substantiall and fundamentall matters. Or else they have been voyde, not only of Chri∣stian charity, but also of humane discretion. For how could they haue embroyl'd all these king∣domes, into so great confusion and bloodshed; for such matters, as themselves esteem'd only circumstantiall and not substantiall? How could they with any discretion, force these points of their now Reformation, which they thought only ceremoniall, and not substantiall, so furi∣ously and substantially vpon others?

But whither their differences were in fun∣damentals or not, for the Matter: It's euident, that they were substantiall and fundamentall for the manner, to the substantiall destruction of one and other, and almost to the funda∣mentall subversion of three kinhdomes. Yea I found, that the Presbyterians in Queen Eliza∣beth and King Iames time were more inge∣nuous, and confessed freely, that their differen∣ces

from the English Church, were in weighty and substantiall matters. For thus they speake in M. Rogers.* 1.22 The controuersy betwixt them and vs, is not (as the Bishops and their favourers would deceive the world) concerning Corner Capes, Surplices, &c. but of more weighty matters, as of the true Ministery, the Governement of the Church. And againe wee contend with the Forma∣lists, whither Iesus Christ ought to raigne. In this cause, we ought so to oppose Ever the Conformists: that if, we had as many lives as we have haires, we ought rather to loose them all, then to leave off our enterprise. Vpon the other part, the English Church, or the old Protestants do acknow∣ledge, that they differ Substantially from the Presbyterians.* 1.23 This Doctour Covel plainly protesteth, in all their names. Least any man, Saith he, should thinke our contentions [with Puritans) were in smaller points, and difference not great; each side hath charged one the other with heresies (if not infidelities) yea euen with such, as quite owerthrow the Principall foundation of our Christian faith. And albeit, they would not confesse their differences to be in fundamen∣talls; yet it is evident, they are so. For what is more fundamentall to a Church, then the Go∣uernement established by Christ? what is more fundamentall then the foundation of faith, to wit, the Apostles Creed? what more funda∣mentall, then the Sacraments of the Church and the Lords prayer? And in all these, they have Tragicall differences: besids, in many other points, no lesse substantiall, although not so

sensible; as in Predestination and Reprobation, Vniversall grace, whether God absolutly de∣cerns, or only permits sin, whether the Sacra∣ments confers grace; whither Christs body be really present in the Eucharist? Whither Christ redeem'd the world by shedding his blood and corporall death, or by suffering in his soule the paines of Hell? Whither man, after the fall, hath free will? and many more which may be seen collected in the Protestants Apology:* 1.24 in all which, the old Protestants and the Presbyte∣rians do teach, ooposite doctrines, and accuse others of grosse errours, and sometymes of blasphemies.

Having then diligently considered these things, I made this reflection with my self. How can this Scottish Church, which is like a Babel of confusion, be the true Church of Christ, which, for order and Vnity, ought to be like to the heauenly Ierusalem? How can that Church, which is the vnhappy roote of so much Dissension and Division, be the Church of Christ, which is no lesse the roote of Vnity, then it is the pillar and ground of verity? I see, that ever one sect begets an other, which not only divids, but strives also like vipers brood to destroy the former. Such confusion and Dissension becomes not the Church of Christ, but are more proper for the Synagogue of An∣ti-Christ. If the true Church may be knowen by her Vnity; then the false Church is no lesse but more easily discerned by its Dissension.* 1.25 Our Saviour saith of all false Prophets, who ap∣peares

at first in sheeps raiment: you shall know them by their fruits,* 1.26 and S. Augustin sheweth, that their fruits, are dissensions. We sought, saith he, among them the fruits of charity: and we find the thornes of Dissension. If therefore we observe our Saviours rule, and iudge the Ministers by their fruites, we will soone find them not to be true Prophets; and their Church, wherein their is such Dissension, not to be the true Church of Christ; but rather a Babel of confu∣sion. Therefore, I will endeavour, by Gods assi∣stance, to seek out a Church, which hath not on∣ly constancy, but also order and Vnity, that be∣comes the house of God.

CHAP. IV. Of the Presbyterians rigour, and Tyranny, over Protestants.

MERCY and truth do ordinarly goe to∣gether, and it's a great signe, that these haue no truth, who shew no mercy. Salomon giv's good advise to keepe both together: Let not mercy and truth,* 1.27 saith he, leave thee: put them about thy neck, and write them vpon the ta∣bles of thy heart. The Covenanters did not fol∣low this sound counsel, for albeit they profes∣s'd much truth and purity; yet they shew little Christian meeknesse and mercy: which made many, grossely to suspect, that they had no∣thing but a pretext of truth. They complain'd much of hard vsage vnder the Bishops, and

cry'd for compassion of tender consciences: And who would haue expected hard vsage from such men? Or, that they would have strain'd other mens consciences, who would not suffer their own to be touch'd? If they ould not at∣taine vnto some degree of Christian perfection, in meeknesse & mercy: they might at least have practised a moral vertue; Not to do that vnto others, which they would not wish to be done to themselv's.

At the beginning of the Covenant, in the yeare 1638. the Presbyterians appear'd first like lambs: for they vsed nothing but milde invita∣tions, and many plausible words, to induce men to renew (as they spoke) the National Covenant with God, the breach of which was the cause of all miseries, and the keeping of it would be the source of all happinesse. This was the only means to divert Gods imminent iudge∣ment, to conserve purity, and hold away Po∣pery. And according to this milde tenour, Com∣missioners and Ministers were sent to all parts of the Countrey, to draw the hearts and hands of all men to the Covenant. All this time, they profess'd, that they would vrge, or force no man, against his conscience: but shortly after, they had by these faire mean's, got their num∣ber and power encreas'd; they chang'd their tunes, they left off entreaties, and procceded to threatnings; and from these, they went to their Ecclesiastical Censures, to deprivation of Mi∣nisters, Excommunications, to plundering and sacking of mens houses, sequestrating their

estates, imprisoning their person's, and perse∣cuting all the old Protestants, whose conscien∣ces ty'd them to live conforme, to the law's of Church and state, not as yet abrogated. The Presbyterian Ministers tongues, were sharped like two edged swords, cutting in pieces all mens honour, reputation and honesty, who dissented from them, although never so inof∣fensively: And they never ceased by their con∣tinuall clamours, to whet the material sword against them. So that, albeit they begun with Iacobs voice; yet they ended with Esaus handes: They appear'd first like lambs; but their rave∣nous nature did soone shew, that they were only covered with lambs-skinnes.

1. Their spiritual Tyranny, over mens con∣sciences, was very great: for they were not con∣tent with Obedience to their doctrin and new orders, which, almost all Protestants would have given: retaining only an internall liberty, according to the light of their minds, not to condemne the former governement, doctrines & practises, as in themselv's vnlawful & against Gods word. But the Presbyterians requyred all men to sweare, that they thought & belie∣ued, Presbyterian doctrin and disciplin, to be only lawfull, according to Gods word, and the contrary, of Episcopacy; and the other points which they had condemned to be false and er∣ronious, which was to force men to sin, by ma∣king them not only do, but also sweare things, that were directly against the light of their consciences; which is the highest degree of

of soule Tyranny. Yea, the Presbyterians rigour and cruelty, was not only great, but also Vni∣versal: for none, of whatsoeuer condition or quality, could be free of it. Although at the be∣ginning, men were only admitted to subscribe the Covenant; yet shortly thereafter, the more zealous sisters obtain'd that fauour, and others, who were not seeking that curtesie, got it press'd vpon them. At lenth it came to children at schoole, to seruants, young maides, and all sort's of persons, without exception. And these, who could not write their owne names into the Covenant, behoved to do it by a publick Notary: so, that they would haue none to be left out of Gods Covenant, and the Covenant of grace, as they spoke. The Ministers, who did not conforme themselv's to these new or∣ders, were presently render'd odious by the name of Papists, and, by populare tumults rai∣s'd against them, were forced to leave the Countrey. And many others, who swore all that the Presbyterians could require; yet, be∣cause they did not seem to be zealous enough in the cause, were deposed; and they, with their wives aad children, exposed without com∣passion, to great want and misery. Then for the lay Protestants: these among them, who could not be drawen on, by the Ministers faire words, threatnings nor censures, were driven to obe∣dience by Ministerial Armies; which consisted, principally, at the beginning, of Highlanders, whom the old Protestants call'd Argyle Apo∣stles; who by their sakeing and burning of some

good houses, converted more to the Covenant, then the Ministers had done. For diverse per∣sons of quality were imprisoned and fyned, till affliction gave them vnderstanding, and made their wills plyable to accept and sweare the new Reformation: whose example many others followed.

Moreover, the Presbyterians press'd all Noblemen and Barons, to receive into their houses, Chaplaines of their choosing or appro∣ving; to say vnto them extemporary prayers. But one of their employments, and that not the least, was to observe, what they heard or saw, spoken or done, against Presbyt'ry, and the blissed work of reformation (as they call'd it) and to make a true relation of all their ob∣servations, to the Presbyt'ry; vpon which de∣pended their preferment to a Church. And, when any of these Chaplains seem'd not to be faithfull enough, in giving these relations; the Presbyt'ry would sometimes summon other ser¦vants, to depose vpon oath, what they knew spokē or done, in the family against Presbyt'∣ry: which, being rightly considered, was no small trouble to these persons, who could nor be free of Presbyterian Tyranny, within their owne private families; in many whereof, the Presbyterians would have rais'd vp more then one Iudas.

The rigour and Tyranny of Presbyterians, was not only spiritual over mens Consciences; but it was also Temporal over mens Estates and persons. For besids the grosses fines, which

they imposed vpon those, who could not get implicit faith soone enough, to heare & beleeve them; they made a general misery to overflow the whole Countrey, by their new inventions, to maintaine and advance their plots and desi∣gn's: as by their Leavie money, Lone money, Monthly maintenance, Blind bonds, and di∣verse others. Their Souldiours (who were or∣dinarly styled Saints,) were very vnruly, and insatiably avaritious; so that they proved sore Saints to many, whereof the North of England had some experience. Then the Presbyterians severity over all their Opposers became so well knowen; that none expected favour, who fell into there hands. The Ministers cry'd alway's for iustice, to divert from the land, (as they gave out) Gods iudgements. It would be te∣dious to relate all the particulars, that have past of their severity. That alone, which they vs'd against the Lord Montrose, and his fellow Cap∣tives, made their temper sufficiently knowen to all Europe. For although they coul'd not have been much blam'd, supposing their prin∣ciples, for removing out of the way, such an active enemy; yet, the manner of it shew too great passion and cruelty. Some respect might have been had to his ancient Nobility, to his personall Gallantry, and many worthy parts: but especially to his admirable Clemency sho∣w'd to his Enemies after many notable victo∣ries obtayn'd over them. But notwithstanding all these respects, when he fell into the Presby∣terians hands: they were not content to put

him symply to death, vnlesse they satisfyed their passion by putting disgraces vpon him. For they brought him vp the high street of Edim: borough, bound with ropes to a chaire in a Carte, bareheaded, the common Executio∣ner riding in livery, covered before him: which spectacle was so cruel and lamentable, that it wrested teares from many of his Enemies. This was the Triumphal Entrie, he got into that cittie, which was in his power, after the bat∣tall of Kilsyth, to have burn't and sack'd, but of his innate clemency did spare it. And within two or three dayes, after this solemne entrie, they caused him, not only to be hang'd; but also to be dismembred and quartered; ordaining his Head, Legges, and Armes to be affix't in the principal Townes of the Countrey, and the trunck of his body to be buryed vnder the common gallowes. And all this was done, by expresse order of the Presbyterians, who ex∣cluded all other, from having voices in Parlia∣ment. That scaffold, which was erected, at the crosse of Edimborough, for the execution of Montrose, did remaine vnremoved, about the space of two months, conrrarie to all former custome: vpon which, every week, the Pres∣byterians offered vp diverse sacrifices of gallant and worthy men: so, that it became a heape of blood; and therefore it was called by many of the people, The Ministers Altar: who [as they alleadged] delights not in vnbloody sa∣crifices. Yea, some of the, Ministers hatred a∣gainst Montrose was so great, that it did not

end with his death; but pursued his memory after death; calling him publickly, a periur'd Traytor, a Dogge, the Malignants God, with many such vncivil epithets. Then they bragged: who durst any more oppose them, or set their faces against them? That God had now own'd their cause, and had brought their greatest Enemy's to confusion; as they had often pro∣phecy'd, for which, ever thereafter, they ou∣ght to be beleev'd. But all the severity and ri∣gour, that had past, was nothing to that, which many wise men foresaw was approaching; if the reigne of Presbyt'ry had endured longer. Before Montrose death, the Presbyterians were not free of feares, and were not fully Masters: but shortly after getting home the King, whom they made to subscryb and swear their Cove∣nant and solemne League, and to confirme all their proceedings; they had higher design's. But, as the Christian Moderatour hath obser∣ved, their fall was nearer then they expected; and the hand of God stop't them in their full car∣riere: So, that they were not only rendered vnable to do more hurt, which they intended; but also, they were happily hind'red from do∣ing any more that, which they practised, at least in their accustomed rigour.

These obvious considerations made the ri∣gour and severity of Presbyt'ry, appeare to be very Tyrannous vnto me. For thereby I saw; that it was both Spiritual and Temporal, and extended to the Soules and Bodies, lives and Estates, yea, and to the very Memories of men,

after their death; and that for pretext of reli∣gion, to Protestants, whom sometimes they acknowledge to be of their owne religion. And therefore I made this reflection with my self. How can this Presbyterian Church have Christian truth and purity, since it's so voyd of Christian meeknesse & mercy? How can these Presbyterian Ministers be Christs true Disci∣ples,* 1.28 since they do not learne nor practise his lessons? Christ saith: learne of me for I am meek and humble of heart. They learne this lesson backward: for they shew no Meeknesse nor Humility, but rather the contrary, all Pride and cruelty. Our Saviour saith to his Disciples, Love your enemies.* 1.29 The Presbyterians hates and persecut's their friends, their owne Bre∣thren, Protestants. Truly, I cannot think there can be much truth among Presbyterians, where there is so little mercy. They would have done well, to have ioyn'd these two together, & vsed Salomons wise advise; Let not mercy and truth leave thee; and then perhaps they had found more credit.

CHAP. V. Of the Presbyterians contradicting their owne Principles.

TRVTH is alway's consonant to it self. Wise men do not fall into manifest contra∣dictions; and good men do not practise these things, which they blame and condemne in

others. Now, in many things, the Presbyte∣rians appear'd to me, to contradict their owne principles, ••oth in deeds and words; whereby they bewray'd the vanity of their faire pretexts; and shew, that some of their Principles were so false, that themselv's were forced, to goe often against them and controwle them.

1. This appeared in their pretext of tender Consciences, which truly I, and many others, beleeved they, for the most part, had: till they tooke the power of ruling, or rather do∣mineering over other mens Consciences. But, as it is in the proverbe, Magistratus indicat vi∣rum. Many seeme good, so long as they have no power to do evil. The Presbyterians tender∣nesse of conscience was most esteem'd, when it was least knowen: but, so soone as it was brought to the light, it lost more credit, then they acquyred power. When the prime Rin∣gleaders of this mad Presbyterian Dance, were vrged to conformity in the Bishops time. O then they cry'd vp their tender Consciences! They could not so much as cary a Cassocke, nor make a Sermon on Christmasse, in remem∣brance of Christs Nativity, nor Baptize a child privat'ly, although at the point of death; Their tender Consciences could not digest such hard meates: they would stand to the purity of their Reformation, which had abandonned all such Superstitions. But after they became Masters, they seem'd to swallow downe some more grosse morsels; and, for all the pretended puri∣ty of their first Reformation, they would yet

Reforme and purify it more. For then they di∣gested: the denying of the Apostles Creed, the abrogating the hymne of Glory to the Father, the forbearing of saying our Lords prayer (all which were practised by their first Reformers) besids the many terrible oaths of the Covenant, and their obedience sworne to their Supe∣riours, Civil and Ecclesiastical: all which and many more they swallowed downe, without the least trouble of their Consciences. Now, how can such men be iustly thought to have tender Consciences, who started so at straw's, and leap't over Mountains? who are like those, of whom our Saviour saith:* 1.30 They straine a gnat and swallow a Camel.

2. As they pretended much tendernesse of Conscience, in time of their Subiection; so they cry'd then much for Compassion, which al∣most they all found. For it cannot be denyed, that the Scottish Bishops vsed no great severity against them: but gave, to those who were in pos¦session of Churches, and to all Laiques wharsoe∣ver, full power of enioying both internal & ex∣ternall inoffensive liberty of their Consciences. But so soone, as the Presbyterians had vnhorsed the Bishops, and got vpon their Saddle; they rul'd the raines, and vs'd their Spurres in a more Cavalier-like manner. Let men cry never so much Mercy and Compassion: the Presbyte∣rians would shew none. Neither would simple Obedience content them: Oaths were also re∣quired, not only to make men obey, but to swear themselv's out of their Consciences. Ap∣parantly

the Presbyterians thought, no others, besids themselvs, had Conscience; which is no smal signe, that they had not much: but whi∣ther they had, or had not; it was evident, they had no compassion. The old Protestants were long vnder the Presbyterian rod: and it was preparing also for the Independents, Ana∣baptists, and other new sorts of Protestants, who are permitted to serve God in their owne Gospel way. The rod had some mercy, for it happily broke in the Presbyterians hand, which had none. In this, the Presbyterians caried themselves very irrationally, that in their Sub∣iection, they would have, and found also com∣passion from others: but, in their Exaltation, they would shew no Compassion to them.

3. They inveighed most sharply against the Bishops, for medling in Civil and State affaires, as vnbeseeming Ecclesiastical persons: and yet the Presbyterian Ministers did meddle much more in them, then ever the Bishops had done: but with this difference; that, the Bishops, as Lords of Councel and Parliament, had the freedom of their voices with the rest, but could not carrie any businesse; vnlesse the con∣sent of the Temporal Estate did concurre with them: neither could they hinder any affaire, which the most voices caried. The Presbyte∣rian Ministers, did not indeed sit in Councel or Parliament; but they sat in another Iudica∣tory, which made it self Superiour to both, and drew all weighty affaires to it's cogni∣zance For although the Councel or Parliament

concluded any thing in state affaires; it was not to be obeyed, vnlesse the Presbyterian Commission of the Church had given consent, without danger of their thundering cen∣sures: as was evident in the matter of the Inga∣gement, after the bad successe whereof, they entered into peaceable possession of Superiori∣ty, both over Covncel and Parliament. For all things were sent to the Commission of the Church, with submission to their Approbation or Reprobation. By them, the Malignants were purged out of the Army of the Saints: and, when that Army had bad successe at Dumbar, they were againe by them admitted. which bred a great rent among the Ministers, for being so inconstant in their principles.

4. They accused the Bishops of Tyranny, and domineering over the Lords Inheritance; and yet themselves became more guilty of these vi∣ces: as may appeare to any man, who will com∣pare together their deportments. Yea such a huge difference will be seen, that the Bishops fault, in regard of theirs, will appear but like a Mote to a Mountaine. The Bishops, in the space of 40. yeares, scarcely deposed foure Ministers; and that, not for following inoffen∣sively the liberty of their Consciences: but for their inordinate zeal and bitter invectives. The Presbyterians, in lesse then the fourth part of that time, have deposed some hundreds, many of which had never spoken against them. Then, the Bishops troubled no Laicks, carying them∣selves peaceably; neither did they impose any

oaths vpon them: but the Presbyterians trou∣bled all conditions and qualities, in a most ri∣gourous manner, with fearfull oaths; which to many, as being against their Consciences, were flat periuries.

5. If we reflect a little vpon Pride, which the Presbyterians did so much condemn in the Bishops: and iudge by the effects, since God alone knowes the hearts: the Presbyterians seem's to have out strip't the Prelats, both in words and Actions. For it hath appeared, as an inseparable property, in the Ministers of the Presbytery, especially of the rightest stamp, and deepest graine; to make their owne will, not only a rule for themseves; but also a law to others, and that without Controll: which is the highest point of pride. Their proud contem∣ning words, vttered publlckly agrinst persons of greatest quality, are well enough-knowen: because they are yet fresh in mens memories. Their proud cariage, may be knowen by this alone, that they made the greatest Noblemen of the Kingdome, not only do publick pennance in Sackcloth, before the people, in the Church, for their opposing the orders of Presbytery: but also they behooved to Petition in that hairie-gowne, five or six Ministers sitting in the Pres∣bytery, and so often as they were called, so often they were to appeare, before that high Iudicatory, in their Penitential habit. And thus after a great deal of ceremony (as if it had been a great curtesie) they would at lenth be admitted, to take the Covenant, and with

most terrible oaths, and holding vp of hands, permitted to swear obedience vnto the Pres∣bytery. And although, all this odedience, was knowen to many, and to the Ministers them∣selves, to be more external then internal, more for worldly then spiritual ends, to be free of the Presbytery's vexations; yet the Ministers stood not so much for the heart: they were sa∣tisfyed, if this external adoration was giuen by men of greatest quality, vnto their Soveraigne Tribunal. For then they bragged, that none thereafter durst stand out any more against them. The Cedars were made to bow: and the Shrubs might be affray'd to be brokē. An Officer of the English Army observed some traces of this pride, to be yet remaining, even in the Presbyteries subiection. For, in a letter dated from Edinburgh, in Februarie 1651. and cited in the Christian Moderatour, he writ's thus to a friend.* 1.31 Yow would wonder to observe the strange Pride and proceedings of the kirk-Clergy &c. And in an other letter dated in April. 1652. he makes this observation. Beleeve it, all our other Enemies are tame heasts to the high Pres∣byter, and yet with the winding and turning of a religious pretence, and an artificial zeal against heresie, he will like a tame snake (if not warily avoyded) get into your bosome If this ingenious Officer observ'd so much, when he saw Pres∣byt'ry in its Declination; what would he have observ'd and said, if he had seen it, in the hight of it's Elevation? I have knowen some Mode∣rat Presbyterian Ministers wish, that the Pres∣bytery

had not caried thinge, with such extre∣mity of rigour, and so high a hand. For indeed it was not convenient, that these, who con∣demned Pride in others, should exercise much more themselves.

6. They professe, that every particular Church is fallible, and so consequently their owne; as their frequent changes, and manifest experience do shew. Therefore I iudged they did very inconsequentially, in exacting so rigo∣rously an vndeniable obedience, with oaths, to a fallible, and perhaps an actually erring Church: with which, yow must wheele about againe, when it wheels; and turn with it, as a Weather-Cocke, with the wind. Yow must swear, this yeare, that to be true, which per∣adventure, the next yeare, the same Exactours, vpon pretence of new lights, will have yow swear to be false.

7. They inveigh often against implicit faith, as Popish and Anti-Christian: and yet them∣selues practise it, in a most grosse manner, and very inconsequentially. That they practise it, is manifest. For, who among the people, hath expresse knowledge of all points of the Cove∣nant, and of their new Confession? And yet, they are made to abiure all the points of the one, and to believe all the articles of the other. Yea, it's knowen by experience, that few of the Ministers themselves, know all the points abiured in the Covenant: as opus operatum, Stations and the like: and yet all are abiured. Therefore they practise in deeds, what they re∣nounce

in words; and they do the same thing, which they iudge and condemn in others. Yea, it is considerable, that they do not only goe against their principle: but also they abuse im∣plicit faith, in such a grosse and irrational man∣ner, as cannot be imputed vnto the Roman Ca∣tholiques. For these, beleeving explicity their Church to be infallible, and to be continually assisted by the holy Ghost, conforme to this principle, do most rationally, to believe impli∣citly all points, which the same Church tea∣ches and believes; iust as a Protestant, belie∣ving explicity the Scripture to be Gods word, although he doth not know expresly all the sentences and verses in it, yet, with great reason, he believeth implicity all to be true and reveal'd by God, which is contayn'd in it. But, the Presbyterian Church being fallible, and professing it self to be so; requires very ir∣rationally an implicit faith to all her doctrine, whereof a man can prudently believe no more; then he sees and knowes. Moreover, the Pres∣byterians haue fallen into a third more grosse and inconsequentiall errour, concerning this implicit faith. Fore they haue forced many, not only to swear and subscrive such things, whe∣reof they were ignorant; but also such things, which the Presbyterians themselves knew to be against the expresse knowledge, and Con∣sciences of the Swearers and Subscrybers: which, is to force men to sin: as is evident out of the 14. to the Romans. This is a rare kinde of implicit faith, which can consist with explicit

beleef of the contrary. I heard from a person worthy of Credit, that, when this inconve∣nience was proposed to a prime Apostle of the Covenant; how many were driwen to periury, by swearing against their Consciences; he ans∣wered. That it was all one to him, let them looke to it. And, vpon an other occasion, he said to a Roman Catholique, (who after great trouble, offered at lenth to take the Covenant) If thou be not sincere, I shall make thee damn thy owne soule.

8. They appeared also vnto me, to goe clearly against an other Principle of theirs, to witt: That the Scripture is the only Iudge of Con∣troversy. And yet the Presbytery did make it self only Iudge. And after it pronounced sentence, all were obliged, yea and forced to give obe∣dience, albeit many could not find their Do∣ctrinal Decisions in the Scriptures. But I found, that the simple truth was; they gave the Scrip∣ture the only name of a Iudge, and keep't all power of Iudging to themselves: iust as they did with the King, to whom they gave a bare em∣pty title, but keep't to themselves the reall pos∣session and exercise of all Royall power and au∣thority.

Lastly, they seem'd to overshoote themsel∣ves very much, when, not long before the bat∣tel of Dumbar, they made their solemn Ap∣peale to God, for decyding the iustnesse of ei∣ther cause, by the victory, that was to ensue, whereof they thought themselves very cer∣taine, as indeed they had great probability.

The English Army, (notwithstanding many disavantages wherewith they were prest) ac∣cepts the Appeale, and makes also their recour∣se to God, after the same manner. And at lenth, the question being decyded in favour of the English; when the most Eminent person of that Army put the Ministers in mind, of their Solemn Appeale, and how God had pronoun∣ced sentence against them: he received this ans∣wer. You must not Iudge the goodnesse of a cause by the event. Which words vere very inconsequen∣tiall to their Appeale: and in which absurdity they had not fallen, if the victory had be fallen to them. Many Ministers, since that time, have blam'd the rashnesse of that Appeale; as being grounded more vpon humane confidence, then any Divin assurance.

By these considerations, I discovered clearly, the vanity of the Presbyterians many faire pre∣tences; and how their deeds contradicted their words; how themselves did the same things, which they condemned in others; and how their Principles were so false, that themselves behooved to controull them. They pretended great tendernesse of Consciences, when they were Servants, but shew strong Consciences, when they were Masters. They cry'd much for compassion in their subiection: but would shew none in their Exaltation. They condem∣n'd the Bishops for medling in Civil affaires: and yet their Ministers did rule the affaires of State. They accused others of pride and Tyranny: and yet their owne little fingers have been more

heavy, then the others loines: and they have shewed more pride and contempt of others, in one yeare, then these, whom they accuse, had done, in forty. They professe themselves to be fallible in faith, and yet they will be infalli∣bly believed, and vndeniably obeyed. They renounce implicit faith: and yet they practise it, and, in a most grosse and vnreasonable sense, exacts it. They pretend the Scripture to be the only Iudge of Controversies: and yet they will take all power of Iudging to themselves. They will be esteem'd true Prophets, when they guesse right: and they will not have themsel∣ves thought false Prophets, when they divin wrong. They would have their cause esteem'd good for it's prosperity: and they will not have it thought evil when it fall's into adversity. In a word, their doctrin's and practises were so full of contradictions, that I found many of them, not only to be humane, but also false in∣ventions: which may be showen in diverse o∣ther particulars: but these for our intention are sufficient, to shew that I could not prudently believe them, much lesse could I hazard my Salvation vpon them.

CHAP. VI. Of the Presbyterians Disobedience to the Civil Magistrate; and of their pretext of Piety

GOOD Christians are alway's good Sub∣iects: and these who are true to God, are ever true to men. As they render vnto God, what is Gods: so they give vnto Caesar, what is Caesars. Vpon the other part, these, who are false to men, can never be true to God: and they, who are disobedient to their earthly Su∣periours, can never be obedient to their hea∣venly Soveraigne. When the lawes of men are against the law of God, then it's better to obey God then man: but when there is no such op∣position: then the law of God obligeth vs to obedience and subiection. S. Paul doth earnestly exhort all Christians to this duty, when he saith:* 1.32 Let every soule be subiect to higher Powers, for there is no power, but of God; And those, that are, of God, are ordained. Therefore he, that re∣sisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they, that resist, purchasse to themselves damnation. S. Peter also maketh the like ex∣hortation 1. Pet. 2.13. and 17.

How the Presbyterians have caried them∣selves, in the duty of Subiects to the Civil Ma∣gistrate and to their other Superiours, is so ge∣nerally knowen, and so fresh in all mens me∣mories,

that it needs not be described, nor am∣plifyed. The very naming of a Presbyterian, is sufficient now to raise in mens minds, the true notiō of one, who will obstinatly deny obediēce to those, to whom he oweth it; and will rigo∣rously exact obedience from those, who owes him none. Indeed, if the Presbyterians owne words be taken, they will be esteem'd not on∣ly Saints, but also most loyall and obedient subiects; for so often they have tearm'd them∣selves. But their actions alwayes bewrayes their words.* 1.33 They professe in their new Confession of faith: that no difference of religion, yea infide∣lity it self cannot take away the Civil Magistrats iust right, nor his peoples obedience and duty to him. And yet in their practise, they would not ad∣mit the King, till he swore and subscribed their Covenant and solemn League; which many thought were very bitter potions, that went much against his stomacke. Many other instan∣ces may be brought, of their inordinat cariage to their Superiours, and others, by which they rais'd both scandal and preiudice, against their religion: for people, seeing them to be evil Subiects, and worse Masters, could not think them to be good Christians: but I for∣beare, not being willing to rip vp too much their sores, wishing rather, that all their bypast miscariages may be forgot and buried, by their calme cariage and dutifull obedience, in time to come. But apparantly, some in present power have no great hopes of much voluntarie amend∣ment in them, vnlesse the rod of disciplin be

still kept over their heads: for an eminent En∣glish Officer, in his printed letter above cited, speaking of the Presbyterians,* 1.34 saith: If they be not closely look'd vnto, they will set all on fire a∣gaine.

Then, for their pretext of piety, I observed great shew, but no substance; some floorishes, but small fruits; huge pretexts, but no perfor∣mances. We had indeed much preaching, pra∣ying, fasting, and such like exercises. But what were their long preachings? Nothing but con∣tinual praises of the Covenant, the Solemn Lea∣gue, and Presbytery, which they cryed vp to the heavens, and omitted (as our Saviour ob∣served of the Pharisees) the weighty matters of Gods law:* 1.35 as Iudgement, mercy, and faith. Yea their sermons were replenished, with constant and most bitter railings against their Opposers; and all those, who did not favour their cause: by which means, they armed the people with fury, to aduance the Covenant and Presbytery. What were their fasts: But humi∣liations, as the Prophet Esay saith, for strife & de∣bate,* 1.36 and to sinne with the fist of wikednesse? God faith to the Iewes. Is not this the fast, that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickednesse, to vndo the heavie burden, and to let the oppressed go free, & that ye break every yoke? But the fasts, which the Presbyterians have choosed, were contra∣ry: for their fasts were to tie more firmely their Covenant, which hath proved a band of wic∣kednesse: to lay heavier burdens vpon the

peoples Consciences; to oppresse these, who were free; and to augment their yokes, by in∣venting many new oaths, to the oppression of many soules. It was much observed, that shor∣tly after their solemne fasts, we were alwayes sure of some great claps. The fast was ordinarly a preparation to some violence, or evil worke, that was intended. This made many vnderstand, what Queen Marie Stuart mean't by that fa∣mous saying. That she was as much affrayed of a Fast of the Ministers, as of an Armie of Souldiours: for experience taught her, that these fasts, were sure prognostikcs of ensuing tempests. Their long prayers also, which were often seasoned with Tautologies, and somtimes with no good sense, did not prove them to be Saints, more thē the like did sanctify the Pharisees. They brag∣ged much of the Spirit, but shew no fruits of the Spirit: if these be the fruits, which S. Paul reckons out to the Gallatians?* 1.37 The fruit of the Spirit, saith he, is Love, ioy, peace, long-suffering gentlnesse goodnesse, faith, meeknesse &c. They rather shew and perform'd the works of the flesh, which the same Apostle doth there re∣count. The works of the flesh are manifest,* 1.38 which are, fornication &c. hatred, variance, emulation, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, mur∣ders, &c. If they lived in the Spirit, then they should have walked in the Spirit, as the same Apostle exhort's: and so, they would have been better beleeved.

In a word: if piety consists in many externall sighes and grones, in long prayer and graces, in

wringing of hands & making of strange faces, in turning of the eyes, and in dolefull houlings and cryes, which were commonly called the Sough; If piety, I say, consists in such things, we had abondance of it: but, if it require some greater perfections and better fruits: Then we were very scarce of it. Indeed, if we would heare and believe these Presbyterian Ministers, we were the happiest people of the world: for they said, we only of all Nations had the ho∣nour, to be Covenanters with God; we had the truth of the Gospell in greater purity then Ge∣neva it self. We had such a clear and engyring light, that the like had not shin'd to any other nation, since the time of the Apostles. Yea one, who is esteem'd a principal Apostle among them, did not sticke to affirme in the pulpit, amidst the manyfold Confusions, troubles and miseries, which had fallen vpon this Church & Nation: That the Angels and Saints of heaven, if they could leave the sight of God, would be glad to come down, and see the admirable order and beau∣tie of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland Nei∣ther is this, to be much wonder'd at; for it's probable he spoke as he thought, and as the proverbe is. The Crow thinks ever her owne bird fairest. And every foole esteem's much his owne Ba∣bel. But many indifferent men thought, that he was one of those, of whom S. Paul speaks to the Philippians;* 1.39 Enemies of the Crosse of Christ; and whose glory is in their Confusion.

These practises, at least a great part of them, were the occasion of my first doubting that the

Presbyterian Church, could not be the true Church of Christ. For by the Prebyterians changes and inconstancy in doctrin, I saw evi∣dently they were not govern'd by the Spirit of truth, which Christ promised to his Church; but by the Spirit of errour, whic is alwaies va∣rious.

By their great Dissensions and Divisions, I perceived they had no vnity, as becometh the house of God: but were a confus'd Chaos, as many heads, so many different opinions; and that it was not truth nor authority, that pre∣vail'd in their meetings; but the vsurpation of some few Ringleaders, who owerawed the rest and made them succumb. Yea, I saw that inconstancy in doctrin flowes naturally from their principles: and that their inconstant Church doth necessarly breed dissensions; but hath no means to lay them, nor take them away.

By their cruell severity over mens Conscien•• and persons, &c. I saw they had little Christian Love and meeknesse, which vertues Christ had recommended so earnestly to his true disciples, by which he said the world should know them.

By their clear contradicting their owne principles, I perceived, they were not men led by reason; but miscaried by passion and incon∣siderat zeal, which made them fall into incon∣sequentiall discourses, not worthy of men of prudence; and by which, themselves shew the falshood of their owne principles.

By doing their duty so ill to man; I saw evi∣denty

they perform'd not well their duty to God: by their violent disobedience to their Earthly Superiours, I knew they could not be humbly obedient to their heavenly Soveraigne: By their great pretext of pietie, without any substance; and by their bragg's of the Spirit, without any fruites of the Spirit, but rather with the works of the flesh; I perceiv'd, they were both corrupt in faith and manners. And albeit, some of the more simple had great zeal, and no evill intentions; yet others of a higher or be, who moved the rest, gave no small ground to make many suspect, that they were not sincere Christians.

Although, all that hath been already said, (which are not old nor hidden stories, but such things as were done in our owne times, and obvious to our senses) did shew vnto me suf∣ficiently, the vnreasonablenesse of the new Pres∣byterian Reformation: yet, for my further sa∣tisfaction, and least I might be deceived, I re∣solved to try diligently and impartially, the grounds of these new changes and alterations; and to vse the Apostle S. Iohns counsel to prove the Spirits. My deerest, saith he, believe not every Spirit,* 1.40 but prove the Spirits, if they be of God: for many false Prophets are gone out into the world. Now the triall, which I intended, was to trie their doctrin, by the pure word of God, which these Reformers gave out to be their only ground. When the Scripture was ex∣presse and clear, then I was resolved to be fully satisfyed: but when the Scripture was not

evident, and the question di•• not so much concern the scripture, as the true sense of it; then I intended to follow the interpretation & sense of the holy and learned primitive Fathers: who have been, after the holy Apostles, the Pillars and Propagators of Christianity: and I resolved to prefer their constant testimonies, according to the practice of the primitive Church, to the inconstant guesses of new vp∣starts, according to the practice of their wave∣ring Church, who are as far inferiour to the holy Fathers in Holynesse and Learning; as they come short of them in Antiquitie and Re∣nowne. And with this resolution; I began to examin the question of Epicopacy, which gave so great occasion to all the broiles and altera∣tions, that have ensued.

CHAP. VII. Of Episcopacy, condemned as Anti-Christian by the Presbyterians.

AS I knew the Church of Christ, which is often called in the Scripture, the kingdome of heaven, to be the most excellent Society, that ever was vpon earth, to tend to a most Spiritual and heavenly end, and to be direc∣ted by most holy and divine lawes: So I iustly conceived, that the goodnesse and wisdome of Christ, had established a most excellent order and forme, for the governement of that hea∣venly

kingdome, which he had founded vpon earth: and that, whosoever would strive to overturne that order and government, would be guilty of Spiritual Treason, and of Sacrile∣gious Presumption. We have had, for many yeares, furious contentions, in our Nation, concerning the governement established by Christ in his Church. The Bishops, who had governed from our infancy, were deposed, at the beginning of the troubles; and their office was declared to be contrary vnto the purity of our first Reformation, to have no warrant in Gods word, and to be in it self vnlawfull and Anti-Christian. And, in place of Episcopacy, was brought in a parity of Ministers, and the Presbyterian disciplin; as the only governement established by Christ in his Church, and only conform to his word &c. But after due triall, I found the Presbyterians, in all these matters, to come very short of their pretences.

To begin then with our Reformation. I imagined, a good space, that Episcopal gover∣nement was not vsed, till many yeares after the Reformation: wherein I was deceived by two reasons: 1. because it was generally affir∣med, that King Iames brought first in Bishops, at the Assembly of Glasgow, anno 1606. 2. Be∣cause the Puritanicall Ministers were accusto∣med, to accuse the Church of Scotland, for having fallen from her first love and they al∣wayes pretended, that they were to reduce all things, vnto the purity of their first Reforma∣tion. But I found the contrary in their owne

Records. For M. Knox his Chronicle sheweth, that, at the beginning of his Reformation, which happened in the yeare 1559. the Church newly planted, was governed by Super-inten∣dents, who had authority over whole Shires, could ordaine and depose Ministers, had a lar∣ger stipend then others, and kept their places all their lifetimes. It expresseth also the manner of their election, and the names of those, who were first chosen, with the bounds of their po∣wer and iurisdiction, as may be seen, in the said Chronicle pag. 253. 284. and 325. of the Lon∣don impression. And what is this, but Episco∣pal power vnder an other name? This gover∣nement remain'd vnquestioned, the space of 16. yeares, till M. Andrew Melvil, a man of a firie and Presbyterian Spirit, comming from Geneva, in the yeaere 1575. began to make factions, and by all means laboured to intro∣duce the holy Geneva disciplin, which he cry'd vp to the heavens, and as far abased the Episco∣pal function, as a meere Anti-Christian corrup∣tion. The whole matter is largely described,* 1.41 in the late Bishop of S. Andrewes history: where he sheweth, that the confusion, troubles and ty∣ranny, which the Presbyterian governement brought into the Church, and the Seditions it raised in the State, were so great; that K. Ia∣mes, (who had often that sentence in his mouth: No Bishop, No King) was forced, to reduce things vnto the first Reformation, and to restore Episcopacy. So that it's very evident, that the Presbyterians do falsly pretend, that

Episcopacy or Superiority of Pastors, is against the purity of their first Reformation, and that parity of Ministers, or Presbyterian governe∣ment is conform to it: the contrary being most certaine, out of their owne Records.

Next, I found they came as little speed of their pretence, of the word of God, which is so far from condemning Episcopacy, as evil and Anti-Christian; that it rather commends it, as good and Christian.* 1.42 S Paul, writing to Timo∣thee saith: This is a true (or faithfull) saying. If a man desire a Bishops office, he desireth a good worke. And that we may not contend about na∣mes, I find the same S. Paul acknowledging, in Timothee, the power of iudging and or∣daining Presbyters, in which the power and Svperiority of Bishops principally consists. For in the 5. chap. of the same epistle, he saith; A∣gainst a Presbyter, receive not an accusation, but vnder two or three witnesses. And ver. 22. Lay not thy hands suddenly on no man. He sheweth also, that he had left Titus, in the isle of Crete, to ordaine Priests by cities.* 1.43 By this, I saw (as I con∣ceived) clearly enough, that all Pastors are not equall, but some are Superiour to others: and that a Bishop and a Minister is not the same, as the Presbyterians do pretend, since the one hath power to iudge and ordaine, which the other hath not. Therevpon, I made this obser∣vation. If it be a true or faithfull saying (as the Apostle speaks) to call the office of Bishop good; Then it is neither a true nor faithfull saying to call it evil, as the Presbyterians speaks. If the

office of Bishop be a good worke then it was no good worke in the Presbyterians to con∣demn it, as Anti-Christian. For that is not only to contradict the Scripture, but also to incurre the curse threatned by the Prophet.* 1.44 Wo vnto them who call's evil good, and good evil.

More over Christ himself did institute di∣verse degrees of Pastors in his Church, when he choosed 12. Apostles,* 1.45 and thereafter 72. Dis∣ciples. Now it appear'd very evident vnto me, that, as the Apostles were distinguished from the Disciples, by their diverse institution,* 1.46 number, and more intire familiarity with Christ, by whom they were privily instructed; so they were in a higher degree and dignity, above the other Disciples: which truth is much illustrated and confirmed by the solemn as∣sumption of Matthias, who was before one of the Disciples, vnto the Apostle ship,* 1.47 or as S. Peter sheweth, out of the Psalmes, the Bisho∣prike of Iudas. Lastly, God did institute, in the old Testament, diverse degrees of the high Priests, the other Priests and Levits, as Calvin himself confesseth. Therefore it seem'd vnto me, there was no repugnancy,* 1.48 why the like goodly Order and Subordination of Pastors, might not also be, in the new Testament: yea rather all reason doth require, that these things ought to be, in the Church of Christ; and that more excellently and perfectly; then in the Sy∣nagogue of the Iewes, since this is but a shad∣dow and type of the other.

But although the Scriptures, being duely

considered, seemed clear enough, in this mat∣ter; yet for more security, and to take away endlesse ianglings, and wranglings, which some contentious heads, makes vpon the clea∣rest words of Scripture: I had my next re∣cours vnto the interpretation of the holy Fa∣thers, & practise of the Primitive Church. And I found, that they did not only vnderstand the Scriptures, for the Superiority of Bishops over other Pastours: but also, they condemned the contrary opinion, as a wicked heresy in Aerius. S. Augustin,* 1.49 explaining these words of S. Paul above cited, who desireth a Bishops Office, desi∣reth a good worke. saith: the Apostle would shew, what the Office of a Bishop is: for it's a name of of labour, and not of honour: that he may know himself not to be a Bishop, Who delights to preside & not to profite.* 1.50 S. Hierom sheweth, that, in the primitive Church, the Office of a Bishop was the next degree to Martyrdome: for Bishops being the chiefe Leaders of Christians, were most diligently searched out & persecuted by the Pagans. Therefore the Office of a Bishop being so high and excellent, so hard & dange∣rous, it was no wonder, that the Apostle did require, so many excellent vertues and quali∣ties in any,* 1.51 who desireth that office, which he call's a good worke. I will only adde to these, two most ancient Fathers, for confirmation of this truth. S. Denys Arcopagita the disciple of S. Paul, describing the Hierarchy, instituted by God, in the Church; putteth the Bishops, in the first place, the Priests in the second, and the

Ministers or Deacons in the third. And S. Igna∣tius the disciple also of the Apostles and Bishop of Antioch, doth shew this excellent subordi∣nation of Pastours, in the Church: for thus he writes in one of his epistles. Priests be subiect vn∣to your Bishop: Deacons, vnto Priests:* 1.52 and you people, vnto Priests and Deacons. Who shall ob∣serve this comelinesse of Order: I would willingly change my Soule with theirs; and our Lord be with them for ever. The Presbyterians have not only, not observed that comelinesse of Order; but they have condemn'd it, and brought in the vglinesse of confusion and therefore, they want this holy Martyrs benediction. The holy Fathers also do constantly teach, that the Bis∣hops do succeed vnto the Apostles, and the Priests vnto the 70. Disciples: and therefore the Bishops: are greater, then the Priests. Yea the most eminent among all the holy Fathers, were Bishops although diverse of them, were advanced to that dignity, much against their will. And besids all these testimonies, I found the practice of the whole primitive Church, which was alwayes governed by B shops, from the beginning. I must professe that considering all these things, I was fully satisfyed, and resolved not to abandon all these authorities, of Scriptures, Fathers, and the whole ancient Church, for the Ministers strong cry's and bare words, which they only bring against them all.

I was much confirmed in this resolution, when I found the contrary opinion, concerning

parity of Pastours, which is now maintayn'd by the Presbyterians, to be condemned, as an an∣cient heresy, by the holy Fathers. S. Epipha∣nius writes thus of Aerius. His speech was more furious, then became any man: for he said what differs a Bishop from a Priest? there is no difference: the order is one, the honour one, and the dignity is the same. And confuting it a little after,* 1.53 he saith: That this matter is full of fully, is manifest to all wise men. For that a Bishop and a Priest are not the same, the divine word of the Apostle doth teach. And after he hath proved, from the words of the Apostle above cited, that Bishops, who have power of Iudgeing Priests, are above Priests: then he proves also the Bishops Superiority, by their power of Ordination. How is it possible, saith he, that a Bishop and a Priest can be equall? For that Order begetteth Fathers vnto the Church: but the other hath no power to beget Fathers, it only begets Chil∣dren vnto the Church, by the lauer of regenera∣tion, and not Fathers and Masters. And how is it possible, that one can ordaine a Priest: who hath got no imposition of hands,* 1.54 for Ordination? S. Au∣gustin also reckons vp this errour of Aerius, in his booke of heresies. Yea S. Hierom, who, of all the holy Fathers, doth most extoll the or∣der of Priestood, and brings it (as would seem) in some comparison, with Episcopacy, excepts alwayes the power of Ordination: for thus he writes.* 1.55 What doth a Bishop, except Ordination, that a Priest doth not also? By all which, it is ma∣nifest, that, if the Presbyterians had been li∣ving

above tuelve hundred yeares ago, they had been condemned, in this point, as Heretiques, by the holy Fathers; and that with more rea∣son, then the Aerians: who never proceeded to their hight of arrogance, to call the Office of Bishop, vnlawfull and Anti-Christian.

Now against all this, what brings the Pres∣byterians for themselves? pure Scripture; at least they pretend so: which is an ordinary cus∣tome to all those, whose errours are most a∣gainst Scripture. They bring ordinarly two places, wherein they have greatest confidence. The first is Math. 20.26: where our Saviour saith vnto the Apostles. You know that the Princes of the Gentiles overrule them: and they that are the greater, exercise, power against them. It shall not be so among you, &c. The like words are repea∣ted, the 22. of S. Luke. v. 24. The second place is 1. Tim. 4. v. 14. where the Apostle saith to Timothee: Neglect not the grace, that is in thee, which is given thee, by prophecie, with imposition of the hands, of the Presbyterie, or of the Elder∣ship: as some of their bibles translates it.

I considered diligently these places, and the rest which they bring, and I could not find, in any of them, either Superiority of Pastours condemned, nor Equality approved, much lesse a Iudicatorie of 9. or 10. Ministers, with a changeable Moderator, established to Iudge over their brethren, in all matters Ecclesiasticall. There needs no more, to know the truth here, but to open our ey's and read the places: for impudence it self cannot affirme, that the

Scripture doth there expresly condemn the one, or approve the other. Therefore, it's a vaine and false pretence of the Presbyterians, to al∣ledge their disciplin to be contain'd expresly in the Scripture. After expresse Scripture failes them, then they run to their owne glosses and Consequences vpon the Scripiure, which they will have the people to believe, as Scripture: wherein they commit a double deceit. 1. To promise pure Scripture, and then in place of it, to give yow their owne glosses or rather gues∣ses, which are not to be found in Scri••ture. 2. To oblige yow to believe, these glosses and hu∣mane inventions to be Scripture, or as Scrip∣ture. As if one, who had promised, to give an other a quantity of gold, and in place of it, would give himonly brasse: and then after this deceit, would also oblige him to esteem the brasse to be Gold. But albeit these glosses and consequences be not in Scripture; yet it may be, they are cleare of themselves and ne∣cessarly deduced from the Scripture, as the Presbyterians pretends. I found this pretence also to be false. For if they were so evident and necessary: then men of iudgement would easily see such glosses, and make such conse∣quences. But the holy Fathers, who were not on∣ly men of great Iudgement, but were also most Eminent for learning and holynesse, never made any such interpretations and consequen∣ces vpon the Scripture. Therefore the Presby∣terian glosses, &c. cannot be clear and evident, which such holy and piercing ey's could not see;

or if they saw them, it was only to condemn them, as hath been shewed. And albeit this au∣thority be more then sufficient; to overthrow the pretended clearnesse of all these new glosses: yet, when I considered, that the most learned of all the Protestants side: as all the Lutherans in Germanie, Suedland and Denmark, who have their Superintendents, and the late Pro∣testant Church of England, Scotland and Ire∣land; and which is to be much here considered, the Scottish Church at its first Reformation; never made any such Interpretations vpon these Scriptures, but had their Bishops and Superin∣tendents: then I esteem'd it a madnesse to ima∣gin, that these Presbyterian glosses could be clear and necessary: which neither: the holy Fathers, the whole primitive Church, and so many Learned Protestants, and all their Chur∣ches could not see. And albeit the French Pro∣testants do admit of the Consistorial disciplin; yet, they do not declare Episcopacy, to be ab∣solutly Anti-Christian, or that their forme is on∣ly Christian; much lesse, do they think it so necessarie, as to overturne Kingdomes & Com∣monwealths, for setting it vp. Of which Beza and du Moulin may be sufficient witnesses.* 1.56 The first saith: Whosoever doth iudge this disciplin not only vnprofitable, but hurtfull to their Churches: Let them enioy their owne sense. And much more to this purpose. The other saith: In so much as cō∣cerneth Ecclesiastical disciplin, we do not hold that equality of Pastors, is absolutely necessary. Who es∣teem not that order a point of faith, or a doctrin of

Salvation. we live, thanks be to God, in brotherly concord with our neighbouring Churches, which fol∣low an other forme, & where there are Bishops & some Superiority.* 1.57 And Mons^r Blondel, a famous Minister in France, hath lately written a booke entitled of the Primacy in the Church: where he teacheth, that although Superiority of Pas∣tours be not by Divine right; yet, it is not a∣gainst Divin right: and therefore, neither is equality of Pastours by Divine right. All which are very far, from the doctrines and practises of our Scottish Presbyterians; who stands very single and bare, of all authority Divine and Humane; having all the world against them, not only the holy Fathers and whole ancient Church: but also all the old Protestants: both Lutherans and Calvinists. And if we shall add vnto these, the Independents and Anabaptists, and other new Protestants, who admits of an equality, among Pastours, but condemns Pres∣byterian power and Tyranny; their small au∣thority and number is yet much diminished, and the clearnesse of their glosses is much ob∣scured Lastly, if we will take away, from the Presbyterians number, all these, who, by de∣ceit or force, were gain'd vnto it; their autho∣rity will appeare very slender, and the number of knowing and willing Presbyterians, scarce∣ly considerable: for now, when force hath fail'd them, many are dayly falling from them.

As I found the Presbyterians destitute of all authority, to backe their new glosses; so I per∣ceiv'd their reasons and Consequences, to be

meer Sophismes: as this, which they wrest out of our Saviours words, in S. Mathew above cited, doth shew. Christ, say they, for∣bids ruleing among the Apostles, as the Prin∣ces of the Gentiles vsed over their Subiects, saying: It shall not be so among yow; but who∣soever will be the greater among you, let him be your servant &c. Therefore, say they, none ought to be greater then an other, but all equal. And from this equality they inferre, that there ought, to be a Presbytery. Which is as ridicu∣lous, as if yow would say, the King or Supreme Magistrate forbids all domineering, or Tyran∣nizing of his subordinate Iudges, such as is vsed among the Turks: Therefore he forbids all Su∣periority of one over an other, and makes all his Iudges equall: whereas indeed there fol∣lowes no more, but that he forbiddeth Tur∣kish Tyranny. After the same manner, Christ forbids among the Apostles, Heathenish Tyr∣anny, but not lawfull and Christian Superio∣rity. Yea, doth not Christ propound himself, for an example, in the same place; and was not Christ Superiour to the Apostles? Therefore it's evident, he only requireth there, greater humility in those, who were to be in greatest dignity, as S. Hierom, writing on this place, doth observe. So that our Saviours words here, are so far from inferring an equality; that they necessarly suppose an inequality of Pastours. And, if such Presbyterian consequences were admitted, they might, vpon the same ground, bring in a Levelling in the Civil, as wel as in

the Ecclesiastical Estate. Yea, they would des∣troy their Presbyteries, which they would have only to stand; as the Independents do rea∣son well against them. For it's much lesse law∣full, for tuentie or many to Domineer over their brethren, (as the Presbyterians have done, and would do) then for one, of worth & vertue, to have & exercise Christian Superio∣rity and Iurisdiction. As the old Protestants, do shew the falshood of the Presbyterians first consequence, by which they would wrest from our Saviours words an equality of Pastours; so the Independents and other new Protestants do shew the falshood of their second consequence, by which, they would infer from that suppos'd equality, the governement of their Presbyte∣ry. For these new Congregations do admit equality; and yet will not heare of Presbytery. The like insufficiency may be shewed of their glosses and consequences, vpon that place of S. Paul to Timothee, where he speaks of Presby∣tery: from which they would most ridiculously infer parity of Pastours, and the whole plat∣forme of their disciplin, with the power of their Soveraigne Iudicatory, which they call Presbytery. All which glosses and consequences are not only against the sense of the holy Fathers, and of the ancient Church; but also against the sense and interpretation of almost all the old and new Protestants: which is sufficient to shew them to be false and groundlesse. And therefore for brevities sake, we will not insist longer in re∣futation of them. This only may be observed by

the way, that the Presbyterians, are brought to a hard straight: when, for all their disciplin, which they bragge is so clearly in Scripture, they are enforced to run to one word; and that also they must Etymologize and vnderstand, against the sense, of all Christian Nations and Ages.

But albeit the Presbyterian disciplin cannot be found in the Scripture, nor Fathers, nor can∣not by any right reason be drawen from them; yet perhaps it may be good in it self, and a hea∣venly thing. Well then: we shall, according to to our Saviours rule, try it briefly by its fruits. It made indeed great promises of it selfe, and had some faire floorishes: but the fruits did not answer to expectation, neither were they proportionable to the great labour that was bestowed in planting, nor to the aboundance of blood, that was shed for watering that vnhappy tree. Among many high commendations of Presbytery, which are collected in the 34. chap. of the Survey of the holy Disciplin, it was said in Queen Elyzabeths time The want of Presbytery is the cause of all evil. It's not to be hoped that any Commonwealth can floorish without it. Without this disciplin, there can be no right religion. These who reiect this disciplin, refuse Christ to raigne over them. At the beginning also of these trou∣bles in Scotland, the people were fed with large promises of the good of Presbytery. For then it was said, that all Prelatical pride and Tyran∣ny, should cease: all innovations, should haue an end: the purity of the Gospel, should be restored: and all blissings should be poured

downe with Presbytery vpon this Nation. These were the promises & floorishes of Pres∣bytery: but the fruits have proved iust contra∣ry. For there was never more, yea hardly ever such pride and Tyranny: never more Innova∣tions: never greater miseries and calamities: and never lesse solid religion, and more incli∣nation to Atheisme: as may appeare by reflec∣ting on what hath been said above. It cannot be denyed, (whatsoever the Government of the Church be) but our Saviour doth require mecknesse and humility in the Governours of it; and yet the Covenanters (in the iudgement of many) haue carried themselves, as if Christ had not required these vertues, but rather the contrary vices. Therefore, many of the wiser sort of those in England, who were weary of Episcopacy, after they had taken a short Triall of Presbytery, soone smeld out the nature of it; and finding they had changed for the far worst, and that their Consciences were op∣press'd by more heavy Task-masters, they did quickly cast off that heavy yoke; and so finding out a third way of Independency, haue many wayes, since that time, both outwitted, and over throwen the Presbyterians, by their owne weapons.

To conclude this matter: I found after a se∣rious triall, that Superiority of Pastours, is con∣forme both to the old and new Testament: that Episcopacy, is so far from being Anti-Christian and against Gods word; that it is most Chris∣tian and expresly contain'd in the word of God,

which was so vnderstoode by the holy Fathers: and that this was the governement of the pri∣mitive Church, in the purest times, when the office of a Bishop, was not so much a place of honour, as a worke of labour, and the next de∣gree to Martyr-dome; as is evidēt in the Bishops of Rome, thritie of which and above, did suc∣cessively, after S. Peter, shed their blood for Christ. And vpon the other part, I could not find parity of Ministers, and the new disciplin in the Scriptures: but rather, I found that it was against Scripture, against the holy Fathers, and the whole primitive Church: against sound reason, and good governement: against many Protestant Churches, & the learnedest men of that profession: and against the practise of our first Reformers: and that it brought in confu∣sion in the Church, and Tyranny over mens consciences: that it was condemned, as an ancient heresy, by the holy Fathers; and that, as an evil tree, it had lately produced much evil fruite. Therefore I could not abandon all these divine and humane authorities, these ma∣nifest reasons and experiences, which I found in confirmation of Episcopacy, and in condem∣nation of Presbytery, for the strong cry's of some few passionat Ministers: who, as they are destitute of all divine and humane authority; so they scarcely professe to satisfy men in reason. They will haue their bare words, accompanyed with a sigh or a grone, to be sufficient, to oblige all men, to swear, and believe, all that they say or can invent; albeit you find never so great

authotity, yea and reason it self to the contrary. It's knowen, how a great Apostle of the Cove∣nant, cry'd out against some Ministers, who, shortly after the beginning of these troubles, came to reason for Episcopacy, or to demand reason, for the abolishing it, and setting vp of Presbytery. Away, Away, said he, with your reason; you must quite all reason, and help poore Christ a lift. Which he said truly in a part. For any man, who would believe them, must quite rea∣son, and more too.

I found, at lenth, this matter concerning Episcopacy, or the governement of the Church, to be of greater consequence, then many thinks, or I was at first aware of. For what can be more fundamental to the Church, then the Order and governement, which Christ hath establis∣hed in it? What can be a more dangerous & fundamental errour then to overthrow, yea, and accurse that order and governement, which Christ had setled in it? If it be Treason in any Kingdome or Commonwealth, for any private faction, to overthrow the fūdamental Governe∣ment, which is established in them by law; What high treason is it against Christ: to abrogate and accurse that order and Governement, which he, with so great wisdome, had setled in his heaven∣ly Kingdome? Therefore if Episcopacy be or∣dain'd by Christ, and so be, iure diuino, as it appear'd sufficiently to me for the reasons lately touched;* 1.58 Then, as the Puritan Authour of the tuelue general arguments, reasoneth well, and acknowledgeth ingenuosly: The Churches of

Scotland France Low Countries and other places. cannot be a true Church: but the Synagogue of Satan, contradicting therein both Christ & his Gospel. Moreover, if there can be no true Church without lawfull Pastours; and no law∣full Pastours can be without lawfull ordination; and none hath power of ordination except Bis∣hops alone, as the doctrin and practise of the ancient Church do shew: Then the destruction of Episcopacy brings alōg with it, the destructiō of all lawfull Pastours, and so consequently, of a true Church and Sacraments which is a most desperat errour; as it was a most cruel Tyranny, to enforce others to swear and believe it, against their Consciences.

CHAP. VIII. Of our Lords Prayer, neglected to be said by the Presbyterians.

AFTER I had tried the Presbyterians abrogation of the Apostolique governe∣ment, which Christ had established in his Church; I proceeded next, to consider brieflly their innovation, concerning the most excellent of all prayers, which himself had made, and re∣commended to his Church. We were taught, from our infancy, to ••ay our Lords prayer: and the Ministers themselves did ordinarly con∣clude their prayers with it. Christ made it, and the Scriptures containe it. So that we had not only the dignity of the Authour, & the autho∣rity of the Scriptures; but also the practise of

the Ministers, and of the whole people, to render the vse of this divine prayer, laudable and profitable. But after the Presbyterians tooke vpon them to be Reformers, they abolis∣hed all set prayers, and this also was worne out of vse, as well as the rest. Yea, as they all neglec∣ted, any more to say it, so there were some, who thought not that sufficient, vnlesse they spoke also too boldly against the vse of it. I could ne∣ver see any probable pretence for this Presby∣terian innovation; which (as I am informed) seem's so strange and incredible to strangers, that they can hardly believe it. Therefore this alteration being so vnreasonable, I did quickly discover the absurdity of it.

1. I found it, to be against the practise of our first Reformers. 2. Against the Scriptures. 3. A∣gainst the ancient Church, and holy Fathers. 4. That the Presbyterians by forbearing to say this prayer, did rob themselves of the benefite of the most excellent and efficacious of all prayers. 5. That they did not bring so good prayers in the place of it.

Because the Presbyterians, pretended al∣wayes, to reduce all things to the purity of our first Reformation; I informed my self of the practise of our Reformers; and I found they made publique vse of this prayer; as may be seen in M. Knoxes Chronicle pag 288. where, at the conclusion of the prayer, for election of the Super-Intendents, it is said: We crave the en∣crease of thy grace, as by thee, our Lord, King, and only Bishop, we are taughs to pray: Our Fa∣ther

&c. So that this Presbyterian innovation, is clearly against the purity of the first reforma∣tion.

2. It is also manifestly against the Scripture, for after our Saviour had reproved the hypocri∣tical prayers of the Pharisees, and much spea∣king of the Heathen;* 1.59 he saith vnto his disciples: Be not you therefore like to them &c. Thus there∣fore shall you pray. Our Father &c. And because, some do very phantastically pretend, that our Saviour, did not prescribe this prayer to be said; but only did shew it, as a forme, or model of prayer, to be followed: they are clearly con∣vinced out of the 11. chap. of S. Luke, where our Saviour said to his disciples: when you pray: say,* 1.60 Father, hallowed he thy name &c. Our Saviour here, saith not; say thus or after this manner: but say, Our Fathers. &c.

••. This Presbyterian innovation, is also much against the practise of the holy Fathers; and primitive Christians; who vsed this divine prayer frequently and dayly. S. Augustin bea∣reth witnes of this, when he saith.* 1.61 The dayly prayer of the faithfull, doth satisfy for our dayly & light offences: for its theirs to say; our Father which art in heaven. Where the holy Father, call's this prayer, for the dayly vse of it, the dayly prayer of the faithfull And albeit,* 1.62 as the same S. Augus∣tin testifyeth elswhere, there be not an abso∣lute necessity, of saying the same words, but to pray in the same or the like sense: yet the Church of Christ in all ages, did ever give such respect, vnto this heavenly prayer; that she

hath continually vsed, not only the sense and meaning, but also the very words of Christ. And although also, she made vse of other prayers; yet she never omitted this, but vsed it dayly and frequently, as deserving most iustly the preeminence above all other prayers.

4. The holy Fathers do shew, not only the excellency of this divine prayer, but also the great efficacy of it, to obtaine from God all be∣nefits. S. Cyprian writes thus of it's excellency. O deerly beloved,* 1.63 how great and how many are the mysteries of our Lords prayer! They are briefly collected in speech, but they are Spiritually copious in power: So that nothing is omitted in our prayers and supplications, which is not contayn'd, in the compend of that heavenly doctrin.* 1.64 Tertullian calls our Lords prayer. Tho Breviarie, or Compend, of the Euangel And saith: that how much it is shortned in words, it is as much enlarged in senses. But there needeth not much commendation of the worke, to those who know the Excellency of the Authour. The same S. Cyprian doth shew the great efficacy of this prayer, in these excellent words.* 1.65 Since we haue Christ, an Ad∣uocat with our father, for our sins; when we sinners do supplicat for our offences; let vs bring forth the words of our Aduocat. For when he saith: what euer you aske from the Father, in my name, he will giue it vnto you: how much more efficaciously, shall we obtaine what we aske in Christs name; if we aske it by his owne prayer? And againe, he call's it a friendly & familiar prayer, to pray God with his owne: to make the prayer of Christ, ascend

vnto his eares. The Father, saith he, will aknow∣ledge the words of his Son: when he who dwelleth in∣wardly in the heart, is also outwardly in the tongue. S. Augustin, in the place lately cited, doth shew also the vertue of this prayer, when he saith: that the dayly saying of it, doth satisfy for our dayly and light offences, without which this life is not led. Therefore the Presbyterians by neglecting to say this prayer, did deprive them∣selv's, of the benefite, of the most excellent, and efficacious of all prayers. And therefore, albeit they tooke exception, against all set formes of prayer, which were made by men, and would say them no more; yet they might haue alway's excepted this prayer, which was made by God: both for the excellency of it self, and the dignity of the Authour. But all were put in the same Category. Yea, there were some of the deepest Presbyterian dye, who did not think it sufficiēt, to neglect the saying of it: vnlesse they spoke also irreuerently, against the vse of it. And there were some so vnreasonable, that they would maintaine, it was not only vnprofitable to say our Lords prayer; but also vnlawfull. We noted above, how a great Apostle of the Covenant, called publickly, the vse of saying often our Lords prayer, a Papistical charme. An other Minister in Galloway did glory (as I was assu∣red by a person of knowen honesty) that he had banished, out of his parish, two Idols: to witt, Our Father &c. and God of all glory and peace &c. Which was a short grace, that was said ordinar∣ly after meate: for all graces, as well as prayers,

behoved to be extemporary, even among the Laiques, who intended to be in the right Pres∣byterian Mode. But as that person, to whom this Minister spoke, answered him well, saying: If you haue banished these two, which you call Idols: I feare you shall bring in worse Idols in their place. So it fell forth. For in place of that diuine, short, and excellent prayer, made by God: we got long, tedious, inconsiderat prayers, made ex∣tempore by men; which, for the most part, were full of Tautologies, and idle bablings. As Tertullian said well of our Lords prayer. That it was short in words, but large in senses: So the contrary may be said, not vnfitly, of the Presby∣terians extemporary prayers: They were large in words, but very short of sense. And this was the Noble exchange that we made: which certain∣ly was for the worst.

