The progenie of Catholicks and Protestants Whereby on the one side is proued the lineal descent of Catholicks, for the Roman faith and religion, from the holie fathers of the primitiue Church ... and on the other, the neuer-being of Protestants or their nouel sect during al the foresayd time, otherwise then in confessed and condemned hereticks. ...

THE FIRST BOOKE, WHERIN IS PROVED BY THE CONFESSION OF PROTESTANTS THAT THE CATHOLICK ROMAN CHVRCH hath continued Euer most Knowne and Vniuersal, euen from Christs verie Time, vntil the Date hereof. (Book 1)

THE ANTIQVITIE OF THE TRVE Church; and the force of the Argument drawne from the Authoritie thereof: As also of the great necessitie of finding-out this true Church. CHAP. I.

AS we may not doubt but that the Church of God, speaking in general, is equal in Ancestrie with our first Parents in Para∣dise, & so in regard of her Birth-right, & prime Antiquitie, long precedent and preferred before the Scriptures themselues; so euen of the Church of Christians, it may not be denyed, but that, as in the same instant, with Christ her Head and Spouse, she receaued her first being, life, and birth in this world, according to that of(1) 1.1 S. Am∣brose: God built his Church in the chief Corner-stone CHRIST IESVS; so was this her greatest nobilitie of birth, not only to cōtinue for some few generatiōs, but euer to remayne for al posteritie. Agreable to which the Prophet Daniel foretold of the Church(2) 1.2 that it is A kingdome that shal neuer be destroyed, but shal stand for euer. And so shal be according to Esay, as(3) 1.3 An eternal glorie and ioy from generation to generation.

So that in steed of further discussing the Ancientest Birth-right and not-interrupted continuance of Christ his Church, I wil now only treat of the

force of that Argumēt which is drawne from the Authoritie & Determinatiō of the sayd so Noble & Anciēt a Church. Wherein for greater expeditiō, I wil pretermit most plentiful proofes both from sacred Scriptures, and learnedst Fathers, & in steed therof wil for the present rest satisfyed with the freest Grants and ample Acknowledgements of the learnedst Protestants; who first as they euer pretend to build their whole Faith & Religion vpon the Written Word, so do they further aknowledge the same to be only knowne and dis∣cerned from forged and adulterat Scriptures by the sacred Authoritie and Testimonie of the Church of Christ.

In which respect(4) 1.4 D. Fulk auoucheth, that The Church of Christ hath Iudge∣mēt to discerne true writings from counterfait, and the Word of God from the writings of men, and this Iudgemēt she hath of the Holie-Ghost. With whom accordeth(5) 1.5 D. Iewel affirming, that, The Church of God hath the Spirit of wisdome, whereby to dis∣cerne true Scriptures from false. In like sort M.(6) 1.6 Hooker teacheth, that, of things necessarie, the verie chiefest is to know, what books we are bound to esteeme holie; which point is confessed impossible for the Scripture itself to teach. Whereof he further sayth,(7) 1.7 It is not the Word of God which doth, or possibly can assure vs, that we do wel to think it is his word: for if anie one Book of Scripture did giue testimonie of al, yet stil that Scripture which giueth credit to the rest, would require another Scripture to giue credit vnto it. Neither could we come vnto anie pause whereon to rest, vnles besides Scripture there were something which might assure vs &c. which something afterwards he acknowledgeth.(8) 1.8 To be the authoritie of Gods Church. Agreably hereunto D. whitaker doth confesse, that this weightiest controuersie concerning Cano∣nical Scriptures, is to vs determined not by(9) 1.9 Testimonie of the Spirit, the which (sayth he) being priuat and secret, is vnfit to teach and refel others, but as he fur∣ther teacheth(10) 1.10 by the Ecclestical Tradition: An argument whereby may be ar∣gued and conuinced, what books be Canonical and what not. And another Protestant Writer,(11) 1.11 much commended by(12) 1.12 Bullinger, affirmeth, that The church is endued with the Spirit of God (and that) The diligence & authoritie of the Church is to be acknowledged herein, which hath partly giuen forth her Testimonie of the assu∣red writings, and hath partly by her Spiritual Iudgement refused the writings which are vnworthie. Yea he further assureth vs with(13) 1.13 S. Augustin and Tertullian, that(14) 1.14 we could not beleeue the Ghospel, were it not that the Church taught vs and witnessed, that this doctrine was deliuered by the Apostles. So that the authoritie of Gods true Church is so great, as that by her warrāt we are only assured of the Written Word of God itself, and for such by her wisedome (giuen by the Holie-Ghost) discerned to vs from al forged, Apocryphal, and counterfait writings: A power and authoritie, then which none stronger, seing the certain knowledge of the true word of God is the chiefest foundation of our Chri∣stian Faith. Now if in this question so important, we may securely follow and beleeue, the Sentence and Determination of the Church, how much more then in other doubts of smaller respect?

Adde further hereunto in surest confirmation of the Churches authoritie, that it is likewise granted and taught by the learnedst Protestants that the true visible Church can not wholy erre in matters of Faith: Insomuch as they expresly confesse of this verie point, that(15) 1.15 The controuersie &c. is not of the Catholick (or vniuersall) Church, for we al agree (say they) herein, that she cannot

orre touching Faith &c. wherefore this question is touching (only) a particular church. Now if the true Church can not erre in matters of Faith & Religion, then is her Authoritie sacred, her Decrees infallible, her Children secured, and al dif∣ficulties arising easily composed.

Yea from hence also may we iustly collect, amongst al controuersies what∣soeuer, the absolute necessitie of finding-out the true Church; seing the fin∣ding-out therof, is the surest finding of the right path, which leadeth directly vnto al truth. In which regard sayth D. Field most iudiciously(16) 1.16 The conside∣ration of vnhappie diuisions of the Christian world, and the infinit distractions of mens minds, not knowing in so great varietie of opinions, what to think or to whom to ioyne themselues &c. hath made me euer to think, that there is no part of heauenlie know∣ledge more necessarie, then that which concerneth the Church: For seing the controuersies of Religion in our time are growne in number so manie, and in nature so intricate, that few haue time and leasure, fewer strength of vnderstanding, to examine them; what remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence, but diligently to search out, which, amōg al the Societies of men in the world, is &c. that Spouse of Christ, and Church of the liuing God, which is the Pillar and Ground of truth, that so they may imbrace her communion, follow her direction, and rest in her iudgement? But what Ca∣tholick can speak more plainly and fully then D. Field here doth either for the necessitie of finding-out the true Church, or for our following and obser∣uing her directions and Sentence when she is found? And agreably hereunto D. White speaking of the Common-people, sayth(17) 1.17 If by certain markes, they could find which is the true Church, there would remaine little difficultie in the rest, for∣somuch as therein they should find the truth in euerie controuersie: The like necessitie vrgeth Caluin saying,(18) 1.18 Because I haue now determined to dispute of the visible Church, let vs learne by the onlie testimonie of our Mothers praise, how profitable, ea how necessarie to vs is the knowledge therof, seing there is no other entrance into life, vnles she conceaue vs in her womb, vnles she bring vs forth, vnles &c. vnder her custodie and protection she defend vs vntil we dye &c. Adde that out of her bosome no Remission of sinnes is to be hoped for. With whom agreeth M. Mornay,(19) 1.19 God would (saith he) that the Church should be honoured for the Mother of al those, of whom he vouchsafeth to be Father. Seing therefore that God alloweth none for his chil∣dren but those that are borne againe and brought-vp in this Church; if we desire our sal∣uation, it is necessarie we know her, in whose lap we haue it &c. we must not seek sal∣uation for anie but in her. And againe,(20) 1.20 Into the visible Church al they must retire themselues in this world, that wil be gathered in the inuisible Church in the world to come. M. Parkins confesseth that(21) 1.21 The Arke out of which al perished, figured the Church, out of which al are condemned &c. out of the Militant Church there are no meanes of Saluation, no preaching of the Word, no inuocation of Gods name, no Sa∣craments, and therefore no Saluation. And speaking of such as be, without, that is, saith he, forth of the Church, they are dogs, enchanters, whoremongers, adulterers &c.

Now from al this I wil only briefly conclude, that the Church of God is not only most ancient, and in that regard greatly to be honoured, reueren∣ced, and preferred, but being likewise confessedly directed by the Spirit of God, in discerning & iudging the truth in matters of Faith, that therefore in al doubts arising in matters of Religion, we may with greatest safetie and quiet

to our minds, repose our soules and consciences vpon the Authoritie, Iudge∣ment, and Determination of the sayd Church.

Yea further seing it is agreed vpon by al parties, that out of the true Church there is no Saluation; how lamentable is the state of obstinat Hereticks, who through pertinacie in errour and infidelitie, are quite cut-of & cast out of the Church? And how much to be deplored are vncharitable Schismaticks? who for false, fraile, and earthlie respects, do foolishly diuide themselues from the Arke of Saluation, liuing continually like brute beasts, without al spiritual food and nutriment to their soules, depriued of supernal grace, conueyed by Christs holie Sacraments, debarred from the sweetest communion, and pu∣rest conuersation with their dearest Mother, and al this, for no other respect or pretence, then that only, which by S. Iohn was blamed in the Pharisees, who(22) 1.22 did not confesse (Christ) that they might not be cast out of the Synago∣gue. For they loued the glorie of men, more then the glorie of God.

THAT THE PRESENT ROMAN CHVRCH, AND Religion, for these last thousand yeares after Christ, haue stil continued most Knowne, and Vniuersal, throughout the Christian world. CHAPTER. II.

NOW for our certaine finding-out of this true Church so ne∣cessarie to Saluation, we are to suppose for the present, that the true Church is euer to continue euen from Christs time, vntil the end of the world: wherefore to make this good in our behalf, and against our Aduersaries: Sundrie and strongest are the proofes, wherewith the Euer-during and Vniuersal continuance, of the Roman Catholick Religion, for these last thousand yeares, might euidently be conuinced; As the Catholick Coronations and State-gouernment of al Christiā Emperours, Kings, and Princes: The fairest Records of al Lawes, Canon, Ciuil, or Municipal: The ancient Seas of Bishops and Archbishops: The famous Monuments of Monasteries, Hospitals, Churches, and the like: And al Doctours, and men most renowned either for Learning or Sanctitie, who by their writings or workes haue testifyed to al posteritie, that the Religion of their dayes, and seueral Countries wherin they liued, and which themselues belieued and professed, was one and the same with our present Roman.

Yet to omit al these, and much more which might be vrged to the same effect: In a case so manifest and confessed, I wil content my self with the plentiful acknowledgements of my greatest Aduersaries, who through the clearest splendour of our Roman Religion and Piety, during al the foresaid Ages, are enforced, euen by the rack of truth, and strōgest Euidences, though to the foulest disgrace of themselues, and manifest confirmation & condem∣nation of their Sect or Religion, plainly to admit, grant, and confesse the foresayd continuance of our Roman Religion, and that most Vniuersal in al Nations for these last thousand yeares.

For though D. Morton ouer-boldly attempteth to affirme, that M. Brierly his passage(1) 1.23 from the dayes of Gregorie &c. vnto these present times &c. for the inuio∣lable cōtinuāce of our now Romish Faith, is praecipitare, nō descēdere: an issue voyd of consent, and a reckoning (as we say) without their Hoste; yet what Bellarmin, or other Iesuit in the world, could speake more fully for vs Catholicks in this behalf, then doth the Protestāt(2) 1.24 M. Powel in these wordes? I grāt that from the yeare of Christ 605. the Professant companie of Poperie, hath been verie visible and perspi∣cuous? Or(3) 1.25 Simon de Voyon affirming that, Anno 605. when Pope Boniface was stalled in the Papal Throne, thē falsehood got the victorie &c. Thē was the whole world ouerwhelmed with the dregs of Antichristian filthines, abominable supersti∣stions and Traditions of the Pope, then was that vniuersal Apostacie from the Faith, foretold by Paul. And(4) 1.26 M. Parkins hauing spoken of the second signe of Christs comming, which there he maketh to be the reuealing of Antichrist in Boniface Anno 607. alleageth thē next after, as a third signe, and as being distinct frō the other, a general departing of most men from the Faith, saying respectiuely thereof, during the space of nine hundred yeares &c. the Popish Heresie (so do Hereticks stile it) hath spred it self ouer the earth (and so vniuersally in his opinion through-out al parts of Faith, that sayth he next afterwards) and the faithful seruants of God, were but as a handful of wheat in a mountaine of chaffe,(8) 1.27 which can scarce be discerned. And againe,(5) 1.28 we say for the space of manie hundred yeares, an vniuersal Apostacie ouerspred the whole face of the earth, and that our (Prote∣stant) Church was not then visible to the world, but lay hid vnder the chaffe of Po∣perie; and the truth of this, the Records of al Ages manifest.

M. Morton(6) 1.29 would euade these testimonies of M. Parkins, by answering, that he speaketh this only of the Article of the Popes Primacie, and not in re∣gard of so large continuance, and general belief of the other points of our now Catholick Faith, which yet is most vntrue, Parkins speaking in general, of a general departing from the Faith, and of an vniuersal Apostacie, In so much as the Protestant church or Religion was not, according to Parkins, then visible to the world. In which sense also(7) 1.30 D. Fulk confesseth that The (very) Reli∣giō of the Papists came in and preuailed Anno Dom. 607. &c. And so vniuersally, that, saith he, The reuelatiō of Antichrist, with the Churches flight into the wilder∣nes, was Anno 607. So clear and cōfessed it is, that our now Roman Religion hath cōtinued vniuersally for these last thousand yeares. A truth so euidēt also, that most Protestāts do from thence inferre and auouch, that al the Popes of Rome for these last 1000. yeares haue been Antichrists.(9) 1.31 M. Powel affirmeth that the Pope hath been Antichrist at al times since Gregorie the Great. Accor∣ding to(10) 1.32 Danaeus, The Kingdome of that Antichrist hath now manifestly cōtinued more then nine hundred yeares, from the Emperour Phocas to the time af Luther. D. whitaker(11) 1.33 affirmeth Boniface the Third (who liued Anno 607) and al his suc∣cessours, to haue been Antichrists(12) 1.34 D. Fulk auoucheth, that the Popes from Bo∣niface the Third, were blaspemous Hereticks and Antichrists.(13) 1.35 D. Downeham auerreth, that The whole row or rable of Popes, frō Boniface the Third downeward, were Antichrists.(14) 1.36 M. wotton tearmeth Boniface the Third, the first reuealed Antichrist. And(15) 1.37 Hospinian censureth him, and al his successours, to be verissimos Antichristos, most true Antichrists.

D. whitaker(16) 1.38 deliuering his owne, and other Protestants opinion herein, sayth:

we affirme Gregorie the Great, to haue been the last true, and holie Bishop of that Church &c. For those that followed were true Antichrists &c. And because they aske and demand of vs some certain time, we assigne them this, to wit, of Anti∣christ's first comming. So manifest it is, that al the Roman Bishops after these last thousand yeares, being thus censured by so many Protestants for Antichrists, haue no lesse professed and maintayned the present Roman Re∣ligion, then Gregorie the Fifteenth, who now gouerneth that Sea, and is charged by Protestants, to be Antichrist himself.

And as al the Popes for these last thousand yeares, are thus censured for Antichrists, so is the article of the Popes Primacie or supreme authoritie, ouer the whole Church in al matters Ecclesiastical plainly acknowledged by D. Morton himself to be no lesse ancient: For wheras M. Brierlie produceth the te∣stimonies of Parkins, Napper, and Broccard, for the continuance of our Ro∣man Religion in general for these last thousand yeares, D. Morton restraineth their meaning (though vndeseruedly) only to the point of the Popes Pri∣macie saying:(17) 1.39 The alleaged Authours speak of the Primacie of the Pope. And againe,18 1.40 Be it granted (for so it is) that the Papal Primacie beginning in Bo∣niface the Third, is now nine hundred yeares old. So ancient and vniuersal is this so transcendent Article of the Popes Primacie in matters Spiritual. A point of such importāce that D. Reynolds affirmeth, therein,(19) 1.41 the very being and es∣sence of a Papist to consist. And D. Whitaker auoucheth that(20) 1.42 It is the head of Popish Religion, of which almost al the rest depend.

