THE BISHOP OF LONDON HIS LEGACY.  
OR Certain Motives of D. King, late Bishop of London, for his change of Religion, and dying in the Catholic, and Roman Church.  
With a Conclusion to his Brethren, the LL. Bishops of England.  Cum dederit dilectis suis somnum, ecce hereditas Domini. Psal. 126 Beati, qui ix Domin● moriuntur. Apoc. 14. 
Permissu Superiorum, M.DC.XXIII.   

AN ADVERTISEMENT OF THE PUBLISHER OF THIS TREATISE to the Reader.  
GOOD Reader, It is an approved Method both of ancient & modern Writers, after they have made choice of the Subject by them to be entreated off, sometimes by a Poetical Conceit, particularly to tie and apply the said Subject, to some one peculiar person, or other circumstance; as if the Truth, and Verity thereof, did really exist only in the same Person, or Circumstance.  
Thus (for Example) Xenephon fashioning in his KYPO●ANAEIA, or Institution of Cyrus; what a Prince ought to be, doth person●●e all his Precepts therein in Cyrus: Not that Cyrus was such a Prince, as he is there described; but that according to the judgement of Xenophon, is Prince, or King is wished to be so instructed and informed, as he feygneth Cyrus. And thus his Majesty (whom God long preserve) following in part the like Method, doth delineate, and draw with his learned Pencil, the true portraiture of a good Prince in his Basilicon Doron, a work of eternal memory, and worthy to be written in letters, not of gold (too base a mettle) but even in letters of Diamonds, if so they could be melted and resolved. Thus also doth Homer in his Odyssees (as it were) incorporate all his instructions and documents of a subtle and wise traveller, in the person of Ulysses. The like may improportionably be averred of Plato touching his Commonwealth, of Aristotle touching his Felicity, and lastly of that most glorious Martyr Sr. Thomas More in his Utopia. All or most of which Authors for their better warrant, do challenge to themselves a Poetical liberty, in feyguing that really to be, which indeed is not.  
Now to apply this to our present matter in had, ●●●hing the deceased Bishop of London, D. King. That he altered his Religion before his death, and died Catholic, is most certain, (howsoever his F●●●ries labour to suppress the truth,) seeing if liberty were given, it would infallibly be made evident by many unanswerable reasons. That he did write in time of his sickness, & delivered to others before his death any reason, or motives of such his change in Religion, I will be sparing peremptorily to affirm; for I will not exasperate his Friends, a●d other great Protestant personages, more than necessity enforceth. For seeing they could not endure to hear, that he died Catholic, what tragedies & troubles would they attempt to raise, if it should be averred, that the Bishop did write any Motives of such his alteration in Faith and Religion. Only I say, seeing it is most certain, that he died Catholic: And seeing no learned Man changeth his Religion, but upon some Inducements and Motives: And lastly seeing in the judgement of the Publisher hereof, no Motyves are more forcible for a Protestant (& perhaps particularly for the Bishop) to change his Religion, and embrace the Catholic Faith, than these set down in this Treatise: Therefore the Publisher, as being warranted by the former examples of Xenophon and others above mentioned, wisheth, that Himself may be here taken to have written these Motives, as a Precedent, or Pattern, warranting any Protestant in the change of his Religion, though by a Poetical freedom peculiarly applied to the Bishop, in regard of his like change of Faith; and so accordingly the Treatise is styled, His Legacy.  
And therefore to keep the better Decorum, where the Bishop in the Epistle Dedicatory, assumeth the writing thereof to himself: Where also in the Book itself, there is some interchange of speeches between the Bishop and others: And lastly, where the Bishop in the end thereof writeth to the rest of the Bishops his Brethren: All these passages, the Reader may (if it please him) with my full consent and allowance, suppose to be fictiones Personarum, and warranted by the figure Prospopcia: And that the Publisher hereof performeth no more, (if so much) than Plutarch doth in his Parallels of the Romans with the Grecians: That is, to appropriate certain Speeches, or Orations to certain Men; and such speeches only, as are most fitting to proceed (with due consideration of Circumstances) from the same parties, to whom they are by supposal so ascribed.  
Thus Good Reader, seeing matters must be cautelously carried in these days, thou seest, I will thee not, to take this Treatise, as written by the Bishop, and delivered over to others in his life time, but (in God's Name) repute it as Mine. For I am not desirous to father any thing upon the dead (nor doth the Catholic Cause need any such Pretence) but what is acknowledged for such, by the judgement of all Men; & I know well the B ●. Friends are fare from any such acknowledgement. But howsoever, if thou reap profit hereby, I shallbe glad; but if neither the Bishop's change in Religion, nor these present Motyves (by whomsoever written) can withdraw thee from the Heresies of these times, I can but commiserate the poor and dangerous estate of thy Soul.  
If any of the Bishop's nearest Friends, shall by answer impugn this Treatise, let him take heed, that the birth of such a future work become not viperous, as not regarding whose sides it la●ceth before it can take is being. But above all, forbearing to cavil at the Method, let him be careful to answer the Motyves in particular, & this directly and plainly, and to all the authorities, as here they do lie, without affecting any obscurity in Method, or long and tedious Discourses, thereby to divert the Readers mind from the point here handled, and to turn it to other by-matters. Thus much is expected at his hands, and the rather, seeing aforehand he is premonished hereof only, for the better manifestation of the truth. And thus (Good Reader) wishing thee to take (at least) in good part, the publishing of this Legacy, which indeed had been sent to the Press instantly upon the Bishop's death (and so had then immediately come forth) were it not, that it hath been stayed till now, upon some just and urgent Reasons, I bid thee heartily farewell.  
Thy loving Friend A. B.   

THE EPISTLE TO THE READER.  
GOOD Christian Reader (whether catholic or Protestant) here before my Death I bequeath to thee (as my Legacy) these few leaves (though the weak and feminyne Issue of my sick and distempered Age) containing (no doubt, with amazement to thyself) certain grounds of my alienation of mind from the Protestant's Religion. True it is, that for some years past (though I was far otherwise affected, when I did write my Lectures upon jonas) I have preached and taught the Protestant faith, with a certain hesitation & doubtfulness of judgement, in regard of some time more seriously spent, then before in those kind of studies, in the which (to speak in the Wiseman's 
(a) Eccles. cap. 52. ) dialect): Modicum laboravi, sed inveni mihi magnam requiem.  
Many are the Reasons warranting this my change, much traveled in, even by my own pains and disquisition (for I grant, I scorned to look into these weighty matters, with other men's eyes:) yet by reason of the present weak state of my languishing Body, I have selected these few particular Motives ensuing, hereafter in due time to be presented to the eye of the World. Touching which I foresee, I shall find different (and perhaps some calumnious) Censures.  
For I probably presage, that since it will be interpreted injurious to the present State, as if 
(b) Tert. lib. adverse. Gentes.  non possumus & Romani esse, & hosts non esse; and displeasing to his Majesty (whom in my soul I do affect with all true Allegiance, do acknowledge with all Gratefulness his many Honourable & undeserving Favours, and for whose true Happiness I do, and daily will pray, as long as this enfeebled flesh of mine shall enjoy this air (when it shallbe reported, that the Bishop of London died a Romanist in Religion, and hath not been ashamed, even with his own pen, to pull in those Colours of that faith, which himself afore had advanced; that therefore it must be diuulged, either he died not in that Religion; or at least that these written Motives are but masked under his Name, as being framed by some Catholic priest, for the greater defaming of the Protestant's Gospel.  
No, No. By God's infinite grace, I am resoued (notwithstanding all contrary assaults whatsoever) to die a menber of the catholic, or (as we term it) Papist Church: Inueni 
(c) Cantie, 8.  quem diligit anima mea, tenui eum, nec dimittam. And as an earnest given to this my design, I have here written this small Treatise, which in my life time is delivered to a friend. It is mine, and penned by myself, and to me the dearest and choicest Child, that ever the womb of my brain brought forth; howsoever it is likely that Orphanlyke it shallbe cast out, and be betrampled upon with all ensuing serpentine malignity.  
I have purposely enlevened the most passages thereof, with the testimonies of diverse Protestant Writers and Doctors; and this for two respects. One, because myself being heretofore a Protestant Doctor, and placed in that eminency of seat wherein I am, I thought it the more suitable, to produce authorities of men of my own former Religion, Rank, and Profession. The other for brevity; seeing the acknowledgements of Protestants in points controverted, prevent, that we need not to recurre (through a long and wearisome enquiry) to Scriptures, Fathers, or Histories, for the determining of the said Points: and I remember well, that dull and tedious reading, soon turneth the edge of fastidious and curious Wits.  
The truth is here set down plainly, without Affectation of pleasing Oratory, or (to use the Apostles phrase) the persuasible 
(d) 1. Cor. 2.  words of humane wisdom, for at this time, and upon this subject, I little prize a fluent, smooth, and oiled tongue.  
If it be demanded, why now (and not before) I do write this Apology? Let such men know, i●lis the fear of Hell, and loss of Heaven (the only two landing-places of the Soul, after her departure from hence, for all Eternity that hath forced me heerto. Alas, my poor languishing body every day decaying, and assuring itself, that many months (for I look not for years) it cannot hold out, summons me now to display the very secrets of my soul, for the saving of my soul; and not to draw any veil between me, and my most inward Thoughts and Intentions.  
I have dissembled my Religion for some few years (so have Wife, Children, & worldly Honours enthralled my Soul:) sweet jesus forgive me. I have persecuted the Church of Christ for many years. O blessed Apostle S. Paul! thou, who once waste a Persecutor, but after a planter of God's Church, intercede for me. But, O the torment of my afflicted Conscience I have had my hand (would to God, both hand and arm, for the preventing of such a mischief, had then been cut off) in sheeding of innocent Blood: And is it not high time for me, to cast up these accounts, and to use an introversion upon my own Actions?  
O happy Almond, who heese upon earth didst mask thyself under the name of Mollineux! In thy blood, eu●● in thy blood did I wash my hands. It was I, that did further thy death: be thou O blessed Saint, who now seest and hearest me: (Quid 
(e) Creg. l. 4. dial.  non videt, qui videntem omnia videt?) be thou, I say, out of thy Seraphical Charity, as propitious to pray for remitting of that crying-Sinne, as I am ready to acknowledge the Sinne. And let thy blood (guilty of no other treason, then in not being a traitor to Christ and his Church) not resemble the blood of 
(f) G●●es. 4.  Abel which cried for revenge against his brother; but rather the blood of Christ which prayed 
(g) Luc. c. 3.  for pardon of his Crucifiers.  
Well then; the state of my former life, and my present weakness being thus; have I not just reason to say with the Spouse 
(h) Cant. 4. : Vadam admontem mirrhae, & collem thuris (where a man by a spiritual annibilation of himself, enjoyeth a more perfect being,) That is, I will spend the short remnant of my life, in Penance, and Prayer. Let my future Adversaries spit our their Venom never so much in their contumelious Scripts against me. I care not, I fear not, I am resolved, for my own good, to break with flesh & blood, since shortly I am to leave all flesh and blood. I am within the jaws of death, & all that I expect, is to save my soul. And poor Doctor King dying Catholic, is not ashamed to acknowledge the transgressions of Doctor King, living Protestant.  
Therefore O most merciful Lord, (who a●t God of God, and Man for Man) who hast said to a sinful soul: Tu 
(i) Ier●n. ●.  fornicata es cum multis amatoribus; tamen reiertere admo, & ego re●piam te; do not repudiate this poor soul of mine, which hath committed spiritual fornication with Honours, Preferments, and other such glorious Miseries. Thou, who in thy holy Writ, hast left recorded. Quomo●o 
(k) Psal. ●02.  miseretur Pater filiorum, misertus est Dominus timentibus s●▪ Be hold here thy Prodigal son, prostrating myself at the feet of thee my heavenly Father, humbly craving pardon for my misspent substance and partrimony, Finally; thou, who thus assurest 〈…〉 Nolo 
(l) Fzech. cap. 18.  mortem morientis, convertimini & ●iuite: Look upon me, who now half dead in body, and heretofore wholly dead in Soul, even loathing the upbraiding remembrance of my former courses, do cast myself between thy arms, to receive a new spiritual life.  