Seing then it's evident, that our Lords pra∣yer, is the most excellent of all prayers; that it was made by Christ for our vse: that it was hi∣ghly esteem'd, and frequently vsed by the holy Fathers, and the primitive Church: that it's most efficacious to obtaine from God all bene∣fit's; and besid's, that it was said publickly, by our first Reformers, and is yet vsed by all the old Protestants; I could not approve the Pres∣byterians innovation, of forbearing to say it. Much lesse could I approve, the irreverent, or rather blasphemous opinion, of some, who maintain'd, that it was both vnprofitable, and vnlawfull to vse it: which I found also to haue been maintain'd, many yeares ago, by the Brou∣nists

and Puritans: as may be seen in Britanno∣machia Ministror. lib. 2. cap. 6. dogm. 13.14. For what is the authority of Presbytery, against all these authorities, which are brought for the laudable vse of our Lords prayer? And how much lesse is it to be esteemed; since this inno∣vation, did not proceed from any general con∣sent, of the whole Ministery: but from some few giddy domineering heads, which Tyranni∣zed over the rest, and made them to follow their example. For now, since Presbyterian power is a little quailed, diuerse Ministers, are clinging in againe, to their old custome, of saying this divine prayer; which they may do now, wit∣hout danger.

I admired much, when a Catholique friend shew me,* 1.66 that the Waldenses defended an er∣rour iust contrary, in this matter, to the Pres∣byterians. For they maintain'd, that no other forme of prayer, was to be admitted, except our Lords prayer, as may be seen in Gualterus: and these, admits almost all other prayets, ex∣cept that. I thought the Waldenses and we had agreed better together: for I had often heard, that we were all of one religion. But the same friend made an other observation on this mat∣ter, which seem'd to be more smart. For after he had showen me a ridiculous story, which is related, towards the end of the Preface to M. Knoxes Chronicle, with many fabulous-like circumstances; and which thereafter, I found (not without some admiration) to be repea∣ted in B. Spots woods new history:* 1.67 How there

fell forth a great dispute and trouble among the Doctours of S. Andrew's,* 1.68 a little before the Reformation; Whither our Lords prayer, should be said only to God; or if it might he said to the Saints also? Now, said he, this fable by Divine providence, is truly turn'd on your Presbyte∣rians. For they will not have our Lords prayer to be said, neither to God, nor the Saints; and they withdraw men, by their evil example, from saying to their heauenly father: Our Fa∣ther▪ which art in heaven. &c.

CHAP. IX. Of Glory to the Father &c. or of the hymne of Glorification, taken away by the Presbyterians.

FROM the reformation of our Lords pra∣yer, which was said to our heavenly father; the Presbyterians proceeded next, to reforme, or rather to abolish the hymne of Glory, which was ordinarly sung in praise of the holy Tri∣nity. This Innovation seem'd very strange, and gaue great scandal to many. For besids, that it had been vsed from our infancy, and was sung publickly in all Churches, at the conclusion of of the Psalmes: it contain'd not the least appa∣rance of evil, but rather, did appear to tend much, to the honour of God, to whom all praise & glory principally belongs. And albeit it be not, word by word, in one place of the holy Scrip∣ture,

as our Lords prayer is; yet the sense, and the like words, if not the same, are to be found in it. For what is more expresly contain'd in the new Testament, then the Father, Son, and ho∣ly Ghost, in whose name we are all baptized: and which, all true Christians do acknowledge to be one true God? And what is more cleare in Scripture, then that Glory is due vnto God? S Paul saith: to the King of the worlds, immortal,* 1.69 invisible, only God, be honour and glory for ever. Amen. S. Peter also speaking of Christ, saith: to him be Glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen. And S. Iude: to the only God our Saviour, by Iesus Christ our Lord, be Glory & magnificence, em∣pire and power, before all worlds, and now, & for all worlds evermore. Amen. There is nothing more frequēt in the Revelatiō, then redoubling of this Glory to God. S. Iohn saith, that he heard every Creature, in heaven and vpon earth, saying:* 1.70 to him who sitteth on the throne, and to the Lambe be∣nediction, & honour, & glory, & power, for ever and ever. Therefore, since the giving of Glory to God, is the principal exercise of the Saints, in heaven: why may it not, or rather, why ou∣ght it not, to be the exercise also of the Saints on earth? S. Iohn saith, he heard a voice come out from the throne, saying.* 1.71 Say praise to our God all you his Servants: and you that feare him, little and great. Why then should the Presbyte∣rians hinder both little & great, to sing this hymne of praise & Glory vnto the holy Trinity? Why should they goe against their owne for∣mer practise, and that custome which was ob∣served

by their first Reformers, and which is yet keep't in all the more ancient Protestant Chur∣ches? How could one of their Ministers inter∣rupt the people, when they were singing that hymne, by crying out no lesse ridiculously then scandalously: No more Glory to the Father: No more Glory? Indeed, if the Presbyterians de∣nyed the mystery of the holy Trinity, as the Arians did, they might vpon that false ground, had some pretence of reason, for this innova∣tion: but acknowledging the truth of that Di∣vine mystery, they appear'd very vnreasonable for abolishing that hymne, which was ordinar∣ly said in praise of it, and which hath so good ground in the holy Scriptures.

Being therefore desirous, to know this mat∣ter from the source, I had my next recourse (ac∣cording to my accustomed methode) vnto the primitive Church, & the holy Fathers. And there I found that this hymne was most ancient, & an Apostolical tradition: that it was highly esteem'd, and much vsed by the Catholique Church in the primitive times: that as some heretiques did much endeavour to pervert it; so the Catholiques did labour as diligently to preserve it, in the same purity, as it had des∣cended vnto them, by continual practise and tradition. And lastly, I found, that God did approve the laudable vse of this hymne, by some notable miracles. All which we shall brie∣fly shew.* 1.72

How the hymne of Glorification was vsed, from the very tyme of the Apostles, S. Basil the

Great doth largely shew. For when the Sacra∣ment of Baptisme was administrated by them, in name of the Father, & of the Son, and of the holy Ghost, the faithfull answered: Glory be to the Father, & to the Son, and to the holy Ghost. Which custome of glorifying God; the same holy father doth affirme to be an Apostolical tradi∣tion, which had been every where observed, throughout the whole Church. Of this matter, Cardinal Baronius treateth amply, in his third tome, anno 325. Where he also sheweth, that this hymne was of so great authority and estee∣me, in the ancient Church, that, when the ho∣ly Fathers, in the Councel of Constantinople, were to establish a rule of faith, against some Heretiques, who denyed the Divinity of the holy Ghost; they would haue inserted in that Symbol, a testimony from this hymne of Glo∣ry, for the Divinity of the holy Ghost, in these words: Who with the Father and the Son;* 1.73 is ado∣red and Con-glorifyed. And albeit this hymne was much vsed in the Church, from the begin∣ning; yet it was sung more frequently, in honour of the blessed Trinity, after the Arians began to corrupt it.

How the Arians did strive to change and per∣vert this hymne, the same Card. Baronius she∣weth out of Sozomen:* 1.74 for as they had changed the forme of Baptisme, by saying: I baptise thee in the name of the Father, by the Son, in the holy Ghost: so also they corrupted the hymne of Glo∣rification, by singing: Glory be to the Father, by the Son, in the holy Ghost. Which diversity bre••

a dissension in Antioch, between the Catho∣liques and the Arians: whilst they would keep the ancient custome, and the others would bring in their corrupt innovation. Therefore the great Councel of Nice,* 1.75 which had condem-the Arian heresy, for the more confusion of it, gave order to continue these hymnes in the Church, which were in vse to be sung former∣ly in praise of the holy Trinity, and especially the hymne of Glorification, which the Arians had changed and endeavoured to pervert, as they had impiously denyed the mystery of the holy Trinity, in whose honour it was said. And from this time, that hymne began to be more frequently vsed; so that the Countrey people would sing it, whilst they were busied about their ordinary labours. For how much the Arians did strive to suppresse and pervert it; so much the Catholiques did labour to preserve and celebrat it. For which cause, S. Ambrose did conclude all the new hymnes, which he made, to be sung by the people, during the time of the persecution which he suffered of the Arians, with the hymne of Glorification, as S. Augustin testifieth.* 1.76 And therefore, being accused by the Arians, for hauing deceived the people, with the verses of his new hymnes, he answered: I do not deny that &c. What is more powerfull then the Confession of the Trinity, which is celebrated every day by the mouths of the people? They labour all earnestly to confesse the faith: they know to praise in verse, the Father, Son & holy Ghost: and they are all become Teachers, who scar∣cely

could haue been Schollers. Yea, to confound yet more the Arians, who blasphemously said, that the Son was made by the father in time, and that there was a time, when he was not, the holy Councel of Nice was pleased to add vnto the ancient hymne of Glorification, Glory to the father &c. That appendix: As it was in the be∣ginning, & now, and ever shall be, world without end, Amen. Which clause did appeare in my iudgment, as a prophesie, serving not only for the confusion of the Arians, but also of the Presbyterians.

Moreover, the Christians of old, vere so ca∣refull, to preserve the integrity of this hymne, as it had been delivered vnto them by their reli∣gious Ancestors; that they would not suffer so much as one syllable of it to be altered: So that diverse of the faithfull did take offence at some expressions of great S. Basil, who ended his Sermons with the Glorification, for not obser∣ving prec••sly the words of it. And therefore he wrote an excellent booke de Spiritu sancto, to give satisfaction vnto the Catholiques, and to take away all aduantage, which the heretiques might haue drawen from his expressions. Where he professeth:* 1.77 that it is not lawfull to any person whatsoever, to reiect or write otherwise the syllabe, And, which proceeded from our Lords mouth. The same did Pope Vigilius testify (as Baronius relateth) to Eutherius a Spanish Bishop,* 1.78 who had shewed him, that some evil Christians in Spaine, had changed both the forme of Baptis∣me, and the hymne of Glorification, by taking

away from them both, the particle And, before the holy Ghost, saying I baptize thee in the name of the Father, & of the Son, holy Ghost. Doing the like also when they sung the hymne of Glorifi∣cation: To which the Pope ansuered, that these were novelties and dangerous errours; whe∣rein, if these persons would obstinatly conti∣nue, they could haue no communion with the Catholique Church. By this, and diverse other experiences, I perceived, how carefull the an∣cient Christians were, to preserve the purity of divine truths, & of Apostolical traditions; that they would not quite not alter so much as one syllable of them, to please all the Heretiques in the world. What would they thought then of the Presbyterians, who haue not taken away on syllabe; but the whole sentence and substan∣ce of this hymne?

Lastly, I found that God hath been pleased, to approve the laudable vse of this divine hym∣ne, by miracles. For, whereas diuerse Catho∣liques had their tongues cut out, by the wicked & cruel Arians, in the persecution, which they endured vnder Hunericus the Arian King of the Wandals; by the admirable power of the ho∣ly Ghost they spoke distinctly without their ton¦gues, and did celebrate the divinity of Christ: as Baronius sheweth, by the testimony of irrefra∣gable witnesses,* 1.79 as of Iustinian the Emperour, and diverse others, who saw some of them with their eyes, and beard them speake. Which mat∣ter also Cornelius a Lapide doth touch, in his Commentaire on the 8. ch. to the Rom: v. 28.

Moreover, the same Baronius doth also relate, out of many good Authours.* 1.80 how Hildebrand the Popes Legat in France (who became there∣after Pope Gregory the 7.) did, by this hymne miraculously discover diverse Simoniack Bis∣hops, in that Kingdome-For when one time, a learned and eloquent Bishop was accused of Si∣mony before him, which he would by no means confesse, being suddenly commanded by the Legat to say: Glory be to the Father & to the Son, & to the Holy Ghost; he pronounced in∣deed clearly and distinctly the Father & the Son; but by no means could he pronounce the Holy Ghost. By which miracle he was moved to confesse his fault, & to quite his Bishopri∣que: after which confession, he pronounced distinctly the whole hymne. Diverse other Si∣moniack Bishops, in that Countrey, were in∣duced by the same miracle, to do the same. So that God Almighty, for approving the vse of this heavenly hymne, hath made his approved Servants, who wanted their tongues, miracu∣lously to pronounce it: and from these, who had tongues, but vere vnworthy, he tooke away even their natural power to vtter it.

What shall we say then of this inconsiderat Presbyterian sect, which hath outstripped the Arians, the most wicked of all Heretiques? For these did only change a little this glorious hym∣ne, which yet; with that change, might ad∣mit a good sense; although they made it for a perverse end: but the Presbyterians, to their greater ignominy, haue totally abolished it.

Wherein they haue shouen themselv's against the Scripture, and to be clearely opposit unto the holy Prim••tive Church, to the sacred Coun∣cel of Nice, to the custome of their first Refor∣mers, and to goe against their owne practises, and of the other Reformed Churches abroad. Yea, in an other consideration, the Presbyterians appeare, in this point, to be worse then the Arians. For these Heretiques, denying the mys∣tery of the holy Trinity, by opposing one or two places of Scripture (which they did pri∣vatly & falsly expound) to the constant & an∣cient belief of the whole Christian world; did rationally, supposing these ill principles, to change the hymne of Glorification, which was said in in honour of the holy Trinity, yea, if they could, to haue altogether abolished it: which doubtlesse they had done, if shame could haue permitted them. But they left this effron∣ted action to the Presbytery, which is more passionat and lesse rational, then the Arians. For the Presbyterians pretending to believe the mystery of the holy Trinity, haue most irratio∣nally abolished that hymne of Glory, which had been said in honour of it, from the begin∣ning of Christianity. I was much astonished, when I considered, into what miseries & rave∣ries, inconsiderat passion, & furious zeal do drive men, who vnder pretence of greater pu∣rity, & of more close adhering to the Sriptures, stray alway's further from them, and fall into greater impurity and defile themselv's with more filthie errours.

This innovation, shortly after it came in, was very hardly press'd against me, by a Roman Catholique of my acquentance: who tooke oc∣casion therevpon, to say vnto me. What is the reason, that M. Knox your first Reformer, whom you esteem no small light, did not abo∣lish the hymne of Glorification, as your Pres∣byterians haue lately done? Or, if he did not see all things, how could it escape the sharp eyes of these two famous first Apostles, Luther & Calvin, whom you believe to haue bein sent extraordinarly by God, to reforme the Church? They neither saw, nor could see any thing blameable in it. When he saw, that I answe∣red nothing, but only blamed the Presbytery, for their inconsideration & inconstancy, which indeed was all that I could say: he told me that S. Paul manifesteth the true Source of this, & the like innovations. For, spea∣king of false Teachers, he saith: Evil men, and Seducers, shall wax worse, erring & driving into errour. So, that,* 1.81 what the first Reformers (who could not on a suddaine deny all truths) left vntouched, your second Presbyterian Refor∣mers haue abolished: as they haue done here the hymne of Glory, which was said in praise of the holy Trinity: and for which, you haue got the noble exchange of cōtinual praises of the Covenant & Presbytery. But as the great Coun∣cel of Nice did add vnto the ancient hymne of Glory to the Father &c. that clause. As it was in the beginning &c. For confusion of the Arian he∣resy: So also it hath, by the same addition, pro∣phetically

foretold the continuance of it for ever, to the confusion of this new sect called Presbytery, which is most consonant to that of S. Paul: To God be glory in the Church, and in Christ Iesus to all generations, world without end Amen.* 1.82 That Church, which hath triumphed over the Arians, who corrupted this glorious hymne; will also triumph over the Presbyte∣rians, who have abolished it. Yea, this hymne shall not only continue to the worlds end, in the Church Militant: but it shall be also the exercise of the Church Triumphant, which shall never cease, for all eternity, to sing praise & glory, vnto the most holy Trinity. Thus ended my Catholique friend: whose words I found to be more waighty; a good space after, then they appear'd to me, at the time, when he spoke them. Moreover, I remember he desired me to consider, that these innovations against our Lords prayer, and the hymne of Glory, were such blacke actions; that the prime Presbyte∣rians who introduced them, were ashamed to make acts to forbid them, as they had done for abolishing of Episcopacy, and some other points; but only brought them in by a desuetude, as they speake, and so wore them out of vse. Which, sheweth, said he, that they would gladly haue some things done covertly, which they are asham'd to avow publickly.

CHAP. X. Of the Apostles Creed, denyed to be Apostolical, by the Presbyterians.

THERE was hardly any thing, that the Presbyterians did, which made me stum∣ble so much; as their Innovation, concerning the authority of the Apostles Creed. They were not content with their Reformation, or rather abrogation of the Apostolique governement, vnlesse they also did deny the Creed to be made by the Apostles, and so weare it out of vse, as they had done our Lords prayer. At the end of of their new Catechisme, they speake thus of the Creed:* 1.83 Albeit the substance of the doctrine comprised in the Abridgement, commonly called the Apostles Creed, be fully set forth in each of the Ca∣techismes, so as there is no necessity of inserting the Creed it self; yet it is here annexed, not as though it were composed by the Apostles &c. In which words, they reach covertly two things. 1. That the Creed it self is not necessary, if we have the substance of it, as it is explain'd in the new Presbyterian Catechisme. 2. that it needs not be esteemed, to be composed by the Apostles. But their practise did shew more evidently their meaning. For they did not only declare it, not to be Apostolical, and therefore to be only a humane collection: but also they did no more say it, neither did they require it to be said any

more of others; as the custome was formerly at Baptismes. And by these means, they put it out, both of estimation and vse.

This innovation gave great scandal to many, who thought iustly, they could thereafter be sure of nothing, since their Creed was called in question. This was vniversally esteem'd, be∣fore the Covenant began, the badge or mark of a Christian, and the principal foundation of the Christian religion. The authority of it was held so sacred, that it was an ordinary proverbe in mens mouth's, when they would give great as∣surance of performing any thing they had pro∣mised: that before they failed. They would as soo∣ne deny their Creed. As it was called the Apostles Creed; so it was taught for such. & so it was be∣lieved and esteemed to be. It was publickly said, in the Church, by parents, at the Baptisme of their Children; and it was required to be said by the people, when they were Catechized. But all these things were altered and overturned by the Presbyterians. The authority and esteem of the Creed was dash't, by their denying it to be Apostolicall: and the custome of saying it, both publikly & privatly, was taken away; so that it was soone worne out, both of vse and request. If they did this so easily with our Lords prayer, which is contain'd in Scripture; how much more easily would they do it with the Creed, which is not in Scripture and which they pre∣tend to be a meer humane collection? And so, in a short time, they would get it to be altoge∣ther slighted, as a humane invention, and ba∣nished

out of the memories of men.

Wherefore being desirous to penetrat this matter more inwardly, I found after some di∣ligence, that the same grounds, which can be brought for the Apostolique authority of the Scriptures, are also brought, and that in an emi∣nent degree, for the like authority of the Creed. And therefore, if we receive the one, we can∣not reiect the other. I shall briefly collect, what I found, or hath been shewed vnto me, for the Apostolique authority, great excellency, & frequent laudable vse of this diuine Symbol.* 1.84 Cardinal Baronius in the 1. tome of his Annals doth shew, by the testimony of the holy & an∣cient Fathers, that the Creed was composed by the holy Apostles, a little before they were to part, and goe into several Countries, to preach the Gospel vnto the Gentils: to the end there might be a certaine, short, clear rule of faith, in which they all agreed, wherein they were to instruct all persons, and by which, as by a certaine badge, all Christians might he knowen. For this cause, it was not committed to writing; but was delivered by lively voice, and imprin∣ted in the hearts of Christians, by the faithfull diligence of the Apostles. This S. Hierom,* 1.85 and S. Augustin do testify. The first saith: The Sym∣bol of our faith & hope, which was delivered by the Apostles, is not written in paper or inke, but in the fleshly tables of the heart. The other affirmeth,* 1.86 that the Creed was not written; that it might be retain'd in the hearts of the faithfull. And againe he saith. The holy Apostles did deliver a

certaine rule of faith, which being comprehended in tuelve articles, according to the number of the Apostles, they called a Symbol; by which the faith∣full may hold Catholique vnity, and tread vnder feete heretical impiety. To these two great Doc∣tours,* 1.87 agrees also S. Ambrose, who saith: The holy faith is contain'd in the Symbol of the tuelve Apostles, who, as skiful Artificers, meeting toge∣ther, haue made a key by common counsel. And againe: Let vs believe, saith he, the Symbol of the Apostles, which the Roman Church doth ever preserve and keep's inviolate. And if we will as∣cend higher,* 1.88 S Ireneus Bishop of Lions, and disciple of S. Polycarpus, sheweth that diverse Nations believed without Scriptures, by tradi∣tion, which certainly was of the Apostles Creed. S. Clement, the disciple of S. Peter, & Coadiutor of S. Paul, doth testify the same: Di∣verse other Fathers may be seen, cited in Car∣dinal Bellarmin tom. 1. de verbo Dei non scripto, lib. 4. cap. 4. S. Basil doth reckon the Apostles Creed, as a principal Apostolique tradition. And, in a word, I found that all Christian Na∣tions and Ages, have borne testimony of this truth.

Moreover, I found that in the primitive times, this Symbol was holden in so great reve∣rence, that in General Councels, it vsed to be first recited,* 1.89 and lay'd downe, as the ground of the whole Ecclesiastique building, as Baro∣nius doth shew. To this purpose; S. Augustin calls it. The foundation of the Catholique faith vpon which the edifice of the Church, built by the

hands of the Prophets and Apostles, did rise.* 1.90 And S. Leo saith, that this short and perfect Confes∣sion of the Catholique Symbol, which is sealed by 12. sentences of the Apostles, is so furnished with heavenly armour; that by this sword alone, all opi∣nious of Heretiques may be cut of.

As I found such greet testimonies to prove the Apostolique authority of the creed; so I did find, that the holy Fathers, did highly praise the excel∣lency of it, as of a worke worthy of such diuine Architects. S. Augustin calls it.* 1.91 The comprehension & perfection of our faith. It's simple, saith he, short & full. That it's simplicity might serve the rudnesse; it's shortnesse the memory; & its fulnesse the instruc∣tion of the hearers. Elswhere he calls it the Com∣pend of the Scriptures. lib. 1. ad Catech.* 1.92 And a∣gaine he saith: This is a Symbol briefe in words, but large in mysteries. For whatsoever is prefigured in the Patriarchs, whatsoever is declared in the Scriptures, or foretold by the Prophets. &c. is contain'd, and briefly confessed in it. And in his Sermon above cited de Traditione Symboli, speaking of the Creed, he saith: These are not humane words, but heavenly mysteries of our Lord. But most notable and efficacious are the words of Rufinus to this purpose. The Apostles,* 1.93 saith he, being to part from one an other to preach, they lay'd downe this marke of their faith and agree∣ment: Not as the children of Noe being to part from each other, rearing vp a tower of bricke and slime, whose top should reach vnto the heauens: but building the fortresses of faith, of liuely stones, and heavenly pearles, which should stand stedfast

against the face of the enemy: which neither the winds should shake, nor floodes subvert, nor boys∣terous stormes or tempests move. They therefore being to separate, building the tower of Pride, were deservedly punished with the Confusion of tongues, that not one could vnderstand the speech of his neighbour: but these, who built the tower of Faith, were endued with the skill and knowledge of all languages; to the end, that the one might be the marke of Sin, and the other the monument of Faith. Thus Ruffinus.

Lastly; the same holy Fathers do shew the frequent laudable vse of the Apostles Creed, in the primitive Church. It was first taught and delivered vnto those, who desired Baptisme; and it was required to be publickly said by them immediatly before their baptisme. This custo∣me (as Ruffinus sheweth) was carefully obser∣ved in the Roman Church.* 1.94 S. Augustin also doth witnesse, how the God-fathers did say it, in name of the Infants whom they presented to Baptisme: and therefor he earnestly exhorts every Christian, when he comes to the yeares of discretion, to say frequently the Apostoli∣que Creed, which he professed by the mouths of those, who presented him to Baptisme, and call's it the Mirrour of a Christiā: Render saith he, your Symbol render it vnto the Lord:* 1.95 be not weary to rehearse it: the repetition of it is good, least forget∣fulnesse creep on thee. Do not say: I said it yesternight I said it to day, I say it every day, I haue it well. Remember thy faith: behold thy self: Let thy Creed be a Mirrour vnto thee, there see thy self if

thou believe all, that thou confesses thy self to be∣lieve, and reioyce dayly in thy faith. Let it be thy riches, the dayly Apparell of thy Soule. Do you not cloath your self when you rise? So by remembe∣ring thy Creed, cloath thy Soule, least peradventure forgetfulnesse make it naked. S. Ambrose calls it the Seale of our heart, which we ought dayly to review; and the Watch-word of a Cristian,* 1.96 which should be in readinesse, in all dangers.

By all which irrefragable testimonies, the sa∣cred authority, great excellency, and frequent laudable vse, both in publick and private, of the Apostles Creed, did appeare sufficiently vnto me. So that I found, for it, the consent of peoples and Nations; the testimonies of the holy Fathers, the Martyrs, Saints, and Christians of all ages: that is of the Vniuersal Church, the piller & ground of truth: which are the greatest assurances, that can be had vpon earth. And therefore I rested fully satisfyed with them. But I was much more confirmed in this resolution, when I vnderstood by a serious conference with a friend; that there was the same certainty for the Creed, that there is for the Scriptures; to witt the Tradition or testimony of the Church. S. Augustin delivers clearly this truth, concerning the Scriptures.* 1.97 I would not haue be∣lieved (saith he) the Euangel, unlesse the autho∣rity of the Catholique Church had moved me &c. and that authority being once weakned, neither can I believe the Euangel. This testimony & au∣thority of the Catholique Church, was proved to me, to be the most easy, manifest, and infal∣lible

ordinary way, that can be had on earth, to come vnto the certaine knowledge of what books are Scriptures: yea it was clearly proved to be the only way: so that, if once this testi∣mony be weakened, there is nothing left, but guessings & wanderings, after the manner of blind men; as experience doth shew in the dif∣ference, between the Lutheranists & the Cal∣vinists, who agree in all their supposed wayes of knowing the Scripture; and yet can never agree in the same Canon of the Scriptures. But of this matter, we shall haue occasion to speake more fitly hereafter, in the question of the Church.

If then the Scriptures cannot be certainly knowen, but by the testimony & authority of the Church, and are to be believed for the sam••, as S. Augustin doth affirme; the Creed also may be knowen, and ought to be believed to be Apostolical, for the same very reason; since the same testimony & authority are for both. Yea the Tradition & Testimony of the Church, for the Apostles Creed, hath, in a certaine man∣ner, some preeminence, above that which is for the Scripture. For it is more anciēt; more vni∣uersal; & more manifest. More ancient: because the holy Fathers and the whole Church, do constantly affirme, that the Symbol was com∣posed by the Apostles, before any part of the new Testament was written. It was more vni∣versal: because it was received every where, at the very first plantation of Christianity, whe∣reas diverse parts of the Scripture, being direc∣ted

only to some particular Churches, could not be communicated, but after some space, to the whole Church. It was also more manifest: because there were some bookes of the Scrip∣ture, doubted of, by some of the ancient Fa∣thers, till the Vniversal Church did determin the Canon of the Sciptures: but there was ne∣ver any ancient Christian, who doubted of, or denyed the Apostles Creed, there was such a clear and Vniversal tradition for it. And besi∣des; the Creed, in it self, is very clear; as being a short rule of faith, ordain'd for the capacity of the most simple; according to which, the Scriptures, that are more obscure, ought to be vnderstood.

Seing then the whole Church, in the primi∣tive times, and in all ages, hath professed that the Apostles made & taught the Creed; it re∣maines most certaine, that the Apostles did teach it: for greater certainty then this, cannot be had. If the Apostles taught, and delivered it vnto the first Christians; then they being so taught, were obliged to receive it, with the s••me reverence, wherewith they did receive the Scriptures, which were delivered or direc∣ted vnto them, by the same Apostles. And if the first Christiās, were so obliged, why not also their children & their childrēs children, & so downe∣ward, frō age to age, vntill the end of the world, shall haue the same obligation? If this obliga∣tion held in the first age; why not also in the second, and in every succeeding age? Or when should this obligation cease? Or why more at

one time, then at an other; since the same assu∣rance remaines at all times? Or why should it cease more for the Creed, then for the Scripture; since the same testimony is for both? and if there be any preeminence in this matter, the Creed hath it; as has been shewed.

Wherefore, as I was, by these considerations, fully satisfyed of the Apostolique authority & lau¦dable vse of the Creed, in the primitive Church, so I could in no wise approve the Presbyterians innovations against it: but rather did much ad∣mire of their presumption. For by their denying the Creed to be Apostolique, I saw they de∣nyed the clear rule, and endeavoured to subvert the very foundation of the Christian faith. By their taking away both the publick and private vse of it, they would haue robbed Christians, of the heavenly apparell and spiritual armour of their soules, as the holy Fathers above call it. And all this they do, relying vpon no other grounds but their owne gesses; which they oppose, and would haue to be preferred to the constant tes∣timony, and irrefragable authority of the whole Christian world. The Iewes brought at least,* 1.98 sleeping witnesses against the resurrection of Christ; for which folly S. Augustin mocks thē, and saith, that they thēselves were sleeping and failed in their search. But the Presbyterians bring neither sleeping nor waking witnesses; and yet they will blindly iudge, in a matter done above 16. hundred yeares ago, and boldly pronounce sentence against an ancient funda∣mental truth, which had been received & pro∣fessed

by the Christians of all ages. But albeit the Presbyterians do reiect the authority, & tes∣timony of the Church, yet I saw (if they follo∣wed their owne principles) they might as easi∣ly, discern the Creed to be Apostolique; as they pretend they can know the Scriptures. For the Maiesty of the style, the harmony of the parts, the purity of the doctrin, and the like, do con∣curre in the Creed, in an eminent degree, as we haue seen above out of the holy Fathers who do so highly praise it, for its perfections, as a worke Worthy of such heavenly Archi∣tects. And the matter being considered in it self, the Creed in all these qualities, is equal, if not Superiour, by outward apparance, vnto the Scriptures. For in them, there are many see∣ming contradictions hard to be explained: but none in this. Many things in Scripture, not so full of Maiesty, as about S. Pauls cloke &c.* 1.99 but the creed is totally replenished, with most sublime & divine mysteries. Therefore, if the Presbyterians could by these marks discern the Scriptures, they might as easily discern the Creed to haue been made by the Apostles.

Albeit I admired much, how the Presbyte∣rians could vpon so weake grounds, deny the Apostles Creed, against such invincible autho∣rities; yet I was much more stricken with ad∣miration, when I considered, what they brought in place of it. For in place of the Apo∣stles Creed, we got the Presbyterians Cove∣nant. As that was denyed to be Apostolical; so this was cry'd vp to be Divine: for it was cal∣led,

Gods Covenant; the Confession of faith &c. As parents were accustomed, at the Baptisme of their children, to say the Apostles Creed, in which they promised to bring them vp; so now they were made promise, to breede them in the Covenant, which was too long to haue by heart, or to be repeated. This was truly a rare exchange; to deny the Creed to be Apostoli∣que, & to cry vp the Covenant to be Divine. To rob vs of a most ancient, clear, briefe, posi∣tive, Sacred Confession of faith made by the holy Apostles, famous in all ages, & vniversally received troughout the whole world, full of great mysteries, & divine expressions: And to give vs, in place of it, a new, long, obscure, ne∣gative Confession, or rather Confossion of faith, full of terrible oaths, execrations & combina∣tions, devised by some few discontented heads, & by cunning and force, obtruded vpon this Nation; much suspected, at the beginning, to be nothing but a meer pretence of religion; as it was notoriously knowen to be a humane in∣vention; and as it's now at lenth, after all its disguises, manifested for such vnto the world. It's good fame hath not lasted long, neither at home nor abroad. It got some foo∣ting in England, by cunning and worldly inte∣rest; but these soone failing, it was quickly de∣tected and reiected. The Christlan Moderator saith to this purpose.* 1.100 That the last Reformation setled with so solemn a Covenant, and caried on with so furious a zeal, is already, by better lights discovered, to be meerly humane, & therefore de∣servedly lay'd aside

Therefore to conclude this point: I found clearly, that the Creed hath been alwayes held to be, & is Apostolique: that it is the founda∣tion & perfect rule of the Christian faith: that it is a worke worthy of the holy Apostles: that it is such a strong & heavenly fabricke, that it cannot be overthrowen by no stormes nor tem∣pests, by no force nor violences, and that it over∣comes all heresies: that the ancient custome of saying it publickly at Baptisme, and often pri∣vatly, and dayly, is most laudable and profita∣ble to Christian people. And vpon the other part, I found, that the Presbyterians, by de∣nying the Cred to be Apostolique, haue denyed the foundation & clear rule of the Christian faith, & most vnreasonably haue worne out, both the publick & private vse of it: And that they compleated their new Raformation, when they not only reiected the Creed; but obtruded the Covenant in place of it. And lastly I found, that as the Presbyterians new doctrin in this matter, is most erroneous and presumptuous; so that all their endeavours, have proved vaine & frivolous. For that fortresse of faith, which was built by the holy Apostles, of lively stones, & heavenly pearles, as Ruffinus speaks, hath held out stronger tempests, then the Presbyterians weake blasts; and therefore it still stands im∣moveable. Whereas the Babel of their Cove∣nant, which they were so diligently building, and vpon which they could never get the Cap∣stone, as they often regrated, hath ended in Confusion, and in a short space hath come to

ruine. Now, all these things being considered, I refer my self to any man, voyde of passion, if I could reasonably, much lesse Christianly, ex∣change the pearles of the Apostles Creed, for the drosse of the Presbyterians Covenant.

CHAP. XI. Of the Article, of Christs Descent to Hell, perverted by the Presbyterians.

AFTER that the Presbyterians had thus endeavoured to shake the authority of the Apostles Creed, least peradventure their small authority, might not prevaile against all Chri∣stianity, what they could not get effectuated by denying the letter, they laboured to performe by corrupting the sense, and especially of that article,* 1.101 He descended into Hell. For in their new Catechismes, they interline, or put on the margent, this glosse with it. He descended into Hell that is. He continued in the state of the dead, and vnder the power of Death, till the third day.

I Observed, that although we had, and said the words of the Creed, before the Cove∣nant began; yet we did not know the true sense of it, in this and some other articles, albeit as S. Augustin shewes, it was made plaine & short, that it might serve the capacity, vnder∣standing, & memory of the simple. For there was a great quarrelling, before these greater

troubles, among some of the Ministers, for the sense of these words, He descended into Hell. Some publickly taught, that they behoved to be literally vnderstood, of a real and local des∣cent: others of the preciser sort, called that a Papistical interpretation, against which, they did most sharply inveigh; and taught, according to Calvin, that the sense of them was, that Christ did suffer in his Soule the horrible tor∣ments, of a cōdemned and forsaken man; which glosse was called by the former Ministers, a hor∣rible blasphemy.

To come then to the true sense of this article, about which there was such contrariety among the Ministers, I had my recourse to the holy Scriptures & Fathers; and I found, that there was scarcely any article of our faith more clear∣ly contain'd in the Scriptures, and more vnani∣mously avowed, by the holy Fathers, who brand those, who do not believe it literally, with the name of Infidels. And lastly I found, that diverse grosse wayes have been devised by the Ministers, since their pretended Reformation, to pervert and obscure it: and when the fal∣shood of one is discovered, they alwayes find out an other, but will never embrace the true sense of it.

The light of reason doth shew to every Chris∣tien, that it is not sufficient for mans Salva∣tian, to hold the words of the Creed; but it is necessary also to follow the true sense of it. This the holy Fathers do teach, who shew likwise, that, as Heretiques ever endeavoured to pervert

the true sense of the Creed; so the true Church doth ever retaine & maintaine it. S. Cyril, with the Alexandrin Synod, writes to this purpose to Nestorius, Who pretended to believe the Nicen Creed, & yet denyed the blessed Virgin to be the Mother of God.* 1.102 It's not sufficiēt (saith he) that you professe with vs the Symbol of faith &c. For you do not vnderstand, nor expound it rightly, but rather perversly, although you Confesse the words of it with your tongue. S. Augustin also saith, to the like purpose. Vnder the few words contained in the Symbol, many Heretiques haue endeavoured to hide their poisons, to whom the Divine mercy hath resisted, and doth resist by spirituall men, who haue not only merited to believe and receive the Catho∣lique faith, in these words; but also, by the reve∣lation of God, to vnderstand & know it. So the Presbyterians, although they have denyed the Creed; yet vnder the words of it, they endea∣vour to hide their poisons.

Although the article of Christs descent to Hell, were not in the Creed (which is a clear and easy rule of faith, that ought to be plainly and literally vnderstood) yet it is so clearly in the Scripture, that it cannot be denyed, wit∣hout wresting of it. S. Peter, in his first Sermon doth apply vnto Christ,* 1.103 a prophesie of Dauid, in the 15 Psasme, which saith: My heart hath been glad, & my tongue hath reioyced; my flesh also shall rest in hope. For thou wilt not leave my Soule in Hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine holy One to see corruption.* 1.104 After S. Peter hath proved, that this Prophely cannot be vnderstood of the

Prophet Dauid, he sheweth that Dauid mea∣n't of Christ, in these words. Whereas therefore he was a Prophet &c. forseeing, he spake of the resurrection of Christ. For neither was he left in Hell, neither did his flesh see corruption There is both the old & new Testament fot this truth. The Prophet Dauid foretelling, and the Apostle S. Peter expounding, and shewing the fulfilling of it, to witt: that Christs soule was not left in hell, neither did his flesh see corrup∣tion. What can be reasonably more required by any Christian?* 1.105 But let vs heare S. Augustin so vnderstanding it. That our Lord (saith he) being mortifyed in the flesh, did goe into Hell, is very cer∣taine. For that prophecy, which saith: Thou wilt not leave my Soule in Hell cannot be con∣tradicted: which least any man should presume to vnderstand otherwise, the same Peter doth expound it, in the Acts of the Apostles &c. And then he concludes in these words: Quis ergo nisi infidelis &c. Who them, except au Infidel, will de∣ny Christ to haue been in Hell? Behold, what in S. Augustius iudgment, are all Presbyterians, who do contradict the prophecy, which, he saith, cannot be contradicted, and who vnder∣stand it in a contrary sense; which S. Peter did expound, least any man should presume to vn∣derstand it otherwise. Which is indeed to goe against the Scriptures, both the old and new Testament, the Prophets and Apostles, the holy Fathers & the whole Church; and, in a word, as S. Augustin speaks, to be Infidels.

S. Hierome, expounding that place of S. Paul

in the 4. to the Ephesians:* 1.106 And that he (Christ) ascended, what is it, but because he descended also first into the lower parts of the earth: saith: The in∣feriour parts of the earth are taken for Hell, to which our Lord & Saviour did descend. Where it is also shewed, for what end our Saviour did descend. He, saith S. Paul, ascending on high did leade captivity captive: and gaue gifts to men. Vpon which the same S. Hierome saith: Our Lord and Saviour descended into Hell; that being Victorious, he might lead with himself the Soules of those, who were kep't there inclosed. Whence it came to passe; that after his resurrection, many bo∣dies of the iust were seen in the holy Citie. The Apostle sheweth the same truth, in the 2. chap∣ter to the Collossians;* 1.107 where he saith. And (Christ) spoyling the Principalities & Powers, hath ledde them confidently in open shew, trium∣phing them in himself. I passe by, for brevities sake,* 1.108 some other passages, as that of S. Peter, how Christ in his Spirit did goe downe, and preach'd vnto the Spirits in prison, and the like: which are vnderstood, by some of the holy Fat∣hers, of Christs descēt to hell; these already brou∣ght, appeared to me, to be most clear & suffi∣cient. Moreover, I found S. Aug. vnderstanding the words of Christ to the good theefe, This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise: far other∣wise then the Presbyterians do. For he saith: Non ex his verbis &c It is not to be thought by these words,* 1.109 that Paradise is in heaven: for the man Christ Iesus was not to be in heaven (to witt, that day) but in hell, according to his Soule,

and in the grave, according to his flesh. And a little beneath, he subioynes: The Scripture cle∣arly shewes, that he was in Hell, according to his Soule. But as the same holy Father shewes, out of the 87. Psalme; He was so in hell, that he was free among the dead, and did there begin his triumph, over all infernal powers & principa∣lities, and freeing the Soules of the iust, from their captivity, did carrie them gloriously with himself vnto the heavens, into which he did first enter, and opened them vnto all true faithfull Christians. For so it was fitting. That he, who is the head of the body, the Church;* 1.110 the beginning, the first borne of the dead as S. Paul speaks, & the first fruites of these, who are asleep,* 1.111 may, in all things, hold the Primacie. I know these things are laughed at, as if they were fa∣bles, by the Presbyterians; who founds their faith vpon their owne groundlesse fancies, and will believe nothing, which doth not suite to their humours, albeit it be most clearly contai∣n'd in the Scriptures, so vnderstood by the holy Fathers, and so believed by the Christian world. But I intend God willing, to prefer these solid grounds to Puritanical imaginations, which are without, yea and against Scriptures the holy Fathers, and whole ancient Church, and lastly against the clear words of the Creed.

As I saw the true and clear sense of this arti∣cle; so I found, that the Ministers haue vsed ma∣ny crooked windings & turnings, to obscure and deny the true sense of it. For first; they haue

not stood to corrupt the letter of the Scripture. 2. they followed a sense invented by Calvin, which was not only false, but by many estee∣m'd blasphemous. 3. When for shame they had abandonned that sense, the Presbyterians haue of late invented a new one, not so impious, but very ridiculous. And lastly, to compleate the work, they haue denyed the whole Creed to be Apostolical; which is the cleanliest way that hath been yet vsed.

For their corrupting of the words of Scrip∣ture, Beza, Calvins entire brother, may cary the prize. For, in the Bibles of his translation, he turnes these words, 2. Acts 31. Thou wilt not leave my soule in Hell After this manner. Thou wilt not leave my body in the grave. And; when this manifest corruption of Gods word was ob∣iected to him, by Protestants, he answers, in defence of his version, against Sebastian Casta∣lio,* 1.112 saying: No man can doubt, but here is mea∣n't of the body & grave, vnlesse one would be blind in the mid-day. This must be a strange light, or rather a strong illusion, which the Presbyte∣rians alone see. But the reason which Beza gives there a little before, for his changing; Soule in∣to body, and hell into graves is very remarkable. I did not this rashly, saith he, since we see, that this place is chiefly wrested by the Papists, for establis∣hing their Limbe: and the ancients also, devised from it, the descent of Christs soule into hell. Our Presbyterians in Scotland, were one degree in∣feriour to Beza, for they did not corrupt two words, as he did, but only one, as may be seen

in the great bibles, printed at Edinburgh, by Andrew Hart; where they reade thus the fore∣said text: Thow wilt not leave my Soule in the grave, putting grave for hell, which corrup∣tion was amended in the new Translations, that was made by order of King Iames, who said in the conference at Hampton-Court, that he had never seen a true and sincere translation of the bible in English: but, of all these he had seen, that of Geneva was the worst.

Having thus corrupted the text, they did also invent corrupt senses of it. Calvin the great Foundator of Presbytery, vnderstands, by Christs descent to hell; that he suffered in his Soule the paines of a damned man, and that doubting of his Salvation, he vtteted words of desperation. For thus he writes in his Institu∣tions. Diros in anima cruciatus,* 1.113 damnati ac perditi∣hominis pertulit &c. that is: he suffered in his soule, the horrible paines of a damned & lost man. And writing on the 27. chap. of S. Mathew, ver. 46. he saith, that a word of desperation did fall from Christ. And a little after. Sowe see, saith he,* 1.114 that he was vexed on all sides, that being overwhelmed with desperation, he ceased from calling vpon God, which was to renounce Salvation. O most strange doctrine, which I find to be condemned by many as flat blasphemy! And yet Calvin estee∣m's so much this blasphemous fancy, that he makes it the price of our Redemption. For thus he writes: Nothing had been done,* 1.115 if Christ had onely dyed a Corporal death: but it was also re∣quisite, that he should feele the severity of the

wrath of God. And when this was obiected as a blasphemy, by F. Campian, Whitaker did second & sustaine it,* 1.116 saying, that Calvin wrote most truly, that nothing had been done, if Iesus Christ had onely suffered a corporal death. Yea he calls this a doctrin most full of comfort. These doctrines are so fals against the Scriptures, which shew nothing more frequently and clearly, then that we are redeemed by the blood and death of Christ; and they are in themselues so absurd and blasphemous, that we neede spend no more time, in refutation of them: for they are of the same kind with those, of which S. Hierome speaks, when he saith. that to discover them, is to vanquish them. Yea some Ptotestants have writ∣ten against them, as Doctor Bilson B. of Win∣chester in his booke,* 1.117 which he intitles The full redemptein of mankind, by the death and blood of Christ: And in the defence of the article, that Christ descended into hell &c. But, notwith∣standing all the grosse absurdities of this sense, invented by Calvin, yet it was generally follo∣wed by the Presbyterians, and by many other Protestants, who denyed the local descent of Christs soule to hell. For although it sounded very ill; yet it behooved to be kep't by the Presbyterians, for want of a better, vntill a new one more commodious was found out, which now lately hath been performed by the new Reformers of these times, who see further and more clearly, then M. Calvin, who, although he was famous in his owne generation, and was reputed to be an Apostle, sent extraordi∣narly

by God, to reforme the Church; yet did not so much as know his Catechisme, nor the true sense of the articles of his Creed; but in∣vented such a sense, as some of his disciples haue abandonned it, as false; and others, as blas∣phemous.

As Beza, in his version of the Scripture, tur∣ned, Hell into Grave; so he vnderstood this ar∣ticle of the Creed, he descended into Hell: that is, He descended into the grave. Which er∣rour, together with the former coruption, in∣vented by M. Calvin, a learned Minister in Edinburgh, did publickly refute, in divers Sermons, a little before the troubles: for which he was much persecuted by the Puritans. He shew that Bezas corruption made a grosse Tau∣tology, in the Apostles Creed, or it made an explication more obscure, then the thing it ex∣plained. The Tautology would be very grosse to say: Crucifyed, dead, and buryed, he descended into the grave; that would be twice buryed. Or if you make descending into hell, the explica∣tion of burial, that is a rare Commentary, to ex∣plicate a matter, which is cleare and needs no Cō∣mentary by that, which is more obscure, and cannot yet be rightly vnderstood by Protestants: as appeares by their dissensions. The same Mi∣nister shew, that both these vices were against the end of the Creed, and the wisdome of the holy Apostles, who made it short and plaine, that it might serve the capacity of all men: and therefore it was to be free of idle Tautologies, and obscure Commentaries. But, at that time,

this Minister did not know, that the Presbyte∣rians were to deny the Creed, to haue been composed by the Apostles; by which his argu∣ments are answered, although by falling into grosser absurdities.

The third sense devised by the Presbyterians, at Westminster, is subiect to the like inconve∣niences, that is: both of Tautologies, and ob∣scure glosses. For they say, by that article, He descended into Hell, is vnderstood, that he con∣tinued in the state of the dead, and vnder the power of death, till the third day. For first, it would be a Tautology to say dead and buryed, and then repeate againe he remained dead, or in the power of death: that is sufficiently kno∣wen, by the words, that follow, to witt: The third day, he arose from the dead. For he be∣hoved to remaine dead so long as he was dead, and he was dead till the third day, that he arose from the dead. So, that the addition of he des∣cended into hell, vnderstood in the Ministers new coyned sense, would not be onely super∣fluous, but also ridiculous. Then, if they will make Christs descent to hell, an explication of Christs remaining dead, the Commentary would be more obscure then the text, which is clear of it self. How would the Presbyterians be pleased, if one would say of Iohn Calvin, or Knox, or of their late Apostle M. Hender∣son, that they are dead, buryed, & descended into hell? And if this man, being accused be∣fore the Presbytery, would bring, in his ow∣ne defence, the Ministers new Commentary,

that he meaned only by these words, that they remained in the power & state of death, be∣cause they are not as yet risen from the dead. I am morally perswaded, what ever Commen∣tary could be brought, either their owne or any other, the Presbyterians would be ill plea∣sed with such a Text, and would thinke it was sufficient to haue said, that they were dead and buryed, without this addition. They descended into Hell.

But, of all the expositions, that ever I found on this article, that of the late Protestant Bis∣hop Vsher, is the rarest, which D. Vane spea∣king of the Ministers iuglings describes thus.* 1.118 O what Serpentine wriglings and windings to escape the assaulters, do they make! O what perverse, ridiculous and contradicting answers and evasions do some of them make! In which they shew at once both much wit, and much folly. For fooles could not speake, as they do; and wise men would not. In so much, that B. Vsher, Primat of Armagh, a very learned man, to avoid the Confession of Christs descent into Hell, according to the article of the Creed, in the plaine sense thereof, doth so turne it and wind it, that he makes the sense of the words, He descended into hell, to be, He ascended into Heaven. To such pitifull refuges, doth the wea∣knesse of a bad cause drive them &c. Thus he. And so, by this Bishops Commentary, for descend we haue ascend, and for Hell, Heaven. But all these senses being nowayes satisfactory, the Presbyterians tooke the cleanliest & easiest way, to deny the Creed it self, to be Aposto∣lique;

that so men might not care much, or take great notice of the sense, when all authority is taken from the text. That shift might, in some manner, serve their turne, if this truth were not, as expresly in the Scripture, as it is in the Creed.

Now, I would inquire at any man of con∣science, or ordinary discretion, who will con∣sider impartially these things, what I should do in this case? should I believe the Presbyte∣rians, who haue no Scripture for them, in this point, but in expresse words, against them? should I give credit to those, who, to maintaine their errour, did first manifestly corrupt the words of Scripture, with false translations; and thereafter, did pervert the sense of them, with blasphemous interpretations? should I believe those, who although they quitted their first sense of blasphemy, did invent another full of Tautology, not so impious, but very ridiculous. And who last of all, to compleate the worke, did deny their Creed? Or should I believe the old and new Testament, the Prophets foretel∣ling, and the holy Apostles expounding? the holy Fathers so vnderstanding, & the whole primitive Church, assisted by the Spirit of truth, so believing and professing? And last of all, should I believe my Creed, which the whole Christian world did receive, as a most perfect, plaine rule of faith, composed by the holy Apostles, for the capacity of all men? I must professe, that, after such a Triall, I could not put these authorityes, in the ballance toge∣ther;

much lesse could I prefer the Presbyte∣rians inconstant, new opinion, to the ancient, constant beliefe of the whole world; vnlesse, I would haue renounced both Reason & Con∣science.

CHAP. XII. A Reflection on the last, and an Entrance into the Triall of the first supposed Reformation.

HAVING, by the Divine grace, & by the former considerations, discovered, as well the falshood of the forsaid Presbyterian Innova∣ons, as the ancient truth of the Catholique do∣ctrine, I was advised and much encouraged to make the like triall, of the principal points of our first Reformation: as concerning the Com∣mandements, our iustification, & the nature & effect of the Sacramēts. For i••t was represented vnto me, that there was no lesse pretext of pure Scripture, and a like lowd cryes of a great en∣gyring light, for the last; then was for the first Reformation. And seing, by the former triall, I had discovered these, last pretences to be false: Why may not I haue some confidence to do the like, with the first, if I would vse the l ke dili∣gence? And if the last Reformers haue been mis∣taken and misled by passion, why might not also their Predecessours over see themselves too: Or what assurance can any man haue of

their infallibility, more then of the others? The Alterations, that haue been lately made by the Presbyterians do shew (even in their Iudg∣ment) that their first Reformers were not infal∣libly assisted. 2. I was put in mind, that I had found lately some of the most eminent among them, to be Corrupters, or as S. Paul speakes Adulterers; both of the letter and sense of the Scriptures: and therefore, they are not to be altogether trusted, without trial. In a word, great promises and assurances were made to me, that I would, by this triall, find out the fal∣shood of the first, as I had done of the last Re∣formation. &, by that means I might attaine vnto the possession of solid truth, whereon I might safely rely, for the good of my soule. As truth can endure iust trial, and desires nothing more, by which it is more manifested; so falshood can∣not abide triall, but alwayes shuns it, because thereby it's deceits are detected.

* 1.119Lastly, it was showen vnto me that the an∣cient Pastours of the Church, did most wisely reduce the whole substance of the Christian doctrin, which is, of it self, so large and plen∣teous, into these 4. heads: to witt the Apostles Creed, the Sacraments, the Divine Comman∣dements, and our Lords prayer: for all things which belong either vnto the knowledge of God, the creation and governement of the world, or the Redemption of mankind, the rewards of the good or the punishments of the wicked, are contain'd in the Apostolique Creed. The signes and instruments, which

God hath instituted for attaining grace, are the holy Sacraments. The divine Commande∣ments, shew, what we ought to do; and our Lords prayer doth containe all, what we can wish or desire. And therefore, these are (as it were) the foure great Pillars, wheron the whole fabricke of Christianity relyes. Now it was told me, how I had found, by the former triall, that this last pretended Reformation, had overturned two of these Pillars▪ to witt the Apostles Creed, & the Lords prayer; besides the fundamental governement, established by Christ, in his Church. If then, I should find also, that the first Reformation had overturned the other two Pillars: to witt the Divine Com∣mandements, & the holy Sacraments: Then I might Conclude, that the end and intent of these Reformations (what ever was the inten∣tion of the Reformers) hath been, vnder the pretence of Reformation, totall Deformation, and the destruction of the Christian religion, and that, betwixt them, they haue compleated that hydeous worke of Desolation. For, if the first refomation tooke away two, as the next hath taken away other two; Then they both together have subverted (so far as they could) the 4. great Pillars of Christianity: and the last Presbyterian Reformation hath compleated, what the first had begun, and had not perfected.

I begun then the trial of our first Reforma∣tion, with it's doctrin, concerning the divine Commandements, and specially of the impos∣sibility to keepe them: which was taught by

our first, and is yet maintain'd by our last Re∣formers. For it was showen to me, if the Com∣mandements of God were possible to be keept (as all wise and iust lawes are ordain'd for that end) that they may be observed; Then we, by teaching they were impossible to be keep't, de∣stroyed the very end, for which the Comman∣dements were made, and so destroyed the Commadements themselues.

CHAP. XIII. Of the possibility, to keepe the Divine Com∣mandements, with the assistance of Gods grace; denyed by the Presbyterians and their first Reformers,

I had for some space, a preiudicate opinion, in this matter, against the Catholique doc∣trin, which affirmed, as the Ministers taught, that it was possible for any man to keep all the divine Commandements; yea and to do more then God had commanded. I conceived that to be false. For, since no man, to my knowlege, or their owne confession, had kep't them all, or doth keep them; I thought it not possible they could keep them. For it would seeme, if a thing were possible, some one, among so many thou∣sands, would put it in act. Vpon the other part, I was not well satisfyed with our owne doc∣trine, which teacheth, that it is altogether im∣possible to keep the Commandements of God:

by reason of a dangerous consequence, which a Catholique made me see to follow thervpon, to witt: That so many thousands should be damned for not doing that, which was vtter∣ly impossible for them to do. I wondered how that could stand with the goodnesse & iustice of God. For greater Tyranny & iniustice can∣not be imagined, then to punish one with eter∣nal misery and grievous paines, for not doing that, which was altogether impossible for him to do. The light of Nature would not permit me, to impute such cruelty to God, whose good∣nesse & mercy I knew to be vnspeakable.

Hauing therefore seriously implored the Divine assistance, that I might come to the knowledge of the truth, I received the first sparke of light, in this matter, by knowing the true state of the question. For I found that the Romā Catholiques did not teach, that men were able of themselves, that is by their owne strenth, or by any natural power, to keep the Divine Commandements; but only they teach, that men are able to keep them, by the assistance of Gods grace Now that particle of divine grace, was ordinarly suppres't by the Ministers, in this question. And, when I knew this to be the true meaning and expresse doctrin of the Ca∣tholiques, as may be seen,* 1.120 in the Councel of Trent, session 6. Canon 18. I imagined there was no real Controversy, till I found, in the new Presbyterian Catechisme, a particular ex∣ception made against Gods grace. For, hauing there made this question: Is any man able per∣fectly

to keep the Commandements of God? They answer: No man is able, either of himself, or by any Grace received in this life, perfectly to keep the Commandements of God: but doth dayly break them, in thought, word & deed. And, in the answer to the third question thereafter, They say, that every sin, even the least, deserveth Gods wrath and curse, both in this life, and that, which is to come. This booke is very obscure, in most points; but here it speaks somewhat clearly: although a∣gaine, by foysting in the word, perfectly, it seemes to cast a mist over our ey's, that the Au∣thours of it, may lurke in their obscurities, as we shall see hereafter. I found the Catholique doctrin to be contrary, set down in these termes, by the Councel of Trent:* 1.121 If any man say, that the Commandements of God are impossible to be kep't, by a man even iustifyed, and constituted vn∣der grace, let him be accursed.

Being therefore desirous, to know the truth, I began first to consider the testimonies of Scripture, for the strenth of Gods grace, to enable men to keep his Commandements; which testimonies I found to be very strong and expresse. 1. I saw that God promisheth cle∣arly, in the Scriptures, to enable men to keep his Commandements, yea and to make them actually keep them.* 1.122 God saith in Ezechiel: I will put my Spirit within you, and cause yow to walk in my statutes, and you shall keep my Iudg∣ment,* 1.123 and do them. And againe he saith: They shall be my people, and I will be their God, and David my servant shall be King over them &c.

they shall also walk in my iudgments, keep my Commandements and do them. Where nothing is more clear, then that God hath promised, to enable men to keep his Commandements. But Gods promises are true, for he is faitfull,* 1.124 (as Abraham the Father of the faithfull did professe & believe) and whatsoever he hath promised he is able and willing to perform. Therefore his promises, which are ever true, haue been truly & faithfull fulfilled: And so consequently some, by the help of Gods grace, haue actually kept his Commendements. Therefore they are not impossible, but possible to be kept by the grace, which God giveth in this life.

Secondly, I found, in the Scriptures, a real performance of this promise; for some are re∣corded there by name, to haue actually kept the Commandements of God. S. Luke giveth this excellent testimony of Zachary & Elyza∣beth, the parents of S. Iohn Baptist:* 1.125 They were both iust before God, walking in all the Comman∣dements & ordinances or, (as it is in the Catho∣lique translation) the iustifications of our Lord, blamelesse. So that they were not only iust be∣fore men, but also before God, and they did not only walk in one, but in all the Comman∣dements of God, without blame.* 1.126 The Scrip∣ture also calls Noe, a iust and a perfect man. Enoch & Elias were so iust & holy, that they are said, in the Scripture, to haue walked be∣fore God, and were translated. Iob is also cal∣led, in the Scriptures, a perfect & vpright man, one that feared God, & eschewed evil.

But most clearly is the iustice of Abraham exal∣ted, by the mouth of God himself, who said to his Son Isaac:* 1.127 I will perform the oath, which I sware vnto Abraham thy father &c. In thy seed, shall all the Nations of the earth be blessed. Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, & kept my pre∣cepts, my Commandements, my Ceremonies, & my lawes. What can be more clear, to prove the possibility of keeping Gods Commandements, with the help of his grace: and to disprove the impossibility of observing them. For what is impossible to be done by men, even with the assistance of Gods grace, no man hath done, or will do. But God himself and the Scriptures shew, that divers haue kept Gods Commande∣ments. Therefore with the help of his grace, they are possible & not impossible to be kept. Yea, it appeared most consonant vnto all rea∣son & piety, that, if the Commandements were possible, and were actually kept, by Gods grace, in the law of Nature, & under the law of Moyses, they should be more possible, and more easy to be kept, vnder the law of Grace: when, by the fulnesse of Christs Redemption, Grace is more plentifully powred forth, and in which time,* 1.128 the Prophet Esay foretells that the light of the Moon, should be as the light of the Sun, & the light of the Sun should be sevenfold, & as the light of seven dayes.

Thirdly, I found the Scripture to be so far from affirming the Commandements of God to be impossible; that they avow the clear contra∣ry, yea, and more then the contrary. For a

thing to be impossible, is much more, then to be hard or difficult. What is impossible to men, cannot be done by any man: what is hard & not impossible, may be done, although with difficulty. Now the Scriptures affirmes, that the Commandements of God are easy, which is not so much as difficult, and therefore much lesse are they impossible. Christ saith:* 1.129 Take my yoke vpon you &c. For my yoke is easy & my bur∣den is light. And S. Iohn, a most faithfull inter∣preter of our Saviours words, affirmes, that Gods Commandements are not heavy.* 1.130 This is the love of God, saith he, that we keep his Com∣mandements: and his Commandements are not heavy. And againe, He that saith,* 1.131 he knoweth God & keepeth not his Commandements, is a liar, & truth is not in him. What is easy, light & not heavy, is neither hard, heavy nor impossible. But the Commandements of God are an easy yoke, a light burden, & they are not heavy, as our Saviour & his beloved Disciple do affirme. The∣refore, they are not hard, nor heavy, and much lesse are they impossible. Yea, I found it was the love of God, that made the Commandements, which seeme so hard and difficult to others, to be easy vnto the Saints. David saith,* 1.132 that the Commandements of God were more sweete, then the honey or the honey comb: and againe, I did run in the way of thy Commandements, when thou didst enlarge my hart. Moreover all the children of God, love Christ, and they who love him, as himself testifyeth, keep his words;* 1.133 and S. Iohn saith: This is the of love God that we keep his

Commandements. Therefore, hauing diligently considered these testimonies of the Scripture, I found, that the Scripture was clearly for the possibility of keeping Gods Commandements, with the assistance of his grace, as the Catho∣liques teach; and against the impossibility of observing them, as the Prerbyterians & almost all Protestants hold. Wherevpon, I tooke oc∣casion to admire at two things. First: how it was possible, that all the points of our religion are expressly in Scripture; and that the contrary points, maintain'd by the Papists, are not in Scripture; but condemned by it: since, vpon serious triall, I found the Scripture to be, in this matter, so clearly against vs. 2. I did no lesse ad∣mire, that I, reading frequently the Scriptures before this search, did not, till now, observe our doctrin to be contrary vnto it. But a Catholique to whom I imparted my thoughts, some space thereafter, did quickly free me of these admira∣tions, by shewing me the reasons of both. The first, said he, is not to be much admired. For if the first Reformers had not pretended, that all their new doctrines were expressly in the Scriptures, they had got no followers: and, if the Ministers, did not continue to make the same pretence, there would be few or none, so foolish, as to abide with them. This same pre∣tence of Scripture all Heretiques have ever made, although their errours were clearly a∣gainst Scripture: And this pretence they must all make, if they intend to find any Credit. The reason also of the second, said he, is no lesse

evident: For it's no wonder that, till of late, yow did not find your doctrin to be contrary vnto the Scriptures: because you did reade them before, very superficially, without solid reflexion & attention, as the most part of Prote∣stants do, and many also reade them with pre∣iudicate opinions, framing their faith vnto the Scripture, but wresting the Scripture vnto their errours. That is not to search the Scrip∣tures, to which our Saviour did exhort the Ie∣wes, who contented themselves with the like superficiall reading of them; and therefore could find nothing of Christ in them. But he shew, if they would search; that is, reade di∣ligently & consideratly, they would find, that the Scriptures bare testimony of him. The like may be said truly of the Catholique Church & Religion: that, if the Protestants would search the Scriptures, they would find therein suffi∣cient and clear testimonies of them. Thus spake the Catholique.

But although the above cited testimonies of the Scripture, appeared sufficiently clear vnto me; yet, least relying vpon my own iudgment, I might be deceived: I had my next recours, af∣ter the Scriptures, to the exposition of the holy Fathers, & to the beliefe of the holy Primitive Church. From which, the old Episcopal Mini∣sters did affirm, that the Papists were altogether degenerated, and we were made by them to believe, that as our doctrin was conform to the Scriptures, so it was also conforme to the holy Fathers, who were all said to be of our

religion, true Protestants. But to speak mildly whithout any exaggeration, I found that to be a grosse vntruth, and that the Puritans, who either not claime the holy Fathers, or yeeld them vnto the Papists, are much more inge∣nuous in this matter, then the old Protestants, as shall be seen God willing, in the progresse of this Triall.