But what more forcibly can be produced for the further confirming of our Churches foresayd cōtinuāce for these last 1000. yeares, then the publick exercise of our Churches Liturgie the holy Sacrifice of the Masse, during the foresayd time? Seing not only according to D. Sutclif,(21) 1.43 In the Masse the verie Soule of Poperie doth consist; as also according to D. Whitaker,(22) 1.44 Nothing is more holie and diuine in our conceipt: But withal the Masse including sundrie articles of our Catholick Faith; as true external Sacrifice, the Real presence of Christs Bodie and Bloud in the Eucharist, Priesthood, Prayer to An∣gels and Saints, Prayer and Sacrifice for the dead and sundrie such like, thereby doth plainely conuince the vniuersal continuāce of our Catholick Religion. D. Luther(23) 1.45 affirmeth that Priuat Masse hath deceiued many Saints, and carried them away into errour, frō the time of Gregorie, for 800. yeares. With him agreeth M. Tindal(24) 1.46 in these words: I doubt not but S. Bernard, Francis, and manie other holie men, erred as concerning Masse: Osiander saith of S. Bede(25) 1.47 He was wrapped in al the Popish errours in which we dissent at this day from the Pope, for &c. he admired and followed Popish Masses. And yet sayth Osiander, He was a good man.(26) 1.48 M. Iohnson sayth, Did not Iohn Husse, that worthie champion of Christ, and others also of the Martyrs of foretimes say, and heare Masse, euen to their dying day? &c. did not diuers of them acknowledge, some the Popes calling and Su∣premacie, some seauen Sacraments, some auricular Confession? &c.

The Centurists, speaking of the eleuenth Age after Christ, confesse and say(27) 1.49 The Idolatrical Masse did bewitch al the Doctours of this Age. And they charge the tenth Age(28) 1.50 with the Stage-like spectacle & Sacrifice for the liuing and the dead.(29) 1.51 They affirme likewise the same of the ninth Age, numbring vp the ceremonies of the Masse yet to this day vsual. The eight Age likewise

is reproued by thē for the(30) 1.52 Stage-like spectacle & Sacrifice for the liuing and the dead. The seauenth Age is reproued for the vse of(31) 1.53 Masse celebrated in Latin, and for vsing(32) 1.54 Masse for the dead. And the like they affirme of the other Centuries.

D. Doue(33) 1.55 acknowledgeth yet further in plainest tearmes, that, Al our Parish-churches were not only the Popes ordinance, but also ordayned for celebra∣tion of Masse, and so employed from their first erection vntil this late reformation of the Church &c.(34) 1.56 D. Hutter publick Professour in the Vniuersitie of Wit∣temberg sayth: I do willingly grant the Popish mad Idolatrie the very Sinew (or strength) wherof, is the Sacrifice of the Masse, to haue inuaded almost the whole world, especially these last thousand yeares. But from thence I gather most euidently this Masse to haue been the cup wherewith the Roman Antichrist infected & bewit∣ched al the Kings of the earth, and almost the whole world.(35) 1.57 M. Beacon (whom other(36) 1.58 Protestants affirme to be a Diuine of chiefe note in their church) is of opinion, that, The Masse was fully finished by Pope Gregorie the First, about Anno Domini 600. &c. and frō Charles the Great, vnto Charles the Fift, the Masse raigned as a most mightie Queen in al the churches of the West part of the world. And the like is confessed by(37) 1.59 Danaeus saying: From the yeare of Christ's Pas∣sion 666. that blasphemous kingdome of Antichrist was openly, and publickly established in the Church of God, which the Spirit of God foretold: verily this verie time and yeare that execrable, and Papistical Masse &c. began to be celebrated euery where in Latin. But(38) 1.60 Chiltraeus chargeth S. Gregorie that he established manie foule errours, and especially the Idolatrous Inuocation of Saints, and Masses for the dead, which from that time as a Deluge haue ouerflowed the whole Church. D. Hutter,(39) 1.61 in this questiō of Masse and Sacrifice, giueth a Supersedeas to al the Fathers that liued after the first fiue hundred yeares, saying, we do not res∣pect later (Fathers) then of the first fiue Ages.(40) 1.62 Luther acknowledgeth that, The Masse is beleeued euerie where to be a Sacrifice which is offered to God. To these agree the Sayings of holie Fathers, so manie examples, and so great practice con∣stantly obserued through the world. And a litle after Luther further sayth, Let it not trouble thee that the whole world thinketh and doth the contrarie. But though Luther laboured, not to be troubled at his despising and reiecting of the Masse, when the whole world did think, and do the contrarie; yet I hope sundrie other Protestants, not of so seared consciences, obseruing themselues to haue thus Apostated from the whole world, in this so important a Doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Masse, wil not only be troubled, but much incited to re-vnite themselues to the whole Christian world. Neither was this so general pra∣ctice of the Masse only vsed or allowed by the Clergie, or vulgar people; for Caluin(41) 1.63 affirmeth, that The abomination of the Masse hath made drunk (or be∣sotted) al the Kings and people of the earth, from the greatest to the least; And agayne,(42) 1.64 The Roman Antichrist, and his Prophets haue taught the whole world this opinion. In like manner sayth (43) Hospinian: Al the Kings, Prin∣ces, & people of the earth hitherto from the first six hundred yeares, were made drunk with the Masse, as with a certain enchanted cup. The like wherof was confessed before by D. Hutter. So clear it is that the publick seruice vsed in al churches for these last thousand yeares, and whereunto al kings, Princes, and people were vsed to resort, was the holie Liturgie, or Sacrifice of the Masse.

From the premisses then we haue our Protestants Apologie, for the most vi∣sible and vniuersal cōtinuance of our Roman Church and Religion for these last thousand yeares; the splendour whereof being such and so generally ex∣tended, as that their Protestāt Church, themselues confesse, was not so much as then visible to the world. Secondly the Faith & doctrine taught by al Popes during the foresayd time, was so wholy consonant to ours at this day, as that therfore they are no lesse censured for Antichrists, then our Pope now raig∣ning. Thirdly, the Popes Supremacie in matters Ecclesiastical, and the Sa∣crifice of the Masse, being the two weightiest points of al matters now cōtro∣uerted, are here confessed to haue been generally belieued, and practised du∣ring the same precinct. Fourthly it is likewise grāted, that euē Al our Parish-churches, were the Popes ordinance, and for celebration of Masse, and so employed from their first erection, vntil this late pretended Reformation of the Church by Luther. The truth of al which is so palpable, as that I haue vsed no other proofes in confirmation thereof, then only the clear testimonies & free gran∣tes of the greatest Aduersaries to the Roman Churh; as for externals, of Luther, Caluin, the Centurie-writers, Osiander, Hospinian, Danaeus, Simon de Voyon, Hutterus, Chytraeus, For domesticks, of Whitaker, Fulk, Downeham, Parkins, Powel, Wotton, Tyndal, Iohnson, Doue, Beacon & Morton.

A FVRTHER CONFIRMATION OF THE VNIVERSAL continuance of our now Roman Church and Religion, for these last thousand yeares, is taken from the Confessed belief and profession of such Persons, as liuing within the foresayd time, were most Famous and Notorious, in one respect or other. CHAPTER III.

IN further euidence then of our Catholick Chur∣ches Raigne, and general Dominion for these last thousand yeares, I wil descend to particular statiōs or periods of time, and such especially, as for some importāt respect, are most knowne and notorious: And first I wil begin with the time of Luther himself at his first appearing Protestant, when I find the whole face of the world to be so Romā Catholick, as that himself was an(1) 1.65 anoynted Priest and an(2) 1.66 Augustin-Friar &c. And, liued in his Monasterie, punishing his bodie with watching, fasting and prayer,(3) 1.67 Honoured the Pope of meer conscience, Kept Chasti∣tie, Pouertie, and Obediēce; And, whatsoeuer (sayth he,) I did, I did it with a single hart, of good Zeale, and for the glorie of God. But when he fel into his Apostacie, so directly contrarie to the then present or precedent profession of Religion ouer the world, his troubled conscience burst out into these words:(4) 1.68 How often did my trembling hart beate within me, and reprehending me, obiect against me that strong argument: Art thou only wise? Do so manie worlds erre? Were so manie Ages ignorant? What if thou errest, and drawest so manie into errour to be damned

with thee eternally? And(5) 1.69 againe: Dost thou, ô sole man and of no accōpt, take vpō thee so great matters? What if thou being but one offendest? If God permit such, and so manie, and al to erre; why may he not permit thee to erre? Hitherto appertayne these arguments, the Church the Church; the Fathers the Fathers, the Councels; the Customes; the Multitudes and Greatnes of wise men: whom do not these Hils of arguments, these Clouds, yea these Seas of Examples ouerwhelme? sayth Luther. And againe(6) 1.70 At the first I was alone,(7) 1.71 and alone rolled the stone, yea(8) 1.72 vndertook so great a busines vpon me alone: And confessed it is, that Luther at his first reuolt from being a Catholick Fryar, was the first, sole, and only man, that began Protestancie; thereby departing (as himself confesseth) from the Church, from Fathers, Councels, and so many Worlds, so many Ages precedent.

This poynt is so certain, that M. Iewel(9) 1.73 confesseth, That the (Protestant) truth was vnknowne at that time, and vnheard-of, when Martin Luther and Hul∣derick Suinglius first came vnto the knowledge and preaching of the Ghospel: And Bucer(10) 1.74 calleth Luther, The first Apostle to vs of the purer Ghospel; yea the Lutherans(11) 1.75 do affirme it impudencie, to say, that manie learned men in Ger∣manie before Luther did hold the doctrine of the Ghospel.(12) 1.76 Georgius Miluis argueth that, If there had been right beleeuers that went before Luther in his of∣fice &c. there had then been no need of a Lutheran Reformation: therefore we say that Luther was raysed-vp by Gods special appointement and extraordinarily. So likewise(13) 1.77 Morgensterne iudgeth it ridiculous (to think) that in the time be∣fore Luther, anie had the puritie of doctrine; and that Luther should receaue it from them, and not they from Luther. Considering (sayth he) it is manifest to the whole Christian world, that before Luthers time, al churches were ouerwhelmed with more then Cimmerian darknes; and that, Luther was diuinely raysed vp to dis∣couer the same, and to restore the light of true doctrine: In so much as(14) 1.78 Lu∣ther sayth of himself, we dare glorie that Christ was first made knowne by vs. And he tearmeth(15) 1.79 his doctrine, resurgens vel potius oriens Euangelium, the Ghospel rising agayne, or rather first beginning. A truth so clear that(16) 1.80 Ca∣merarius auouching Wicliffe to haue been holpen, or instructed, by the walden∣ses, and Husse by Wiccliffe; speaking yet of Luther, affirmeth to the contrarie, that Luther receiued his doctrine neither from Husse or Wiccliffe, but was instructed of himself, as he declareth of himself in his writings. In wh••ch respect also sayth M. Wotton, Luther might truly say, that he was the first which had in these times published Christ, especially in the chief poynt of the Ghospel, which is,(17) 1.81 Iustification by faith in Christ; and in this respect it is an honour to Luther to haue been a Sonne without a Father, a Disciple without a Maister. Agreably wherunto also sayth M.(18) 1.82 Fox: Luther pluckt downe the fondation of Papistrie, by opening one veine long hid before, the touchstone of al truth, and the only principal origen of our sal∣uation, which is, our free Iustification by Faith only: yea Luther is so confessedly the first Authour or Beginner of Protestancie, that one of his owne Brood writeth that,(19) 1.83 The Spirit which telleth things to come, worketh not but in time of the Ghospel; which Luther, as it is confessed, towards the end of the world did first bring-in. And againe,(20) 1.84 The seduction of false Prophets is not manifest but vnder the Ghospel; which before Luther, as we sayd, neuer went since the Pri∣mitiue

time of the Apostles. Some Protestants(21) 1.85 (sayth D. Couel) make Lu∣ther and Caluin Authours of the Religion among vs.

By al which it appeareth that Luther was borne and bred a Catholick, and that at the same time, the Religion knowne and practised ouer the Christian world, was the present Roman; from which Luther then reuol∣ting, confesseth himself to be the sole and only man who first preached the Protestant Ghospel, and so is confessed by other Protestants to be the first Authour of their Religion, to be their first Apostle, and to be a Sonne without a Father, a Disciple without a Maister. At the same time of Luther raigned here in England King Henrie the Eight, in whose time our Roman Religion was so vniuersal, that D. Willet confesseth that(22) 1.86 In King Henries the Eight time the Masse continued, and the whole bodie of the Roman doctrine, the Supre∣macie excepted. Sleidan also sayth of K. Henrie:(23) 1.87 He exiled the name of the Bishop of Rome, but kept stil his doctrine. Yea saith M. Fox,(24) 1.88 He set forth, and by ful consent of Parlament established the book of Six Articles, con∣tayning the summe of Popish Religion. In which he was so resolute as that himself in Person not only(25) 1.89 disputed, but also commanded(26) 1.90 Sen∣tence to be pronounced against the Protestant Lambert. And this notwith∣standing, the Popish Church vnder his Raigne is, by D. Fulk(27) 1.91 acknow∣ledged to be a true Church, and the King himself to be(28) 1.92 A member of the Catholick Church of Christ; yea sayth M. Hal, the Church as then was A true(29) 1.93 visible Church of God. And for asmuch (sayth(30) 1.94 M. Mason) as it is the custom of Papists to brand the Raigne of King Henrie the Eight, with the odious name of Schisme, let me a litle dispel those clouds and mists, wherwith they darken the glorie of that Heroical Prince. So gratefull are they to K. Henrie, though wel they know, that sundrie of their Protestant Predecessours he burned for their Heresies.

In the Age next before Luther and K. Henrie liued Iohn Husse, who though some Protestants (through their greatest penurie) make bold to challenge for a member of their Church, yet is it to the contrarie confessed by(31) 1.95 Luther himself, that The Papists burned Iohn Husse, when as yet he departed not a finger-breadth from the Papacie; for he taught the same which the Papists do, only he found fault with their vices and wicked life; against the Pope he com∣mitted nothing: Agayne, They do not wel (sayth(32) 1.96 Luther) who make me a Hussite, for he held not with me.(33) 1.97 He taught horrible and diuelish blasphemies.

Agreably sayth(34) 1.98 M. Fox: The Papists traduce Husse and Hierom of Prague (who liued in the same Age) as Hereticks; why so I beseech you? &c. I adde further, if he be an Heretick who varieth from the Decrees of the Roman Church, what dit Husse at any time teach or defend in the Councel, wherin he did not rather seem superstitiously to consent with the Papists? What did the Popish Faith decree concerning Transubstantiation, which he likewise with the Papists did not confirme? Who celebrated Masse more religiously then he? or more chastlie obserued the vowes of Priestly Chastitie? Adde further that in doctrine of Catholicks concer∣ning Free-wil, Predestination, Informed Faith the cause of iustification, and Merit of good works, what other thing did he hold then is taught at Rome? what Image of any Sainct did he euer cast out of his Church at Bethlem? &c. what

therfore shal we say him to haue committed, for which he is not togeather with the Roman Sea to be condemned, or with it to be absolued? In like ful sort, sayth D. Field(34) 1.99 touching Iohn Husse and Hierom of Prague, I could neuer yet find, in what poynt of Faith they dissented from the doctrine of the Church then constantly resolued on: but they bitterly inueighed against the Ambition, Pride, Coueteousnes, and negligence of the Clergie. And more in particular M. Fox(35) 1.100 confesseth that Husse beleeued the seauen Sacraments, and(36) 1.101 Transubstantiation; M. Iacob(37) 1.102 addeth the Popes Primacie; wherof also sayth(38) 1.103 Luther, Iohn Husse seemeth not to withstand, but that the Monarchie of the Pope may be; yea he further there affirmeth, that Husse attributeth much to the Roman Idol. Lastly Husse being a Catholick Priest,(39) 1.104 M. Iacob affirmeth, that he sayd Masse to his dying day. So manifest it is that in the Age of Iohn Husse, the publick Seruice of the Church, was the Sacrifice of the Masse, and the Re∣ligion then knowne, and beleeued by Husse and others, was our present Roman.