Sweet jesus, who by my creation gave me a Being, by my Redemption a Wellbeing, who suffered Deati● to prevent death, and whose wound care our wouds (〈◊〉 
(m) Isa. c● ●.  ●●us sanatcsimi●●●) vouchsafe to sanctify me with thy soul; ●o me●●●ate my intellectual powers with thy blood; and to wash away all their ordure & filth, with the water of thy pierced side; that so, I poor, despicable, and miserable man, seeing all my sins afore drowned in the gulf of thy inexhausted Mercy, may in the end enter into thy promised (and my hoped for) Canaan.  
joan. Londinens.   

THE CONTENTS OF THE SEVERAL MOTIVES OF THIS TREATISE.  

THE 1. MOTIVE. THAT the private spirit is the chief supporter of Protestancy. Page 1.  
Motive 2. That the Prophecies of Scripture confirm the Catholic Religion, and refute Protestancy. pag 10.  
Motive 3. That general Counsels, confirming Catholic Religion, are rejected by protestants. pag. 33.  
Motive 4. That the Fathers of the Primitive Church (as Patrons of Papistry) are rejected by the Protestants. pag▪ 39  
Motive 5. That the articles of Protestancy are particularly condemned for benes●es, by the ancient Fathers. And that all Protestants originally came out of the Catholic Church. pag. 53.  
Motive 6. That true Miracles have been wrought for proof of the Catholic Religion; but not any for Protestancy. pag. 64.  
Motive 7. Absurdityes in the Protestants Religion. pag. 77.  
Motive 8 Deceits, and sleights practised by Protestant Writers. pag. 93.  
Motive 9 That the doctrine of Catholic Religion, tends directly to Virtue; of Protestancy, to Vice and Liberty. pag 118.  
Motive 10. That Luther and Caluin are chief Patroness of Arianisme; and therefore in other points of faith are not to be followed. p 131  
Motive 11. That there is unity in Faith in Catholic Religion; & disagreements in faith in Protestancy. pag. 139.  
Motive 12. That Salvation may be had in Catholic Religion, by the confession of Protestants. pag. 154.  
The Conclusion to my Dears, and Reverend Brethren, the Lords Arch bishops, and Bishops of England. pag. 168    

THE BISHOP OF LONDON HIS LEGACY.  

THE 1. MOTIVE. That the private Spirit is the chief supporter of Protestancy.  
THE affected, strange, and exorbitant course we Protestants hold (I yet range myself with my former Brethren, according to my accustomed dialect) in determining of doubts in Religion is able to cause the learnedest of us, to fluctuate and waver in our already ietled judgments. We all know, it is our own head Theorem, that the Scripture alone (& but such as ourselves admit for Canonical) is to judge of all arising Controversyes in faith and the private spirit to judge of the sense of the Scripture: Which private spirit (being but a mere intentional and unreal name) our own D. 
(a) In Controu. 1. q. ● c. 3. & 11.  Whitaker thus speciously entitles: An inward persuasion of the truth, from the Holy Ghost, in the secret closes of the believers hart. Thus by recurring to Scripture alone, we reject all Apostolical Traditions, all definitions of the Church, and the most ancient practise thereof; by erecting the private spirit, we make ourselves sole Lords of the Scripture: A poor refuge (God knows) discovering in a clear and impartial eye the feebleness of our own cause; since in so doing, we being but parties, constitute ourselves as judges, daring in the closure of all, to judge even our own judges.  
Thus for example, if our Adversaries the Catholics, in justifying the articles of their faith, do urge any passage of the Maccabees, Ecclesiasticus, Toby etc. acknowledged for Canonical Scripture by S. Augustin 
(b) De doctrine. Christian. l. 2. c. ●.  & the third Council 
(c) Can. 47.  of Carthage; this Private spirit, in lieu of further answer, peremptorily discanoneth all these Books, under the tecture, that they were 
(d) Doctor Whitak. in his answer to M. Reynold●●efutation. p. 22. & 23. Calu. lib. 1. Insti●. c. 7. §. 1. & 2.  not first written in Hebrew, and that the Majesty and voice of God appeareth not in them: Strangely inferred; as though the Spirit of God ought seruily to be tied to any one tongue; or because in the silly weening of this spirit the Majesty & voice of God speaketh not in the said Books, therefore they are indeed wholly deprived thereof.  
If our Adversaries, proceeding further, do insist, for proof of any dogmatic point, in the plain words of confessed Scripture, as for proof of Apostolical Traditions (whereby this fantasy of the Scripture being sole judge is impugned) in that passage 
(e) 2. Thes. 2.  of the Apostle: Hold fast the traditions, which you have received (sive per sermonem, sive per Epistol●m nostram) either by word, or by our Epistle; the Private spirit (as it were, with it Mercuryes rod) here chaseth away the most obvious and familiar construction, obtruding this Scholia upon the text: That 
(f) Kem●●. in 〈◊〉 Conc. ●●dent.  the Apostle first delivered those things by speech, which after he left written in his Epistle: Absured; since the disjunctive particle (siue) implieth an Antithesis or opposition of the things delivered by speech, and the things written.  
If they fortify the plain and literal sense of the foresaid Text with the answerable Constitutions and Canons of most ancient general Counsels, as of that of the second of Nice: Si 
(g) Act. ●. ●om. 4.  quis traditionem Ecclesiae sive scripto five consuetudine valentem non curaverit, Anathema sit; the Spirit spurneth here at, averring, that 
(h) So D. Wh●●ak. l. de Co●●●il. con●●a Bellar●●. q. ●.  general Counsels may err. And that as 
(i) So Peter Martyr. l. de votis p. 476.  long, as we insist in general Counsels, so long we shall continue in the Papists errors. Thus hoping that the splendour of the whole Church of Christ, being once obscured, itself may shine forth with more lustre; so the least star discovereth it light, through absence of a greater light.  
If our Adversaries produce the testimonies, but of private Fathers in warrant of Traditions, as of 
(k) Lib. contra Donat. Quae vn●uersa tenet ●cclesia ab Apost●lis praecepta, benè creduntur, quanquàm scriptanon reperiantur  Augustine, 
(l) Lib. 2. epist. ●.  Cypri●n, and the like: O what indignity is it, to this all-controuling Spirit, which even drunk with a self complacency, can with one puff of his breath blow away the force of all their authorities, by saying: God's 
(m) Luth. tom. 2. cont. Reg Angl fol. 344.  word is above all; the divine Majesty maketh for me, in so much as I regard not, if a thousand Augustine's, a thousand Cyprians stood against me: vaunting further of itself: Non sinam ipsos Angelos de mea doctrina iudicare.  
Lastly if they put us in mind, how it hath been ever the proper Scene of heretics to enamel & varnish the deformed face of their heresies, with the misapplyed texts of Gods sacred Word: Haereses 
(n) Aug i● hom. 9 tract. 18. in joan.  sumunt originem quando Scripturae bonae intelliguntur non bene. Thus did the 
(o) joan. 14. & 18. & 17. 1. Cor. 18. 1 Tim 2. & Act. 2.  Arians, the 
(p) joan. 1. & 2.  Eutichians, the 
(q) Philip. 2. Haebr. 7 Matth. 27. joan. 12.  Nestorians, all which for number were able to vie text for text in defence of their blasphemies against God's Church; a course anciently so much used, as that S. Augustine 
(r) Contra Maximin. Arian. l. 1.  introduceth the Heretics of his days, provoking their adversary's only to the Scripture. The Spirit replies, that indeed those Heretics and such others pressed Scripture, but wrongfully; since they used not prayer, nor conference of places, nor had knowledge in the tongues, all which the true Spirit, as conducing means, doth enjoy.  — Spectatum admissi risum teneatis? 
For beside, 
(s) D. Reynolds in his Confer. p. 83. & 84.  that these intervenient means even in the censure of D. Whitaker 
(t) Whitak. Media interpretandi loca obscura, sunt incerta, dubia, & ambigua: ergo fierinon potest, quin & ipsa etiam interpretatio fit incerta: si i●certa, tum potest esse falsa. lib. 2. de Eccies. contr. Bellarm. controu. i. quest. 4.  include a doubtfulles of judgement, in the interpretation of Scripture, under what show of Reason can we persuade others, that our selves do practise in a higher measure, these means, than the foresaid acknowledged Heretics did? Or why should any man give a more certain and indubious assent to our spirits, then to the Spirits of those other, or of our Adversaries?  
But to draw to a more inward and particular fight herein. Luther and Caluin enjoyed this Private spirit (as themselues do vaunt.) Furthermore this Spirit (supposing it to be the gift of the holy Ghost) is infallible. This granted, what unlucky constellation then reigned, when of these few words, Hoc est corp is meum, the Spirits of Luther, Caluin, & their Scholars have delivered more different constructions, than there are words in this short sentence; and such constructions, as one is incompatible with another; so as if not all, at least some of necessity, must be false. In like sort in these two words of the Creed, Descendit ad inferos, what contrary senses of them are given by the Protestants, all enjoying (in their own judgements) the infallibility of this apocalyptical and revealing spirit? It is needles to particularise their several and contrary interpretations given of the two former sentences: Their own Booke-warrs 
(u) The different doctrines among Protestants, concerning these two points and others, and all warranted by the interpretation of the Private spirit, have occasioned above three hundred books to have been written by the Protestants one against another, of which Hospinian (a Protestant) & the yearly Catalogue of Frankford make mention.  waged by Protestants against the Protestants, and undertaken with sharpened pens in great hostility of style, originally for the maintenance of the different doctrines rising through their misinterpretation of the former Text, proclaims the truth of this to the world. Thus, suppose a man to be once possessed (or, if you will, obsest) with this lying Spirit, how easily can he ventilate strange and irreconciliable doctrines? Hear than I urge: Is this spirit of God? How can it then broach contrary and repugnant doctrines? Since his Church is one 
(x) Rom. 12. Cant. 6. joan. 10.  body, one spouse, one sheepfould. Is it not? Why then should I longer persevere in that Religion, which sucketh it venom from so false a spirit? Non 
(y) Tertu▪ l. de Baptis.  idem Deus est nobis & illis, nec unus Christus.  
But what? Do our own writings really stand thus chargeable in defence of this all judging Spirit? or is it but my unjust aspersion cast upon my brethren's wronged Pens? Read, and then censure.  
One of us comes forth upon the stage (for the eye of the World is the stage of man's actions) thus saying: The 
(z) D. Bilson in his true diference between Christian subjection, & unch istian rebellion.  people must be discerners and judges of what is taught. Another, That 
(a) Luth. tom. 2. Wittem. fol. 375.  the sleep is to judge, whether the Pastors propound to them the voice of Christ, or of strangers. A third (to pass over the Brethren 
(b) In their Appology to the universityes.  of Amsterdam, the branches and descendants of the Church of Geneva) acteth his part more lively, thus pronouncing of the privilege heerin, even of any lefthanded, unlearned, and mechanical fellow: The 
(c) Whitak. de sacra Scriptura p. 519.  unlearned in the exposition of the Scripture is to demand the opinion of the learned, and to read the Commentaries of Interpreters; Sed videndum interim est, ne nimis illis tribuant etc. sed cautè semper (belike for fear of sinning in humbleness of mind) atque it a, ut c●rum interim libertatem retincant. Where is Humility? Where is the 
(d) 2. Cor. 10.  Apostles precept of captivating our judgements? But it is exiled, and in it room are stepped in, this Spirits assuming Pride, and blushless Ignorance: The irreconciliable doctrines it broacheth, bewray it Ignorance, it control of all authority, it Pride.  
The difficulty of the Scriptures I will here pass over with a gentle touch (for I affect brevity) though the consideration of their abstrusnes more fully displayeth the vanity of this Private spirit, ever venditating the facility of them. For what can be found in any writings to occasion misconstruction which here is not found? The sense? Where humane writings have commonly but one sense, the Scripture in many places (besides the literal) is invested with 
(e) To wit sensu● Alegorious, Tropologi●us, & Anogogious.  three. The Style? It is here most plain, yet most profound; familiar, yet persuading; unaffected, yet unimitable; for the most part literal, yet sparsedly fraught with Schems', Figures, & Allegories. The Subject? It is here supernatural, transcending all reach of man's Reason: Since here we learn (to omit all other misteryes of faith recorded in Gods sacred Writ) that Omnipotency was once 
(f) Luc. 2. she wraped him in swaddling .  weak; Eternity 
(g) Luke ibid. when eight days were accomplished, that they should circumcise the child.  young; Omnipresency 
(h) Matt: 28. He is not here, for he is risen.  confined; infiniteness 
(i) Luc. 2. And jesus increased in wisdom, age, and grace.  increasing; Wisdom 
(k) Marc: 13. of that day and hour knoweth no man, etc. neither the son himself.  ignorant; the Word 
(l) john 19 But jesus gave him no answer.  silent; and finally the Lord of heaven and earth, poor 
(m) Luc. 9 The birds have nests etc. but the son of Man hath not whereon to lay his head.  and despicable: so just reason had S. Ambrose to say: Mare 
(n) Epist. 44. ad Constantium.  est Scriptura divina, hahens inse sensus profundos and so little reason our Brethren to use for their Mot: Ad 
(o) Beza. see D. bancroft's survey pag. 219.  verbum Deiprovoco.  