Concerning the possibility of keeping the divine Commandements, I found three things to be clearly contayned in the holy Fathers. 1. They affirm that the Catholique doctrin is ex∣pressed in the Scriptures, which they did so vn∣derstand and expound. 2. They prove it by the light of reason, drawen from the nature, iustice, & goodness•• of God. They not only condemn the contrary, that is Presbyterian doctrin as an heresy, but they accurse it, as a blasphemy a∣gainst God.

In proose of the first, S. Crysostom brings these words of our Saviour, above cited; My yoke is easy and my burden is light,* 1.134 and saith. Christ h••m self hath truely affirmed of his Cōmandements, that there is nothing laborious, nothing troublesome in them, saying: my yoke is easy, & my burden is light; And we, on the contrary, make them heavy, which he hath made light, and what he hath made sweete, we make bitter, by sinning. If there were any thing laborious in the Commandements, deservedly and decently labour should accompany vertue; for re∣wards are propounded after labours. &c. And el∣swhere he explaines the same words daintily thus.* 1.135 Hearing my precepts to be a yoke, be not af∣fray'd:

for it is replenished with rare delight. Neither feare ye that I name it a burden,* 1.136 for it is light. How then said he before, the gate to be nar∣row, and the way to be straight through tribulation? O that is, when thou art drowsie, or a dastard; but when with courage thou doest that work, then the burden shall be light &c. S. Augustin proves by these words of S. Iohn: And his Commande∣ments are not heavy, that the Commandements are not only possible, but also easy, and he she∣wes, that it is the Love of God, which makes them light, & the want of that love that makes them seem heavy. The precepts of God, saith he,* 1.137 are good, if we vse them lawfully. For in so much, as it is believ'd most firmely, that God, who is iust & good, cannot command impossible things▪ there∣vpon we are admonished, what we are to do in easy matters; and in difficult, what to request & pray for: For all are made easy to charity, to which alone the burden of Christ is light, or it is the bur∣den it self which is light, according to that which is said. And his Commendements are not heavy. And let him, to whom the•• be heavy, consider, that it could not haue been said in holy Scripture, they are not heavy, vnlesse there could be such a dispo∣sition of heart, to which they are not heavy, and let him pray for that, which is commanded And a little after: How can that be heavy which is the Com∣mandement of charity. For either a man doth not love and then the command is heavy; or else he doth love, and then it cannot be heavy. In which words, divers notable things are contayn'd. I took notice principally of these. 1. That he saith,

the possibility of keeping the Commandements is most firmely believed. 2. he doth not only prove it by Scriptures, but also by the nature of God; that he, who is iust & good, could not command things impossible. 3. That the Com∣mandements of God are heavy to those, who want the love of God; but they are light to those who haue it. Yea, the same holy Doctour shewes, by the testimony of S. Paul, that Christ came into the world, and lay'd down his life, for this end; that he might obtaine grace vnto vs, whereby we might be enabled to keep the Commandements of God, which were be∣fore so hard & difficult.* 1.138 Thus speaks S. Paul. For that, which was impossible, to the law in that it was weakened by the flesh: God sending his Son in the similitude of the flesh of sin, & for sin cōdemned sin in the flesh: That the iustice of the law might be fulfilled in vs, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.* 1.139 Vpon which words S. Augustin saith: The law was given, that grace might be sought after: and grace was given, that the law; might be fulfilled: for not by any fault of the law the law was not fulfilled; but by the wisdom of the flesh, which fault was to be shewed by the law, but to be cured by grace. For that which was impos∣sible for the law &c. S. Hierom brings the same place of ••. Paul, against the Pelagians, to prove that man is not able by his own strenth or free will,* 1.140 but only by the grace of Christ, to keep the law of God. Behold there the Catholique doc∣trin, affirmed by the holy Fathers, not of their own heads, but proved by the Scriptures. And

that this was the general beliefe of the holy Fa∣thers, & of the ancient Church, it was made appeare vnto me, by the second Arausican Councel, celebrated about S. Augustins time,* 1.141 which makes this profession: We believe, accor∣ding to the Catholique faith, that by grace received in baptisme, all such as are baptized, Christ helping & cooperating, may and ought to fulfill, if they will labour faithfully, these things that belong to Sal∣vation. So it is evident, that the holy Fathers & ancient Church, believed this doctrin to be con∣tain'd in the Scriptures: which is sufficient for my purpose.

This same truth is confirmed by S. Augustin, not only by the Scriptures, but also by reason. Some one may say, saith he; I can by no means love my enemies. To which he answer's thus. God saith to thee in all the Scriptures,* 1.142 that thou canst. Consider now whether thou or God ought to be believed: and therefore, since truth cannot lie, let humane weaknesse forbeare it's vaine excuses. For he, who is iust, could not command any thing that's impossible: and he, who is good, will never condemne man for that, which he could not avoid. So that, according to S. Augustin, the Presbyte∣rians beliefe is not only against all the Scrip∣tures, although they pretend to believe nothing beside Scriptures: but also against sound rea∣son: that is, against both the iustice & good∣nesse of God.* 1.143 S. Hierome also affirmeth that these, who say, that God hath commanded any thing impossible, pronounce God to be vniust.

Moreover, the same two most renowned &

holy Fathers do not only teach the Catholique doctrin; but also they censure the contrary, that is the Presbyterians opinion, as blasphemy, in the Heretiques of their time. We accurse, saith S. Augustin,* 1.144 their blasphemy, that affirm God com∣manded any thing impossible to man; and that Gods Commandements cannot be kept of any man in particular, but of all men taken together. The same is repeated by S. Hierome. So that these holy Fathers do iudge this errour not only to be an heresy, but also a blasphemy. And yet these new Reformers (which is a thing most admirable & deplorable) make such blasphe∣mies, the principall articles of their faith: and they haue also most tyrannically enforced others, vnder pretext of giving them only pure Scrip∣ture, to swear & believe such horrible errours and blasphemies, for divine truths. But I found that some more prudent and conscientious Pro∣testants, haue abandoned this wicked Calvini∣sticall opinion, yea and condemned it, as the holy Fathers had done, for blasphemy. Mr Shelford a Minister in England, hath written a Treatise expresly on this matter,* 1.145 to prove the possibility of the law, with the assistance of Gods grace: where he censures the contrary opinion by the Scriptures & Fathers, & by the autho∣rity of King Iames. For this he speaks. King Iames, vpon the Lords prayer, affirmeth it to be blasphemy to say, that any of Christs precepts are impossible because this is to give him the lie, who, out of his own mouth told vs, that his yoke is easy, & his burden light. And his inward disciple S.

••n saith, his Commandements are not grievous. ••rom whence S. Basil the great averreth. Im∣pious it is to say the precepts of Gods Spirit are im∣possible. Thus he. Behold,* 1.146 what the Presbyte∣rians do esteeme a principal article of their faith, how a learned Protestant, (whose booke came forth in the yeare 1635. with great applause in Cambridge) and King Iames (who was head of the Church of England) do condemne as blasphemy & impiety, & a giving the lie to God. I heare also, that some of the new Independent Congregations in England, do no lesse sharply condemn the same Presbyterian opinion.

But, besides all these pressing authorities, I found also some convincing reasons against the Presby∣terians; which I will briefly collect. 1. It cannot stand with the goodnesse and justice of a lawgi∣ver, such as God is, to impose vpon people lawes, which are impossible to be kept, & then to pu∣nish them with losse of goods and life, for not observing these impossible lawes. The greatest Tyrant on earth did never arrive to that hight of impiety & cruelty. Therefore it is impossible, that God, who is good & iust, should com∣mit such cruelty & iniustice. To this accor∣deth S. Augustin, in his words above cited when he saith.* 1.147 God could not command any thing impossible, because he is iust, neither will he dam∣ne a man for that, which he could not avoid, because he is mercyfull. Yea these absurdities of iniustice and cruelty would follow, against the goodnesse of God, in a high degree; in how much the punishment he inflicts is greater▪

then can be inflicted by man, although th•• greatest Tyrant on earth. For what is the lo•••• of temporall goods and life, in comparison of the losse of heaven, and of the death both of Soule & body, in the eternal paines of Hell? Therefore it's no wonder, that the holy Fa∣thers, & some Protestants do detest the Pres∣byterian doctrin, as extream blasphemy. 2. It doth not only incroach vpon the goodnesse & iustice of God; but also vpon his wisdome. For as it's certaine, that God made these lawes; so it's no lesse evident in the Scriptures, that God vseth admonitions & exhortations, propounds rewards and threatens punishements, to induce men to observe his lawes. Now what Magis∣trate would be esteemed to be in his right wits, who would not only make lawes impossible to be kept, but also spend time in making exhorta∣tions, & propounding rewards, to perswade men, to do impossibilities? But the Presbyte∣rian doctrine makes God, who is not only wise, but wisdome it self, subiect to both these follies, which are most grosse absurdities. And there∣fore, since his lawes, admonitions, & exhor∣tations cannot be but prudent & reasonable: they do ever suppose the possibility of that, which they enioyne, and wherevnto they ex∣horte. 3. The Presbyterian doctrine is not only iniurious to God, but also it is very preiudiciall to man: for it would rob him of the most excel∣cellent of all vertues, to witt, the love of God. For none can love another, vnlesse he be good & iust, or at least appeare to be so. But how

can God appeare to be so, who is described by the Presbyterians, as if he were the most cruel Tyrant in the world, to command impossibili∣ties, & then to punish man eternally for not doing them? Therefore, if the Prerbyterian doctrine were true, no man could love God, as good & gratious: but rather would hate him, as vniust & Tyrannous. 4. The Presbyterian opi∣nion is a great enemy to piety, & vertue. For, if the Commandements be impossible, none will strive to keep them: and, by this meanes, a wide gate is opened to all impiety. This is ac∣knowledged, by the forementioned Minister M. Shelford, who saith: Were the law impossible to be kept, then all the exhortations, & threat∣nings in Gods word should be idle: then all mens labours would wax lazie, & then, good life, which is after the rule, would be exiled: for that no man will strive against the stream. Wherefore, great ene∣mies are they to Christian growth, & reward in the way of Godlinesse, who are against this doctrine, to witt, of the possibility to keep the Comman∣dements. Lastly, if the law were impossible, then all men would be freed from subiection & obedience to it: for who can be reasonably tyed to things meerly impossible? And this was the vse, that Islebius, one of Luthers Schollers, made of his doctrine; wherevpon he began the sect of the Anti-nomians: as Sleidan doth testi∣fy in the 12. book of his history.

Having therefore found such clear testimo∣nies of Scriptures & Fathers, & such weight of right reason, for the ancient Catholique do∣ctrine;

I could not, either in reason, or cons∣cience, reiect all these, and follow the Pres∣byterians groundlesse fancies, which are against the very ground of faith, to witt, the holy Scriptures. For the Presbyterians do teach, that the commandements are impossible, even with Gods grace; And the Scripture saith they are easy, light & not heavy, which is more then if it had affirmed, that they were meerly possi∣ble. Againe, the Presbyterians, by affirming the commandements are impossible, do averre that never any did keep them, doth, or shall keep them. The Scripture shewes, in expresse termes, that Abraham, Zachary & Elizabeth, and others did keep them, and that God hath promised many should keep them. S. Iohn af∣firmeth: that he who saith, he knoweth God & keepeth not his commandements, is a liar, & the truth is not in him. The Presbyterians do professe, that they know God, and that they neither do, nor can keep his commandments; and yet they will not be esteemed liars, but ra∣ther true Professours. For my part, I am not able to reconcile such manifest contradictions, as are in this matter, betwixt the Scriptures & the Presbyterians. And therefore, seing I can∣not adhere to both, I choosed rather to aban∣don the Presbyterians, in thi•• matter, then to forsake the Scriptures. I was much confir∣med in this resolution, when I saw the Ca∣tholique doctrine and sense of the Scriptures, to be so clearly in the holy Fathers, that, by no shifts, their testimonies can be shunned. But I will add to these testimonies already brought,

one or two more; which seem'd to me very clear & efficacious How, I pray you, saith Sainct Au∣gustin, is it impossible vnto man, to love;* 1.148 to lo∣ve, I say, a bountifull Creator, & a most loving father, and then also to love his own flesh in his brethren? but he, who loves, has fulfilled the law, as the Apostle teacheth. Wherefore, the same holy Father admiring the great goodnesse & bounty of God,* 1.149 who requires nothing of vs, but to love him; who is so good in him∣self, and so gracious to vs; he speaks thus vn∣to him. What is man, that thou wilt haue thy self to be beloved by him?* 1.150 and if he do not love thee, thou threatens him with great punis∣ments? But is not this punishment great enough, if I do not love thee? S. Chrysostome to the like purpose, saith: God commanded nothing im∣possible, in so much,* 1.151 that many go beyond the very commandments. And then he sheweth, who these were, to witt S. Paul, S. Peter, even all the quire of Saints. Lastly, the holy Fa∣thers do not only prove the Catholique do∣ctrine, by the Scriptures, and most solid rea∣son founded vpon the goodnesse & iustice of God; but they condemne also the contrary opi∣nion, as a flat blasphemy against God. Which censure is approved likewise by some Prote∣stants. Truly, I cannot resist these reasons & authorities, and follow the Presbyterians, to make a doctrine, which is against the Scrip∣tures, and is condemned, as blasphemy by the holy Fathers, & by some Protestants, a princi∣pal article of my faith.

CHAP. XIV. A Consideration of the Presbyterians principall grounds, against the Possibility, of keeping the Divine Commandements.

HAVING received aboundant satifaction, in this matter, concerning the Catholique doctrin, I will briefly run through the Presby∣terians principal grounds against it; which in this search, I did not leave vnconsidered. 1. I found they acknowledged the Novelty of their doc∣trine. 2. They brought no pure Scripture to prove it; notwithstanding they pretend to be∣lieve nothing, but Scripture. 3. The Scriptures they bring, are privatly expounded by them, against the holy Fathers & ancient Church, & against the Scriptures themselves, in other pla∣ces. 4. They lay down some false Maximes and weak reasons, whereon they build their ima∣ginary faith, or rather most dangerous errour.

Calvin acknowledges the novelty & singula∣rity of his doctrine,* 1.152 in these words. That we said the observation of the law to be impossible, is briefly to be explained & confirmed, for it was wont commonly to be esteemed, a most absurd opinion; in so much as Hierome did not doubt to denounce a curse to it; but I care nothing what Hierome thought.* 1.153 The Centuriators also of Magdeburg do acknowledge the same, that the most an∣cient Fathers, as S. Iustin Martyr, Tertullian,

S. Cyprian & many more did affirme, that the law was possible to be kept. This Confession of Calvin & the Centurists, did manifest suf∣ficiently vnto me the antiquity of this Catho∣lique doctrine; & that it was no late invention of the Popes, as the Ministers were wont to pretend falsly of the whole Catholique religion.

Then for Scripture, they cannot bring so much as one place, which containeth expresly the article of their beliefe, to witt: That the Commandements are impossible to be kept, even with all the grace that Goh gives in this life. Calvin brings these words of our Saviour.* 1.154 Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy strenth &c. Wherevpon he & his followers do scance, after this manner. To love God with all our heart, requires all the facul∣ties of out Soule, to be alwayes applyed vnto the love of God, which none can do. From which they inferre, that we are so far from being able to keep all the Commandments, that we cannot so much as keep the first. In ans∣wer to which, a Catholique shew me, that he did acknowledge the words of Scripture; but that Calvins private interpretation & inference vpon them, is no Scripture. 2. he said, that be∣sids that Calvins glosses & consequences were no Scripture, they were not to be much regar∣ded; since they were against the holy Fathers, who will be prefer'd to him, in the iudgment of all wise men. 3. They are lesse to be regarded, or rather much to be detested, seing they are expresly against the Scriptures themselves, in

other places. For Calvin saith, that none can love God with all his heart; and David saith in the Scripture,* 1.155 speaking to God. I haue sought thee in my whole heart. And God himself appro∣ves this testimony to be true, when he gave or∣der to the Prophet to say to Ieroboam:* 1.156 Thou hast not been, as my servant David: who kept my Commandements and followed me with his whole heart.* 1.157 The Scripture saith also of Iosias That, he turned vnto the Lord in all his heart, in all his Sou∣le, and in all his might, according to all the law of Moyses. Therefore it's false against Scriptu∣res themselves, what Calvin saith; that it is im∣possible for any to love God with all his heart, and consequently, his interpretation of the love of God,* 1.158 is also false. M. Shelford a Protestant Minister saith, we love God with all our heart, when we preferre him above all the world, and above our lives, as the Martyrs did: when we will not offend God, not part from his love, for the love or feare of no Creature. This is the love of God with all our heart, which is here commanded, wherevnto we are obliged, & which by Gods grace, may be by vs fulfilled, as it was done by Abraham, Zachary & Elyza∣beth. For how could the Scripture say, that they kept all the Commandements, & walked in them blamelesse; if they had not kept the first & greatest of all the Commandements? The absolute & highest perfection of loving God, is neither commanded nor can be exercised in this life, but can only be attayn'd to in the heavens; where the fulfilling of it (as S. Augustin speaks)

is not obedience, but happinesse. Thus spake the Catholique with more words, whereby I recei∣ved good satisfaction.

2. The Presbyterians pretend, it is impossible to keep this other Commandment: Thou shall not covet. Because they say that here is forbidden all motion of concupiscence, although invo∣luntary, & albeit we resist vnto it: Whereof no∣ne in this life can be free.* 1.159 To which I find the same M. Shelford answer, saying; that the con∣sent of the will is only forbidden here, & the cherishing of the first motion to sin, according to the Scripture every where:* 1.160 let not sin reigne in your mortel bodies and, Go not after thy concupis∣cences to fulfill the lusts therof.* 1.161 Touching which matter, S. Augustin saith most clearly: As for vs we would ever be without sin, till this evil (of con∣cupiscence) were healed, if we did not consent vnto it to evil. Therefore, not to consent vnto concupiscence, is no sin, and by the grace of God we may not consent; and therefore we may keep that Commandment. Thou shalt not Covet.

3. They bring these words of S. Iohn.* 1.162 If we say we have no sin, we deceive our selves & the truth is not in vs. Moreover, Salomon saith the iust man falls 7. times a day. From which they inferre, that it is impossible to keep the Com∣mendemens so much as one day. I remember that a Catholique answered me, obiecting these places to him against the possibility of the Com∣mandments, and said: that there was this dif∣ference between the Catholiques & the Pro∣testants,

that the Protestants make the Scrip∣ture to contradict it self, neither haue they any probable way, nor care they much how to re∣concile these contradictions, but think it suffi∣cient to lay hold on that, which they imagine makes for them. As here, because. S. Iohn saith: if we say, that we have no sin, we deceive our selves, they conclude that it's impossible to keep the Commandments, whereas the Scrip∣ture shewes that Abraham, Zachary & Eliza∣beth kept the Commandments, and therefore they make the Scripture say as much, as if it said they kept the Commandments, & they kept not the Commandments, which are flat con∣tradictions. But Catholiques clearly shew, that one may keep the Commandments, as Abra∣ham & others did, & yet not be free of sin: be∣cause the Scripture affirmeth both. These two truths are not contrary one to another, as the Presbyterians do imagine. For one doth keep the Commandments, who doth nothing against charity, or the love of God, which is the end of the Commandments, as S. Paul affirmes: and that only is properly a breach of the Com∣mandments, which breaketh love & friendship with God. But that is only done by mortal or grievous sins, & not by light or venial faults, such as an idle inoffensive word, a little immo∣derate laughter,* 1.163 & such like, as S. Augustin reckons out, in his booke of Nature and grace. For such lights faults do not break friendship with God, since they do it not reasonably with men. Now, by the grace of God, men may be free of mortal sins, although not of venial im∣perfections,

& therefore they may keep the Commandments, & yet not be free of sin. This truth is clearly delivered by S. Augustin.* 1.164 As no man, saith he, ever hath been, or ever shall be without small offences; so we, by Gods help & aid, may and ought to be without any manner of Ca∣pital crimes. And again he shewes, that, albeit Zachary kept all the Commandments, yet he was not without sin: for being a Priest he was to offer vp Sacrifice, not only for the sins of others, but also for his own sins, as S. Paul affir∣mes: whereas Christ Iesus was the only priest, who being free of all sin, did offer vp Sacrifice only, for the sins of others. Et elswhere he saith: Because sin doth often steal vpon vs in light matters,* 1.165 & sometimes vnawares, they were both iust and not without sin. So that by the distinction of mortal & venial sin (which is sufficiently expressed by our Saviour, when he said:* 1.166 Who is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of Iudgment. Who shall say Raca, shall be in dāger of a Councel. And who shall say, Thou foole, shall be guilty of Hell-fire. Which is also clearly contain'd, in the holy Fathers, and is consonant to right reason) these places of Scripture, which shew that some kept the Commādments, & the others which teach, that the iust are not alwayes without sin, are both true, & easily reconciled. But the Presby∣terians quite the first, and to maintaine their er∣rour, adhere only to the last, which they also fal∣sly expound, against the sense of the holy Fathers, & the very words of the other Scriptures.

After these Principal Scriptures, which they

bring,* 1.167 I considered next their chiefe Maximes & reasons. Luther & Calvin do teach, that all the best actions, even of the greatest Saints, are mor∣tal sins: and the Presbyterians do generally in∣sist in the same doctrine. From which indeed it followes very clearly, if it were true, that the Commandments are impossible to be kept. I will bring a Protestant Minister giving his Iudgmens of this doctrine, which was taught by his two first Apostles. It may be ob∣iected, saith M. Shelford in his foresaid trea∣tise, that the very best works of the Saints are vnclean, impure, menstruous & mortall sins; therefore it is impossible, for any man, to keep the law. I answer, saith he, They that say so, cannot in my iudgment, be excused from ex∣tream blasphemy: Yet, seeing it is out of igno∣rance, they may happily obtaine pardon, as the Iews did, who crucifyed our Saviour. Can the works & the fruits of the holy Ghost be im∣pure? Hath Christ purchased to himself no∣thing but a filthy & impure generation, which can do nothing but sin, and that mortally? How can this but derogate from the grace & wis∣dome of God? from grace, that it cannot purify the heart from filthinesse: from his wisdome & iustice, to reward menstruous rags (for so they term them) with heaven? Thus he. So that in his iudgemens, this maxime of M. Luther & Calvin, is not only false but also blasphemous against the merits of Christ, & the power of his grace.* 1.168 It is likwise clearly against the Scripture. For S. Paul saith: If a Virgin marry, she sinneth

not: but if we believe the Presbyterians, she sinneth, whether she marie or marie not. Christ saith of S, Mary Magdalene:* 1.169 she hath wrought a good work on me. But if these men speak true, she wrought an evill work. In a word: I found their words to be against Christs words, and the holy Scriptures.

I found also that their reasons were very vn∣solid, as for example when they say: none doth keep the Commandments; therefore none can keep them. For although the antecedent were true, the consequence is very false. And it is iust as you would say, Adam did not keept Gods Commandment in paradise; Therefore he was not able by Gods grace to keep it: Which is most ridiculous & a false kinde of reasoning; for we can do many things, with the help of Gods grace, which we do not. S. Hierome clears this matter, when writing against the Pelagians he saith: God hath commanded things possible,* 1.170 of this no man doubts: but because men do not these things that are possible; therefore all the world hath need of the mercy of God.

Then, when expresse Scripture is produced, shewing, that diverse haue actually kept the Commandments; I haue heard some Presbyte∣rians say, that no such men are living now a dayes. This they do, iudging all men by them∣selves, Of such persons S. Hierome saith:* 1.171 Many iudging the Commandments of God by their own weaknesse, & not by the strenth of the Saints, think all the Commandment; of God to be impossible. But if diverse kept the Commandments in the

law of nature, & vnder the law of Moyses; how much more may it be iustly thought, that many haue kept them in the law of grace▪ when the law of the Spirit reigneth, & when the moti∣ves of the love of God, as the death & passion of Christ, and the like, are much more efficaci∣ous, then they were before his coming: when these things were knowen, but very obscurely? At least this confession of theirs, (to witt that di∣verse are recorded in the Scriptures to haue kept the Commandments) shewes, that they are not absolutly impossible.

For this cause (as would seeme) the Presby∣terians, being pressed also with the waight of other reasons, haue begun to say of late: that the Commandments are not absolutly impossi∣ble, but only that they are impossible to be kept perfectly. But this being an ambiguous expres∣sion & very apt to deceive; I was desirous to know, in what sense it was true, & in what not; and in what sense the Presbyterians intend it. Wherevpon a Catholique, who did much as∣sist me in this triall, shew me: that in this matter concerning the observation of the Command∣ments, there may be distinguished two kinds of perfection, to wit: perfection in parts, and per∣fection in degrees. The first is, when one having the love of God; endeavoureth to keep not a part only, but the whole law of God; as Iosias did, who turned vnto God, according to all the law of Moyses To this perfection, all men are obliged: for he, who offends in one, is guilty of all, as S. Iames teacheth. And as all are obliged to

this perfection of keeping the whole law; so by Gods grace, they may perform it. Perfe∣ction in degrees is, when the commandments are kept in the highest degree of perfection; as the Angels and Saints in heaven do love & obey God, most perfectly. Now, as the command∣ments cannot be kept here in this life, accor∣ding to that highest degree of perfection; so neither are they required to be kept so perfectly of vs. But they may be kept in an inferiour de∣gree of perfection, which God doth iustly exact of vs. For clearing of which matter, the same Catholique shew me, that there are three states of perfection containd in Scripture. 1. They are called perfect, who alwayes actually love God, and refer all actually to his glory. This state of perfection, is only proper to the blessed Saints in heaven; & as it cannot be attaind to in this life; so neither is it commanded. Of this perfe∣ction, S, Paul speaks, when he saith:* 1.172 Not that I haue now received, or now am perfect; but I pursue, if I may comprehend. And yet, immedia∣tly thereafter, he calleth himself and others per∣fect, in another inferiour degree of perfection. Let vs therefore, saith he, as many as are perfect, be thus minded. 2. They are called perfect, who, although they do not alwayes actually love God, & think vpon him; yet they conse∣crate themselves totally to Gods service, and leave willingly all worldly things, to please him; according to that of our Saviour, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell all thow hast, & give to the poore &c. This perfection is not commanded, but

onely counselled, as the holy Fathers constan∣tly teach; and albeit it be not commanded; yet many, by Gods grace, do attayne vnto it. La∣stly, they are called perfect, who are ready to fo∣resake & loose all, before they loose the love & friendship of God. This last kind of perfection is required of all men: as God said to Abra∣ham:* 1.173 walk before me and be thou perfect: and Christ said to his disciples: be ye perfect. The Sripture calls some perfect in this sense, for it saith, that Noe was a iust and a perfect man; And S. Paul saith, we speak wisdome among the perfect. To this state, a proportionable degree of perfe∣ction, in keeping the commandments, is re∣quired: which by Gods grace may be perfor∣med. Of this perfection S. Augustin speaketh, when he saith: that the iustice, by which the iust man liues,* 1.174 albeit, for the capacity of this life, it be not vndeservedly called perfect, yet it is little in regard of that great iustice, which the equality of Angels doth containe.

Hence it may easily appeare, in what sense, the Commandments of God ought, & may be kept perfectly, and in what not. To wit: they may be kept perfectly in all the parts, not one excepted, and in some degree of perfection, although they cannot be kept perfectly, during this life, in the highest degree, which is not commanded, nor required of vs. If the Presbyterians followed this sense, they were not to be reproved, but they haue a quite contrary meaning. For they deny all possibility of keeping the Com∣mandments any wise perfectly, either in parts, or the lowest degree of perfection: as may be

seen in their new Catechisme: where they say that no man is able, by any grace received in this life▪ to keep the Commandments perfectly, but every one breakes them dayly in thought, word & deed &c. So that their sense of the impossi∣bility to keep the Commandments perfectly, is most false, if not blasphemous. For either God commandeth that perfection, which they say is above their force & power, or he commandeth it not. If he commandeth it not; then they may fulfill the law perfectly; because it is a law no further, then it commandeth: and if so far it may be fulfilled; then may it be fulfilled per∣fectly. Therefore it is false, which they say, that it cannot be fulfilled perfectly. If they say, that overplus of perfection, which is above their power, is commanded, as they do ordinarly; then they make God to be a Prince vnreasona∣ble, in commanding vs to do that which is not in our power to do; and to be Tyrannous & cruell, in punishing vs eternally, for not doing that, which was above our reach to perform. All which do make against the wisdome, goodnesse & iustice of God: and therefore these opinions are condemned by the holy Fathers, & by some Protestants, as blasphemous. Thus spake the Catholique.

Moreover, I remember he shew me, that there was a notable difference, in this matter, betwen the Catholiques & the Presbyterians. For the last, said he, do free themselves, and put the blame of all their wickednesse and sluggish∣nesse vpon God; alleadging that he hath given

them a law impossible to be kept, even with all the help & grace that he gives them. But the Catholiques do free God of all blame, & im∣pute iustly their breaking of the law, to their own wickednesse alone. S. Hierome shewes the humour of the Presbyterians, in these words:* 1.175 We cry against God, and we say, that we are oppressed with the difficulty or impossibility of his Commandments. Neither is it sufficient, that we do not keep his Commandments; vnlesse We pronounce the Commander to be vniust: whilst we complaine, that the Authour of equity, hath Commanded not only hard things, but also impossibilities. The Church of Christ, said the same Catholique, hath been troubled in this matter, with two opposite heresies, to witt: of the Pelagians & the Calvinists. The first taught of old, that the Commandments were possible to be kept, wit∣hout the grace of God: and the others of late teach, that the Commandments are impossible to be kept, even with the grace of God. The Church of Christ keeps the medium of truth, between these opposite errours. Against the first she teacheth, that the Commandments may be kept, but not without Gods grace: and against the second, that they may be kept with Gods grace. And therefore, against both these enemies, as well to one another, as to grace; she defends the grace of God. Against the first, she shewes the necessity of grace; and against the second, she maintaines the power & efficacy of it. But there is this notable difference, between Pelagius & Calvin, in their opposition of grace; that the first

is an open enemy to it, and the second is a great friend in words, but no lesse enemy in deeds. For, whilst he vndervalues all the faculties and natural powers of man, he would seem to cry vp grace, & to give all the glory to God. But when he teacheth again, that grace is not able to purify our soules, or make vs able to walk in the Commandments of God; he quite overthro∣wes grace. God, who of his mercy delivered this Island from the first heresy; may also, in his own time, deliver it from the second. Thus he.

But I did oppose vnto him that, which I heard some Ministers say, that God might iustly command things impossible to man fallen: because it is sufficient, that they were possible to man, before his fall; and seing, by his own fault, they became vnpossible, God may iustly exact them, without the least imputation either to his iustice or goodnesse.

To this he answered: that the authorities of the Scriptures & holy Fathers, are for the pos∣sibility of the law, after the fall: And the Fathers shew by most solid reasons, that God could neither with his iustice, or goodnesse impose im∣possible lawes, after the fall, & punish the trans∣gressours of them with eternal paines. There∣fore this reason or rather pretence of the Mi∣nisters, being no Scripture, but rather against Scripture, & the holy Fathers, who knew found reason, as well as the Ministers, is not to be regarded. 2. As a man who was rich, and had mispent his estate, cannot be iustly commanded by any new law, to pay as much tribute as

when he had his estate; nor be punished for not paying it thereafter, for such a law would be both vniust & ridiculous, commanding impos∣sibilities: and so would be no law, and the ma∣kers of it, would be both vnreasonable & cruel. So man, after the fall of Adam, could not, by any new law, be iustly commanded by God, to do that, which was impossible vnto him, vnlesse we would make that new law vniust and ridi∣culous, & God him self vnreasonable & Tyran∣nous. Therefore, since God made and pro∣mulgated his law, long after the fall of man, vsed, exhortations, propounded rewards, and threatned punishments, to induce men to keep it, and all his actions are iust and wise; they presuppose necessarly the possibility of keeping that law with the assistance of his grace; or else such things, would not be only against Gods goodnesse, & iustice; but also against ordinary prudence.

Moreover, the same Catholique shew me, that the Presbyterians, who accuse the Catholi∣ques falsy, for taking away the second comman∣dment, as they call it (of which matter we shall haue occasion to speak more fitly hereafter) may be iustly accused, for taking away, in reali∣ty, not one, but alle the commandments: For their errour of the impossibility of them, des∣troyes the end, for which they and all iust lawes are made, to wi t, that they may be kept; and so they destroy the Whole divine command∣ments, and make them of no effect, yea this errour destroies also the end of Christs Incar¦nation

& Passion, if we will believe S. Augu∣stin, For, having brougt many passages of Scrip∣ture, to this purpose, he subioyns, Quibus appa∣paret D. Iesum Christum nullam aliam ob causam in carnem venisse &c.* 1.176 where he sheweth very largely, that Christ, for no other cause, came vnto the world, and became obedient vnto the death of the Crosse▪ but that he might recon∣cile sinners to God, destroy the power of sin, obtaine grace from God, to make vs walk in newnesse of life, and in obedience of his holy commandments. Whereby it may be seen, what a dangerous fundamental errour this is, which is against such principal & fundamental points of the Christian religion. Therefore the Presbyte∣riās, would de well to make vse of the same holy Fathers sound advice, when he saith. Let him, to whom the commandments are heavie, know,* 1.177 that he hath not got the gift, to witt of the love of God, by which, they are made not heavie, but yet, though he find them heavie let him not, be broke with despaire, but let him be enforced and stirred vp, to seek, to beg, and to knock. But the Presbyterians, (who hereby may know, that they want the love of God) cannot make immediat vse of this wholsome counsel, to seek and beg that love of God, by which his commandments are made easy; till they first correct or rather quite their erroneous faith, whereof they make this a chiefe article, that it's impossible to love God, or keep his com∣mandments. Therefore they must first beg true faith, that they may believe Gods comman∣dments

to be possible, with help of his grace; and then they may beg and obtaine the second, to witt, the love of God, by which they may find grace to fulfill them. This article of the Presbyterians faith gave occasion to a Catho∣lique Gentleman of my acquentance, to say to the Presbyterians, who were much pressing him to subscrib the Covenant: that he would never be of their religion: who professed they did not love God; yea and made it an article of their faith, that they could not love him. Thus he.

Having therefore diligently considered all these grounds, I could no longer believe the impossibility of keeping Gods commandments, even with the help of his grace, as an article of my faith reveald in Scripture; which I found to be against Scripture, and against the good∣nesse, iustice and wisdome of God; Which the holy Fathers & some Protestants do call extream blasphemy; which destroyes the vertue and power of Gods grace; which puts the blame of our negligence & sluggishnesse, from our sel∣ves, and layes all vpon God: which is against the end of Christs Incarnation, & merit of his Passsion; which hinders the growth of piety, and opens a gate to all wickednesse, and makes all the divine commandments of no effect. But, vpon the contrary, I resolved by Gods grace, to embrace and believe the ancient Catholique doctrin, concerning the possibility of keeping the commandments with the help of Gods gra∣ce; Which I found to be so clearly expressed in Scriptures, so strongly maintaind by the holy Fa∣thers,

so consonant to right reason, iustice & piety, and which did make so much for the glory of Gods grace, & the merits of Christs death and passion.

CHAP. XV. Of Iustification by Faith onely, maintain'd by the Presbyterians and their first Refor∣mers, as the principal article of their Reli∣gion.

AFTER the triall of our doctrine, concer∣ning the Commandments; I considered, in the next place, our doctrine of Iustification, not only because this hath connexion with the former, but also for the importāce of the matter. For I haue read, and heard this article of Iusti∣fication by faith onely, called by many Protes∣tants, the soule and life of their religion, and of all articles the principal and greatest; on the contrary, they call Iustification by works, the life of Popery: so that M. Fox saith, that Luther,* 1.178 by opening a certaine veine which lay long hid, to witt, our Iustification by faith only, did overturne the foundation of Popery. Moreover, I haue heard it affirmed, that Iustification by faith only was so certaine a truth, and so eviden∣tly contain'd in the Scriptures, that some of the learned Papists, after they had much oppposed it, were at lenth overcome by the strenth of it, and made to acknowledge it: and there was no point of Popery, esteem'd to be more absurd,

nor more against the Scriptures, then Iustifica∣tion by works: in so much that M, Knox, in his first sermon at S. Andrewes, did make ins∣tance principally in it:* 1.179 for thus speaks his history of him: He plainly proved the Papists doctrine & lawes, to repugne directly to the lawes of God the Father, and of Christ Iesus his Son. This he pro∣ved, by conferring the doctrine of Iustification ex∣pressed in the Scriptures: which teach that man is iustifyed by faith only &c. and the doctrine of the Papists, which attributes iustification to the works of the law. And, vpon severall occasions, I haue heard the Ministers pretend great advan∣tage in this point, which they ordinarly vrge very much.

Having then no small expectation, to find such expresse and convincing Scripture, for this point of Iustification by faith only; that any im∣pudent front cowld hardly deny it: I begun to consider these passages, which they do ordi∣narly bring, and cote on the margent of their Confession; and I found, that not one of them containes in expresse words, the Presbyterian article, contradictory to the Papists; as may appeare to any man, who will read the words. These passages are three, and the first is in S. Iohn, who saith: As many as received him, he gave them power to become the Sons of God, who believe in his name. The two others are in S. Paul:* 1.180 who saith; We conclude, (or as it is in the Catholique translation) We account a man to be iustifyed by faith without the workes of the law. And againe, being iustifyed therefore by faith: let

vs haue peace toward God. Now, in none of these places, can I find it written, that man is iusti∣fyed by faith only, or, as it is in their new Con∣fessiō, faith is the alone instrument of Iustification. I find indeed, that the Scripture saith there, that man is iustifyed by faith; but I can not find, where it saith by faith only, that word only or alone, which is the maine point in this matter, cannot be found in the Scripture: albeit M. Knox, in his foresaid sermon, falsly pretends, that it is expressed in Scripture.

I admired to see both our first and last Re∣formers, after such huge pretences, to want expresse Scripture, for this maine article of their religion: but I admired much more, when I found the Catholique article, which is flatly contradictory to the Protestants, to be expres∣ly in the Scriptures. S. Iames saith;* 1.181 Abraham our father was he not iustifyed by works, offering Isaac his Son vpon the altar? And again. Do you see, that by works a man is iustifyed, and not by faith only? Where S. Iames directly contradicts the doctrine of the Protestants: for they say, A man is not iustifyed by works, but by faith only: and S. Iames saith: a man is iustifyed by works and not by faith only. I wondered how we could brag so much, that we had always the Scripture for vs, against the Papists; and yet, when I tryed the matter, I found ever hitherto the contrary, as may be found by any man, who will not renounce his senses of hearing and seeing. But to find this in other points, I did not think it so strange, as in the present, which is

called the principal point of the Protestant re∣ligion, and wherein we did so much glory against the Papists, who haue much the better of vs, if we will acknowledge the expresse words of Scripture, and stand to them.

But the Presbyterians pretend, that, although their article be not, word by word, in Scrip∣ture; yet the equivalent is there, when S. Paul saith: a man is iustifyed by faith, without the works of the law; which they say is all one, as if he had said, by faith only. I found many wei∣ghty reasons against this Ministeriall glosse. 1. At the beginning of their Reformation, they pro∣mised vs the pure word of God; and now they give vs, for it, their gesses, or the word of man; which is a weak ground of faith. 2. which is yet worse. Their words & interpretations are in ex∣presse termes against the word of God in another place, to witt in S. Iames, as we have seen. 3. They affirm that all points necessary to Salva∣tion are clearly contain'd in Scripture. How comes it then, that this most necessary & sub∣stantial point, which they call the life of Chris∣tianity, is not there? yea, how comes it to passe that not only it is not in Scripture, but the quite contrary is word by word in Scripture: and that not simply affirmed, but proved by many rea∣sons & examples; and these who affirm the contrary are compared to Devils? 4. The holy Fathers & primitive Church did never vnder∣stand the Scriptures, in that sense; but in the contrary. How then could I, in sense conside∣ring these things, make the Ministers words

and interpretation, which are not Scripture, yea which are against Scripture, and against the holy Fathers, & the beliefe of the primi¦tive Church, to be the principal article of my faith?

S. Augustin shewes, that some men, in the Apostles own time, did misinterpret the same words of S. Paul, as the Presbyterians do now, and made it the ground of the same errour.* 1.182 But men, saith he, not vnderstanding what the Apos∣tle saith: we account a man iustifyed by faith wit∣hout works, thought, that he said, faith would suffice a man, albeit he live ill, and have no good works. Which God forbid, that the vessel of elec∣tion should think &c. Secondly, the same holy Father shewes, that to roote out the errour of those, who by misconstruing S. Pauls words, did gather from them, iustification by faith on∣ly, the other Apostles did principally direct the intentions of their Epistles. S. Peter, saith he,* 1.183 knowing that some wicked men took occasion from some obscure sentences of S. Paul, as being secure of their salvation, which is in faith, had no care to live well, gave advertisment, that there were some things, in his epistle, hard to be vnder∣stood, which men perverted (as they do the other Scriptures) to their own perdition. See, vpon what a dangerous ground, the principal article of our Reformation is founded, and how dan∣gerous also it self is. But S. Iames,* 1.184 saith S. Au∣gustin, is so highly offended with these men, who think that faith without works can availe vnto sal∣vation, that he compares them even to Devils. And

then hauings brought these words of the Apo∣stle: Thou believest that there is one God, thou dost well: the Devils also beleeve & tremble, he sub∣ioyns, Quid verius, brevius, vehementius dici potuit? what could be said more truely, more briefly & efficaciously? Thus S. Augustin. And that he alone did not condemne this errour, & maintained the Catholique doctrin opposite to it,* 1.185 is manifest, by the Confession of the Cen∣turists, who, for this cause, taxe the most ancient fathers, as S. Clement, Origen, S. Cyprian, S. Hierome, S. Ambrose, Augustin, Chryso∣stome, & many more. Moreover, the same S. Augustin shewes, that this errour of iustifica∣tion by faith only, was the ancient heresy of Eunomius;* 1.186 and S. Ireneus ascribes it also to Si∣mon Magus. And yet this ancient heresy against the Scripture, & the holy Fathers, is obtruded vpon vs, as the principal article of our faith, by our Reformers: who yet pretend to be∣lieve nothing, but pure Scripture. Therefore I resolued by Gods grace not to believe any longer such a wicked opinion, as the principal article of my religion: but, vpon the contrary, I intended to embrace & follow the Catholique doctrin, opposite to it: which I found to be, in expre∣sse termes, in the Scriptures, which were so vnderstood and beleeved by the holy Fathers.

I vas much confirmed in this resolution, when I vnderslood, how Luther & Calvin, hauing no Scripture for them, but against them, haue grosly abused it to maintaine their errour. For Luther, the first Apostle, in this last age, of

this new doctrine, did two notable iniuries to the word of God. For, Seeing that this prime article of his faith, was not expresly contain'd, in the Scripture, by an vnparallel'd presum∣ption, he added the word sola or Alone to the Scripture, in his German translation of the Bi∣ble And whereas S. Paul saith: we account a man iustifyed by faith, without the workes of the law; he makes him say, by faith alone And when this high temerity, of adding to the word of God, was obiected to him:* 1.187 he defended it with most insolent words, saying: that a Papist and an asse was the same thing: and that the word sola should remaine in his Bible, although all the Pa∣pists in the world, shoud go mad, and be trans∣formed to in Asses. The second iniury, that he did to the Scripture, was not by Addition, but by Diminution, wherin he was much more libe∣ral, then in the first: for he added only one word, but he took away many hundreds. Be∣cause, finding that the words above cited of S. Iames epistle, were clearly & expresly against his doctrin, he expunged the whole epistle, out of the Canon of the holy Scriptures,* 1.188 cal∣ling it an epistle of straw, vnworthy the Spirit of an Apostle. Yea, he arrived to that impudency, that he said the Authour of that epistle delirat, that is dotes, or raves. By these two practises, I was moved to think, that Luther could not be the second Elias, the Restorer of purity & true religiō, who would not only reform the Church, but also the Scriptures: yea, in such a man∣ner, as he hath incurred not one, but both the curses threatned by S. Iohn, for adding to, and

pareing from the Scriptures. And by this, I perceived also, what little esteem, they make of the Scripture, when it makes against their errours.

Calvin went more subtilly to work; for al∣though he followed Luthers doctrin of Iustifi∣cation; yet he neither added the word Sola, to the letter of the Scripture, neither did he deny S. Iames epistle, to be Canonical: But, what Luther added to the letter, Calvin added to the sense; and what Luther denyed, the other cor∣rupted. For Calvin would have Iustification by faith only, to be as firmly believed, as if the word only were there in Scripture, which indeed, is all one, as if he had added, with Luther, that word to the Scripture. Then the words of S. Iames, which are clearly opposite to his errour, and for which, Luther did reiect the whole epis∣tle, he doth so corrupt with new senses, which Luthers more grosse head could not invent, that they passe many mens senses & vnderstandings too, and are against the words of Scripture, & clearly against the sense of the holy Fathers. For he saith, faith alone doth iustify, but not alone. Some others of his Schollers explaine it thus: fides sola iustificat, sed non solitaria. Others say: faith doth iustify, and not works; but yet faith not without works; or a man is iustifyed with works, but not by works; and works are the means, but not the causes of Iustification. But all these inventions, are directly contrary to the words of S. Iames. For he saith, man is iustifyed by works, & not by faith only. He doth not say,

man is iustifyed with works; but by works: he doth not say, he is iustifyed by faith only; but not by faith only. And after the same manner and expression, that he ascribeth our iustification to faith, he ascribs it also vnto works. He nei∣ther speaks of causes, nor means: these are the Ministers words, and not the word of God; which is not cleared, but rendred more ob∣scure by them. It was made appear to me, that the question at first between the Catholiques & Luther, was; whether good works were in any respect necessary to our iustification: and not, whether they were required as causes or conditions. Luther said, they were in no wise necessary, or else none could be iustifyed; since the best works of the greatest Saints are mor∣tal sins. And in this, he spake consequentially to his principles. But Calvin, finding that the Catholiques by innumerable Scriptures, and particularly by that place of S. Iames, proved the necessity of good works vnto Iustification; he invented a distinction, not to cleare, but to confound the matter, that good works were necessary, but not as causes, and faith was the only cause of Iustification. And this he did also very vnreasonably against the principle, which he holds common with Luther, to witt, that all our best actions are deadly sins. For, if good works be in any manner necessary, how can any be iustifyed, according to Calvin, who maintains there can be no good works, but that all are mortal sins? For, if a condition be necessary to any effect; then if the condition be

not fulfilled, the effect cannot be produced. As approximation of wood vnto the fire, is ordi∣narly called the condition, without which the wood could not take fire. Therefore as the wood, if it were not put near the fire; would not conceive fire, so also, if good works be a necessary condition vnto iustification, (as Cal∣vin pretends) no man can be iustifyed: since ac∣cording to him, there can be no good works. Therefore Calvin speaks very inconsequential∣ly, if not also falsly.

Moreover, it was showen me: that the Lu∣therans were so highly offended with these new glosses of Calvin & his Schollers, that they call them the doctrins of the new Papists, more pernicious, then these of the old: and Il∣lyricus,* 1.189 a famous Lutheran, doth not stand to call these Calvinists, Seducers, who by diuerse waye, saith he, would elude the propositiō of S. Paul &c. For this cause the Lutherans deny all ne∣cessity of good works vnto Salvation, either as means, or causes. For this, they professed at the conference of Altenberg,* 1.190 We conclude, say they, with that worthy saying of Luther: If works be necessary vnto Salvation; then none can be sa∣ved without works: and then we would not be sa∣ved by faith only. So I found at length, that this prime article of our religion, to witt; that man is iustifyed by faith only, after so many great brags, is not in Scripture, but against Scripture, as the Lutherans vnderstand it: and as Calvin takes it, its not only against Scripture, but also against his own principle, who makes the whole matter, to end in Philosophical termes, for the

most part, neither vnderstood by speakers nor hearers. Of which matter, I had not long ago, a notable experience. For being in a Gentle∣mans house in the countrey, where there chan∣ced to be a Minister of esteem'd learning, two Roman Catholiques, and diverse Protestants: as the ordinary discours now a dayes, is con∣cerning religion, so I heard one at that time. For the Minister, taking occasion by hearing Cardinal Bellarmin named, spake at first, much in his praise, saying: that none of all the Popish Authors, did relate so faithfully the Protestant Tenets, nor argumented more clearly, then he did. Yet at length, said the Minister, after the Cardinal hath shewed the strength of his wit, at the issue of the matter, being convinced by the force of truth; he concludes, for the most part, with the Protestants. Wherevpon; one of the Catholiques present said, that he admired very much, how Bellarmin, who had written so much for Popry, should be esteem'd a Protestāt: & merrily subioyn'd▪ that himself was iust a Pro∣testant, as Bellarmin was. After there had pass'd a little laughter, occasioned by these words; the other Catholique did gravely desire the Mi∣nister, to shew; wherein Bellarmin was a Pro∣testant. Wherevpon, the Minister instanced in this same matter of Iustification, and said: that after Bellarmin had wearied himself, by produ∣ceing many testimonies of Scriptures and Fa∣thers, to prove, that we are iustifyed by works and not by faith only: he in end yeelds the vic∣tory to tthe Proestants: for he concludes: That

it is most safe to rely vpon the merits of Christ. And so, in one sentence, he destroyeth, what he had been building a long time. To which the Ca∣tholique replyed: that if Bellarmin was a Pro∣testant for that, then all Catholiques were Protestants: for they all professed the same. Neither was the Catholiques relying on Christ merits, any way against iustification by good works; more then the Protestants relying on the same merits, was against their supposed Ius∣tification by faith only. But said he: I admire very much, how you ordinarly pretend so great advantage, in your doctrin of Iustification by faith only, which you esteem the principal article of your religion; and yet it cannot be found in all the Scripture, the only pretended ground of all your faith: And how you can crye so much against the Catholiques, for be∣lieving that we are iustifyed by works, & not by faith only; which is expresly, and word by word, in the Scripture. For doth not S. Iames clearly say: Ye see, that man is iustifyed by works, and not by faith only. The Minister finding him∣self thus engaged, pass'd presently from the Scripture, & enquired of the Catholique, whom he knew well enough not to be a pro∣fess'd Scholler; If he had any Logique. Who answered, he had not much: but he had suffi∣cient for this purpose. That there was not much Logique required, to see what was contained in Scripture. He would trust his owne eyes, in that matter. It was sufficient for him, that he had on his side the expresse Scripture, which

is better then Logique. But the Minister told him; that, although these words are in Scripture; yet they must be vnderstood in a sound sense. For works, said he, although they be necessary to iustification; yet they are not the causes of it, but in a very improper sense. For you must vn∣derstand, that there are diverse kinds of causes; there is causa efficiens, causa formalis, and causa sine qua non, which is not a cause properly. Now works are not the efficient, nor formal cause; but only causa sine qua non. They are via regni; and not causa regnandi. And so, after this manner, he made a long discours, involving the matter in great obscurities, passing the reach of the hearers; if not also overpassing his own vn∣derstanding. But the Catholique holding him still by his grounds, told the Minister that his Logique was no Scripture; and that the Pro∣testants, are brought to a low ebb, when they are enforced to acknowlege that this prime ar∣ticle of their faith, is not expresly in Scripture, as they at first pretended: And now, when the quite opposite doctrine, maintaind by the Ca∣tholiques, (against which the Ministers did so much raile) is showē to be expresly in Scripture: they are enforced to run from Scripture, to their Logique: which indeed, is to yeeld the cause to the Catholiques, and to quite ground. For at first they pretended nothing but Scripture: and now they flie to Aristotles Logique, and that against the expresse words of Scripture, making the whole matter end in a Logomachy: which is so much the worse, on the Protestants side; seing

they will not vse the very phrase of Scripture, which the Catholiques keep. And vpon this followes also another evil, that the people, being made to believe, that they are iustifyed by faith only, and not by works; makes by natural Logique, this inference, (which all the Mi∣nisters in the world with all their artificial Lo∣gique, will not put out of their heads) that good works are not necessary; and so they altogether neglect them. Thus ended that conference (the Minister replying something; but little to pur∣pose) with small satisfaction of some Protes∣tants present; who imagined, that this prime article of their faith, had been better grounded: and that this Minister, whom they much estee∣med, could haue said more, then to acknow∣ledge that his faith was against the words of Scripture: and in end, to run to his Philosophi∣cal distinctions, which were not by them in∣telligible.

But, albeit I was sufficiently satisfyed, by what hath been said, of the truth of the Ca∣tholique doctrin, concerning Iustification; yet being desirous, that I might be able to discern more fully, the deceits and obscurities, which the Ministers invent, to elude the clear Scrip∣tures: a Catholique, whose assistance I requi∣red, shew me, that for this end, it was necessa∣ry, I should first know the nature of Iustifica∣tion, according to the doctrin of the Catholi∣que Church. For, as a Rule, said he, is a mea∣sure to discern both what is right, and what is crooked; so truth, is a manifestation both of it

self, and of falshood. Wherevpon, he had seve∣ral discourses with me, on this matter; the sum∣me of which, I will briefly collect.

CHAP. XVI. Of the Nature of Iustification, according to the Catholique doctrine.

ALBEIT you haue seen evidently, said the Catholique vnto me, that according to the expresse Scriptures, man is iustifyed by works▪ & not by faith only; yet, that you may know how this is done, and what works are excluded from iustification, according to S. Paul; and what these works are, by which we are iustifyed, according to S. Iames; yow must know the nature of Iustification of a sinner: which, according to the Catholique Church, is thus described. Iustification of a sinner, is the translation of one, from the state of sin, into the state of grace; a changing of one, from being an enemy, to make him become the friend of God. There is the misery, from which a sinner is deli∣vered; & the happinesse, to which he is brought. Now, that he may come from such a miserable condition, to such a happy estate, there are some preparations and dispositions required to go be∣fore, in the soule of a sinner, that is come to age; of which kind only we here speak. First God of his meer mercy, by his preveening and helping grace, doth excite and call a sinner,

without any of his preceeding merits, as it were, out of the sleep of sin; that he may convert himself vnto God. 2. A sinner being thus awakned, and assisted by the Divine grace, conceiving faith by hearing, doth believe all things to be true, which are revealed & promised by God; & particularly, that a sinner is iustifyed by the free mercy of God, through the redemption, which is in Christ Iesus. 3. This faith representing God to be a severe punisher of sins, there ariseth in a sinner, thus disposed by faith, a fear of Gods iudgments, with which the Soule is profitably shaken & terrifyed.* 1.191 For as Salomon saith: the feare of our Lord, is the beginning of wisdome. 4. The soule of a sinner being thus terrifyed, it is raised vp againe to hope, by the same faith; which represents God to be most bountifull & mercyfull, in forgiveing sins. For which cause, he sent his son into the world, to deliver vs from sin, by his death. 5. Vpon this hope & confidence in the divine mercy, there ariseth the love of God, who is so bountifull and mer∣cyfull; and likwise a hatred and detestation of sin, which God hateth, a sorrow and grief for what is past; and a firm resolution of a better life in time to come: a purpose of observing the divine Commandments, & of receiving the holy Sacraments. Now all these dispositions of fa th, fear, love, hope, and the rest, being placed in the soule of man, by Gods preveening grace; Iustification, or the infusion of iustifying grace, doth follow, as we shall see shortly.

That these preparations & difpositions are

necessary before iustification, the Scripture shewes. Our Saviour shew the necessity of preveening grace, when he said:* 1.192 No man can come vnto me, vnlesse my Father draw him. Of faith, S. Paul saith: that without faith it is im∣possible to please God: for he that cometh to God, must believe that he is; and that he is a Rewarder of those who seek him. Of fear, be∣side the former testimony of Salomon, it is said; that, who is without fear, cannot be iustifyed. And again: the fear of our Lord chaseth away sin. S. Paul saith of hope, that we are saved by it.* 1.193 Of love our Saviour saith: Many sins are forgiven her; for she loved much. And that repentance is also necessary, there is nothing more clear, in the Scriptures. By all which testimonies, it remaines evident, that although faith be the first disposition of the soule to iustification; yet the others above-mentioned are also requisite. Neither can there be any difficulty in this mat∣ter, since it is as clear as the Sun, that no man, of a sinner, can become the friend of God: vn∣lesse he haue not only faith, but also the fear & love of God, with hope in his mercy, and repen∣tance for sins. To this purpose S. Augustin saith:* 1.194 fides prima datur, ex qua caetera impetrantur. That is: faith is first given, by which the rest are obtain'd. And again: the house of God is founded by Faith, raised vp hy hope, and perfected by Cha¦rity. And as in this sense, it is truly said that faith doth iustify, to wit as a fundamentall & radicall disposition to Iustification; so it is no lesse true, that fear, hope, love, & repentance,

do also iustify, to witt as secondary dispositions proceeding from faith: because these likwise dispose the soule fitly, to receive the forme of iustice, and to become the friend of God; and the Scripture ascribes forgive∣nesse of sins, Salvation or Iustification to them, as it doth vnto faith. For as our Saviour told S. Mary Magdalen, that her faith had sa∣ved her;* 1.195 so he said: that many sins were forgi∣ven her, because she loved much, and S. Paul saith, we are saved by hope; and S. Iames ex∣presly, that we are iustifyed by works, & not by faith only. By which consideration it may be ea∣sily vnderstood, what works S. Paul excludes from Iustification, when he saith, that a man is iustifyed by faith without the works of the law. For he doth not exclude, the works of grace, but only the works of the law, which are done by the strength of nature, without the grace of God, and do not proceed from faith, but go before it. Now it is certaine that such works, as not proceeding from faith, do not properly dispose and prepare the soule vnto Sal∣vation.* 1.196 For, as the Councel of Trent teacheth, faith is the foundation, roote, and beginning of all Salvation & Iustification, and is the first effect of Gods free grace, in the Soule of man. But the Apostle doth not exclude from iustifi∣cation, the works of grace, which follow faith: for they do iustify, that is, dispose the Soule vnto Iustification, as faith it self doth: and they proce d also from grace, as faith proceeds from it; and therefore are not the works of

the law, but the works of grace. After this man∣ner, doth that great Doctour S. Augustin clearly reconcile these two places of S. Paul & S. Iames.* 1.197 The sentences, saith he, of S. Paul & S. Iames be not contrary one to another, wh••n one affirmeth, that a man is iustifyed by faith without works: & the other saith, that faith is vaine without works: for S. Paul speaketh of works, that go before faith; and S. Iames of works that do follow faith.

These preparations & disposi••ions being placed in the soule, Iustification it self doth fol∣low; which is not only remission of sins, but also sanctification and renovation of the inward man, by the voluntary reception of the divine grace & gifts. But, albeit Iustification followeth these dispositions, of faith, love, repentance, & & the rest, yet it is altogether free, proceeding from the mercy & bounty of God, without the desert of man. For the Catholique Church pro∣fesseth openly, notwitstanding the Ministers strong calumnies to the contrary, that no man by any faith, or works, can merit the grace of Iustification,* 1.198 as the Councel of Trent teacheth in these words. We are said to be freely iustifyed, because none of those things, which preceed Iustifi∣cation, whether faith or works, doth merit the grace of Iustification. Now this grace consisteth in two thing,s to witt: in Remission of sins, and inward sanctification: by the first, the soule is changed & purged from sin, which is the filthinesse of the Soule; and by the second, it is adorned and beautifyed with grace; which is the beauty of it: and made to die vnto sin, & live vnto ius∣tice.

But it must be diligently observed: that the Catholiques do teach, according to the Scriptu∣res, that in Iustification, our sins are not so forgi∣ven, that they remaine in the Soule; but they are quite taken away. For S. Iohn saith of Christ: Behold the Lamb of God,* 1.199 that taketh away the sins of the world: And the spots of our Soules are said to be washed & cleanged, and our sins to be throwen into the bottome of the sea, and to be blotted out and exhausted. Therefore in iustifi∣cation, sins do not remaine, but they are really taken away.

As the soule, in Iustification is purged and cleanged from the filthinesse of sins, which are so forgiven, that they are really taken away; so it is also beautifyed with inward grace, and in∣herent iustice, by which, he who was before a sinner, is renewed in the Spirit of his mind, and hath the love of God powred forth in his heart, by the holy Ghost. This the Apostle she∣weth,* 1.200 when writing to the Corinthians, he saith: These things you were: (to witt: for∣nicators, adulterers &c.) but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are iustifyed in the name of our Lord Iesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God:* 1.201 And elswhere, be renewed in the Spirit of your mind: and put on the new man, which according to God, is created in iustice, and holynesse of truth. And writing to the Romans, he saith:* 1.202 The Charity of God is powred forth in our hearts by the holy Ghost, which is given vs. I for∣bear to cite more testimonies.* 1.203 S. Augustin she∣weth, that this inherent iustice, is the love of

God, The grace, whereby we are iustifyed, that is,* 1.204 saith he, the love of God, poured into our hearts. And elswhere: Charity begun, is iustice begun; Charity encreased, is iustice encreased; great cha∣rity is great iustice; and most perfect charity is most perfect iustice. If therefore charity or the love of God, which is powred into our Soules, and consequently is inherent & intrinsecal in them, be the iustice, by which we are made formally iust; then our iustice is also inherent & intrin∣secal. And hereby, all the causes of our Iustifi∣cation, according to the doctrin of the Catho∣lique Church, may be clearly vnderstood.* 1.205 For the efficient cause, is our mercyfull God: the meritorious, our Lord Iesus Christ: the final cause, the glory of God, & of Christ, and life everlasting: and the formal cause, is the Iustice of God, not that, by which he himself is iust; but that, by which he makes vs iust: and with which, we being endowed, are renewed in the Spirit of our mind, and are not only reputed, but truly are iust.

But, said the Catholique to me, that you may vnderstand more fully, how we are made formally iust, not by that iustice, which is in God, but by that iustice, which proceeding from God, is in vs; I will illustrate the matter, a litle more vnto yow. As sin is the death of the soule; so grace and iustice is the life of it. Whe∣refore, as the natural life of man, is the formal cause of his living naturally; so his spiritual life, which is grace & iustice, is the formal cause of his living spiritually. As then the natural life

or soule of man, by which he lives naturally, albeit it be from God, yet it is not that life by which God lives, but it is that life, communi∣cated by God to man, by which man lives; and therefore cannot be any thing external, but must be internal in man: So the Spiritual life of the soule, which is grace & iustice, by which man lives Spiritually, is not the iustice, which is in God, or by which God is iust; but that iuf∣tice, which is communicated by God to man, whereby man is rendred iust, and lives Spiri∣tually: and therefore must be internal in him: since nothing can live; either naturally, or Spiritually, by any thing which is external vnto it. The example of the raising Lazarus from the the dead, will yet more cleare this matter. For if Christ, calling Lazarus from the grave, had not given him inward life; Lazarus could not haue risen again, and lived by the life of Christ, which was without him. But it was necessary, for the resurection of Lazarus, that his own life should be inwardly restored to him by Christ. It is so in our case: for a man, who is raised by Christ from the death of sin vnto the life of righ∣teousnesse, must have grace or iustice, which is the Spiritual life of the soule, inwardly commu∣nicated to him by Christ, the fountain and me∣ritorious cause of all iustice, and the source of all Spirituall life; or else man could not be rai∣sed from the death of sin, and live spiritually. S. Augustin proves, by the holy Scriptures, that Christ came into the world,* 1.206 to give vs that Spi∣ritual life. I shall heep together, saith he, many

testimonies, which shall suffice: by which it may appear, that for no other cause, Christ came into the flesh; but that by the disposition of grace, he might quicken, save and illuminate all those, to whom as members appoynted in his body, he is head, who before were placed in the death, sicknesse & darknesse of sin. I shall only bring two or three of the many testimonies of Scripture, which the holy Father heapeth vp there. S. Paul saith:* 1.207 God (who is rich in mercy) for his exceeding charity, wherwith he loved vs, even when we were dead by sins, quickned vs together in Christ (by whose grace you are saved) and raised vs vp with him &c.* 1.208 And again be renewed in the Spirit of your mind, and put on the new man, which, according to God, is created in Iustice and holynesse of the truth, The same Apostle, writing to the Colossians, saith: And you,* 1.209 when you were dead in the offenses and vncircumcision of the flesh, did he quicken together with him, pardoning you all offenses. And to Titus he saith:* 1.210 that we are iusti∣fyed by his grace. Whence it is evident, that these, who haue been sinners, and become iust, are said to rise again, to be quickneed by Christ, to be re∣newed inwardly, & to be iustifyed by his grace. But they could not rise from the death of sin, nor be quickned, & renewed inwardly, and be iusti∣fyed by his grace; vnlesse they had spiritual life, which is grace or iustice, inwardly cōmunicated vnto thē. Therefore these, who rise frō the death of sin, & are iustifyed, quickned & inwardly re∣newed, have the spiritual life of iustice flowing from the merits & iustice of Christ, inwardly

remaining in them. And hence doth appear clearly the truth of that, which the Catholique Church teacheth, to witt: that we are made iust, by the iustice of God, not by that, wherby he himself is iust, but by which he makes vs iust. For, as nothing can make an man iust, but ius¦tice; So it is not the external iustice of Christ; but it must be internal iustice, flowing from, his merits and iustice, that can quicken vs.