Where I can not but much admire the absurditie and beggerie of M. Fox and others, in(40) 1.105 registring Iohn Husse for a most holie Martyr of their Pro∣testant Church, and further(41) 1.106 affirming, that It can not seem otherwise, but that Iohn Husse, and Hierom of Prague, are without al controuersie, the two witnesses &c. wherof the Prophet speaketh properly and expresly in this place, to wit, of the Apocalipse: wheras it is most certain that Husse was condemned and burned, chiefly(42) 1.107 for his vrging of Communion to the Lay-people vnder both kindes, and for maintayning Wicclifs seditious Doctrine against Princes, Priestes, and Bishops if they committed mortal Sinne; in other poynts of Faith liuing and dying a Roman Catholick. In the Age precedent to Iohn Husse liued Iohn Wiccliffe, who was a Catholick Priest,(43) 1.108 euen the Parson of Lutterworth in Lecestershier, who according to M. Stow(44) 1.109 first inueighed against the Church, for that he had been depriued by the Archbishop of Canterburie, from a certain Benefice &c. And hauing vpon this occasion seuered himself from the Church in which he formerly was, He with his Disciples went barefooted, and basely cloathed in coorse russet garments downe to the heeles; and,(45) 1.110 seemed to contemne al temporal goods, for the loue of eternal riches; adioyning himself to the begging Friars, approuing their pouertie, and extolling their perfection: Reteyning stil his former Catholick opinions concerning(46) 1.111 Holie-water,(47) 1.112 the Worshipping of Relicks and Images, the(48) 1.113 Intercession of our B. Lady S. Mary, the(49) 1.114 Rites and Ceremonies of the Masse, wherof(50) 1.115 Przibauus (an Heretick who liued neer the same time) sayth: Iohn Wiccliffe, in his booke of Apostacie, and eighteenth chapter, alloweth al the Rites of Masse from the beginning almost to the end &c.(51) 1.116 Wiccliffe himself calleth Extreame Vnction a medecine to cure sinne; as appeareth (sayth he) Iames. 1 And he affirmeth that it is made with oyle of oliue consecrated by a Bishop:(52) 1.117 yea he els-where numbreth and mentioneth al the seauen Sacraments: And lastly in his epistle to Pope Vrban (written not three yeares before his death) endeauouring to purge himself to the Pope, he plainly acknow∣ledgeth that the Bishop of Rome is the Vicar of Christ vpon earth: Adding thus further, If I haue erred in anie of these poynts, I wil submit my self to

correction euen by death if necessitie so require. By al which we may see that Iohn Wiccliffe in al the former poynts (now contradicted by Protestants) was wholy Catholick; As also the Age wherin he liued: A truth so euident, that Osiander(53) 1.118 confesseth that, Wiccliffe had no companions of the same time, who might brotherly admonish him &c. and D. Humfrey(54) 1.119 acknow∣ledgeth that, In these last times he was almost the first Trumpeter of this Ghospel of Protestants. So litle did the fame or infamie of Protestancie sound in the Christian world at Wiccliffs first beginning.

In the Age before Iohn Wiccliffe liued the Hereticks Albigenses, who because they were in opinion and Sect wholy(55) 1.120 agreing with the Wal∣denses, and only differing in Titles and Names according to the diuersitie of places and times wherin they liued; I wil therefore, omitting them, come to the Waldenses, who receiued their name from Waldo a Catholick Lay∣man,(56) 1.121 a rich Marchand of Lyons, and one so vnlearned (sayth M. Fox) that he gaue rewards to certaine learned men to translate the holie Scriptures for him, and certain other workes of the Doctours: by which he did conferre the forme of Religion in his time, to the infallible Word of God: wherupon (sayth M. Fox Further)(57a) 1.122 sprung vp the doctrine and name of those which are called Waldenses. But Waldo being destitute of al ordinarie calling, and despayring to obtayne it from the Church of Rome (out of which he was gone forth) contemning the same, he taught that(57b) 1.123 Lay-men and women might con∣secrate (the Sacraments) and preach: for the practice wherof the Waldenses and Albigenses were(58) 1.124 excommunicated by the Pope: And yet this their reuolt from the Roman Sea notwithstanding,(59) 1.125 D. Humfrey and M. Fox do both grant, that Waldo did forsake al things, that being poore he might follow Christ, and the Euangelical perfection, which D. Fulk(60) 1.126 and M. Parkins reiect for Popish: In so much that(61) 1.127 Pantaleon affirmeth, that he and his followers were a very order or Profession of begging Fryars, wher∣upon according to M. Fox,(62) 1.128 they were called, The poor men of Lyons, professing, as(63) 1.129 D. Humfrey vrgeth, a kind of Monastical life; wherin they were so forward, that they afterwards made(64) 1.130 meanes to Innocentius the Third then Pope, to haue their Order by him confirmed, but could not preuayle: It is further confessed by[65] 1.131 Caluin, that they beleeued the Real presence, and by(66) 1.132 M. Parker that, they retayned the Signe of the Crosse in the blessing of their meates. And(67a) 1.133 Morgensterne speaking vnto them, sayth: You confirme the decree of Antichrist concerning the number of the Sacraments; though that you haue also often done in other articles; as in the Doctrine of Single life, of Vowes, of the sacred Scripture, of good Workes, of Iustification, Baptisme of Children, and Purgatorie.

Now from these premises it euidently ensueth, that Waldo, immediatly before his Apostacie, was a Roman Catholick, and not a member of anie other Church to him then knowne, or in being; and so his first proceedings are confessed by(68a) 1.134 Crispinus to haue been in time of thick darknes (of Poperie) and as a first and litle beginning, of the instauration of the Christian Re∣ligion, to wit, the Protestant. So vndoubted it resteth, that the Religion

vniuersally and publickly professed in the time of Waldo, was not anie Pro∣testant, but the Roman Religion.

In the same Age liued S. Bernard, of whon sayth D. Whitaker(67b) 1.135 I do think Bernard was truly a Sainct. And other Protestants ackdowledge, that he was(68b) 1.136 A verie good man:(69) 1.137 A good Father, and one of the Lāps of the Church of God. D. Morton demandeth:(70) 1.138 Why may not Protestants acknowledge S. Bernard for his life a Saint, and for his doctrine a Lamp? &c. This then, so true a Sainct, good man, and clearest Lamp, was so wholy Roman Catholick, as that D. Whitaker speaking to vs, sayth:(71) 1.139 Bernard, whom your Church these manie yeares hath brought forth one godly man &c. And Gomarus alleageth him to vs(72) 1.140 Bernard your Sainct. Yea he was(73) 1.141 the Abbot of Clarauaux, and so deare to the Pope, that M. Bel tearmeth him,(74) 1.142 The Popes deare Monk and Reuerend Abbot: Osiander and Hospinian report, that(75) 1.143 He was the founder of a hundred and fortie Monasteries. And Danaeus affirmeth, that(76) 1.144 Hierom and Bernard were Monks, and Authours and fauourers of that errour. And though D. White(77) 1.145 blush not to obiect his Authoritie against the Popes Primacie, yet his Writings, Doctrine, and Practice were so direct to the contrarie, that therefore he is expresly reproued by(78) 1.146 D. Fulk, and D. Whitaker: The Centurists also, auouch that(79) 1.147 He worshipped the God of Maozim, euen vnto the last breath of his life, he was a most sharp defender of the Sea of Antichrist &c. For which by other Protestāts, he is tearmed(80) 1.148 An impudent Writer, heauing the Pope vp into an Idol, a corrupter of Gods honour, and preacher of Antichrist: Yea so sincerely was he affected to the Pope and the Church of Rome, that the Centurists report him to(81) 1.149 say to the Count of Aquitaine, whatsoeuer is out of the Roman Church, that by Gods iudgement is of necessitie to perish, euen as those things which were out of the Ark were drow∣ned in the Deluge &c. As also, he that persecuteth the pope of Rome (whom the Centurists here cal Antichrist) he persecuteth (sayth S. Bernard) the Sonne of God himself. Neither was anie of this Papistrie noted as then to be singu∣lar in S. Bernard, but to the contrarie it is confessed by M. Iewel and M. Whi∣taker, that S. Bernard liued in the midst of the Popes Rout and Tyrannie: D. Morton as formerly, calling S. Bernard for his life a Sainct, and for his doctrine a Lamp, to preuēt obiections thereby arising against him, prouidently addeth that, he neither was Sainct nor Lamp(83) 1.150 Simply, as vnspotted with errours, but Com∣paratiuely or &c. in his generation, that is, in respect of the Age wherin he liued: when a deluge of iniquities, and mist of Popish Superstition had ouerspred the outward face of the Church: So truly Papistical was S. Bernard. At this time of S. Bernard, liued also S. Malachias, of whom Osiander writeth thus(84) 1.151 Malachias an Archbishop in Ireland, from his childhood was giuen to learning and Religion, and at length intreated and much inforced, he vndertook to be the Arch∣bishop of Ireland. He was verie familiar with S. Bernard, admiring and imitating his Monachisme, and embracing Popish superstitions. He worshipped the Pope of Rome for God. To him verie manie miracles are ascribed &c. So truly Roman Catholick was S. Malachias.(82) 1.152

In the Age precedent to these liued Berengarius, who being a Catholick Priest, and the Archdeacon of Angiers, dissented afterwards from the Roman Church, in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation; which yet before his death he so fully(85) 1.153 recanted, and conformed himself to the Roman Church, as that the same is plainly acknowledged by M. Fox, by Westphalus, Osiander, and the Centurists, who record his recantation verbatim as it was.

Before him liued the most renowned Emperour Charles the Great, who was so wholy deuoted to the Roman Religion, as that the same is plen∣tifully aknowledged by(86) 1.154 Osiander, D. Cowper, M. Fox, Crispinus, and Bullinger. In somuch that(87) 1.155 Hospinian affirmeth, that The Emperour (Charles the Great) commanded not only by publick Edicts, that the Ceremonies and Rites, as also the Latin Masse of the Roman Church, and the other Decrees, Statutes, and Ordinances of the Roman Bishop should be obserued; but himself also by imprisonnents, and other kindes of punishments, compelled Churches to the same. Yea such was the vnion between the Popes of Rome, and Charles the Great, in matters of Faith and friendship, as that, according to D. Cowpers(88) 1.156 relation, there were Certain Bishops sent by Adrian to Charles, who held a Councel in France against the condemnation of Images &c. And of the other side, wheras Paulus(89) 1.157 Aemilius relateth, that Charles the Great sent twelue Bishops vnto a Councel holden at Rome by Pope Stephen, in confutation of the errour of the Greeks against Images, the same is so true, that the like report therof is made by the(90) 1.158 Centurie-writers. So assured it is that this Age in the opinion of Protestants, was most superstitious and Papistical.

Before Charles liued S. Bede, whom(91) 1.159 Osiander tearmeth a good man; and D. Cowper(92) 1.160 confesseth, that he was Renowned in al the world for his learning and godly life: For which he was also priuiledged with the Surname of Reuerend(93) 1.161 and by D.(94) 1.162 Humfrey, is specially registred among The Godlie men raised-vp by the Holie-Ghost. D. Morton sayth(95) 1.163 Although we deny not that Bede did hold diuers Romish Doctrines, yet do we find sufficient cause in his writings, why we may allow him his Title, of Venerable and good man. M. Bale further testifyeth, that S. Bede(96) 1.164 was so practised in prophane Authours, that he scarce had his match in that Age: He learned Physick and Me∣taphysick out of the purest fountaines: He knew the Mysteries of the Christian Faith so soundly, that for his exact knowledge both of Greek and Latin, manie pre∣ferred him before Gregorie the Great: There is scarce anie thing worth reading to be found in al Antiquitie, which in due places is not read in Bede: If he had liued in the times of Augustin, Hierom, Chrysostom; I doubt not but he might haue contended for Equalitie with them: He put forth manie bookes ful of al kind of Learning. M. Fox acknowledgeth that,(97) 1.165 He was a man of worthie and memorable memorie, and famous learning; The whole Latin Church at that time gaue him the Maistrie in Iudgement, and knowledge of the holie Scripture. M. Bel granteth(98) 1.166 that Bede for vertue and learning (was) renowned in al the world. And M. Cambden recordeth, that Bede.(99) 1.167 the singular glorie of England, by Pietie and Erudition, obtayned the name of Venerable; wrot many volumes most leardnedly. So truly godlie, learned, and renowned was S. Bede, euen in the iudgement of Protestants.

But now to obserue in particular, whether the Faith and Religion taught, beleeued, and practised by this so worthie a man, was Roman Catholick, or English Protestant;[100] 1.168 Osiander (who before called him A good man) in expresse tearmes confesseth, that Bede was wrapped in al the Popish Errours, wherin we (Protestants) at this day dissent from the Pope: For he admired and embraced the worship of Images; the Popish Masse; Inuocation of Saincts &c. In which respect also M. Fox(101) 1.169 acknowledgeth, that he liued in great credit and esteem with the Popes of that Age, whom M. Fulk(102) 1.170 tearmeth, Antichrists, and therupon reiecteth S. Bedes authoritie, saying: The last Testi∣monie out of Bede, who liued vnder the Tyrannie of Antichrist, I wil not stand vpon; M. Sanders may haue great store of such. For(103) 1.171 Bede liued in a su∣perstitious time, long after Antichrist did openly shew himself &c. He affirmed that, Men vnderstood that the healthful Sacrifice, auayled to Redemption both of bodie and soul euerlasting; and,(104) 1.172 In some things (was) carryed away with the errours and corruptions of his time. By which it clearly appeareth, that in the Age of S. Bede, the Popes of Rome were so Roman Catholick, and the external gouernment of the Church thereto so answerable, that our moderne Protestants do therfore traduce those ancient Popes for Antichrists, and their Gouernment for Tyrannie.

In the Age before S. Bede liued the two most famous Brethren named Eualdi, whom M. Bale tearmeth(105) 1.173 Papistical Martyrs suffring for Pa∣pistrie. And though D. Morton(106) 1.174 endeauoureth to obscure this by affir∣ming, that Protestant Writers were doubtful whether the sayd Brethren dyed by the hands of Christians or Infidels, which later himself thinketh more probable, yet this hindreth not, but, according to his Brother Bale, and Osiāder cited by himself, that they dyed for our Roman Faith. Yea so litle was this doubt, that D. Morton himself sayth: If notwithstanding (Catholicks) shal insist in their clayme of these Two, suffring death in maintenāce of Papal Iurisdiction ouer forraine Churches, miserable wil be their issue; especially considering that we haue manie Twoes to oppose against these, euen a thousand and two hundred religious Britans, who in a resolute resistāce of that Iurisdictiō and Authoritie of Austin the Legate of S. Gregorie, dyed vnder the hands of Pagans, and (as Galfrid speaketh) suffred Martyrdome. But to omit that Protestants(107) 1.175 themselues charge this Galfrid with vntruth; and too too childish errours, wherof his owne(108) 1.176 writings wil be best witnesses, as also that D. Morton doth vntruly and vn∣deseruedly, referre the death of these religious Britans, occasionally to S. Au∣gustin; I can not yet but obserue the greatest penurie of ancient Protestant Martyrs, when D. Morton is glad to clayme for such, those who liued and dyed Catholick Monks, euen the Monks of Bangor: So great a Bangor doth our Doctour make, in making Protestants Ministers and Martyrs of Re∣ligious Monks.