But to resume my former heads: Since then this revealing spirit is not afraid to expunge out of the sacred Canon of Scripture such books as Apocryphal, wherein it own Religion is evidently impugned; since it alloweth only such expositions of confessed Scripture, as best sort to the supporting of it own errors; since it betrampleth all authorities of Counsels, and Fathers, who expound God's word differently from it: Since it hath been the custom of all Heretics, to withdraw themselves to the weak retire of only Scripture, and their own spirit interpreting the Scripture (thus making a circular motion, where from point to point there is a true progression, but from the first point no progression at all:) since this Spirit engendereth contrarieties in doctrine in the enjoyers of it, through each man's misconstruction of Scripture: Since the Scripture itself is of that abstruse sublimity, as that Man without Gods directing grace, cannot lay any true level thereto: To conclude, since the exorbitancy, pride, and petulancy of this Spirit is such, as it expecteth in the end, that all men should receive from it (as from a second Moses) the tables of our Evangelicall Law, Non 
* Tert. de Orat.  agnosei poterit à Spiritu sancto spiritus inquinatus: What then remaineth, but that myself careful of my salvation, should for ever after become jealous of the truth of that Religion, which I find to be seated upon those grounds (and only those grounds) which every heresy promiscuously challengeth to itself? And that, relying on God's holy visible Church, upon which he hath 
(p) Matt. 18. ●. Tim. 3.  entailed his spirit of Truth, I may interpose her infallible authority, as an Isthmos, or firmeland, to stop the intercourse of the two main Oceans; I mean, the Scriptures abysmall profoundity, and this Private spirits floating and boundless uncertainty.  
But enough of this subject, of which (as potentially inuoluing all other Controversyes within itself) I have drawn, I confess, for my fuller satisfaction, certain notes in some few scattered Papers.   

THE II. MOTIVE That the Prophecies of Scripture confirm the Catholic Religion, and refute Protestancy.  
PROPHECIES are divine, and infallible Predictions of things future: future in respect of us, who measure all actions with the yard of Time; but present in the eyes of God, with whom there is neither time past, nor time to come; both being confounded in the depth of his own Eternity: Infallible, as proceeding only from him, who by his power disposeth all things, as shall best please him; by his Prescience foreseeth distinctly all things so disposed, as things present in the clear glass of his own essence; And by his Will, vouchsafeth, that men shall warrant the certainty of his foreknowledge: Prescientia Dei 
(a) Tert. l. 2 contr. Martion.  tot habet testes, quot fecit Prophetas.  
Now of the Prophecies recorded in the old Testament, I will take into my consideration only two; The inditers of which (according to the judgement of 
(b) In Psal 3●. conc. 2.  S. Augustine) as foreseeing Controversyes and doubts in faith to come, spoke more clearly of the Church then of Christ himself; The first shall concern the propagation of the Church of Christ, and the converting of Kings heathen, and kingdoms to it faith: touching which I will insist in those places of Scripture, whose true sense and interpretation is acknowledged for such, both by the Catholics, and by our Protestants Private spirit: the alleging of which texts is the more forcible, since the confessed sense of Scripture is the soul (as it were) which informeth the body of the Letter.  
Of this first point the Prophet I say thus speaketh: The 
(c) 60.  Isles shall wait for thee (meaning the Church) their Kings shall minister unto thee, and thy gates shallbe continually open; neither day nor night shall they be shut, that men may bring to thee the riches of the Gentiles etc. And again speaking of, and to the Church, he further thus saith: Thou 
(d) Ibid.  shalt suck the milk of the Gentiles, and the breasts of Kings: Kings shallbe thy nursing Fathers, and Queens thy Mothers: And further: Enlarge 
(e) 54.  the place of thy tents, spread out the curtains of thy habitation; for thou shalt increase on the right hand, and on the left; thy seed shall possess the Gentiles, and inhabit the desolate Cities. To the truth of which conversions of Heathen Kings and Countries to the faith of Christ, the Kingly Prophet speaking in the person of God to the Church, thus accordeth: I 
(f) Psalm. 2.  will give thee the Heathens for thy inheritance, and the ends of the earth for thy pessession.  
That these places (besides diverse others) are understood of the enlargement of Christ's Church, and the conversions of Kingdoms and Nations unto it, is warranted by the marginal annotations of our own English 
(g) Frinted in the year 1576.  Bibles, & no less agreeable to the particular judgements of 
(h) Upon jeremy.  Oecolampadius (that learned Protestant,) D. Whitguift 
(i) In his defence p. 466.  late Archbishop of Canterbury, D. 
(k) In his answer M. William Reynolds.  Whitaker▪ and all other grave Writers.  
The next point, which here presenteth itself to be weighed, is to consider, whether the foresaid predictions of the dilatation of the faith of Christ, and converting to it Kings, and kingdoms have been accomplished in the Protestants Church, or in the Catholic and Roman Church; for the clearing of which point, we will begin with the times from Luther's first change of Religion, and so ascend by degrees to the age of the Apostles; in the discovery whereof we are to recurre to Ecclesiastical Writers: And thus the ground of belief touching this point, is here removed from Scripture to man; & yet man is here believed (to wit in relating whether the true or false faith was then taught and brought in) by reason of the Scripture. And first that these Conversions & propagation of the Church any time for the space of these last thousand years, even up to the days of Boniface the third and Gregory Bishops of Rome, were not performed in the Protestant Church, is over evident from all Ecclesiastical histories and records, and from the voluntary confessions of learned Protestants; so as to find the contrary in any approved Authors, we may well make the subject of our desire, but not of our expectation. And first for Histories, we Protestants cannot produce any one authentical history or narration (notwithstanding some late effectles attempts of our own Nation in that nature, being still in labour of that which I fear, will never be borne) intimating so much; And which is more the Protestant Ecclesiastical Writers do even particularly set down and relate the conversion of many Countries made by catholics, even to their own main prejudice heerin.  
But the better to enleven our discourse with examples, where I will omit the subiecting of many vast Countries to the sweet yoke of Christ, made in our own days by the jesuits, whose very name to us is ungrateful; but Quis 
(l) Tertul. adverjus gentes.  nominis reatus? Quae vocabulerum accusatio? Osiander (a learned Protestant) in his book of Ecclesiastical history, faithfully relateth the Conversions of many Countries. Of which? Of the 
(m) Cent. 9.10.11.12.13 14.15.  Danes, the Moravians, the Polonians, the Sclavonians, the camphors, the Huns, the Normans, the Bohemians, the Swecians, the Norwegians, the Livonians, the Saxons, the Rugy, & Tusanes. By whom (saith he) were they converted? By the Bishops of Rome living in those several ages. To what faith? To the now Catholic, or (as he terms it) papistical faith. In like sort our Century writers 
(n) Cent. 8.9.10.11.  discoursing upon the same subject, affirm that the Countries of Germany, of the Vandals, the Bulgarians, Sclavonians, Danes, Moravians▪ Hungarians, & Norwegians were first reduced to Christianity by the Church of Rome, professing then by their own acknowledgements the same religion, which at this present it doth. Thus hath Rome Christian subjected to it more Nations and Kingdom; by a peaceable and sweet force of Religion, than ever Rome Heathen did by war. And here we are to note (a consideration not to be neglected) that as these and other Protestants do confess, that all the Conversions of the foresaid Countries were made by Papists; (D. 
(o) Lib. de Eccles. contra Bellarm. §. 336.  Whitaker therefore styling them impure and corrupt conversions) so not one of the said Protestants, or any other, though writing elaboratly of this subject, would ever ascribe the converting of any of these, or any other one Heathen King or Nation, to the Protestants labours. But leaving these last thousands years, let us ascend higher to the next three hundred years, arriving from the time of Boniface the third, up unto the days of Constantin the first Christian Emperor. During the space of which three hundred years, no Countries or Kingdoms were converted at all to Christian religion, either by Catholics or by any others; most Nations (in respect of Religion) lying then wholly waste and incultivated. The truth of which point is even demonstrable; seeing in these ages there were no Kings, who professed Christian religion, the Emperors of the East & West only excepted: Among whom some were bastard Christians, as being branded with 
(p) Valens, Constantius, Constans.  Arianisme; others 
(q) julian.  Apostatas, so enjoying but an abortive faith, since it womb became it grave.  
Now concerning the time itself of Constantin, it is so irrefragably true, that neither himself, nor any Country by his means was converted to our Protestant religion, 
(r) Cent. 4,  as that our Magdeburgenses recording the state of the Church in his time, do charge Constantine with all the Catholic points of religion at this day professed by the Church of Rome, styling them, The errors of Constantine, & of h● age.  
Lastly to rise higher in times, to wit, from the times of Constantine, to that of Christ our Saviour ●it is abundantly testified by all Historiographers, that the Church of God was so straitened and shut up on all sides, and in such violent persecutions (though otherwise glad to sweat under such a burden) as that it had no means to enlarge itself, by converting to it Kings and kingdoms; and if it had at that time converted any, yet the question would then follow, whether such a Conversion had been made to the Protestant, or to the Roman Church. But the luculency of this former point appeareth, both from the writings of the Protestant 
(s) In the book flyied, Disputationes etc.  Divines of Wittemberge, & from the testimony of our home-brother D. Barlow 
(t) In his defence of the articles of the Protestant religion p. 24  thus discoursing hereof: In the primitive nonage of the Church, this promise of King's allegiance thereunto, was not so fully accomplished, because in those days that Prophecy of our Saviour was rather verified: You shall be brought before Kings for my name's sake by them to be persecuted even unto death etc.  
But now to reflect upon this our Argument or Motive: Is the Protestant Church the true Church of Christ? Then hath it converted many Kings & Kingdoms unto the faith of Christ▪ Let any particularise (if he can) the Countries and Time's, which, and when. Hath not the Protestant Church converted any Kingdoms and Nations to the faith of Christ? Then itself is not the true Church of Christ; since the Prophecies of Gods sacred Writ are infallible: Non 
(u) Tert. adverse. Gnost.  licuisset aliter evenire, quàm edixit, nec ipse aliter edixisset, quàm evenire voluisset. Which Prophecies, as being already actually accomplished by the Catholic Church, in subiecting to it diverse true Kings indeed; so the full consideration of them hath much prevailed (for his intended incorporating into the Church) with one poor King in name.  
To reply here and say, that these Prophecies are to be full filled not before, but after the preaching of Luther's Gospel, is controlled by the judgement of all learned men, and by experience itself; since it is certain (I must confess to the prejudice of our Gospel) that neither Luther, nor his scholars, nor his party have as yet first converted any one Kingdom, Nation, City, Village, or House from heathenish infidelity to the faith of Christ: Therefore we must conclude with D. Whitaker 
(x) Lib. 7. contra Duraeum pag. 472.  ingenuously thus confessing: Whatsoever the ancient Prophets have foretold of the enlargement, amplitude, and glory of the Church, the same to have been already performed is most evident out of histories; so true is that: Lex est Enangelium praedictum, ●uangelium lex completa.  
The other branch of Prophecies, wherein I here will insist, formel, that in the Church of Christ, there shall always be found Pastors and Doctors, and a continual administration of the Word and Sacraments; the spiritual conduits, whereby God's grace is derived into man's soul; or the subordinate wheels of his divine Majesty, by which the soul is moved and directed to gain it own salvation. To this effect are alleged those words out of the 
(a) Ephes. 4.  Apostle (a text, which for it clearness is able to comment it Comment) to wit, that Christ hath placed in his Church Pastors and Doctors to the consummation of Saints, till we all meet in the unity of Faith; that is, as our D. 