This raising of one, from the death of sin, to the life of Iustice, is called by the Catholi∣liques, the first Iustification; by which one, of a sinner, is made the friend of God. And it is al∣together free, proceeding meerly from the grace & favour of God, without all works and me∣rits of man. Of this, S. Paul speaks to the Ro∣mans,* 1.211 when he saith: We conclude that man is iustifyed by faith, without the works of the law. Where S. Augustin vnderstands by the works of the law, not only the works of the Cere∣monial and Iudicial law, but also of the Moral law, which are done by the force of nature, or by the insight of the law, without the help of grace in Christ; which help is not given except one haue first faith in Christ: which is the roote of salvatiō, & first effect of the divin grace, in our soules. Therefore if man could not be iustifyed by these works of the law, albeit he did them: much lesse can he be iustifyed by these works, when he breaketh the law, as S. Paul proveth, in the same epistle: that both Iewes and Genti∣les haue sinned; and therefore stand in need of the mercy of God; and consequently must be

iustifyed, by the faith & grace of Christ. Be∣sids this first Iustification, there is another, which the Catholiques call the second Iustifi∣cation; by which one, is not of impious made iust, but of iust, he is made more iust, and of a friend made yet more intimate with God; according to that in the Apocalypse:* 1.212 He that is iust, let him be iustifyed even vnto death. Of this Iustification, are vnderstood the words of S. Iames, when he saith: That a man is iustifyed by works, and not by faith only. That is; by works following after faith, & flowing from it: for such works are not the works of the law; that is; they are not works done meerly by the force of nature, or by the only knowledge of the law; but they are the works of grace, as faith it self is: and by these works we are iustifyed, and not by faith only. This second Iustification is acquired by doing all works of iustice and piety, by which, a man being in the state of grace, pur∣chaseth a further augmentation of it. S. Au∣gustin brings S. Paul,* 1.213 as an example of both these Iustifications. For, before his conversion he was found with no good merits; but rather with many evil merits, who was persecuting the Church: and yet he obtain'd mercy. Therefore he was not iustifyed by his works, or by the deeds of the law, but by the faith or grace of Christ. But after his conversion & first Iustifi∣cation, the same Apostle reckons out the good works he had done,* 1.214 by which he had advanced in piety & iustice. I am even now, saith he, to be sacrificed: and the time of my resolution is at

hand. I have fought a good fight, I have consum∣mate my course, I have kept the faith. Concer∣ning the rest, there is laid vp for me a crown of iustice, which our Lord will render to me, in that day, a iust iudge; Vpon which S. Augustin saith: He reckons out now his good merites, that after his good merits, he might obtaine the crown; who after evil merits, did obtaine grace. Take heed what fol∣lowes. There remaines to me a crown of iustice &c. To whom could the iust iudge render the crown: if he had not first, as a merciful father, given him grace? And how had that been a crown of iustice: if grace had not gone before, which iustifyes the impious? How could that haue been rendered as due,* 1.215 if the first had not been freely bestowed? Thus S. Augustin. By these reasons, & many other testimonies, which were showen vnto me: I was brought to vnderstand the Catholique, doctrin, concerning the nature of Iustification: and therby I was made more sensible of the er∣rous, which are against it.

CHAP. XVII. Of the Presbyterians three principall Errours, concerning Iustification.

HAVING thus seen the truth of the an∣cient and Catholique doctrin, I was mo∣ved to take special notice, of three principall and most grosse errours, maintain'd by the Presbyterians, against it. The first is: that they do not only place the whole nature of Iustifica∣tion,

in remission of sins; but they likwise teach, that, although our sins be forgiven in Iustification: yet they are not taken away, but that they really remaine in the person iystified: and are only covered, and not imputed. The second errour is, that a man iustified hath no internal nor inherent iustice in him, as being al∣together defiled inwardly with sin: but that he is only iust, by the external iustice of Christ, with which he is covered, and which is impu∣ted vnto him. The third and last errour consists in this, that they teach, this external iustice of Christ, is applyed vnto man, by faith only: and that not by a Christian or Catholique faith, wherby one believes the articles of the Creed, or such things as God hath revealed in Scrip∣ture: but by a special faith, as they call it, wher∣by every one believes for certaine, that his sins are forgiven him, and that he is one of the predestinate.

The first errour, to witt: that sins remaine, and are not taken away from the person iusti∣fied, maintain'd by Calvin and the Presbyte∣rians; I found to be against cripture, the ver∣tue of Christs passion, & the efficacy of Baptis∣me. S. Iohn Baptist calleth Christ, the lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world.* 1.216 S. Paul saith: that Christ was offered vp once to ex∣haust the sins of many. And S. Iohn affirmeth that the blood of Christ cleanseth vs from all sins. Ananias said to S. Paul: Arise and be bap∣tized and wash away thy sins. If our sins be taken away, as S. Iohn affirmeth: how do they re∣maine

as the Presbyterians believe? If our sins be washed away, and cleansed by the blood of Christ, and by baptisme; how can the filthinesse and blots of them remaine? David saith to God:* 1.217 Wash me, and I shall be whiter then snow. But, according to the Presbyterians, he behoved to remaine as black as pitch, and as filthie as the puddle; even with all the wa∣shing, that God would bestow vpon him. The∣refore this Presbyterian doctrin is against the Scriptures, the vertue of Christs passion, and the efficacy of baptisme: and it is also clearly against the holy Fathers, as we shall see shor∣tly in the Triall of the Sacraments.

Against these clear authorities the Calvinists bring principally one place of Scripture, whe∣reon they found their errour: and that is in the 31. Psalme, where David saith: Blessed are they, whose iniquities are forgiven, & whose sins are co∣vered. I admired, that for this one testimony, which saith that our sins are covered, they should deny so many, which shew that sins are taken away; and will not rather confesse with the Scripture, that they are both covered and taken away. S. Augustin sheweth excellently on this place how God doth both. For, comparing him to a Surgeon or Physician,* 1.218 he saith: that God doth so cover the wound with a plaister; that he cureth it, and taketh it away. Calvin & his fol∣lowers make Christ to be a very imperfect Spi∣ritual Physician; who can neither heale the sick, nor cure the wounded soules, but only can cast a cover vpon them. Such a Physician

of the body, who could do nothing, but throw his cloake vpon the sick or wounded; and neither be able, to take away the sicknesse or wounds, would be in small esteem, and little employed.

The second grosse errour of Calvin, which denyeth inherent iustice, is sufficiently above refuted. Where it was shewed out of the Scrip∣tures, & Fathers, that we are quickned by Christ, and that iustice or grace proceeding from the iustice of Christ, the meritorious cause of our iustice, is the spiritual life of the Soule, which quickens it; and therefore must be in∣ternal, and inherent within vs. For as one can∣not live naturally, vnlesse he have internal life wi∣thin him; so neither can one live Spiritually, by any thing that is without him; but he must ne∣cessarly, have the life of grace or iustice within him. This truth is so strong, that Calvin did so∣metime acknowledge it: for he saith,* 1.219 that we are never reconciled to God, but we are also gifted with inherent iustice. But at other times he fre∣quently opposeth it, affirming, that the most holy and iust persons are nothing inwardly, but filthy sinners: and that all their iustice consists only in the external iustice of Christ, which is imputed to them, and with which their sins and filthynesse are covered.* 1.220 So that Calvins iust men are not vnfitly by some compared to whi∣ted Sepulchres (to which our Saviour compa∣red the Pharisees) that outwardly appeare vnto men beautifvll, but within are full of dead mens bones & all filthinesse. So the Presbyte∣rians

would appeare beautifull outwardly, by the iustice of Christ; but inwardly they are full of filthinesse & iniquity. They are also like Wolves in sheeps clothing, who haue an external shew of meeknesse & iustice: but inwardly are ravenous creatures. But as sheeps clothing doth not make a wolfe, to become a lamb; so neither will the external iustice of Christ, that innocent lamb, with which a sinner would cloth himself out∣wardly, and yet remaine still in his sins, make him a Saint.* 1.221 S. Iohn giveth a serious warning to this purpose; Little children, saith he, let no man seduce you. He that doth iustice is iust, even as he also, (that is, Christ) is iust. Therefore, they are seduced, who think to be iust; and yet will do no iustice, as Christ did,

The third errour, to witt: that faith alone doth iustify, is also above refuted. For 1. it hath been shewed not to be in Scripture; And the∣refore the Presbytetians make it very vnreaso∣nably & against their own principles, the prin∣cipal article of their religion. 2. It is not only not to be found in Scripture, but it is expresly word by word against Scripture, as hath been seen out of S. Iames. Therefore, the Presbyte∣rians brags of great advantage, in this point, are very false and groundlesse. 3. It is also against the holy Fathers, who condemned it, as we haue seen, in some ancient heretiques. Yea S. Augustin doth affirm, that because it had risen in the very time of the Apostles, by misinter∣preting the words of S. Paul, the other Apos∣tles as S. Peter, S. Iames, & S. Iohn did direct

the intention of their epistles, and wrote most earnestly, to roote out that errour, from the minds of men And S. Paul also did expresse himself sufficiently against this errour, when he said: that albeit he had all faith, so that he could remove mountains: if he had not charity,* 1.222 which he calleth greater, and more excellent, then faith and hope, he would be nothing, and his faith would profite him nothing. Whence S. Augustin saith: that it is charity,* 1.223 which makes all vertues profitable; and that faith may be present, but it cannot profite without charity, and S. Leo saith: that charity quickens faith it self, by which the iust man lives. Yea M. Shelford the Protestant Minister above cited saith ex∣presly: that Charity is the most precious grace of God; and is the greatest mean & instrument of our Iustification. And that he (meaning Calvin) who preferreth faith before charity in our Iustification, would elude S. Pauls de∣monstration.

But, there is another part or branch of this third errour, much more dangerous then the former. For, as they teach that faith alone doth iustify, and yet they require with it charity & other vertues, which makes the difference to be more nominal then real; so they teach that this iustifying faith is nothing else, but a sure persuasion, that every one ought to have of the forgivenesse of his sins, for the merits of Christ; and that he is iust in the sight of God. This is the special faith, which they say is only given to the elect; and these, who once have it, can ne∣ver

fall from it; and they are sure of their elec∣tion & predestination. In this matter, the Pres∣byterians differ substantially from the Catho∣liques; who require also faith to Iustification, but of a far different nature from this of Calvin; which they esteem not to be faith, but rather a phanatical fancy, and high presumption. Against which, I found some solid reasons which I will briefly touch. 1. No mā ought to believe any thing, as an article of faith, but that which God hath re¦vealed. But God hath not revealed, that every mās sins are forgiven him. Therefore he ought not to believe it, & much lesse: although he believe it, is he iustifyed by it. 2. There is neither precept nor example in the whole Scripture, of such a special iustifying faith. Therefore it is not to be admitted. 3. It is far different from the faith of Abraham, the father of the faithfull, by which he was iustifyed; which faith, the Apostle in the same epistle to the Romans, doth highly extoll. For he was iustifyed, by believing the promise of God, which was revealed to him, to witt: that he should be the Father of many nations, and that his seed should be as the star∣res of the heauen, and the sand of the sea. This is the faith which the Christians of all ages, ever required, before Luther & Calvin arose, to believe what God had revealed, to witt: the articles of our Creed, and the other matters contaynd in Scripture: accorording to that of the Apostle: If thou confesse with thy mouth our Lord Iesus,* 1.224 and in thy hart believe, that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. S.

Iohn saith also: These things are written,* 1.225 that ye may believe Iesus Christ is the Son of God, and believing, ye may have everlasting life: Here is not a word of Calvins special faith; and yet we see how Abraham & others were iustifyed wit∣hout it; by believing these things, which God had revealed.* 1.226 4. S. Paul esteem'd Predestination one of the most deep secrets of God, crying out: O the depth, of the riches, of the wisdome, & knowledge of God &c. And yet, every Calvinist will know this secret, in relation to himself; as if he were one of Gods privy Counsellers; or God had particularly reveald it to him S. Au∣gustin saith to the same purpose:* 1.227 who of all the campany of the faithfull, so long as he lives in this mortality, can presume, that he is in the number of the predestinate? What would S. Augustin have said of the Presbyterians, who do not on∣ly so presume; but make it also the principal article of their faith, and the very ground of their Iustification. 5. This belief of the assurance of election, is against the Scrip∣ture, which sheweth that man knoweth not whether he be worthy love or hatred;* 1.228 and exhorts vs to work out our Salvation in fear and trem∣bling; and advertiseth him, who stands, to take head, least he fall. Lastly, as this presumptuous be¦lief openeth a wide gate to all sort of vice, and banisheth the exercise of vertue & true piety, which might be easily shewed; so the seeking this faith, hath made diverse loose all hope; and it hath proved pernicious to them, both in soule & body. For experience hath proved,

that it hath made diverse to be troubled in Spi∣rit, and loose their wits: and some to fall into despaire, by putting violent hands in themselves; as it did not long ago, to a famous Covenanter in Aberdeen,* 1.229 who drowned himself, when he was esteem'd by the Ministers there, to haue been at the very point, of getting assurance of his election. So that I have heard some of the old Protestant Ministers condemne much this iustifying faith of the Puritans.* 1.230 And M. Shel∣ford doth not stand, to call it, a private Fancie, and a false faith; and an enemy to all true ver∣tue & piety. Therefore, by Gods grace, I do not intend to believe it, much lesse to found my Salvation vpon it. All the assurance that we can have here, without Gods particular revelation, is by hope in the divine goodnesse, and mercy: which hope is not only fufficient to comfort vs in this life, but also, it will not confound vs in the next; if we strive here to do our dutie: and have the love of God, powred forth in our hearts. Therefore, it belongs to the vertue of hope, and not to faith, to apply the divine pro∣mises; as the same M. Shelford doth acknow∣ledge.

Besids all these authorities & reasons: a Ca∣tholique shew me that this doctrin of Iustifica∣tion by faith only, destroyeth it self. For if we cannot be iustifyed by any works, then we could not be iustifyed by faith, since faith it self is a work, according to these words of our Saviour: This is the work of God, that you beleeve in him, whom he hath sent. Therefore, said he, since we are iustifyed by faith, which is not

against the divine grace, nor our free iusti∣fication; because faith it self is a work of grace: so we may be also Iustifyed by love, hope, and other works of grace; without any derogation from the diuine grace. He did further vrge and said: either the faith, by which the Calvinists say, that men are iustifyed, is a mortal sin, or not? If it be a deadly sin; then they are iustifyed by sin: which is impious to say. If it be not a mortal sin: then all our actions are not sins, as Luther & Calvin falsly teach. The same Ca∣tholique shew me, that, to shun these inconve∣niences, to which the doctrin of the Calvinists drives them; they affirm, that faith, albeit it be a work, yet it doth not iustify, as a work of ver∣tue: but only as an Instrument, to apprehend the iustice of Christ. Calvin saith: that Faith,* 1.231 although it be of no dignity nor price, iustifyes vs, bringing Christ, as a pot filled with money enricheth a man. Melanchton saith: that iustifying faith, is like a poore mans hand, which he stretcheth forth, to receive almes, from a rich man. And so at length, this iustifying faith, which the Presbyterians so much cry vp, by the confession of Calvin, is of no price nor dignity; so that by him it is compared to a pot and by another great light, to a scabbed mans' hand: and by both ther principles, it is a sinfull instrument, by which they will have all men to be iustifyed. Whereby (said the Catholique) it may appeare, that these men are no lesse enemies to faith, then to works, and that they destroy the goodnesse & vertue of both. Whereas the Catholiques do

esteem faith, to be an excellent vertue, and the very roote & foundation of our Iustification.

There was an other difficulty, arising clearly from the Presbyterian doctrin; with which the same Catholique did much presse me, and some other Protestants, who were present. Ei∣ther, said he, the Presbyterians, who pretend to be assured of their electiō, are purged & cleansed from the filthines of their sins, befor they can en∣ter into heauen: or they are not purged at all from them? If they be not purged from them: Then they cannot enter into that heavenly ci∣tie. For S. Iohn saith: There shall not enter into it any polluted thing. That citie is described to be of pure gold, and the foundations of it, to be adorned with every precious stone. Therefore the Citizens of it, must also be pure and wit∣hout spot. And consequently: if the Presbyte∣rians, be not purged from the filthinesse and sores of their sins; which must not be only covered; but really taken away, cured, and cleansed: they cannot enter into heaven. If they say, that they must be purged from their sins, and all filthinesse and blots taken from them, before they can enter into heaven; then they are either purged from their sins, in this life, or in the life to come. Not in this: because they teach, that their sins are not taken away in this life; but are only covered, and the filthinesse of them remaines; and as they live, so they di•• in sins. Not after this life: for then, they beho∣ved to acknowledge a Purgatory; which is against a principal article of their negative faith.

If they say; their sins are taken away by death, in the very instant of it: Then since death is common to all men; if death had that power, all men would be cleansed from sin; and so all would be saved; which is false. If they say, It is not death simply, but death ioyn'd with faith, that hath this power. Why shall not also, faith and life have the same power? How can the Presbyterians, without any ground in Scrip∣ture, assigne that power to faith, and death; which they deny, against Scripture, to faith, and the holy Sacraments, and to the blood of Christ? Death indeed, may put an end to sin; that one sin no more: but it cannot take away sins already done: or else death would be more po∣werfull, according to that tenet, then the blood of Christ, & the holy Sacraments; which is not only a groundlesse fancy, but also a great absurdity. Out of which, it followeth that either the Presbyterians must grant, that they do not go to heaven; which is very much against the assurance of their election: or that they are purged from their sins, after this life, since they are not purged in it: which is against their negative confession. And so these, who deny a a Purgatory for venial sins, must grant a new and most dangerous Purgatory, for mortal sins. For my part: I could never find a solid ans∣wer to this reason; and therefore I leave it to the Presbyteries consideration.

But, because this Catholique did trouble vs, with this difficulty; I thought to have entan∣gled him as much, with the words of Bellar∣min;

whereof I had heard some Ministera of∣ten boast. Did not Bellarmin, said I, after he had much laboured, to prove Iustification by works, in end conclude: That, it was most safe to put all our confidence, in the only mercy of God. What will become then of all your works and merits; which such a great Champion, of your Church, doth renounce? To which he answe∣red: that Bellarmins words fully related, do clear the whole matter:* 1.232 and shew the vanity of the Ministers pretences. For thus he speaks. By reason of the vncertainty of our proper Iustice, and of the danger of our vaine glory, it is most safe, to put all our confidence in the only mercy & favour of God. Where he doth not deny, neither good works nor merits: but only, affirmeth, that for two reasons, which he there toucheth, that it is most safe, not to rely vpon them: but vpon the alone mercy of God. Out of which, the Ministers would make this false collection: the∣refore we are not iustifyed by works. Which is as ridiculous, as if you would say. The Pro∣testants teach: that it is most safe, to rely vpon the mercy of God: Therefore they are not ius∣tifyed by faith. If then the Protestants relying vpon the mercy of God, taketh not away Ius∣tification by faith: why should not also the Ca∣tholiques relying on the same mercy, not take away Iustification by works? Bellarmin speaks so clearly in this matter, that his meaning can∣not be wrested without malice. For he she∣weth, in the same place, that David, and o∣ther Saints, had some confidence in their iustice

and good works: according to that in the 17. Psalme: The Lord will render to me according to my iustice: because I have kept his wayes. The like he sheweth of Nehemias, Ezechias, and Ester. And this they did, with great humility. But, because such cōfidēce is dangerous to many, by reason of pride & vaine glory, that may arise: & beside there are few, who haue such merits, or are sure to have them: Therefore Bellarmin saith: it is most safe, to rely on the mercy of God: whereof he gives this reason. Either a man hath good works: or he hath none, but evil works. If he hath no good, but evil works; then he is perniciously deceived, who trusts in evil works: for these are deceitfull riches. as S. Ber¦nard calls them. If he hath good works: he loo∣seth nothing by not looking on them, & by put∣ting his trust in the mercy of God alone: for God lookes on them, & knowes them well, and will not suffer them to passe, without their due re∣ward. Thus Bellarmin. Yea,* 1.233 the Councel of Trent makes the like profession, when it saith: Although much be given to good works, in the holy Scriptures: &c. Yet God forbid, that a Christian should trust or glory in himself, & not in our Lord: whose goodnesse is so great, that he willeth these things, to be our merits, which are his own gifts. The Ministers may collect, out of these words, by their Logique, that the Councel of Trent, yea and that all Papists are Protestants▪ But they will not distinguish, between the necessity of good works; and confiding in them: which are very different. At least, all moderat Protestants may

know by this open profession, the falshood of that calumny, which is often beaten into their eares, to witt, that all Papists presume in their merits. S. Augustin sheweth, that there are two gulfs in this matter, one vpon either hand: and that the truth is a direct way in the mid∣dle. Presumption of iustice, or good works, is the gulf, vpon the one hand: and negligence of good works, is the precipice on the other. But the earnest care of good works and piety, ac∣companyed with humility, is the safe way in the middle. Thus ended the Catholique, to the good satisfaction of some Protestants, who were present.

To conclude this matter, (wherein I have stayed longer, by reason of the Ministers spe∣cious pretences of great advantage in it) I can not believe any more, Iustification by faith only, as the principal article of my religion: because it is not in Sctipture: because it is expresly against Scripture, & against the holy Fathers: because it is an ancient heresy, condemned in Simon Ma∣gus, & Eunomius: because the Presbyteriās iusti∣fying faith, is not a true Catholique faith, having the divin reveal'd truth for its obiect, as these he retiques required: but is a private fancy & a false faith,* 1.234 (as it is acknowledged by some Protestāts) having for its obiect, humane presumption. Because it makes Christ a most imperfect Phy∣sician: and either debarreth man, from the kingdome of heaven, into which he cannot enter with the filthinesse of his sins; or expo∣seth him, after this life, to a most dangerous pur∣gation.

Because it breeds neglect of all piety, and good works: and opens a wide gate to all sort of vice. In a word: albeit the Ministers brag∣ged much of this article: yet I found they had never lesse reason: if we will stand to the iud∣gment of the Scriptures & Fathers: which, God willing, I ever intend to prefer to their fancies, and to their Philosophical distinctions, or rather confusions: to which, they are for∣ced to run: that they may lurk in their obscuri∣ties, when they are beaten out of the Scriptu∣res: in which, at first, they pretended, to be impregnably setled. It is sufficient for me, that the Scripture expresly saith: that a man is iusti∣fyed by works, and not by faith only; Which is the contradiction of the Presbyterians faith: and that themselves do acknowledge in end, the necessity of good works. But to know how they are necessary; either as causes, or condi∣tions, is not a necessary curiosity; wherof few are capable, and without which many have gone to heaven. And so now, I proceed to the Trial of our doctrin, concerning the Sacra∣ments.

CHAP. XVIII. Of the Excellency of the Christian Sacra∣ments: and particularly, how they con∣ferre Grace: which is denyed by the Pres∣byterians.

AS I knew the Christian religion, to be the most excellent, of all true religions, that ever have been: whether we consider that, which was vnder the law of nature, or the other which was vnder the law of Moyses: so I ius∣tly conceived, that it was most agreeable to Gods goodnesse and wisdome, to adorne and enrich it, with most excellent Sacraments. For, since no religion, whether true or false, can be without some sensible signes,* 1.235 as S. Augustin hath observed; the Christian religion, (which is not only the true, but also the most perfect religion, to which the former two served as preparations) must also have, the most perfect and efficacious Sacraments. And so I found, the same S. Augustin, extolling the perfection of the Christian Sacraments, above these of the ancient law.* 1.236 Our Lord, saith he, and the Aposto∣lical disciplin haue delivered some few Sacra∣ments, for many; and these most easy to be done, most magnificent for signification, and most pure to be observed. And elswhere, he saith: the Sacra∣menss are changed, they are made easier, fewer hol∣sommer, happier. Now the principal perfection of the Christian Sacraments, was generally be∣lieved

to consist in this; that God, by them, did conferre grace vnto our soules. Which truth is so engrafted in the hearts of Christians, that I knew diverse Protestants, could not be at first perswaded, that Luther, or Calvin, or that their Church, taught the contrary: and. when that was sufficiently manifested to them; they were much scandalized at it: In so much, that some of them did say: If the Sacraments do not confer grace, and baptisme doth not take away original sin; for what vse serve the Sacraments: for what end were they ordain'd?

Wherefore, being thus stirred vp to try this question, I found in end, that the Catholique doctrine, which taught that the Sacraments of the new Law do confer grace, is conformable to the divine Scriptures; that it was expresly believed by the holy Fathers; and doth duly exalt the perfection of the Christian Sacraments: Whereas the Presbyterians doctrin; which de∣nyeth the Sacraments to confer grace, is not on∣ly false against the Scriptures; but was also condemned, as an ancient heresy, by the holy Fa∣thers; that it vndervalues the vertue of the Christian Sacraments: and is so absurd, that di∣verse famous Protestants haue abandoned that opinion, albeit it was taught both by Luther & Calvin; and in this point do agree with the Ca∣tholiques. All which things, for brevities sake, I will only touch.

Of Baptisme, S. Iohn said to the Iewes:* 1.237 I indeed baptize yow in water; but he, who comes after me, shall baptize you in the holy Ghost &

fire. Ananias said to S. Paul: be baptized & wash away thy sins.* 1.238 S. Paul calleth also Baptisme, the Lauer of regeneration, by which we are saved. The same Apostle saith, that Christ hath sanctifyed his Church, by the lauer of water; in the word of life. By which testimonies, albeit we speak nothing of many others, it appear'd sufficiently clear to me: since we are said, to have our sins washed away by bap∣tisme; to be sanctifyed: to be born of new again: that by it we receive also grace, wit∣hout which, these things could not be verified, and performed. The like is also affirmed of the Eucharist, of which our Saviour saith: If any man eate of this bread,* 1.239 he shall live for ever. And again He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life. Now this everlasting life, is no otherwise had here, but by receiving Grace, which is the seed of Glory, and of eter∣nal life & happinesse. Therefore these two Sa∣craments, which are all, that the Presbyte∣rians admit, do confer grace by the vertue & institution of Christ,

What was the belief of the holy Fathers, and of the whole Church, in this point, it is so clear; that Calvin himself, and other chief Pro∣testants do acknowledge it to be the same, which is now believed by the Catholiques, a∣gainst their doctrin.* 1.240 For. Calvin confesseth, that with great consent, it was taught and be∣lieved for many ages; That the Sacraments of the new Law do confer grace, if they were not hindered by mortal sin; which, albeit he cal∣leth

a pernicious and pestilentious opinion, and alleadgeth, that it drawes men from God, to rest in the sight of corporall things, and not in God himself; yet he confesseth also, that it was taught by S. Augustin, & the holy Fathers: whom he striveth to excuse, by saying, that in their immoderat praises of the Sacraments,* 1.241 they vsed hyperbolical speeches. The Lutheran Centurists do ascribe the same doctrin, as an errour, to the most ancient Fathers: as to S. Clement, Iustin, Cyprian, and others. Mus∣culus saith plainly: that Augustin did rashly af∣firm, that the Sacraments of the new law confer∣red grace. These open confessions shall save our paines, of citing the Fathers testimonies. And that this doctrin of the Catholiques doth ma∣nifest the perfection of the Christian Sacra∣ments, it is so clear of it self, that it needeth no illustration. Vpon this consideratiō, S. Augustin,* 1.242 admiring the wonderfull effects of the Sacra∣ments, cry'd out: Vnde tanta virtus aquae, vt corpus tangat, & cor abluat? Whence comes, saith he, so great vertue to the water, that it toucheth the body, and cleanseth the soule? Where he as∣cribes this wonderful effect, to the goodnesse & omnipotency of God: which sheweth also, that his speeches are not hyperbolicall, as Cal∣vin falsly pretends. Thus much briefly, to shew that I found the Catholique doctrin to be con∣forme to the Scriptures & holy Fathers, and to manifest the perfection of the Christian Sacra∣ments. And therfore Calvins opinion, which is iust contrary, must needs be against all these.

He himself confesseth that it is against the holy Fathers, and consequently it cannot be confor∣me to the Scriptures, whereon they founded their faith, and not vpon humane imaginations. That it taketh away a great perfection from the Sacraments, denying them to conferre grace, is so evident, that it needs no proofe. Calvin saw this so clearly, that he pretended, the Fa∣rhers vsed immoderate praises of the Sacra∣ments, and that this vertue, which the Catho∣liques do ascribe to the Sacraments, makes peo∣ple to trust more in creatures, them in God him∣self. But as I found Calvins doctrin to be false; so I soone perceived, that his pretence of preserving Gods honour, was very frivo∣lous. For how can the vertue of the Sacra∣ments derogate from the power & honour of Christ; since all power & vertue, that they have, is acknowledged to be from Christ, who is the principall Agent and Author of grace, they being only the instruments, by which he produceth it? How can the vertue of the Sa∣craments draw people from God, and make them rely more on corporal things then on God: since it, being so spiritual and supernatural, ra∣ther drawes people from corporal things to God, and makes them to admire more his po∣wer & to love his goodnesse? This was the ef∣fect, that the vertue of the Sacraments produ∣ced in S. Augustin; when with admiration he cryed out: Whence hath the water that vertue, that it toucheth the body & cleanseth the soule. A Catholique did further illustrate this matter to

me, by an example. VVho can be so void of rea∣son (said he) as to think, that the vertue, which proceeded from the hemme of our Sa∣viours garment, by touching whereof,* 1.243 the wo∣man in the Gospel was cured, did derogate from the honour of Christ; or would make the wo∣men to rely, or fixe her ey's more on the gar∣men, then on Christ himself: But rather is not the contrary most evident, that thereby the po∣wer & vertue of Christ was mvch illustrated, who, by such a small instrument, had produ∣ced so wonderfull an effect? And was not the woman & all the people present, drawen the∣reby more closely to Christ, and made to love his goodnesse, and admire his power? It is iust so in the Sacraments. As that vertue, which pro∣ceeded from the hemne of our Saviours gar∣ment, cured supernaturally the desease of the body; so the vertue, which proceeds from the Sacraments, cures the deseases and infirmities of the soule. And, as that tended to the honour of Christ; so doth this much more. Thus he.

Moreover, I found this Presbyterian opi∣nion, which robs the Sacraments of all ver∣tue, to be an ancient heresy condemned by the holy Fathers,* 1.244 in some heretiques called Mes∣salians, who taught, that sins were purged without the divine Sacraments, as S. Epipha∣nius S. Augustin & Damascen do testifie. There is indeed this difference, between them & the Calvinists: that they ascribed that power of purging sins to prayer: which these do, in their own manner, to Faith. Lastly, this opinion of

Luther & Calvin is so false & absurd,* 1.245 that di∣verse famous Protestants, as Osiander, Whi∣taker, Hooker, Bilson, and others cited in the Protestants Apology, besids some more late Doctours of the late English Church, haue re∣iected it, and believe with the Catholiques, that the Sacraments of the new law do not on∣ly signifie, but also conferre grace: and acknow∣ledge the difference, which the holy Fathers haue put between the Sacraments of the old law, and these of the Euangel. All which consi∣derations gave me sufficient ground, not to make any longer such a grosse errour, an article of my faith.

But, because the first & chief Protestants de∣ny the Sacraments to conferre grace, I was cu∣rious to know, for what end they thought the Sacraments were ordain'd,* 1.246 and for what vse they served: and, in this matter, I found a di∣versity among them. Melanchton said, that they serve as badges, to distinguish vs from infidels. Zuinglius maketh Sacraments no better then Souldiours marks, by which they are distingui∣shed. Luther saith, that they are external signes ordain'd to stirre vp our faith. Calvin is of the same opinion; but he addeth: that they are seals of Gods promises, ordain'd to vphold our faith, to witt, his special & iustifying faith. When it was obiected to Luther by the Catho∣liques, that the Sacrament of baptisme could not stirre vp faith in infants baptized, who have no vse of reason: he was brought to that straight, that he said infants did actually beleeve

whilst they were baptized: which is so false, that, as S. Augustin speaks, they,* 1.247 who affirm such things, do an iniurie to humane senses. Calvin, not relying fully vpon Luthers vnrea∣sonnable opinion, saith, that the baptism of infants stirreth vp their faith, when they come to the vse of reason. Which doctrin gives great advantage to the Anabaptists, and sheweth, that the baptism of infants is not profitable, be∣fore they attayne to the vse of reason. So that, according to the chieff Protestant Reformers, the Sacraments are nothing but badges, or bare signes & tokens, or seales of Gods pro∣mises, without any inward effect of grace. And therefore, they are made by them to serve to little, or no purpose. By which, I saw what vncertainty is among these Reformers, even in the principal points of our faith: and how ab∣iectly they speak and think of the Christian Sa∣craments: Whereas the Catholique Church & holy Fathers speak most reverently, & esteem highly of them: shewing, that they were or∣dain'd principally for our sanctification, accor∣ding to that famous definition of a Sacrament,* 1.248 collected out of S. Augustin. A Sacrament, is a visible signe of invisible grace, instituted by Christ, for our Sanctificat••on. To which pur∣pose, the same holy Father saith, Without the grace of invisible Sanctification, to what would the visible Sacraments serve? And again the ver∣tue of the Sacraments vnspeakably auaileth much. Therefore, the Presbyterians Sacra∣ments, being without invisible Sanctification,

serve to little vse, according to S. Augustin.

There was one doubt, which I had in this matter, concerning that which the Catholi∣ques teach, that the Sacraments do conferre grace, ex opere operato, or by the work wrou∣ght. For I have heard some Ministers affirm▪ that the Papists intended thereby to shew, that the Sacraments produced grace, as well in those, who were evil disposed, and came wit∣hout due preparation, as in those who were well disposed, and came well prepared to re∣ceive them: which I iustly esteem'd to be most false and impious. Therefore, having proposed this difficulty to a Catholique; I was informed by him, that this was a meer calumny of the Ministers;* 1.249 wherein they followed their Prede∣cessors, Luther & Calvin, who said; that to conferre grace, by the work wrought, accor∣ding to the Catholiques, was nothing else, but to conferre grace to a sinner, without faith and repentance. But the Catholiques, said he, have no such false and absurd meaning. They only, by that phrase do shew, that the grace, which Christ produceth by the Sacraments, as by his instruments, doth not depend either vpon the the holynes of the Minister, or vpon worthinesse of the receiver, but vpon the work wrought, that is, on the Sacramental action, which is instituted by Christ, for that end. As for example; the Sacrament of baptisme con∣fers the grace of Sanctification to infants, wa∣shing away their original sin, and making them the children of God; and this effect it vn∣doubtedly produceth in infants, in whom no

dispositions are required: so that, if they die, before they commit any actual sin: all of them would infallibly go to heaven. Here it is evi∣dent, that baptisme confers grace, by the work wrought, or by the Sacramental action and in∣stitution of Christ, and not, for any worthi∣nesse of the infants. Again, although the dispo∣sitions of faith, love, repentance and the rest, be required in these persons, who, being come to age, are to be baptized; yet baptisme doth produce their Sanctification, not by vertue, or for the merit of these dispositions, (although, without them, iustifying grace would not be produced) but for the institution of Christ, to whom, and not to the merit of the receaver, all the grace is attributed. Thus he shew me, how the Catholique Doctours did explaine the matter, and that it never entered into any of their heads, that the Sacraments would pro∣duce grace in those, who were ill disposed, or received thē without due preparation; since the Scripture sheweth, that these,* 1.250 who receeive the Eucharist vnworthily, receive vnto them∣selves damnation.

Vpon these considerations, I thought it no wonder, that the Presbyterians, who esteem their Sacraments to be of so little value, haue also made them to be of so little vse. For they haue abrogated and condemned all private bap∣tisme and Communion; so, that these two Sa∣craments, which are all they have, cannot be any more vsed in private, although vpon never so great necessity. And, for their Communion,

as they never give it in private, for the comfort of the sick so they give it very seldom in publick, for the devotion of the whole: for in some re∣markable Townes, and other parts of the Countrey, it hath not been once administra∣ted these 8. or 9. yeares. By all which, I saw clearly enough, that the doctrines and prac∣tises of the Presbyterians, were not only against the excellency, but also against the necessity of the Christian Sacraments; which were thereby rendred altogether gracelesse, and almost vse∣lesse. Therefore I intended Godwilling, to fol∣low no longer such wicked opinions and prac∣tises: which destroy the nature, end, and vse of the Christian Sacraments.

CHAP. XIX. That Baptisme taketh away Original sin: which is denyed by the Presbyterians.

VPON the determination of the former question, this other was soone decyded. For, if Baptisme conferres grace, as hath been proved generally, of all the Christian Sacra∣ments, in the former chapter; then it also ta∣keth away sin, which cannot stay with grace, in the same place. And so accordingly, the Catholiques teach,* 1.251 that Original sin is taken away by Baptisme; as the Councel of Trent hath defined, in these words: If any man shall

deny, that, by grace conserred in the Sacrament of Baptisme, the guilt of original sin is taken away: or saith also, that all, that is properly sin, is not taken away, but only razed, and not imputed; be he accursed. The chieff Protestants & Presby∣terians hold the contrary, as an article of their faith. Luther saith: to deny sin to be remaining in a child, after baptisme;* 1.252 is to tread both Paul and Christ vnder foote. Calvin accordeth to him. It is false, saith he, that by baptisme, we are loosed and exempted from original sin. The Presbyte∣rian confession of Westminster saith: that, by original sin, we are wholly defiled, in all the faculties & parts of soule & body. And that this corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those, that are regenerated, and that it self, and all the motions of it, are truly & properly sin.

I found the Catholique doctrin to be firmly founded in the Scriptures, to have been zea∣lously defended by the holy fathers, who ac∣count them infidels, who deny it; and to be agreable to the very instinct of almost all Chris∣tians. And consequently the Presbyterian be∣lief, which is iust opposite, must be against all these; as also I found it to have been an ancient heresy, and that it is so false and absurd; that diverse Protestants have been scandalized at it and abandonned it: and some have condem∣ned it as blasphemy. All which I shall briefly touch.

That baptisme taketh away original, yea and all sin, the Scripture sufficiently sheweth.

Ananias said to S. Paul.* 1.253 Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins. S. Peter gave this ad∣vice to the Iewes: be every one of you baptized, for the remission of your sins. S. Paul saith, that Christ hath loved his Church, and delivered, himself for it; that he might sanctifie it, clean∣sing it by the lauer of water, in the word. Again: He hath saved vs by the lauer of regeneration. S. Peter saith: Baptisme saveth you also. If then Baptisme washeth away our sins, how are they not taken away? if we be cleansed from sin: how can the filthinesse of sin remain? If we be borne of new again, in the lauer of regenera∣tion, how can the old man, or death of sin abide in vs? Christ is called, in the Scripture, the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world. But how could he be said, to take away the sins of the world; if he did not take away Ori∣ginal sin, which is the sin of the whole world? And how is that sin taken away, but by Bap∣tisme? These places of Scripture appeare so clear, for this truth; that, without great vio∣lence, they cannot be wrested to an other sense. But now, let vs heare the iudgment of the holy Fathers, & of the primitive Church.

S. Augustin sheweth the doctrin of the an∣cient Church, against the Pelagians, who fal∣sely alleadged, that the Catholiques maintaind, Baptisme did not take away all sins, but did only shave them: for which supposed doctrin, they branded the Catholiques, with the name of Manichees. He puts down their calumny in these words:* 1.254 These Manichees do teach, that

baptism doth not give remission of sins, nor takes away crimes, but only shaves them. To which calumny S. Augustin answer's thus. Who af∣firmes this against the Pelagians, vnlesse he be some infidel. For we teach, that baptism gives re∣mission of all sins, and takes away crimes, and not shaveth them. Where may be observed, not only what was the doctrin of the auncient Church, but also that the contrary, is a point of the Manichean heresy; and that these, who maintain it, are infidels, in S. Augustins iudg∣ment. Again, the same holy Father sheweth the great vertue of baptism, when he saith:* 1.255 by the begetting flesh, original sin is only contracted: but by the regenerating Spirit, remission is made not only of original, but also the of voluntary sins. S. Chrysostom doth more largely illustrate this matter, shewing, that baptism doth not only take away sin, but also bringeth many graces, & privileges to the persons baptized. They are,* 1.256 saith he, not only made free, but holy: not only holy, but iust: not only iust, but children: not on∣ly children, but heires: not only heires, but bre∣thren of Christ: not only brethren of Christ, but coheires: not only coheires, but memhers: not only the temple, but the members of the Spirit. Yow see how many are the privileges of baptism. Many in∣deed think, that the heavenly grace consists only in the remissien of sins: but we have reckoned ten privileges. For this cause we baptize infants &c.* 1.257 Thus S. Chrysostom. Again, the same holy Father sheweth, that albeit a sinner were defi∣led with all sorte of iniquity, and tyed with the

bands of all wickednesse; yet when he comes vnto this Bath, he riseth more pure, then the beames of the Sun. And as a little spark of fire cast into the deep sea, is not leasurely, but in∣stantly extinguished by the aboundance of wa∣ters, & forthwith it is shewed to be nothing: so all humane malice, when it comes to the waters of these heavenly fountaines, is more easily put out, then the heate of that little spark. And least this should be thought, to be said out of ambition or exaggeration; he proves all from these words of S. Paul.* 1.258 Do not erre. Neither for∣nicators, nor Idolaters; nor Adulterers &c. shall possesse the kingdome of God. And these things in∣deed you were: but you are washed, but you are sanctifyed; but you are iustifyed. Then, after an excellent discours on the vertue of baptism, he sheweth, why it is not called the lauer of re∣mission of sins, nor the lauer of purification, but the lauer of regenerion: because saith he, it doth not only forgive our ssns, nor simply puri∣fy vs, who were wrapped vp in wickednesse, but it makes vs, as if we were borne from heaven. More testimonies need not to be added; since the Centurists do confesse, that the most auncient Fathers as S. Clement,* 1.259 S. Iustin, Cyprian, and many others, maintain'd the same doctrine. Yea they maintain'd this so eagerly, that some of them do brand those, who believe the con∣trary, with the note of infidelity: as we have seen lately out of S. Augustin.* 1.260 To whom also accordeth S. Gregory the great, who saith: that nothing can be more vnfaithfull, then to,

teach, that sins are only superficially, or not fully, taken away in baptism.

Moreover: this truth is so engrafted in the hearts of Christians, that the most part of Pro∣testants believes it, albeit it be against the faith of their Church, and albeit it be also true, that few of them know so much. Hence it came to passe, that diverse Presbyterians were scanda∣lized at some words, which a great Apostle of the Covenant spake lately, against this truth. For when one, striving to cleare himself, be∣fore the Presbytery, of some imputation, whe∣rewith he was charged, had said, that he was as innocent of that, whereof he was accused, as he was free of original sin, by baptisme: the said Apostle presently took him vp sharply, & told him; that he was speaking flat Popery, and that neither he, nor any man whosoever would be freed from original sin, so long as they lived. Wherevpon, many, to whose eares this discourse came, took great offence, as if this had been the private opinion of that Minister, not knowing that it was also the belief of the Presbyterian Church, and of their first Reformers. Hence it may appeare, that this article of the Presby∣terian faith, is not only against the Scriptures, & holy Fathers: but also against the very ins∣tinct of almost all Christians And besids all these absurdities, I found it to have been a most auncient heresy, defended by the Origenists: who thought, as S. Epiphanius witnesseth,* 1.261 that sins were not taken away by baptism, but only covered, and were at length purged by

death. So that we have, for the most part, auncient and condemned heresies, for the ar∣ticles of the Presbyterian faith. Yea a famous Protestant of Germany condemnes this opi∣nion, in the name of his Lutheran brethren, as a blasphemie against the holy Scriptures. This blasphemie,* 1.262 saith he, of the Calvinists (that baptism doth not purge sins) the holy Ghost in in many places refuteth. All which, besides ma∣ny other considerations, were more then suf∣ficient to hinder me, from making such a per∣nicious errour, (which indeed makes bap∣tism of no effect) an article of my faith.

I will conclude this matter with the testimo∣nies of two most renowned Fathers, who found by experience, the wonderfull effects of baptisme.* 1.263 S. Augustin doth relate, how a dear Camer••d of his, whom he had infected with the errours and heresies, which himself follo∣wed before his conversion, falling extreamly sick, being without vnderstanding or sense, was in that condition baptized. And how the∣reafter he coming to his senses, S. Augustin be∣gan to iest him, with the baptism, which he had received without vnderstanding. But, saith the father, he found that he had received it, and abhorred me as an enemy; admonishing me, with a wonderfull libertie, that I would leave off to speak such things, if I would remain a friend. Whereat. S. Augustin professeth, that he much admired, to see such a change, wrought in the mind, by that, which was done in the body of him, who at that time, knew not

what they did.* 1.264 S. Cyprian also ingenuously confesseth, what a vitious man himself was be∣fore baptism; and how suddenly he was chan∣ged, and became an other man, by the grace which he received in that Sacrament: and acknowledging thankfully the many benefites which Christianity conferred vpon him, he calleth it truly, The death of sins, and the life of vertues. The like admirable change was also wrought by baptism, in the soule of S. Augu∣stin. By all which may be knowen, that bap∣tism not only purgeth the soule from sin, and adorneth it with grace; but also it changeth admirably the mind of man.

The false supposition of the Presbyterians, that original sin, is nothing else but concupis∣cence, shall be hereafter refuted in the triall of the Covenant.

CHAP. XX. That Baptism is necessary for the Salvation of Infants▪ which is denyed by the Presbyterians.

I took notice of ā other dāgerous errour, which was taught by our first Reformers, and is yet maintain'd by the Presbyterians, against the ne∣cessity of baptism. For as they teach that baptism taketh not a way original sin, so they belieue, that it is not necessary for salvation, & that children, dying without that Sacrament, may be saved. Vpō

this dangerous doctrin, followeth a most dan∣gerous practise. Fot they, believing baptism not to be necessary, suffer many children to die without it: and they have also made a law, abro∣gating all private baptism. Our first Reformers shew their minde clearly,* 1.265 when they say, in their first Confession, That baptism isnoto of such necessity, that the want of it, can be hurtfull to the Salvation of children. And they deny also the profitt of it, when they subioyn: that many have ben baptized, and yet were never inwardly purged. The same is almost repeated by our new Presbyterian Reformers, in their late confes∣sion at Westminster: where they say; that grace and salvation are not so necessarly annexed vnto baptism, that no person can be saved or rege∣nerated without; it or, that all that are bapti∣zed, are vndoubtedly regenerated. These doctrines and practises are d••rived from Cal∣vin, the first Foundator of Presbytery, who taught, that the children of the faithfull are holy, from their mothers womb, are alrea∣dy sanctifyed, and have remission of their sins; and that they have need of baptism, not as of a help necessary, but as of seale, ordain'd by God, to seale in them the grace of adoption. And if they die, they may be saved without baptism. And, according to this doctrin, he made a law in Geneva, that the children to be baptized, should expect sermon; and he suffe∣red a child to dye without baptisme; because it was brought, a little late, to the Church; as Florimond Reymond testifyeth.

Now, I found the opposite doctrin, to witt, that baptism is necessary for the salvation of infants, to be most firmly founded in Gods word, to haue been strongly and zealously de∣fended by the holy Fathers, and the ancient Church, and to be conforme to the general instinct of Christians. Therefore, the Presby∣rian doctrin which is contrary, must be a∣gainst all those. And besids, I found it to be an auncient heresy, and to be so dangerous and pernicious an errour, that diverse famous Pro∣testants have abandonned it. All which points I shall briefly touch.

1. Our Saviour saith clearly, in the Scripture vnles a man be borne again, of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.* 1.266 Which place, the holy Fathers and the ancient Church vnderstood of baptism.* 1.267 S. Augustin sheweth that this place was so expresse & con∣vincing, that it confounded the Pelagians, who denyed original sin, and made them acknow∣ledge the necessity of baptism, although not for the remission of original sin, which they de∣nyed; yet, for the attayning of the kingdom of heaven. But yet to maintain their errour, they foolishly imagined that children might be sa∣ved without baptism, although without it,* 1.268 they could not enter into heaven. Vrbanus Regius a famous Protestant in Germany, saith: that the right beleeving Fathers and Christians vnder∣stood this place, of baptism. And to beleeve (saith he) that none, either man, or child can be saved, without baptism, both the Scripture, and the au∣thority

of the auncient Church compelleth vs.

For the Fathers, we shall bring S. Augustin, who writeth thus to S. Hierome.* 1.269 Whosoever saith, that such children shall have life in Christ, who depart this life without participatien of the Sacrament of baptism, that man questionlesse gainsayeth the preaching of the Apostles, and con∣demneth the whole Church; where such hast is made to runne with children, because it is belee∣ved, without doubt, that otherwise they cannot at all be quickned in Christ. And, in another place he saith most earnestly:* 1.270 Do not beleeve, do not say, do not tea h, that children, preveened by death, before they receive baptism, can attayn re∣mission of their original sin, if you desire to be a Catholique. And that this was not only the be∣lief of S. Augustin, but also of the other holy Fathers, as of S. Cyprian, Nazianzen, S. Hie∣rom,* 1.271 S. Ambrose, S. Hilarius, &c. the Cen∣turists themselves do acknowledge: yea the Car∣thaginian & Milevitan Councels, as S. Augu∣stin testifieth, professed the same, and condem∣ned their opinion, who think that children can be saved, without baptism. And that the neces∣sity of baptism, is conforme to the generall ins∣tinct of Christians, may appeare by the former testimony of S. Augustin: where he sheweth, that Christians make such haste, and are so ear∣nest, to have their children baptised; because they believe, that otherwise they cannot be quickned in Christ. Therefore the Presbyterian doctrin, which denyeth the necessity of bap∣tism, gainsayeth the Scriptures, & Fathers, and

••s against the common belief of Christians.

Moreover, it was condemned,* 1.272 as an old heresy in the Pelagians. For they denyed also, that baptism was necessary for the remission of original sin. There is indeed this difference bet∣ween them, & the Presbyterians: that they, denying original sin, thought it not necessary for the remission of it; albeit they esteem'd it necessary, for the attayning the kingdom of heaven. But the Presbyterians, graunting ori∣ginal sin, believe, that baptism is neither neces∣sary for the remission of it; nor for obtaining of heaven: and so their errour, in this point is greater, then that of the Pelagians. For they promise the kingdom of heaven to children dying without baptism: which the Pelagians presumed not to do: it being so clearly against the Scriptures.

That diverse famous Protestants have aban∣donned this errour, and do hold, that Salva∣tion is not promised to the children of the faith∣full, dying without baptism, Breirly sheweth in the Protestants Apology:* 1.273 where he cites for this purpose, the Confession of Auxburg, Vr∣banus Regius, Hosmanus, Bilson Bishop of Winchester, and others. King Iames also, in the conference at Hampton-Court, maintain'd that baptism was necessarie, by the necessity of command; albeit he did not think it neces∣sarie, by the necessitie of means. All which considerations, were more then sufficient mo∣tives, to make me abandon the Presby∣terian opinion, and to embrace the Catholique

belief concerning the necessity of haptism, for the Salvation of infants.

But, finding that the Presbyterians have principally two exceptions, against the ancient Catholique doctrin, I proposed them to a Ca∣tholique, for my greater satisfaction. First, said I, the Presbyterians do alleadge, that the neces∣sity of baptism is against the power of God▪ by tying him to the ordinary means. 2. They af∣firm that it is against his mercy, to exclude so many children from the kingdom of heaven. And therefore, in their Covenant, they accuse you, who are Catholiques, of cruel iudgment, against children, dying without baptism. To which the Catholique answered, that these pretences were frivolous. For first, said he, that cannot be against Gods power, which is ac∣cording to his divine will, by which his po∣wer is in some kind limited. Now, God, whose power is infinit, and who might save children by many other means, then by baptism, hath declared his will; th t, vnlesse a man be borne again, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven; and therefore, so much as we know by his re∣veal'd will, he hath appointed no other reme∣die for original sin, but baptism; which, being determinated by Gods proper will, can∣not be against his power. Neither is God here∣by tyed to any ordinary means; but to such, wherevnto he hath freely determinated himself, according to his will. Vpon which only will of God, and his divin institution, and not vpon the fancy & speculation of man, do depend the

remedies, which are necessarie, for the Salva∣tion of infants. Now, Gods will and institu∣tion cannot be knowen, but by the divin revelation: and God hath reveal'd no other remedie, but baptism. Therefore, as the Catholiques do well, by grounding their faith, on the divin revelation; and by vseing all di∣ligence, to apply the remedie, which is appoin∣ted by Christ for the Salvation of infants; so the Presbyterians do ill, by founding their faith, in this point, not vpon the Scriptures, but vpon vncertain coniectures, which are also against the Scriptures: and they do also ill, by neglecting the remedie ordain'd by God, to expose the Salvation of infants to meer vncer∣tainties. S. Augustin saith excellently to this purpose: Let not according to our fancy,* 1.274 eternal salvation be promised to infants, dying without the baptism of Christ, which the divin Scriptures, preferable to all humane ingines, do not promise. Secondly, the Catholique said that the Presby∣terians speak not consequentially, when they say, that Gods power should not be tyed to the ordinary means. For, by this phrase, they would make people believe: that they estee∣m'd baptism the ordinarie mean of taking away, or of pardoninng original sin: which indeed they do not. For they teach with Calvin, that original sin is taken away before baptism, which doth not, according to them, purge or forgive sin: but is only a scale of sin already for∣given. And therefore, the Presbyterians, in this matter, both contradict themselves, and would deceive others.

Next, the same Catholique shew me, that the Presbyterians, by their other pretence, would seem to plead for the mercy of God, as they did by the first, for his power; but with a like bad successe; and that they, very vnrea∣sonably, accuse the Catholiques iudgment. For it is no crueltie to conform our iudgments to the iudgment of God, which we know by his own revelation. Gods iudgments, although they be sometimes so secret, that we cannot al∣wayes penetrate into the true causes of them; yet it is most certain, that they are ever iust; and therefore, not cruell. But, as in this matter, Gods iudgment is clearly reveal'd; so it is very easy to find the cause of it; to witt, original sin: which, as it was contracted by generation from Adam; so it must be purged, and taken away by regeneration in Christ; or else he, who is truth it self, saith, that none can enter into the kingdom of heaven. Besides: the Ca∣tholiques iudgment against infants, dying, wit¦hout baptism, is not so cruel, as the Presbyte∣rians iudgment is cruel against many children, dying with baptism. For the more common sentence of Catholique Divines is, that chil∣dren dying without baptism are not troubled with any sensible paine, but that they are only excluded, for want of it, from the supernatu∣rall happinesse, which the baptized enioy in heaven; and that otherwise, they leade a hap∣pie life But the Presbyterians, in their new confession, teach that all children baptized, are not vndoubtedly regenerated: to which is con∣sequent,

that many infants baptised are not sa∣ved, as not belonging to the Covenant of grace: which Bucer did expresse more clearly,* 1.275 when he saith, that children predestinate are sa∣ved without baptism; and the not predestinate are damned even with baptism. Now, I enquire which of these two iudgments is more cruell? To say: that children, dying without baptism, do not enter into heaven, but yet they suffer no sensible paine: or to say that many children, dying with baptism, are not only excluded from heaven, but are also eternally tormented in hell, with sensible paines? Without all doubt the last; which is the iudgment of the Presby∣terians, is incomparably more cruell. More∣over, it is more rigorous, then the iudgment of these other Catholiques Divines, who teach, that infants dying without baptism, are not only excluded from heaven, but are condemned to hell, and to some sensible paines therein, for the same reason. For it is more ri∣gorous, without doubt, to condemne, to hells sensible paines, some infants that are baptized, and some that are not; then to iudge, that the only not baptized children are liable to that paine. By this it may be seen, that the Presby∣rians, who accuse others falsly of cruell iudg¦ment, against children dying without baptism, are guilty themselves of more cruell iudgement against children, dying with baptism.

But, albeit, said he, the Catholiques iudg∣ment in this matter were false or cruell, as the Presbyterians do alleadge; yet there followeth

no cruelty nor inconuenience vpon it, to chil∣dren, who are thereby, with the greater care and commiseration, carried in all haste to bap∣tism. So that this pretended cruelty in iudg∣ment, produceth true mercy & compassion in action. But if the Presbyterians doctrine be false, as it must be, if the criptures▪ Fathers & Councels be true, great evils and cruelties follow vpon it to the children. Fot thereby, many of them are suffered to die without bap∣tism, and so are cruelly deprived of their Sal∣vation. These mens pretended mercy in Iud∣ment, produceth reall cruelty in their actions. Thus he, in answer to my doubts.

Moreover, the same Catholique shew me, that according to the Catholique Doctours, the baptism of infants may be supplyed by Martyr∣dom, which is also called baptism in the Scrip∣ture, as when our Saviour said to the children of Zebedee:* 1.276 Can you be baptized with the bap∣tism, wherewith I am baptized. And so the Church did of old, and doth still, honour the Innocent children murdered by Herod, as Martyrs. The same is also verifyed of those, who are come to age, as S. Augustin testifieth. Whosoever also,* 1.277 saith he, not having teceived the lawer of regeneration, dyeth for the confession of Christ, it availeth as much to him for remission of his sins, as if they had been washed away in the sa∣cred font of ba••tism. The baptism of water may be supplyed also, by a true conversion to God, when the baptism of water is not contemned, but rather desired, and yet, through some ne∣cessity,

men die without it, as S. Ambrose testi∣fieth of Valentinian the yonger· I haue lost him,* 1.278 saith he, whom I was to regenerate: but he hath not lost the grace which he hoped for. This true conversion & penance is also called baptism in the Scriptures; for it is said, that S. Iohn prea∣ched baptism of penance, vnto remission of sins. And, according to this doctrin, the an∣cients did handsomly distinguish three kinds of baptism, which they called Sanguinis, flaminis, & fluminis: that is, the baptism of blood, of the Spirit, & of water.

Lastly, he said, that although baptism were not a necessarie mean, ordained by God, for Salvation of Infants; yet it hath the necessitie of a command to Pastors,* 1.279 as is evident by our Sa∣viours words to the Apostles: Goe and teach all nations, baptizeing them &c. Therefore, although it were supposed, that no hurt come to the chil∣dren, dying without baptism; yet they, who by their office are obliged to baptize, commit a great sin, when they wilfully neglect to obey Christs command: which the Presbyterian Pastors manifestly do, suffering so many chil∣dren, notwithstanding the many teares and cries of their parents, to die without baptism. And, according to this observation, King Ia∣mes answered well a Minister in Scotland, who enquired of him, if he thought baptism so necessarie, that, if it were omitted, the child would be damned. No said the King, but I ve∣rily believe, if yow, being called to baptise a child in danger of death, would refuse to do it,

that you would be damned. This answer may be seen, in the first dayes conference at Hamp∣ton-Court. Where it is also shewed, that such a neglect of, baptisme is not only a damnable sin, in the Minister, but likwise that it is very dāgerous for the child. For who, saith the Bishop of London, hath any car•• of religion, and would not by all meanes be carefull, that his child re∣ceive baptism? Who would not rather assure his action, vpon the promises of Iesus Christ; then the omission of it, vpon the secret iudgment of God? Then, whereas the Ministers do allead∣ge that Christs command extends only to pu∣blique, and not to private baptism, this is a meer fancy without any ground in Scripture, where no such distinctiō is made: yea it is against Scripture. For do we not read, that S. Paul was baptized privatly by Ananias, and the Eunuch by S. Philip.* 1.280 But they who teach that Gods commandments are impossible to be kept, and make dayly profession to break them, may let this passe with the rest. These, and diverse other inconsequentiall errours of the Presbyte∣rians concerning baptim, he did manifest vnto me; which, for brevities sake, I omitt.

Therefore, to conclude this point: I cannot believe the Presbyterian doctrin against the ne∣cessity ob baptism, because i•• is against our Sa∣viours expresse words, against the holy Fa∣thers & whole ancient Church; because it is an ancient heresy condemned in the Pelagians; because it is against the common instinct of Christians, and is condemned by diverse fa∣mous

Protestants; so that King Iames, the head of a famous Protestant Church, iudged it dam∣nable in the Ministers; and his Prelats estee∣m'd it most dangerous to the infants. For which dangerous doctrin, and the cruel practise flo∣wing from it, I can find no other ground, but Ministerial tradition from Geneva, and that against the Scriptures and all the former autho∣rities. Florimond above cited, sheweth,* 1.281 how this tradition descended from Calvin, and that Musculus Superintendent of Berne deposed a Minister named, Samuel Hueber, for having baptized a child in the night, when it was in danger of death; and Beza did assist to that cen∣sure. Moreover, he sheweth, how in a Pro∣testant Synod, at Figear, it was ordain'd, that the Ministers should comfort the parents of children dying without baptism But all in vaine: so that the Ministers of Poictou, in an aslembly at Chastelrauld in the yeare 1599. were enforced to give way to Ministers, to baptize in private houses, that they might avoid the cryes of tender hearted mothers. I have heard of some pittiful accidents that have fallen forth in our Countrey, vpon this same occasion: so that some mothers have almost gone out of their witts, when the Ministers suffered their children to die without baptism. And I knew a Protestant father, who, for this same reason, took great indignation at all Presbyte∣rian Ministers. Such a strong impression hath God made of this truth in the hearts of the sim∣ple people, who, in many other things, have

suffered themselves to be too simply misled, to abandon the truth. By all which, it may be f••en how the Presbyterians, make void, and destroy the Sacrament of baptism.

CHAP. XXI. Of the reall presence of Christs body in the holy Sacrament: which is denyed by the Presbyterians.

AS the Presbyterians, by denying both the effect and nec••ssity of bapism, do in effect quite take away that so holy and necessa∣ry a Sacrament; so I conceived, if it be true that Christs body be really present in the Eu∣charist (as the Catholiques beleeve) that the Presbyterians, who deny the reall presence, and do give vs nothing, but signes and tokens of Christs body, do also destroy this other most excellent Sacrament. The Catholiques belief in this point,* 1.282 is clearly set down by the Councel of Trent, where it is said: The holy Synod doth openly and simply professe, that, in the hol•• Sa∣crament of the Eucharist, after the consecration of bread & wine, our Lord Iesus Christ, true od & true man, is truly, really & suhstantially contai∣n'd, &c. Our first Scott sh Confession speaks not so clearly. For, after some ambiguity of words, by which it would seem to graunt the reall presence, it acknowledged that hrists body is only in the heavens. For it saith, that

the holy Ghost, by true faith,* 1.283 carrieth vs above all things, that are visible &c, and maketh vs to feed vpon the body & blood of Christ Iesus, which is in the heavens. And yet notwithstanding the far distance of place, which is betwixt his body, now grorifyed in the heavens, and vs now mortall in this earth: yet we assuredly beleeve &c. The late Gonfession of Westminster, albeit it vseth also some ambiguous expressions yet it affirmeth that Christs body is not corporally or carnally in, with, or vnder the bread & wine.* 1.284 And its knowen also that the Presbyterians do zea∣lously maintaine, that Christs body is only in the heavens, and that it is impossible even to the omnipotency of God, to make a body to be present in two places at once. And therefore, according to them, Christs body cannot be really present in the Sacrament.

Although this be a most important question, and is much agitated by the curiosity of carnal reason; yet I was soone satisfyed in it; because I was resolved by Gods grace, to found my faith vpon no other ground, but vpon the di∣vine Scriptures, as they were vnderstood by the ancient Church & holy Fathers. And therefore, after a little diligence and some conference with a Catholique, on this matter; I found, that the reall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament was conforme to the clear words of the Scrip∣tures, which were so vnderstood by the holy Fathers, and which, in right reason, cannot be otherwise vnderstood; and that God hath ap∣proved this truth by famous miracles. And,

vpon the other part, I found, that the Presby∣erian doctrin is against Scriptures, Fathers, Councels and right reason, that it is an ancient heresy, and so false, that many Protestants do eagerly oppose it: and lastly, that such great confusion was in this matter, among the first Apostles of this new religion; that it is no wonder to see it so much multiplied among their children. All which points I will briefly touch.

1. The Catholiques bring expresse Scripture for the reall presence, to witt the words of In∣stitution of this holy Sacrament, related by three Evangelists and one Apostle: where our Saviour alwayes saith, This is my body. This is my blood. And to know that he mean'd of his true & reall body, he adioyneth my body, which shall be given for you, and my blood which shall be shed for you. Now it was his reall body, which was given for them, and his reall blood which was shed for them.* 1.285 There∣fore it was his reall body, & reall blood, which they received in the Sacrament. Moreover, S. Iohn relateth along discourse, which our Sa∣viour had to the Iewes, in which he affirmes, that he was the bread of life, that came down from heaven. And the bread, which he was to give, was his flesh, for the life of the world: and vnlesse they eate his flesh, and drink his blood, they should have no life in them. And, notwitstanding that the Iewes murmured at all these things, saying: How can this man give vs his flesh to eate! and this is a hard saying, who

can heare it? Yet our Saviour did with many asseverations affirm it, over and over again: yea and the suffered them to depart from him, because they would not believe this divine my∣stery. Now Christ is not a mocker or deceiver of men, to speak one thing, yea and to averre it with asseverations, which are equi∣valent to oaths: and to intend the contrary. Christ is not ignorant of the vsual man∣ner of speech: Therefore, since he tells the Apostles plainly, that the Eucharist is his bo∣dy delivered for them, it must be his body, (as the Catholiques beleeve) and cannot be not his body, as the Presbyterians imagine. If the Scripture be Iudge of controversies, then this controversie is decyded: for that Iudge, to which Protestants make ordinarly their ap∣peales, hath so determined the cause against them, that they dare not stand to the clear words of their Iudge; in so much, that some learned Protestants do confesse, that the Scrip∣ture taken in the native, proper and literal sen∣se, is plainly for the Catholiques, against them∣selves; and namely Morton, when he speaks thus to the Catholiques. If the words he certain∣ly true in a proper and literal sense;* 1.286 then we are to yeeld to you the whole cause. And therefore, they are enforced to runne to their tropes & fi∣gures.