THAT THE FAITH OF S. GREGORIE AND S. Augustin, and whereto England was by them conuerted, was our Roman Catholick, and not Protestant. CHAPTER. IV.

TO arise euen to the height or beginning of these last thousand yeares, and first to examine the Faith of S. Gregorie and his time: Concerning him D. Morton writeth(1) 1.177 wee willingly cōfesse that S. Gregorie was an happie Father of the Faith of manie, and deliue∣red to thē the sauing knowledge of Christ crucifyed. And as cōcerning our Countries Conuersion by him, he further sayth:(2) 1.178 This happines of our English Conuersion to the Faith of Christ, and worthines of our Conuerter S. Gre∣gorie, we could easily acknowledge without anie further adoe &c, And againe, our (Protestants) Authours looking on their right hand, beholding how Pagans and Heathnish people &c. by the light of the Ghospel, through the Ministerie of Austin the Legat of S. Gregorie, were brought vnto the Fold of Christ, did togeather with the Angels of heauen, reioyce in remembrance of this their happines, and therefore called it a gratious Conuersion: And that most iustly, seing our sayd Conuersion was confessedly from Paganisme to the true Faith of Christ; for so Hollin∣shead testifyeth that,(3) 1.179 S. Austin was sent by Gregorie to preach to En∣glish-men the Word of God; who were yet blind in Pagan superstition. And Anno 596. Gregorie sent Austin into this Ile to preach the Christian Faith vnto the English Saxons; which Nation as yet had not receaued the Ghospel. Agreably also hereunto sayth M. Cambden:(4) 1.180 Austin hauing rooted-out the Monsters of Heathnish superstition, ingrafting Christ in English-mens minds, with most happie successe conuerted them to the Faith. And the like is acknowledged by M. Fox(5) 1.181 M. Bale, D. Whitaker, D. Cowper.

Now this Faith was so certainly the Faith planted by Christ and his Apostles, that M. Fox calleth it(6) 1.182 The Christian Faith(7) 1.183 the Faith and Do∣ctrine of Christ:(8) 1.184 Christs Religion, and that Church, The Church of Christ, and The(9) 1.185 perfect Faith of Christ. Cowper styleth it,(10) 1.186 The right Beleef: Stow,(11) 1.187 The Christian Faith and(12) 1.188 pure and incorrupted Christianitie. Cambden,(13) 1.189 The true Religion of Christ.(14) 1.190 Godwine, The Ghospel; and sundrie such like.

Now this our Conuersion to this Faith of Christ by the meanes of Saint Gregorie, was in truth, a Blessing so great, that(15) 1.191 D. Whitaker most humbly thus writeth therof; we wil euer most gratefully remember that great benefit which Gregorie bestowed vpon vs: And, I confesse S. Gregorie to haue been a good and holie man &c. He was a learned and holie Bishop.(16) 1.192 D. Humfrey tearmeth him therefore, Gregorie in name Great, and indeed Great; and M. Bel(17) 1.193 calleth him, S. Gregorie surnamed the Great, the holie and learned Bishop of Rome. According to(18) 1.194 M. Bale, He was the most excellent of al the Bishops of Rome

for learning and life: That against his wil, and striuing to the contrarie, and at last compelled, he succeeded Pope Pelagius: That he was a learned and good man, founded Hospitals, inuited Pilgrims to his Table, sent things necessarie to the Monkes of Hierusalem, and maintayned three thousand Virgins.(19) 1.195 He reduced the Gothes from Arianisme to the Church, professed himself by writing the Seruant of Gods seruants, that thereby he might appeare most far from al Ambition and desire of command. In like sort is S. Augustin honoured by M. Godwine(20) 1.196 with the Title of our Apostle. Wherof also sayth M. Mason(21) 1.197 for as much as Lethardus gathered but a few clusters, and the mayne Vintage was reserued for Austin, let vs enlarge the signification of the word, Apostle, and extend it to Austin; and moreouer (though improperly) to Gregorie and Eleutherius &c. whose proceedings towards the Prince were Chistian, honest, and orderlie. They came to plant the Faith of Christ &c. They came to preach obedience &c. Their Ghospel was a Ghospel of peace &c. They cōuerted People &c. They sought to build the Church &c. Yea S. Austins desire to conuert the Pagans, and his dutiful respect to the Prince, deserue to be written in Letters of gold. So worthily doth this Prostant here think of S. Eleutherius, S. Gregorie, and S. Austin. And no lesse are his most deserued prayses blazed by M. Hollinshead recording that(22) 1.198 Austin and his companie arriued at Canterburie, where he made his abode by the Kings permission, exercised the life of Apostles, in fasting, watching, and prayers; preaching the word of God to as manie as they could, despising al worldlie pleasures as not appertayning to them &c. Also Ethelbert was persuaded by the good example of S. Austin and his companie, and by miracles shewed, to be Baptized: The like hereof is testifyed by(23) 1.199 M. Fox. D. Bilson also acknowledgeth that(24) 1.200 Austin and his fellowes came with Religion to God, and submission to Princes. Stow reporteth that(25) 1.201 S. Austin and his fellowes liued in the feare of God. And D. Godwine acknowledgeth that(26) 1.202 He was a Monk of great vertue; calling him S. Austin.

But now to be satisfied, what was the Faith and Religion taught by these two so holie men, S. Gregorie, and S. Austin; or what the vniuersal and publick profession of Christians al ouer the world at those times was, whether Catholick or Protestant, I wil appeale to our Protestant Doctours: Amongst whom writeth M. Bale, that(27) 1.203 Gregorie burdned the Church and Religion of God more then al, with more then Iewish ceremonies: He ordered the Rites of Masse, commanded Masses to be sayd ouer the dead bodies of the Apostles, deuised Litanies and Procession, permitted the Image of the Blessed Virgin to be carryed about, confirmed Pilgrimage to Images by Indulgences for the peoples De∣uotions: He was maintayner of Pardons, granted Indulgences to those that visit Churches on certain dayes, made foure Books of Dialogues for strengthning Purgato∣rie, admitted Adoration of the Crosse, and Masses for the Dead, called Englishmen to Romish Rites by Austin the Monk(28) 1.204 who was sent from Gregorie to season the English Saxons with the Popish Faith. And(29) 1.205 D Humfrey affirmeth, that they brought into England the whole Chaos of Popish superstition. M. Harison chargeth(30) 1.206 Austin to haue conuerted the Saxons from Paganisme, to no lesse hurtful superstition then they did know before, making a•• Exchange from open, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 secret Idolatrie. In so much as he(31) 1.207 concludeth in playne ••ea••••es, tha••

Augustin came and brought-in Poperie. In like sort(32) 1.208 M. Ascham chargeth him to be The ouerthrower of true Religion, and the establisher of al Popish Doc∣trine. D. Abbots tearming S. Austin(33) 1.209 A black Monk, affirmeth, that this(34) 1.210 Italian Monk brought new obseruations from Rome, and the English receaued the same: And that, this(35) 1.211 Romish Priest requireth the British Bishops to be subiect to his Romish Authoritie: And, this Romish Archbishop brought-in Nouelties and Superstitions, and did contaminate the Faith of Christ; Mellitus, Laurentius, Iustus, al of Austins Companie, and condition. D. Fulk affirmeth that(36) 1.212 Austin did not beget the Nation of English-men to Christ by the pure Ghospel &c. but with mixture of mens Traditions: And that Christian Religion which he found in the Britans, he laboured to corrupt with Romish Inuentions. M. Bale auoucheth that(37) 1.213 Austin entred not with the Ghospel of Christian peace, but with the Banner of his Apostleship, with a Siluer Crosse, Litanies, Procession, Images, painted Pictures, Reliques, and Ritual bookes. And that(38) 1.214 King Ethelbert first of al English men receiued of Gregorie the First, Bishop of Rome, by Austin, the opinion of the Roman Religion, with al in∣posture or deceit; and dyed the One and twentith of his receaued Papisme. As also that(39) 1.215 Austin brought-in Popish Monkerie, and besides the Popes Traditions (ô Heretical mouth) brought nothing but mans dung.(40) 1.216 Austin the Roman brought hither Romish rites without sound doctrine. The King receaued Roma∣nisme with the annexed Idolatries: He brought in Monks, Altars, Vestments, Images, Masses, Chalices, Crosses, Candlesticks, Banners, Holie (as they cal them) Vessels, holie Water, and Bookes of Roman Customes: Their chiefest studies were about the oblations of Masses.(41) 1.217 Yea Austin disposed al things in England to the forme of the Synagogue of Rome, and made Englishmen honourers of the Pope. Finally(42) 1.218 Austin by his interpreters taught our people the Papistical Faith. Wherupon D. Fulk tearmeth our(43) 1.219 Conuersion from Infidelitie, our per∣uersion.(44) 1.220 And Danaeus calleth it, The inebriation of the whore (of Babilon) mentioned Apoc. 17. Concerning these two last testimonies of D. Fulk and Danaeus, D. Morton sayth(45) 1.221 These Apologists with more art then truth, do obiect vnto vs, our owne Authours calling it a peruersion and inebriation, herein peruerting their direct meaning, and propounding their testimonies as spoken ab∣solutely concerning euerie particular point of Roman Faith, which was only respe∣ctiuely, and restraynedly intended: But as this Glosse is only his voluntarie Imagination, and indeed a direct peruerting of his owne Brethren, so is it sufficiently confuted by so manie Protestant Doctours last cited, and next following, who most agreably confesse, that the Faith (speaking in ge∣neral) taught here by Austin, was the Popish Faith, the whole chaos of Popish Superstition: Yea Poperie it self.

Wherfore to proceed(46) 1.222 M. Wotton auoucheth that, Neither was England conuerted by your proud Monk Austin, but peruerted rather. And(47) 1.223 D. Fulk affirmeth that, Austin an vnlearned Monk came into the Land to corrupt the sinceritie of the Faith, which the Britans had receiued &c. Yea S. Augustin was so wholy ours that(48) 1.224 M. Cartwright calleth him, Romish Augustin. And(49) 1.225 D. Willet expresly placeth Augustin and Gregorie among the first Fathers of superstition, and Captaines and Ring-leaders of Popish Di∣uines.

Sir Edward Hobbie tearmeth him(50) 1.226 Proud and insolent Augustin, your Great Gregories delegate. M. Price styleth him, that(51) 1.227 Proud pettie Monk Austin. And M. Iewel affirmeth that Austin was(52) 1.228 Neither of Apostolick spirit, nor anie way worthie to be called a Sainct, but an Hypocrite, a superstitious man, cruel, bloudie, and proud aboue measure. M. Mason affirmeth that, His superfluitie of ceremonies might wel haue been spared. He was too forward to display the Popes Banner,(53) 1.229 and his behauiour towards the Brittans was ful of Pride and disdaine. The(54) 1.230 Centurists write: when (Austin) had troubled the Britan Churches Thirteen yeares, and subdued them to the Roman Antichrist he dyed &c. But(55) 1.231 Osiander proceedeth much further, affir∣ming that, He Subdued England to the lust of the Roman Antichrist; and ther∣fore after his death went vndoubtedly to Hel, there to receaue his reward. A reward vniust, and a Sentence ouer-cruel for so great benefits as he bestowed vpon vs, euen by D. Whitakers, and other Protestants most grateful former aknowledgement. But hence it clearly appeareth that the Faith of S. Gre∣gorie, S. Austin, and whereto England was by them conuerted, was Roman Catholick.

Neither was this pretended Popish superstition the priuat opinions of S. Gregorie and S. Austin, but the vniuersal Doctrine and beleef of that Age. Insomuch that(56) 1.232 Hospinian confesseth that, In the Age of Gregorie the Great, al kind of superstition and Idolatrie as a certain Sea owerflowed, ouerwhelmed, and wholy ouerdrowned almost al the Christian world; No man not only not resisting, but al adding and affording rather what strength they could. And(57) 1.233 D. Whitguift speaking of Anno Domini 659. so wholy distrusteth the Doctours of those times, that he resolutely auoucheth: He would be loath to alleage anie Councel of that time, to proue anie thing in Controuersie. So confes∣sedly was the vniuersal Church of Christians, at the time of S. Gregorie S. Austin, and Englands Conuersion, in the opinion of Protestants, altogeather Popish, Antichristian, and Romish; and indeed, the One, Holie, Catholick, and Apostolick Church, prescribed by our Creed: The Sect of Protestants during the same time, being not so much as diuised, stamped, heard-of, or being in anie, though most base, or obscurest part of the world.

Now al this, as wel of the high and most deserued prayses giuen to S. Gregorie and S. Austin, for their vertue, learning, and other singular guifts; as also, that the Faith and Religion which themselues professed, and whereto they conuerted this our Natiue Countrey from execrable Paganisme, was truly the perfect Faith of Christ, and pure and incorrupted Christianitie: And lastly, that this so pure Faith, was our now Roman Catholick Faith; I haue here conuinced by the testimonies and acknowledgments euen of her grea∣test Enemies; as namely by Osiander, Danaeus, the Magdeburgians, Hospinian, Hollinshead, Cambden, Foxe, Bale, Whitaker, Cowper, Humfrey, Bel, Godwine, Bilson, Stow, Mason, Abbots, Fulk, Harison, Ascham, Wotton, Carthwright, Willet, Hobby, Price, Iewel, Whitguift, and Morton; al of them Protestant Writers.

THAT THE PRESENT ROMAN CHVRCH AND Religion, continued and Flourished during the whole time of the Primitiue Church, contayning the first Six hundred yeares after Christ. CHAPTER. V.

HAuing thus prooued the confessed being, and publick general practice and profession for these last thousand yeares, of our Roman Faith and Religion; I wil now endeauour the selfe same proof and confirmation for the first Six hundred yeares after Christ: Which for greater perspicuitie, I wil diuide into two seueral Stations or times; The First, from Constantin the Great, to Gregorie the Great; the Second, from Christ and his Apostles, to Constantin agayne.