(b) In his answer to a counterfeit Catholic.  Fulke truly expoundeth for ever Caluin 
(c) Instit. 4. c▪ 3.64  himself concluding from hence in these words: The Church cannot at any time want Pastors and Doctors. Now that these Pastors and Doctors must not in their offices and duties be silent, is not only witnessed by the Holy 
(d) Isa. 62.  Ghost, but also (besides the nature of their function requiring it) acknowledged by us Protestants. And therefore D. Fulke well saith: Truth 
(e) Vbi supra.  cannot be continued in the world, but by the Ministry of the Pastors and Doctors In like sort touching the continual administration of the Sacraments, the same is more particularly evicted from the clear words of our Saviour, and S. Paul, seeing by the help of them, we shall show 
(*) 1. Cor. 11.  the Lords death until be come A point so evident, that it lieth out of the way of all Contradiction; and therefore we Protestant's in plain words maintain, That the absence 
(f) Doctor Wiles in his Synopsis pag. 1.  of the Sacraments doth make a nullity of the Church. And again, in D. Wh●takers 
(g) Centra Du●a●●m l. 3. p. 249.  phrase. That the administration of the word and Sacraments being present, doth constitute a Church; being absent doth subvert it: and again, as the same Doctor 
(h) Vbi supra pag. 260.  styleth them, that they are Ecclesiae essentiales proprietates. Thus do we and Catholics jointly teach, that not at sometimes only the Church of Christ (being his intemerate & immaculate spouse) is to enjoy Pastors & Doctors, and the use of the word and Sacraments; at other times to be wholly destitute of them (ague-like having thus accesses and remitting;) but that at all times, in all ages, in all seasons, the Church without any interruption is to continue in it full Orb, by ever enjoying the foresaid means of man's salvation.  
Now this being the true and confessed sense of all sides of the former Prophecies; We are to examine, if in the Protestant Church the administration of the word and Sacraments have for any ages, or years been interrupted; since such an interruption being once proved, it then inevitably followeth that the Protestant Church is not that true Church of Christ, which is delineated and described in the former words by the Apostle. To evict this, our Adversaries the Catholics, do instance in the last hundred years before Luther urging, that if any such administration of the Word & Sacraments had been in that age, some one history or other would have mentioned the Pastors and Doctors of those days. But all histories and relations of that age (say they) are most silent therein. What answer can we give hereto? To produce any one Historiographer of that age, but intimating so much, we are not able. Shall we then say (as some of us have not been ashamed to suggest) that the Pope did determinately cause all such narrations both of former times, and of that age above instanced, concerning Protestancy to be suppressed, thereby to bury in oblivion all memory of Protestant Religion? It is a fantasy, it is a dream.  
The personal faults and vices of some Popes are 
(i) So was Gregory the sea●enth wrote against by B●nno Benedictus 3. by the Council of Constance. Eug●nius 4. by the Council of Basil, and s●m others.  recorded in Histories yet to be read. Is it then probable, that the Popes were so solicitous to extinguish all remembrance of the Protestant Payth, and yet content to suffer the less warrantable lives of themselves and their Predecessors, to be recorded for all posterity? Again in the Canons of the Counsels of every age, there is frequent mention made of particular heresies (which then embroiled the Church) condemned by the said Counsels: Can we then think it possible (to speak morally, not metaphysically) that the Pope, and the Counsels should be so distracted in judgement, as carefully to register all other impugned heresies; and on the other side, as carefully to suppress all arising opinions of Protestancy? It is improbable, it is absurd. Lastly, (besides that the particular subject of all Ecclesiastical histories in the relation of new doctrines recorded in the said histories) are not the writings of hus, Wykcliffe, and others (wherein they first disgorged forth some few points of Protestancy) yet extant even to these days? So transparent in a clear eye the former answer is Or shall we secondly labour to evade our Adversaries, pressing us, by claiming Waldo, Wikcliffe, Husse, and such others for pastors of the Protestants Church in their times? Durum telum necessitas: our challenging of them riseth from our extreme want and penury. It is most clear, that the foresaid men were no true Protestants; since not only they ever retained most of the points of Catholic religion, comparting with us Protestants only in three or four articles; but also they broached diverse errors uniustify able in our own, and our Adversaries judgements, with which their own writings do still upbraid them: So much have some of us 
(k) Pox Act. & Mon. pag. 618. & p. 85. & diverse other Protestant's.  wronged the reputed honour of our own Church, by pretending those former Heterogeneous and mongrill Sectaryes to be true members thereof. Again suppose them to be entire Protestant's, it but iustifyeth the being of Protestant Doctors & Pastors only for their own times, we not being able to instance the like for diverse ages before them. But sooner shall the seas ebbing and flowing forsake the moons course, than the true Church of Christ be deprived, but for one age, year, or day, of her Pastors, and an answerable administration of the Word and Sacraments.  
Or shall we say, that in the age above instanced as also in many other ages before, there were Pastors and Doctors of the Protestant Church; notwithstanding by reason of the tyranny of the Pope, they were latent and unknown? How inexplicable, or rather contraditory is this? Did those Pastors conceal their own faith through sear of persecution (the strongest pulse, which beateth in weakest minds) joining in outward show with the supposed Idolatry of the Church of Rome? Then were they dissemblers, forsakers of their own Religion, and no good members of the Church: o'er 
(*) Rom. 10.  fit confessi● ad salutem. Did they openly profess (notwithstanding the imaginary rage of their enemies) their faith, and exercise the Word & the Sacraments? Then by so doing they were made most eminent: for what Church is better known, than that Church, which liveth under the hatches of persecution, resembling the Sun, which is best subject to the eye, in it lowest descent? Or what man can for his religion be persecuted, which is not known? Eye-witnesses hereof are those Countries, wherein the Catholic religion at this day suffereth pressures & tribulations.  
But to draw towards an end; the doctrine of the Church's invisibility, maintained by many of us Protestants, is a Supersedeas to all our former answers: since it irrefragably evicteth the want of Pastors and Doctors, and consequently an interruption of the Word and Sacraments, except we will misapply to the Pastors and Doctors, those words of Tacitus: Eo ipso praefulgebant quod non visebantur. For if the Protestant faith for many ages was absolutely extinct, and no such religion was then maintained in any Country; then followeth it, that there were neither men in the world to preach the Word, and minister the Sacraments according to that religion, nor any to hear it preached, or receive them ministered. Touching the doctrine of the invisiblity of the Protestant Church for many ages, we do find our Brother D. Parkins 
(l) In his exposition of the Creed. And Lut. ep. ad Argentin. saith Christum à nobis primò vulgatum audemus gloriari.  thus to write: During the space of nine hundred years, the Popish heresy hath spread itself over the whole earth. And further: For many hundred years our Church was not visible to the world: an universal apostasy overspreading the whole face of the earth▪ With whom accordeth D. 
(m) In his answer to a counterfeit Catholic pag. 16.  Fulke saying: From the time of Boniface the third, which was Anno Domini 607. the Church became invisible, and fled into the wilderness, there to remain a long season. But M. Napper 
(n) In his treatise upon the Revelation. pag. ●8.  riseth higher teaching, That between the years of Christ 300. and 316. the Antichristian and Papistical raigue began, reigning universally without any debatable contradiction one thousand two hundred & sixty years. M. Brocard 
(o) Upon the Revelation p. 110.  affirmeth, that during the second and third age after Christ, the true temple of God, and light of the Gospel was obscured by the Roman Antichrist himself. But Sebastianus 
(p) In epistola de abrogandis in universum on. nibus statutis Ecclesiasticis.  Francus (otherwise a learned Protestant) stretcheth fare further saying: For certain, through this work of Antichrist, the external Church together with the faith and Sacraments, vanished away presently after the Apostles departure; and that for these fourteen hundred years the Church hath not been external and visible: with whom conspireth D. 
(q) In his answer to a counterfeit Catholic p. ●5,  Fulke, in these words: The true Church decayed immediately after the Apostles tyme. A strange and inconsiderate assertion, thus to insimulate and charge the times next to the Apostles; since (besides the Scripture 
(r) Isa 2▪ Miche as 4 Psalm. 19 Matth. 5.  witnessing in many places, a continual visibility of the Church, and true faith at all times) it was Gods good pleasure, that his Church concerning true faith and doctrine, should (contrary to the course of other things) enjoy her greatest strength and force in her greatest infancy. But to the point. From all these testimonies may be inferred, that if the Protestants Church was for so many ages invisible, and that the true faith and Sacraments thereof were vanished away for so long a time, then during the length of so many ages there were no Doctors to preach the Protestants faith, nor Pastors to minister their Sacraments; (though the same ever to have been in the Catholic Church, the Protestants foresaid testimonies do necessarily and implicitly witness) and consequently that the above alleged Prophecy, touching the continuance of Pastors & Doctors in the Church of Christ, at all times till the end of the world, is not accomplished in the Protestant Church.  
Thus fare hereof: only for greater perspicuity, I will wind up the two different parts of all the foresaid. Prophecies, in this ensuing argument. Then thus.  
It is prophesied of the true Church of Christ, that she must convert heathen Kings, Kingdoms, and Nations unto her faith and Religion: A● also that she must in all times, and ages without interruption, entoy aflours and Doctors, and an administration of the word and Sacraments.  
But by the confessions of our learned Brethren the Protestants, the Protestant Church hath never as yet converted to it any one Heathen King, kingdom, Nation: & for many ages together (by the Protestant's like acknowledgements) it hath wanted Doctors and Pastors ●●preach the Protestants faith, and to minister the word and Sacraments.  
Therefore the Protestant Church is not that true Church of Christ, which is figured out in those foresaid Prophecies.  
The inference I urge, this I press, in this I make my station: It is drawn from acknowledged Scripture on all sides; and from the acknowledged sense of the said Scripture on all sides. Let any learned Protestant, or all the learned Protestants living, sincerely and plainly, without subtle evading and declining the point urged, give any satisfactory answer hereto, and I will indisputably become recreant in my faith. The demonstration is unavoidable, & such, as that several markable Protestant's, one way not confessing (out of their implacable hatred) the former Prophecies to be fulfiled in the Catholic Church; another, seeing by all proof of histories whatsoever, that they have not been performed in the Protestant Church, 
1. (s) David George, Professor at Basil.  did from hence conclude (a thought horrible to be entertained) that the Christian Religion (as wanting the accomplishments of the foresaid Prophecies) was a false Religion, 
2. Beruardin Ochine, a man highly commended by cali●●n l. de scandalis pag. 111.  ou● Saviour a seducer, and themselves thereupon sinally became (s) jews. I execrate a jew; therefore, seeing there is no other Medium, I will dye herein a Roman Catholic. 
3. Neuserus, chief Pastor of ●eide●hergc. 4. Almanus a Zuinglion: all which through the reasons above touched, forsook the Christian faith See of these & some others, Conradus Schluffelburg in his Theolog. Calu. and Osiander Cent.    

THE III. MOTIVE. That general Counsels, confirming Catholic Religion, are rejected by Protestants.  
IT is certain, that the spiritual Enemy of man's soul (though hating Order, yet) in impugning the Truth, observeth order. For after his rejecting of Canonical Scripture, and expounding falsely (by his Ministers) confessed scripture, he next maketh violent incursions upon sacred Ecumenical Counsels: they being in matters of faith the highest judgements upon earth; whose semences are above all appeal; and whose testimonies I hold, as so many sealing arguments. Therefore I much grieved, to find the first and chiefest of our Religion, peremptorily to sindicate and censure (next to that of the Apostles) the first and chiefest general Council; (I mean Luther, the Nicen) styling it 
(a) ●uth. l. de Concil.  decrees, f●enum, stramen, ligna, stipula etc. But no marvel, since so long as we continue in condemning the articles of Catholic religion; so long are we forced to break with those Primitive general Synods. To exemplify in some few for the truth's sake (though it be more hard to erect a truth by proofs, then to confute an error:) Who is so Alphabetical & young a Controversist, but he knoweth, that the doctrine of Peter's Primacy, and his successors is confirmed in the Canons of the second general 
(b) Epist. ad Damal. quae exstat apud Theodor.  Council of Constantinople, and the third of 
(c) Apud Eugagrium lib. hist. c. 4.  Ephesus? In the one by plainly acknowledging the doctrine; in the other by deposing Nestorius, by the authority of the Sea of Rome? That Apostolical traditions are warranted by the first & second Nicen Council? the first condemneth the 
(d) In acts eiusdem Concii.  heresy of Arius (besides by Scripture) even by force of Traditions; the other 
(e) Epst. Cyrill. ad Nestor.  by teaching in express words the doctrine of Traditions? That Baptism (wherein man is borne, but not borne the son of Adam) even by force and virtue of the Sacrament itself, taketh away sin, is evident out of the first of 
(f) Cap. de Baptism.  Nice, and the first of 
(g) In symbol.  Constantinople? That vowed Virgins, & Monks are to be in the Church of Christ, and that such cannot marry, is decreed by the Council of 
(h) Can. 16.  Ca●●edon? Lastly that appeals to Rome (which implicitly inuolues the Primacy of that Sea) were ratifyed by the Council of 
(i) Can. 7.  Sardis? Thus much for instance (though the same might be justified in many other Catholic articles) where I have restrained my proofs only to general Counsels, and such as were celebrated within the first five hundred years, after the divine Majesty vouchsafed for our good, to embase himself by putting upon the poor rags of our humanity.  