But I found the holy Fathers making no such glosses, on our Saviours clear words, & taking them in their proper sense. S. Augustin,

citing these words of our Saviour, this is my body,* 1.287 speaks thus: A man may be carried by the hands of others, no man is carried in his own hands: but Christ was carried in his own hands, when re∣comēding his body, he himself said: this is my body. For he carried himself in his own hāds. And again, We receive with a faithfull heart and month,* 1.288 the Mediator of God and man, the man Iesus Christ, who giveth vs his flesh to eate. S. Ambrose saith clearly. Before consecration, it is bread: but when the words of consecration come, it is the body of Christ. Heare him saying, take eate. This is my body &c. S. Chrysostom saith; He, who sitteth above with the father, in that same instant of time (O miracle! O the bounty of God!) is touched by the hands of all, and he gives himself, to those, who will receive and embrace him. S. Cyprian. The bread, which our Lord gave to his Disciples, being changed not in shape, but in nature, by the omnipotency of the word, is made flesh. Many more testimonies of these, and of the other holy Fathers, in all the first ages, even vntill the time of the Apostles,* 1.289 may be seen col∣lected by Coccius and Gualterus. So that I found both the Scriptures & Fathers, giving sentence against the Presbyterians. The first for the letter, and the other for the sense.

This same truth is also confirmed by the tes∣timonie and authority of the vniuersal Church, in general Councels: as the first Nicen Coun∣cel, whose words Bellarmin cites. The third ge∣nerall Councel of Ephesus, to which S. Cyrill of Alexandria did preside, by which Synod the

epistle of S. Cyrill to Nestorius, where the real presence of Christs body in the Eucharist is contain'd, was approved, as it was thereaf∣ter, by the fourth and fift generall Councels. to speak nothing of other more late Councels.

Besides all these authorities, it was also made evident vnto me, by the light of reason, that our Saviours words, concerning the institu∣tion of this Sacrament, cannot be but literally vnderstood. For 1. the principall articles, or points of our faith, are not delivered in the Scriptures, but in proper and clear words. But this, by all mens Confession, is a principall mystery of our faith. Therefore it is delivered in clear and plaine tearmes. 2. That cannot be ascrybed to Christ without blasphemy, which no reasonable or prudent man would do. But no reasonable or prudent man would make his testament in obscure and figurative words: for that were the high way to deceive his chil∣dren & heires, and put them at variance. The∣refore since Christ, at the institution of this Sa∣crament, a little before his death, was making his Testament, as is manifest by his words, when he calleth the Chalice,* 1.290 the new Testament in his blood, by which, he left vnto his children the most precious legacie of his body, for their comfort & nourishment, he spake properly & clearly, and not figuratively. 3. Chr••st promised the Iewes a more excellent foode then Manna,* 1.291 to witt, the bread of life, his own flesh, But, if the Sacrament were meer bread, and not Christs body, it would not be more

excellent then Manna, which was called the bread of Angels, but much inferiour to it: as is evident. 4. Christ, who is goodnesse and wis∣dom it self, would not, for tropes and figures, have vsed so many asseverations, as are set down in the 6. chapter of S. Iohn. Neither would he have suffered so many of his disciples and others to go away from him, after so many doubts proposed by them: but he would have cleared the matter vnro them. Lastly. If this liberty be once graunted to expound the Scripture figu∣ratively, when we are not forced to it, by any other Scripture or article of our faith; then, no∣thing will remaine, but vncertaine opinions, of divine things; and so, by this means, the who∣le mysteries of the Christian religion may be denyed, or overturned. For there is no more requisite (according to this licentious rule) but that some few Novelists think a mystery impossible, albeit all the holy Fathers & an∣cient Church did ever esteem it not only possi∣ble, but also a truth reveal'd by God, and an article of their faith. And so diverse heretiques have imagined the mysterie of the Incarnation, of the holy Trinity, and such like principal ar∣ticles of the Christian religion to be impossible, and therefore have expounded all the Scrip∣tures, which speak of them, figuratively: as the Presbyterians do here. For these reasons, besides the authority of the holy Fathers, it ap∣pear'd sufficiently evident to me, that the words of Christ, concerning the holy Sacra∣ment, ought to be literally & plainly vnder∣stood, and not figuratively.

This truth also of the reall presence was shewed to me, to betestifyed and confirmed from heaven, by miracles: both auncient and modern; which are related by famous and faithfull Authors. For either some singular be∣nefites have been obtain'd by the faith of this holy Sacrament, as expulsion of Devils, deli∣verance from shipwrack, and the like: or some punishments have fallen vpon those, who either did not beleeve the reall presence, or vsed the Sacrament irreverently: or some vi∣sions and apparitions of Christ, in the forme of a child, or flesh, have been seen to confirm those, who were doubtfull of the reall pre∣sence. Of the first sorte,* 1.292 S. Prosper bringeth an example, which fell out at Carthage, how a young Arabian maide, who by a certaine sin, made her self an habitation to the De∣vil, by whom she was so miserably vexed some dayes, that her throat being stopped, she could receive no meat or drink, was at length deli∣vered, by the Communion of the sacred body of our Lord. But most famous is that miracle, which. S. Bernard, by the holy Sacrament, did at Milan, before innumerable people. For he cured a woman, who had been possessed many yeares by the Devil, and was rather a monster then a woman,* 1.293 by holding the holy Sacrament above her head, and saying? O wicked Spirit, here is present thy Iudge. Here is the highest po∣wer; resist now if thou canst. Now, said he, the Prince of this world shall be cast forth. This is that body, which was taken of the body of the Vir∣gin,

which was stretched on the tree of the crosse, which lay in the sepulchre, which, in the sight of his disciples, ascended vnto heaven. I command thee, O wicked Spirit, in the terrible power of this Maiesty, that, going out of this hand maid of our Lord, thou presume to touch her no more. God approved the truth of S. Bernards faith (which was alwayes the faith of the Catholique Church) by granting his desire.* 1.294 The like mi∣racle was done, in this last age, at Laon in Pi∣cardie, on the person of a young woman na∣med Nicolas Obry, as is related, with many admirable circumstances, by an eye witnesse, Florimond Reymond, Counsellour of the Parliament of Burdeaux, by which miracle, he professeth himself to have been drawen out of the gulf of heresie.* 1.295 S. Ambrose doth also re∣late: how his brother Satyrus, by the great faith he had of this holy Sacrament, was mi∣raculously delivered from shipwrack.

How God hath punished those, who have abused or blasphem'd this holy Sacrament, both auncient and modern histories do shew. S. Cyprian relateth many of these miracvlous punishments,* 1.296 which fell out in his time, so that some were filled with vnclean Spirits, & others were turned into madnesse. S. Optatus doth shew, that the Donatists, who threw the ho∣ly Sacrament of the Catholiques vnto dogges, immediatly thereafter felt the divine iudg∣ment: for the dogges, becoming enraged did set vpon their own Masters, and tore them in pieces. The above named Florimond doth

relate, how an Arian woman of Cracovie, in the yeare 1579. looking out at her window, and seeing the holy Sacrament caried in pro∣cession, cry'd out: Behold the beare which the Papists carie, and adore. But immediatly, she was punished: For the Devil, seazing on her, did so torment her, that blaspheming she expired in her husbands armes. Moreover,* 1.297 the same-Author sheweth, that a Iew, having made himself Christian, did steale, out of a Ca∣tholique Church, three consecrated hosties, with which he fled to Hungarie, where he sold one of them to a Iew, in Presburg; and with the other two, he went to another town, called Nickesburg: where he assembled diverse of his companions, to shew their outrage a∣gainst the Sacrament. Whence it came to passe, that, one of the company, taking a knife, did stob the sacred hostie, which was lying on a table, saying; if thou be the God of the Chris∣tians, shew it by some miracle. The blow was no sooner given, but the blood did spring vp, by which, they were astonished, and, in the same houre, thunder came from heaven, which destroyed that house, and consumed in∣to ashes that wicked company, except only three, who half burnt, were left to be wit∣nesses of their wickednesse, and having escaped the fire of heaven, were severly punished by the hand of man: as the Author recounts. This miracle was so much the more famous, that the table and the two hosties, of which one was pierced by a knife, were found entire

among the middest of these ashes, and were collected, at the sight of innumerable people. This miracle fell out in the yeare 1580. I passe by many more, which were showen me, to this purpose.

* 1.298Lastly: for the comfort of the faithfull, or for confirmation of the doubtfull, some vi∣sions have appeared in the holy Sacrament. That which is recounted in the life of S. Grego- the great, is very remarkable. The historie is briefly this. When S. Gregorie was giving the Sacrament to the people, he came to a woman, who smiled, when he said to her, the body of our Lord Iesus Christ preserue thy soule, where∣vpon the Pope did withdraw his hand, & lay'd the Sacramēt on the altar. After the holy solem∣nities were ended, he enquired at the woman, why she had laughed in so dreadfull an action. She in end confessed, that she could not acknow¦ledge that bread, which she had made with her own hands, to be the body of Christ. Then S. Gregorie prayed God earnestly for her, and obtain'd, that the bread, even in external for∣me, should be turned into flesh: by which mi∣racle; he both reduced the woman vnto the faith, and confirmed the people in it. The faith of S. Lowis King of France,* 1.299 concerning this Sacrament, is much celebrated. For, when he, being advertised, that a most beavtifull child had appeard in the holy Sacrament, was desi∣red to come and see this miracle, he refused to goe saying: that these miracles were done for these, who doubted; but for himself, he was most certaine that Christ Iesus was truly

present in the Eucharist. An other such appa∣rition was seen at Doway in the yeare 1254. & continueda good time,* 1.300 so that great numbers of people came from diverse parts to see it, and the memory of it is every yeare celebrated, in that town, with great solemnity.

By all which considerations, I was suffi∣ciently satisfyed of the Catholique belief, con∣cerning the reall presence, which I found to be containd in the holy Scriptures, beleeved by the holy Fathers. and by general Councels, and to be confirmed by miracles. And therefore I could not any longer believe the Presbyterian doctrin, which, against all these authorities, makes the body of Christ to be as far distant from the Sacrament, as the heavens are from the earth.

1. I perceived, that they scarcely pretend to have Scripture for them: but are enforced to runne from the clear words of it, to their tro∣pes & figures:* 1.301 which S. Augustin observed long ago to be the custom of erroneous per∣sons, So soone, saith he, as the opinion of any errour hath once prepossessed their minds: they es∣teeme all to be figures. which the Scripture saith to the contrarie. And therefore, albeit the Scripture saith not once, but foure times, that the Eucha∣rist is the body and blood of Iesus Christ, wit∣hout ever saying, in any one place, that it is not his body, but only a figure of it: they beleeve the one, which it saith not, and not the other, which it affirmes. Against them, S. Iohn Da∣mascen saith efficaciously,* 1.302 The bread & wine is

not a figure of the body & blood of Christ; God forbid it were that: but it is the divine body of our Lord: he himself saying: this is my body. 2. They passe from the Scriptures & Fathers, and found their negative faith vpon their senses, and some carnal reasons.* 1.303 Against which vaine pretences, S. Chrysostom saith well. Let vs beleeve God every where, let vs not oppose him; although that which he saith, seem absurd to our sense & vnder∣standing. Let his speech overcome our sense and reason: which, in all things, we ought to do & chee∣fly in the mysteries: not only looking to that, which lieth before vs, but also holding fast his words. For we cannot be deceived by his words: our sense may be easily deceived: these cannot be false: this is often deceived. Because therefore he hath said, this is my body: let vs not be holden by any doubt, but let vs beleeve and comprehend it, wi••h the ey's of of our vnderstanding.* 1.304 S. Cyrill speaks no lesse efficaciously against those, who pretend this mystery to be against reason, and impossi∣ble; compareing them to incredulous Iewes. A malignant minde, saith he, doth presently reiect, as frivolous & false, what it doth not vnderstand; yeelding to none, nor thinking any thing to be a∣boue it self: as we shall find the Iewes to have been. For when it became them, who had seen the divine vertue & the miracles of our Saviour, to receive his speech willingly, and, if any thing see∣med difficult, to have asked the resolution of him; they did the quit contrarie, and cryed out together against God, not without great impietie. How can this man give vs his flesh? neither did it come into

their minde, that there is nothing impossible with God: for, since they were sensual (as S. Paul speaks) they could not vnderstand spiritual things, and so great a mystery seemed to them to be follie. But let vs make great profit by other mens sins. Let us have a firme faith in these mysteries: Let vs neuer speak nor think that word (How). That's meerly Iudaical, and the cause of great punish∣ment. Thus S. Cyrill. 3. The Presbyterians do wrest our Saviours words, by a figurative in∣terpretation, against all reason, as hath been shewed.

Then, I found this Presbyterian doctrin:* 1.305 to have been an ancient heresie of Simon Magus, and Menander, and thereafter of Berenga∣rius, who, at his death, did recant; of the Albigenses, and of diverse others. Yea Gualterus brings some testimonies of the holy Fathers to shew, that Iudas the traitor, de∣nyed the reall presence, and did not believe our Saviours words, in the 6. chapter of S. Iohn. Lastly diverse famous Protestants have abandoned that doctrin of Calvin. As Bishop Andrews, who writes thus against Bellarmin. We agree, faith he, with yow, of the matter; all the contention is about the manner: a presence, I say, we believe, not lesse reall then yow. Casaubon made the like profession, in name of King Iames, & of the whole Church of England.

And, whereas I heard so much cryed out against Transubstantiation, as a thing impossi∣ble, and a noveltie lately introduced into the Church; I found both these allegations to be

false. For the holy Fathers do shew both the possibility, and the verity of it, out of the Scriptures.* 1.306 S. Cyrill saith: Christ changed once water into wine, which is near vnto blood, and is he not worthy to be believed of vs, that he hath changed wine into blood. S. Ambrose, having shewed the power of Christs speech, how, by it, he gave a being to the world, which had no being before, saith: How much more then ope∣rative is it, that these things which were, might have a being and be converted into another. A∣gain, the same holy Father calls this change, a conversion of nature & substance, bringing examples out of the old testament, of Moyses rod turned into a serpent, of water turned into blood. You see then, saith he, that by prophetical grace, nature was twise changed: what shall we then say of the divine consecration it self, where the words of our Saviour do operate? if the speech of Elias was so prevalent, that it brought down fire from heaven, shall not the speech of Christ prevaile to change the species or nature of the ele∣ments?* 1.307 S. Cyprian above cited, saith: that the bread is changed, not in shape, but in nature, and, by the omnipotency, of the wotd, is made flesh. S. Gregory Nyssen affirmeth that the bread & wine are transelemented. And S. Iohn Damascen averreth, that the elements are trans∣changed, ascribing also that change to the om∣nipotency of God; albeit we cannot know the manner how it is done. Neither is that much to be admired; for the same Father saith, we can hardly tell how bread and wine, or water,

by eating & drinking, are turned into the sub∣stance of our body & blood. If we can hardly know the manner of that change, which is made every day by nature; how can we think to comprehend the manner of this supernatu∣ral change, which is made in the divine myste∣ries, by the omnipotent power of the God of nature? These testimonies, besides others, shew me sufficiently both the possibility & an∣tiquity of the thing, signified by transubstantia∣tion, to witt, a conversion of the whole sub∣stance of the bread and wine, into the substance of Christs body & blood, the outward formes or accidents of bread & wine remaining. The∣refore the Presbyterians do affirm very ra∣shly, in their new Confession, that this change is not only repugnant to Scripture, but also to common sense and reason: seing the holy Fa∣thers, who cannot with any modestie be de∣nyed, to have common sense and reason, did believe and prove it, both by the Scriptures & reason. At least, I resolved to preferre alwayes the common sense of the Fathers, to the pri∣vate sense of the Presbyterians. Then, when the thing it self is clear, it is great follie in some, to make out cryes against the word transub∣stantiation; which they may do, as well vpon the same ground, against the words Trinity, Consubstantial. If they receive these, vpon the authority of the Church, and a General Coun∣cel; why not the other also, vpon the same authority? If the change of our Saviours fi∣gure or Countenance vpon mount Thabour,

be fitly called Transfiguration;* 1.308 why may not al∣so this substantial change of the elements into his body & blood, be iustly called Transub∣stantiation? yea Beza plainly confesseth, that if the letter of the Scripture be followed, Papis∣tical transubstantiation is established.* 1.309 And we have seen, that the letter must be followed.

As I saw great vnity among the Catholiques in their belief, concerning the holy Sacrament; so I admired to find such dissension and confu∣sion among Protestants, in so substantial a point of the Christian religion: and that this confu∣sion should have risen eVen among their chief Apostles, and the first builders of their high tower of Reformation.* 1.310 For Luther teacheth, that Christs body is truely and really in the Sa∣crament, but that the substance of the bread is not changed into it, and that they remayne both together. Zuinglius opposed his Master, and taught, that the Sacrament is only a bare signe of Christs body, which is not in, or with the elements; but only really int he hea∣vens. Then Calvin, the third Apostle came in with pretence of a third light, wherewith he would illuminate the world, and reform these Reformers. First, he taught with Zuinglius, against Luther, that Christs body is only real∣ly in the heavens, and not in the elements. Then, against Zuinglius, he saith, that the ele∣ments are not bare signes, but they exhibite vnto vs the true body & blood of Christ, which we eate by the mouth of faith. And because it seems impossible to eate any thing, remaining

at so great a distāce, he telleth yow, that this my∣sterie is vnperceptible, as indeed it is, in his opi∣nion, which is more hard to conceive, then the belief of the Catholiques, because it is impossi∣ble, and hath no ground, neither in Scriptures nor Fathers. But, as some grave Authours have' observed, Calvins opinion of the Sacrament' differs nothing in reality, from the opinion of Zuinglius; except only in obscurity of words, which are trimmed vp to deceive men, put∣ting them in hopes of realities, but indeed gi∣ving them nothing but bare figures. For which cause, Luther and his Disciples, do brand both Zuinglius & Calvin, and their successors, with the infamous name of Sacramentarian heretiques. We do seriously censure, saith he,* 1.311 Zuinglians & all Sacramentaries, as heretiques & strangers from the Church of God. Again: I take God to witnesse & the whole world, that I do not a∣gree with them, nor shall ever agree with them so long as the world endureth, but I shall keep my hands free from the blood of those, whom these heretiques draw from Christ, whom they deceive and murder. He leaveth also a perpetual curse to all those, who will make peace with them: which curse his disciples have diligently shun'd. Yea, he pro∣fesseth, that amongst other things, the Devil counselled himself, to deny the real presence: to which he did not give consent, by reason of Christs clear words to the contrarie. But what the Devil could not do, in this point, with the Master, he performed by his Scholler Zuinglius; who, by his own confession, lear∣ned

this opinion of a Spirit, in the night: for which cause Luther saith, that the Devil doth now & ever, dwell in the Zuinglians, that their blasphemous breasts, are insatanized, su∣persatanized, and persatanized, with many other horrible expressions, of which the Zuin∣glians, say: did ever a man heare such words proceed from a furious and infernal Devil. Lu∣thers Schollers do continue their Masters zeale: for one of them very famous,* 1.312 writes, that as of old, Averroes the Arabian, the Pagans, & Iewes railed at the Christians, for their beleef of Christs reall presence; so do now, hostes abiurati testamenti filij Dei Calvinistae blaspbemi, the blasphemous Calvinists, the foresworne enemies of Christs t••stament: and with the auncient Pa∣gans, they take great pleasure, with poisoned and Devilish blasphemies, to deface and inveigh a∣gainst the receiving of Christs true body; which we by Christs words defend. And, having shewed by all circumstances, that the words of Christs institution, ought to be litterally vnderstood, he concludes in these words.* 1.313 Horrible there∣fore and detestable is the malice of the Sacramen∣taries, that this so clear a word they do perversly interprete, and change into significations, tropes and figures.* 1.314 Melanchton also saith, that these words of Christ, This is my body, fulmina erunt, they shall be thunderbolts against those, who deny the beleef of Christ true body in the Sacrament. Thus we have seen what iudgment Luther and his followers have of the Zuin∣glians & Calvinists, for their negative belief of the real presence.

Neither is the iudgment of the Zuinglians and Calvinists, much better of the others, for their beleef of the reall presence by Consub∣stantiation. Zuinglius, speaking to this pur∣pose of Luther, saith:* 1.315 Behold how Satan endea∣voures to possesse wholly that man. And his Tigu∣rin Schollers speak yet more clearly. Luther calleth vs (say they) a damned & execrable sect: but let him take heed, least he shew him∣self as an heretique, who will not, or cannot communicate with these, who do professe Christ. How clearly doth Luther here shew him∣self to have a Devil? How many filthy things, breathing all the Devils of hell doth he belsh forth? &c. Calvin saith, We affirm that they, (to witt the Lutherans) do speak and think more grosly of the corporal presence, then the Pa∣pists. And, in another place, he saith, speaking of the Eucharist; I have shewed, a long time ago; that the Papists are a little more modest and sober, in their raveries, then they. Beza affirmeth, that we cannot insist vpon the letter of these words of Christ, this is my body; but Papistical Tran∣substantiation is established: And again: Ei∣ther transubstantiation is to be established,* 1.316 or a figure. Thus we see, how these first Apostles of Protestants, like the builders of Babilon, are divi¦ded, in so important an article of the Christian faith. The beleef of Zinglius and Calvin in this matter, is heresy & blasphemy to Luther & his Schollers. And Luthers faith, to Calvin, is a meer raverie, more insuportable, then the Popish transubstantiation. If this dissenssion

was so great, at the beginning; how great must it be now, in the progresse? How can these men be true Apostles, who disagreed so mani∣festly & bitterly, in such a necessarie & princi∣cipal point of the Christian religion? Or what assurance can any man have, who followeth such vnsure Guides?

To conclude this point: I could hardly de∣sire greater satifaction for the Catholique be∣lief of the real presence, then by Gods grace I found: to witt, expresse Scriptures, the holy Fathers, vniuersal Church, famous miracles, & the light of reason, grounded vpon the good∣nesse and wisdome of Christ: whereas for the Presbyterian opinion, which is an ancient he∣resie, & is condemned by the Lutherans as a blasphemie, I found we had no Scriptures, but were enforced to flie, from the clear words of it, to tropes & figures, & to some shallow car∣nal reasons, against the Scripture & omnipo∣tency of God: which reasons I saw clearly answered in the Catholique writers: and, as a Catholique shew me, more strong reasons ha∣ve been brought by Pagans & some heretiques, against the mysterie of the Trinitie & Incarna∣tion. I perceived also, that the Presbyterians involved their opinion in such obscurities, that, by their words, one might collect they belee∣ved both a real presence & a real absence, and they made vse of either, as the time required; and that the most part of them did not know, and could not tell what they beleeved. But at length, when the best of them were well sifted;

all ended in this, that Christs body was only in the heavens; neither was it possible to be in the Sacrament, nor in two places, at once. And so their pretended real presence proved indeed to be a real absence. In a word, I found that the Presbyterians, by taking away the real body of Christ from this Sacrament, and giving vs an emptie figure, do really take away the substance of this Sacrament, and so destroy it: as they had done before to baptism, by de∣nying both the vertue and necessitie of it. And therefore in effect, they have destroied both these Sacraments, which they would seem to have left. Their doctrin, which denyes the Sacraments to conferre grace, shewes, that they esteem them graclesse, and their sel∣dom vseing of them, especially of the Eucha∣rist, manifests, that they think them vselesse or fruiltlesse. Both which errours S. Augustin re∣futeth, by these two excellent sentences?* 1.317 Wit∣hout the grace saith he, of invisible Sanctification, for what vse serve the visible Sacraments. And again. The vertue of the Sacraments, vnspeaka∣bly availeth much, and therefore it being con∣temned, makes men sacrilegious. For that is im∣piously contemned, without which piety is not perfited.

CHAP. XXII. Some Reflections, vpon both the pretended Scottish Reformations.

HAVING found aboundant satisfaction for the truth of the Catholique doctrin, in the points lately tryed, I did freely acknow∣ledge to the Catholique, by whose advice and assistance, I had made this last Trial of our first Reformation; that I did not only see the truth to be vpon the Catholiques side; but also that I perceived a notable difference, between the sublimity of the Catholique doctrin, and the lownesse of Presbyterian opinions, espe∣cially concerning rhe holy Sacraments, and particularly the Eucharist. Wherevpon, he took occasion to shew me, that there is in∣deed such a notable difference, between the doctrines of the true Church, & all heretical opiniōs;s that as some of the ancient Fathers cō∣pare iustly heretiques, to the prodigal child, who left his Fathers house; so they fitly parallel their doctrines, to the husks where with he was fed. For thus speaketh S. Gregory Nyssen. A fugitive from the faith, went into a far Countrey, and divided his Fathers goods into two halfes;* 1.318 whilst he threw down sublime doctrines, to base & Swi∣nish opinions, and wasted his riches with whoo∣rish heresies. For heresy is a harlot, which with pleasures, as with deceits, draweth many vnto her. So one, who leaves the Catholique

Church, that rich house of his heavenly fa∣ther, leaves also the heavenly bread of Christs precious body, wherewith his children are nourished and feasted, and going astray vnto Calvins Congregation, finds nothing but an empty drie Calvinistical supper, having no∣thing divine, no iuice in it, but bare signes & figures; which contayn lesse then Manna, or the shew bread of the ancient table. He leaves also the other sublime doctrines, concerning the Sacraments, as how they conferre sanctifying, grace, purge the soule from sin &c. and is tur∣ned vnto vaine opinions, in which nothing is solid, nothing stable that can satisfie the minde. Therefore he striveth to satiat himself dayly, with new opinions and idle inventions: but all in vaine: for these are nothing but husks, which leave the bellie empty. There is no remedie for him, but to return with the prodigal child vn∣to his fathers house, where he will be recei∣ved with ioy, and feasted with the bread of Angels.

But, said the Catholique, to make a gene∣ral reflection, vpon all that hath past vnder this Trial: Do you not now clearly see, how fal∣sly these Reformers pretend alwayes the Scrip∣tures to be for them, when you have found the Scriptures so expresly against them, in all these principal points of the Christian religion, already examined? And which is very consi∣derable; have you not seen these Scriptures to be so vnderstood by the holy Fathers, in the pure and primitive times; as they are now vn∣derstood

by the Roman Catholiques? Do y not now perceive, how Heresy, like a strum¦pet, fardeth her self with the colours of the divin Scriptures; by which fain'd and false beauty, she allures and deceives many: but so soone as she is brought near the fire of Triall, how her fardings melt & fall away, and her own vglinesse appeares? Among heretiques, saith S. Augustin,* 1.319 there is nothing but the pro∣mise of truth, a meer shew or pretext of it, no performance. Their doctrines are like the fruites of Sodom and Gomorrha, which, as Io∣sephus testifyeth, have a specious shew, and appear pleasant vnto the eye; but so soone as they are touched, fall into ashes. So truly are all hereticall opinions; they are given out for the fruites of pure Scriptures, they appeare very specious and pleasant: but so soone as they are tryed diligently according to the Scriptures, and are touched, as it were, by the fingers of the holy Fathers, they presently evanish; and nothing remaines but the flammes of here∣tical dissentions, like the smoak of Sodom & Gomorrha, as a testimonie of the divin iudg∣ment, vpon them. Have you not now seen, that these two pretended Scottish Reforma∣tions, have between them compleated the hy∣dious work of desolation, and destroyed the 4 principal pillars of the Christian religion: and that, as the later hath taken away two, to witt: the Lords prayer and the Apostles Creed: so the first hath taken away in effect the other two, to witt: the divin Commandments, and

the holy Sacraments: and so the Presbyterians haye overturned what their Predecessors left vntouched? In a word, they may be briefly described thus.

They have a Creed from the Apostles, which they do not beleeve: they have a prayer from Christ, which they do not say: they have Commandments from God which they professe they will not keep: and the two Sacraments of the law of grace, which they had only left to themselves, they have made altogether gra∣celesse, & almost vselesse. And besids all this, they have robbed the holy Trinity of Glory, and the Church of the Apostolique governement, together with all order & decency: to speak nothing of their other smaller pranks. There∣fore, I am now confident, that you have found what I promised, at the beginning, to witt: that the first pretended Reformation was no better grounded, then the last; and that the end of both hath been total desolation, and the destruction of the chief Pillars af the Chris∣tian religion: whereas, vpon the contrary, you have seen the Catholique religion (which you had heard so often calumniated with strong and shamelesse cries) to be, in all these princi∣pal points: conforme to the Scriptures and holy Fathers, and to the primitive Church. Thus he.

As I was so clearly convinced in all these particulars, that I behoved to renounce both knowledge, & conscience, if I would deny them; so I did ingenuosly confesse to him my

satisfaction: and withall, I promised, if I could find the like evidence for the Catholi∣ques, in all the other controuersies, that I would, by Gods grace, render my self a Roman Catholique. To which he answered, that the triall of all the particular doctrines in contro∣versie, after the former manner, was a long, laborious, md needlesse way, and that God had appoint••d more easie and shorter meanes, to come vnto the knowledge of the truth: or else, what would become of those, who are not capable to make such trials? Therefore, he would vndertake to prove shortly, by a clear vndeniable Principle, and granted by all Pro∣testants, the Protestant Religion & their whole Church to be false: and by the same principle, to shew clearly, the present Catho∣lique Church in Communion with the sea of Rome, to be the ancient Catholique Church established by Christ & his Apostles; and to have continued still in their doctrin, without any variation. And so with some confidence, arising from my former experience, I prepared my self to receive this new instruction.

CHAP. XXIII. That the true Church of Christ must be perpetuall, and must endure without interruption, vnto the end of the world.

THE principle, said my Catholique friend, whereby I will demonstrate the Protes∣tant Church not to be the true Church of Christ, shall be so evident and convincent; that, as nothing is more expresly in Scriptures, so nothing is more freely granted by Luther & Calvin, & generally by all learned Protestants. And this principle is the perpetuity of Christs Church, or that Christ must have a Church, which hath endured from his ascension, vntill this time: & shall endure from this, vntill the end of the world. Before I proceed further, I will first manifest vnto you the strength of this truth by the Scriptures, Fathers, by Protestants, and their reasons. The passages of Scripture for this truth, are many, but I shall content my selfe with some few, which may serve for your satisfaction. The first do concern the eter∣nal kingdome of Christ, by which, all men vnderstand his Church. Of this the prophet Daniel saith. In the dayes of these Kings,* 1.320 the God of heaven shall set vp a kingdome, which shall never be destroyed, &c. It shall break in pieces all these kingdomes, and it shall stand for ever. The

Angel Gabriel, speaking of the same kingdom of Christ, to the blessed Virgin, said: And of his kingdome there shall be no end.* 1.321 Calvin pro∣veth by these places and others, which speak of the kingdome of Christ, the perpetuity of of his Church against Servetus. So doth also Beza and the Confession of Holland. If then the kingdome of Christ be perpetual, the∣re must alwaies be some to acknowledge him to be their King. The second passages of Scripture contayne Christs promises to his Church,* 1.322 and the Governours of it. Vpon this rock, saith he, will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevaile against it. By this place S. Augustin proveth, both the perpe∣tuity,* 1.323 and inuincibility of the Church. The Ca∣tholique Church, saith he, fighting against all he∣resies may be opposed, but cannot be overcome: all heresies have gone out of her, as vnprofitable twig∣ges cut off from the vine, but she remaines in her roote, in her vine, in her charitie, the gates of hell cannot pervaile against her. Christ promised also his perpetu l assistance vnto the Pastors of his Church,* 1.324 Behold, said he, I am with you alway, even vnto the consummation of the world. Which place both S. Augustin and S. Hierome do bring to prove the same truth. The first intro∣duceth the Church speaking thus to Christ. Shew vnto me the fewnesse of my dayes,* 1.325 how long shall I be in this world. Shew this vnto me, for those who say, she was, but now is not: the Church hath made Apostasy and perished from all na∣tions. And he declared vnto me. Behold I am

with you alway even vnto consummation of the world. S. Hierome saith, that Christ,* 1.326 by these words, shews there should be alwayes some faithfull people in this world, & that he should never separate himself from them. I passe by many more places of Scripture, which is so evident for the perpetuity of Christs Church, that S. Augustin said against the Do∣natists, who denyed it,* 1.327 and affirmed the Church had perished: They mock Christ in a matter, which is evident, in a matter, where no man can say, I did not understand.

This truth is not only evident in Scriptures and Fathers, but it is also acknowledged by all Protestants, whose minds are best knowne by their Confessions of faith, which ought to be of more authority amongst them, then the testimonies of their private writers.* 1.328 The con∣fessions of Ausburg, of Saxonie, & of the Suizers do not only affirm, that the Church must still continue vnto the end of the world: but they prove it, by the expresse Scriptures above cited. The Authors of our first Scottish Confession professe, that they beleeve as fir∣mely the perpetuity of the Church, as they beleeve the mysterie of the Trinity:* 1.329 for thus they speak. As we beleeve in God the Father, Son and holy Ghost; so we do most earnestly beleeve that from the beginning, there hath been, now is, and to the end of the world shall be a Church. The new Confession at Westminster professeth the same truth. And so do also Luther, & Cal∣vin; as we shall see presently.

Now the contrarie doctrin, to witt, that the Church of Christ did perish, or can perish, is censured, both by Catholiques & Protestants as a most damnable errour, iniurious to God, & against the clear Scriptures. S. Aug. testimonie shall suffice for the First. For against the Dona∣tists, who defended the like error, and said, But that Church, which was of all Nations, is no more,* 1.330 she hath perished; he subioyneth this cen∣sure: This they say, who are not in her. O impu∣dent speech? And after ward; This voice so dam∣nable, so detestable, so full of presumption & fal∣shood, which is sustained with no truth, enlightned with no wisdome, seasoned with no salt, vaine, rash, heady, pernitious. the holy Ghost foresaw. By the great severity of this censure, may be knowne the abominable falshood of that opi∣nion. Neither is the iudgment of Caluin against that error, lesse severe. For writing against Ser∣vetus, who defended it, and who was burnt by his order, at Geneva; he saith: I did not touch that long banishment of the Church from the earth,* 1.331 which he faineth; wherein he plainly accu∣seth God of a lie. And afterward he maketh this profession. But we indeed confesse that the Church was put in glorious places: otherwise God would have lied, who promised that he should alwayes have some people, so long as the Sun and Moone shall shine in the firmament. We know what the prophets do every where teftifie of the eternall kingdome of Christ.

The reason of these great censures is very evident. For 1. there is nothing so often and so

clearly promised in the Scriptures, as the per∣petuitie of the Church of Christ. If then, not∣withstanding these clear promises, the Church might perish; then all the other mysteries re∣veal'd in Scripture might be denyed; then it would follow, that God were a liar, as Cal∣vin reasoneth against Servetus. 2. If the Church could perish, then that article of the Apo∣stles Creed, I believe the holy Catholique Church, would be false, and therefore none could be∣lieve truely that to be, which had no being. This reason is brought by Luther. 3. It would follow that men could not be saved:* 1.332 for out of the true Church there is no ordinarie possibi∣lity of Salvation; as our new Confession of faith acknowledgeth. Now what could be more against the goodnesse & mercy of God? what more iniurious to the merits of Christs passion, then to take away the means of Sal∣vation, which would be clearly taken away, if the Church did perish? By all which, may be seen, that the perpetuity of Christs Church is not only clearly contayn'd in the Scriptures, & holy Fathers; but also, that it's granted by Pro∣testants & proved by their reasons: and that the contrarie opinion, to witt, that the Church can perish, is censured both by Ca∣tholiques & Protestants, as a most pernicious & damnable Error. Thus spake the Catholi∣que.

I was so satisfied of the truth of this prin∣ciple, that I desired no more for the evidence of it: and I professed, if, by it, the Protestant

Church were proved not to be the true Church; that it could not be denyed, but Protestants were convinced, not only by a clear truth, but also by their own principles.

But, to perform this the better, the same Catholique shew me, that it was necessarie to lay down an other principle, to witt, the de∣finition or description of a Protestant Church. And although, said he, this be difficult, by rea∣son that Protestants are very inconstant and changeable in their doctrin, which is the es∣sence of a Church; so that, the definition which will serve them this yeare, may perhaps not fit them the next; for which cause some have affirmed, that it's as hard to find out a defini∣tion, which will alwayes agree to them, as to paint Proteus, or make a fit coate for the Moone; yet, notwithstanding these difficul∣ties; a general notion may be had of them, and the best appear's to be that, which is taken from their Confessions of faith. So that the Protestant Church of Scotland may be descri∣bed, to be a Society of people, beleeving the whole articles of the Scottish Confession. And other Protestāt Churches, as of Englād, France, &c. may be described after the same manner by their several Confessions. For these Con∣fessions distinguish them, from all other So∣cieties, and they require no more of any, to be esteem'd a Protestant of their respective Churches, then to subscrive and swear their Confessions. But it is to be observed, that these Confessions must be beleeved wholly and in∣tirely,

and not only a part of them: otherwise all heretiques might be esteem'd Protestants. For Arius, Sabellius and the rest beleeved some of these articles; and yet were not Protestants. These two grounds being setled, he proceeded to his proof.

CHAP. XXIV. That the Protestant Church hath not been perpetual; yea was not at all before Luther, and therefore is not the true Church.

FROM the former two principles which I granted, and conceive no Protestant can deny, this argument was made vnto me. The true Church of Christ hath still continued wit∣hout interruption, since the ascension of Christ. But the Protestant Church hath only conti∣nued since the apostasy of Luther. Therefore the Protestant Church is not the true Church of Christ. The maior is evident by the first prin∣ciple of the perpetuity of the Church The Mi∣nor is proved, by the second principle, after this manner. The Protestant Church, for exam∣ple of Scotland, is a Church beleeving all the articles of the Scottish Confession (and the sa∣me may be proportionally said of all other Pro∣testant Churches, and their Confessions). But before Luther, there was no Church, which beleeved that Confession, or any other of the

Protestant Confessions. Therefore there was no Protestant Church before Luther: and consequently it hath only continued sin∣ce the fall of Luther. The Maior is evi∣dent by the second principle. The Minor, to witt, that there was no Church before Lu∣ther, which beleeved any Protestant Confes∣sion, is proved thus. If th••re had been any Church before Luther, beleeving any Pro∣testant Confession, it was either visible or in∣visible: there is no medium. But there was no Church either visible or invisible, which be∣leeved any Protestant Confession. Therefore there was no Church at all beleeving any Pro∣testant Confession, before Luther. If you will affirm, said he, that there was such a Church visible: I ask where it was to be seen before Luther appeared? Which can never be sho∣wen If you say there was a Church, beleeving some Protestant Confession, but invisible: I demand only for the present, how the true Church can be invisible? How can the true Church be without doctrin & Sacraments: neither of which can be had in an invisible Church? But I shall prove he after, that the Scriptures, Fathers, & right reason are as evident for the visibility, as they are for the perpetuity of the Church. Yea, I shall shew, that, albeit the true Church could be invisible, the Protestant Church was not so much as in∣visible, before Luther: and therefore was not at all. Visibility & invisibility are indeed the two

starting holes, by which your Authors think to escape, when they are prest by this argument: and therefore they must be both diligently watcht. For there is a custom, as S. Augustin observes, common to foxes & heretiques.* 1.333 As foxes have two entries to their hole, to the end they may save themselves by the one, when they are pursued by the other; so heretiques, whom the Scripture ressembles to foxes, have a double issue in their answers; that they may escape by the one, when they find themselves assaulted & pres't by the other. This custome many Protestants observe well in this same matter. For, when they are pres't to shew their Church before Luther, they say often it was invisible, & therefore could neither be known nor shown. But when it is proved by the Scrip∣tures & right reason, that the true Church must be visible; then they make many shifts to shew it was visible; and when all these faile, they run back again vnto their hole of invisi∣bility, and so think to escape that way. Thus he.

But I esteeming visibility a more honorable & natural propertie of the Church of Christ, then invisibility, since Christ, saith Tell the Church, which were impossible to be done, if the Church were not visible; & knowing that diverse famous Protestants do affirm, that their Church was visible before Luther: I wil∣led him, if he would gain his point, to shew me first that the Protestant Church was not vi∣sible before Luther. Wherevpon he toul dme that he would prove that very particularly: but

first, he would shew me in general, that even these Protestants, who pretend their Church to have been visible, cannot endure to be ask'd that fatal question; where was your Church before Luther? For, knowing the hardnesse of this question, and the insufficiency of their answers, they endeavour to shift it, calling it an vniust, impertinent demand, an old, but vnnecessarie question, a question of historie, which would require twentie yeares study. But, said he, if this demand be vniust,* 1.334 then the Fathers were vn∣iust, who made the same demand to the here∣tiques of their time, & required them to shew the origine of their Churches, and to tell what they were, and whence they came. Yea, if this demand be vniust, some chief Protestants are vniust, who made the same to diverse sectaries, who have gone out from them. For the Theo∣logs of Heydelberg speak thus to the Anabap∣tists: If you be the Church of God, it followeth that God hath been without people, and without a Church, &c. And the reason, which they sub∣ioyn, is very remarkable: for it is directly ac∣cording to the second principle above setled. For if you (say they) would read over all histories, you shall find no people. from the beginning of the world, that hath made a Confession of faith like yours Beza hath also been vniust, who presseth the new Arians with the like question: If their doctrin, saith he, be true, we require them to show vs at length, in what place their Church hath been. These testimonies, to passe by many others, do shew, that this question is neither

vniust, nor impertinent; and that these Protes∣tants, who vrge it so hardly against others, do know the great strength and evidence of it: which they cunningly dissemble, or maliciously deny, when it's vrged against themselves.

But, that this question is not vniust, may be shewed also by reason. For, if the Protes∣tant Church hath been visible, it must have been in some place visible. Since then we can∣not see, nor heare of it, before Luther arose, al∣though all histories have been searched, all re∣cords pervsed, which do inform vs, of things lesse considerable; as sometimes of one single man, when, and where he arose, and opposed the Church, and yet not so much as one word can be found of a whole, visible, continual so∣ciety of Protestants: and besids, that they can∣not be found in histories, they have left no Mo∣numents behind them, by which they may be known to have been in the world, before Lu∣ther: although they have left many ruinous Mo∣numents behind them, since Luther: seing, I say, after all this diligence, we cannot find out this visible Protestant Church, and yet these Protestants affirm that it was visible, we most iustly require them to help & tell vs, where their Church was, in what kingdome, province, or citie; and, if they cannot do this, we may ius∣tly conclude, that their allegation is a ground∣lesse imagination, invented to deceive men, against their sense & vnderstanding, in a matter of greatest importance. But wc do not as yet make any such conclusion: we only require

them to shew, what we cannot see by our sel∣ves, to point vnto vs, where their Church was, that we may fix our ey's towards that place; and for satisfaction, we are answered, that the demand is vniust, and we impertinent, if we do not beleeve, vpon their bare word, that their Church was visible; albeit neither we can find, nor they can tell, where it was. But all prudent and indifferent men would think it much more iniustice & impertinencie, both in them to require, and in vs to beleeve, that their Church was visible, before it can be shewed where it was; then in vs to require where it was, before we beleeve, that it was. Who giveth credit quickly* 1.335 saith the wise man. is light of heart. Any heretiques, albeit never so grosse, may pretend the same, vpon as good ground: and yet no reasonable man can think it vnreasonable, to demand where their Church was, before we beleeve them.

Moreover this is not only a iust and perti∣nent, but also a most necessarie and important question. For thereby, all false Churches are clearly & sensibly discovered, even to the mea∣nest capacities. Because, if the Church of Christ must be perpetual, as hath been eviden∣tly demonstrated, and if it must be also perpe∣tually visible, as these Protestants, of whom we now speak, do grant: then it followeth, when ever a new Church or Congregation ariseth, with a new Confession of faith, which was not see nor known before, that that Church is not the true Church of Christ, which ought to

be alwayes both perpetual & visibie. For this cause, the holy Fathers did vrge this question so hardly, by which they confounded all heretical & new vpstart Churches.

And, whereas some Protestants do alleadge,* 1.336 that this question is a curiosity of history, an old question, which would require tventie yeares studie: it is such a curiosiry of hyst••ry, that it can be found in none, or else the la∣borious Centurists had not omitted it. It is indeed an old question, but was never well answered, and will yet require a new ans∣were, as shall appear, by the insufficiency of all the old answers. And if it require twentie yeares study, they cannot complain, who ha∣ve got now a hundred yeares to find out an ans∣wer to it.

But, to speak no more of these shifts, I shall shew how diverse Protestants being vrged by that fata question, make many essaies to ans∣wer it, and yet cannot make appear the visibi∣lity of their Church, before Luther, They run almost all the world over, to find their Church. They begin their iourney in France striveing to prove it in the Waldenses & Albigenses. 2. From France, they go over to England, to prove it in the Wicleffists. 3. From England they passe to Boheme, to find it among the Hussists. 4. From Boheme they trava••le to Greece, and from that, to Aethiopia & Arme∣nia, pretending that th••se Nations were Pro∣testants. 5. Having thus wearied themselvs all in vain, the most learned are glad to come

back again to the Papists, saying that their Church before Luther, was in the very heart of Popery. 6. Finding that their new coin'd dis∣tinction of fundamental points, involves them in great labyrinths, and that the Papists will not acknowledge them, for their Associats: they passe from the later, vnto the purer times be∣fore S. Gregory, alleadging that the primitive Church & holy Fathers were Protestants. 7. After they have made this monstruous leap of 900. yeares, and there find both Pastors & peo∣ple, at the sacrifice of the Masse, which the Protestants abhorre, as Idolatry; they run to their last shift, which is to get out of the sight of the world, and hide themselves in the hole of invisibiliy. These many different answers shew, that the Protestant Church hath no great certainty of its pedegree, I shall briefly shew you the insufficiency of every one of these answers, by which it shall be proved, that the Protestant Church was not visible before Lu∣ther; and hereby their first starting hole shall be either so stop't, or lay'd, that they cannot es∣cape this way.

CHAP. XXV. That the Protestant Church was not visible before Luther: neither in the Waldenses, Albigenses, VViclifists, nor Husits.

THAT the Protestant Church may be continued in the Waldenses (and the same is to be observed of the Albigenses and the rest) two things are to be proved by Protestants. 1. That the Waldenses have ever continued since the time of the Apostles. And this is clear by the first vndeniable principle of the perpetui∣ty of the Church. 2. That the Waldenses were intirely of that faith, which the Protestants do now, or did professe; that is beleeved any of their Confessions of faith. For, without this whole agreement, the Waldenses could not be a Protestant Church, as is evident, by the se∣cond principle above setled. Now it is impossi∣ble for them, to shew either of these two.

For first, concerning the continuance of the Waldenses, all histories do affirm, that they be∣gan in the twelfth age, and that their Author was one Waldo a marchant of Lions; about the yeare 1160. whom the Centurists place in the 12. Century. How can it be then proved,* 1.337 that the Waldenses had continued since the Apostles ti∣me; seing their Author, who was before a Catholique, & a Laique, lived neer 12. hun∣dred yeares after the Apostles; supposeing then,

that Waldo became a Protestant, after he had been before a Catholique; the question remai∣nes, where was the Protestant Church befo∣re Waldo? The true Church must be perpe∣tuall.

Secondly, as the Waldenses did not conti∣nue since the Apostles, so neither did they a∣gree intirly with Protestants,* 1.338 in the principal articles of their religion, to witt, in Iustifica∣tion by faith only, if we beleeve Luthers testi∣monie. And if we will trust Calvin, they held also the reall presence, in the Popish sense, of Transubstantiation. Therefore, such men could not be Protestants.

* 1.339Thirdly, they agreed with the Catholiques in diverse other points, as about the number & nature of the Sacraments, the vow of chas∣tity, the necessity of childrens baptism. They began a kind of religious order, for which they were called, the poore men of Lions, and sought confirmation of it from Pope Innocent the third, but could not obtayn it.

Lastly they maintaind diverse grosse errours, which are condemned, both by Catholiques & Protestants.* 1.340 As 1. that Churchmen, by mor∣tal sin, lost all spiritual authority. 2. That the Civil Magistrats, by mortal sin, fell also from their dignity. 3. That Churchmen should pos∣sesse nothing in propertie. 4. That it was law∣full to dissemble in religion; and their practice was conform to their doctrin: for they went to Masse, confessed and communicated. For which dissimulation, the Protestants, at the

beginnining, would not acknowlege them for their brethren. These, and other grosse errors they maintain'd, as may be seen in the Protes∣tants Apology, where the Authors are at large cited.

But, as these differences do shew the Wal∣denses not to be good Protestants; so I will bring some few, to prove, that they were ill Presbyterians.* 1.341 1. They admitted no other for∣me of prayer, except our Lords prayer: the Presbyterians admitt many others, but not that. 2. They allowed only three orders in the Church, to witt of Deacons, Priests, & Bis∣hops. The Presbyterians have abiured Episco∣pacy, & the whole hierarchie of the Church 3. The Waldenses affirmed that all oaths were vnlawfull. The Presbyterians have tak n, and enforced others to take many vnlawfull oaths in the Covenant. 4. The Waldenses maintain'd,* 1.342 that it was not lawfull to put any man to death, hy the sentence of a Iudge: and therefore they abolished all Iudicatories, in the cause of blood. The Covenanters have shed much blood, vn∣der pretence of Iustice, spareing none of their opposers, who came in their reverence.* 1.343 5. They consecrated ordinarly their Sacrament, vpon that day only, whereon our Saviour was betrayed, and they kept it thus consecra∣ted, all the yeare long, to be given to the sick. The Presbyterians do not professe to conse∣crate at all; they give their Sacrament very seldom to the whole; and they have made an act, never to give it to the sick. I can find har∣dly

any thing, wherein the Waldenses agreed more with the Presbyterians, then with other Protestants,* 1.344 except in this alone, that they contemned the Apostles Creed: which the Presbyterians have more then probably done, by denying it to be Apostolical. By all which it is evident, that the Waldenses did not con∣tinue, since the time of the Apostles, and from the time they arose, they were not Protestants, much lesse Presbyterians, and so are deficient in both the principles.* 1.345 Therefore, M Fox, Il∣lyricus, and other Protestants have their re∣course, very groundlesly, to the Waldenses, to prove the continuall visibility of their Church, by them. And for this cause we must leave them, & passe to the Albigenses.

ALBIGENSES.

These men had their name from the towne of Albingia in France, where the greatest part of them remained. They began in the same age with the Waldenses, and was a branch of their sect,* 1.346 as Osiander & Fulk do confesse. Their late riseing sheweth, that they had not continued since the time of the Apostles, and therefore could not be the true Church, as is evident, by the first principle, and consequently, albeit they had been Protestants, the Protestant Church could not be shewed continually visible in them. They are also deficient in the second principle, because they did not beleeve any Protestant Confession. For they held the same

doctrin with the Waldenses,* 1.347 except some few things, which they added of their own. As 1. they maintain'd with the Manichees, that there were two beginnings, to witt, God and the Devil. 2. With the Saducees, they denyed the resurrection of the body. 3. With the Mani∣chees, Seleucians, and other ancient hereti∣ques, they reiected baptism. And maintain'd many other errors, which are condemned both by Catholiques & Protestants; and they com∣mitted some abominable and prophane villai∣nies, in the Church of Tolouse. Hence it is, that, albeit some Protestants do seek to perpe∣tual their Church by them; yet others do cle∣arly reiect them. Iewell saith plainly,* 1.348 non sunt nostri: they are not ours. And Osiander reiects them more clearly. Their doctrin, saith he, was absurd, impious, heretical: they remained ob∣stinatly in their errors, and impiety: whence men think that they have been possessed with Anabap∣tistical furie. And yet, notwithstanding these grosse errors, which they maintain'd, and their great differences from Protestants M. Fox reckons the Albigenses in the number of Pro∣testant Martyrs: and some other Protestants,* 1.349 as M. Spark & Fulk, do very gtoundlesly pre∣tend, to shew the visibility of their Church by them. But, seing the Protestant Church cannot be continued, neither in the Waldenses nor Albigenses in France, we must passe next to the Wiclefists in England.

WICLEFISTS.

* 1.350Iohn Wicleff, an English man, was a Ro∣man Priest, and a Curate in England. He li∣ved in the yeare 1371. as M. Fox testifieth: and from him, began the Church of the Wiclefists, for there was none or that religion, before him∣self. All the world, saith M. Fox, was covered with thick darknesse, when Wicleff, like the morning flarre, did shine out in the midst of a cloude. Therefore, the Church of the Wicle∣fists, which began so long after the Apostles, cannot be the perpetual Church, which we are seeking. 2. The Wiclefists were not Pro∣testants, because they did not beleeve any Protestant Confession of faith, yea, they did not beleeve the principal point of the Protes∣tant faith, to witt, Iustification by faith only. For Melanchton saith of Wiclef;* 1.351 Truly he nei∣ther vnderstood nor held the iustice of faith. 3. He agreed with the Catholiques in many other points against Protestants, as in the interces∣sion of Saints, Veneration of Images, the rites & ceremonies of Masse, Extreme Vnction, & all the 7. Sacraments:* 1.352 as Breirly sheweth, out of his own works. Lastly, he maintain'd di∣verse grosse errors, condemned both by Ca∣tholiques & Protestants, as that all things fall out by an absolute and fatal necessity; that God ought to obey the Devil, as the Councel of Constance doth testifie. Vpon which words his disciples made many violent & intricate

glosses, which may be seen examined in D. Stratfords disputation of the Church.* 1.353 He held also that Church men, in mortal sin, did not bap¦tize nor conferre orders. That Princes & Magi∣strats fell from their dignity & power, by mortal sin. That Churchmen ought not to enioy any temporal things, but should beg, & many other seditious errors he taught. All which shew, that Wiclefs Church, which raise so lately & decayed so quickly, is not the true Church of Christ, founded by his Apostles, which must endure for ever: and that neither he, nor his Associats, for the short time they endured, were Protestants. Therefore,* 1.354 the Protestant Church cannot be continued visible in them: albeit M. Fox, D. Humphrey, and others fal∣sly so pretend.

HVSSITS.

From England we must follow some Pro∣testants to Bohemia, where they vndertake to prove their Church visible, in the Hussits. These men had their origine from I. Husse, who lived in the yeare 1405. That is some few yeares after Wiclef. He was first a Catholique, & a Priest, before he became Author of his sect. Therefore the Protestants cannot, by this new-vpstart, and his Congregation (although they were granted to be Protestants) continue the visibility of their Church vnto the Apostles. 2. Husse held not the Protestant Confession of faith, For M. Fox giveth this testimonie of him

What did the Popish faith define of Transubstan∣tiation,* 1.355 which he did not confirme? Who said Masse more religiously, then he; who kep't more chastly the vowes of Priestly single life? Yea he af∣firmes also, that Husse maintain'd also, free will, iustification by works, merits, veneration of images, and other points of the Roman faith, which shew, that Husse was no good Protes∣tant.* 1.356 Therefore Luther saith, that the Papists burnt Husse, when he did not go so much as a finger breadth from Popery. And last of all, he maintaind almost all the same errors with Wi∣clef, which are condemned both by Protes∣tants & Catholiques. And yet it's a wonder, how M Fox calleth him a most holy Martyr & his disciples, Defenders of the Gospel.

CHAP. XXVI. That the Protestant Church hath not conti∣nued visible, in the Grecians, Arme∣nians, nor Aethiopians.

ALBEIT the Grecians were granted now to be Protestants, yet they were not al∣wayes so: and therefore Protestants cannot con∣tinue the visibility of their Church by them. For they were at least seven or 8, hundred yeares, in the Communion of the Roman Church, as witnesse the first eight General Councels, all held in Grece and approved by the Popes of Rome. The first revolt was made

by the Grecians, denying the procession of the holy Ghost from the Son. They were vnited again diverse times to the Church of Rome, and lastly in the Councel of Florence.* 1.357 This sheweth, that the Grecians have not alwayes remain'd in the same doctrin, and therefore, they are not the perpetual Church, which we are now seeking. 2. Since the tim , that they began their Schisme, they were not Protes∣tants, for they have reiected the Protestants Communion, and disproved their Co fession:* 1.358 as is well known by the Censure, which they have published against it, where they main∣tayn Masse, Transubstantiation, 7. Sacra∣ments, invocation of ••aints and diverse other points of the Roman faith. Lastly, they hold an error condemned both by Catholiques & Protestants, to witt, that the holy Ghost pro∣ceeds only from the Father, & not from the Son. Therefore, the Protestants cannot conti∣nue their visible Church, by the Grecians, who were, for many ages, Catholiques, who never were, nor yet are Protestants, and are known to this day, for a great part, to be Ro∣man Catholiques.

The like may be said of the Armenians. For first, supposing they were now Protestants, they were not alwayes of that religion, for they remaind Catholiques,* 1.359 ever till about the 7. age. Therefore the Protestant Church can∣not be continued in them 2. They never held the Protestant Confession of faith. For they maintayn the real presence, the vnbloody sacri∣fice,

prayer for the dead, invocation of Saints, 3. They were vnited to the Roman Church, with the Grecians,* 1.360 in he Councel of Flo∣rence. And lastly since their falling away, they hold errors which are condemned, both by Catholiques & Protestants. For they deny the Procession of the holy Ghost from the Son: they confound the two natures in Christ, and reiterate baptisme, All which do shew that they neither were, nor are Protestants.

From Greece and Armenia, we must now at length go to Aethiopia, where M. du Mou∣lin affirmes the Protestant Church was,* 1.361 befo∣re Luther. But, supposing they were now Pro∣testants, they were not alwayes so. For, near the space of 5. hundred yeares, they were Catholiques, at which time, they began to be corrupted with the heresie of Eutiches. The∣refore, the Protestant Church for 5. Hundred yeares, was not visible in them. 2. since their Schisme, they never beleeved intirly any Pro∣testant Confession, and never held iustification by faith only.* 1.362 3. They agree with the Catholi∣ques against Protestants, in the 7. Sacraments, invocation of Saints, prayer for the dead, Masse, Transubstantiation &c. as D. Stratford sheweth out of their own Authors. They call the Pope head of all Bishops, as is evident, by the letters of their Emperour to Pope Clement the 7. Whereof a part is recited in the upple∣ment of Spondan••s,* 1.363 and they have offered di∣verse times obedience to the Pope. Lastly, they held diverse errors, which Protestants cannot

approve. For they deny the procession of the holy Ghost from the Son,* 1.364 with the Gre∣cians: they acknowledge one only will in Christ, with the Mono helities, and one only nature in him with the Eutichians, and with the Iewes, they abstaine from certain meats and observe Circumcision. Therefo∣re the Protestants cannot continue their Church, by the Aethiopians, nor by any of their for••er pretences: which serve for no∣thing, but to make it visibly appeare, that there was no visible Protestant Church, in any part of the world, for no age or time, be∣fore Luther: how much lesse, for the whole time, between the Apostles and Luther? Yea; albeit the Wa••denses, and all the rest above na∣med, to whom the Protestants do pretend, were granted to have beleeved the Protestant Confession (as it's evident, they beleeved it not) yet the Protestant Church could not be continued by any, or all of them, because they did not continue from the Apostles, and the most part of them lived at diverse times, wit∣hout any Society or lineal descent, hanging of∣ten assunder whole ages one from an other, and the first being long decayed before the others did appeare. For this cause, some learned Pro∣testants, seeing the impossibility of continuing the visibility of their Church, by such broken and vanishing troopes, and being ashamed to claime, as members of their Church, such erronious persons, or notorious heretiques, have vndertaken, by two other wayes, to

shew their Church to be visible, before Lu∣ther: which we shall shortly run over.

CHAP. XXVII. That the Protestant Church was not visible in the primitive Church, or the holy Fathers; nor thereafter, in the Roman Church.

IT was very ordinary for the old Protes∣tants, of the late English Church, to allead∣ge, that the ancient Fathers were of their reli∣gion, and that their Church was conforme to the primitive Church. In which matter M. Iewels appeale to the Fathers of the first 6. hun∣dred yeares, is very famous. But that pretence is idle, in regard of our present question. 2. it is false. First it's idle: because, were it true (as we shall see it to be, most false) that these Fathers of the first 5. or 6. hundred years, were Protestants; yet, could not that suffice to prove them a continued succession of 1600. years. For I enquire what became of the Protestant Church after the Fathers, to the time of Lu∣ther? Did it perish, or not? If it perished: then it is not the true Church, which must be perpetual, according to the first vndeniable principle above setled. If the Protestant Church did not perish, but remain'd visible for 900. years, between the Fathers & Luther:

then the question remaines, where was it, in what kingdome, Province, or Citie? which-can never be shewed. Yea, some famous Protes∣tants do acknowledge,* 1.365 that all that time the Pro¦testant Church was not to be seen. Therefore, although the Fathers were granted to have been Protestants, the Protestant Church can∣not be continued, by them, after their time.

Secondly, its most false that the Fathers were Protestants. 1. Because the Christians of the sixth age must needs know better, what was the religion and tenets of them, who li∣ved in the fifth age, by whom they were ins∣tructed, and with whom they conversed, th n Protestants can do now. But these Chris∣tians have protested on their salvation, that it was the very same with theirs, receiv'd from them, by word of mouth. Therefore, if the Christians of the sixth age were not Protes∣tants, neither were the Fathers and Christians of the 5. age Protestants, and so you may go vpward, even to the Apostles. This reason shall be more cleared hereafter. 2. It may be known, that the Fathers were not Protestants by the points already examined. For they did not beleeve Iustification by faith only, the im∣possibility of keeping the Commandments: They did not deny the necessity & effect of baptism, they did not deny the real presence: which are principal articles of the Protestant religion: but taught the quite contrary; as hath been seen. Therefore, according to the second principle above setled, they were not Protes∣tants.

3. Not to descend to particular doctrines, this same truth may be shewed, by the little account Protestants make of the Fathers, whom they would highly esteem, if they ma∣de for them; and in a word, by the open Con∣fession of the chief Protestants, that the Fa∣thers were against them, in many things. Lu∣ther, as if he were a little after cups, speaks ve∣ry intemperatly of the Fathers. In the writing (saith he) of Hierome there is not a word of true faith,* 1.366 or sound religion: of Chrysostome I make do accompt: Basil is of no worth, he is wholly a Monk: I weigh him not a haire: Cyprian is a weak Divine &c.* 1.367 And generally he affirmeth, that the authority of the Fathers is not to be regarded. If the Fathers had been P••otestants, Luther had not so vnderva ved them, nor disclaim'd their authority. Calvin also ingenuously con∣fesseth, that the Fathers are against him, in many points.* 1.368 It was a custom, saith he, about 1300, years ago to pray for the dead, but all of that time, I confesse, were caried away into error, He grante••h also, that the Fathers taught sa∣tisfaction, free will, merit, fasting in Lent, &c. All which Whitaker confirmes.* 1.369 It's true, saith he, what Calvin & the Centurists have written that the ancient Church did erre in many things, as touching limbe, free will, merit of works, &c. And again, he saith: The Popish religion is pat∣ched vp of the Fathers errors. Peter Martyr ac∣cords to him. So long, saith he, as we stand to the Councels and Fathers we shall remaine al∣wayes in the same Errors. An other famous Pro∣testant

said more clearly, If that be true,* 1.370 which the Fathers have professed by mutual consent, it is altogether on the Papists side. This open Con∣fession of the Protestants chief Reformers, and best Schollers, sheweth evidently, that the ho∣ly Fathers were not Protestants. And therefore the Presbyterians, who disclaime the holy Fa∣thers & yeeld them to the Papists, are much more sincere & ingenuous in this matter, then the late English Protestants: who laid claime to the Fathers, & deceitfully made the people beleeve, that they were Protestants; which they were enforced to deny, when they were dealing with Schollers, as may appeare by the former testimonies. By all which, it is more then evident; that the holy Fathers and pri∣mitive Church were not Protestants; and the∣refore, the Protestant Church cannot be she¦wed to be visible in thē: much lesse can the vi∣sibility of it be continued after them. Wherefore we must go and seek out this visible Protes∣tant Church els where: for here it cannot be seen.

The last valiant attempt was made by some famous Protestants, who, after they had seen that all their neighbours and Predecessors had wearied themselves in vaine, by travailing all the world over, to find out a visible Protes∣tant Church, before Luther, which could not be found; had in end their recourse vnto the Popish Church, as vnto a City of refuge, in this great straight. They taught two things. 1. That the Roman & Protestant Churches are

all one Church, as agreing in all fundamental points of faith, although they dis••gree in not fundamentals; and by this distinction, they think to answer easily that hard question, where was your Church before Luther? To witt: they say, it was the ve y same with the Roman, which they acknowledge to be a true Church, keeping all the fundamental points of religion, which are necessary to salvation; albeit she had some errors not fundamētal, which do not destroy the nature of the Church, but on∣ly make it si k and weak. And so by this means they think to avoid all the inconveniences, in∣to which other Protestants do fall. For hereby; it is shewed, that the Church did not perish, nor was invisible, nor was only visible for a time, but was perpetually visible. 2. They de∣ny, that the Protestant Church made any real substantial separa ion from the Roman: and affirm, that all, which they did, was only to free themselves of some errors, which as sick∣nesses (though not in themselves mortal) had crep't in, vpon the Roman Ch••rch, which being often advertised of her maladies, and de∣sired to cure them, would admit no medicine: which the Protestants, taking at length, in a cup of Reformation, did purge themselves of all infirmities, and thereby their Church was rendred whole and sound. So that there is no more difference between the Roman & Pro∣testant Church, then between the same man, whole & sick, who by health and sicknesse is not substantially different, but remaines still

the same man. The Protestants, who followed this course, were famous in their own genera∣tions, and much cryed vp for learning & pru∣dence, as Hooker, the Bishop of Spalato, Feild, Bunny, Potter, Chilingworth and di∣verse others, as may be seen, in the B. of Cal∣cedons treatise of fundamental points, and in the Protestants Apologie. I shall content my self with the testimony of M. Bunny, who writes thus:* 1.371 No question ought to be made for our separation from the Church. For we make not a distinct Church from them, nor they from vs. There was therefore no separation made frō the Church; neither did any of vs go out from them. The only question may be, which of vs are to be esteemed the more wholsome members of the Church, we, or they? Neither is there any other question approved by vs. Yea, he acknowledgeth, that, vnlesse this answer be made; the Papists have great advantage, in their old question; seing the Protestants cannot shew a Church distinct, from the Roman, before Luther.