In which behalf I find it affirmed by(1) 1.234 M. Brocard, that The Pope fel from Christ in the time of Syluester (who liued with Constantin) and that for a Thousād two hundred and sixtie yeares, the Church was oppressed and troden downe by the Papacie, euen from Syluesters time to these dayes. In like sort auoucheth M. Brightman(2) 1.235 that euer since the time of Constantin the Great, Rome hath been the whore of Babylon, and the Roman Bishop hath been the Beast, and Antichrist(3) 1.236 And againe sayth he: As aboue we haue made manifest, it neces∣sarily followeth, since the time of the Heathen Emperours, the Pope of Rome to haue been that greatest Antichrist, of whom the Scriptures haue so diligently forewarned, and the Cittie of Rome from that time, to haue been the Whore &c. foretold in the Apocalypse. M. Leigh(4) 1.237 addeth hereunto that, The Popes euer since the first Three hundred yeares after Christ haue been Diuels. But no man speaketh more plainly then M. Napper (whom(5) 1.238 M. Dent tearmeth a learned Writer, and an excellent man) This so learned a Writer plentifully acknowledgeth(6) 1.239 that Between the yeare of Christ 300. and 316. the An∣tichristian and Papistical raigne began, raigning vniuersally and without anie de∣batable contradiction 1260. And that(7) 1.240 Euen 1260. yeares, the Pope and his Clergie, hath possessed the outward visible Church of Christians.(8) 1.241 Neuer suffring for the space of 1000. yeares after Syluester the First, anie to be seen vouchable or visible of the true (Protestant) Church &c. I wil not here stay to confute the wilful vanitie of D. Morton, who for his best answer to this so cleer te∣stimonie of M. Napper writeth thus(9) 1.242 But this witnes (alas for the darknes of Iudgement of these Apologists) speaketh not of the whole Profession of the Romish Church, but only of one article predominant therin, namely the Doctrine of Popedom &c. But seing he speaketh in general of the outward visible Church of Christians, which includeth al Poynts beleeued by that Church; and that the same Church during the sayd time, was so wholy possessed by the Pope and his Clergie, that not so much as anie one of the Protestant Church was then to be seen, I may more iustly say: Alas for want of honestie, or learning, or both in D. Morton. And this the more I might inculcate, seing

his owne guiltie Conscience at last bewrayeth himself saying(10) 1.243 If one of our Aduersaries themselues (when six of their principal Doctours were produced against him) was licenced to except against them &c. how much more lawful might it be for vs, to deny the testimonies but of two Authours, not of eminent note for Learning and Iudgment &c. So willing indeed is M. Doctour to detract from the Authoritie and testimonies of his owne deare Brethren, M. Napper, and M. Brocard: And where he would gladly mince the matter, by affirming that they were but Two, the perusal of this Chapter, and other parcels of this booke, wil clearly discouer, that there were manie more Twoes of this opinion. Wherfore to proceed, M. Brightman(11) 1.244 thus vrgeth Bellarmine: As concerning the continuance of the Apostacie (from the true Faith) we haue learned by the Apocalypse that the same hath preuayled more then 1260. yeares, and that more cleerly then anie of your Subtilties can euade.(12) 1.245 And againe: Antichrist hath raigned from the time of Constantin the Great, to this day; wherof the Apocalypse affordeth such Demonstrations, as neuer anie Iesuit can confute. Yea(13) 1.246 further: The Pope of Rome is the Beast, which 1300. yeares receiued power &c. therefore from 1300. yeares he is the Antichrist. So certain it is, by M. Brightmans strongest Demonstrations, grounded vpon Scripture, that the present Roman Religion, hath continued for these last 1300. yeares; during which time the Pope in his opinion hath raigned as Antichrist.

Answerably herevnto(14) 1.247 D. Fulk relateth, that some Protestants haue written that the Pope hath blinded the world these manie hundred yeares; some say 1000. some 1200. some 900. &c. And(15) 1.248 Winckelmanus speaking of the begi∣ning and end of the Churches persecution by Antichrist, reporteth that there are some Protestant Writers who make the end Anno 1517. when M. Luther first began, and so the beginning should be Anno 257. others place the end Anno Christi 1521. when Luther at the Assemblies at Wormes excellently gaue testimonie to the truth; and so the beginning should be from Anno Christi 261. &c.(16) 1.249 Danaeus also, speaking of Antichrists first coming, confesseth that some Protestant Writers teach, that he came in the Yeare 1000. others 500. others 400. from Christs birth. So clear it is, that the Pope of Rome, for these 1300. yeares, in the opinion of Protestants, hath raigned as Antichrist.

But as the Popes for these last 1300. yeares, are thus censured for Anti∣christs, so are the most ancient and first Christian Emperours, condemned for Papists and fauourers of Antichrist. For though D. Morton, speaking of the Popes authoritie, affirmeth that it hath been(17) 1.250 often and notoriously con∣tradicted in Antiquitie &c. by right Christian and renowned Emperours: Yet M. Brightman speaking of the verie first most ancient and Christian Empe∣rours auerreth the contrarie, saying(18) 1.251 Into which Catalogue come Constan∣tin the Great, Constantius, Constans, Constantin; and their Sonnes, Iulian, Iouinian, Valentinian, Gratian, Valentinian the Second, Theodosius &c. for these then raigning, the Beast was notably defended, and his dignitie much in∣creased. Agreably sayth(19) 1.252 D. Fulk: I neuer ment to acknowledge the Em∣perours Constantin, Iouinian, Valentinian &c. to be such as I would wish for: For both in their Religion and manners, diuers things are found, which I could wi••h had been more agreable to the Word of God. So that for the second 300. yeares

after Christ it resteth euident, and for such acknowledged, that The Pope and his Clergie, possessed the outward visible Church of Christians; neuer suffring for 1000. yeares after Syluester the First, anie to be seen vouchable or visible of the (Protestant) Church. For which verie cause al the Popes of those Ages are censured for Antichrists, and the verie first Christian Emperours, for their fauourers and defenders.

To make now the like trial of the Roman Churches Continuance, and her vniuersal and publick profession and practise of her Faith and Religion for the first 300. yeares after Christ, to wit, from his blessed Apostles to Pope Siluester the First, and Constantin the Great: Wheras our Catholick Writers do often obiect the Custom of the ancient Fathers in prouoking the Hereticks of their times with the Succession of the Roman Bishops, ac∣cording to the example of Ireneus, Cyprian, Tertullian, Optatus, Hierom, Augustin, and Vincentius Lyrinensis(20) 1.253 D. Fulk for his best answear, is enforced to confesse, saying: That these men specially named the Church of Rome, it was because the Church of Rome at that time, as it was founded by the Apostles, so it continued in the doctrine of the Apostles.(21) 1.254 D. Raynolds being prouo∣ked in the like kind, acknowledgeth in like manner that, The succession of the Roman Bishops was a proof of the true Faith in the time of Augustin, Epipha∣nius, Optatus, Tertullian, and Irenaeus &c.(22) 1.255 And Caluin himself setting downe our foresayd Allegation, affirmeth of Catholicks that, They indeed set forth their Church verie gloriously &c. They report out of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Augustin, and others, how highly they esteemed this Succession; wherto he giueth the like answear and reason, saying: Considering it was a matter out of al doubt, that from the beginning euen vntil that time, nothing was changed in Doctrine; the forsayd Doctours took in argument, that which was sufficient for the ouerthrowing of al new errours, to wit, that the Hereticks oppugned the doctrine which euen from the verie Apostles themselues had been inuiolable, and with one consent retayned. And in his book of Institutions set forth in French, he writeth expresly, that, It was a thing notorious, and without doubt, that after the Apostles Age vntil those (foresayd) times, no change was made in doctrine, neither at Rome, nor other Citties.

In like sort sayth Zanchius(23) 1.256 In times past, the Roman Church and the succession of their Bishops, vntil the times of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, & Some others, was (such) as that not vndeseruedly these Fathers were accustomed to prouoke and cite the Hereticks of their time to her, and others such like(24) 1.257 D. Whitaker speaking of certain Apostolical Churches, and amongst them of Rome by Name, collecteth thus: From whence we vnderstand why Tertullian prouoked to these Churches, to wit, because as then by perpetual succession they kept the Doctrine of the Apostles. Agreably to which, almost in the same words sayth(25) 1.258 D. Fulk: The Church of Rome retayned by succession, vntil Tertullians dayes, that Faith which it did first receiue of the Apostles(26) 1.259 M. Ridley auoucheth that, The Patriarch of Rome in the Apostles time, and long after, was a great maintayner and Setter forth of Christs glorie; in the which, aboue al other Countries and Regions, was preached the true Ghospel, the Sacra∣ments were most duly administred &c. After the Emperours became Christians

the Ghospel there flourished most. And(27) 1.260 D. Iewel freely granteth, that Aswel S. Austin, as also other godlie Fathers, rightly yeelded Reuerence to the Sea of Rome &c. for the puritie of Religion which was there preserued a long time without Spot. And agayne(28) 1.261 The godlie Fathers (of those foresayd times) sought to the Church of Rome, which then for puritie in Religion, and Constancie in the same, was most famous aboue al others.(29) 1.262 M. Bunnie speaking of the verie same times affirmeth that, At that time, there was no Church that did more sincerely keep that which the Apostles taught &c.

These so frequent, and free testimonies of our Aduersaries, for Romes Continuance in the true Faith and Religion, from the Apostles vntil the time of S. Austin, are so clear from al exception and further Comment, that D. Morton in steed of other answer sayth(30) 1.263 This general consent of our so profoundly Iudicious Protestants, in appealing vnto the Primitiue Church for the space of the first Foure hundred and fortie yeares after Christ, thus acknowledged by our Aduersaries, may wel serue for a iust reproof of their slaunder, who vsually vpbrayd Protestants with Contempt of al Antiquitie; for here euen old Rome is commended by Protestants. By al which it is most euident, not only that the Roman Church with continual succession of Bishops, hath stil continued euen from the Apostles vntil the times of S. Augustin, Epiphanius, Optatus, &c. which was for Foure hundred and fortie yeares after Christ; but withal during the same time, for puritie in Religion and constancie in the same, she continued most famous aboue al other Churches.

But to arise(31) 1.264 M. Napper auoucheth that, During euen the Second and Third Ages (next after Christ) the true temple of God, & light of the (Prote∣stant) Ghospel was obscured by the Roman Antichrist himself. Whereto are assenting(32) 1.265 M. Carthwright and Beza; And(33) 1.266 M. Parker sayth: I know right wel, that within the Two hundred yeares after Christ, there were crept into the Church manie idle Ceremonies &c. There began in this mixt Age, Exufflation of the Baptized: Consecration of the Font with oyle and Crosse: Oyle in Baptisme: the Reseruing of the Sacrament: Exorcisme: Offring and prayer for the dead: Fasting on certain dayes, with opinion of Necessitie and Satisfaction: and the seeds of Monkerie: See then among what weeds the Crosse grew vp, and in what a dunged soyle of manie supersti ions! sayth M. Parker. But(34) 1.267 Sebastianus Francus auerreth for most certaine that, Presently after the Apostles times, al things were turned vpside downe &c. And that for certain, through the work of Antichrist, the external Church, togeather with the Faith and Sacraments, vanished away presently after the Apostles departure &c.

M. Bunnie(35) 1.268 vsing al warines to acknowledge more then of necessitie he must, confesseth yet (as inforced) of the whole time since the Apostles to this present, that The Church of Rome hath euer continued after a sort in profession of the Faith, since the time that by the Apostles it was deliuered to them &c. And hath also in some manner preserued, and hitherto maintayned both the Word and Sacraments, that Christ himself did leaue vnto vs; which surely (sayth he) is a verie special blessing of God, and an euident work of the Holie Ghost.

D. Field(36) 1.269 speaking of the Latin or Roman Church before Luthers

appearing, affirmeth that, It is friuolous that some demand, where our Church was before Luther began; for we say, it was, where now it is. If they aske vs which? we answer, it was the knowne and apparent Church in the world, wherin al our Fathers liued and dyed, wherin Luther and the rest were Baptized, receiued their Christianitie, Ordination &c. Not forbearing to make his Title of that Chapter in these words: Of the Latin Church that it continued the true Church of God til our time &c Now it is plentifully heretofore confessed, that the knowne and apparent Church of the world for many hundred yeares togeather before Luther, and wherin Luther was Baptized, ordayned Priest, and a Professed Austin-fryar, was the onlie Roman, or Latin Church, which as then raigned vniuersally; the Protestant Church, during the sayd time, being confessedly latent, vnknowne, inuisible, and indeed not in being; as shal be proued at large hereafter.

But for the surer sealing-vp of al which hath been sayd in this behalf, I desire lastly to be obserued, that wheras D. Whiteguift(37) 1.270 iustly vrgeth against M. Carthwright, this general rule or proofe of Apostolick Doctrine, saying: For so much as the original or beginning of these names, Metropolitan, Archbishop &c such is their Antiquitie, can not be found, so far as I haue read; it is to be supposed they haue their original from the Apostles themselues; for as I remember S. Austin hath this rule in his hundred and eighteenth Epistle. And it is of(38) 1.271 credit with the Writers of our time, namely with M. Suinglius, M. Caluin, and M. Gualter; and surely I think no learned man doth dissent from them. In like sort sayth(39) 1.272 D. Fotherby in behalf of the Crosse: If it be but an humane Inuention, let vs know I pray you the first Inuenter of it, and when it was first decreed, and how it came so soon to be so generally obserued, which if you can not shew vs, I think we may with greater probabilitie esteem it to be an Apostolical tradition: And so of the contrarie according to(40) 1.273 D. Whi∣takers opinion, no man denyeth, but that it much auayleth to the confuting of He∣resies to know their beginning.

Now according to these Rules, it is so certaine, that the present Ro∣man Religion was deliuered by the Apostles, and thus continued to vs, that(41) 1.274 M. Carthwright inferreth from the foresayd Rule, That therby a window is open to bring in al Poperie. And, I appeale (sayth he) to the iudgement of al men, if this be not to bring in Poperie agayne, to allow of S. Austins Saying &c. But now a litle to obserue, what our last Refiner M. D. Morton, de∣termineth concerning this foresayd Rule of S. Austin: Wheras D. Whiteguift (whom M. Morton styleth their(42) 1.275 learned Archbishop, and an(43) 1.276 Au∣thour of worth) did formerly auouch that the sayd Rule was of Credit, euen with (the Protestant) Writers of our time, namely with M. Suinglius, M. Caluin, and M. Gualter, and that he thinketh no learned man doth dissent from them: Yet M. Morton) who would take it vnkindly, and that de∣seruedly, to be censured for Vnlearned) doth thus far aduenture directly to discredit and disauthorize the foresayd Rule, as shamefully to curtle it, both in bredth and depth: The(44) 1.277 bredth (sayth he, though most vntruly) reacheth no further then vnto matters of Ceremonies and other Customes of the Church &c. Secondly, the depth of the same position, if it be rightly sounded, wil be found

to be a truth of strong Probabilitie only, and not of an absolute infallibilitie: which is to say in good English, that the sayd Rule only concerneth trifles, and matters of smal moment, as also, that it is not a certain true Rule, but peraduenture true, and peraduenture false: which strongly implyeth, that our Doctour, in matters of faith and moment, now disputed between Catho∣licks and Protestants would be loath to be squared and tryed thereby: And so in substance acknowledgeth that which he reproueth in M. Carthwright, that thereby a window is open to bring in al Poperie. So euidently in deed doth the forsayd Rule prescribed by S. Austin, and approued by so manie of the learned Protestants, strongly confirme and conuince the vninterrupted Cur∣rent, and continuance of our Roman Religion, from the Apostles themsel∣ues to these our dayes.

Agreably to the premisses(45) 1.278 M. Powel expresly, and ingenuously con∣fesseth: We can not tel by whom, or at what time (sayth he) the enemie did sow (the Papists Doctrine) &c. Neither indeed do we know who was the first Authour of euerie one of your blasphemous opinions.(46) 1.279 D. Fulk answering to the demand of the Roman Churches change sayth thereto: I answer, my Text sayth, it was a mysterie not reuealed, and therefore could not be at first openly preached against &c. And though D. Whitaker taught before, that, No man denyed, but that it much auayled for the confuting of Heresies to haue knowne their beginning, Yet the same(47) 1.280 D. Whitaker is inforced to confesse, that, The time of the Roman Churches change can not easily be told; Yea to such ab∣surdities are Protestants brought in this poynt, that, Vrbanus Rhegius being vrged to shew wherin the Roman Church had changed her Faith, at last betaketh himself to this desperat boldnes, saying(48) 1.281 But to conclude though it were true, that the Roman Church had changed nothing in Religion, would it therefore presently follow, that she were a true Church? I think not, sayth he. And yet I think hardly any one Protestant can be picked out so ignorant or impudent as wil openly auouch, that the Roman Church was not a true Church, when S. Paul writ vnto the Romans in these words(49) 1.282 By (Christ) we receaued Grace and Apostleship, for obedience to the Faith in al Nations &c. among whom are you also the called of Iesus Christ. To al that are at Rome the beloued of God, called to be Saints. Grace to you, and Peace from God our Father and our Lord Iesus Christ. First I giue thanks to my God &c. for al you, because your Faith is renowned in the whole world &c. without intermission I make a memorie of you alwayes in my prayers &c. And, I desire to see you, that I may impart vnto you some spiritual grace to confirme you; that is to say, to be comforted togeather in you by that which is common to vs both, your Faith and mine. Now if the Roman Churches Faith was once thus the same with S. Paules Faith, then if she neuer changed her sayd Faith (as this Protestant supposeth) she must needs continue a true Church.