But here I must needs take leave to cast a more fixed eye upon the dignity of general Counsels (abstracting them from all priority and laternes of time) since then, our own Brethren absolutely rejecting all such Counsels, as subject to error, will needs ascribe that respect to their own Private spirit, which by all reasons both divine and humane, hath been ever due to general Counsels; unto which perhaps they have been sooner moved, partly through the infelicity 
(k) Many synods of Protestant's have been, but without any good event (not any one yet succeeding we.) as that at Maspurge anno 1529. at Smal●ald, at Mull run, at Montbelgard, at Heidelberg at Aldeburge, at Herizburg at Hamburge, at Tubinge, and finally (besides devers others) this last at Dort.  of their own so many Provincial (at most but Nationall) Conventicles in Germany and else where, as yet never having good success. I hold it therefore not impertinent to display in some particulars, the advantages between a general Council, and any Sectaryes private judgement; where (no doubt) we shall find, that as easily may the lowest shrubs compare in height with the Cedars of Libanus, as the sentence of any Private man (who like a mastless ship is tossed with every wind of Innovation) contend in authority with a general Council. Thus then. If an Ecumenical Council, indicted & confirmed by lawful authority; representing the Majesty of God's Church, as being the supreme Tribunal 
(l) So doth Augustin term a general Council ep. 162.  thereof; assured by promise 
(m) where tow or three are gathered together in my name etc. Matt. 18.  of Christ his assisting presence; warranted with the first example of that kind, by the blessed 
(n) Act 15  Apostle; highly reverenced and magnifyed by the ancient 
(o) Aug. vbisupra● & l. de Bapt. 6.18. Athan ep. ad Epictet. Basil ep. 78. Ambr. ep 32. Leo epist. 53. Hieron. l. contra Luciferian. etc.  Fathers; acknowledged for the only means of determining Controversy by some of our learnedest Protestant's 
(p) Doct. Bilson in his perpetuali government pag. 174. D. Covell in his modest examinat. pag. 110. and ethers. ; consisting of several of hundreds of most venerable Prelates, conspicuous for virtue, readiness in the Scripture, variety of tongues, and infiniteness of reading; gathered from the most remote & opposite regions of Christendom; and therefore the less probable upon their such sudden meeting, jointly to embrace any one point of Innovation; battering daily upon their knees, at the ears of Almighty God, with most humble and fervorous prayer, seconded with austere fasting; and all this, to the end, that it would vouchsafe his divine Goodness, so to guide and stern this reverend Assembly with his holy spirit, as what expositions it gives of the Scripture, or what otherwise it determines for undoubted faith, may be agreeable to his sacred Word, and Truth.  
Now, notwithstanding all this, if such a celebrious concourse and confluence of Pastors (being the Mart or Rendezvous for the time of Virtue and Learning) shall so fail therein, as that they may, and have, sundry times, most foully erred (as our supercilious & contumacious Sectaryes 
(q) D. Whitak. l. de Conc. contr. Bellarm. q. 6. D. Fulke in his answer to a counterfeit Catholic pag. 35. D. Wilet in his syaopfis p. 29●.  avouch) in their constructions of Scripture, and resolutions of faith; though all such their decrees be otherwise warranted with a judicial conference of Scripture, the general practice of the Church, and the conspiring testimonies of all Antiquity: If this (I say) may happen (the best means thus producing the worst effects) what shall we then conceive of an obscure Sir john (a man engendered in the slime of pride and ignorance) who in some points ever subdivideth himself from the rest of his brethren (thus being resolved from whom to fly, but not whom to follow) so as he is truly condemned of heresy, even by the lying mouth of Heresy: A man but competent in learning, sometimes of a disedifying life, not having any warrant from God for his proceeding, nor precedent from his holy church; yea one, to whom God flatly denyeth 
r No prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation 2. Pet. c. 1.  this presumed certainty of his expounding his word, and determining which is true faith; and further, of whose spirit we are commanded to 
(s) Dear beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits. 1. joan. c. 4.  to doubt; & (which is more) of whose seducing we are most cautelously 
(t) These things I have written unto you concerning those which deceive you. joan. 1. c. 2.  premonished. Now if this man being in his Pulpit upon the Lord's day, in the presence of his ignorant (yet censuring) and psalming Auditory (a fit Pathmos for his ensuing Revelations) & there opening the Bible (for thus falsehood is forced to beg countenance from truth) and undertaking to expound some text or other, for the establishing of his late appearing faith (though contrary to the judgement of all ancient Counsels) affirming himself to be secured by special Euthysiasmes and illuminations from God, for the better judging the point controverted, rising from his own explication of Scripture. Which being done, what assurance may we have of the truth of this his al-defyning spirit? and is there not reason to expect more errors, than sentences to drop from this man's mouth? And what stupor then and dulness is it to allow to such an one, that infallibility of spirit, which himself denyeth to a general Council? Yet such is the forward blindness of our enchanted Novellists heerin, who maintain 
(u) So teach D. Whitik lib. de Concil. contra Bellar q 6. Peter Martyr lib. de votis. D. Fulke in his answer to a counterfeit Catholic pag. 80. & 90. D. Willet in his synops pag. 100L. And Beza in his Preface of the new Testament anno 1587. thus saith. Even in the best times the ambition, ignorance, and lewdness of Bishops was such, as that the blind may easily perceive; how Satan was precedent in their assemblies or Counsels. Thus Beza of the Counsels even of the Primitive Church.  that many virtuous and learned men gathered together, for the disquisition of Truth, must necessarily err; one sole, one lateborne, obscure, illiterate, irreligious Scripturist cannot err: O 
(x) Galat. c. 3●  insensati Galatae, quis vos fascinavit etc.   

THE FOUR MOTIVE. That the Fathers of the Primitive Church (as Patrons of Papistry) are rejected by the Protestants.  
INTERROGA generationem pristinam, & diligenter investiga patrum memoriam; hesterni quippe sumus, saith the Mirror 
(a) joc. 〈◊〉 8.  of Patience: To which words old Vincentius Lyrinensis 
(b) Aduer. baeres.  twelve hundred years since, thus subscribeth: If any new question do arise, we are to recurre to the judgements of the holy Fathers. Which rule if it were strong in those Primitive times, how much more forcible should it be (though the accession of so many hundreds of years since passed) with us, who are but Hodierni?  
The ancient Fathers (we know) have diversely traveled in the subject of Christian Religion; some of them in their Commentaries, others in their Homilies, Sermons, and Catechisms: Others again in their Catalogue of condemned heresies and their Epistles; and some in all these, making the intended sense of the holy Ghost in the Scripture, & the doctrine thence deduced, the Centre or quiescent Point, in all their Motions or Labours.  
Their Laborious Industry herein, our Brethren at the first seem to prize, granting, that in the mines of the Father's writings, there is to be found much golden Ore; yet such, as must after be purged and refined in the fire of their own private judgements from all dross of supposed Errors, before it can receive the print and stamp (they say) of true Euangedical doctrine (yea) of Innovation and Novellisme.  
Thus do we teach, that their writings may be profitably tasted of, if so they be taken with the true Corrective of our own contronling liberty. But if our Brethren be further urged, whether they will humbly embrace such peculiar doctryns, as the Fathers did jointly teach, than they more openly dismaske themselves, disclaiming from them, as from maintainers of Papistry. To manifest this in all Articles controverted at this present, Brevitye prevents: four of the chiefest shall serve for instance; And those four fathers of the Church, which have obtained by a privilege, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that title (I mean, Ambrose, Jerome augustin & Gregory) shall be therein chiefly produced teaching the said doctrynes, even by the acknowledgement of us Protestants.  
And first to begin with the doctrine of Prayer for the dead, & to retail here some particular confessions of our own; do I not find D. Fulke 
(c) In his confutation of purgatory p. 78.  (to use his own words) thus speaking, Ambrose allowed prayer for the dead; and further, 
(d) Ibidem p. 104.  Jerome allowed prayer for the dead; And yet further, 
(e) Vbi supra pag. ●49.  Augustin blindly defended it. And which is more, our said Doctor Fulke thus further verbally saith: 
(f) Ibidem pag. 362.  Augustin, Jerome, and agreat many more do witness, that Sacrifice for the dead is a Tradition of the Apostles. To be short 
(g) in exam. part. 3. pag. 9●. & 107.  Kemnitius accordeth with D. Fulk heerin, affirming that prayer for the dead was taught (besides by others) by Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustin.  
Touching the real Presence (in the which, Vocatur 
(h) Aug. tract. 26. in jom.  caro, quod non capit caro) and it being a true Sacrifice, Antony de Adamo (no obscure Protestant) thus 
(i) In his Anatomy of the Ma● fol. 221.  writeth: The book of Sacraments ascribed to Ambrose, affirms the opinion of Christ's bodily presence in the Sacrament. The like we find averred of Ambrose, by our Brethren the 
(k) C●nt. 4. c. 4. col. 205.  Centurists. Kemnitius speaking of certain sentences of Ambrose, Augustine, and other, containing the adoration of the Sacrament (which necessarily includeth the Real Presence) thus saith: In 
(l) Exam. part. 2. p. 91.  my judgement, they contain the adoration of the Sacrament. Again: Jerome with many other Fathers is reprehended for teaching the reservation of the Sacrament, by 
(m) Ibid. pag. 102.  Kemnitius, and by 
(n) Lib. against Heskins, Sanders etc. p. 458.  D. Fulke (to use the Doctors words) for giving admonition to married persons before the time of Communion, to abstain from company of their wives, (who termeth it popish divinity) both which points in regard of the reverence therein exhibited, probably imply the doctrine of the Real presence. Caluin 
(o) Lib. de vera Eccle. reformat Extat in tract theolog. Calu.  giveth this Theta, or mark of condemnation, upon the writings of Augustin, Ambrose, and others in these words: They forged a sacrifice in the Lord's supper, without his commandment; and so adulterated the supper by adding of Sacrifice. They also expounded the sacrifice of Malachy, 
(p) Lib. de abrogand in vniuers. statut. Ecclestast.  and the oblation of Melchisedech to be a figure of the sacrifice of the Mass.  
Finally the doctrine of the Real presence was so common to all the Fathers of the Primitive Church, that Sebastianus Francus thus writeth: Presently after the Apostles days, all things were strangely turned; the supper of the Lord being transformed into a sacrifice. And Adamus Francisci (another of our censuring & Lynx-eyed brethren) thus plainly confesseth: 
(q) In Margarita Theolog. pag. 236.  Papistarum Commentum etc. The Papists invention touching Transubstantiation crept early into the Church. Concerning Prayer ●o Saints D Fulke with an irreparable prejudice to his cause, thus saith: l 
(r) In his Rejoinder to Br●flow pag. 5.  confess, that Ambrose, Augustine and Hierome held invocation of Saints to be lawful. And the same doth 
(s) Exam. part. 3. p. 200.  Kemnitius acknowledge of these three foresaid Fathers, a point so evident, that D. Whi●guift thus writeth: Almost 
(t) In his defence against the reply of Cartwright.  all the Bishops and Writers of the Greek Church, and Latin also, were spotted with the doctrines of invocation of Saints, merit of works &c and such like: and the like sentence doth D. Covel give, both of the Greek and Latin Fathers, touching the innocation of Saints, and the other foresaid doctrines: so agreeing hereto is another such confession of D. Fulke saying, Many 
(u) Against the Rhemist Testament. in 2. 1.  of the ancient Fathers held that Saints departed pray for us. Lastly touching the doctrine or Vows (inu●suing within itself the doctrine of evangelicall Counsels) Kemnitius 
(x) Exam. part. 3. p. 41.  alleadgeth the several sentences of Augustin, ●mbrose, and Hierome, justifying the said doctrine, and then he after rejecteth them all, thus concluding of the Fathers in general: Non ignoramus etc. We well know that the Fathers allowed the vows of perpetual Chastity, and that they acknowledged them to be oblegatory.  