But this answer of these late Authors is as false and insufficient, as any of the former. First it directly contradicts the d ctrine & practice of their Reformers, who are supposed to have been heavenly Apostles. For they accused the Roman Church of Idolatrie, superstition, and diverse grosse fundamental errors, which ma∣ke not a Church to be only sick, but also kill and destroy it, and as the Presbyterians speak, make it of the Church of Christ, become the Synagogue of Sathan & Anti-Christ. Then for separation: 〈◊〉〈◊〉 first Reformers were so far

from denying it, that they invited all persons to separate themselves from the Roman Church, which they called spiritu••l Babylon, And according to this doctrin, their practice followed. Therefore it is evident, that the first Reformers did not think the Roman and Pro∣testant Church all one, in fundamentals, nei∣ther did they deny separation from the Ro∣man Church, but rather the quite contrarie is most clear and certaine.

Secondly, Diverse other famous Protestants condemne this new opinion, as im ious. For M. Perkins writes thus.* 1.372 The Politician, who is of no religion, saith, hat we and the Papists differ not in substance. And Whiteker saith plainly, that the Roman Church hath taken away many fun∣damental articles of faith, and corrupted faith in the principal parts. All the o••her late Protestants, and especially the Presbyterians condemne the same opinion. For nothing almost can incense them m re, then to say, that the Church of Rome is a true Church, and that the Protes∣tants made no separation from her. Hence it came to passe, that M. Hooker was sharply re∣proved, for this device, by the Puritans, in their Christian letters.

Thirdly, besids all these confusions & con∣tradictions among themselves, the answer in it self is false & insufficient. For, when we are seeking a Protestant visible Church before Luther, these men shew vs the Popish Church: and albeit all the world knowes, that Papists are not Protestants; yet they affirm, that

the Popish and Protestant Church are all one, & differ not substantially: which is a double de∣ceit, first ••o shew one thing very different for another; and then to affirm, that they are both one. But I conceive, it can hardly enter into a mans imagination, vnlesse it be troubled, to think, that these Churches are substantially one, which differ and are clearly opposite, in the principal, substantial points of religion, as in Sacrifice, Sacraments, the observation of the divine Commandments, iustifying faith, good works and many others particulars. The one Church approveth External Sacrifice, as a most acceptable service and worship due to God, and offers vp the Christian sacrifice, as the most excellent of all sacrifices and adores it as God. The other hath no sacri∣fice at all, but condemnes that, as great abomi∣nation & grosse Idolatrie, which the first ma∣kes the greatest obiect and exercise of its piety. This difference alone, albeit we speak of no more, is so great; that M. Dallie, a renown'd Min ster in France doth affirm, in his Apolo∣gie which he wrote lately for the reformed Churches, and is approved by his Colleagues the Ministers of Charenton, that it was suffi∣cient to iustifie the Protestants separation from the Roman Church, and to hinder their vnion again with it, as being a most substantial and fundamental difference. By which, it's evi∣dent, that the ground, whereon this answer is founded, to witt, that there are no fundamen∣tal differences, between the Catholique &

Protestant Church, is false; both in it felt, & in the iudgment of the first Reformers, & of many other famous Protestants.

But, whither there be fundamental diffe∣rences, or not; the answer is not sufficient: For the q••estion still remaines, where was the Protestant Church before Luther? that is a Church believing all the articles of a Protes∣tant Confession, whither some of them b cal∣led fundamental, or not fundamental; or (if they please) of men holding all these articles, and esteeming some of them fundamental and some not. For we are now seeking a Protestant Church, before Luther, and according to the definition above setled, such a Church is a so∣ciety, beleeving all the articles of their Cōfessiō. Therefore, they must shew vs such a Confessiō, or else they do not shew vs a Protestant Church. Yea, the points, which they call not fundamētal, wherein they disagree frō the Papists, are these, which make them properly Protestants. If then they confesse (as they must do) that no society can be had before Luther, which believed all these points, which they call not fundamental; they must also grant, that there was no visible Pro∣testant Church before Luther: which is directly to succumb & faile in that, which they vnder∣took to shew. So that, albeit this distinction of fundamentals, &c. were admitted, as good & true, whereas indeed, in their sense, it's false and deceitfull, as we shall see more clearly he∣reafter; yet, in relation to the present question, it would serve them to no purpose.

These reasons are, more then sufficient, to shew, that this new answer is false and insuffi∣cient and is nothing but a meer shift, devised to elude the question: And that it cannot be sa∣tisfactorie to any man, who is searching for the truth; which is condemned by famous Pro∣testants as f••lse and impious, and which is con∣trarie to the doctrin & practice of the first Re∣formers. This sheweth clearly the great straight & necessity: wherevnto such learned and pru∣dent men were reduced, in answering this hard question, which required an accompt of the Protestant Church before Luther. For they could not say, the Church had perished, which had been a blasphemous falshood against the most clear Scriptures: they saw also, that all the other pretences to the Waldenses, and the rest, were false and frivolous, seing none of these agreed intirely with Protestants, neither had any of them perpetual continuance: and being ashamed of the Puritans invisible Church, which we shall see to be a meer Chi∣mera, they had no other refuge, but to flie vn∣to the Roman Church, which they were the∣refore enforced to acknowledge, to be the true Church, which had alwayes remain'd, albeit their first Reformers had abandonned it, as a false Church, accusing it of superstition & Ido∣latrie, as the most part of all visible Protestants yet continue to do. But this refuge hath been shewed to serve them to no purpose. These men do in a part resemble the prodigal child, who never thought of returning to his Fathers

house, till he had spent all h••s means, and till great misery & necessity compelled him: so these learned Protestants, after they had fare travailed, wearied themselv's much, and spent all their braines, in seeking out their Church, before Luther, and not finding it any where; at length, by meer necessity, had their last re∣fuge vnto their Fathers, house, the Catholique Church, which they had before left. But there was this deplorable difference, between the prodigal child and them: that he, being truly penitent and confessing his fault with great hu∣mility, was by his Father most lovingly met, embraced & kissed, cloathed and feasted whe∣reas they returning, not with humility & re∣pentance for their separation, but with idle ex∣cuses, and vaine accusations, without any o∣ther intention, save only to get their naked∣nesse covered, and their other vrgent necessi∣ties supplyed, were neither met, nor received, clothed, nor feasted: but have perished for fa∣mine and cold, and are now almost all, with the decay of their late ill founded Church, ex∣stirpared out of the world. They called the Ro∣man, a sick Church, and their own, a whole Church; yet it is verifyed, that their whole Church is dead, and hath decayed before the sick Church. And as their Church, according to them, was only visible in the Roman Church, before Luther: so it's now invisible in it self, and only visible, as it was in the begin∣ning, and like to continue so, vnto the end.

By all which considerations, it is evident,

that no visible Protestant Church can be found before Luther, and much lesse, a continuall succession of it from the time of the Apostles. We have travailed almost all the world over, seeking this Church and we have followed diverse Protestant Guides, who vndertook to shew it vnto vs; but ever in the end, they faile of their promises. Therefore we must passe now from the Protestant visible Church, which cannot be seen, before Luther, to their invi∣sible Church, which we shall see cannot be found before him.

CHAP. XXVIII. That the Church of Christ ought to be al∣way's visible: and therefore an invisible Church cannot be the true Church.

HAVING gone hitherto along with di∣verse Protestants, who promised to shew vs their Church visible, before Luther; we must now leave them, as falling short of their promises, and quit all further search of this Church in the light: and follow these other Protestant Guides, who vndertake to find out their Church to vs in the dark. For vnto that old demand, where was your Church before Luther? They answer that it was, al∣though invisible. And in this answer of invisi∣bility, the most part of all visible Protestants, and especially Presbyterians do now acquiesce, thinking this last refuge such a strong and reti∣r'd

hold for them, and so well guarded by the Scriptures, in that answer, which God gave to the complaint of Elias, that they cannot be smoaked out of it. But notwith ••anding these pretences, the same Catholique shew me, that the Church of Christ ought to be alway's visi∣ble: & that the invisible Protestant Church is a meer Chimerical invention, against the Scrip∣tures, Fathers, famous Protestants, against the ends, for which the Church was instituted, a∣gainst Protestants own principles, and that ma∣ny grosse absurdities follow vpon it, to the dis∣paragment of the Christian religion and advan∣cement of Atheism.

The Scripture, which affirmeth so clearly, as we have seen above, that the Church must be perpetual, affirmes no lesse evidently, that it must be manifest and visible. For this cause the Prophet Esay compareth the Church to a Mountain.* 1.373 The Mountain of the Lords house, saith he, shall be established in the top of Moun∣tains, and shall be exalted above the hil es, and all Nations shall flow vnto it. Again, the same prophet, speaking of the Church, saith: Vpon thy walls,* 1.374 o Ierusalem, I have appointed w••tch∣men, all the day and all the night, they shall not hold their peace for ever. Conforme to this first prophecie, our Saviour compares his Church vnto a City, seated on a hill, which he saith cannot be hid,* 1.375 and vnto a light shining in the world. Conforme to the second prophecie. S. Paul sheweth, that Christ hath established Pastors to remain continually in the Church,

for the consummation of the Saints. Now,* 1.376 what is more manifest then a Mountain, a City built vpon a hill? what more visible then light shi∣ning, and Pastors continually teaching? The∣refore, according to the Scriptures, the Church of Christ which must be perpetual, must be al∣so visible, and cannot be hid or invisible.

For the Fathers, we shall bring S. Augus∣tin, who produceth the same places, which he calls clear and evident, to prove the same truth against the Donatists. There is nothing,* 1.377 saith he, more manifest, then a Mountain; but yet there are some Mountains vnknown, because they are placed in one part of the earth: The Mountain of the Church not so: it must be known, because it hath filled the whole face of the earth. And elswhere, bringing our Saviours words,* 1.378 he saith, The Church is not hid, because it is not vnder a bushel, but vpon a candlestick, that it may shine to all, who are in the house. A City seated on a hil cannot be hid, &c. But it is as it were hid vnto the Donatists, because they hear such clear and manifest testimonies, which shew her to be in the whole earth, and they choose ra∣ther with shut ey's to dash against that Mountain then to go vp to it. And further he saith.* 1.379 The Church hath this most certain mark, that she can∣not be hid. To the same purpose S. Chrysos∣tom affirmeth, That it is easier for the Sun to be extinguished, then that the Church shall be ob∣scured. So that it is all one, both in it self, and with the holy Fathers, to say the Church had perished, and that it is hid or invisible. And

therefore, if the one be so abominable, the other is no lesse detestable. S. Augustin, who censured so heavily the opinion of the Dona∣tists, who taught that the Church had peris∣hed, every where, except only among them∣selves, as if he had foreseen this Presbyterian shift, which pretends the Church had not per∣rished, but was invisible, writes thus against it.* 1.380 Some one may say: It may be God hath other sheep, but I know not where, of which he ta∣keth care, but I know them not. O how absurd is he vnto humane sense, who imagines such things. We have seen, how this opinion is against the Scriptures & Fathers, and now, in S. Augus∣tins iudgment, it's against sense: we shall see presently, how it is against reason, and famous Protestants.

All men ordinarly agree in this general no∣tion of the Church, that it is a society of people instructed in the faith of Christ, governed by lawfull Pastors, and having Communion toge∣ther in the Christian Sacraments. But, if the Church were invisible, there could be no in∣struction, no governement, no administration of Sacraments. And hence will appear, that an invisible Church is against all the ends, for which God had established a Church vpon earth. The first was to instruct and guide the members of the Church, vnto the port of Sal∣vation. And for this end are necessary, instruc∣tion in the faith & administration of Sacra∣ments, which require visibility, both in the P••stors, and in the people. For invisible Pa∣stors cannot instruct, nor administrate Sacra∣ments:

and therefore the Church, which con∣sists of Pastors & people, must be visible. For as D. Humphrey saith: Whilst the Ministers teach,* 1.381 others learn, they administrate the Sacraments these receive them &c. who seeth not these things, is more blind then a M••odiwarp, But, if the Church were invisible, there could be no in∣struction, & consequently no faith, no Sacra∣ments, & so none could be directed in this invi∣sible Church, vnto the port of Salvation. This sheweth, that the Church must be visible, at least to the members of it. The second ••nd, for which the Church was ordain'd, was to receive the Gentils, and to afford to all per∣sons, who are astray, the means of salvation, by entering into the Church. This the Prophet Esay, speaking of the Church, foretold.* 1.382 Thy gates shall be open continually day and night, they shall not be shut, that the strength of the Gen∣tils may be brought vnto thee. But, if the Church had been invisible, her gates had been worse then shut: for they could never have been found, to be knokt at, and so the Gentils & he∣retiques, albeit never so desirous, could never have entered: which is against the Scriptures and goodnesse of God. This reason proveth, that the Church must be visible even to stran∣gers. The third end was to compose diff••ren∣ces, which might arise among Christians, ac∣cording to that of our Saviour,* 1.383 Tell the Church. But, had the Church been invisible, she could neither have been told, nor found. Invisible Iudges cannot compose differences:

The fourth end was to oppose all errors & here¦sies.* 1.384 For which cause God established Pastors in the Church, to conserve the people in the true doctrine, frō the circūvention of error. But, had the Church been invisible, she could not have opposed heresies, they had prevailed without cō¦troul. It there had been no Church to oppose heresies, before the Protestants peep't vp, what had become of the Christian religion? Surely it had been a puddle of errors, or a Masse of Con∣fusion. So that this invisible Church is against all the cheef ends, for which God established a Church vpon earth.

It is also against famous Protestants, who sharply censure it. Melanchton, whom Luther equaleth to the Fathers,* 1.385 calls it Monstruous. It is necessary, saith he, to confesse the Church to be visible. Wherevnto tendeth this monstruous speech, which denyeth the visible Church? It abolisheth all testimonies of Antiquity, it causeth an en∣dlesse confusion and induceth a Commonwealth of vnruly Ruffians or Atheists, where no one careth for another.* 1.386 D. Humphrey saith, It is a manifest Conclusion, that the Church ought to be conspi∣cuous. Another Protestant saith of the Puritans: They affirm, against the Scripture, that the Church, for some ages, was not visible. This cannot be a sound article of the Protestant reli∣gion, which such Protestants so sharply cen∣sure.

Now we shall see, how it is against Protes∣tants principles, yea and destroyes it self. For they ordinarly assign two necessary marks of

the Church, to witt: the right preaching of the word, & administration of the Sacraments. To which the Presbyterians add their disciplin, as a third mark. I inquire then, if this Church, which some of them make invisible, for 900. some for 1000. and others for 12. hundred years, had preaching and Sacraments, during that time; or not? If it had: then it could not be invisible: for invisible people can neither be instructed, nor baptized. If it had no preaching, nor Sacraments; then it hath been a miserable Church, or rather no Church at all, which wanted these two things, which are necessary to constitute a Church. If a famous Presbyte∣rian Minister took occasion lately, whilst he was baptizing a child, on a cold winter day, to say against the Anabaptists: It is cold dipping to day: I love not Sommer Sacraments: May not any one say more iustly, against the Presbyte∣rians? In many dayes an invisible Church can∣not be found out. I love not a Church, wherein, for a thowsand years & above, there were neither sommer nor winter Sacraments. Moreover, ei∣ther this invisible Church had some govern∣ment, or it had none? If it had any, it could not be invisible, as is evident: and, if that go∣vernement was Presbyt••rian disciplin, that Church had not been only visible, to these, who obey'd it, but also very sensible to those, who did not willingjy stoop to it: or else it hath been very far different from the nature of our Scottish Presbytery. If that invisible Church had no government, then it wanted

that, which no society can want, and wit∣hout which, there is no order but confusion. Yea, this invisible Church is such a rare device, that it destroies it self. For no Church, albeit never so invisible, can be imagined without internal faith at least. Now faith coms by, hea∣ring,* 1.387 according to S. Paul, and how shall they heare, saith the same Apostle, without a prea∣cher? But, in an invisible Church, there could be no preaching or instruction, and so no faith: and no faith, no Church. Not so much as an invisible one. In a word, this invisible Church, which wanted preaching, faith, Sacra∣ments, and government, hath been a misera∣ble, or rather a Chimerical Church.

Lastly, this invisible Church doth highly disparage the Christian religion. For it makes the Church of Christ (of whose glory above the Synagogue of the Iewes, so much is re∣corded in the Scriptures) not equal in glory; but more inglorious, then the Iewish Syna∣gogue hath been, even since the coming of Christ. For, ever since that time, the Iewes have professed their religion, and had visible Synagogues, in diverse famous nations: whe∣reas the Presbyterians make the Church of Christ to be invisible, for many ages of that time, in which not one could be found, who had the courage, or devotion, to professe the true religion. Now, what can be more against the Sriptures, and the honour of Christ, then this wicked device? what more opprobrious to all the Christians of these times? God spea∣king

of the Church,* 1.388 saith by the Prophet Aggai. The Glory of this later house shall be greater then of the former. But, if the Chris∣tian Church had been so many ages invi∣sible, it had been more inglorious then the Synagogue of the Iewes. which was all that time visible. Christ is called, by S Paul,* 1.389 the Mediator of a better Covenant, which was esta∣blished vpon better promises. But, by the Pres∣byterians invisible Church, he is made Me∣diator of a worse Covenant, and to have fai∣led of his promises. S Hierom saith:* 1.390 Nimium prophani sunt &c. They are too prophane, who affirm the Iewes had more Synagogues, then the Christians had Churches Therefore they may be called most prophane, who affirme the Iewes had many Synagogues, and deny the Christians to have had so much as one Church, through∣out the whole world. Whence this opinion gives great advantage to the Iewes and infidels, a∣gainst the Christian religion. For they may iu∣stly pretend, that the Christian Church, if it was so many ages invisible, could not be the true Church & kingdom of the Messias, which the Prophets foretould clearly should be eter∣nal, conspicuous and glorious: and that Christ could not be the true Messias, who had failed so palpably of his promises. Yea, this opinion is very dangerous to Protestants, so that it hath made some to stumble at the Christian religion, and it hath drawn others into flat Atheism. Sebastian Castalio Professor of Basil, having cited some clear testimonies of

Scripture, for the perpetuity of the Church, and the conversion of Kings & Nations, wri∣tes very perplexedly vnto Edward the 6. King of England.* 1.391 Truly, saith he, We must con∣fesse, that, either these things will be, or that they have been, or God is to be accused of a•• lie. If any man say they have been, I inquire of him, when? I inquire how the knowledge of God and pietie which was promised to be eternal, and more aboundant, then the waters of the sea, was not alto¦gether perf ct,* 1.392 and could so soon decay? By which words he shewes what stuck in his stomack. David George, a Protestant of Holand, procee∣ded further, &, vpon this ground of the visible decay of the Church, blasphem'd against Christ, saying: If the doctrin of Christ & his Apostles had been true, the Church, which they planted, had en∣dured.* 1.393 And here vpon he became an impure Apo¦stat, from the Christian religion. Adam Neu∣serus, the chief Pastor of Heydelberg, of a Mi∣nister, became a Turk, and was circumcised at Constantinople.* 1.394 These, and some other examples may be seen in the Protestants Apo∣logy. By all which may be seen, how false, dan∣gerous & pernicious this opinion of the invi∣sible Church is: against a most clear truth, to witt: that the Church cannot be hid. There∣fore, as S. Augustin did conclude against the Donatists,* 1.395 in these words. The Church hath this most certain mark, that she cannot be hid; she is then known to all Nations: the sect of Do∣natus is vnknown to all Nations: that then can∣not be she. So we may conclude more forcibly,

against the Presbyterians. The Church of Christ hath this most certain mark, that she cannot be hid, or invisible. She is then known, or visible to all Nations. The Protestant Church, before Luther, was invisible, and vn∣known to all Nations: as the Presbyterians do confesse; Therefore the Protestant Church cannot be she.

CHAP. XXIX. That albeit the true Church might be invi∣sible, yet the Protestants had no invi∣sible Church, before Luther.

IT hath been already proved, that, albeit the Protestants had had an invisible Church before Luther; yet it could not be the true Church, which must be alway's visible. Now remaines to be shewed the second thing which was vndertaken above, to witt; that, albeit an invisible Church were sufficient, yet the Pro∣testants had not so much as one of that nature, before Luther; and so they succumb, as well de facto, as they have done de iure; and conse∣quently this device of an invisible Church, for two reasons, will serve them to no purpose: Which is shewed thus. An inv••sible Protestant Church, is a Church, which beleeved the Protestant faith in their heart, albeit they made no external profession of it. But de facto there was no Church before Luther, which belee∣ved the Protestant confession of faith. There∣fore

there was no visible Protestant Church, before Luth r. The Maior is evident: because there is this difference between a visible, and an invisible Church: that the first professeth the faith, the other professeth it not: but they both agree in this, to have inwardly the faith: Without which, there cannot be any Church. Therefore an invisible Protestant Church is a Church, which beleeved inwardly the Pro∣testant faith. The Minor is proved of the time immediatly preceeding Luthers preaching. For either Luther himself, before he began to op∣pose the Pope, was a member of this lurking Protestan Church, beleeving the Protest••nt Confession, or these, who adhered to him, were members of it, or some others, who did nor ioyne with him; and besids these no others can be found or imagined. But none of these can be said. For Luther is avowedly confessed by himself and all men,* 1.396 to have been a Roman Catholique, a Priest, a friar of S. Augustins order, and, as himself acknowledgeth, said Masse devoutly, and honored the Pope in his heart. Therefore Luther, before he opposed the Pope, did not beleeve inwardly the Protes∣tant faith, and was not a member of the Prot••stants lurking invisible Church, but was a member of the Roman visible Church. But so were Melanchton, Carolstadius, the Sa∣xons and all the rest, who followed him, Pa∣pists, or Priests, professing the Roman religion, & knowing nothing of the Protestant, till Lu∣ther taught them. Therefore all these, who ad∣hered

to Luthers new doctrin, were before that time, not lurking Protestants; but pro∣fes't Papists. Neither were there any other members of that suppos'd lurking Protestant Church, who did not ioyn with Luther. For, if there had been any, they should and would have come out of their lurking holes, so soon as Luther began to preach, and got the pro∣tection of secular Princ••s. For then there was no more feare of persecution, which was the only reason, why these men did not professe their religion. And therefore, that being taken away, if there had been any such invisible Protestants, they would have showen themselvs visible, acknowledged their bre∣thren, run and ioyn'd hands with them, and said: Behold this is the faith, which we al∣way's beleeved, although we did not, or durst not professe it. But no such persons did ap∣peare when they might safely, and ought in all duty to have appeared. Therefore there was no lurking Protestant Church before Luther: and consequently, the Protestants had no Church at all before him, neither visi∣ble, nor invisible.

This may be yet further illustrated & con∣firmed. For there may be conceived two kinds of invisible Protestant Churches. The first is a Church, which believed in their hearts the Protestant faith; and yet made profession of the contrary religion, to witt of Popery. The second is a company of people, beleeving also internally the same faith, but making no pro∣fession

of a contrary religion. And between these two extreames there is no medium. But the Protestants had neither of these two invisible Churches before Luther. Therefore they had none at all. Not the first [which, although they had, could not have been the true Church of Christ, or a society of faithfull Christians, but rather was a miserable crue of dissembled Sycophants; for so they behoved to be, who beleeved one thing, & professed the contrary, which they thought grosse superstition & Ido∣latry] Not the first, I say. For such a dissem∣bled Church behoved to beleeve the Protes∣tants faith in their heart, and professe the con∣trary, against their consciences. But there were none before Luther, who beleeved the Protestant faith in their hearts, &c. because Luther himself beleeved the Roman Catholi∣que faith in his heart, and of this, there can be no greater evidence, then his own testimony against himself. For he professeth, that he ho∣noured the Pope for conscience sake, and thought, that he would have been severed from God, if he had been separated from the Pope; and much more to this purpose. There∣fore Luther was not a dissembled Protestant, but rather a sincere Papist, before he began to oppose the Pope. Neither were there any other before him, who believed the Protes∣tant faith, & professed the contrary: because his followers were ignorant of the Protestant re∣ligion, till Luther taught it, and shew them the light. This is witnessed by prime Protes∣tants,

who say: It's ridiculous to think,* 1.397 that any man before Luther, did attayn vnto the true doctrin, or that he receiv'd it from others, and not others from him. That all the world was overwhelmed, with more then Cimme∣rian darknesse; that Luther was sent to dispell it, and to restore the light of true doctrin. Be∣sids, that chief article of Iustification by faith only, was altogether vnknown before Luther,* 1.398 so that M. Fox affirmeth, that, Luther, by opening that veine, which lay a long time hid, overturned the foundation of Popery. M. Wotton averres, that Luther may truly glory, that he was the first, who taught Christ espe∣cially concerning that principal Euangel••cal doctrin of Iustification by faith alone.* 1.399 Therefore saith he, It was a great honour to Luther, to have been a Son, withovt a Father, and a Disciple, without a Master. All which testimonies do evince, that there was not so much as a dis∣sembled Protestant Church before Luther: Neither as I conceive will any iudicious Pro∣testant plead much for such a Church, which although it had been, could not be the Church of Christ, but rather the Synaguogue of Sa∣than, and so not the true Church, which we are now searching after.

Neither had the Protestants that other kind of invisible Church, before Luther; which beleeved the Protestant faith in their hearts, and made no profession of the contra∣ry. For first, Luther & his followers did not beleeve it, till he opposed the Pope as hath been

presently proved. Secondly, they professed themselves, both by words & actions, to be Roman Catholiques, and so made profession of a religion, contrary to the Protestant, The∣refore, in both these conditions, this invisible Protestant Church is visibly deficient, and consequently, there was no kind of an invisi∣ble Church before Luther, neither a sincere, nor a dissembled Church, if we will iudge of it, by the persons, who m••de it visible. Nei∣ther were there any other lurking Prot••stants: for they would have shown thems••lves, when there was no more danger for them, as hath been said, which they d••d not: or if they were lurking, they are still lurking, and will ever lurk vnto the day of Ivdgment. For there is no more reason, that they shall appeare at any time hereafter, then now, or in the time of Luther. Therefore this invisible Protestant Church is a meer Chime••a & fiction, without all ground, and against sense & experience. The Independents, who aros•• within these twel∣ve years, or thereabout, and who before had been, for the most part, violent Presbyterians, may pretend vpon the same groundlesse fan∣cy, that their Church had alway's endured, invisibly. The same might also pretend the Quakers, who are more lately sprung vp. But if any of these Congregations were so vnrea∣sonable, as to make that pretext, which they may as lawfully do, as any other Protest••nts: who would be so vnreasonable as to beleeve them, or who could be so simple, as to be de∣cived

by them, the beginning and progresse of those Congregations being so well known, & so late and fresh in all mens memories? In the Presbyterian sense, any person, although ne∣ver so great a liar, might take vpon him to be a Prophet. For, albeit he foretold things never so false, which never came to passe, yea that fell out quite contrary, he might say with the Presbyterians, they were all fulfilled, but invi∣sibly. Now what is more foolish then this device? What would be more ridiculous in the iudgm••nt of Iewes and Pagans, and more iniurious to the truth of the Christian religion? For, if they would demand how are the pro∣phesies, concerning the perpetuity of Christs Church, fulfil'd? How are his clear promises to his Church kep't? And if it were an swered, as the Presbyterians do, that they were all ful∣filled and kept, but invisibly. What could more confirm these men in their infidelity, then this answer? What could make the Christian religion appeare to them, to be more false and ridiculous? S. Augustin did far otherwise vn∣dersta••d the pro••hesies of the Scripture, con∣cerning the Church. For, writing against the Donatists, on this same subiect of the Church, he saith. Let vs heare some few things out of the Psalms, so long ago sung and foretold, and let vs now with ioy see them fulfil'd. Again:* 1.400 Heare this out of the Divine booke, how it was foretold, and see now in the world how it is at complish'd. Therefore, as there is no other way to make a prophesy true, but by fulfilling it: so there is

no other way to know it to be fulfilled, but by visible and sensible performance of it.

By what is said, may be easily seen, that the complaint of Elias, which is alway's in the Puri∣tans mouth, makes nothing for their invisible Church, before Luther. For first Elias was only speaking of Israel, as a famous Protestant con∣fesseth,* 1.401 in these words. Our vnskilfull Reformers say, that the Church was invisible in the time of Elias, but the holy Spirit testifyeth, that he spake this of Israel, and not of Iuda: for he knew that good Iosaphat was reigning in Iuda, and that the Church was not only visible there, but also floo∣rishing in great piety. Wherefore it is an evil pa∣rity, to say: the Iewish Synagogue was invisi∣ble a short time, in one province, albeit it was visible at the same time in another. Therefore the Christian Church may be, or was invisi∣ble throughout the whole world; for a thow∣sand years & above. 2. These, who were lur∣king in the time of Elias, bowed not their knees to Baal; which if they had done, they had not belong'd to the invisible Church of God. But all the suppos'd invisible. Protestants, as Luther and his followers, bowed their knees to the Masse, (which they esteem Ido∣latry) as hath been shewed. Therefore they could not be the invisible Church of God. 3. Al∣though these good Israelits were invisible to Elias, at such a distance, when he fled; yet he knew many of them to be visible; both to others,* 1.402 and among themselves. For Abdias told him a little before, that he had hid 100.

Prophets of the Lord in two Caves, where he fed them. But all Protestants before Luther were invisible: both to others, and themsel∣ves. For not so much as one person knew him∣self to be a Protestant, before Luther taught that religion, as hath been proved. 4. Although the whole Iewish Synagogue had been invisi∣ble, which is most false; yet it followes not, the whole Christian Church may be, or was so too: For this, as S. Paul testifyeth: is foun∣ded vpon better promises. 5.* 1.403 Salvation was not altogether tyed, before Christ, to the Ie∣wish Synagogue, for there were some faith∣full Gentils, as Melchisedeck, Iob, &c. But the Presbyterians, by making the whole Chris∣tian Church to be invisible for many ages; take away all the ordinary means of salvation, which only can be had in the visible Church. Lastly. Albeit all the faithfull, both Iewes and Gentils, had been invisible, in the time of Elias; yet this would make nothing for Pro∣testants: vnlesse they had been also invisible, before Luther. But de facto, there were no lurking Protestants before him, as hath been clearly proved. Therefore, although the Church could be invisible, yet the Protestants had no invisible Church, before Luther. And besides the reasons brought above against this invisible Church, it may seem truly strange, that, for so many ages, not so much as one person of it, was heard of, or known; never so much as one false brother could be found among them, to reveale them. And, which is

most strange, when this invisible Church be∣came visible, not so much as one person did appeare, who had been a lurking member of it. Such groundlesse conceipts require strong imaginations to fancy them, but much more credulous hearts to beleeve them. Wherefore Elias complaint, for many reasons, makes no∣thing for Protestants; but is cleary against them.

So is also their other refuge to the Church of the predestinate, which they say was invisible, before Luther. For 1. there is no such Church, because Christs Church is a Congregation of all true beleevers; as well reprobate, as predes∣tinate;* 1.404 There is in his floore both wheat and chaffe: and in his field both corne & tares. 2. The Pre∣destinate are as visible, as the reprobate; S. Peter was as visible, as Iudas. 3. Although it were granted, there had been some invisible Predestinate, before Luther; yet none of them could be Protestants, because none believed the Protestant faith, till Luther taught it; as hath been proved. 4. Either these supposed Protestants before Luther, professed their faith, or not? If they professed it, then they were not invisible.* 1.405 If they profess'd it not, then they were not predestinate. For with our heart, saith S. Paul, we beleeve vnto iustice, and with our mouth Confession is made to salvation. 5. It is at least requisite, that the predestinate should not deny their faith, if they will not confesse it; or else they cannot be predestinate. But all the supposed invisible Protestants, before Luther,

denyed their faith, by professing Popery, as hath been shewed.* 1.406 Therefore they could not be predestinate. Lastly, heresies and persecution make the predestinate more conspicuous. He∣resies, saith S. Paul, must be, that these, who are approved, be made manifest among you. Who are more approved before God then the predesti∣nate? Who are made more manifest before men, then they, especially when heresy & persecu∣tion do arise? For then, by their close adhereing to the true faith, and their profession of it [whereas others, either through error or feare fall from it) they are rendred more conspicu∣ous, as the Scripture shewes; and therefore they are not made hid & invisible, as the Pu∣ritans do alleadge. Hence it is, that the Church is so far from being invisible in the predesti∣nate, more then in others; that, vpon the contrary, when that might happen in others, either by error, infirmity, or feare of persecu∣tion, then the true Church shall be most ma∣nifest in the predestinate,* 1.407 and is principally con∣served in them. For then, as S. Augustin speaks In suis firmissimis eminet: she shines in her most stedfast members. Predestination indeed is invi∣sible, and so is reprobation: but the predes∣tinate are as visible, as the reprobate; yea,* 1.408 they are the most eminent members of the visible Church, out of which they cannot be found, as Melanchton confesseth. Let vs not dreame, saith he, that the elect can be found any where, but in the visible Society of the Church. But the Protestants had no visible Church before Lu∣ther:

therefore they had no predestinate; and so many wayes this Babel is overturned. The Apostles, and all the ancient Christians, who were predestinate, were members of the vi∣sible Church, and professed their faith in the time of the Heathen persecutions, which were more cruel & vniversal, then any, that has hapned since. They had not Giges ring, to make themselves invisible; not the black arte of dissembling in religion, as the invisible Pro∣testants (if there were any) behoved to have: which are qualities very vnbeseeming the pre∣destinate.

By all which, it remaines sufficiently pro∣ved, that the Protestant Church cannot be the true Church. For to resume briefly the argu∣ment. The true Church must have still conti∣nued since the ascension of Christ to this time. But the Protestant Church hath only conti∣nued since the revolt of Luther. Therefore the Protestant Church is not the true Church. There is nothing more certain then the Maior. The Minor hath been proved; be∣cause, if there had been any Protestant Church, before Luther; it had been ei∣ther visible or invisible. But there was nei∣ther. Not the first: because there was no Church nor person, before Luther, that pro∣fessed entirely any Protestant Confession, for any little time, much lesse for the whole time, between, the Apostles & Luther. Not the se∣cond: because, if there had been any invisible Protestant Church before Luther, it had be∣come

visible, when Luther appeared, and the feare of persecution was taken away. But no such invisible Church did then appeare. And moreover, it hath been shewed, that, al∣though the Protestants had had an invisible Church before Luther; yet it could not be the true Church, which ought to be alwayes vi∣sible; and that an invisible Church is against Scriptures, Fathers, reason, Protestants own principles, disparageth the Christian religion; gives great advantage to Iewes and infidels; and leads men into Apostasy and Atheism. And so both the holes of Visibility and Invisibility, by which these foxes were accustomed to es∣cape, are now lay'd, or stop't. The diverse es∣saies, which many Protestants make to find their Church, shew the difficulty of the ques∣tion: so that they see, what they ought not to say, but cannot see what to say, that hath any probability of truth. They have travailed much to find out their Church, before Luther; they have been above these 100. years in seeking it, and we have followed the most famous Guides among them. But both they & we have labou∣red in vaine, to find that, which cannot be found. Yet we make much profit of our labour, if we have discovered, that the Protestant Church before Luther, cannot be found, not because it was hid, but because it was not, as hath been proved: and therefore leave off any further search of it; following S. Augustins advice, who writes thus to the Donatists, a∣bout the like purpose. Some thing, saith he,

may be,* 1.409 and yet not found out: but that, which hath no being, cannot be found. Let them there∣fore leave off to seek that, which they could not find, not because it was hid, but because it was not.

To this purpose spake the Catholique; who, vpon my desire, delivered me thereafter these things, more fully in writing: which, after se∣rious consideration of them, gave me such sa∣tisfaction, that I desired him to proceed to the proof of his own Church; which he did in the manner following.

CHAP. XXX. That the Church in Communion with the sea of Rome, and she alone, is the true Church.

HAVING already proved, to your satisfaction, (said my Catholique friend to me) your Church not to be the true Church, and that, by the vndenyable principle of the perpetuity of the Church; I will now endeavour, with the assistance of Gods grace, to prove no lesse clearly, by the same principle, laying aside other proofs, the Church in Communion with the sea of Rome, and her alone, to be the true Church. Which I briefly do, after this manner.

That is the only true Church, which has had

a continued succession from Christ & his Apo∣stles, to this time.

But the Church in Communion with the ea of Rome, and she alone has had a continued suc¦cession from Christ & his Apostles to this time.

Therefore the Church in Communion with the sea of Rome, and no other, is the true Church.

The Maior is clear. For to have a continued succession, & to be perpetuall, is the same thing. Now, as we have seen above, that the true Church must be perpetual, or must have con∣tinually endured from Christ & his Apostles to this time; so it is no lesse evident, that that is only the true Church, which has been perpe∣tual, or has still endured. This the holy Fathers do testify: this the light of reason doth evince. S. Hierom saith:* 1.410 I will bring a short and clear declaration of my mind, that we ought to remain in that Church, which, being founded by the Apostles, endures even vnto this day. And the reason is, because we ought to remain in the true Church: and that, according to S. Hierom, is the true Church, which hath still endured from the Apostles.* 1.411 To the like purpose Tertullian saith: That is true, which is first: that is first, which was from the beginning: that is from the begin∣ning, which was from the Apostles. And therefore that is the true Church, which has continued from the Apostles.

This same truth is also cleared by the light of reason. For the true Church was first foun∣ded by Christ & his Apostles, before any here∣sies

or false Churches, which carie the name of Christian, were, or could be raised by hereti∣ques. Because truth is alway's before falshood, the body is before the shaddow, and the good seed is sow'n in the field, before the tares. The∣refore, that is the true Church, which was first and from the beginning: and consequently that is the only true Church, which hath been perpetual; for that only could be first & from the beginning. Moreover, this truth is confirmed. For it is certain, that de facto no heresies or false Churches have con∣tinued from the primitive times: because these, which arose of old, have long ago evanished; and these, which remain to this day, have but for a short time endured. The∣refore, if it be most certain, that the true Church must be perpetual: then it is al∣so certain, that that only is the true Church, which has been perpetual; since one only Chris∣tian Church hath been perpetual. Yea, albeit any heresy had continued even from the an∣cient & primitive times (as never any of them, by Gods special providence, can see so many dayes) yet it could not be perpetual; because it could not be first, and from the beginning, which only the true Church can be (as we ha∣ve seen) but it behoved to be raised thereafter by heretiques, and therefore could not be so ancient as the true Church: and consequently had not perpetually endured. By all which, the Maior of our argument is sufficiently cleared.

The Minor, to witt, that the Church now in Communion with the sea of Rome, and she alone has still endured, or has had a continued succession from Christ and his Apostles to this time, is proved by all the evidences, where∣by such a proposition can be proved, & whe∣reby the holy Fathers proved it in their times. For all histories, all Monuments & records, publique fame, the Consent of people & Na∣tions, and, as S. Augustin speaks, the Confes∣sion of mankind bear witness, that this Church, and she alone, has had a continued succession. For this was the Church, which in the primi∣tive times suffered and overcame all the cruel persecutions of the Iewes & Pagans; this is the Church, which hath converted Kings & Na∣tion from infidelity to Christianity: which hath had her gates continually open, day & night, in all generations, to receive the stren∣gth of the Gentils: and, in a word, which has made the world Christian. This is the Church, which alone in all••ges has opposed all the he∣resies, which did arise in their diverse ages, from the beginning of Christianity; and al∣beit they all have shut out their hornes against this Church, and both by slight & might have endeavoured to destroy her; yet she alone hath fought against them all, and gloriously trium∣phed over them all. This is the Church, which has held all the General Councels; which hath condemned all errors and heresies; which has had Pastors and people professing the faith in all ages, without interruption, and in

which all the Saints, Martyrs and Doctors have lived. These things might be shown, by a particular Catalogue of this Churches chief Pastors, Councils, Nations converted, and publique Professors in every age; if it were not too longsome: and besids it is so clear, that it is not here necessary, especially seing the Lu∣theran Centurists, who have raked together all they can, both for themselves, and against the Roman Church, yet can shew the succes∣sion and continuance of no other, but only of this Church. And the reason of this is clear: because this Church, and she alone, hath so clearly this succession, that no other Churches, which carie the name of Christian, can so much as pretend to have it, in the least degree of probability. For it is evidently certain, that all other Churches, which are separated from this Church, were once of her faith & Com∣munion, and went vndeniably out of her, and therefore, they cannot be so ancient as she; and consequently they have not alwayes had a continued succession from the Apostles; and, if they pretended it, they would be most ridi∣culous, making an evident lie against sense. Therefore the Protestants wisely pretend no such thing. Yea their whole Reformation is grounded vpon a contrary pretext: that the whole Church had fallen into desolation, gros∣se Errors, Heresy and Idolatry, which is in∣indeed to pretend, that the succession of the Church had failed, and that they were now sent, to set her vp again. By all which, it is seen

that the Church in Communion with the sea of Rome, and she alone, has had a continued succession from Christ & his Apostles: and that so clearly, that no other Church can pre∣tend to have it.

This same truth was testifyed by the holy Fathers, in their time. S. Hierom 〈◊〉〈◊〉, said above, that he would bring a clear declara∣tion of his mind, that that is the true Church, that hath still endured, to witt, the Church in Communion with the sea of Rome; which he esteem's so much to be the true Church, that he affirmes those, who have no Communion with her, to belong not to Christ, but to An∣ti-Christ. For thus he writes to S. Damasus Bishop of Rome: With the successor of the Fisher, and with the disciple of the Crosse I speak. I,* 1.412 fol∣lowing none chief but Christ, hold the fellowship of Communion with thy Holynesse, that is with Peters chaire. Vpon that rock I know the Church to be built. Whosoever shall eate the lambe with∣out that house, is a prophane person &c. He that gathereth not with thee, scattereth: that is, saith he, who is not Christs, is Anti-Christs. This old doctrin is far different from the Presbyte∣rians new opinions. S. Cyprian saith.:* 1.413 who leaves the Chaire of Peter, vpon whom the Church was built, does he think to be in the Church? But let vs hear S. Augustin, the most glorious Doctor of the Church, shewing this same truth. For, after he had spoken much of the sincere wisdom, great holynesse and fruits of piety, of the Church, and of the great au∣thority

which God hath conferr'd on her: he subioyns these remarkable words to his friend Honoratus.* 1.414 Seing therefore we see so great help and assistance from God, shall we make any doubt or question at all, of retiriing into the bosome of that Church, which, to the Confession of man∣kind, from the sea Apostolique by the succession of Bishops, hath obtain'd the Soveraignity, & prin∣cipal authority, Heretiques in vain barking round about it: being condemned partly by the gra∣vity of Councels, partly also by the Maiesty & splendour of Miracles? vnto which, not to grant the chief place, is either indeed an extream im∣piety, or a very rash and dangerous arrogan∣cy. Thus he. Here we see, what Church in the time of the holy Fathers had this continued succession: and the same is no lesse evident to this day. In the Scriptures we read the pro∣phesies and Christs promises of his Church; and in this Church alone, we see no lesse cle∣arly the performances. What the Scripture had foretold,* 1.415 here with ioy, as S. Augustin speaks, we may see fulfilled. The Church before was only read in books, and now it is seen in Na∣tions.

By all which authorities & evidences, both the Maior and the Minor of the argument pro∣posed are sufficiently proved to be manifest truths, to witt: That that is only the true Church, which has had a continued succes∣sion from the Apostles to this time. And that the Church in Communion with the sea of Rome, and she alone, has had a continued suc∣cession.

From which the Conclusion followes clearly. Therefore the Church in Communion with the sea of Rome is the only true Church of Christ. You see this reason is neither new, nor obscure: For it was vsed by the holy Fa∣thers, as a most clear, short and convincing way, whereby the true Church may be known. If it was so easy & strong then, it is no lesse, but rather more evident & forcible now. If the succession of the Church for 3. or 4. hun∣dred years, and of 30. or 40. Roman Bishops was esteem'd so strong by the Fathers, to pro∣ve the true Church: how much more forcible is the successiō of the Church, for above 1600. yeares, & above 2. hundred Bishops of the sea Apostolique, to prove the same truth? Nothing could be said by the Anciēt Fathers, in confirma¦tiō of this truth, which may not as iustly be said now: and nothing can be pretended now by the present Enemies of the Roman Church, against it, which might not have been as iustly pretēded by her ancient enemies, the old heretiques. Neither is there any way to shun the force of this Demonstration, but either by affirming, that the true Church had perished (which is detestable blasphemy) or by saying she be∣came invisible, which we have shown above to be a grosse falshood, and desperate folly.

This whole matter may be further illustra∣ted and confirmed. There is nothing more clear in the Scripture, then that the Church of Christ must still endure, or have a continued succession of people, professing the same faith,

which was taught by the Apostles. Now, it is no lesse clear, & it is granted by all Christians, that the Church in Communion with Rome had once this succession, and professed the true faith, at least for some years, after the Apostles. Therefore, either she holds still the same true faith, and so has a continued succes∣sion from the Apostles; or else, if she hath fai∣l'd, some other Church hath succeeded, and kept the true faith in all generations thereafter. But no other Church can be assigned, which hath still succeeded. Therefore, either the Church in Communion with the sea of Rome, which was once vndenyably the true Church, is still the true Church, and hath ever professed the same true faith, or else the true Church of Christ, which ought to be perpetual and visible, hath perished out of the earth, for many ages: which no Christian can affirm. Moreover, as the true Church is clearly & easily known, by her continued succession; so all false Churches are evidently discoverd, by their new rising.* 1.416 The most ancient Father, S. Ire∣naeus, having reckon'd out the succession of the Roman Bishops, by which he shewes the succession of the true Church, from the Apo∣stles, saith: Haec est plenissima ostensio, &c. This is a most full demonstration, that the same lively faith, taugth by the Apostles, is still, even vnto this day, conserved in the Church, and truly delivered. And by this, saith he, Confundimus omnes, &c. We confound all Novelists, who cannot shew such a succession. S. Hierom saith, that any

new Church, which hath not still endured from the Apostles, is not the Church of Christ,* 1.417 but the Synagogue of Anti-Christ. For, by this same very thing, that they are afterwards establis∣hed, they shew themselves to be those, whom the Apostle foretold were to arise. Tertullian affir∣meth, that Heretiques are discovered by their age alone. Again: To cut short all disputes with Heretiques, we vse to prescribe them by their pos∣teriority or after rising.

But it is worth the observation, and much illustrates this matter, to consider, what two contrary things the Scripture foretells of the true Church, and of heresies. Of the Church, it shewes, that it hath no later beginning then Christ, who founded it; and can end no sooner, then the consummation of the world. Both these truths are contain'd in that one sen∣tence of Christ, to speak of no more.* 1.418 Vpon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Of sects & heresies it shewes iust the contrary. 1. They are not so ancient as Christ, but arise afterwards, as S. Paul foretold the Ephesians, saying: I know,* 1.419 that after my departure, there will ravening Wolves enter in among you &c. and of your selves shall arise men, speaking perverse things.* 1.420 S. Iohn saith: They went out from vs. 2. As they rise lately, so they quickly decay, S. Paul saith:* 1.421 They shall prosper no further. The first two are verifyed clearly in the Catholique Church, which, being founded by Christ, hath conti∣nued to this day without interruption, and so shall continue vnto the end of the world. For

this, being the work of God, cannot be dissol∣ved, as Gamaliel wisely or rather divinly fore∣told. The other two are no lesse verifyed of all false Churches. For they began of late in se∣veral ages, after the Apostles: and, albeit they seem'd sometimes firmly established, yet, being the works & devices of men, they were ever at length dissolved. The first point, to witt late rising, is verifyd of the Protestant Chur∣ches, which were not known before Luther; & their dissensions, changes, divisions and subdi∣visions, which every day encrease, and for which there is no remedie, shew, that they cannot endure for ever. Is it not then truly ad∣mirable, that the heresies, which have risen against the Church, being so many in number (for two hundred Heresiarchs, are reckoned to have been before Luther & some of thē vpheld by great earthly power, & maintain'd by di∣verse svbtile and crafty wits, covered with the mask of truth, and promoved with furious zeal) yet never one of them hath endured? And vpon the other part, the Catholique Church, being all alone, so ancient, so much hated, so much calumniated and persecuted by them all, hath stood out against them all, and en∣dures vnto this day? Is it not very conside∣rable, that all heretiques, having intended by slight and might the destruction of the Catho∣lique Church, which some of them have most cruelly persecuted, and the building of their own new respective Churches; yet they could never get either of these two designs accom∣plished.

For the Catholique Church, being founded by Christ vpon a rock, cannot be shaken. Whereas these new Churches, albeit sometimes they seem to be brought neer vnto some setling & perfection; yet before they can get on the Ca∣pestone (for which the Presbyterians did often in vain cry) fall ever into ruin and confusion. Who will consider these things, & may not see the finger of God in protection of his Church, & the clear performāce of all his promises vnto her? And vpon the other part, who may not see an evident curse fall vpon all heresies, which like Babels, can never be perfited, & being built vpon the sand, cannot long stand, or being like adulterous plants, cannot take deep rootes?

But, that you may discern the better, how the true Church is so easily known, by her continued succession; & all false Churches are so clearly discovered by their new rising; I pray yow conceive in your mind these follo∣wing representations, which are grounded in the Scriptures & holy Fathers. 1. Represent vn∣to your self the true Church as a great River, passing from one end of the earth to the other, running continually from the time of Christ & his Apostles, through all generations. And such is the Church in Communion with the sea of Rome, having succession of Pastors & people in all ages, like a river ever running, in which all the Saints, as living waters, have flowed vnto paradise. But heretical Churches are like little brooks, or rainfloods, not alway's running, but rising at several times, after stormes &

tempests, not compassing the earth, but over∣flowing some petty corners of it, making for a short space a great noise, thereafter, running more calmly, and in end clean dried vp. S. Augustin makes this comparison, for on these words of the psalme.* 1.422 They shall come to nothing as water running down, he saith: Let not, my bre∣thren, some floods which are called Torrents af∣fright you: the water runs down for a time, it ma∣kes a great noise, it shall soon cease, they can∣not endure long Many heresies are now dead they have run in their streams, as much as they could, they have run out, their waters are dried vp, scar∣cely the memorie of them is to be found &c. Thus he. You know that the Covenant did not al∣ways run, and after it began how furiously it ran, what great noise it made, how it carried down almost all with it. Now you see it runs mo¦re calmly: it is almost run out and the great noise of it, is past.

Again, the true Church is like the Sun, ever shining in all generations, according to that of the Psalmist, He hath put his tabernacle in the Sun:* 1.423 which S. Augustin expounds thus: He hath placed his Church in manifestation. And such has been the Church in Communion with the sea of Rome, always visible and ever shining, since the time of Christ. But all heresies are like Comets, which arise at certain times, & being made vp of terrestrial vapours, make a great blaze so long as their grosse matter lasts; but so soō as that failes, they quickly evanish. So indeed are heresies made vp for the most part of tēpo∣rary interests, which make thē, for a short time,

give a great glister; but so soon as the grosse matter of these interests failes, as it cannot laste long, then they begin to shine dimnly: then they languish, & in end evanish. How great a light was the Covenant esteem'd? What a great lustre did it make in great Britain, so long as the interests concurred? But these soon fai∣ling, new lights have risen, which have disco∣covered the former to be meerly humane, have made it to languish, and in a word have shown it to be a Comet.

Moreover, the Church of Christ is frequen∣tly compared by the holy Fathers, to a ship strongly built, and wisely governed by Christ; which ever since his time hath sailed through the seas of this world; and notwithstanding the many tempests, which the Divel and wic∣ked men have raisd against her; yet she riding out them all, hath carried in her all these, who have been saved, vnto the port of Salvation. She has been many wayes tossed, but could never be overwhelmed. For,* 1.424 as S. Ambrose saith ex∣cellently: She cannot suffer ship shipwrak, because Christ is exalted on the mast, that is on the Crosse, the Father sits pilot in the sterne, and the holy Ghost preserves the fore-Castle. Such is the Church in Communion with the sea of Rome, as we have seen. But heretical Churches are like little boats, neither made, nor governed by Christ, but by new Sect-Masters, who foo∣lishly abandoned the ship of the Church. Who promise a safe and more easy passage to heaven, whereby many are rashly drawn, to entrust

their soules to them. But within a short space, the stormes arising, these new vnskifull Pilots, being of contrary iudgments, fall into horrible dissensions, and their passingers into bloody factions, to the destruction of one another. So that in end, these boats, which came but lately vpon the sea of this world, which intended fondly to sink the Church, are das't against rocks & split in pieces: and all these miserable soules, which remain'd in them, are over∣whelm'd with waters.* 1.425 For whosoever, saith S. Hierom, is not in the ark of Noah shall perish by the raging deluge. And thus all false Chur∣ches, after a little time, have perished.

Lastly the Church is compared by Christ vnto a house built by himself, as by a wise Master-builder, vpon •• rock, which must stand for ever. And such is the Church in Communion with the sea of Rome, which hath stood vnto this day. But heresies are new houses, built, by foo∣lish sect•• masters; not founded vpon a rock, but vpon the sand; which are soon shaken & over∣thrown.

Wherefore to conclude, I hope now through Gods goodnesse, that you, having seen such evidence for the truth of the Roman Catholi∣que Church, will make your self a domestique of this heavenly house, which can never be shaken: that you will enter into this ship, which can suffer no shipwrack: that you will walk in this light, that can never be eclipsed; and that you will runn this channel, wherein all the Saints have pas't vnto paradise. To this purpose spake the Catholique.

After I had considered diligently all these things, which were given me thereafter in writing, and had seen, that this reason was so well grounded in the Scriptures, and was vsed by the holy Fathers, as a most clear and convincing way to prove the true Church; I was much satisfyed therewith. But yet I desi∣red the Catholique, if he would fully satisfie me, to shew, that the Roman Catholique Church had never changed her doctrin, and had still kept that same which she had received from the Apostles. For I doubt not, said I, but you know, that the Ministers accuse her to have fallen from the Apostolique doctrin, in many points, and to have brought in many corruptions. Wherevnto he answered, that, by proving the Church in Communion with the sea of Rome, and her alone to have had a continued succession, he had proved clearly, her to be the true Church: and so consequently to haue stil retained the same doctrin, which was taught by Christ and the Apostles: for change of doctrin changeth the Church, and so the doctrin being changed, the Church had not continued. But, said he, for your more full satisfaction, to take away all doubts, and to dispell the mists of these calumnies, I will prove the same truth by another special way.

CHAP. XXXI. That the Church in communion with the sea of Rome, holds now, and has still held the same doctrin, which was taught first by Christ & his Apostles.

ALBEIT this truth hath been sufficien∣tly proved, by the continued succession of the Church; yet now, it shall be demons∣trated by the special manner, whereby this Church has received and still conveighed all her doctrin: and, for more clearnesse, I frame my reason thus.

That Church, which in all ages believed nothing, as the doctrin of Christ & his Apostles, but what she received from her immediat Ancestors, as their doctrin; holds, and hath still held the true doctrin of Christ & his Apo∣stles.

But the Church in Communion with the sea of Rome, & she alone, hath in all ages received all her doctrin after that manner.

Therefore she alone holds, and hath still held the true doctrin, which was first taught by Christ & his Apostles: and consequently she has never changed the doctrin, which she first received.

The Maior is proved after this manner. That Church, which in all ages believes the same doctrin, which Christ and his Apostles

taught in the first age, hath ever held the true doctrin of Christ & his Apostles. But that Church which believes nothing, as Christs doctrin, but what she received as such, from her immediat Ancestors, believes, in all ages, the same doctrin, which Christ & his Apostles taught in the first age. Therefore that Church, which receives so her doctrin, has ever held the same doctrin, which was taught at first by Christ & his Apostles. The reason of this vnifor∣mity of doctrin in all ages, is, because that prin∣ciple of receiving no doctrin, as the doctrin of Christ & his Apostles, but what was delivered immediatly by the Christians of the preceeding age, makes the doctrin of every following age, the same, with the doctrin of the preceeding age; and so makes the doctrin of all after ages, the same with the doctrin of the first age. For, suppose that the Church, now in this age re∣lies vpon that principle, to believe nothing as Christs doctrin, but what her predecessors of the 15. age taught her, to be his doctrin: it is evident, that the doctrin of these two ages will be the same. And the Church of the 15. age, relying vpon the same principle, must hold the same doctrin, which the Church of the 14. age held; and so vpward, the doctrin of the third age will be the same, with that of the second, and the doctrin of the second, will be the same, with that of the first; and so, if this principle has been carefully observed in all ages, the doc∣trin of all ages will be the same, with the doc∣trin of the first age, which is the doctrin of

Christ and of his Apostles. The Maior then is evident.

The Minor is proved thus. The Church now in Communion with the Roman sea, holds in this age, that principle. For she professeth to believe nothing contrary to the doctrin of her immediat Ancestors, and presumes to add no∣thing as Christs doctrin, vnto the doctrin of her Ancestors. Therefore she professeth to be∣lieve nothing, as Christs doctrin, but what she received as such, from her immediat An∣cestors. If the Church of the present age pro∣fesseth so, as it is evident she doth; then the Church of the fifteenth age behoved to make the like profession, or else the Church of this age could not make it. For so many persons, as are now in Communion with the Roman Church, cannot concurre, to make so noto∣rious & sensible a lye, as to say they professe nothing, but what was profes't and taught by their immediat Ancestors; if these, of the 15. age, had not made truly such a profession of the same doctrines. And, for the same reason, these of the 15. age could not make that profes∣sion, and teach it vnto this age, vnlesse the 14. age had done the same, and so you may ascend vpward even vnto the first age. Therefore the Church professing, to observe this principle, now in this age, hath profes't it alwayes. If she has profes't it alwayes, she has also observ'd it alwayes, for the same reason: because so ma∣ny Nations, as are in Commmunion of the Roman Church, cannnot make so notorious a

lye, as to say they believe nothing, but what they received from their immediat Ancestors, if they believed any thing else, as Christs doc∣trin, which they had not received. Therefore, seing they affirm, in all ages, even vnto the first, that they received all their doctrin, from their Ancestors, it must be true that they did receive it all, and it must be also true, that, with the other doctrine, they received and obser∣ved this principle: To believe nothing, but what has been delivered by their immediat Ancestors: For this is, as it were, the rule & ground of all particular doctrines So that, by proving, that the present Church in Communion with the sea of Rome, professeth to observe this prin∣ciple; it's proved she profes't it alwayes, and by proving, that she profest it alwayes it is shown, she has observ'd it alwayes: and this principle been alwayes profes't and observed, it has been ever delivered, with the rest of the doctrin, as the main ground, whereon the Church hath relyed; by which men may come vnto the sure knowledge & possession of the true doctrin, which was taught by Christ & his Apostles. So that, if the whole Church hath not made a notorious, sensible lye, in one age, to damn themselves and their whole pos∣terity, she hath ever received all her doctrin from her immediat Ancestors, and so it will be true, that the doctrin of all ages is the same with the doctrin of the first age, which is the true do∣ctrin of Christ & his Apostles. Now it rests to be shown, that this Church alone observes the

former principle: which is easily done. For, if there had been any other society of Christians, which had constantly kept that principle, it had also kep't the same doctrin, which the Ro∣man Church keeps, as is evident, by what hath been said. Secondly, No other Churches, and especially the Protestant, can so much as pretend to keep this principle. For they are so far from professing, to receive all their doc∣trines, from their immediat Ancestors; that, at their first rising, they accuse their Ancestors, and the Church, in their time, of Errors; whe∣reof they professe themselves to be Reformers, and that not by doctrin, which they had re∣ceived immediatly from others; but what they had received, or pick't out from the Scriptures, by their private collections; which has been the ordinary custom of all heretiques. And this is evident in Protestants, who do acknow∣ledge, that they have their doctrin, not by the testimony of the age immediatly preceeding Luther; but from him, who opposed the whole Church, in his time, and for many ages before him; which he pretended to reform, by the Scriptures.

The whole strength of this proof is groun∣ded vpon this manifest truth, that a full report, from whole worlds of fathers, to whole worlds of Sons, of such things, as they heard and saw, is altogether infallible; since sensible evidence, in a world of eye witnesses, vna∣nimously concurring, is altogether infallible. And such is the test mony of the whole Church

in every age, for her doctrin: that it is the very same which was delivered by Christ and his, Apostles; and therefore it was truly delivered by them. For neither can the Church be mis∣taken, in this testimonie: since whole Nations cannot be deceived, in what is told them, not once, or twice, but what is dayly beaten into their ears, what they are bred with, and what they see dayly with their eyes, or else we may say the whole world erres, in iudging white from black. Neither can all the Christians in the world, dispersed through so many Na∣tions, malitiously conspire to make so noto∣rious a lie, as to say they heard this taught, and saw it practised, if they had not seen and heard it: For that were to testify a lie, in a matter, subiect to sense, against their greatest interest, to witt the Salvation of themselvs & of their posterity. If it be impossible that all the persons of a great Citie, and much more of a whole Nation should think & affirm, that they saw and heard such things, which truly they nei∣ther saw nor heard. How much more is it im∣possible, that all Christians, Cities & Nations should think and affirm, they were instructed in such doctrines, & saw such practices: if it were not really true, that they had received these doctrines, & seen these practices?

Hence it remaines evident, that this conti∣nued testimony of so many Christian, in eve∣ry generation, is a most sure & infallible way, to attayn vnto the certain knowledge of what doctrin Christ & his Apostles taught: and that

the Catholique Church, by her constant trea∣ding this way, has still held the same true doc∣trin, which she first received, and conse∣quently has never changed her doctrin nor brought in corruption, as the Ministers do ca∣luminate. And therefore their pretended Re∣formation, having no other ground but this calumnie, is a groundlesse imagination, and a destruction of Christs true doctrin.

But, that the truth of this whole matter may yet more fully appear, I will shew you briefly, that this constant testimony is the only sure & infallible way, to attayn vnto the cer∣tain knowledge & possession of our Saviours true doctrin: that it is also most easy & vniuer∣sal, for all sorts of persons: that the holy Fa∣thers & primitive Church did follow it: and that all Errors & heresies have been clearly confuted by it.

We have already show'n, that this testimo∣ny is a sure & infallible means: now, that it is only sure & infallible,* 1.426 is shewed. For, if there were any other, it would be the Scripture, as Protestants pretend. But that cannot be. 1. Be∣cause we cannot beleeve the Scripture, wit∣hout the testimony of the Church, as S. Au∣gustin clearly avoucheth. 2. Albeit we could know it without that testimony, yet, by the Scripture, we cannot know the whole doc∣trin of Christ, especially since the Scripture it self saith:* 1.427 Hold fast the Tradition. Thirdly & principally, Albeit the Scripture contain'd the whole doctrin of Christ; yet, how shall I

know assuredly, by the letter of the Scripture, the true sense of it, without which I have not the true doctrin of Christ. Yea, I may corrupt the Scripture, or follow those, who corrupt it; as S. Peter shewes many do, vnto their own perdition. Here many, if not all Protes∣tants are perplexed, to show, how by the Scripture, the true sense of it may be had. So∣me say that the Scripture is clear in all things necessary to Salvation, so that every man may easily vnderstand them. Others think that the Scripture is not so clear, but an Interpreter is necessary. But they are divyded in assigning this Interpreter. Some say the Scripture, in one place, expounds it self, in another: Others as∣sign the private Spirit; and last of all, some assign for an Interpreter, every mans natural reason. But all these are false & frivolous pre∣tences. For first, they could never shew, what these necessary points are. Besides, this is an open confession, that, by the Scripture, we cannot know assuredly our Saviours doctrin in these points, which they call, not necessary. Then, is not the true belief of the Sacrament necessary for the Church? and yet we see, what contrary glosses the Lutherans & Calvinists make, on our Saviours clear words. Lastly, if there needed no Interpreter, for things neces∣sary; every one although vnlearned, who could but read, might pick out what are neces∣sary, which troubles the most learned heads among them to find out; and these, who could not read, behoved to pin their implicit faith at

at other mens sleeves. Now, what confusion would this make? what vncertainty would there be, in this case, of our Saviours doctrin? And how contrary are these things to truth and experien∣ce, to Protestants principles & practices? So it is evident, that by the Scripture alone, we cannot come to the sure and infallible know∣ledge of our Saviours doctrin. Neither can we attayn to it, by the Scripture, assisted by any In∣terpreter, which Protestāts assign. For it is false, that the Scripture expounds it self, it being ob∣scure in many places, which are not interpreted by others more plaine, as may appear, besides other reasons, by the Protestants dissenssions in many points. The conference of places, stu∣dy, and the like, which some require to be ioyn'd with the Scripture, are but humane helps, subiect to error, and not infallible. Then for the private Spirit, it can give vs as little as∣surance of the sense, as it can of the letter of the Scripture. We see what contrariety is among those, who all equally lay claim to it. Neither is the last Interpreter, to witt every mans reason [assigned by M. Chilingworth, the last peaceable Refiner of the English Church) any white better, but rather worse. For, besids that this opinion makes humane reason, & not the divine authority, the main ground of our faith, which is a dangerous errour; it is so far from bringing men vnto the sure knowledge of what our Saviour taught, that it professeth no more but a moral certainty, for the truth of the whole Christian religion; and leaves all

particular doctrines, to be pickt out of the Scriptures, according to the diversity of mens particular reasons. And so, diuerse men, accor∣ding to the diversity of their reasons, collect from the Scriptures, opposite doctrines. For what some think reasonable & accept, others esteem vnreasonable, and reiect as is evident in the Socinians, who deny the divinity of Christ principally vpon this ground, because it chokes their reason: as the Calvinists also chiefly for the same reason, deny the reall pre∣sence. So that this Interpreter brings as great vncertainty, to know our Saviours doctrin, as any other. And therefore, it remaines evident, that the Scripture even assisted by any Inter∣preter which Protestants can assigne, & much more the Scripture alone, is not a sure & infal∣lible means for this end; and consequently the testimony of the Church is the only sure & in∣fallible means.