Al this Sun shine notwithstanding, D. Morton wil needs defend his brother Rhegius herein, because(50) 1.283 diuers Hereticks who liued in the Apos∣tles times, such as were the Simonians, Basilidians, Nicolaitans, albeit they liued in the dayes of the Apostles, yet did they not professe the Doctrine of the Apostles, which sufficiently demonstrateth the infirmitie of the Consequence:

But I must confesse, I did not expect such weake Demonstrations from D. Morton; for the Consequence was not, that Hereticks liued in the Apostles dayes, therefore their Doctrine, is the doctrine of the Apostles; as our Doctour would abuse an vncautelous or vnlearned Reader, but as himself before thus confessed: The Church of Rome hath not altered anie article of Faith since the Apostles times, ergo the now Faith of the Church of Rome is the same with that which was taught by the Apostles. This Consequence is so cleer (suppo∣sing that the Church of Rome in Saint Pauls time professed the true Faith, which I haue formerly proued, and no Protestant dare deny) as that al fur∣ther proof would discouer no lesse tediousnes in the Writer, then the denying therof, hath bewrayed ignorance and temeritie in M. Doctour. So cleer it is, that no Protestant whosoeuer, is able to assigne anie knowne beginning of our Roman Religion since the Apostles times.

Wherefore in playne tearmes they ascribe the beginning therof to S. Pauls time. To this effect sayth D. Willet(51) 1.284 Therefore S. Paul calleth Papistrie a mysterie of iniquitie which began euen to work in his dayes. M. Midleton(52) 1.285 auoucheth, that we are sure that the Mysterie of inquitie did work in Pauls time, and fel not a sleep so soone as Paul was dead, waking againe 600. yeares after, when this Mysterie was disclosed &c. And therfore no maruaile, though, perusing Councels, Fathers, and Stories from the Apostles forward, we find the print of the Popes feet &c. M. Parkins desiring53 1.286 To stop the mouths of Papists, who demand of vs (sayth he) where our Church was foure-score yeares before Luther: They are answered (sayth he) that our Church hath been since the dayes of the Apostles, and that in the verie midst of the Papacie. So suppo∣sing the Papacie, or Roman Church, to haue continued since the dayes of the Apostles.

Lastly the truth hereof is so certayne, that the same is acknowledged by our seuerest(54) 1.287 Puritans, who speaking to the Kings Maiestie giue this wholsome persuasion: Let not your Maiestie be now deceiued by the Popish Ar∣gument of supposed Antiquitie, as Ioseph was with the old and mouldie bread of the Gibeonites &c. And the rather (ô christian King) take heed, because An∣tichrist began to work euen in the Apostles dayes. So vndoubted, and to be supposed it is, that the Argument drawne from the longest Continuance and greatest Antiquitie is a Popish Argument; And the Doctrine of the Pope or Church of Rome was so timely working, as that it was in being euen in the Apostles dayes.

For our Conclusion then, we haue it here confessed, that euer since the time of Constantin, and Pope Siluester, which contayneth some 1300 yeares, al Popes, and the Church of Rome, haue been so agreable in Doctrine and Faith with our Present Pope and Church, that therefore they are al censured for Antichrists, & Rome for Babylon; the imagined Protestant Church, during the same time, not hauing anie one visible member in the world: And not only this, but that euen our first Christian Emperours are reproued by Protestants, in regard of their very Religion, and their honouring and de∣fending of the foresayd Popes. And as for the Roman Churches continuance from Christs time vntil the Raygne of Constantin, it is plentifully ac∣knowledged,

that as she was founded by the Apostles, so she continued in the doctrine of the Apostles, euen vntil the verie times of S. Augustin, who flourished almost 100. yeares after Constantin; in so much as during al the sayd time, the verie Succession of Roman Bishops, is granted by Protes∣tants, to haue been a good proof of the true Faith.

And wheras S. Austins Rule of making al such Doctrine truly Aposto∣lical, as hath no knowne beginning since the Apostles, is approued, and applauded by the learnedst Protestants; yet themselues likewise confesse, that the allowance of this Rule, is the opening of a window to bring in al Poperie, so truly Apostolical is the Doctrine of Papists. Adde lastly, that the Anti∣quitie of our present Papistrie, is confessedly no lesse gray-headed then the times of S. Paul, and the other Apostles, and the continuance therof euer since such, as that perusing Councels, Fathers, and Stories from the Apostles, we stil find the print of the Popes feet. Now my kindest Aduocats in this so important a Plea, are no other then Caluin, Suinglius, Zanchius, Danaeus, Beza, Winckelmanus, Sebastianus Francus, Rhegius, Brocard, Brightman, Leigh, Napper, Parkins, Whitaker, Powel, Fulk, Raynolds, Ridley, Iewel, Bunnie, Carthwright, Parker, Field, Whitguift, Fotherbie, Willet, Midleton, and Morton, al of them Protestant Writers, and men much renowned by their other Bre∣thren.

A FVRTHER PROOF OF THE PRESENT ROMAN Religions Continuance from the Apostles times to these dayes, is taken from the Christian belief of the Indians, Armenians, Grecians & Brittans, al of them Conuerted in the dayes of the Apostles. CHAPTER. VI.

IT is recorded by sundrie Historiographers, and acknowledged for most true by the learnedst Protestants, that manie Heathen Nations were conuerted by the Apostles themselues to the Faith of Christ, whereof peculiar instance is giuen of India, Armenia, Graecia, Britanie &c. The Conuersion of India is confessed by(1) 1.288 Osiander, and(2) 1.289 Nicolaus Phillippi affirmeth S. Thomas to haue been their first Apostle Chemnitius(3) 1.290 teacheth, that S. Bartholomew preached the Ghospel to the Ar∣menians. And as for the Conuersion of Greece, it clearly appeareth by Saint Pauls Epistles to sundrie of that Nation, as to the Corinthians, Ephesians, Thessalonians, and by the Apocalypse chap. 1. vers. 11. Now as concerning the first Conuersion of Britanie, it was so vndoubtedly Apostolick, as that(4) 1.291 M. Cambden auoucheth that, It is certayne that the Brittans receiued the Chri∣stian Religion in the verie infancie of the Church: In proof wherof he there

alleageth sundrie ancient Authorities:(5) 1.292 Further also teaching, that in (Bri∣tannie) flourished the Monasterie of Glassenburie, which taketh its ancient begin∣ning from Ioseph of Arimathia &c. for this the ancientest Monuments of this Monasterie do testify &c. Neither is there cause why we should doubt thereof. In like sort sayth(6) 1.293 M. Harison, That Ioseph preached here in England in the Apostles times, his Sepulchre yet in Glassenburie, and Epitaph affixed thereto is proof sufficient.(7) 1.294 M. Henoch Clapham is so confident of the Britans con∣uersion in the Apostles times, as that he auoucheth, that our Schismatikes may aswel ask me, what assurance I haue there was a King Henrie, as demand what assurance I haue of the other?(8) 1.295 D. Fulk thefore calleth them, The Catholick Brittans, with whom Christian Religion had continued in succession since the Apostles times.

This then supposed, that al the former Countries were conuerted to Christianitie, by Christ, his Apostles, and disciples themselues: The next point to be examined is, whether the sayd Faith and Religion which as then they learned, receaued, and beleeued, and which for sundrie succeding Ages they practised and professed, is more agreable to the present Roman or Prote∣stant Faith.

And first as concerning the Indians(9) 1.296 D. Philippus Nicolai relateth, that, India in sundrie places is inhabited by them in great number, who receiued the doc∣trine of the Ghospel from S. Thomas the Apostle &c. vpon the seauenth day according to our custome they meete in the Churches, that they may be present at the Sacrifices, & heare Sermons: they vse in their Sacrifices wine made of dryed Grapes, giuing bread, they not only giue the bodie of Christ, but also by drinking of the consecrated Chalice, they giue his bloud, hauing before made confession of their sinnes &c. At the entrance of the church, like vnto the Papists, they are sprinkled with holie water; with the same rite and the same religion they burie the dead &c. praying vnto Christ for their eternal Saluation &c. The Priests are so shauen vpon the head, that they haue vpon the crowne the Image of the Crosse. Amongst them there are Societies of Monks, and companies of Sacred Virgins, shut vp in seueral houses. Chastitie is kept by al them with a great desire of ho∣nestie, abstinence, and religion &c. They strictly obserue the fasts of Aduent, and Lent &c. And In the honour of S. Thomas they keep a Festiual day. Yea he further writeth(10) 1.297 of the remote Cataians of India, that they haue their chappels, in which for the safetie of their Marchants trauayling in strang countries, Sacrifice is offred with Popish ceremonies and Masses. Now by this testimonie of so learned a Protestant, it appeareth that the Indian Christians first conuerted by S. Thomas, retayne yet and practise these Catholick poynts of Faith: The real presence of Christs Bodie and Bloud in the Eucharist: Confession of sinnes before Receiuing: Sprinkling with holie water: prayer for the dead; Shauing Priestes Crownes: The Image of the Crosse: Companies of Monks and Nunnes, their Chastitie and abstinence: The Feasts of Aduent and Lent: The keeping of holie dayes in honour of Saincts: And lastly, The Popish Masse and Ceremonies.

To come now to the Armenians(11) 1.298 Osiander confesseth that, In the yeare On thousand foure hundred and thirtie (Pope) Eugenius then called a Councel at Florence &c. To which Councel the Grecians, Armenians, Iacobins assented.

M. Marbeck(12) 1.299 acknowledgeth, that at the Councel of Florence the Chris∣tians of Armenia and India consented to the Roman Church, and that the Greeks agreed: And where as(13) 1.300 Nauclerus recordeth that Anno. 1145. The Embassa∣dours of the Armenian Bishops, as also their Catholick, that is, their vniuersal Metropolitan, who hath vnder him more then a thousand Bishops, came to Pope Eugenius being at Viterbo, and hauing ended their iourney after a yeare and a half, they offred their Subiection to the Apostolical Sea; the same historie is mentioned by M. Symondes(14) 1.301 and other Writers. And of the great agreement between the Armenians and the Roman Church we may read Gomarus(15) 1.302 and(16) 1.303 Villamont in his voyages printed in French. But D. Philip descendeth more particularly, and sayth of the Armenians: They haue their blemishes; For in the forme of their Liturgie mention is made of Inuocation,(17) 1.304 and Intercession of Saincts; and of oblation of the Sacrament: As also(18) 1.305 Let the Christian Readers know this, that not only the churches of the Graecians, but also Rutans, Georgians, and Armenians, and Indians, & Aethiopians, who are become Christians, do hold the true and Real Presence of the Bodie and Bloud of our Lord, wheresoeuer the Eucharist is celebrated &c. And(19) 1.306 agayne: There are not wanting, who think that as yet there remayne in sundrie places of Arabia some Mozarabes Christians, whom it is euident, in Africk and Spayne in former Ages, to haue embraced the Religion of Christians, not much vnlike to the Popish Rites. By al which it appeareth, that the anciēt Armenians receiuing their Religion from the Apostles, do agree with vs Catholicks in Inuocation of Saincts:(21) 1.307 The Real Presence: The oblation or Sacrifice of Christs Bodie: In acknowledging their obe∣dience to the Church of Rome, and in brief, in their Religion in general, not much vnlike to that of the Papists.

Now as touching the Grecians(20) 1.308 Crispinus affirmeth, that,(23) 1.309 Anno. 870. the Greek and Latin Churches became diuided only for the Primacie, and di∣uersitie of Ceremonies: so fully did they at that time consent in al other poynts. Osiander speaking of the other Oriental Churches further remote, auerreth that, Anno 1585. the Christians who inhabit neer to Mount Libanus, became at last conquered, and subiect to the Turkish Empire: Neither is that to be maruailed at, for the Christians in the East haue not sincere Religion, but are, in most part of Ar∣ticles, Popish. Sir Edwin Sandes(22) 1.310 in his Relation of the State of Religion vsed in the West partes of the world, auoucheth that, The Greek Church doth con∣curre with Rome in opinion of Transubstantiation, and generally in the Sacrifice, and whole bodie of the Masse: In praying to Saincts, and Auricular confession in offring Sacrifice and prayer for the dead, Purgatorie, and worshiping of Pictures &c. Yea the Protestant Diuines of Wittemberg do fully testify, that the Greek Church yet to this day professeth and teacheth, Inuocation of Saincts and Angels(24) 1.311 Reliques(25) 1.312 Worshipping of Images(26) 1.313 Transubstantia∣tion(27) 1.314 Sacrifice The signifying(28) 1.315 Ceremonies of the Masse:(29) 1.316 Auri∣cular Confession(30) 1.317 Inioyned Satisfaction(31) 1.318 Confirmation with Chrisme(32) 1.319 Extreme Vnction(33) 1.320 and al the seauen Sacraments: Also(34) 1.321 Prayer for the dead(35) 1.322 Sacrifice for the Dead(36) 1.323 Almes for the dead:

(37) 1.324 Freewil(38) 1.325 Monachisme(39) 1.326 vowes of Chastitie(40) 1.327 The fast of Lent, and other set Fasting-dayes: That(41) 1.328 Priests may not marry after Orders taken: And lastly, to omit manie others, That(42) 1.329 the Tradition and doctrine of the Fathers is to be kept. So plainly in al these chief Articles of Faith, doth the Grecian Church remayne vnchanged, and wholy consonant with the Roman.

But now at last to come to our Neighbours the Britans, whom we haue proued before to haue been conuerted in the Apostles times; concerning them I wil only declare two things: First, that the Faith which at first they re∣ceaued, they kept for six hundred yeares, euen vntil the comming of S. Augustin into England, vnchanged, and the same, in al matters of weight and substance. The Second, that the Faith and Religion which S. Augustin taught in England (and which is formerly confessed to haue been altogether Catholick or Romish) was the self same Faith and Religion, which the Bri∣tans beleeued and professed, some Ceremonies excepted.

Now as touching the First; M.(43) 1.330 Bale confesseth that, The Brittans being conuerted by Ioseph of Arimathia, held that Faith at Austins comming. And(44) 1.331 There was alwayes amongst the Brittans preaching of Truth, most sure Doctrine, and such Worship, as was by Gods commandment, giuen of the Apostles to the Churches: wherupon he calleth the then Brittan Church(45) 1.332 the true Church of Christ. D. Fulk(46) 1.333 affirmeth that, The Brittans before Austins comming, continued in the Faith of Christ, euen from the Apostles times; yea he calleth the Brittans of S. Austins time(47) 1.334 Catholicks &c. with whom Chris∣tian Religion had continued in Succession since the Apostles time. M. Fox(48) 1.335 auoucheth that, The Brittans after the receiuing of the Faith, neuer forsook it for anie manner of false preaching of other, nor for torments; and that(49) 1.336 Religion re∣mained in the Brittans vncorrupt and the Word of Christ truly preached til the comming of S. Austin. But M. Midleton(50) 1.337 confirmeth this poynt further by succeeding testimonies of the ancient Fathers, almost in euerie Age before that, in which Gregorie liued, saying: The Religion cleerly taught in the Word of God brought hither first by Simon Zelotes (Niceph. l. 2. c. 4.) Ioseph of Arima∣thia (Gild••s) S. Paul the Apostle (Theodoret de Curand. Graec. affect. l. 9.) al or some of them (was) watred stil on in the dayes of Tertullian (l. cont. Iudaeos) Origen (in Ezech. hom. 4.) Athanasius (Apol. 2.) Hilarie (l. de Synod. cont. Arian.) Chysostom (hom. quod Christus sit Deus) Theodoret (Hist. l. 1. c. 10. & l. 4. c. 3.) Al which Ancient Fathers speak honourably of the Church, Religion, and Prelates of Brittanie. So exceeding far were the Brittans from being chan∣ged in their Religion before the time when S. Augustin came into England.