Now touching the Authority of S. Gregory, in all the foresaid Points, we have reserved the confessions of them to this last place; both because he lived many years after the other fathers; as also in that his judgement in all the said Articles is made manifest by two acknowledgements; the one of D. Humfrey the other of the Centurists, D. Humphrey 
(y) In jesuitis. p. 2. rat. 5. p. ●.  speaking of the saith first planted in our Country by Gregory and Augustin, whom he sent, thus answereth himself: In Ecclesiam quid inu●exerun Gregarius & Augustinus? intulerun onus Caeremonia●ū &c purgetorium etc. oblationem salutaris hostiae, preces pro mortuis, Transubstantiationem etc. The Century 
(z) See the alphabetical table of the fixed Century at the word Gregory.  Writers agreeing hereto, witness that Gregory preached in England by the sending of Augustine hither, the doctrines of prayer for the dead, the Real Presence, Invocation of Saintes, the vows of Chastity, besides all the other Articles of the Roman Religion maintained at this day.  
Thus far chiefly of these four points of the catholic Religion, taught (besides by others) by the former four pillars of God's Church, even by the free and uncoacted acknowledgements of such of our Brethren, as are of no vulgar note or rank, but most accomplished with all good literature.  
And here though my intended brevity suffereth me only to run over some few points, taught by the Fathers, who are rejected by us; yet I will somewhat enlarge myself in the Article of the Sacrifice of the Mass; as being one of the chiefest points, controverted between our Adversaries & us, and containing in itself the daily worship of God. And here it is manifest, that throughout all the ages of the Primitive Church (without exception of any) it was generally taught by the Fathers of every such age; & yet are those Fathers for this very doctrine rejected by us Protestants. And to begin at the end of the first five hundred years, and so to ascend, for after that time ●ill Luther's days, it is granted by most Protestants, that the Mass reigned in all the Churches of the West part of the World; which point is further proved from our own acknowledged doctrine of the invisibility of the Protestant Church, during all that tyme.  
First then Anno Domini 501. Symmachus 
(a) Cent. 6. c. 10. c●. 664.  was Bishop of Rome, of whom our Centurists thus speak: Notas Antichristi Symmachus hab●is: Missan enim in foreman redegit: that is, Sym●●●●●● had the notes of Antichrist, for he reduced the Mass into a form. Before Symmachus was the Council of Car●hage, (whereat S. Augustine was present) of which Council Pelargus (a Protestant) thus speaketh: Haec 
(b) In his schola sidei tract. de Concil. p. 3.  Synodus carthaginensis intercessionem, & Missam pro defunctis iniunxit. This Synod of Carthage did ordain intercession of prayers, and Mass for the dead. Ambrose lived in the year 370. of whom the 
(c) Cent. 4. cap. 4. col. 295.  Centurists thus: Ambrose locutionibus utitur, quibus ante cum ex Patribus nemo usus est, ut Missam facere, offer Sacrificium. Ambrose did use certain speeches, the which no Father before him did use; as to say Mass, to offer up Sacrifice. Gregory Nissen in the year 340. whom Andreas 
(d) Lib. 1. de opisie. Miss● sect. 104.  Crast●uius (a Protestant) thus reprehendeth: Nyssenus ille ait, cùm dedit Christus discipulis suis corpus suum ad comedendum etc. iam latenter, ineffa biliter, & invisibiliter corpus immolatum erat. Gregory Nissen saith, That when Christ gave to his disciples his body to eat etc. that then his body was immolated and offered up latently, ineffably, and invisibly. Cyrill of Jerusalem (one of the Greek Church) lived Anno 320. whom 
(e) Histor. Sacram. p. 167.  Hospinianus (a Protestant) thus speaketh of: Quoad Cyrillum Hierosolymitanum attinet, dicit ille quidem pro sui temporis consu●tu●●ine, sacrificium Altaris maximum iwamen esse animarum. Concerning Cyrill of Jerusalem, he saith indeed (according to the use of his time) that the sacrificé of the Altar is a great help to souls. Cyprian lived Anno 240. him the 
(f) Cent. 30. c. 4 Col. 33.  Magdeburgenses, or Centurists thus charge: Sacerdotem Cyprianus inquit vice Christi fungi, & Deo Patri sacrificium offerri; and hereupon they reprove 
(g) In the alphabeti. table of the third entury under the letter S  Cyprian of superstition. In like sort, D. 
(h) Against Heskins, S●nders p. 100L.  Fulke thus confesseth of Cyprian: It is granted, that Cyprian thought the bread and wine brought forth by Melchisedech, to be a figure of the Sacrament, and that herein Melchisdech resembled the Priesthood of Christ.  
Terfullian lived Anno 220. whom thus Luke 
(i) Cent. 3. l. c. 9  Osiander accuseth: Te●tullianus approbaui● oblationes prodefunctis: Tertullian aid allow of oblations for the dead, (meaning the oblation of the sacrifice of Mass) who also for this his said doctrine, is with other Fathers thus reprehended by D. 
(k) In his confutation of Purgatory p. 302. Vide p. 103. & ●3.  Fulke: Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, Hierome, and a great many more, do witness, that sacrifice for the dead is a Tradition of the Apostles. Irenaeus lived in the year 170. whom the Centurists thus censure: De 
(l) Cent 〈◊〉 c 4. col. ●3.  oblatione Irenaeus l. 4. cap. 23. satis videtur lequi incommode cùm ait, Nou● Testamenti novam Christus docuit oblationem, quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens in untuersomundo offers Deo. Irenaeus in lib. 4. cap. 23. seems to speak in conveniently enough of oblation or sacrifice, when he saith, that Christ hath taught a new oblation in the new Testament, the which the Church receiving from the Apostles offereth to God throughout the whole world Of this Father 
(m) De vera Eccles. resorm. extant in tract. theolog. p 389  Caluin thus writeth: Obijciunt locum Malachia de missae sacrificio ab Irenae exponi & breviter responsum est: ita ridiculè, ut nos dissentire cogat ratio & verit as. The Papists do object to us, that the place of Malachy is expounded by Irenaeus of the sacrifice of the Mass; but the answer is at hand to wit, it is so ridiculously expounded, as that all reason and truth force us to descent from him.  
Ignatius (the Apostles scholar) lived Anno whom the Centurists thus censure: 
(n) Cent. 2 c 4. col. 63.  Quaedan ambigua & incommodè dicta, in quibusdam occurrunt●, ut in epistola ●gnatij ad Smirnenses: non licet (inquit Ignatius) sine Episcopo neq offer, neque sacrificium imm●lare. There are certain doubtful and inconvenient sayings, which do occur in diverse places, as in Ignatius his epistle ad Smirnenses, where he saith it is not lawful without a Bishop, to immolate or offer up Sacrifice; which very words of Ignatius the said Centurists 
(o) Cent. 2. c. 10. col. 107.  elswheresty le to be, periculosa & quasi errorum semina. And thus fare for truth of the sacrifice of the Mass, from the end of the first four hundred years even up to the days of the Apostles, though all such testimonies be rejected by us Protestants. A truth so evident that Caluin 
(q) Lib. 4. instit. c. 18. sect. 〈…〉  thus confesseth: Veteres illos video etc. I do see, that the ancient Fathers did wrest the memory of the Lords supper otherwise then was agreeing to the institution of the Lord. Since the Father's supper did bear the show and face of a renewed oblation etc. they imitating more nearly the Iewes manner of sacrificing, then either Christ did ordain, or the nature of the Gospel would suffer. Caluin 
(q) In omnes Pauli epist. in Heb. c. 7. pag. ●2●.  further charging them: That they adulterated the supper of the Lord, by adding sacrifice unto it. And Hospinian 
(r) Histor. sacram l. 1. c. 6 p. 20.  thus further acknowledgeth: I am tum primo illo saculovi ventibus adhuc Apostolis etc. Even in the very first age (the Apostles being alive) the Devil endeavoured to deceive more about this Sacrament, then about Baptism; withdrawing men from the first form thereof. To whom Sebastianus 
(s) In epist. de abrogandis in univers omnibus statut. Ecclesiast.  Francus thus accordeth: Statim post Apostolos omniae inversa sunt etc. Coena Domini in sacrificium transformatu est. Thus fare of the Mass.  
But if we proceed further in a more large & ample manner, touching the whole body of Catholic Religion, taught by the Fathers in general, we shall rest amazed to see, what a corrent and inundation of our brethren's sharp censures do overflow the writings of all the Ancient Fathers.  
Sortably heerto (to omit the depressing speeches of Luther, touching particular Fathers, saying, Cyprian 
(a) I● colloquijs mensal. c. de Patribus Eccles. & lib. de ser●o arbitrio.  is a weak Denine; I hold Origen long since accursed; Basil is of no Worth, he is wholly a Monk; In the Write of Hierome, there is not one Word of true saith in Christ, and perfect Religion; Tertullian is but superstitious, & other such base refuse of Inuectives) do we not find Luther 
(b) Luth. 〈…〉 supra.  to conclude thus against all the Fathers without exception: The Apology of Philip Melancthon doth fare excel all the Doctors of the Church, and exceed even Augustine himself. And yet further with greater acerbity in these words: The Fathers 
(c) Luth. lib. de seruo at bitrio printed an. 1●●1 pag. 434.  of so many ages have been plainly blind, and most ignorant in the Scriptures; they have erred al● their life time; & unless they were amended before their deaths, they were neither Saints, nor pertaining to the Church. See how Apostasy is the Daughter and Mother of Pride.  
But to proceed further, the Archbishop of Canterbary, though more mild, yet most boldly, thus censureth 
(d) In his defence of the answer to the admonition p 472. & 473.  the Fathers: The doctrine taught and professed by our Bishops at this day, is more perfect and sounder than it commonly was in any age, after the Apostles etc. With which sharp censure B●●● 
(e) In ep. theolog. ep. 1.  thus jumpeth: If we compa a our ●y●es, with the times next to the Apostles, my judgement is, that those times had plus conscientiae scientiae minus; and we, scientiae plus, conscientiae min●●.  
Melancthon (as loath to be flow in so charitable an act) thus 
(f) In 1. Cor. c. 3.  writeth: Presently from the beginning of the Church, the ancient Fathers obscured the doctrine concerning justification of saith, increased Ceremonies, and devised peculiar worships. D. Humphrey chargeth D. jewel with great inconsideration in appealing to the Fathers, saying: He 
(g) In vita lewel. printed at Landon pag. 212.  gave the Papists too large a scope, was injurious to himself, and in a manner spoilt himself, and his Church. I will conclude this Scene (full of scurility and un worthy criminations) with Doctor whitaker's 
(h) Contra Dur●●um l. 6. pag. 413.  saying: Ex Patrum erroribus ille Pontificiae religionis cento consecutus est. The religion of the Papists is a patched cloth of the Father's errors sowed together. Add for the close of all, our own doctrine of the invisibility of the Church for many ages together, even in those Primitive times: for if the Protestant Church during those times by our own frequent Confessions, was latent and invisible, (as above is showed) then followeth it, that the Fathers of those ages in their writings and Commentaries maintained not the Protestant, but the catholic and Roman Religion.  
But here (notwithstanding our absolute disclaiming from the Fathers in general) I will annex (as an Appendix) one observation concerning particularly Origen, Tertullian, and Cyprian (Fathers of great Antiquity, learning, and judgement.) It is this: These three Fathers erred in certain points; Origen in teaching, that the Devils should in the end be saved; Cyprian in Rebaptization, Tetullian in denying 2. Marriages. All these three were written against for these their errors by 
(i) See August. against Origen in baeres. 43. against Tertul. in haeres ●6. against Cyprian in tom. 3. de Baptism. l. 2. c. 7. Vide Hier. in l. contr. jounianun, & Vigil. Vide Epiphan. l. de haeresibus.  Augustine, Jerome, and other acknowledge maintainers of the Roman Religion. Now here jurge, Augustine & Jerome (as is above showed) are charged by our Brethren, as Patroness of Papistry; if then Origen, Tertullian, and Cyprian had dissented from Augustin, Jerome, and other Fathers in those catholic points, wherewith we truly charge them; no doubt, but Augustine, and Jerome, in their Catalogues of heresies, would as well have registered other their opinions for heresies, in which Origen, Tertullian, & Cyprian dissented from them, as they did register their three former heresies: But no such censure or condemnation do we find in their writings: from which we may infallibly conclude, that what Articles of the present Roman and Catholic Religion were maintained by Augustine, Jerome, and others of those ages, writing of the heresies of their times; the same were also taught by the foresaid Origen, Tertullia, & Cyprian Thus much of these three Fathers, in whom (by the way) we may gloss, how dangerous it is, to shut our sight against the radiant beams of the Church's authority: so the eye suddenly coming out from a great light, presently seethe worse.  