But here I did enquire of the Catholique. If the Scriptures were as cleer every where, as S. Augustin affirmes, they are concerning the Church, where he saith: they need no Inter∣preter, might they not then give vs vndoubted assurance of our Saviours doctrin? To which he answered: That although the Scripture were never so clear, and as evident in every sentence, as words can be written; Yet, because these words may be diversly vnderstood, & taken in∣different senses, they cannot be so sure & in∣fallible away to certifie vs, what was our Sa∣viours doctrin, as the living words & testimo∣ny

of the whole Church, which received the true doctrin and the sense, together with the letter of the Scriptures, which she hath cons∣tantly transmitted vnto posterity. This is evident in a very principal point of the Christian religiō to witt, the holy Sacrament. What words can be more clear then these of our Saviour: This is my body which shall be given for you, &c And yet, vpon these clear words, there are reckoned a∣bout two hundred diverse interpretations, since Protestāts arose? How then should a man, amōg such variety of senses come vnto the true sense & be sure, that he has attayn'd vnto it, in which only Christs true doctrin consists? The∣refore it is evident, in this case, that the writ∣ten word cannot do it, and this only the Church can perform, which has conserved, both the letter and sense of the Scriptures, from corruptions. If then the Scriptures, although they were written in most cleer words, cannot certifie vs fully of the true sense of our Saviours doctrin: how much lesse can they, as they are now, being in many places hard and obscure? These Protestants, who reiect all but Scripture, would make Christ to have been the most im∣prudent Lawgiver, that ever was in ths world, to have left vs only a written law, or a book in many things very obscure, and expose it to eve∣ry man, to scance vpon, without assigning an Interpreter, who could give vs full assurance of the true sense of it. That way would never bring men to the sure knowledge of Christs doctrine, and the true sense of his law: but

would make all things vncertain, and bring in a confusion more worthy of Babel, then of the house of God. But his divine wisdom hath otherwise provyded.

We haue seen then, said the Catholique, that the testimony of all Christians in every genera∣tion, is the only sure & infallible way: Now we shall see that it is the most easy & vniversal way, to attayn vnto the certain knowledge of what Christ & his Apostles taught. For what is more easy, then to hear a continued testimo∣ny of Pastors & people, who constantly depo∣se, that this is the doctrin, which they have receiued from their Forefathers? what can be more easy, then to open our eys and see the practise of all Christians? No man of sense will deny, if the true doctrin can be surely known hereby, but it is a much mor easy way, then by the Scriptures, which are so hard and ob∣scure; or by any written word, although never so cleer. And it is also evident, that it is more vniversal: for the Scriptures are only for those, who can read, and vnderstand them: but this serues for all sortes of persons: learned, or vn∣learned, these, who can read, or cannot, and even for the meanest capacities. This was cer∣tainly the meaning of God, when he promi∣sed vnder the Gospel a direct way, so that fooles cannot erre by it. Therefore, this being so sure,* 1.428 so easy, so vniversal a way, the wisdom & goodnesse of God, who disposeth all things wisely and sweetely, has made vse of it. This may be yet further illustrated and confirmed,

by the manner how the Christian religion was planted. First the Apostles stayd long in one place, that they might diligently inculcate the Christian doctrin, as S. Paul said to the Ephe∣sians:* 1.429 I haue not spared to declare vnto you all the Counsell of God &c. For three years, night & day, I ceased not with teares to warn every one, &c. Secondly, the Apostles earnestly exhorted their disciples, to keep carefully, what they had received:* 1.430 to entrust it vnto faithfull wit∣nesses, and not to admit any doctrin contrary to that, which they had received, not although an Angel from heauen should preach otherwi∣se. Thirdly, The mysteries of the Christian religion were not only sensibly taught to the eare; but they were rendred visible to the sight by the ••ractise & devotion of the Christian people. Fourthly, The Christian religion was planted at once, in many diverse nations.

Therefore, it was easy for the primitive Christians to know, what was the Apostles doctrin, which they had heard so often beaten into their eares, which they saw practised with their eys, and which was profest through out the whole word: and great reason had they not to receive any doctrin contrary to it. It was also easy for them to discern & hold out all new & false doctrins. For, although some would pretend never so much the Scriptures against the publique doctrin of the Church; yet the ancient Christians knowing certainly, that the Scriptures are not contrary to the doctrin, which the Apostles had clearly delivered by

lively voice, and publickly establish'd in the Church: they vnderstood the Scriptures, ac∣cording to the clear rule of faith left by the A∣postles. They did not, vpon pretext of contra∣riety between the doctrin of the Church & the Scriptures, abandon the Apostles clear, lively doctrin, vniversally establisht; and follow a new glosse of their writings contrary to it; which had been indeed grosse follie, and direc∣tly against the Apostles command in the Scri∣ptures, as has been shown. And, as this was an easy way, in the first ages, to know the truth and to discern error; so it has been, in the suc∣ceeding ages. For the rule of faith ought to be immoveable, as the faith it self is.

God himself promiseth the continuance of this easy way, when he said by Esay:* 1.431 My Spi∣rit, which is in thee, and my words, which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, and out of the mouth of thy seed, for ever. And again. Vpon thy walls, ô Ierusalem,* 1.432 I haue appointed watchmen, all the day & all the night, &c. The Scripture directs vs to this way.* 1.433 Re∣member the dayes of old, saith Moyses, Consi∣der euery Generation, ask thy Father, and he will show thee, thy Elders & they will tell thee. God himself saith in Ieremy;* 1.434 stand you in the ways, and see, and ask for the old Paths, where is the good way, and walk therein: and you shall find Rest to your soules. Because many leave this old & good way, we see they change many wayes, and can find no rest, and never will, vntill they return again to the old & good way,

which they foolishly abandoned. Christ di∣rects vs to this way,* 1.435 when he saith; Tell the Church, and who heares you, heares me, &c.

The holy Fathers followed this way. S. Au∣gustin shewes, that this is the way, to put an end to all doubts, to attayn vnto the truth, & to be at rest: which he knew by his own expe∣rience.* 1.436 If thou seeme to thy self, saith he, to have been already sufficiently tossed, and would make an end of these labours & paines. Follow the way of the Catholique Disciplin, which has proceeded from Christ, by his Apostles, even vnto vs; and from hence shall descend, and be conveighed vnto posterity. Tertullian affirmes, there is no other way to know the Apostles doctrin.* 1.437 What the Apostles taught, saith he, I will prescribe, ought no otherwise to be proued, then by these Churches, which the Apostles founded. And that we must begin with the testimony of the Church, in the time wherein we live, to ascend by every generation, vnto the ancient Church; and so to the very mouth of Christ & his Apostles, the same Tertullian shewes, who makes this lad∣der of belief,* 1.438 What I believe, I receiued from the present Church, the present Church from the Primitive, the Primitive from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ, &c. According to this tradition, the holy Fathers did vnderstand the Scriptures.* 1.439 S. Vincentius Lyrinensis shewes the necessity of this rule, to avoid the turnings and windings of diverse errors, where he cites and commends the following words of S. Am∣brose. Let vs therefore keep the precepts of our

Elders, and not with temerity of rude presumption violate those seals, descending to vs by inheritan∣ce. To the same purpose Origen writeth. In our vnderstanding, saith he, of the Scriptures,* 1.440 we must not depart from the first Ecclesiasticall Tradition, nor believe otherwise, but as the Church of God has, by succession, delivered vn∣to vs.

By this way also all heresies have been clear∣ly discovered & condemned.* 1.441 Theodoret ex∣presly witnesseth, that the heresy of Arius was condemned by the doctrin not written, which had been always profest in the Church. For there was no end by Scripture, the Arians pre∣tending that, as well as the Catholiques. Ter∣tullian saith, There is no good got by disputing, out of the texts of Scripture. But, either to make a man sick, or mad. And the reason is, because, albeit you would bring never so clear Scriptu∣res, the heretiques will expound all according to their pleasures, and they never faile also to bring Scriptures for themselvs: so that the vi∣ctory is vncertain, or not so evident: but by the constant belief of the Church, all hereti∣ques are clearly confounded. S. Athanasius by this means confounds the Arians. Behold, saith he, we have proved the succession of our doctrin, delivered from hand to hand, from father to son: But as for yov, ô new Iewes and Sons of Caiphas;* 1.442 what progenitors can you name for your selvs? By this means also, the Error of rebaptizing tho∣se, who had been baptized by heretiques, was refuted; and the custom of the Church, to the

contrary, prevailed over all S. Cyprians rea∣sons, and many authorities collected from the Scriptures.* 1.443 As yet, saith S. Augustin, there had been no General Councell assembled, in that be∣half: but the world was held in, by the strength of Custom, which was opposed to those, who would bring in that novelty. S. Stephen Pope and Mar∣tyr wrote to S. Cyprian in these words: Nihil innovetur, nisi quod traditum est, Let nothing be changed, nothing received, but what has been delivered.

Herevpon, I proposed this difficulty, that some things were believed, after the definition of a General Councel, which were not belie∣ved before. Therefore, it would seem, that the Church has not always relied on that prin∣ciple, to believe nothing, but what was deli∣vered by the constant testimony of their imme∣diat Ancestors. To which the Catholique an∣swered, that the clearing of this difficulty would manifest the strength & evidence of the former proof. First, said he, it is evident, that the principal, if not all the points maintain'd by Catholiques, and now questioned by Pro∣testants, did ever appear externally in the pro∣fession & practise of the whole Church, and were not defined by anterior Councils. The∣refore, according to S. Augustins rule, they are Apostolical.* 1.444 For that, saith he, which the vniversal Church doth hold, and was not institu∣ted by Councels, but has been still retayn'd in the Church, is most iustly believed to have descended from no other authority, than from the Apostles.

Therefore, this obiection makes nothing for the benefit of Protestants, who condemn ma∣ny things, which were publickly & vniver∣sally profest and practised in the Church, be∣fore they were by any Councils authorized. Secondly, These points of faith, which were determined by General Councels, were not defin'd as new doctrines. For either they were generally & constantly believed by the whole Church, till some heretiques began violently to oppose them: or there were some points not so generally believed & practised, throughout the whole Church: but some Catholiques did, with submission to the iudgmēt of the Church, doubt of them. Now, it is evident, that the Church, in the points of the first kind, belie∣ved the same thing, after the definition of a General Council, which she believed before; as we haue seen out of S. Athanasius, concer∣ning the Divinity of Christ, which was belie∣ved; as well before the great Councell of Nice, as after it. Neither were these other points, of which some Catholiques doubted, defin'd as new doctrines: but the whole Church assem∣bled, in a General Council, after due exami∣nation, having found these points to have des∣cended, by sufficient & approued testimony, or tradition; and being assisted by Christ, the head of his body, which is the Church, & the holy Ghost, the Guide of it (according to our Sauiours promise, & special necessary provi∣dence over his Church) proposeth them to be vniversally believed, without any more doubt.

And whosoever, after this definition of the vniversal Church, & of her supreme authority, call these things any more in question, become heretiques, & are cast out of the Church. But all good Christians, who had any doubt befo∣re, for want of the Churches proposeall, hav∣ing now got that, do acquiesce, and are put out of all doubt: for to oppose the whole Church,* 1.445 as S. Augustin observes, would be most insolent madnesse. This whole matter is clear, in the question of rebaptization. For it was decided by a General Council, according to the custom or Tradition, which was oppo∣sed before the Council to S. Cyprian. There∣fore, the same thing was a matter of faith, & was believed before the Council; although so∣me did not know it to be such, till the Church did interpose her supreme authority, & decla∣re it to be so. S. Augustin shewes how much himself relies on this iudgment, and that S. Cyprian would have yielded to it, if in his time it had been interposed.* 1.446 Neither durst we, saith he, affirm any such thing, if we were not well grounded vpon the most vniforme authority of the vniversal Church; vnto which vndoub∣tedly S. Cyprian also would have yielded; if in his time the truth of the question had been cleared, & declared, & by a General Council established. Vpon the other part, these, who after the de∣termination of the Council, maintaynd the same error of rebaptization, were esteemed Heretiques:* 1.447 which made S. Vincentius cry out thus. O admirable change, the Authors of

one self opinion are called Catholiques, and the followers of it, Heretiques! And the reason of the difference is; because, as S. Augustin obser∣ves, An erring disputer may be suffered, in other questions not diligently tried, not as yet strengthned by the full authority of the Church:* 1.448 in these mat∣ters, an error may be suffered. But, after the iudg∣ment of the Vniversal Church, which is the highest authority on earth, has past, and con∣demned any error: then it is no more to be suffered: then these, who will not hear the Church, are, by our Sauiours command, to be esteem'd as Heathens & Publicans. By which, the difficulty proposed is clearly an∣swered, & the proof stands good: That the Church has alwayes believed that, which from father to son has been delivered; and amongst all doctrines which have been deli∣vered, there is none descended more clearly, then the irrefragable testimony of the Catho∣lique Church: either as she is dilated through∣out the whole world, or as she is assembled in a General Council: whereof, the continual practice of the Church from the beginning, is a superabvndant evidence.

From this truth, we will briefly deduce some Corollaries. 1. Since we neither ought, nor can arrive vnto the certain knowledge of our Saviours and his Apostles doctrin; but by the testimony of the Catholique Church: this Testimony is not only necessary, for the know∣ledge of the doctrines not written; but also of these, which are written: because the true

sense of these cannot be infallibly known, but by this lively rule of faith. 2. The doctrines not written, which have been still believed and profest in the Church, are truly Apostoli∣cal & divine; as well as these doctrines, which are contain'd in Scripture: because we have the same infallible assurance for them, that we have for these. 3. Since the Testimony and authority of the Vniversal Church is the only means, by which we can be fully assured, what was the doctrin of Christ, and therefore is the formal motive of our belief: it followes, that, what ever the Church testifieth to be revealed by God, has been truly revealed, and ought to be beleeued; whither the matters themselvs be great, or small. And hereby, the Prote∣stants distinction of points fundamental & not fundamental is quite overturned, and shewed to be impertinent. Because neither of these points are beleeved for themselv's, but for the divine authority, revealing them; and this can∣not be known, but by the testimony of the Church, & by her authority proposing them. Therefor, the formal motive being the same for all points, they are all alike to be beleeved, when they are by the same authority of the Church sufficiently proposed: and in that case, to deny any thing, albeit never so small for the matter, is a fundamental error, and clearly op∣posite to the formal motive of our faith; for which all the points of faith are beleeved: and whosoever disbeleeves any thing at all so pro∣posed, denies faith to God, & reiects his au∣thority.

4. He, who contemnes, or neglects the testimony of the Catholique Church, in the time, wherein he lives, (which is a testi∣mony beyond all exception, & most worthie of credit) can never come to the full & certain knowledge of our Saviours doctrin. For that is, as it were, the first step of the ladder, vpon which, if one set not first his foote, he cannot arrive vnto the top, that is vnto the first age, wherein Christ & his Apostles lived. 5. From this principle flow all the notes of the Church. As first her Vnity in all points of faith. For, if she has alway's beleeved nothing, but what was received from hand to hand, from father, to son, by the testimony of the Christian world: and all persons within her submit to the same supreme authority of one chief Pastor, & of General Councels; the Church cannot but have Vnity in all points of faith. Secondly, the holynesse of the Church flowes also from the foresaid principle. For, if the doctrin of the Church was holy at the be∣ginning (as all Christians must confesse, and the doctrin by this continual testimony, re∣maines ever the same, as hath been proved) Then the Church is still holy, in all her doc∣trines, which all tend to holynesse. Thirdly, the Church is also Catholique. For, it is by the testimony of Christians in all Nations, that the doctrin of Christ is infallibly conueighed vnto vs. Lastly, the Church is Apostolique. For it is by her continued testimony, that the doctrin of Christ is known in all generations; and the∣refore

she must have a continued succession from the Apostles.

Wherefore, to conclude; I hope; that I have proved now sufficiently the Church in Com∣munion with the Sea of Rome, by receiving all her doctrines in all ages, from her forefa∣thers, has ever kept the same doctrin, which she first received from Christ & his Apostles, & never changed it: and therefore, as she was; so she still is the spouse of Christ, being a frui∣tefull Mother, & yet a chast Virgin, never par∣ting from Christ: for she could never be drawn from the doctrin, which she once received from him, neither by the bloody persecutions of the Pagans, nor by the deceitfull pretexts and allurements of heretiques: yea, she never did dissemble the least Error in her deerest children,* 1.449 but, as S. Iude exhorts, has ever con∣tended earnestly for the faith once delivered to the Saints. She has indeed been ever falsly accused, as an Adulteresse, by all heresies, which are themselvs, as we have seen before, harlots and strumpets: But she remaines pure & chast. Adulterari non potest,* 1.450 saith S. Cyprian Sponsa Christi, &c. The Spouse of Christ cannot become an adulteresse, she is chast & incorrupt. What she once knew of Christ, she still holds, and never at all parts from him; as he never parts from his Church, to which he said: I will es∣pouse thee to my self for ever. S. Paul speaking of the great love of Christ to his Church, saith: that he delivered himself for it,* 1.451 that he might sanctifie it, and present it vnto himself a glorious

Church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing &c. And of the indissolvible coniunction between Christ and his Church, he saith: This is a great Sacrament,* 1.452 but I say in Christ & his Church. As the Iewes did loaden our Sa∣viour with lies & calumnies; so all heretiques strive to defame & oppresse his Spouse, by the same means: but all in Vain. For, as the inno∣cency of Christ did appear, and the whole earth was filled with his praises; whereas his enemies, were cloathed with shame & confu∣sion, were scattered through the earth, had their Temple destroyed, and their Nation rui∣ned. So within a short time, the vnspotted in∣nocency & purity of his spouse is manifested, to the shame & confusion of all heresies; which being accursed by the Church, with all their lies & calumnies, are ever at length destroyed from the face of the earth: for, as the Wiseman has observed,* 1.453 the Mothers curse rooteth vp the foundation. If it was a great sin in the Iewes, that they not only refused to hear and obey Christ; but also falsly accused him, and many wayes lyed and blasphemed against him. It can∣not be a small sin in heretiques, that they do not only refuse to hear the Church (for which crime alone, they are by Christs command to be holden, as Heathens & Publicans) but also they falsly accuse his Spouse, which he loves so deerly, for an Adulteresse, and charge her with Idolatry, Superstition & all sorts of abo∣mination. These calumnies, if not blasphemies, are the ground of all their new doctrines &

pretended Reformations: By which we may know the rare fabrick, which is erected vpon it. But all these lies, calumnies, false accusations and railings can prevaile nothing against the Church; which may say truly, as the Prophet David foretould of her,* 1.454 How often have they impugned me from my youth, How often have they impugned me? But they have not prevailed against me. Sinners have built vpon my back: they have prolonged their iniquity. Our iust Lord will cut the necks of sinners: Let them all be con∣founded and turned back, which hate Sion: S. Chrysostom, writing on these words of the psalme; The Queen stood at thy right hand, said truly and excellently of her. The Church is op∣posed,* 1.455 and overcomes: being pursued by snaires she gets the vpper hand, being provoked with wrongs and reproches, she is made more illvstrious. She is hurt, but yields not to the print of the woūds: how ever she be tossed, she is not overwhelmed. She endures great tempests, and yet for all that suffers no shipwrack; she wrestles, but is not thrown down. Thus he. Thererefore this cloud of the Ministers calumnie, to witt: that the Catholique Church had changed the doctrin of Christ, & brought in corruptions (which is the very same, which all heretiques have vsed, & the new Arians vse to this day) being dispelled: I am confident, that by Gods gra∣ce, you see now the admirable light of the Ca∣tholique Church, and therefore, abandoning the darknesse of all error, will walk in this light, by which all the Saints have attain'd vnto

the light of heaven. To this effect, with many more words spake the Catholique.

After I had diligently considered all these things, the heads of which were given me in writing; I did not only by Gods grace see with my vnderstanding, the truth of the Catholi∣que Church; but also I was bent with my will to follow, & embrace it, laying aside ma∣ny worldly difficulties, which only stood in my way. And having heartily thanked my Ca∣tholique friend, by whose paines & charity, I had received so much help, I earnestly desired, that, for the accomplishment of the work, he would assist me to consider, how the true Church may be known by these 4. notes, which are contain'd in the Nicen Creed, and which he briefly touched above: to which he willingly condescended, shewing me, that any man, who believes the Scripture, may find the true Church so manifestly there described, by these properties, that he may easily find her out, or rather clearly see her: so that S. Augu∣stin saith,* 1.456 The Scriptures speake more obscurly of Christ, then of the Church; that they are so clear for the Church, that, by no shift of false interpre∣tation, they can be avoided: that the impudence of any forehead, that will stand against such evi∣dence, is confounded; and that it is prodigious blindnesse, not to see, which is the true Church. I shall collect briefly the summe of our confe∣rences in this matter.

CHAP. XXXII. The true Church proved from the Scriptu∣res, & first by her Vnity.

AS the great dissensions of our Ministers furnished to me the first occasions of my doubting, that their Church could not be the true Church; so the very light of Nature did shew me, that the true Church, being the work of God, must have Vnity. For what more belongs to the house of God, which ought to be a house of Order, then Vnity? what more fitting for his Kingdom, which must endure for ever, then Vnity, which tends to preservation? what more vnbeseeming them, then disorder & division, which at length produces ruine & destruction? The Scripture is full of clear testimonies to this pur∣pose, as where it is said of the Church, My Dove is one my beloved is one,* 1.457 and it's called by our Saviour one sheepfold.* 1.458 S. Paul doth also ex∣cellently shew the vnity of the Church, in wh∣ich are diverse functions, by the Vnity of mans body, in which are diverse members, but all ani∣mated with one Spirit, as the whole Church is quickned by one faith. For else where he saith: There is one Lord,* 1.459 one faith & one baptism. But of these & other passages of Scripture, which were brought, there was one, which had a special influence vpon me, and that was our

Saviours prayer, in the 17. of S. Iohn: where, after he had prayed most earnestly for the Vni∣ty of his Apostles, he prayes also for the Vni∣ty of the whole Church,* 1.460 saying Neither pray I for those alone, but for them also, who shall be∣leeve in me, through their word: That they all may be one, as thou Father art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be One, that the world may be∣leeve, that thou hast sent me. I did seriously ponder this reason, which our Saviour brings, to obtain his desire, which was much vrged also by the Catholique: who shew me, that our Saviour declared thereby, the vnity of his Church should be so admirable, that the world should be moued thereby, to beleeve, that he was the Son of God, & a true Prophet sent from heaven, as some Fathers have also ob∣serued. Therefore, it's evident by the Scriptu∣re that the true Church must have Vnity,* 1.461 and that that cannot be the true Church of Christ, which wants it. And, if we shall speak of the holy Fathers, they are so much for this Vnity of the Church; that some of them have writ∣ten whole Treatises concerning it.

Now it is no lesse evident both to sense and reason, that this Vnity agrees better to the Church in Communiō with the Sea of Rome, then to the Protestant Churches; or rather, it agrees fully to the one, and not at all to the other. For who may not see, by the manifold Schismes & Divisions, which are now among Protestants & all other Sectaries; as well in Doctrine, as Government, (which we have

touched above, and which do dayly augment) that the Protestant Churches have no Vnity? Shortly after Luthers rising, the Protestant Church was divided into three principal sects, to witt: the Lutherans, Calvinists & Zuin∣glians; that we may speak nothing of the Ana∣baptists, and Libertins. But now their divi∣sions have so multiplyed, that they can hardly be numbred. And these divisions are not only great, for the matter, being in some principal points of doctrin; but also have been very great for the manner. For thereby diverse Pro∣testants have kild and destroy'd one another, made bloody warres, and overturned kingdo∣me & Commonwealths. So that, if there were no other Christian Church, but the Prote∣stant; the world could not be moved, by the Vnity thereof, to beleeve that Christ was sent from heaven, or had been a divine Architect, who had built such a Babel of Confusion.

But, if laying aside rancour & preiudice we will cast our eyes vpon the Church in Com∣munion with the sea of Rome: this Vnity ap∣pears wonderfully in her. For how can it be but wonderfull, to consider, that this Church, being dilated throughout the world, in so many diverse, & remote Kingdomes, Pro∣vinces & Countreys, of different languages, Customs & worldly interests; and some of these being enemies to others, in worldly af∣faires, should all agree in the Vnity of the same Catholique faith, as if they were one man: Whereas all other Churches, which go out

from this, vnder pretext of greater purity (al∣though they do not fill the earth, but are com∣prized in small bounds) fall into such horrible dissensions and divisions, that they never rest, till, like generations of vipers, they destroy one an other, and oftentimes the later destroies the former, as we have seen in our time? The Church in Communion with the sea of Rome may be known to be the true Church, by this admirable Vnity, for which Christ prayed; and Christ by it may be known, to have been sent from heaven, who had establish't vpon earth so large a Kingdome of such admirable Vnity. If the Vnity of the Catholique Church were not a special blissing of God, how could it fall out to her alone? How could it have con∣tinued so long, among such great multitudes of people, as have been, and are of her Com∣munion? How comes it to passe, that Vnity could never be conserved among heretiques, who, although but few, and new, could ne∣ver shun the curse of Division; which ever destruction followes at the heels? For my part, I cannot resist vnto this clear reason.

As this Vnity in the Catholique Church proceeds principally, from the blissing of God; so secondarly it flowes from the ordinary means, which his divine wisdome has appoin∣ted, and whereof all false Churches are desti∣tute. As first from this principle, that she be∣leeves nothing, but what has descended vnto her, by the constant testimony of her forefa∣thers in all ages, from the time of Christ & his

Apostles. By which means, it has been shown, that she cannot but keep Vnity in faith. Se∣condly, She receives the Decrees of all Gene∣ral Councils, which, in all reason, ought to be believed, to preserve that, which was de∣livered by the Apostles: and, if any doubt ari∣se, about the sense of the Scriptures, are more able to interpret them, then any other persons. To which therefore, all the members of the Catholique Church do modestly & wisey sub∣mit their iudgments: they never ransack any matter of faith once defined; but it remaines ever inviolable. And lastly, All Catholiques submit themselves to one Supreme Pastor, whom they acknowledge to be establish't by Christ over the whole Church: From whom, the holy Fathers do affirm, that the Vnity of the Church doth much depend. This person appoynted by Christ, they shew out of the Scriptures, to have been S. Peter, to whom Christ said:* 1.462 I will give thee the keys of the Kingdome of Heaven &c. and again; Feed my sheep, feed my Lambs. Vpon which S. Cyprian saith: That Christ might shew Vnity, he establish't one Chaire; and he disposed, by his authority, the Origin of that Vnity to pro∣ceed from One, &c. The Primacy is given to Pe∣ter, that one Church of Christ and one Chaire might be shown. S. Hierom, seeing the necessity of One head,* 1.463 for keeping Vnity, saith excel∣lently: One is chosen, that a head being appoyn∣ted, Occasion of schisme might be taken away. And that the Bishop of Rome is successor to

S. Peter, in that same Dignity & Primacy, and that the Vnity of the Church depends vpon his authority, all the holy Fathers do affirm. The same S. Hierom, writing to S. Damasus Bishop of Rome, saith:* 1.464 With the Successor of the Fisher, & with the Disciple of the Crosse I speak &c. I am ioyn'd in Communion with thy Holy∣nesse, that is with the Chaire of Peter: vpon that rock, I know the Church is built, who gathereth not with thee, scattereth. S. Augustin affirmes,* 1.465 that the Succession of Priests from the seat of Pe∣ter, to whom our Lord, after his resurrection, commended his sheep to be fed, vntill the present Bishop, held him within the lap of the Church. There is nothing more ordinary with the Fa∣thers, then to reckon out the succession of the Roman Bishops from S. Peter, vnto their ti∣me.* 1.466 S. Augustin tearmeth the sea of their resi∣dence, the Chair of Vnity, and S. Cyprian calls it the beginning of Vnity, & the roote of the Ca∣tholique Church.

As, by these means, the Vnity of the true Church is preserved; so, for want of them, there can be no constant Vnity in false Chur∣ches. For they all, reiecting the infallible testi∣mony & authority of the Catholique Church, by which we are certified of our Saviours doctrine, as has been shewed, put their own election and private iudgment in place of it: and their iudgments being diverse, they make diverse faiths, having no Compasse to steer by, but the Scriptures, which they diversly inter∣pret, according to their pleasures. Neither do

they submit themselv's to the sentence of any Church, for they beleeve, that all Churches may erre: neither is their own Church constant in her sentence; for one Assembly ransacks and condemns, as heresy and Anti-Christian, what another has defined & approved, as Christian truths. Neither have they any supreme Pastor, to whom they obey. And, in a word, they have no bond to ty them together, except someti∣mes worldly interest, or the hatred of another religion. And, when these interests faile, when by mutual assistance & ioyn't forces, they have subdued or overturned that Church, which they esteem their Common adversarie: then they instantly begin, to be miserably scattered & divided; as fresh experience sheweth, how after the destructiō of the late English Church, the brethren of Scotland and England became hugely divided, notwithstanding the solemne League & Covenant which had before so straitly tyed them together. Yea, it is impossi∣ble for the wit of man, to make it otherwi∣se. For, besides that it is impossible, that many men can a long time adhere to the same fal∣shoods (as we suppose all heresies to be) the nature of man being so strongly bent vpon truth, this confusion & division followes from the nature of their principal doctrin, which is the ground work of all the rest, to witt: that every one should have liberty, of reading & interpreting Scripture, and iudging the Prea∣chers doctrin thereby. From which ground, there must needs arise variety of sects in reli∣gion, according to the various conceipts and

apprehensions of people. Moreover, God, in his iust iudgment, sends ever the curse of divi∣sion among heretiques; for, according to their sin, so are they punished. They endeavoured to divide the Church, and themselvs are divi∣ded, and so at length destroied. This God pro∣mised by the Prophet Esay, when he said;* 1.467 I will set the Aegyptians against the Aegyptians, and they shall fight every one against his brother, and every one against his neighbour: citie against citie, and Kingdome against Kingdome. S. Augustin saith: it is the iust iudgment of God,* 1.468 that those, who seek nothing else, but to divide the Church, should themselves be miserably di∣vided. And so he shewes, how the Donatists were cut into small threds. S. Chrysostom affir∣mes, that the sin of dividing the Church is so great, that nothing doth so provoke the anger of God. So that, when we have done all other manner of good,* 1.469 we deserve no lesse severe punishment, for dividing the Vnity & fulnes∣se of the Church, then those, who pierced & divided Christs own body. Salomon saith: that there are six things, which our Lord hates,* 1.470 and the seventh is abomination to him; which is, He who soweth discord among brethren. How much then must he hate and abhorre those, who sow discord in his Church, which is his body, and his spouse, for which he died, and for the Vnity whereof he so ardently prayed? And therefore it's no wonder, to see the curse of division fall ever among them. And, as this division and contrariety ariseth naturally from

their principall doctrin, & the ground of all the rest, besides Gods iudgment on them; so they have no way to take it away when it doth arise. For albeit they pretend the word of God to be their Iugde of Controversies, to which they promise all obedience; yet this Iudge could never hitherto end any controversy among them: and indeed it is not the word, but the sword, which decides all their Controversies. The iust contrary is in the Catholique Church. For, albeit all heresies and sects do first arise out from her,* 1.471 as the Apostle saith: There must be heresies, and S. Iohn affirmeth, They went out from vs but were not of vs: yet, they do not arise from the nature of the Churches doctrin, or from her principles, which are constant & immoveable, all tending to Vnity; but from the malice of the Devil. And, when they arise, the Church loseth not her Vnity thereby. For, if these coyners, or followers of new doctri∣nes, do not submit themselvs to the iudgment of the Church; they are iudicially cutt off from that body; from which they first cut themselvs by misbeleef; and by this means, the rest of the body, is preserved entire, and at Vnity within it self. So that, when any question ari∣seth, the Church has a solid way to take away all Controversie, and to preserve Vnity. But the Protestants principles tend to division, and they have no means to take it away, as has been shewed.

Since then, it is so evident by the Scripture, that the Church of Christ must have Vnity; it

is no lesse evident, that that cannot be the true Church, which wants Vnity, and is full of Dissensions & Divisions: as the Protestant Church appeares now evidently to be, even to the weakest vnderstandings, by her great Schismes and divisions, both in doctrin & go∣vernment. And therefore he, who believes a Church of so great division or confusion, to be the true Church, cannot be said to follow the Scriptures; but rather to controul them, and to follow his own fancies. Whereas the Church in Communion with the Sea of Rome, by her admirable Vnity, both in doc∣trin & disciplin, all the world over, even to the least article or point of faith, may be easily seen to be the true Church of Christ, which was founded by him; and he, by the same Vnity, may be known to be the true Messias, who was sent from heaven.

CHAP. XXXIII. The true Church proved by her holynesse.

THE second mark, whereby the true Church is described, in the Nicen Creed, is Holynesse, I beleeve One, holy &c. Church: which property is also assign'd to her, in the Apostles Creed. I beleeve the holy Catholique Church. Besides these authorities, the very light

of Nature and the Scripture show, that the true Church ought to be holy. For this, being a society of people, ordain'd by God, for a most holy end, to witt, to enioy himself, who is the Holy of Holies, for all eternity, must have ho∣lynesse of doctrin to direct them, and holy∣nesse of life, to bring them to so holy an end. This the Prophet David sheweth,* 1.472 saying: Ho∣lynesse becometh thine house, O Lord, for ever. S. Paul saith, that Christ delivered himself f••r his Church, that he might sanctifie it, &c. that he might present it to himself,* 1.473 a glorious Church, not hauing spot or wrinkle, or any such thing: but that it may be holy and vnspotted. It is evident then, by the ••reed, by the light of Nature, and by the Scriptures, that the true Church must be Holy. And the holynesse of it, for our present purpose, consists principally; in two things, to wit, in holynesse of doctrine, & holynesse of life. Therefore that Church, which teacheth impious doctrin, and wherein there is little, or no holynesse of life, cannot be the true Church. Let vs then briefly see to which Church; whither to the Protestant, or to the Church in Communion with the sea of Rome, this mark of Holynesse doth best agree

First, concerning doctrin, I find that the first Apostles of Protestants teach doctrin di∣rectly repugnant to the goodnesse of God, to the Nature of man, to the holynesse of the Christian Sacraments, & to the observation of Gods commandments, besides many other particulars. Calvin, the great Foundatour of

Pressbytery, teaches, that God is the Author of sin: for thus he writeth.* 1.474 Now I have clearly enough shewed, that God is called the Author of all these things, which these Controwlers (to witt the Papists) will have to fall forth, by his idle permission onely. And such things, which ac∣cording to Catholiques, God willeth not, but only permits, are sins; of which Calvin there speaks, as of the blindnesse and tyranny of Achab: of the incest of Absalon, and the like: of which he calls God the Author. Again he saith: Man, by the iust impulsion of God,* 1.475 doth that, which is not lawfull for him to do. And of Pharao, he saith: Deus voluit vtique illum ius∣sui suo non obtemperare, immo vt ei repugnaret,* 1.476 ipse in eo effecit. God willed him not to obey his Commandment, yea he himself wrought that in him, that he might disobey it. Many more places are collected by Becan, in a Treatise, which he wrote on this subiect de Authore peccati. Where he cites diverse testimonies of Beza and other Protestant Authors, to the same purpo∣se. Now, that this is an impious opinion, and against the very clear light of nature, is evi∣dent. For all men conceive by natural instinct, that God is not only good in himself, but also goodnesse it self, the Author and fountain of all goodnesse. But how can he be goodnesse itself, and the Author of goodnesse, if he be the Au∣thor of wickednesse? A holy Father saith:* 1.477 It's the same madnesse to deny God, and to say he is the Author of sin. For, if he be the Author of sin, he is not good: if he be not good, he is not

God. The Manicheans taught the same impie∣ty, but with this difference, that they made not the good, but the evil God the Author of evil. Moreover, it's evident, that God cannot be the Author of that, whereof he is the punisher. But he is the punisher of sin. Therefore he cannot be the Author of it. I know some Pro∣testants strive to make a faire face, vpon this doctrin of Calvin, but all in vain; for it is so black and vgly of it self, in the tearmes which he vseth, that, as it is in the proverb, these, who would blanch it, vndertake to wash a black-Moore. The text is so bad, that it can ad∣mit no good Commentarie.* 1.478 So that the Luthe∣rans in Germanie have condemned it, as con∣tumelious against God, & pernicious to man∣kind: and the Zuinglians of Berne caused Cal∣vins books, wherein these black errors were contain'd, to be burnt publickly, by the com∣mon Executioner. He teacheth also some do∣ctrin no lesse pernicious, in the iudgment of many, concerning predestination: as that God by his only will has ordaind many, without any consideration of their merits, to damna∣tion.* 1.479 His words are these? By his only will, and without any consideration of their merits, they are predestinated to eternal death. Such doctrin wh∣ich transformes God into the Devil, and repre∣sents him as the greatest Tyrant imaginable, cannot be holy, no more then he, who taught it, can be heavenly: albeit he be much esteem'd by the Presbyterians, who keep still this doctrin lying at their hearts, though, vpon some occa∣sions,

they are ashamd to profess it.

Secondly. As he robs God of his goodnesse, so doth he also spoile man of his free-will: which is not only false, against common expe∣rience, and the confession of mankind: for as S. Augustin saith: no fewnesse of the learned,* 1.480 no company of the vnlearned do deny it: but also in the iudgment of many Protestants, it makes all exhortations, admonitions and threats, which are so frequent in the Scriptures, both vselesse and ridiculous; it hinders all exercise, yea, and attempt of vertue & holynesse; and, with the opinion of Gods absolute decree of reproba∣tion, it brings men to despaire. Thirdly, their doctrin of the impossibility to keep the divine commandments, even with the assistance of Gods grace, we have seen above to be iniu∣rious to the goodnesse, wisdom, and iustice of God; to be a great hindrance of the growth of piety, and of the care of a good life; from wh∣ich wicked doctrin, flowed the impious sect of the Anti-Nomians. To which, if we shall add that doctrin, which they call the life of their religion, to witt, their iustification by a special faith only, whereby they beleeve, that all their sins are forgiven them: what a wid gate is opened to all licentious liberty, to the neglect of piety and of all good works? Their doctrin also concerning the Sacraments is not holy, which robs them of all grace, and ver∣tue of sanctification. In a word, if the proper doctrines of the Presbyterians be impartially considered: there is almost nothing amongst

them, which hath appearance of holynesse, or any invitation to it. For they do not esteem their Churches holy, they have no holy orna∣ments, no holy Vessels, no holy rites or Cere∣monies, no holy dayes or festivities, no holy forme of publique worship, or service of God; and nothing, that setteth forth the Maiesty & magnificence of God, or that can breed respect or reverēce in man. Yea, their principles, if they be followed, lead to prophanesse or Atheism: whereof I will bring some few instances. The first is of one named Godefridus a Valle, who wrote a book,* 1.481 which he entitled, Of the art of beleeving nothing: In which he said, all other things false, and one only thing true: as Becan relates, to witt: that he, who would become an Atheist, should first be a Calvinist, as him∣self had been. For, from that doctrin of Cal∣vin, that God is the Author of sin, and that, by his absolute decree of Reprobation, he had preordain'd the most part of men vnto damna∣tion, without any regard of their works, but only for his own pleasure, he collected, that such a God was a most cruel Tyrant. There∣fore, he would rather deny there was a God, then acknowledge such a God. And therevpon he became a profest Atheist, and was burnt publickly in Paris, in the yeare 1572. Another instance fell out, not long ago, in our own Countrey on another subiect. For, as the Presbyterian Ministers generally teach, that the Church is no more holy, then any other place; nor no more reverence due vnto it, ex∣cept

only, when the Minister is preaching: so a great Apostle of the Covenant taught that doctrin very eagerly, in Aberdeen: the fruite whereof did shortly thereafter appear. For a covenanting souldier of the Saints army, was found, within few dayes, in the Colledge Church of that town, in vncivil conversation with a woman, and being brought before the same Minister, (as I was credibly informed) who did exaggerate the grievousnesse of the crime, from the holynesse of the place; he ans∣wered; that there was neither preaching nor praying in the Church, at that time By which he confounded the Minister. Now of a long time, they keep their Churches shut both night and day, except only at such times, as the Minister is to preach. I knew also a young La∣dy, who took great scandal at a Ministers ser∣mon, wherein he vndertook to prove, against the Papists, the impossibility of living chastly: which doctrin she truly said was very dange∣rous to young people, and loosed the reines to all lasciviousnesse. So that in many points both concerning God and man, the Sacraments & the Commandments, we see the Presbyterian Church is not holy in doctrin.

But, on the other part, the Church in Com∣munion with the Sea of Rome teacheth most holy doctrin, in all these points. For first, con∣cerning God, she teacheth that in him there are all perfections, in an infinit degree: that he is not only good in himself, but the fountain of all goodnesse, and that no evil can proceed

from him. That he is neither the cause, Au∣thor or approver of sin. That he is so good, that he would not permit sin to be, vnlesse he could draw good from it. That he has prede∣stinate no man to damnation, but only for sins, which they willingly & freely commit. This is the doctrin of the Catholique Church, and of the holy Fathers.* 1.482 S. Augustin saith. God, who is good, would not permit evil, vnlesse he being omnipotent could also do good of evil. The Arausican Council saith:* 1.483 We do not only, not be∣leeve, that some are predestinate vnto evil, by the divine power; but, if there be any, who belee∣ve so great a wickednesse, we accurse them with all detestation. The same holynesse might be shewed of the Catholique doctrin, concerning free-will, and the possibility of keeping the commandments, with the assistance of Gods grace, of Iustification, of the Sacraments, which all tend to holynesse, to the exaltation of Gods goodnesse, to the killing of sin, to the advancement of piety & of all good works, as the holy Fathers have shown, of all the points of the Catholique Church: and particularly S. Augustin, who saith truly, in the Churches of her Communion,* 1.484 nothing filthie and wicked is proposed to be seen or followed. Where, either the Commandments of the true God are explai∣ned, or his Miracles related, or his gifts praised, or his benefits desired. Besides, in the Catholi∣que Church are many holy houses dedicated and consecrated to Gods service, holy altars, Ornaments, holy vessels, holy solemn worship

& service, with many holy rites & ceremonies, manifesting the Maiesty & magnificence of God, & breeding respect & reverence in man. And, in a word, this Church Militant here on earth is a true representation of the Church Triumphant in heaven, still adoring, praising and magnifying God. Therefore ho∣lynesse of doctrin belongs rather to this Catho∣lique Church, than to the Protestant.

Then, for holynesse of life. I never knew any Iudicious Protestant, but acknowledged that the Catholiques had too much the better of them. Luther the first Apostle professeth, that whilst he lived, among the religious of S. Augustins order, he observed chastity,* 1.485 obe∣dience and poverty: that he did all things with a single heart, for the glory of God, fearing the last iudgment, &c. But after his fall from the Catholique Church, he changed not only miserably his faith, but also his life. For thus he proclaimes his own shame.* 1.486 As it is not in my power, to be no man, so it is not in my power, to be without a woman. I am burned with the great flammes of my vntamed lust, &c. And, to make himself more infamous, he, having vowed his chastity to God, married a profest Nun, na∣med Katherin Bore, who had made the like vow. He is charged also by his fellow Prote∣stants, with arrogancy, insolency & intolera∣ble pride, which he exercised against persons of greatest quality; as against the Emperour, Charles the fifth, and Henry the eight, King of England. His bitter railings, his fowle and

filthy expressions have bred such a stench in all his writings, that they purchased to him the Title of Propheta Stercorarius, or the Dung∣hill Prophet.* 1.487 These qualities are very far diffe∣rent from Saints vertues. Concerning Calvin, it is affirmed by Conradus shlusselburg, a famous Lutheran, that he was guilty of Sodomie, and other abominable vices, for which he was branded on the shoulder, by the Magistrate of Noyon with a hote iron. That he was striken, also a little before his death, by the hand of God, with Herods desease, and that he dyed in despaire, cursing and blaspheming. No lesse vices also are layd to Beza his charge, who did celebrate his own shame and filthy lusts, with most lascivious Epigrammes. All which are not alleadgeances of Catholiques, but testimo∣nies of Protestants, against themselvs. Neither are these Reformers commonly, even by Pro∣testants, esteemd Saints. As for the common multitude, which followed the Reformers, Luther himself confesseth, that the world is become seven times worse,* 1.488 then it was before, in the Papacy: yea it is generally observed, that Catholiques, who become Protestants, chan∣ge their life into worse. And, albeit the Pres∣byterians, during the late troubles, did vsurp to themselvs very ridiculously, the name of Saints; yet, both in the iudgment of other Protestants, and in the truth of the matter, they were very far from deserving that title. For, if we will beleeve the old Protestants, avarice, pride, tyranny, cruelty, impudent railing, se∣dition,

periurie, and many such other vices are the Presbyterians greatest vertues: and, who are most exorbitant in these enormities, are their greatest Saints; as they instance in so∣me chief Apostles of the Covenant, in whom they affirm these vices to be palpably evident. Neither have the Presbyterians any better opi∣nion of the old Protestants, whom they call Malignants, as appear'd by their Excommuni∣cation, thundered out against the Bishops, at the Assembly of Glasgow, for very horrible cri∣mes. And, albeit the Bishops, at least some of them, were not guilty of these crimes; yet the∣re was no wise man even amongst those, who loved them most, that thought any of them a Saint, or eminent for holynesse. Neither can the Presbyterians be Saints, even in their own principles, vnlesse they would make their lives not only better then their belief, but also contrary to it. For they, teaching that the Commandments are impossible to be kept, even with Gods grace; how can they pretend to keep them? And, if they keep them not, how can they pretend to be Saints? These are poore Saints, who break every day Gods Commandments; and much more, who com∣mit a mortal sin in all their actions: as the Presbyterians commonly teach. Their actions also, which need not to be here recounted, and ought to be better beleeved, than their words, shew, that they were not Saints. A late Author, who had occasion to know well both sorts of Protestants, gives this verdict of

them.* 1.489 Amongst the legal Protestants, there are many stored with moral goodnesse, but the devo∣tion and zeal is amongst the Puritans: but it has eaten vp almost all morall honesty among them. So the qualities, which were too evident and sensible in the Presbyterians, even of the grea∣test estimation, shew clearly, that they fell so far short of Saints perfections; that they had not so much as Moral vertues. Neither did God ever testify, either the holynesse of any of their lives, or of their doctrin, by any miracle.

Vpon the other part, I find the lives of Ro∣man Catholiques, especially of those, who were Converters of Nations and Foundators of religious Orders,* 1.490 to be highly extolled. To speak nothing of more ancient Saints. S. Ber∣nard, whom all the world knowes to have been most addicted to the Pope, and Roman faith, is called & esteemed a Saint by Calvin, and by diverse other Protestants. The holy∣nesse of S. Dominick,* 1.491 S. Francis and others is confessed by the Centurists. The approved sanctity of S. Francis Xaverius, a Iesuite, who in the last age converted sundry Nations of the east Indies, is testifyed by Hacluite, a Minister, in his book of Navigations, where he doth highly praise him. Luther confesseth, that in the Papacy is the very kernel of piety. Breirly cites the words of diverse Protestants, who ac∣knowledge, that there are many holy men & women in the Roman Church, that Protestants are not to be compared vnto them, in the least degree; and that the Catholique Church hath

many excellent orders, and holy institutions,* 1.492 for curbing of sin, and advancing of piety, whereof Protestants are destitute. This must be a strong truth, which extorts confession from Adversaries: and this Confession is a most convincent proofe against themselves. More∣over, amongst many of the Catholique Church, there is found not an ordinary, but a sublime degree of holynesse. For many persons in all ages, of the greatest quality, honour & riches, have renounced the world, & all its pleasures, that they might serve and enioy God more freely; so that they have not only, by Gods grace, kept, but also gone beyond the commandments, as S. Chrysostom speaks. S. Augustin describing the manners of the Catho∣lique Church, in his time, after an excellent apostraphe, concerning the holynesse of her doctrin, saith vnto her, concerning holynesse of life:* 1.493 Deservedly with thee the divine Com∣mandments are kept, far and neer. By good right with thee, are many given to hospitality, many dutifull, many mercyfull, many learned, many chast, many holy, many so burning with the love of God, that, in highest abstinence from all worldly pleasures, & incredible contempt of the world, they delight only in the desert. And thereafter, shewing the diverse degrees of holy persons in the Catholique Church, as of the Anacho∣rits, who liv'd in the wildernesse; of the Monks, who liv'd a part by themselvs; and of others, who were gathered together into Communities; of religious women, who se∣parating

themselvs from the company of men, served God chastly & diligently; and having described their diverse manner of living, their divin contemplations, fervent prayers, fre∣quent fastings, and the rest of their holy exer∣cises, he saith of the Anachorits, not without admiration.* 1.494 What is it, I beseech you, that these men, who cannot but love man, do see; and yet can be without the sight of man? Truly whatever it be, it must be more excellent, then all humane things: since, for the contemplation of it, a man can live without man. And a little after. To whom this excellent hight of holynesse doth not appear, of it's own accord, worthy of admiration, how can it appear to him, by our words? Then, of them all, he professeth himself vnable to praise suf∣ficiently these holy manners, these holy orders and institutions; and, if he would vndertake to do it, he would be affrayed, lest he seemed to detract from them: as if they would not please men, by the simple relation of thē. In end, as this were an vndeniable truth, appealing to the he∣retiques own iudgment, he saith: These things, O M••nichaeans, reprove, if you can. But, if there had been any Presbyterians in his time, he had found them not only reproving these most ho∣ly things, but also renouncing, abiuring and accursing them; as may by known, by their Covenant, & practice, at the beginning of their Reformation. In this indeed, the Presby∣terians go beyond the Manicheans. S. Augu∣stin proceeds to the praise of the holynesse of the Clergy, the Bishops, Priests & Deacons,

whose vertue, he saith, is so much the more wonderfull, how much it's more hard to keep it, in such a kind of troublesome life, amongst so great a multitude of persons, with whom, for their spiritual goods they do converse. And yet he saith: that he knew many holy persons in all these vocations, as also many of the lay∣tie, of all ranks & qualities, living holyly in the world, as if they did not vse the world, and who would willingly forsake all wordly things, before they forsook the love and servi∣ce of God. This Description of the ancient Catholique Church, which the Catholique shew vnto me, did represent very clearly to my sight how fitly the present Catholique Church doth agree with it, in all these holy orders and Institutions: and it did no lesse evidently ma∣nifest vnto me, how monstruously the present Protestant Church is different from it. Lastly, diverse histories, as well of Enemies, as of friends, have recorded many famous miracles, wrought in the Catholique Church, for con∣firmation of her doctrin, and for manifestation of the holynesse of some persons, who have lived & dyed, in her Communion. The Mag∣deburgian Centurists, although Protestants have recorded many great miracles, done by Catholiques, in the 13. chapter of every Cen∣tury, for 1300. years together, after Christ.

Therefore, since holynesse of life & doctrin, testifyed by Miracles from heaven, hath in all ages from Christ, been found eminently in the Roman Catholique Church, and in no other,

we may most iustly conclude, That she, and no other, is the true Church and lawfull spou∣se of Christ.* 1.495 S. Augustin saith: The Catholi∣que Church alone is the body of Christ, &c. out of this body, the Holy Ghost quickens no man. And a little before. For, as a member, if it be cutt off from the body of a living man, cannot retain the Spirit of life, so a man, who is cut off from the bo∣dy of Christ the Iust, cannot retain the Spirit of Iustice.

CHAP. XXXIV. The true Church demonstrated by her Vni∣versality: for which she is called Catholique.

AS the true Church is designed, in the A∣postles Creed, by her holynesse, so is she also by her Vniversality. I beleeve the holy Ca∣tholique Church. She is clearly also described, by the same vniversality,* 1.496 in the Scripture. God said to Abraham: In thy seed, all the Nations of the earth shall be blessed. The Prophet Esay fo∣retould the same, when he said of the Church: All Nations shall flow vnto it.* 1.497 God promised this to Christ. I will give thee the Gentils, for thine inheritance, & the vtmost bounds of the earth, for thy possessions. Christ himself declared it,* 1.498 when he said; that repentance and remission of sins should be preached, in his name, vnto all Nations, beginning from Hierusalem. S. Paul

said to the Colossians,* 1.499 that the Gospel was in all the world & fructifyed. Therefore, to forbear from citing more testimonies, it's evident by the Creed, by the Law and the Prophets, by the Psalmes, and the holy Apostles, and by Christ himself the most true describer of his own body, that his Church must be Catholi∣que or Vniversal for place, having the Com∣munion of all Nations. She must be also Vni∣versal for time, that is, she must endure from the time of Christ, vnto the end of the world; as we have seen above, in the perpetuity of the Church. For of Christs kingdom,* 1.500 there shall be no end, and the gates of hell shall not prevaile against his Church.

These places of Scripture are so clear, for the Vniversality of the Church; that S. Augu∣stin, having produced them against the Dona∣tists, for the same purpose, affirmeth:* 1.501 no man how blunt so ever he be, and slow of heart, can say, I did not vnderstand them. That none but heretiques, with head-strong frowardnesse and blind fury, can bark against them. And that no excuse is left for those, who do not beleeve them, because they contradict Christs clear words. The next thing then, that we are to do is to see, to what company of Christians: whither to Protestants or to those Christians, who keep Communion with the Sea of Ro∣me, this property of Vniversality, by which the true Church is so clearly described, doth best agree.

We need not make great search, in this mat∣ter.

For, if we will speak of the time, before Luther, the Church in Communion with the Sea of Rome, was so much Catholique, in re∣gard of Protestants; that there was no little company, yea nor one person at all, of the Protestant religion, to be seen or found, to contest with her, for this glorious title of Ca∣tholique. Whereas, from Luther vpward, in every generation, she may be proved, by the most famous testimonies, histories, records & Monuments in the world, to have been al∣wayes Catholique, that is, to have been a most ample Society, keeping the Communion of Nations, and to have been most eminent, abo∣ve all other religions, sects and heresies, that went out from her; which being condemned by this Church, were, as vnprofitable boughs, cut off from the vine; and so remaining, whe∣re they fell, in petty corners of the world, did soone wither and decay. Again, if we will make now the comparison between the Church in Communion with the Roman sea, and the Protestants Churches since Luther arose: we shall find the last come very short of the other, for Vniversality: and that for the same very reason, which S. Augustin brought against the Donatists.* 1.502 These sects, saith he, are not found in many Nations, where this (to witt, the Catholique Church) is: and this, which is every where, is found also even where these sects are. So it may be said, Protestants are not to be found in many Nations, where the Catho∣lique religion is profest, and Catholiques may

be found, where ever Protestants are. For all the diverse sorts of Protestants are comprized, within Europe, and possesse only the Northern parts thereof, there being some most famous & large kingdomes & provinces, even within Europe, where they are not to be seen, or found, as in all Spaine, Italy, Sicily: and in others, they are but scantly sowen, as in Fran∣ce, Poland, Germanie, where they are not a handfull to the Catholiques. And in these Nor¦thern places, which they possesse, out of which they banished by force the publick exercice of the Catholique religion, and still persecute the professors of it, there are not deficient Catho∣liques, who in the midst of the enemies of their religion, have alway's profest their faith. But in other parts of the world, where the Catho∣lique religion doth wonderfully flourish, the name of Protestants is not so much as known. For the Catholique religion is not only pu∣blickly professed, in the most famous Kingdo∣mes and Provinces of Europe, but also it is to be found in Africk, Asia, and America. And, albeit in diverse Countries, the publick pro∣fession be Heretical, Mahometical, or Heath∣nih; yet, even there, the Catholique Roman Church hath Fathers and children, professing her faith: and, what she lost by the falling away of Protestants in Europe, she has gained with much encrease, by the propagation of the Catholique faith, in the East and West Indies, & now of late in the great Kingdom of China, where many thowsands have ēbraced the faith.

If then the Society of Christians in Com∣munion with the Roman Church remaines still Catholique, notwithstanding that the Pro∣testants have falne away from her, and albeit they would muster together all their forces against her: how much more is she Catholi∣que in regard of Protestants, if they be taken a part by their diverse sects & scattered troops, as in all reason they ought to be? For none should be esteem'd of one religion, but these, who are of one Communion; and therefore, since Vniversality doth necessarly include Vni∣ty, no Protestant Church can be further Vni∣versal, then her Communion is spread, which will be found to be so little a way, that every one of those Protestant Churches, especially being compared with the Roman Catholique, will deserve rather the title of particular, then of Vniversal.

Moreover, the holy Fathers have observed, that as the Church in Communiō with the sea of Rome has ever had the thing signifyed by the word Catholique: so she alone has ever possessed the glorious title of Catholique, whereof heretiques have been very ambitious; but could never obtain it. S. Augustin did esteem the title of Catholique so plain an evi∣dence of the true Church,* 1.503 that he said: In the bosome of the Church, the very name of Catho∣lique holds me, which not without cause amongst so many heresies, that Church alone hath so ob∣tayn'd; that, although all heretiques would have themselvs called Catholiques; yet, when a stran∣ger

enquires any of them, where the Catholiques do assemble, no heretique is so bold as to shew him his own meeting place. Again he saith:* 1.504 We must hold the Communion of that Church, which is called Catholique, both by her owne, and by stran∣gers.

This name of Catholique the true Church received from the Apostles, to make her be known from all hereticall Congregations: which she has ever caried as a badge of truth, & a title of great honour. S. Cyril, expounding the Apostles Creed, saith:* 1.505 For this end thy faith has given to thee this article, the holy Catholique Church, that thou mayst avoid the polluted Con∣venticles of heretiques. And a little after: When thou commest into a Town, enquire not simply where the Temple of our Lord is, for heretiques also call their dens, Temples. Neither ask simply, where the Church is; but ask, where is the Catho∣lique Church: For that is the proper Name of this holy Church. Vpon the other part: as no heresies could ever be Vniversal, for time or place, (for he, who has prescribed bounds to the Sea, has also ordain'd that no heresie can cover the earth) so by the divine Providence they could never obtain the title of Catholique but were ever denominated from their Au∣thors: as Arians, Pelagians, Lutherans, Cal∣vinists; or from some accident; as Protestants, for protesting against the Emperours Edicts:* 1.506 which sorts of names, S. Hierom affirmes to be evidēt marks of the Synagogue of Anti-Christ. Neither indeed can any new sects, with any

probability, call themselvs Catholiques. For what would be more ridiculous; then, if the Independents, or Quakers, who are of so late standing, and of so litle extension, would stile themselvs Catholiques: this word signifying Vniversality, both of time & place, which they evidently want? The same may be as iustly said of the Presbyterians, or of any other Pro∣testant Congregation. And, if any of these sects were so vnwise as to call themselvs so, they would not be vnderstood, but taken for Papists.

I remember, that my Catholique friend shew me, that it has been an ordinary custom of those, who separat themselv's from the Ca∣tholique Church; when they see, that they neither have the thing signifyed by the word Catholique; nor can obtain the title of it, to shew themselvs enemies to both. This the old Donatists did, who pretended that it was not necessary,* 1.507 the true Church should have com∣munion of Nations or be Vniversal; that truth is often among a few, and that it was the fault of many to erre. This same some Protestants do pretend. Against which may be opposed the words of S. Augustin,* 1.508 who saith: As he shall be Anathema or accursed, who preacheth, that neither Christ suffered, nor rose again; because we learned by the Gospel, that it behoved Christ to suffer and to rise again the third day: so he shall also be anathema, whosoever preacheth the Ch∣urch to be elswhere, then in the Communion of all Nations: because, by the self same Gospel,

we learn in the words next following, pennance to be preached in his name, and remission of sins, throughout all Nations. Then, for the word Catholique, Luther was so great an enemy to it, that he tooke it out of the Apostles Creed, put∣ting the word Christian in place of it. Our Presbyterians ordinarly abstain from the word Catholique, turning it Vniversal.* 1.509 Beza calls it the vain tearme Catholique. A great Apostle of the Covenant, shew both his envie & anger, at this word. For when a Gentlemā in the North, who had been summoned not long ago, to give an account of his faith, before the Presbytery of Aberdeen, had profest himself to be a Catho∣lique; the said Apostle was offended with that title, and willed him to call himself a Papist: which he neglecting to do, the Min̄ister thē en∣quired of him: If the women of his religion called themselvs Catholiques also? Which question had such an vncivil sense, (as he proposed it) that some of his more modest brethren, sitting in iudgment with him, shew, both by their Countenance and words, their dislike of his vncivility. S. Augustin relates, how the Dona∣tists also were great Enemies to the word Ca∣tholique, calling it a humane forgerie, or fiction,* 1.510 which the holy Father calls words of blasphemie.

To conclude therefore this point. As it is evi∣dent, both by the Creed, and by the Scripture that the true Church must be Catholique; so it's very clear & certain, that the Protestant Church, before Luther, was not Catholique; that as yet, it is not Catholique, and, by all ap∣pearance,

never will be. For, according to the nature of heresie, it gote all what it possesseth, at the first hurle; and these 80. years, it hath made no progresse, but rather by its own di∣visions hath gone backward, and has been still on the loosing hand. Therefore, the Protestant Church, not being Catholique, cannot be the true Church. Vpon the other part, it is no les∣se evident, that, of all Christian societies, the Church in Communion with the sea of Rome was the Catholique Church, in the time of the Apostles, as it was also, in the time of S. Au∣gustin and of the holy Fathers; and ever since, it has had the Communion of Nations, kept all General Councels, made decrees, condem∣ned all Errors & heresies: And, in a word, what the holy Scriptures have so clearly fore-tould of the Vniversality of Christs Church, and of the conversion of Gentils from infideli∣ty to Christianity, hath been accomplished in this Church alone, and performed by her members. Therefore, this Church, and no other, is the holy Catholique and true Church of Christ.

CHAP. XXXV. The true Church proved by her continued succession, & lawfull vocation of her Pastors: for which, she is called Apostolique.

BY this note or property of Apostolique, the holy Fathers and auncient Councels would have the true Church clearly known and dis∣tinguished, from all new sects & heresies. The Church is called Apostolique, principally for two reasons. First, because it was founded by the Apostles, and from their time must conti∣nue vnto the end of the world. Secondly, be∣cause the Pastors thereof derive their Mission from the Apostles, by ordinary calling & per∣sonal succession. In the first sense, the true Church is clearly distinguished, from all sects and false Churches: because they were not founded by the Apostles, but by some new pretended Reformers, who arose after the A∣postles, in their several generations; and the∣refore, these new Churches, founded and ere∣cted by them, are not called Apostolique; but have their denomination, from their founders: such as the Arians, Pelagians, Lutherans, Cal∣vinists. In the second sense, she is also clearly distinguished from false Churches: because they have not lawful Pastors, deriving their

vocation from the Apostles, by a continued and vninterrupted succession; but intrude them∣selvs into the office of Pastors, without any lawfull calling. Of the first sense of the word Apostolique, we have spoken sufficiently above, when we proved the true Church, by her per∣petuity and continued succession; and dispro∣ved all false Churches, for want of it; which proofes need not to be here repeated. Of the second sense of the word Apostolique, we shall here briefly speak.