Therfore to come to the second and mayne point, which is the true harmonie and agreement between the Apostolick Faith of the Brittans, and the Catholick Roman Faith of S. Augustin. D. Morton labouring purposely to shew(51) 1.338 what, and of how great importance, the differences were between the Brittan Bishops, and the Church of Rome, at Austins comming, can only in∣stance in the difference of Ceremonies, or ministring of Baptisme, in keeping of Easter, and in denial of Subiection vnto Austin: which though he much endea∣uour to proue to be matters of great importance, yet if they be considered in

themselues, and without pertinacie in the Defenders, they may with M. Brierlie most truly be sayd to be few and smal points: And the more if they should once be compared with our other Roman Arti∣cles of Real Presence, Adoration of the Sacrament, Masse, Confession, Freewil, Merit &c. In anie one wherof D. Morton was not able to giue the least Instance of difference between the foresayd Brit∣tans and S. Austin: Wherfore to proceed in this same poynt: It is reported by Hollinshead (out of S. Bede, hist. l. 2. c. 2) that S. Austin by the help of King Edilbert obtayned a meeting with the Brittish Bishops and Doctours; where he sayd vnto them(52) 1.339 If you wil obey me in these three things: That you wil celebrate Easter at the due time: That you wil minister Baptisme, wherwith wee are borne againe to God, according to the custome of the Roman and Apostolick Church: That you wil preach with vs the Word of God to the Nation of the English: Al other things which you doe, though they be contrarie to our customes, we wil peaceably suffer. In like sort sayth the(53) 1.340 Authour of the Historie of Great Brittanie: The Brittan Bishops conformed themselues to the doctrine and Ceremonies of the Church of Rome, without difference in anie thing specially remembred, saue only in the Celebration of the Feast of Easter &c.(54) 1.341 And agayne, when they perceaued the Saxons in some measure to approue it, they began to make open Profession of it, as seeming therin to agree euen with their Enemies (the Saxons) howsoeuer otherwise in respect of language, situation, or Law of Nations, they were diuided. Yea the(55) 1.342 Brittan Bishops after conference had with S. Austin, confessed that they vn∣derstood, that it was the true way of iustice which Austin preached: Wherupon as(56) 1.343 D. Fulk acknowledgeth, Saint Austin did at the last obtayne the ayde of the Brittish Bishops to the Conuersion of the Saxons(57) 1.344 Lastly D. Godwin, writing of Theodore (who was Archbishop of Canterburie some Fiftie or Sixtie yeares after S. Augustin) auoucheth, that vnto him, al the Brittish Bishops, and generally al Britanie yealded obedience, and vnder him conformed themselues in al things vnto the Rites and discipline of the Church of Rome. So euidently doth that Primitiue Faith of the Brittans in al most sub∣stantial poynts wholy agree with that Faith which S. Austin taught vs, and which the Protestants haue fully acknowledged to be Catholick, Roman, or Popish: And yet is the sayd Faith taught vs by S. Gregorie and S. Austin, tearmed by(58) 1.345 D. Cowper, the right beleefe: And by(59) 1.346 M. Fox, the perfect Faith of Christ(60) 1.347 and the true Faith of Christ: And thus from the premisses it necessarily followeth, that our present Roman Religion, being so consonant, or rather the same with that first Faith, which the In∣dians, Armenians, Graecians, and Brittans, receiued from the Apostles them∣selues, that therfore no lesse ancient, or continuing is our Roman Religion, then the Religion of the Apostles.

M. Brierly hauing produced diuers testimonies of Protestants, in proof that the Indians, Graecians, and Armenians were conuerted to the Faith of Christ in the Apostles times, as also, that the remnant of Christian Religion which they yet preserue, is Roman Catholick, not Protestant: M. Morton directing a large Reply hereto, doth not so much as answer to any one of the

foresayd testimonies of his Brethren, Osiander excepted; of whom he sayth(61) 1.348 We approue not Osianders censure &c. concerning the Christians in Mount Libanus, tearming them Popish, for some flying speach. But he may now aswel say, we do not only, not approue Osianders censure, but neither the Censures, and opinions of D. Philip, Nicolai, Gomarus, Willamont, Crispinus, the Diuines of Wittemberg, Cambden, Harison, Hollinshead, Hal, Clapham, Fulk, Marbeck, Symondes, Sandes, Bale, Foxe, Midleton, Godwine, and Cowper; al of them Protestants, and yet al of them thus affording their helping hands, for the proof of our agreement in Faith and Religion, with the Doctrine deliuered by the Apostles themselues.

Notes

• (1) 1.1

  Ad c. 3. Lucae.
• (2) 1.2

  cap. 2.4.
• (3) 1.3

  cap 60.15.
• (4) 1.4

  Ans. to a Counterf. catho pag. 5.
• (5) 1.5

  Def. of the Apolog. p. 201.
• (6) 1.6

  Ecc. Pol. pag. 86.
• (7) 1.7

  Ib pa. 102.
• (8) 1.8

  Ib. pa. 146. & 116. And see Aretius his examen. p. 24. And Bachmanus his Centuriae tres &c. p. 267.
• (9) 1.9

  Cōt. Sta∣plet. p. 370. 357. HooK. Eccl. Pol. p. 147.
• (10) 1.10

  Ibi. p. 300. 298. 24. 25. And against Ray∣nolds. p. 44.
• (11) 1.11

  Auth. of the scri∣pture and the church. f. 71 72. 73. 74 75.
• (12) 1.12

  Ibid. in the Preface.
• (13) 1.13

  Tom 6. cōt. ep fund. cap. 5. Tert. lib. 1 de Prae∣scrip cap. 6.
• (14) 1.14

  Scrip. and the church p. 72 74. 75. And see Melancthon in epist ad Rom cap. 14. pa 358 359.
• (15) 1.15

  Bertr. de Loque in his discourse of the church p. 198. Phil. Act. mon. p. 1401. Bilney ibid. p. 464. Ridley 16. pag. 1361. & 1286. Baynhā ib. p 493. Fox. ib. pag. 999. Bancroft in his sermon preached. 8. Febr. 1588. pag. 42. 43. The Diuines of Geneua in their Propo∣sitions and Principles disputed &c. p. 142. Zan∣chius de Re∣lig. pa. 157. Rhegius in Discus. The. p. 213. Hunnius in Act. Colloq. Ratisb. fol. 205. Kec∣Kermannus in System. Theol. pag. 387. Povvel of things in∣different p. 7
• (16) 1.16

  Epi. de∣dicat. of the church.
• (17) 1.17

  Ep ded. to the vvay to the true church. And see ParKins on the reuel. p. 344. And Iames his re∣traite soūded to Brovv∣nists. fol. 1. 6.
• (18) 1.18

  Inst. li. 4. c. 1. sec. 4.
• (19) 1.19

  of the chur. p. 1.
• (20) 1.20

  vol. 1. 3.
• (21) 1.21

  Ib pa. pag. 308.
• (22) 1.22

  Io. 12.42 43.
• (1) 1.23

  Prot. App. p. 574.
• (2) 1.24

  In his cōsideration of the Pa∣pists reasons pag. 105.
• (3) 1.25

  In his discourse vpō the Catalo. of Doc. ī the epi. to the Reader.
• (4) 1.26

  In his exposition of the Creed. v. 1. pag. 266.
• (8) 1.27

  In his Reioynder to Bristow p. 34
• (5) 1.28

  Ib. p. 310.
• (6) 1.29

  Protest. Apeale p. 71.
• (7) 1.30

  In his Ansvver to a counterf. Cath••. p. 36.
• (9) 1.31

  De An∣tichrist. in praef. p. 1. 2.
• (10) 1.32

  Cont. Bellar. par. 1. pag. 371.
• (11) 1.33

  De Ec∣cles. cōt. Bel∣lar. p. 144.
• (12) 1.34

  In his Answ. to a counterf. catho. pa. 27. and in his confut. of Purgatory pa. 344 and ParKins v. 1. pag. 266.
• (13) 1.35

  In his treatise of Antic. p. 4.
• (14) 1.36

  In his Tryal of the Romish cler. pa. 330.
• (15) 1.37

  Hist. sacr. par. p. 189.
• (16) 1.38

  De eccl. cōt. 8. l. cōtro. 2. q. 4. p. 144.
• (17) 1.39

  Prot. Appeal. p. 71
• 18 1.40

  Ibid p. 72▪
• (19) 1.41

  confe. p. 568.
• (20) 1.42

  contra Duroe. pag. 503.
• (21) 1.43

  An∣swear to Exceptions. pa. 11.
• (22) 1.44

  contra. Duroe. pag. 426.
• (23) 1.45

  In col∣loquiis Ger. de Missae.
• (24) 1.46

  Act. Mon. p. 1338
• (25) 1.47

  Cent. 8. p. 58.
• (26) 1.48

  In Iae∣cobs defence of the churc. &c pag. 13.
• (27) 1.49

  Cēt. 11 c. 4. col. 233.
• (28) 1.50

  Cēt. 10. c. 6. col. 307.
• (29) 1.51

  Cent. 9 c. 6. col. 245. 246.
• (30) 1.52

  cent 8. c. 6. col. 361.
• (31) 1.53

  cent. 7. c. 6. col. 154. 457. & Osi∣ander con. 7. pa. 189.
• (32) 1.54

  cent. 7. c. 4. col. 113. Osiand. cent. 7. col. 186.
• (33) 1.55

  In his defence of Church-go∣uern. pa. 68.
• (34) 1.56

  De Sa∣crif. Miss. pag. 377.
• (35) 1.57

  In his reliques of Rome. f. 344.
• (36) 1.58

  The Ministers of Lyncolnsh. in their Abridgment &c. p. 65.
• (37) 1.59

  De An∣tich p. 101.
• (38) 1.60

  In A∣pocal. in 9 p. 199.
• (39) 1.61

  De Sa∣cr. Miss l 1. c. 6. p. 103. & p. 377.
• (40) 1.62

  De captiuit. Ba∣byl. c. 1.
• (41) 1.63

  Instit. li 4. c. 18 sec. 18.
• (42) 1.64

  Ib. sect. 1. 43. Hist. Sa∣cram epsti. dedicat. 1.
• (1) 1.65

  Tom. 7. Vvitt. f. 228
• (2) 1.66

  Simō de Voyon in his discourse vpō the Catalog. &c. p. 180. and Luther ad Gal. c. 1. fol. 35 after the English translation.
• (3) 1.67

  Luther ibidem.
• (4) 1.68

  Luth. to. 2. Germ. fo. 9. and tom 2. Vvittemb. de Abrogā∣da Missa priuata. fol. 244.
• (5) 1.69

  Tom. 5. Annot. breuiss.
• (6) 1.70

  Tom. 1. Vvitemb. Pref.
• (7) 1.71

  Tom. 2. fol. 63.
• (8) 1.72

  Loc. com. class. 4. cap. 30. pag. 51.
• (9) 1.73

  In his Apologie of the Church of Eng. part. 4. c. 4. And in his Def. of the Apol. pa. 426.
• (10) 1.74

  In Epist. An. 36. ad Episc. Heref. praefix. Enar∣rat. Buceri in 4. Euang.
• (11) 1.75

  Schlussel∣burge Theol. Caluin. li. 2. fol 130.
• (12) 1.76

  In Au∣gustan. confes. explic. Arti 7. de Eccl. p. 137. 138.
• (13) 1.77

  Trac. de Eccl. pag. 145.
• (14) 1.78

  Epist. ad Argentinenses & in Praef. in corp. doctrinae.
• (15) 1.79

  In Deu∣tronom. in pref. fol. 2.
• (16) 1.80

  De frae∣trū Orthodox. Eccl. pa. 264.
• (17) 1.81

  In his Trial of the Romish Clerg. Title. pa. 392.
• (18) 1.82

  Act Mon. pa. 770.
• (19) 1.83

  Progno∣stica finis mun∣di.
• (20) 1.84

  Ibid. pa. 13.
• (21) 1.85

  In his Articles. Art. 19. p. 130. Doue in his Recu∣sancie pa. 32.
• (22) 1.86

  Antilog. p. 273.
• (23) 1.87

  Sleidan in Engl. l. 13. fol. 174.
• (24) 1.88

  Act. Mon. p. 1472.
• (25) 1.89

  Ib p. 530.
• (26) 1.90

  Ib. p. 533
• (27) 1.91

  Against HesKins &c. p. 564
• (28) 1.92

  Ib. sect. 82 And Humf. Iesuit. part. 2. p. 304.
• (29) 1.93

  Apologie against Brow∣nists. c. 11. p. 30
• (30) 1.94

  Conse∣cration of En∣glish Bish. p. 67.
• (31) 1.95

  In Collo∣quiis Germ. c. de Antichristo
• (32) 1.96

  Explicaet. Art. 30
• (33) 1.97

  Tom. 1. p. 493.
• (34) 1.98

  In Apoc. c. 11. p. 290.
• (34) 1.99

  In his Appendix to the 5. booKe of the Church part. 1. p. 87.
• (35) 1.100

  Act. Mon. p. 216.
• (36) 1.101

  Act. Mon. p. 209. & 197.
• (37) 1.102

  Def. of the Churches &c. p. 13. And Act. Mon. p. 227. 216.
• (38) 1.103

  In Asser∣tionibus art. 30
• (39) 1.104

  Def. of the Churches &c. p. 13.
• (40) 1.105

  Act. Mon. p. 190. & 241. And D. Downham of Antichrist. p. 40.
• (41) 1.106

  In Apoc. c. 11. p. 249.
• (42) 1.107

  See Simō de Voyon vpon the Catalog. of Doctours. p. 159. Fox Act. Mon. p. 230. Osiand. cent. 15. p. 469.
• (43) 1.108

  Stows Annales p. 464
• (44) 1.109

  Ib. p. 425
• (45) 1.110

  Ib. p. 426
• (46) 1.111

  Vviccleus de Blasphe. c. 17
• (47) 1.112

  Vviccl. de Euchar. c. 9.
• (48) 1.113

  Serm de Assumptione.
• (49) 1.114

  De Apo∣stasia c. 18.
• (50) 1.115

  In Pro∣fessione fidei. c. 28.
• (51) 1.116

  In 1. ad Cor. c. 1.
• (52) 1.117

  In Po∣stilla super ca. 15. Marci. and super. 1. Cor. 1.
• (53) 1.118

  Cent. 6. 10. 11. p. 439.
• (54) 1.119

  In vita Iuelli. p. 263.
• (55) 1.120

  FulK de successione Ec∣cles. cont. Sta∣plet. p. 332. 333. SparK. in his Ansvv. to Al∣bines p. 58. Abbots against D. Hil. p. 57. More in his Tables. p. 173.
• (56) 1.121

  Act. mon. p. 628.
• (57a) 1.122

  Act. Mon. p. 41.
• (57b) 1.123

  Illiri∣cus in Catal. Test. veritatis p. 731. 732. 740. 745.
• (58) 1.124

  Simons on the Reuel. p 165.
• (59) 1.125

  In Iesuit. part. 2. rat. 3. p. 270. Fox Act. Mon. p. 628.
• (60) 1.126

  Against Rhem. Test. in Math. 19. f. 38. ParKins in his Reform. Cath. p. 241.
• (61) 1.127