And here I am to certify the Reader, that some few testimonies (among many others) of our own Brethren, alleged in this treatise, I did find produced in certain catholic Books; but at the first reading of them, I rested much doubtful of the ingenuous, plain, and true alleging of them, till by my own perusal of our said brethren's books, I found them most sincerely urged. Which serious disquisition & search of mine (I grant) first invited me, to spend the more time and labour after in the reading of all our Protestant Writers of any eminency: And therefore what authorities of Protestants are in these Motives insisted upon by me (I except not one) I do justify them, not as borrowed from any Catholic writer (for I hold that course unworthy a Man of my Place) but as from my own most diligent and laborious reading of the Protestant Books themselves.  
But to return. We have above evidently proved, that the ancient Fathers were supporters and defenders of the Roman Religion, and that in their writings they do transmit and commend over the same to all posterity. Can we think, they justified a false faith, they being the Church's Sentinels in those times? Upon thy walls 
(k) Isa. 6●.  O Ierusa●em, I have set watches for ever. Or shall we dream (the Church of Christ being then in her greatest purity) that upon her Altar the Ark of Truth could be compatible with the Dagon of Heresy? It is repugnant to God's Providence, repugnant to his 
(l) Matth. 16.  Promise. And doubtless, if the Father's faith were false, and Protestancy the true Faith, I may justly say (all collateral respects weighed) that here Falsehood is much honoured with probabilities, and Truth discountenanced with Vnlykely hoods. But for myself in particular (my body daily hasting to it grave through it languishing sickness) the question is, Whether during this short remnant of Time, I should longer consociate myself in faith and Religion with my former Brethren the Protestants, or subscribe to the Crystalline and clear judgements herein of the Ancient Fathers. But the election is already made: And in these few leaves (so my leaves shall not be without fruit, that is, my desires without effect) I do protest to God and the world, that I have, and do renounce all Innovation of doctrine, heretofore embraced by me; and do with all resignation of mind submit my judgement, to the judgements of those Primitive, reverend, virtuous, and learned Fathers; whose voluminous Write (I grant) for some years past, have had an influence and sovereignty over my Understanding.   

THE V MOTIVE. That the articles of Protestancy are particularly condemned for heresies, by the ancient Fathers. And that all Protestants originally came out of the catholic Church.  
JALLOW well the proceeding of Theodosius 
(a) Sozomen. l. 7. histor. cap. 12.  the Emperor, who, for his better suppressing of the arising heresies of his days, was accustomed to demand of their chief Patroness, whether they thought, the ancient Fathers, living and sterning God's Church, before those new doctrines first appeared, were orthodoxal in their faith, or no? To which question, when they gave their assent, by reputing the said Fathers for such, he thus concluded: Examinemus ergo doxtrinam vestram ad illorum scripta, & si cum illis consenserit, retineamus; sin winus, abijciatur. The like course I hold to be observed in trial of our Protestant doctrine: But I much fear the event, & this for two different reasons: The one, in that I find (as above is showed) our own brethren openly to break with the chiefest Fathers of the primitive Church, reputing them, as so many supporters of Papistry: The other, because many articles of our Protestant religion newly springing up in those times (thus the Gospel (d) teacheth us, 
(b) Matt. 13.  that the Cokcle was presently sown after the good seed) have been condemned for heresies by Irenaeus, Jerome, ●piphanius, Augustine, and other Fathers in their Catalogues of heresies, and other their writings. I do not speak this of every article of Protestancy, since I grant some have taken their first being from out own sensuality; like unto certain weeds, which grow rather out of the Lust of the earth, then from any formal seed. Now these Fathers, since they were learned, could not but know; since they were pious and godly, would not but confess the said then arising doctrines to be cross to the general professed Religion of their own, and former times. And it cannot be as yet, nor hath been (by way of retaliation) answered, that any one of them, were ever reprehended for ranging that opinion in the Catalogue of heresies, which was not then generally accepted for heresy.  
Let us exemplify in some: The Arians (besides their greater blasphemies) taught, that all unwritten 
(c) Lib. 1. c. a. contra Matrimin. &. l. ulc.  Traditions were to be rejected; they further perpetrated many sacrileges 
(d) Atha. in apoleg. pro fuga.  against the Sacraments, Altars, Priests, and religious or professed persons. And do not we Protestants bring them upon the stage again, acting their parts in our writings and deportments?  
The Aeri●ns (to use S. 
(e) ●ib. de Haeres. c. 33.  Augustine's words) thought it unlawful, orare, vel offerre promortuis, to pray or offer up sacrifice for the dead, or to observe set days of fast; and hereupon they were condemned for eating flesh in Lent. See how we Caluinists are lineally proseminated & sprung from the loins of Aerius, so fully we do reintegrate his heresies.  
The heretic 
(f) Hier. l. 1. & 2. contr. jovinian. & Aug. lib. de haeres. cap. 82.  jovinian taught, that Fasting was not meritorious; that Virginity was not to be preferred before Wedlock; and that a man once having true faith, could not sin. Either we Caluinists are herein Posthumi to jovinian, or jovinian by prevention of time was an antedated Caluinist: the difference is but small.  
The (o) Eunomians maintained, 
(g) Aug. l. de haeres. cap. 54.  that no sin could be hurtful to one having faith. Will you have this doctrine delivered in Luther's 
(h) Lib. de captain. Babylon. c. de Euchar.  words? Tam diues est Christianus, ut non possit perire, etiamsi velit, quamtumq, malè vivat, nisi nolit credere: so conspiringly we jump together in embracing this confident presumption; which (as I may term it) is no better, then Hope out of it wits.  
The Manichees deprived man of freewill, according to that of S. Augustine: Peccatorum 
(i) Lib de haeres c. 46.  originem non tribuunt Manichaei libero arbitrio. Now Luther and 
(k) Lib. de seruo arbit.  Caluin 
(l) Lib. 2. Insist. c. 2.3. & 4.  are so precipitate and headlong in this doctrine, that neither of them can brooks the name or sound of the word, Freewill: yet heerin they descent from the Manichees; in that they, by taking away freewill, ascribed all sins & wickedness to that God (which they termed an evil God) as to the first cause; whereas our men will needs impute the perpetrating of the greatest sins whatsoever, to that God, which they acknowledge for good.  
The Donatists 
(m) Aug. l. 1. contra Petilian. cap 51. & 61. & l. 3. cap. 40.  most implacably hated the Bishop of Rome, calling his feat, Cathedram pestilentiae; (the very dialect of us Protestants) they most cruelly persecuted Monks and Religious men; they broke down Altars, sold their sacred chalices, and contumeliously cast out of the Churches holy Oil. Finally they taught the Church of Christ to consist only of the 
(n) Aug. lib. de vni●al. c. 12.  Just; so consequently (as not knowing, who are truly Just) making it to be invisible: How punctually do we run, one and the same line of doctrine with these men? And in this last point we overrun them, since we aver, that the Church for many hundred years together remained invisible; so making it to consist of certain airy and imaginary Inuisibility. O fantasy! The word 
(o) Matt. 7.  of God styleth him a fool, that buildeth his house upon the sands; what is he then to be reputed, who erecteth the house of God (which is his Church) in the air; since an airy foundation is less firm, than a sandy?  
But to proceed. Ecclesiastical Primacy, as claimed by civil Magistrates, was condemned in the Emperor's Constantius, and Valentinian, as witness Athanasius 
(p) In ●p. ad so●itar. vitam agentes.  and Ambrose. Such respect did Antiquity give to spiritual jurisdiction, ever advancing it in matters Ecclesiastical above the temporal, even where both these powers did concur & meet in one and the same person. 
(q) Epist. 32.  And therefore by analogy, that saying of one was good, though intricate, to wit, The Prophet David was in higher favour with God, than King David.  
The denial of the real 
(r) Theod. dialog. 3.  presence (in which sacred banquet, as one Father saith: Idem est conviva & convivium; idem comedens & qui comeditur) was condemned in the old Heretics of S. Ignatius his time; they further affirming 
(s) Hier. epist. ad Hedibi. us.  no true visible sacrifice to be in the Church of Christ. The same was in like sort condemned by the Manichees: 
(r) Aug. tom. 6. contra adversar. leg. & prophe. c. 19  And wherein do they differ from us Caluinists, and Sacramentaryes?  
Vigilantius (as S. Hierome 
(u) Lib. contra Vigilantium.  witnesseth) taught that it was not convenient to forsake the world, & enter into Religion; that the relics of Saints are not to be worshipped; that the prayers of the dead could not be heard for others (which implicitly frustrateth the Prayers of Saints:) And that Churchmen were bound to lead about with them a sister in the 
(x) 1. Cor. 9  Lord: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I mean they ought to be married. And is not all this good Protestancy? thus we preferring herein Vigilantius a branded heretic, before S. Hierome an Orthoxall Father.  
I pass over for haste, how Proclus the Heretic was condemned by Epiphanius 
(y) Haeres. 64.  for maintaining concupiscence to be a mortal sin after Baptism, with whom agreeth 
(z) Art. 2. & 31.  Luther. How the Pelagians were condemned by S. Hierome 
(a) Lib. 2. contra Pelag.  for teaching every sin to be mortal: How Xena as Persa played the Iconomachist, in impugning all worship due to the Images of Christ, and his Saints, as appeareth out of 
(b) Lib. 16. c. 27.  Nicephorus: How the denial of the possibility of the Commandments was condemned in certain old Heretics by 
(c) In explicat. Symboli ad Damas'.  Hierome, and 
(d) De ten poreserm. 91.  Augustin: And finally (to pretermit many other points) how Probianus the heretic denied all reverend estimation due to the Cross, and was therefore 
(e) Tripar. histor. lib. 2. c. 19  highly taxed.  
Now in the recital of the condemnation of all these former Articles, we are to observe, that no general profession of all these points was made in those days; but that only particular Heretics, than maintained such or such particular errors; though they all be now engrossed, or (as it were) incorporated together in us Protestants: So as it may be truly said, that the misshapen Embryo of Protestancy was first conceived by those ancient Heretics, after borne or brought forth by Luther; and lastly received it further growth and strength from Caluin; though not to wrong Luther, we must confess that he was more remiss in the defence of some points, then either those old Sect-maisters, or we are; we resembling heerin those children, who are more like to the grand Father, then to the Father.  
But what? Is there no other association between us and those former old heretics, then to maintain the opinions maintained by them? (though this intercourse of friendship carrieth a main blemish to our new pretended Gospel.) There is. And it is this: We are not ashamed (in our conflicts with the Catholics) to take from the said Heretics those particular arguments and objections which they in those former times used against the than Roman faith. I am loath to be tedious, & two or three example; shall at this present serve. Thus did Faustus the heretic (and thus do we at this present) urge that Text in 1. Tim. cap. 4. viz. (In the later days there shall come some, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from certain meats.) against abstinence and single life: The alleging of which text for both these points, is recorded and condemned by S. 
(f) ●ib. 10. c. 4. contra Faustum Manich. & l. cont. duas epist. Pelag.  Augustine. Thus the urging (as in respect of the Sacrament) the gross and carnal eating of human flesh (which very objection we now make) by the said old heretics is registered and condemned by justinus 
(g) In colloquio cum Tri●hone, & Euseb. l. hist 5. c. 1.  Martyr. Finally (to remember my intended brevity) thus the old objecting of many points of the presene Roman Religion to be taken from the Gentills as D. Reynolds 
(h) Lib. de Rom. Eccl. idololatr. p. 168 248. & 381.  Kemnitius 
(i) Exam. part. 3. p. 83.  & others do now urge) is related and condemned by 
(k) Cont●●austum l. 20. cap. 11.  Augustine, and 
(l) Lib. 2. contra lovini n.  Hierome. So dishonourable a war we wage against the Church of Rome; as not being content to revive the opinions & doctrine first taught by certain stigmatical and registered heretics in the time of the Primitive Church; but also to borrow from the said heretics their very weapon's and other their supplies, for our better maintaining and justifying of this war.  