Besids the authority of the Creed, it is evi∣dent by the Scriptures, that there must be al∣wayes Pastors in the Church, lawfully called to that charge. God saith by the Prophet Esay: vpon thy walls,* 1.511 ô Ierusalem, I have appointed watchmen, all the day and all the night. They shall not hold their peace for ever.* 1.512 The Apostle S. Paul sheweth, how our Saviour performed this promise, by appoynting Pastors and Tea∣chers, To the consummation of the Saints, for the work of the Ministerie, for the edifying of the bo∣dy of Christ, till we all meet in the Vnity of faith. Our Saviour also has promised his continual assistance vnto the Pastors of his Church: Be∣hold,* 1.513 I am with you always, even vnto the con∣summation of the world. As there must be al∣ways Pastors in the Church, so they must be lawfully called to that charge; or else, they are not Pastors, but Theeves and Robbers. S. Paul saith:* 1.514 no man takes vpon him that honour, but he, who is called of God, as Aaron. And again: how shall they preach, vnlesse they be sent••

God, in the old Testament, reproved those, who went without mission, saying: I had not sent these Prophets, yet they ran,* 1.515 and prophe∣sied falsly in my name. Christ saith: who en∣tereth not by the doore into the shee••fold, but climbeth another way, is a theef and a robber. Moreover, our Saviour has put a strict obliga∣tion, vpon all people, to hear and obey their lawfull Pastors, and has forewarned them earnestly, to beware of false Prophets. Of the first, he saith: Who heares you, heares me,* 1.516 and who contemns you, contemns me. And, whosoe∣ver shall not receive you, nor heare your words, &c. Verily, I say vnto you, it shal be more tole∣rable for the land of the Sodomits & Gomorrhaeans in the day of Iudgment, then for that Citie. Of false Teachers, he saith: Beware,* 1.517 that no man seduce you: for many shall come in my name. And again: Take great heede of false Prophets. S. Paul, to the like purpose, forewarneth the Ephesians, saying: Take heede to your selvs; I know, that after my departure,* 1.518 there will rave∣ning Wolves enter in among yow, &c. For the wh∣ich cause, be Vigilant. Seing then we know evidently, by the Scriptures, that there must remain always true and Lawfull Pastors in the Church; and that false Prophets will also ari∣se: That we are obliged vnder paine of dam∣nation, to heare the first, and vnder no lesse danger, to beware of the last: It is most cer∣tain, that the goodnesse of God, (who pro∣mised such a clear way, vnder the Gospel, that fooles should not erre in it) has ordaind an ea∣sy

& sensible way, for all men, to discern, between true & false Pastors; that they may be preserved from error, in so great danger: or else, no•• only fooles, but also wisemen might be miserably mistaken, and misled to their own perdition.

Now, the same Scripture points out this ea∣sy and direct way, if men would walk in it. For it shewes, that all true Pastors must have sensible vocation & Mission; and these, who want them, cannot be true and Lawful Pastors First it's evident, that our Saviour did sensibly call 12. Apostles, and sent them with com∣mission, to feed & govern his Church. Se∣condly, the Apostles did also sensibly call and ordain other Pastors, as is evident, in the ele∣ction & ordination of S. Mathias. Thirdly, the chief Pastors, that is Bishops, received al∣so power from the Apostles, to choose and or∣dain others, as is evident, in what the Scrip∣ture records of Titus and Timothee. This was so evident and sensible a way, that fooles might not erre in it. And, if this order was always observed, that none could be esteem'd lawful Pastors, but who were thus called and ordai∣n'd by others, who had received that power: then it was as easy to know a true Pastor, from a false Apostle; as it is easy to know, who is called to be a Iudge, in the State, from an vsur∣per: for they are both discernable, by easy and sensible signs. This is the doore, of which our Saviour speaks; by which all these, who are lawfull Pastors, enter into the government of

the Church; and all these, who enter not by this doore, and yet vsurp that honour to be Pa∣stors of the Church, are theevs, who climb vp another way, and so may be easily known. The auncient Iewes had also an easy way to know their ordinary Priests & Pastors, from vsur∣pers: For, among them, none were Priests; but these, who were descended from Levi by Aaron, by natural generation. But, in the Law of grace, it is more easy; where none are to be esteem'd Bishops & Lawfull Pastors, but the∣se, who are descended from the holy Apostles, by visible ordination & personal succession.

The holy Fathers did vse this succession and Vocation of Pastors, as a most evident argu∣ment, to demonstrat the true Church; and by want of these, they discovered also as clearly all false Churches. For it's certain, the true Church cannot be without lawfull Pastors, & lawfull Pastors cannot be without lawfull Vocation & ordination; &, where there are no true Pastors, lawfully called and ordaind, there can be no true Church. S. Ireneus proves the true Ch∣urch, by the Succession of Pastors;* 1.519 which he calls a clear demonstration, by which all here∣tiques are confounded. Tertullian requires the heretiques, to bring forth the origine of their Churches, to recite the order of their Bishops,* 1.520 by succession from the Apostles. As it is evi∣dent then, that vocation & succession of Pa∣stors, by lawfull ordination, is an inseparable propertie of the true Church: So We shall now briefly see, to which Church it best agrees,

whither to the Protestant, or to the Church in Communion with the Sea of Rome.

I find, that the Protestant Pastors are as much perplexed, to show the lawfulnesse of their Vocation, after Luther, as they were ve∣xed, to show, where their Church was be∣fore him. For they run from one shift to ano∣ther; and, what some say, others controule & severly censure. As there were three princi∣pal sorts of Protestants, to witt: the Lutherans, Calvinists & these of the late English Church; so, I find, they bring three different answers, to the question of their Ministers vocation. So∣me say, the Lutherian Ministers have an ordi∣nary vocation, because Luther was made a Priest in the Roman Church But this answer is frivolous. For first, Luther, by that Voca∣tion, got only commission to preach the do∣ctrin of that Church, and not to preach against it. Secondly, it is monstruously absurd for the Lutherians, to derive their Vocation from that Church, which their first Apostle esteem'd Anti-Christian. Thirdly, Although Luthers own vocation were supposed to be good, how could he, being only a simple Priest, ordain others; since, from the beginning of Christia∣nity, it was never known, that a Priest could be ordaind by any, but by a Bishop? Fourthly, Luther succeeded to none, neither Bishop or Priest, who professed his doctrin; and the∣refore, the Lutherans are, in their first source, destitute of succession, and in their progresse, of lawfull ordination; and so neither Luther,

nor his successors, have any lawfull Vocation.

Calvin & most of his Schollers renounce the way of ordinary, & run to an extraordinary vocation: for they are ashamed, to derive their vocation from the Roman Church, which they imagine to be Anti-Christian: neither can they do it, because Calvin was never ordain'd a Priest. By the tyranny•• saith he, of the Pope,* 1.521 the true line of ordination was interrupted: now, there is need of a new suppl••e. And truly this was an extraordinary charge, which the Lord impo∣sed on vs. To him accords his Scholler Beza, who saith: that, at the beginning of their Ch∣urch, ordinary vocation appear'd no where. And,* 1.522 in the Conference at Poysie, being enquired of his Vocation, he said it was extraordinary. Against this pretext of extraordinary vocation, which is followed by all the Puritians, other Protestants do sharply inveigh. Saravia saith; that it's a doctrine full of danger,* 1.523 of a new and evil example, and vpholden by no testimony of the Scripture. Diverse other Protestants, cited in the Protestants Apologie, reiect this extraor∣dinary vocation, as fanatical, and opening a way to all seducers, who may make the same pretext. And now, the Presbyterians find by sad experience, that the Independents, Anaba∣ptists and others make vse of it, against them∣selvs.

But, that Calvin and his followers had no extraordinary vocation, may be easily shown. For, vnto that, there are two things requisite, according to the examples, recorded in the

Scriptures. First, that God speak sensibly vnto one, whom he is to call extraordinarly: as he did to Moyses, Elias, S. Paul Secondly, That he make that appeare by some miracle. The first is not sufficient, without the second: To which may be ioynd a third condition, to witt, holynesse of life & doctrin, which becomes Gods extraordinary Ambassadours; without which, even their miracles ought to be suspe∣cted. Now, not only one, but all these condi∣tions were visibly deficient in Calvin & the other pretended Reformers. For never any of them was so impudent, as to say, that God spake sensibly to them: albeit Luther confes∣seth, that the Devil conferred oftner then once, with him.* 1.524 Then they were so impotēt of work∣ing miracles, that Erasmus obiects to them, They were never as yet able, so much as to cure a lame horse. Lastly, their lives were not extraordinary for holynesse, befitting an extraordinary Vo∣cation: as we have seen above. Luthers sentence against Mu••ster,* 1.525 makes also against Calvin. If he pretend, saith Luther, that he is sent by God, as the Apostles: let him prove that, by doing signes and miracles: for, where ever God will change the or∣dinary way, there always he works miracles.

Lastly, the late Church of England preten∣ded a succession & lawfull Vocation of her Pa∣stors,* 1.526 above all other Protestants. For so, Mr Mason praiseth and admireth the sweet and sin∣gular providence of God, towards the new Church of England; that, when other reformed Church as were enforced through necessity, to admit extra∣ordinary

Fathers, or Ordainers; that is, to re∣ceive ordination from inferiour Ministers or Priests: yet, the Church of England had alwayes Bishops, who, according to the ordinary and most secure custom of the Church, had conferred holy Orders. But this pretence is also false and frivo∣lous. For either, the first Protestant Bishops, in Queen Elizabeth time, were ordaind by the Catholique Bishops; or had their Vocation from some others;* 1.527 as from the Queen and Parliament. The first cannot be said. For both Sanderus, and Dr. Champn••y show, that the Catholique Bishops choosed rather to die in prison (as they did) then to impose their hands vpon the Queens new design'd Protestant Bishops. Besids, M. Whitaker and Fulk re∣nounce the Catholique ordination, as vnlaw∣full; albeit all the more late Diuines of the En∣glish Church had their recourse vnto it; in so much, that Fulk expresseth himself very pas∣sionatly, thus; We, with our whole heart,* 1.528 renoun∣ce, abhorre, detest and spit at your filthie Anti-Christian Orders. So full of confusion are they in this matter; that, what some of their grea∣test Divins esteem their greatest glory, others, no lesse famous among them, think their grea∣test shame. Moreover, albeit the Catholique Bishops were granted to have imposed their hands on the first Protestant Bishops: yet, by that ordination, they made them only Catho∣lique and not Protestant Bishops: for the Church in all reason, and common sense, can∣not give a lawfull Vocation to any Pastors, to

preach and act against her self. Therefore, if these first Bishops of the late English Church were Protestants, when they were ordain'd; they were not lawfully ordaind: and, if they became thereafter Protestants, they lost all law∣full exercice of their power of ordination: when they vsed it against that Church, from which they pretend to derive their lawfull vo∣cation. Lastly, the first Protestant Bishops, in King Edward the sixth or Queen Elizabeths time, succeeded to no other Protestant Bis∣hops, much lesse, can they show their succes∣sion vnto the Apostles: as is requisite to make them lawfull and Apostolical Bishops.

If it be said, that the first Protestant Bishops were made by vertue of the King or Queens supremacie, and by act of parliament: This is not the way prescryved in the Scripture, wh∣ich has been always observed in the Church. And, if these English Bishops & Pastors had no more sure ground, for their vocation, then the Royal Supremacy; it is no wonder, that they are both falne together, and that one Parliament has ransacted, what others had en∣acted So we see, that the late English Church, has been resolved into the same principles, of which it was first composed: as by the same iust iudgment, the Presbyterians, who pre∣tend an extraordinary vocation, are almost subverted by the Independents & Anabaptists vpon the same pretext.

It rests, that I speak now a word of our Scottish Ministers Vocation, which I found

as groundlesse, and more ridiculous, then any of the rest. For, besids, that the most part of them, at the beginning, were vnlettered men, and had no other Vocation to be Ministers, then that which the Presbyterians blame now in the Independents; the Vocation of M. Xnox our great Reformer seems very strange, as it is described in his own Chronicle. In one thing indeed he shew himself more Scrupulous, then Luther: for although he had been ordain'd a Roman Priest; yet, he thought (not without reason) that his Popish orders gave him no lawfull Vocation to be a Protestant Minister: and therefore, he expected another call, which was given him, after this manner. Some dis∣contented Protestants, having conspired toge∣ther, had cruelly kill'd,* 1.529 (as a Protestant Au∣thor speaks) Cardinal Beaton, within his own house, the castle of S. Andrewes, posses∣sing themselvs of all the Cardinals riches; and thereafter kept out the Castle in rebellion against the State. To this place of security M. Knox had his refuge, carying along with him some Gentlemens children, whom he instru∣cted in the Grammar and new Catechisme.* 1.530 His book saith, that, when these within the Castle perceived the manner of his doctrin; they dealt earnestly with him, to take vpon him the function of a Preacher. But he refu∣sed, alledging he would not run, where God had not sent him; meaning, that he would do nothing without a lawfull calling. Wherevpon they, going to a private Councel, resolve or

give a charge publickly to M. Knox, by the mouth of their preacher Iohn Rough: which was done, at the next Sermon, as it is there at more length described. So by this means, M. Knox gote his Vocation to be a Minister, from the call of that holy Congregation, which was guiltie of murder and robbery, and was then in actual rebellion, by the mouth of their Preacher, who could have no lawfull voca∣tion himself; but being an vnlettered man, had taken vp, by all appearance, that calling at his own hand; as many others did. For it is said of him, in the 74. page. Albeit he was not the most learned, yet was his doctrin without corrup∣tion, &c. I was much astonished, when this historie of our first Reformer his Vocation was first shown me, in his own book, by a Catho∣lique, who did not faile, to manifest the ridi∣culousnesse of it, by all the circumstances.

Now these are all the different Vocations of the Protestant Ministers, and all and every one of them are so vnsufficient, that they are disproved not only by Catholiques, but also by most famous Protestants, who are brought to such confusion, in this matter, that they hardly know what to say. For they can neither pretend ordinary nor extraordinary Vocation: not the first; because they evidently want suc∣cession, as also ordination: both which are re∣quisite to an ordinary calling. Not the second: because they want the power of working mi∣racles, and have no extraordinary holynesse, which are qualities very requisite and vsual for

all Gods extraordinary Ambassadours. And albeit neither of these qualities were required; yet, these who pretend this extraordinary Vo∣cation, do fall into such contradictions, that they are evidently known thereby, not to be Gods extraordinary Ambassadours: whom he never vseth to send with contrary Commis∣sions: So that, to the Protestant Ministers or Bishops, agree well the words of S. Cyprian.* 1.531 These are men, saith he, who without any divin disposition, preferre themselvs among rash people, who make themselvs Prelats, without any law∣full ordination: who, none giving to them a Bis∣hops office, take the name of Bishops vpon them. Therefore, the Protestant Pastors, wanting clearly succession from the Apostles, are not Apostolique, and so are not true Pastors but Vsurpers: and consequently the Protestant Church is not the true Church; for that cannot be the true Church, which hath no lawfull Pastors.

Vpon the other part, this succession of Bis∣hops from the Apostles, has been ever so evi∣dently in the Church of the Roman Commu∣nion, that the holy Fathers did bring it, as a most evident argument, to show the true Church: and therefore, they reckon out ordinarly the succession of the Roman Bishops.* 1.532 S. Augustin saith, The Succession of Priests from the Seat of Peter the Apostle, vnto the present Bishoprique, holds me in the Church. And elswhere, shew∣ing the continuance of the same succession, he saith: The continuance of the true Church, by

most certain succession of Bishops,* 1.533 doth persevere from the Apostles time, vnto ours, and to the ti∣mes after vs again. And this succession doth to this day continue in the Roman Church, as evidently, as it did in the time of the holy Fa∣thers; neither can any thing be said now against it, which might not have been said as iustly by the auncient heretiques. Therefore, as the Church in Communion with the Sea of Rome has been shewed to be one holy and Catholique Church; so it is no lesse evident, that it is Apo∣stolique, having lawfull Pastors (as it has ever had) deriving their Vocation from the holy Apostles, by lawfull ordination & personal succession: and consequently, this is the true Church & lawfull spouse of Iesus Christ.

This matter of Vocation is of great impor∣tance: because doctrin depends vpon it; and because it is easily discerned, so that, it is com∣pared by our Saviour,* 1.534 to a Gate. As then, it is more easy to hold a theef at the gate, then to thrust him out, being once let in; so all hereti∣ques are more easily confounded, for lack of Vocation, which is to hold them at the doore of the Church, then by the falshood of their doctrin, which is to expell them, after they are once admitted. For, if they cannot bring evi∣dent testimonies of their Vocation & ordina∣tion, from a known Pastor of the Church: they are presently known to be Wolves, who run, when they were not sent; who enter not by the doore, but climb vp another way. Therefore, it is great deceit in some Ministers,

to vndertake to prove the lawfulnesse of their Vocation, by the truth of their doctrin: which is a preposterous and ridiculous way.* 1.535 Core and his complices taught no other doctrin, but that, which was taught by Moyses; and yet, be∣cause they vsurped the Priests office, we know how fearfully they were punished. What would be more ridiculous, then, if one would vsurp the Office of a Iudge in the state: and then would prove himself to be a lawfull Iudge, by the iustice of his decisions? This question then of Vocation, being so important and easy, a Catholique gave me this advice, which I re∣solve, God willing, to follow, never to admit a Minister to dispute of religion, till he first shew the lawfulnesse of his Vocation, and to make ever that the first question.

Wherefore, having now seen such eviden∣ce for the truth of the Roman Catholique Ch∣urch, to which alone, the marks and proper∣ties of the true Church, recorded in Scripture, do so clearly agree, I will draw to an end, by this subsequent Conclusion.

CHAP. XXXVI. The Conclusion.

AS light is more pleasant, after darknesse; so is the invention of truth more delight∣full, after errors. I have now, by Gods grace, and by the former Triall, seen, both our pre∣tended

Reformations (which were called such great engyring Lights) to be nothing, but thick Aegyptian darknesse, obscuring the chief and most clear truths of the Christian Reli∣gion: both in doctrin, & disciplin. I have now found amongst the Protestants, what S. Au∣gustin observed amongst the Manichees,* 1.536 that they have nothing, but a meer promise of truth, a pretext of following only the Scriptures, whē indeed they follow their own Errors: That their doctrin is nothing, but counterfeit Met∣tall, which cannot endure the fire of Triall. Yea, I have clearly seen, that their Church, which is the ground work of all, has not the least resemblance of the Church of Christ; as she is without ambiguity described, in the Scriptures. For, according to them, the Ch∣urch of Christ must endure, for ever: But the Protestant Church has only endured, since the time of Luther. According to the Scriptures, the Church cannot be hid, but must ever shine, like a light, set vpon a Candlestick: But the Protestant Church has lyen many hundred years hid and invisible, vnder a bushell. The Church of Christ must have Vnity, as beco∣mes the house of God: But the Protestant Church is full of division & confusion, both in doctrin, & disciplin. The true Church must be holy, in all her doctrin, and fruitfull in pro∣duceing Saints: But the Protestant Church teacheth doctrines, which tend to prophanesse & to the neglect of piety & of all good works: and she is so barren, in produceing Saints, that

she professeth to bring forth none, but those who continually, or dayly, break mortally Gods Commandments. The true Church, ac∣cording to the Scriptures, must be Catholique or Vniversal, and must convert all Nations from infidelity to Christianity: But the Pro∣testant Church is only in parts & pettie cor∣ners of the earth: and has never, as yet, con∣verted any Nation of Infidels; but, according to the nature of heresy, has only perverted so∣me ill Catholiques. The true Church must ever have true Pastors, lawfully called and or∣dained, deriving their Succession, by an vn∣interrupted line, from the holy Apostles: But the Protestant Churches first Pastors succee∣ded to none; and, without any lawfull Voca∣tion & ordination, did intrude themselves by Vsurpation, into the Pastoral office, as all their successors have done. The true Church ad∣heres so closly to the truth, that she is called in the Scriptures, The pillar & ground of truth:* 1.537 But the Protestant Church is so inconstant, pas∣sing from one falshood into another; that she may be called the Pillar & ground of Error. The true Church, according to Christs promise, is ever directed by the Spirit of truth, into all truth: But the Protestant Church is misgover∣ned, by the Spirit of giddinesse; as is known by fresh experience. These considerations, besides others, make me see the great dark∣nesse, wherein I lay, and have made me to admire of my former blindnesse; that I, read∣ing so frequently the Scriptures, did not see

the monstrous difference, which is between the Church of Christ, there so clearly descri∣bed, and the Protestant Church, to which not one propertie of the true Church contain'd in the Scriptures doth agree. This shew me, how necessary it is to read the Scriptures with at∣tention, and to implore the Divine Maie∣sty for spirituall illumination; without which darknesse will seem light, and light dark∣nesse.

But in the holy Catholique Church, I found not only promise, but also perfor∣formance of truth. I found her faith to be more pretious then gold, which is tried by the fire, as S. Peter speaks;* 1.538 which, after greatest oppo∣sition and triall, doth ever shine more bright∣ly. I found, in this Church, clearly fulfilled, all the Prophesies, and that to her do agree all the properties of the true Church, described in the Scriptures. For this is the Church, wh∣ich alone has endured, since the time of the Apostles. This is the Church, which, as a Citie seated on a hill, could never be hid: but, as a Candle set vpon a Candlestick, hath en∣lightned the whole world. This is the Church, which has been admirable for its Vnity, and eminent for its sanctity: replenishing the hea∣ven with innumerable Saints, who have all lived and died, in the bosome of her Commu∣nion. This is the Church, which is Vniversal for time & place, which has had her gates con∣tinually open night and day, to receive the strength of the Gentils, which she alone has

converted, from infidelity to Christianity. This is the Church, which has had a continued succession of Pastors, descending, without in∣terruption, from the holy Apostles. This is the Church, which adheres so closely to the faith she once received, that she would never part from it, nor yield in one syllabe or letter, nei∣ther to Heathnish cruelty, nor to heretical im∣piety, and which neither force, nor flatterie could ever shake: so that, she may be iustly called the Pillar & ground of Veritie. This Ch∣urch is the chast Virgin & Spouse of Christ, which has been ever falsly accused, as an Adul∣teresse, by all Heretical Strumpets, and has been even overloaden with their Calumnies: but she has alwayes adhered vnto her heaven∣ly spouse, who, in his own time, has manife∣sted her innocencie, and brought confusion on her Enemies: And, in a word, this is the Ch∣urch, which is admirable for its order and go∣vernment; for its supreme authority, and in∣vincible strength, for its heavenly doctrin, and great holynesse, and lastly for her power of working miracles. What then can I do more fitly, then, after so great darknesse, to embra∣ce so clear a light? after so many dangerous er∣rors and wandrings, to put my self in the di∣rect way of Salvation, and incorporat my self without delay into this one, holy, Catholique & Apostolique Church: wherein all the holy Fathers & all the Saints have liv'd and dyed? What can I vse more properly, then the words of S. Augustin, who saith to this purpose: sin∣ce

we see so great help of God,* 1.539 so great profit and fruite, shall we make any doubt at all, to retire vnto the bosome of that Church, which, from the Apostolique Sea, by succession of Bishops, has ob∣taind the Soveraign authority, heretiques in vain barking round about it? &c. To which, not to yield the Primacy, is either a matter of greatest impiety, or of precipitat arrogancy. The same Motives, which held S. Augustin within the Catholique Church, have drawn me vnto it: To witt:* 1.540 the Consent of People and Nations, Authority begun by Miracles, nourished by Hope, enlarged by Charity, and Confirmed by Antiqui∣ty: The Succession of Priests, from the Seat of Peter, vnto the present Bishoprick: And last of all, the very name Catholique, which, not with∣out cause, this Church has only obtaind, among so many Heresies.

* 1.541As then S. Andrew, and the Woman of Sa∣maria were glad, when they found the Mes∣sias foretould by the Prophets; because they were sure, to find with him, all truth: So am I no lesse overioyed, to have found the true Church, foretould and clearly described by the Messias: for, with her, I am sure to find all truth: since she is the Pillar and ground of Truth; and Christ has promised to her the Spirit of truth, to remain with her for ever, to lead her into all truth. As the Apostles belie∣ved Christ: for the voice of God the Father, who said;* 1.542 This is my beloved Son: heare him; so I believe the Church, for the voice of God the Son, who said: Who heares you, heares me, and

who despiseth yow, despiseth me,* 1.543 and who will not hear the Church, let him be to thee, as a Heathen & a Publican. And, as the holy Apostles did believe Christ, in all things; because he recei∣ved all, from his father: so I believe the Ca∣tholique Church, in all points, because she has received all her doctrines, from Christ & his Apostles, and has faithfully retaind them. This Catholique Church is she alone, which,* 1.544 as an aun∣cient Father writeth, retaines the true worship. This is the fountain of truth, and House of Faith. This is the Temple of God: into which, if one do not enter, or from which, if one go astray, he is a stranger from the hope of life and eternal Salva∣tion. Here, in this house of faith, is found the the true Catholique & invariable faith, of wh∣ich S. Augustin truly saith: That no riches,* 1.545 no treasures, no honors, no substance of this world are comparable vnto it: Therefore, in end, I will offer vp my thanksgiving vnto God, in the words of that glorious Doctor, for the same benefite. Truly, O Lord,* 1.546 thou art my God, who hast drawn me out of darknesse, and out of the shadow of death: and thou hast called me, into thy admirable light, and behold I see. Thanks be given to thee, O thou, who art the il∣luminator of my soule. I looked back, and saw the darknesse, wherein I had been, and that profound black pitt wherein I had lyen: and I was sore af∣fraid, and said Wo, Wo be to that darknes, whe∣rein I lay. Wo, Wo be to that blindnes, wherein, I was not able to see the light of Heaven. Wo Wo to that former ignorance of mine, when I had no

knowledge of thee, O Lord. But I give thee thanks, O my Illuminator, and deliverer; because thou hast illuminated me, and I have knowen thee. Yet still am I come too late to thee, O thou an∣tient Truth: too late am I come to know thee, O thou eternal Truth. And, because I cannot prai∣se thee sufficiently, I humbly desire the blessed Virgin, & all the Angels & Saints of heaven, to blisse and magnify thy glorious name; and to offer vp their holy prayers for me, that, as by thy grace, I have acquired the true faith: So I may also attayn vnto sincere piety: and so may have the happinesse to praise thee, in their ho∣ly society, for all Eternity. Amen.

FINIS.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Aug. in Enchi∣rid. c. 27. & 100.
• * 1.2

  Genes. 50. ver. 20.
• * 1.3

  1. Cor. 11.19.
• * 1.4

  Math. 13.26.
• * 1.5

  Aug. in psal. 54.
• * 1.6

  Iob. 5. v. 13.
• * 1.7

  1. Thi∣moth. 3.9.
• * 1.8

  Multi vt diem Dei vi∣deant per hae∣reticos é somno exci¦tantur Aug. lib. de vera re∣lig. c. 8.
• * 1.9

  2. Cor. 1. ch. v. 17. & seq.
• * 1.10

  2. Thi∣moth. 3.
• * 1.11

  Knox chron. p. 288.
• * 1.12

  Ephes. 4.11.14.
• * 1.13

  Iren. l. 1. c. 18. &c. 5.
• * 1.14

  Hier in cap. 16. Ezech.
• * 1.15

  S. Thn ch. 17.
• * 1.16

  Ibid. ver. 21.23.
• * 1.17

  Luke 11.17. Gal. 5.15.
• * 1.18

  Luth. tom. 3. wit, in psal. 5. fol. 166.
• * 1.19

  Christ, Mod. pag. 75.
• * 1.20

  Math. 15.14.
• * 1.21

  Psal. 93. v. 5.
• * 1.22

  M. Ro∣ger prae∣fat. Doct. Aug. num. ••1. & 13.
• * 1.23

  Covell iust. d f. art. 11. p. 67.
• * 1.24

  Apol. Protest. tract 2. c. 3. sect. 5 sub 2. & 3. ad 10
• * 1.25

  Math. 7.16.
• * 1.26

  Aug. in psal. 149.
• * 1.27

  Prov. 3.3.
• * 1.28

  Matth. 11.29.
• * 1.29

  Math. 5.44.
• * 1.30

  Math. 23.24.
• * 1.31

  Christ. Moder. p. 74. & 75.
• * 1.32

  Rom. 13.1. & seq.
• * 1.33

  Conf. Vvest. ch. 33. n. 4.
• * 1.34

  Christ. Mod. p. 74.
• * 1.35

  Math. 23. v. 23.
• * 1.36

  Esay 58. v. 6.
• * 1.37

  Gal. 5.22.
• * 1.38

  Ibid. v. 19.20.
• * 1.39

  Philip. 3.18.19.
• * 1.40

  S Iohn 1. Epist ch, 4. v. 1.
• * 1.41

  Spots woord hist. lib 5. p. 275.
• * 1.42

  3. Tim. ch. 3. v. 1.
• * 1.43

  Tit. ch 1. v. 5.
• * 1.44

  Esay 5.20.
• * 1.45

  Luce c. 6.
• * 1.46

  Luce c. 10.
• * 1.47

  Act. 1.
• * 1.48

  Cal. lib. 4. Inst. c. 6. §. 2.
• * 1.49

  Aug. lib. 19. de Ciu. c. 19.
• * 1.50

  Hier. ap. Cor∣nel. in hunc loc.
• * 1.51

  Dion. lib. de Eccles. hier. c. 5.
• * 1.52

  Ignat. epist. ad Ta••sens
• * 1.53

  Epiph. haeres. 75.
• * 1.54

  Aug. lib de haeres. hare. 53.
• * 1.55

  Hier. epist. ad Euagr.
• * 1.56

  Beza cont. Errast. fol 1. Mons. Moulin buck. 30. a••t. sect. 12.
• * 1.57

  In Ve∣ron tom 2. con∣tro de Hier.
• * 1.58

  In An∣tidot. by S. N. 3. part. p. 134.
• * 1.59

  Math. 6.9.
• * 1.60

  Luke 11.2.
• * 1.61

  Aug. in Enchir. c. 71.
• * 1.62

  Aug. l. de Ma∣gistro c. 1. & in epist. 121. ad Probam
• * 1.63

  Cyp. de Orat. Domi∣nica.
• * 1.64

  Tertull. lib. de Oratio∣ne.
• * 1.65

  Cypr. ibid.
• * 1.66

  Gualter Chro∣nol. sae∣cul. 11. cap. de Vval∣dens er∣rore 29.
• * 1.67

  Spots. hist. lib.
• * 1.68

  2. p. 91. Anno 1550.
• * 1.69

  1. Tim. 1.17. Pet 2. epist. 3. ch. ver. 18. Iude ver. 25.
• * 1.70

  Apocal. 5.13.
• * 1.71

  Apoc. 19.5.
• * 1.72

  Basil. ad Am∣philoch. de sp. 5.
• * 1.73

  Baron. tom. 3. anno 323. n. 174.
• * 1.74

  Baron. ibid. n. 173.
• * 1.75

  Baron. ibid. n. 176.
• * 1.76

  Ang. lib. 9. Con∣fes•• c. 6.7. Am∣bros. in Auxent
• * 1.77

  Basil. de Sp. S. cap. 27.
• * 1.78

  Baron. tom. 7. anno 5••8. p. 279.
• * 1.79

  Baron. tom. 5. anno 484.
• * 1.80

  Baron. anno. 1055.
• * 1.81

  2. Tim, 3.13.
• * 1.82

  Ephes. 3.21.
• * 1.83

  Shore Cat. Vvest. in fine.
• * 1.84

  Baron. tom. 1. Annal. an. 44. n. 15. & seq.
• * 1.85

  Hier. epist. 61.
• * 1.86

  Aug. ser. 119. de temp. Idem ser. 69. de ex∣pos. Symb.
• * 1.87

  Ambro. ser. 38. & epist. 81.
• * 1.88

  S. Iren. lib. 1. c. 2. & lib. 3. c. 4. S. Cle∣ment, epist. 1. ad frat Domini. Basil. de de Sp. S c. 27.
• * 1.89

  Baron vbi su. pra. Aug. de Symb.
• * 1.90

  ad Cat. lib. 3. c. 1. Leo ad Pul. Aug. ep. 96.
• * 1.91

  Aug. ser. 42. de trad. Symb.
• * 1.92

  Id. m ser. in Vigil. Pente∣cost.
• * 1.93

  Rufin. in praef. de expos. Symb.
• * 1.94

  Ruffin. ibid vt supra.
• * 1.95

  Aug. homil. 42.
• * 1.96

  Amb. lib. 3. de Virgi∣nib. tom. 4.
• * 1.97

  Aug. cont. epist. fund. c. 5.
• * 1.98

  Aug. in psal. 63. v. 7.
• * 1.99

  2. Tim. 4.13.
• * 1.100

  Christ. Mod. p. 2.
• * 1.101

  Short Cotech. Vv st. in fine.
• * 1.102

  Cyril. Alex. cum Syn. Alex. epist. 10. ad Ne∣stor. Aug. tom. 3. de fide & Symb c. 1,
• * 1.103

  Psal 15. v. 9▪10.
• * 1.104

  ••cts. 2.30.31.
• * 1.105

  Aug. epist. ad Exod. 99.
• * 1.106

  Hier. in cap. 4. ad Ephes.
• * 1.107

  Coloss. chap. 2. ver. 15.
• * 1.108

  Pet. 1, Ep. c. 3. v. 19.
• * 1.109

  Aug. epist. 57. ad Dardan
• * 1.110

  Colos. 1. ver. 18.
• * 1.111

  1. Cor. 15.20.
• * 1.112

  Beza cont. Sebast. Cast. ap. Bellar. lib. 4. de anima Cha c. 12.
• * 1.113

  Cal. lib. 2. instit. cap. 16. sect. 10.
• * 1.114

  Cal. in 27. Math. v. 46.
• * 1.115

  Cal lib. 2 instit. vt sup.
• * 1.116

  Vvitak. lib. ••. cont. Dure∣um. sect. 18.
• * 1.117

  Bilson in Apol. Prot. tract. 3. sect. 3. num. 40.
• * 1.118

  D. Vane Lost sheep. pag. 243 1. Edit.
• * 1.119

  Catoch. Rom. q. 12. Sa pientis∣fime Maiores nostri &c.
• * 1.120

  Large Catech. Vvest. after the C m∣mande∣ments.
• * 1.121

  Consil. Trid. sess. 6. can. 18.
• * 1.122

  Ezech. 36.27.
• * 1.123

  Ezech. 37. v. 23.24.
• * 1.124

  Rom. 4.21.
• * 1.125

  Luke 1.••.
• * 1.126

  Gen. 6.9. Gen. 5.22.24.4. Reg. 2.11. Iob. ch. 1. v. 1.
• * 1.127

  Genes. 26.3.4.5.
• * 1.128

  Esay 30.26.
• * 1.129

  Math. 11.29.30.
• * 1.130

  Iohn. 1. ep. ch. 5. v 3.
• * 1.131

  Chap. 2. v. 4.
• * 1.132

  Psal. 119.
• * 1.133

  Iohn. 14.23.
• * 1.134

  Chrys. lib. de com∣punct. cordis.
• * 1.135

  Idem h••mil. 6.
• * 1.136

  in Math
• * 1.137

  Aug. lib. de nat. & gra. c. 69.
• * 1.138

  Rom 8.3.4.
• * 1.139

  Aug. lib. de Spi. & lit. cap. 19.
• * 1.140

  Hieren. ad Cte∣siphont.
• * 1.141

  Araus. Concil. 2. c. 25.
• * 1.142

  Aug. serm. 61. de temp.
• * 1.143

  Hieron. epist. ad Celant.
• * 1.144

  Aug. serm. 191. de temp. execra∣mur eo∣rum blasphe∣miam &c. Hier. in Symbol. ep. 17.
• * 1.145

  Shelford p. 147.
• * 1.146

  Bas. hom. 3.
• * 1.147

  Aug. ser. 61. de temp.
• * 1.148

  Aug. ser. 47. de Sanc▪
• * 1.149

  Rom. 3.
• * 1.150

  Aug. lib. 1. Con∣fes. c. 5.
• * 1.151

  Chry. hom. 19. in Heb. & hom. 18. de Poenit.
• * 1.152

  Cal. lib. 2. Instit, cap. 7, sect. 5.
• * 1.153

  Cent. 2. ••. cap. 4.
• * 1.154

  Cal lib. 2. Instit. cap. 8. sect. 8.
• * 1.155

  Psal. 118.10.
• * 1.156

  3. Kings 14.8.
• * 1.157

  4. Reg. 23.25.
• * 1.158

  Shel. p. 142.
• * 1.159

  Shel. p. 143.
• * 1.160

  Rom. 6.12.
• * 1.161

  Rom. 14. Aug. ad Iulian. lib. 2. prope fi∣nem.
• * 1.162

  1. Iohn. 1.8. Prover. 24.16.
• * 1.163

  Aug. de nat. & gra cap. 38.
• * 1.164

  Aug. serm. 56. de temp.
• * 1.165

  Id. lib. de nat. & gr. cap. 38.
• * 1.166

  Math. 5.22.
• * 1.167

  Luth. tom. 1. fol. 196. Cal. lib. 3. Instit. c. 14. sect. 9. Shel. p. 146.
• * 1.168

  1. Cor. 7.2••.
• * 1.169

  Marc. c. 4.6.
• * 1.170

  Hier. lib. 3. cont Pe∣lag. c. 1.
• * 1.171

  Hier. in cap. 5. Math.
• * 1.172

  Philip. 1.12. Et ver. 15.
• * 1.173

  Genes. 17.1. Math. 5. Genes. 6. 1. Cor. 2.6.
• * 1.174

  Aug. cont. duas epist. Pelag. lib. 3. c. 7.
• * 1.175

  Hier. epist. ad Celant.
• * 1.176

  Aug. lib 1 de pecc. mer & rem. c. 26.
• * 1.177

  Aug. lib. de per∣fect▪ in∣stitue c. 10.
• * 1.178

  Fox Acts. Man. p. 402.
• * 1.179

  Knox Chron. pag. 76. 77.
• * 1.180

  Iohn ch. 1. v. 12. Rom. 3.28. Rom. 5.1.
• * 1.181

  Iames 2.21. & 24.
• * 1.182

  Aug. de gr. & lib. arb. cap. 7.
• * 1.183

  Aug. lib. de fi∣de & oper. c. 14.
• * 1.184

  Aug. ibid.
• * 1.185

  Cent. Mag. cent. 23. 4. 5. cap. 4. Aug hae¦res. 54.
• * 1.186

  Iren. cont. haeres. c. 20.
• * 1.187

  Luth. tom. 5. Germ. fol. 141. & d••m.
• * 1.188

  Luth in praef. in novu n Test. Luth in cap. 22. Genes.
• * 1.189

  Illyr in praef. ep ad Rom.
• * 1.190

  Coll. Al ten. col. 4 f. 75.
• * 1.191

  Prou. ••.7.
• * 1.192

  Iohn. 6.44. Heb. 11.6. Eccles. 1.28. & ibid, v. 17.
• * 1.193

  Rom. 8.24. Luke 7.47.
• * 1.194

  Aug de predest. sanct. cap. 7 Idem serm. 22. de Verb. Dom▪
• * 1.195

  Luke 7. Rom. 8. Iam. 2.
• * 1.196

  Concil. T r d sess. 6. c••p. 8.
• * 1.197

  Aug. lib. 83. quaest. 76.
• * 1.198

  Concil. Trid. sess. 6. cap. 8.
• * 1.199

  Iohn. 1.29. Acts. 3.19. Mich. 7.19. Heb. 9.28.
• * 1.200

  1. Cor. 6.11.
• * 1.201

  Ephes. 4.24.
• * 1.202

  Rom 5.5
• * 1.203

  Aug. de g••••••ia
• * 1.204

  Christ cap. 30. Idem de nat. & gra. c. 70.
• * 1.205

  Concil. Trid. sess. 6. c. 7.
• * 1.206

  Aug. ••ib. de peccat. mer. & remis. cap. 26. & seq,
• * 1.207

  Ephes. 2.4.
• * 1.208

  Ibid. c. 4 v. 24.
• * 1.209

  Coloss. 2.13.
• * 1.210

  Titus. 3. v. 5.
• * 1.211

  Aug. de Spir. & lit. c 4-
• * 1.212

  Apocal. 22.1. Eccles. 18.22.
• * 1.213

  Aug lib. de gra. & lib. ae••b. c 6.
• * 1.214

  2. Ti∣moth. 4.6.
• * 1.215

  Aug. ibid vt supra.
• * 1.216

  Iohn 1.29. Heb. 9.28. 1 Iohn. 1. ch. 1. v 7. Acts 22.16.
• * 1.217

  Psalm. 31.1.
• * 1.218

  Aug. ••narr. in Ps. 31.
• * 1.219

  Cal. lib. de re∣from. Eccl. p. 316.
• * 1.220

  Math. 23.27.
• * 1.221

  Iohn. e ist. 1 ••hap 3. v. 7.
• * 1.222

  1. Cor. 13.13.
• * 1.223

  Aug. lib. 15. de Trin. cap. 27. Leo serm. de collect. Shel. p. 108. 108.
• * 1.224

  Rom. 10.9.
• * 1.225

  Iohn. 20.31.
• * 1.226

  Rom. 11.33.
• * 1.227

  Aug. lib. de corraept. & gr. c. 13.
• * 1.228

  Eccles. 9.1. Phil p. 2.12.
• * 1.229

  M. T. Mercer.
• * 1.230

  Shel. p. 36.38.
• * 1.231

  Cal. ib. 3. Instit. cap. 11. sect. 7. Mel. in locis tit. de bon. oper.
• * 1.232

  Bellar. lib. 5. de Iustif. cap. 7. prop. 3.
• * 1.233

  Concil. Trid. sess. 6. cap. 16.
• * 1.234

  Shelf. aboue.
• * 1.235

  Aug. lib. 19. cont. Faust. cap. 22.
• * 1.236

  Aug. lib. 3. de doct. Christ c. 19. Aug. cont. Faust lib. 19. c. 13.
• * 1.237

  3.11. Math.
• * 1.238

  Acts 22.16. Titus 3.5. Eph s. 5.26.
• * 1.239

  Iohn. 6.51.54.
• * 1.240

  Cal. lib. 4. Instit. cap. 14. sect. 14. & 26.
• * 1.241

  Cent. 2. c. 4. & cent. 3. c 4. Muscul. in loc. com. p. 299.
• * 1.242

  Aug. tract. 80. in Ioan.
• * 1.243

  Luke 8.44.
• * 1.244

  Epiph. her. 80. Aug. haeres. 57. Damas. lib. de heres••b.
• * 1.245

  Prot. Apol. tract. 3. sect. 4. in marg ad 111. Mont. Orig. pag. 72.
• * 1.246

  Melan∣ch in lo∣cis com. c. de si∣gnis Zuing. de vera & fal. relig c. de Sa∣cram. Luth. de capt. Bab. cap. vl¦timo. also Cal. lib. 4. Inst. c. 14.
• * 1.247

  Aug. epist. 57. ad Dar∣dan. Cal. lib. 4. Instit. cap. 16. sect. 19.
• * 1.248

  Aug. lib. 10. de Ciuit. Dei. c. 5. Idem quaest. 84. in Leuit. Et lib. 19. con••. Faust. cap. 11.
• * 1.249

  Luther. de capt. Basil. cap. de Bapt. Cal. in Antid. sess. 7. can. 5. & 8.
• * 1.250

  1. Cor. 11. v. 9.
• * 1.251

  Concil. Trid. sess. 5, can, 5.
• * 1.252

  Luth. art. 1. dam∣nat. à Leone. X. Cal. lib. 4. In∣stit. cap. 15. sect. 10. Confess. Vvest∣min. ch. 6.
• * 1.253

  Acts 22.17. Acts 2.38. Ephes. 5.26. Titus. 1. v. 5.1. Pet. 3.21.
• * 1.254

  Aug. lib. 1. cont. duas epist. Pelag. c. 13.
• * 1.255

  Aug. lib 1. de peccat. mer. & rcmis. c. 5.
• * 1.256

  Chrys, in ho∣mil. ad Neophi∣tos.
• * 1.257

  Idem in homil. ad bap∣tizan∣dos.
• * 1.258

  1. Cor. 9.10.11.
• * 1.259

  Cent. 2. cap. 4. & cent. 3. c. 4.
• * 1.260

  Greg. lib. 9. regist. ep. 39.
• * 1.261

  Epiph. haer. 64.
• * 1.262

  Shlus∣selburg. lib. 1. Theol. art. 18
• * 1.263

  Aug. lib 4. Confess cap. 4.
• * 1.264

  Cypr. epist. 2. ad Do∣nat.
• * 1.265

  The Scoti••h Confes¦sion &c. of bap¦tism. Confess. Vvest∣minst. chap. 28. n. 5 Cal. in Antido. to Con∣cil. ad sess. 6. c. 5. & lib. 4. instit c. 16. sect. 24. & 25. & cont. art. Pari∣siens. p. 307. F or. R••yon. de ••ortu & pro¦gressu haeres. lib. 8. c. 11.
• * 1.266

  Iohn. v. 5.
• * 1.267

  Aug. lib. 1. de pecc. mer. & remiss. c. 30.
• * 1.268

  Vrb. Reg. 1. parte oper. in Caete∣chismo minori fol. 104. 105. 107.
• * 1.269

  Aug. epist. 20. ad Hier.
• * 1.270

  Aug. lib. 3. de origine an••mae cap.
• * 1.271

  C••nt. 3. c. 4. & Cent. 4. c. 4 Aug. epist. 90 & 92.
• * 1.272

  Aug. lib de haeres. c. 69.
• * 1.273

  Prot, Apol. trac. 3. sect. 4. n. 11.
• * 1.274

  Aug. lib. de pec. mer. & remis. c. 32.
• * 1.275

  Bucer in cap. ••3. Math.
• * 1.276

  Mark. 10 38.
• * 1.277

  Aug. de civitate▪ Dei lib. 13. c. 7
• * 1.278

  Ambr. orat. de obit•••• Val. ent. iu∣nioris. Mark. 1.4. Luke 3.3.
• * 1.279

  Mat. 28.19.
• * 1.280

  Acts. 9.18 & Acts. 8.38.
• * 1.281

  Flor. Reym. de orta haeres. lib. 8. c. 11. &c.
• * 1.282

  Concil. Triden. sessio 13 c. 1.
• * 1.283

  1. Scot∣tish. confes. art. 21.
• * 1.284

  Confess. Vvest. chap. 29. n. 7.
• * 1.285

  S. Iohn. ch. 6.
• * 1.286

  Morton deinstit, Sacra∣ment. lib. 2. c. 1.
• * 1.287

  Aug. in ps. 33.
• * 1.288

  Idem contr. adver∣sar. le∣gis lib. 2. c. 9. Am∣bros. lib. 4. de Sa∣cram. cap. 4. Chrys. lib. 2. de Sacerdo¦tio. Cypr. de Coena Domini.
• * 1.289

  Concil. Nicen. apud Bellar. lib. 2 de Euch. aristi. c. 10. Concil. Ephes. apud eund. lib. 2. cap. 25.
• * 1.290

  Luke 20.22.
• * 1.291

  Iohn. 6.33.
• * 1.292

  Prosp. de pro∣missi & Praed. Dei &c. cap. 6.
• * 1.293

  In vita S. Ber∣nardi. lib. 2. cap. 3.
• * 1.294

  Flor. Reym. de ortu haeres lib. 2. cap. 12.
• * 1.295

  Am∣bros. in Orat. funeb de obitu Satyri.
• * 1.296

  Ott Mile••it. cont. Par∣men. lib. 2. For. de ortu hae∣r••s. lib. 4. c. 10.
• * 1.297

  Idem lib. 4. cap. 6.
• * 1.298

  Paul. Diac. in v••ta S. Greg. Ioann. Eiar. in vita eiusd. Greg. lib. 2. c. 41.
• * 1.299

  Bosius li 14 de signis Eccles. p. 145. ex Villa∣naeo an. 1258.
• * 1.300

  Spond. suppl. anno 1254. n. 16.
• * 1.301

  Aug. lib. 3. de doct. Christ. c. 10.
• * 1.302

  Damas. lib. 4. Ortho∣do. fidei
• * 1.303

  Chrys. homil. 60. ad popul, An∣tioch.
• * 1.304

  Cyrill. Alex. lib. 4. in Ioan c. 13.
• * 1.305

  Apud Bellar. lib. 1. de Euch. cap. 1. Gualt. Chro∣nolog. saecul. 1. cap. 1. Elien resp. ad Apolog. Bellar. c. 1. Casaub ans. to Card. Peron. 1. in∣stance fol. 32. En∣glish
• * 1.306

  Cyrill. Hieros. Catech. 4. My∣stag. Am∣bros. l. 4. de Sacram c. 4. & lib. de myste∣rijs ini∣tiand. cap. 9.
• * 1.307

  Cypr. serm. de de coena Domini Greg. Nys. Orat. Catech. cap. 37. Da∣masc. l. 4. Or∣tho. fi∣dei.
• * 1.308

  Math. 17. v. 2.
• * 1.309

  Beza vt infra.
• * 1.310

  Luth. in lib. de Capt. Babyl. cap de Eucha. Zuing. in lib. de vera & falsa relig. ca. de Euc. Cal lib. 4. In∣stit. cap. 18.
• * 1.311

  Luth. cont ar∣tic. Lo∣uan. Thesi 27. Idem. tom. 7. Vvit f. 381. ibid fol. 382. Luther. in lib de Missa priuata & vnct sacerd. com. 7. wit om. Zuingl. in lib, da subsidi•• Encha∣rsstia. Tiguri∣ni tract. 3. cont. confes. Luth. p. 61.
• * 1.312

  Schlus∣sel de Theolo∣gia Ca∣vin. lib. 1. c. 20.
• * 1.313

  Ibidem. fol. 90.
• * 1.314

  Me∣lanch. in lib de verit. corp. Christi in Sa∣cram.
• * 1.315

  Zuingl. tom 2. respons. ad Con∣fess. Lu∣theri f. 478. Tiguri∣ni tract. 3. cont. Confes. Luth. p. 61. Cal in admonit vlt. ad Vvest∣phal. tom. 7. p. 829. Idem cont. Hes. hu∣sium
• * 1.316

  tom, 7. p. 844. Beza de Coena Domini cont. Vvestph•• p. 215. & p. 216 & 217.
• * 1.317

  Aug. qu 84. in Leuit. Idem lib. 19. cont. Faust. c. 11.
• * 1.318

  Greg▪ Nyss orat. in suam ordinat
• * 1.319

  Aug. cont. epist. fūd c. 1. Ioseph. lib. 5 de bello Iu¦daico c. 5.
• * 1.320

  Daniel. 2.44.
• * 1.321

  Luke 1.33.
• * 1.322

  Math. 16.18.
• * 1.323

  Auge lib. 1. de Symb. ad Ca∣tech. c. 8
• * 1.324

  Math. 28. ver. vlt.
• * 1.325

  ug. conc. 2. in psal. 101.
• * 1.326

  Hier. in cap. vlt. Matth.
• * 1.327

  Avg. pref. in 2. ex∣pos. psa. 21.
• * 1.328

  Conf. Augu. c. 7. Saxoni ca c. 12. Helve∣tic. c. 17
• * 1.329

  1. Scot∣tish. Conf. article. 16. Confes. Vvest. ch. 25. n. 5.
• * 1.330

  Aug. in ps. 101.
• * 1.331

  Cal. tract. Theolin refvta∣tione er∣rorum Serveti p. 762.
• * 1.332

  Luth. tom. 7. de votis verae Ecclesiae f. 148. Conf. Vvest, cap. 25. n. 2.
• * 1.333

  Aug. in psa. 80. Cant. 2
• * 1.334

  Tertul. de pres∣crip. c. 31. Optat. l. 1. ad Parmen p. 48. Aug. in collat. 3. diei cap. 6. Theolo∣gi Hei∣del praef in Pro∣tocoll. Fran∣kenta∣len. Beza ep, 16.
• * 1.335

  Ecclesi. 19.4.
• * 1.336

  du Mou lin in his Nou∣ueauté cont. Card. Peron. c. 12.
• * 1.337

  Cent. 12. c. 8.
• * 1.338

  Luth. in Col∣loq. c de Sacr. Calvin epist. 224.
• * 1.339

  Protest. Apol. Tract. 2. c. 2. sect 3. sub. 3.
• * 1.340

  Ibidem subdi∣vis. 4.
• * 1.341

  Gualte. Chron. saeculo 12. c. de Vval∣den. er- 2••. & 32. 3. error. 38. ibid.
• * 1.342

  4. error 40. ibi.
• * 1.343

  5. error 31. ibid.
• * 1.344

  Error 37.
• * 1.345

  Fox Acts. pag. 41. Illyric. in Ca∣talog. test. p. 730.
• * 1.346

  Osiand Cent. 13- l. 1. c. 4. Fulk de success. Eccles pa. 332.
• * 1.347

  Baron. anno. 1176. 1. Prateol. Sander. ap. Gual∣ter. er∣ror. 2. 2. error 28. ibid. 3. error 10. apud Gualt.
• * 1.348

  Iewel. in de∣fenfione Apol. p. 48.
• * 1.349

  Spark. in res∣pons. ad Ioan. de Albins. pag. 58. Fulk. p. 332. vt supra.
• * 1.350

  Fox Acts & Monum p. 85.
• * 1.351

  Melanc. epist. ad Mico∣nium.
• * 1.352

  Protest. Apol. Tract. 2. c. sect. 4. Concil. Consta. cap. 8.
• * 1.353

  D. S. Disp. of the Church l. 1. c. 1. sect 3.
• * 1.354

  Fox vt sup. Hu∣niph. in vita Iuelli p. 263.
• * 1.355

  Fox in Apocal. cap. 11.
• * 1.356

  Luth. in collo. cap de Anti Christo Fox Acts & Mon. p. 190. & p. 258.
• * 1.357

  Concil. Florent sess. vlt.
• * 1.358

  Censu∣ra Orie∣tal. Ec∣cles. c. 7.10.12.13. &c.
• * 1.359

  Barō∣nius an. 685.
• * 1.360

  Concil. Flor. de instruct A me∣nor.
• * 1.361

  Du Moulin Contr Card. Peron. e. 12.
• * 1.362

  Godin¦gus l 1. de reb Abyssi nor.
• * 1.363

  Sponda. in Cle¦ment. 7. ••uno 1524.
• * 1.364

  Godin∣gus lib. 1. ••e re∣bus Aby¦ssinor. c. 18.
• * 1.365

  Pe••kins expos. symbol. p. 266. whit,
• * 1.366

  Luth. in colloq c. de pa∣trib.
• * 1.367

  Idom de seruo. arbitr. cap. 2,
• * 1.368

  Cal inst lib. 3. cap 5 sect. 10.
• * 1.369

  Vvhit cont. 2, q. 5 c. 7. & li. 6. e••nt. Duri∣eum. P. Mar. de voto
• * 1.370

  Dudi∣tius ap. Bezam Epist. 1.
• * 1.371

  Bunny Tract. de Paci∣fication. sect. 18. p. 108.
• * 1.372

  Perk. in c. 8. ad Galat. v. 9. Whita. cont. 2. quaest. 6. c. 3.
• * 1.373

  Esay. 2.2.
• * 1.374

  Esay. 62.6.
• * 1.375

  Math. 5.14.
• * 1.376

  Ephes 4.11.12.
• * 1.377

  Aug. tract. 1. ••n epist. Ioan.
• * 1.378

  Idem de vnit. Eccles. c. 14.
• * 1.379

  Cont. Petil. li. 2. c. 104 Chrys. hom. 4. in 6. Esay.
• * 1.380

  Aug. de pastor. c. 16.
• * 1.381

  Humph Iesuit. part. 2 rat. 3.
• * 1.382

  Esay 60.11
• * 1.383

  Math. 18.17.
• * 1.384

  Ephes. 4.11.
• * 1.385

  Melan. in Con∣cil. Theol p. 393.394.
• * 1.386

  Humph Ies. par. 2. rat. 3. Enoch. Claph. in An∣tid. schi p. ••7.
• * 1.387

  Rom. 10.17.
• * 1.388

  Aggai. 2.9.
• * 1.389

  Heb. 8.6.
• * 1.390

  Hieron. cont. Lucifer. cap. 6.
• * 1.391

  Sebast. Cast in praef. Biblior. lat.
• * 1.392

  Osiand in epi∣tom. cont. 16. par∣te 2. p. 647.
• * 1.393

  Idem p. 818.
• * 1.394

  Prot. Apolog. tract. 2. cap. 1. sect. 5.
• * 1.395

  Aug. li. 2. cont. p••til. c. 104.
• * 1.396

  in ad lat
• * 1.397

  Cont. Shlus. in Theol. Cal. l. 2. f. 131.
• * 1.398

  Fox Acts. p. 402.
• * 1.399

  VVot∣son in Exam. tit. Rom.
• * 1.400

  Aug Vnit Eccl.
• * 1.401

  Enoch. Cleo∣pham. in An∣tidot. Schism. p. 17.
• * 1.402

  3. Kings 18.13.
• * 1.403

  Heb. 8.6.
• * 1.404

  Math. ch. 3. & ch. 13.
• * 1.405

  Rom. 10.10.
• * 1.406

  1. Cor. 11.19.
• * 1.407

  Aug. epist. 48. ad Vin∣cent.
• * 1.408

  Mel. in locis com. cap. de Eccles.
• * 1.409

  Aug cap. 16. de vnitate Eccles.
• * 1.410

  Hieron. Dial. cont. Lucifer.
• * 1.411

  Tertull. lib. 4. contr. Mar¦cion. c. 5.
• * 1.412

  Hior. epist. ad Damas.
• * 1.413

  Cyp. tract de simpli∣citate Pr••ta∣tor.
• * 1.414

  Aug. de vtilite crede c. 17.
• * 1.415

  Aug. de vnitate Eccl. c. 8. & in ps. 149.
• * 1.416

  S. Ire∣naeus. li. 3. c. 3.
• * 1.417

  Hier. dial. cont. Lucifer. vt sup. Tertull. de praes∣crip. c. 34. Idem li. advers. Hermo∣nem c. 1.
• * 1.418

  Math. 16.19.
• * 1.419

  Acts 20.29.30.
• * 1.420

  1. Iohn. 2.19.
• * 1.421

  2. Tim. 3.9.
• * 1.422

  Aug. in psal. 57.
• * 1.423

  Psal 18.6.
• * 1.424

  Ambros lib. de Salomo¦ne c. 4.
• * 1.425

  Hieron. epist. ad Dama∣um.
• * 1.426

  Aug. cont. ep. fond. c. 5.
• * 1.427

  2. Thes¦sal. 2.15.
• * 1.428

  Esay 35.8.
• * 1.429

  Acts 20 27.31.
• * 1.430

  2. Ti∣moth. 2.2. Galat. 1.9.
• * 1.431

  Esay 59.21.
• * 1.432

  Esay 62.6.
• * 1.433

  Deuter. 32.7.
• * 1.434

  Ieremie 6.16.
• * 1.435

  Math. 18.17.
• * 1.436

  Aug. de vtilita∣te cred. cap. 8.
• * 1.437

  Tertull. de praes∣crip. c. 21.
• * 1.438

  Tert. de praes. c. 21.
• * 1.439

  Vincent. Lyr. cont. he∣res. c. 1.
• * 1.440

  Orig. tract. 27. 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• * 1.441

  Theodo∣ret. l. 1. hist. c. 8.
• * 1.442

  Atha∣nas. lib. 1. de de∣cret. Ni∣ceni Cō.
• * 1.443

  Aug. lib. 2 de bapt. c. 9.
• * 1.444

  Aug. lib. 4. de baptis. c. 24.
• * 1.445

  Aug. epist. 118. ad ••anuar.
• * 1.446

  Aug lib. ••. de bapt. c. 4.
• * 1.447

  Vincent. cont. he es. c. 9.
• * 1.448

  Aug. serm. 14 de ver∣bis Apo∣stol.
• * 1.449

  Iude v. 3.
• * 1.450

  Cypr. in tract. de simpli∣citate Prela∣tor. Osee 2.19.
• * 1.451

  Ephes. 5.25. &c.
• * 1.452

  Ibid. v. 32.
• * 1.453

  Eccle∣siastic. c. 3. v. 11
• * 1.454

  Psal. 128.1. & seq.
• * 1.455

  Chry∣sost. ver. 10. Psal. 44.
• * 1.456

  Aug. conc. 2. in psal. 30. de vnite Eccl c. 5. lib. 1. ad Cres. c. 33.
• * 1.457

  Cant. 6.
• * 1.458

  Iohn. 10 16.
• * 1.459

  Ephes. 4.5.
• * 1.460

  Iohn 17 20.
• * 1.461

  Apud Maldo∣nat in hunc locum.
• * 1.462

  Math. 16.19. Iohn 21 16.18. Cypr. in tract. de simpli∣cite Prae∣lator.
• * 1.463

  Hieron. lib. 1. cont. Iovi∣nian.
• * 1.464

  Hier ep. ad Da∣masum.
• * 1.465

  Aug. cont. epist. funda∣ment. c. 4.
• * 1.466

  Aug. epist. 166. Cypr. epist. 73. & 45.
• * 1.467

  Esay 19.2.
• * 1.468

  Aug lib. de agone Christi c 29. & lib 1. de bapt. c 6.
• * 1.469

  Chry∣s••st. hom 11. in ep. ad Ephes.
• * 1.470

  Proverb 6.16.19
• * 1.471

  1. Cor. 11.19.
• * 1.472

  Psal 92 vers. vlt
• * 1.473

  Ephes. 5.26.27.
• * 1.474

  Cal lib. 1. instit. cap. 18 par. 3.
• * 1.475

  Ibid par 4.
• * 1.476

  In Rom. pc 454.
• * 1.477

  Basil. quod Deus noe sit auctor malor.
• * 1.478

  Feuar∣dentius lib. 2. Theo∣machiae Calvi∣nisticae cap. 12.
• * 1.479

  Cal. lib. 3. Inst. c. 22. par. 2.
• * 1.480

  Aug. lib. de vera relig. c. 14.
• * 1.481

  Becan. opusc. disp. An Deus sit Auctor. peccati cap. 17.
• * 1.482

  Aug. in Enchir. c. 100.
• * 1.483

  Concil. Arausi∣can. c. 25.
• * 1.484

  Aug. lib. 2. de Civit. Dei c. 8.
• * 1.485

  Luth. in cap. 1. ad Ga∣lat.
• * 1.486

  Luth. tom. 5. wit. ser. de Ma∣trim. f. 119. Et tom. 1. epis. fol. 334. Zuingl. tom. 2. in resp. ad con∣fes. Lu∣theri f. 878.
• * 1.487

  Shlus. in Theo. Calvin lib. 2. fol. 72.
• * 1.488

  Luth. in postill sup. Euang. Domin pae Ad∣ventus.
• * 1.489

  Lost sheep p. 192.
• * 1.490

  Calvin. Instit. c. 10. par. 17.
• * 1.491

  Cent. Magd. cent. 13. col. 11. 79. Haclui∣te 2. parte 2. volum. p, 81. Luther. cont. Anaba∣ptistas. Breirly Pro••.
• * 1.492

  Apol. tract. 2. c. 3. sect. 9. subd. 1. post F.
• * 1.493

  Aug. lib. de mo∣rib Eccl Cat. c. 30.
• * 1.494

  Aug. ibid. cap. 31.
• * 1.495

  Aug. epist. 50. ad Bonifa∣cium.
• * 1.496

  Genes 12.17.
• * 1.497

  Esay 2.2. Psalm. 2.
• * 1.498

  Luke 24.47.
• * 1.499

  Coloss. 1.6.
• * 1.500

  Luke 1.33. Mat. 16.19.
• * 1.501

  Aug. de Vnitate Eccl. c. 11.
• * 1.502

  Aug. de Vnit. Eccl c. 3.
• * 1.503

  Aug. cont. epist. fund. c. 4.
• * 1.504

  Idem lib. de vera re∣lig. c. 6.
• * 1.505

  Cyril. Hierosol. Catech. 15.
• * 1.506

  Hierom. cont. Lucife∣rianos.
• * 1.507

  Aug. cont. Crescon. l. 3. c. 66.
• * 1.508

  Aug. epist. 48
• * 1.509

  Beza in praefat. novi Testam.
• * 1.510

  Aug. lib. 1. cont. Gau∣dent. c. 33.
• * 1.511

  Esay 62.6.
• * 1.512

  Ephes. 4.11.
• * 1.513

  Math. vlt.
• * 1.514

  Heb. 5.4. Rom. 10 15.
• * 1.515

  Ieremie 23.21. and 27.15. Iohn. 10.1.
• * 1.516

  Luke 10.16. Math. 10.15.
• * 1.517

  Math. 24 5. Math 7.15.
• * 1.518

  Act. 20.28.30.
• * 1.519

  Irena••us lib. 3. c. 3
• * 1.520

  Tert. lib. de praescrip
• * 1.521

  Cal. lib. 4. Instit. c. 3. par. 4.
• * 1.522

  Beza in epist. ad Aleman∣num.
• * 1.523

  Saravia in defen. cont. Bez. p. 73. Prot. Apol. tract. ••. c. 2. sect. 3. subd. 2
• * 1.524

  Erasm. in dia∣trib•• de lib. arb.
• * 1.525

  Luth •••• Se∣nat M ••us.
• * 1.526

  Mason of the conse∣cration epist de dicato∣rie.
• * 1.527

  Sander de schis. Angl. Champ. de Voca•• Mini∣strorum
• * 1.528

  Fulk in re••ent. a pud Brairlie tr. 2. c. 2 sect. 6. ad D••
• * 1.529

  Spots woods in his history &c.
• * 1.530

  Knox Chron. p. 74. 75
• * 1.531

  Cypr. de simpli∣cit. Pra••∣lator.
• * 1.532

  Aug. cont. epist. fund. c. 4.
• * 1.533

  Aug. lib. con•• ad∣vers. leg & pro∣phet, c. 20.
• * 1.534

  Iohn 10.1.
• * 1.535

  Numer 16.
• * 1.536

  Aug. cont. epist. fund, c. 4.
• * 1.537

  1. Ti∣moth. 3.15.
• * 1.538

  1. Pet. 1.7.
• * 1.539

  Aug. dt v••il. credendi c. 17.
• * 1.540

  Idem cont. epist. fund. c. 4.
• * 1.541

  Iohn 1.41. Iohn 4.29.
• * 1.542

  Mark. 9.7. Luke 10.16.
• * 1.543

  Math. 18.19.
• * 1.544

  Lactan. lib. 4. divinar. Instit. c. vlt.
• * 1.545

  Aug. serm. 1. de ver∣bis Apost
• * 1.546

  Aug. So∣liloq. c. 33.