  Chronogr. p. 94.
• (62) 1.128

  Act mon. p. 41. 629.
• (63) 1.129

  In Iesuit. part. 2. p. 270.
• (64) 1.130

  Vrsperg. in chron. Ar. 12••2.
• [65] 1.131

  In ep. 244 p 4••0
• (66) 1.132

  Against Symbolizing part. 1. c 3. p. 162.
• (67a) 1.133

  De Ec∣clesia p 24.
• (68a) 1.134

  Of the Estate of the Church p. 338.
• (67b) 1.135

  De Eccl. p. 369. & against Rai∣nolds p. 125. 126.
• (68b) 1.136

  Osiand cent. 12. p. 309.
• (69) 1.137

  Pasquils Returne into England. p. 8. 130.
• (70) 1.138

  Prot. Appeal. p. 458
• (71) 1.139

  Resp. ad Camp. p. 105.
• (72) 1.140

  In specu∣lo Eccl.
• (73) 1.141

  Simon de Voyon in his catal. p. 126.
• (74) 1.142

  Challeng. &c. p. 148. And see Ab∣bot in his 3. parte of the def. &c. In his Aduertisment therto anne∣xed. pag. 20. Vvotton in his Trial of the Romane cler∣gie p. 265. Tossanus in Synopsi de Pa∣tribus. p. 58.
• (75) 1.143

  Cent. 12. p. 309. Hos∣pini. de origin. Monach. f 175
• (76) 1.144

  1. part. alt. parte cont. Bellar. p. 440.
• (77) 1.145

  Vvay to the true church p. 388.
• (78) 1.146

  Against Rhem. Test in Luc 22. F. 133. VvhitaK. li. 2. cont. Dur. p. 154.
• (79) 1.147

  Cent. 12. Col. 1637.
• (80) 1.148

  Lib. Ger∣man. quo cau∣sas recusati concilij Trid. reddunt f. 257.
• (81) 1.149

  Cent. 12. Col. 1639.
• (83) 1.150

  Prot. Appeal p. 458.
• (84) 1.151

  Cent. 12. p. 315. 256.
• (82) 1.152

  Def. of the Apol. p 557. Vvhit. cont. Dur. l. 2. p. 154.
• (85) 1.153

  Fox Act. Monu. p. 13. Vvestphalus his Apologe∣tica &c. fol. 6. Osiand. Cent. 11. p. 158. Cen∣turie-writers. Cent. 11. col. 458.
• (86) 1.154

  Osiand. in ep. cent. 8 p. 101. Cowpers Chron. fol 173. Fox in Apoc. p. 436. Crispi∣nus of the Estate of the Church p. 221. Bulling. in 2. Thess. p. 533.
• (87) 1.155

  In Epist. Dedic. Hist. Sacram.
• (88) 1.156

  Chron. f. 174.
• (89) 1.157

  Lib. 2. Hist. Franc.
• (90) 1.158

  Cent. 8. col. 570.
• (91) 1.159

  Cent. 8. p. 58.
• (92) 1.160

  Chron. f. 171.
• (93) 1.161

  Hollinsh. Chron at An. 735. Covvpers Chron. at An. 724 fol. 168. Fox Act. Mon. p. 128.
• (94) 1.162

  Iesuit. part. 2. p. 326.
• (95) 1.163

  Prot. Ap∣peal. l. 1. p. 70.
• (96) 1.164

  Cent. 2. c. 1.
• (97) 1.165

  Act. Mon. p. 127.
• (98) 1.166

  Downfal.
• (99) 1.167

  Descrip. Brit. p. 670.
• [100] 1.168

  Cent. 8. p. 58.
• (101) 1.169

  Act. Mon. p. 128. 129.
• (102) 1.170

  Reten∣tiue ag. Bris∣tovv p. 278.
• (103) 1.171

  Against Rhem. Test. in Heb. 10.11.
• (104) 1.172

  Ib. in 1. Pet. 3.19.
• (105) 1.173

  In Catal. Scrip. &c. Cēt. 14. p. 145. Osi∣and. Cent. 7. p. 559.
• (106) 1.174

  Prot. Appeal p. 67. 68.
• (107) 1.175

  Carth∣vvright in his 2. Reply. part. 1. p. 475.
• (108) 1.176

  See l. 8. c. 19. & l. 9. c. 4. & l. 10. c. 3. & l. 12. c. 4. &c.
• (1) 1.177

  Prot. Ap∣peal. p 5.
• (2) 1.178

  Prot. Ap∣peal. p. 60.
• (3) 1.179

  Descri∣ption of Bri∣tannie l. 11. c. 7.
• (4) 1.180

  Descript. Britan. p. 104.
• (5) 1.181

  Act. Mon. 110. 115. 172. Bale Cent. 1. c. 73. Cent. c. 1. VvitaKer cont. Dur. p. 394. Cooper. chron. anno 599. Stovv. 596.
• (6) 1.182

  Act. Mon. p. 111. 120. 122
• (7) 1.183

  Ib. p. 115. 116.
• (8) 1.184

  Ib p. 121.
• (9) 1.185

  Ib. p. 112.
• (10) 1.186

  Chron. anno 636.
• (11) 1.187

  Chron. p. 9.
• (12) 1.188

  Ibid. p. 72.
• (13) 1.189

  Descript. Brit. p. 519.
• (14) 1.190

  In vit. Paulin.
• (15) 1.191

  Cont. Duraeum l. 5. p. 394. 502. 397.
• (16) 1.192

  Iesuit. p. 2. p. 624.
• (17) 1.193

  Suruey of Poperie p. 187.
• (18) 1.194

  Cent. 1. c. 68.
• (19) 1.195

  Ibid. c. 7.
• (20) 1.196

  Catalog. of Bish. p. 7. and See Cābd. Descript. Brit. p 515. & 178. Bale Cent. 13. c. 7. Cent. 14. c. 13.
• (21) 1.197

  Conse∣cration of En∣glish Bishops p. 57. 58.
• (22) 1.198

  Historie of Engl.
• (23) 1.199

  Act. Mon. p. 105. 116.
• (24) 1.200

  of Obe∣dience p. 57.
• (25) 1.201

  Chron. p. 65.
• (26) 1.202

  Vita August.
• (27) 1.203

  Cent 1. c. 68. &c. 70.
• (28) 1.204

  Cent. 1. fol. 3.
• (29) 1.205

  Iesuit. part. 2. rat. 5. p. 5. & 627.
• (30) 1.206

  Descrip∣tiō of Britanie before Holinsh. Chron. vol. 1. p ••7.
• (31) 1.207

  Ibid. p. 29. 27.
• (32) 1.208

  Apologia pro coena Do∣mini p. 33.
• (33) 1.209

  Answ. to. D. Bishop. p. 197.
• (34) 1.210

  Ibid. p. 20
• (35) 1.211

  Ibi. p. 198
• (36) 1.212

  Against Rhem. Test. in 1. Cor. 4.
• (37) 1.213

  Cent. 1. c. 70.
• (38) 1.214

  Ib. c. 73.
• (39) 1.215

  Cent. 8. c. 85.
• (40) 1.216

  Cent. 13. c. 1.
• (41) 1.217

  Cent. 14. c. 31.
• (42) 1.218

  Catal. Scrip. Illust. cent. 14. p. 117.
• (43) 1.219

  Against. Purgat. p 333.
• (44) 1.220

  Resp. ad Bellar. p. 1. p. 780.
• (45) 1.221

  Prot. Appeal. p. 60.
• (46) 1.222

  Trial of the Romish. Clergie. p. 377.
• (47) 1.223

  Answ. to. a Popish Ap∣pologie. f. 8.
• (48) 1.224

  2. Reply. part 1. p 301.
• (49) 1.225

  Tetrasty∣lon Papismi. p. 122.
• (50) 1.226

  In his Letter to M. Higgons. p. 92.
• (51) 1.227

  A••sw. to. Leech. l. 1. c. 4. p. 69.
• (52) 1.228

  Reply. Art. 3. p. 185.
• (53) 1.229

  Conse∣cration of Eng. Bishops. p. 58.
• (54) 1.230

  Cent. 6. c. 10. col ••49.
• (55) 1.231

  Cent. 6. p. 290.
• (56) 1.232

  Hist. Sa∣cram. l. 2. p. 157
• (57) 1.233

  Defence of the Answ. to the Admo∣nition p. 442.
• (1) 1.234

  Vpon the Reuel. f. 110.
• (2) 1.235

  In Apoc. p. 462.
• (3) 1.236

  Ibid. p. 471
• (4) 1.237

  Great Bri∣tanies great Deliuerie f. B. 2
• (5) 1.238

  Vpon the Reuel. p. 262.
• (6) 1.239

  Vpon the Reuel. p. 68. And See p. 43.
• (7) 1.240

  Ibid. p. 145
• (8) 1.241

  Ibid. p. 239
• (9) 1.242

  Prot. Ap∣peale p. 72.
• (10) 1.243

  Ibid. p. 662.
• (11) 1.244

  Apoc. p. 503.
• (12) 1.245

  Ibid. p. 539.
• (13) 1.246

  Ibid. p. 477.
• (14) 1.247

  Against Staplet. & Martial. p. 25.
• (15) 1.248

  In Apoc. p. 263.
• (16) 1.249

  De An∣tichristo. p. 96.
• (17) 1.250

  Prot. Appeal. p. 661.
• (18) 1.251

  Apoc. p. 344.
• (19) 1.252

  Reioynd. to Bristow. p. 2.
• (20) 1.253

  Against Purgat. p. 373.
• (21) 1.254

  Confe∣rēce vvith M. Hart. p. 442.
• (22) 1.255

  Instit. l. 4. c. 2. sec. 2. 3.
• (23) 1.256

  De vera Relig. p. 148.
• (24) 1.257

  De Eccle∣sia p. 278.
• (25) 1.258

  Against. Purgat. p. 374
• (26) 1.259

  Fox his Act. & Mon. p. 1359.
• (27) 1.260

  Reply to Harding. p. 246.
• (28) 1.261

  Ibid. p. 628.
• (29) 1.262

  Suruey of the Popes supremacie p. 85.
• (30) 1.263

  Prot. Ap∣peal. p. 573.
• (31) 1.264

  Vpon the Reuelat. p. 191. And See Cent. 2. c. 4. col. 55.
• (32) 1.265

  In Ban∣crofts Suruey c. 27. p. 343.
• (33) 1.266

  Against Symbolizing vvith Anti∣christ part. 2. sec. 8. p. 128.
• (34) 1.267

  Epist. de Abrogandis in vniuersum omnibus sta∣tutis Eccles.
• (35) 1.268

  Treatise tending to Pa∣cification. sec. 14. p. 89.
• (36) 1.269

  Of the Church. l. 3. c. 6. p. 72.
• (37) 1.270

  Defence &c. p. 351.
• (38) 1.271

  Ibid. p. 552. And see Suinglius tom. 2. fol. 94.
• (39) 1.272

  Ansvver to obiections against the Crosse in Ba∣ptisme p. 26.
• (40) 1.273

  Contra Duraeuml. 7. p. 479.
• (41) 1.274

  In Vvhitegu Def. p. 352.
• (42) 1.275

  Prot. Appeal. l. 2. p. 228.
• (43) 1.276

  Ibid. p. 225.
• (44) 1.277

  Ibid. p. 345.
• (45) 1.278

  Conside∣ration of the Papists suppli∣cation p. 43.
• (46) 1.279

  Reioyn∣der to Bristow p. 265.
• (47) 1.280

  Resp. ad Rat. Comp. p. 101.
• (48) 1.281

  In lib. Apologet. p. 192.
• (49) 1.282

  Ep. Ad Rom c. 11. vers. 5.6.7.8.9.11.12.
• (50) 1.283

  Prot. App. p. 675.
• (51) 1.284

  Synopsis Controu. 2. q. 3. p. 56.
• (52) 1.285

  Papisto-mastix. p. 193.
• 53 1.286

  Reformed Cath. p. 329.
• (54) 1.287

  Suruey of the BooK of common prayer in the Preface to the King p. 18.
• (1) 1.288

  Cent. 1. p. 37.
• (2) 1.289

  Comment. de Regno Chri∣sti p. 45.
• (3) 1.290

  Exam. part. 2. p. 7.
• (4) 1.291

  Britannia &c. p. 40.
• (5) 1.292

  Ibid. p. 157. And See M. Hal in his A∣pologie against the Brovvnists. p. 58.
• (6) 1.293

  Description of Britanie an∣nexed vnto Hol∣inshead &c. v. 1. p. 23.
• (7) 1.294

  Remedie against Schis∣me p. 24.
• (8) 1.295

  Against Rhem. Test. in 2. Cor. 12. fol. 316.
• (9) 1.296

  Comment. de Regno Chri∣sti. l. 1. p. 45. 46.
• (10) 1.297

  Ibid. p. 64.
• (11) 1.298

  Cent. 15. p. 477.
• (12) 1.299

  Com. Pla∣ces. p. 258.
• (13) 1.300

  Vol. 2. Generat. 39.
• (14) 1.301

  Vpon the Reuel. p. 223. 150. 250. And See Volater. Geograph l. 10.
• (15) 1.302

  Speculum Ecclesiae p. 163 172.
• (16) 1.303

  l. 2 c. 23. fol. 183.
• (17) 1.304

  Comment. de Regno Chri∣sti l. 1. p. 35. And see Ca∣thol. Tradit. p. 207.
• (18) 1.305

  Ibid. p 22.
• (19) 1.306

  Ibid. p. 56.
• (21) 1.307

  Cent. 16. p. 970.
• (20) 1.308

  Estate of the Church. p. 253.
• (23) 1.309

  Acta Theologorum Vvittemb. & Ieremiae Pa∣triarchae Con∣stantinop. de Augustana Confes. p. 55. 102. 128.
• (22) 1.310

  In his last leafe but fiue.
• (24) 1.311

  Ib. p. 243. 368.
• (25) 1.312

  Ib. p 243. 244 247. 251.
• (26) 1.313

  Ib. p. 86. 96. 100. 240. 380.
• (27) 1.314

  p. 102. 104 And see Cath. Tradit. p. 129. 137.
• (28) 1.315

  p. 97. 99. 100.
• (29) 1.316

  p. 87. 10. & in Prefat.
• (30) 1.317

  p. 79 89.
• (31) 1.318

  p. 78 238
• (32) 1.319

  p. 242. 326.
• (33) 1.320

  p. 77. 242. And Cath. Trad. p. 197.
• (34) 1.321

  p. 93. 102. 109.
• (35) 1.322

  p. 93. 104.
• (36) 1.323

  p. 93. 109.
• (37) 1.324

  p. 224. 296. 367.
• (38) 1.325

  p. 132. 257.
• (39) 1.326

  p 111. 129. 135.
• (40) 1.327

  p 126.
• (41) 1.328

  p. 129.
• (42) 1.329

  p. 131. 138. 142.
• (43) 1.330

  Pageant of Popes. Cent. 1. c. 70.
• (44) 1.331

  Cent. 1. c. 90.
• (45) 1.332

  Cent. 1. c. 73.
• (46) 1.333

  Answ. to a Counterf. Cath. p. 49.
• (47) 1.334

  In 2. Cor. 12.12.
• (48) 1.335

  Act. Mon. p. 463.
• (49) 1.336

  In his Protestat.
• (50) 1.337

  Papisto-mastix p. 202.
• (51) 1.338

  Prot. Appeal. p. 75.
• (52) 1.339

  Beda hist. l. 2. c. 2. Hol∣linsh. vol. 1. p. 103. Godwine in his Cata∣logue of Bish. p. 6.
• (53) 1.340

  l. 3. c. 13. p. 133.
• (54) 1.341

  Ibid p. 219. And See Cābdens Britā. in English. p. 578.
• (55) 1.342

  Beda hist. l. 2. c. 2. Hollinsh. vol. 1. p. 102.
• (56) 1.343

  Confut. of Purgat. p. 335.
• (57) 1.344

  Catalo∣gue of Bishops. p. 11.
• (58) 1.345

  Chron. f. 161.
• (59) 1.346

  Act. Mon. p. 112.
• (60) 1.347

  Ibid. p. 124.
• (61) 1.348

  Prop. Appeal. p. 79.