Thus fare to evict, that the Roman Religion is more ancient, than Protestancy (and consequently it true, and the other false; since God is more ancient than the devil, and Truth than falsehood.) There remaineth yet another Way (in which I will here a little insist) though not much beaten and tracted, yet securely leading to the designed mark: And therefore I hope it deserveth the judicious Readers intense & serious consideration.  
The sacred Scripture (God's holy language) describeth certain Innovatours in doctrine (and in them, all such others) in these few words 
(m) 1. loan. c. 2.  Exierunt ex nobis, They went out of us: meaning hereby, that those Men departed from the known society of Christians of that time, and consequently embraced another religion less ancient. These words contain a stamp or Character impressed upon Innovation, to distinguish it from Antiquity. Whereunto well accordeth that sentence of Optatus: 
(n) Cont. Donat. l. 1.  Videndum est, quis in radice cum toto orbe manserit, quis foras exiérit; and more literally that of 
(o) Tract 3. in epist. joan.  Augustin: Omnes Haeretici, omnes Scismatici ex nobis exierunt, idest, ex Ecclesia exeunt: intending hereby, that whosoever maketh choice of any new sect or doctrine, the same Man either in himself, or in his predecessors in doctrine, did departed from a more general society of men, holding a more ancient faith, then that, which by him is chosen. From which ground the two words: Haeresis & Apostata, took their Ecclesiastical signification; the one signyfying a separation or choice; the other a Man going out, or revolting from.  
Here now I provoke my own Brethren (how learned soever) to make good two things: The one, to show from what company or Church more ancient, they catholics departed. The other, to nominate any one Sect-mayster of Protestancy, who was not originally a catholic, & retaining other points of the said Religion, departed from this more ancient Community of faith, by forging some one heresy or other.  
Concerning the first, it is not sufficient for our Brethren (under their reducing of the matter to the scripture interpreted by the private Spirit (being but an idle circulation and maze of dispute) to affirm, that the Catholykes have departed from the ancient faith first instituted by Christ, except withal they show some certain Community of Christians, more ancient than the Catholyks, from whom they departed; the Catholics by by this means taking upon them a certain name of the first stampers of their doctrine (as the manichees, the Donatists, the jovinians, and all others have done) or from the doctrine itself. But hic labour, hoc opus est: Our Brethren can never do it: Neither in my reading have I found any one Protestant (how conversant soever in Ecclesiastical histories) either to attempt to prove this point (though most material) or but once to urge it against the Catholyks: so dangerously he foresaw, it might be retorted upon himself, and his Religion. Concerning the second: Our Brethren cannot name any one Protestant, even from the first five hundred years or afore to the days of Luther (a compass of time, containing at least a thousand years) which was not originally a catholic; himself being afore a member of the Catholic Church, and going out of it, by dogmatizing some few new doctrines, still believing the rest of the articles of Catholic Religion. The Precedents of the Hussies, Wicleffists, and Waldenses may clear this point; all which (supposing them for the time to be Protestant's) are reduced (as the stream to the fountain, and the branch to the tree) to a known catholic beginning; to wit, to hus, Wicleffe and Waldo; who by our own acknowledgement were borne and baptised in the Roman Church; themselves after leaping out of it, by maintaining and broaching some one new doctrine or other, not allowed by the Church of Rome, according to that of 
(p) Adieu. Marcionem.  Tertull. Haereses prodierunt ex nobis, non nostrae.  
If then the matter standeth thus, that our Brethren (notwithstanding their most diligent perusing of all Ecclesiastical writers, whose projected labour is to relate all occurrents of the Church) cannot show any visible society of Men, professing the crew Christian faith, from which (as more ancient) the present Roman Religion ever departed or went out; And that on the contrary part, out Adversaries are able to prove, that even from the first five hundred years till Luther's days, not any one Man can be suggested, or put forth for a Protestant, who was not originally a catholic, and no Protestant, departing from the Catholyks by his after making choice of some Innovation in doctrine: If then (I say) this be so, what inference more irrefragable can be made, or what mathematical demonstration more counincing, then that the catholic faith was more ancient, than Protetestancy? that being the 
(q) Matt. 13.  good seed, which was first sown, though hindered by an after casting into the ground of some tares of Nouelli●me and Heresy. And thus fare of this point; the which once more I commend to the diligent perusal of a clear judgement. The force of which Argument more easily invadeth a vulgar Understanding, by forging this supposal.  
Imagine then two great families or Houses, the one in the first times of all, coming out of the other (but whether not confessed) both standing in this competency of Antiquity: If here the heir of the one should not only provoke and will the other, to show by good evidence, when any of this heir's ancestors desceded out of the others family, he not being able by sufficient writings to prove any such descent; but withal would engage himself to manifest by most ancient and undoubted Records, that all the other parents in their first Ancestors were primitively descended from out his own House: And upon such their descent, and other circumstantial occasions, had their names first changed: Now this heir thus undertaking, and thus performing, followeth it not most evidently, that his house is the more ancient, it being indeed the stem, and the other but the branch? Our Case herein is the same, both (in respect of the point questioned) being cast in one Mould.   

THE VI MOTIVE, That true Miracles have been wrought for proof of the catholic Religion; but not any for Protestancy.  
SUCH is the benign and merciful proceeding of God with Man (humbling himself, in a certain manner, to the weakness of our Nature) as that he expecteth not, true faith and doctrine at it first promulgation, should under any penalty of punishment, be believed, except the truth of it were then fortified, and warranted with some strange and great Miracles. Thus he thought good, in the unsearchable and abysmall depth of his wisdom, to ordain a necessity of Miracles to the confirmation of every true new doctrine, and extraordinary mission for the preaching thereof: Both the Testaments afford plentiful proof herein. In the old, we read, that when Moses was sent by God to the People, and said to God: They 
(a) Exod. 4.  People will not believe me, nor hear my voice; God thereupon instantly gave him power to work miracles, to the end (as God said) that the People may believe, that the Lord appeared unto thee: a point so evident, that in our English Bibles, our own marginal Note to this place is thus: 
(b) Printed anno 1●76.  This power to work miracles, was to confirm his doctrine, and to assure him of his Vocation. In the New, the words of our Saviour to his Apostles proclaim the like truth, saying: As 
(c) Mate. 10.  you go, preach, heal the sick, cleanse the leprous, raise up the dead, cast out the devils etc. And hereupon our Lord jesus in another place thus speaketh of himself: If 
(d) joan. 15.  I had not done the works, which no other Man did, they had not sinned. To conclude, S. Mark sealeth up his Gospel with the like words touching the Apostles, saying: They 
(e) Mar. v●●.  preached every where, and the Lord wrought with them, and confirmed the word with signs, that followed.  
Now, from these sacred texts of Scripture riseth this Resultancy; to wit, What Church enjoyeth this guyft of Miracles, the same is the true Church (since true Miracles are wrought only by the power of God, though not always by good men, yet ever to a good end:) And what Church wanteth this privilege, especially in the first planting of a new Religion, or in an extraordinary Mission or vocation of Ministers, the same is not to be reputed the true Church of God, but the Conventicle of Satan; which later point is acknowledged for true even by us 
(f) Musculus thus writeth in loc. come. Vocatio, quae immidiatè est a Christo etc. babebat sua signa, unde cognosci potuis, de quibus meminit Marcus Euangelista cap. vis. Amandue Pol●●us in partis. theolog. l. ●. p. 308. Ministrorum extraordinariè vocatorū●tiam dona extraordi●aria fuere nempe Prophetia, do●um edendi miracula. Vide D. Savaria in defence. tract. coutra respon Bezae cap. 2. p. 38. Luth. in loc. come. class. 4. c. 20● Bullinger adversely. Anabapt. lib. 3. cap. 7. saying: Si dicitis vos instar Apostolorum peculiarem vocationem bab●re, probate eam signis & miraculis.  Protestant's: thus are we content to lend a hand, for the drawing out of that sword, which our Adversaries after do sheath in our own sides; for if I can prove, that in the Catholic and Roman Church, there hath been in all ages the patration of true Miracles, and that never any one hath been performed by us Protestants (notwithstanding our undertaking to plant a new Religion, and challenging to ourselves an extraordinary vocation) what can be more irrefragably concluded, but that the Catholic Church is that true Church, whereunto our Saviour hath tied this glorious gift; and that our Protestant Church is but a false and late erected synagogue? According to that of S. Augustine Culmen 
(g) Lib. de ●tilitate cred●●di cap. 17.  authoritatis obtinuit Ecclesia Catholica, Haereticis Miraculorum maiestate damnatis. And first to examine us Protestants touching this point; where, as overseeing and acknowledging our want of miracles, it will not be sufficient for us by way of prevention to say; That since the doctrine now taught by us, was confirmed in the beginning by the Apostles and Martyrs with infinite miracles; therefore it is not to be expected, that we should work any miracle for the second warranting of it. This (I say) is but a subtle & subterfugious declining of the point; for seeing our doctrine is confessed by us, to be repugnant to all Antiquity (as appeareth from our rejecting of the ancient Fathers) & seeing we vendicate to ourselves, an extraordinary vocation, as not being sent by ordinary Pastors, but immediately 
(h) Doctor Fulke against Stapl. Marti. etc. p. 2. thus writeth: The Protestant's, that preached these last days, had likewise extraordinary calling. Thesame is affirmed by Caluin Instit. l. 4. c. 3. sect. 4. by Philip Mornay in his treatise of the Church, translated, & printed anno 160●. by Beza in epist. Theolog. epist.  from God, as we are forced to teach; therefore we are obliged to make good this our doctrine, vocation, and mission, by some supernatural and divine testimonies, that is, by exhibiting of miracles.  
Now, how fare we Protestants are distant from the working of any such stupendious actions, will appear from the liberal acknowledgements of our want therein. And first, as confessing so much, D. Sutcliffe thus writeth: We 
(i) In his examen of Doctor kellison's Survey printed 1606. pag. 8.  do not practise Miracles; nor do we teach, that the doctrine of Truth is to be confirmed with miracles. To whose judgement D. Fulke accordeth in these words: It 
(k) Against the Rhemish Testament in Apocal. cap. 13.  is known that Caluin and the rest, whom the Papists call Archeretikes, do work no miracles. A point so evident, that through our own want of miracles, we peremptorily teach and maintain, that all true Miracles have ceased ever since the Apostles times.  
And yet here I cannot pretermit to note, how in the life of Caluin, written by Hierome Bolsecus, it is certainly affirmed and recorded for true, that Caluin (emulous of the Catholic Church for working miracles) contracted with a poor man of his own Religion, to counterfeit himself dead, that he for confirmation of his own doctrine and vocation might seem to raise him to life▪ But Caluin in the presence of many, began no sooner to call the poor supposed dead man to life, but that instantly (through God's just judgement) he became dead indeed, and so was buried. And thus though Caluin never wrought any miracle, yet God vouchsafed to exhibit this miracle for his greater confusion: So as those words of Tertullian may well be here verified: Apostoli 
(l) Lib. de prescript.  de mortuis suscitabant; Haeretici de vivis mortuos faciunt.  
Now, that the Catholic Church ever enjoyed this privilege and honour of working miracles, (and this often in proof of some Catholic point or other) I thus prove. And first, to begin with the time of the Primitive Church, and for taste of some particulars: I find in proof of the Real presence in the Sacrament, S. Chrysostome 
(k) De sacerd. l. 6. c. 4.  thus to record of one: A certain venerable and aged man was vouchsafed by God, to be made worthy of a vision, which was, that during that time (meaning of celebrating the sacrifice of the Mass) he did see whole multituds of Angels to descend suddenly down, being clothed with shining vestments, and standing round about the Altar, and bowing down their heads in such sort, as if one should behold soldiers bearing themselves in the presence of their King. Thus far S. Chrysostome.  
Touching the virtue of the sign of the Cross, 
(l) In vita Hilarionis  Hierome, 
(m) In vita Antoniuses.  Athanasius, 
(n) H●r. 30.  Epiphanius, and 
(o) Hist l. 5. cap. 21.  Theodoret, do make so ample relation of many miracles done by it, as that D. 
(p) In his answer to john Burges p. 138.  Covell speaking thereof, thus writeth: No man can deny, but that God, after the death of his son, manifested his power to the amazement of the world in this contemptible sign, being the instrument of many Miracles.  
Touching the Image of Christ, Eusebius thus writeth: The 
(q) Hist. l. 7. c. ●.  image of Christ was erected by that woman; whom Christ cured of the flux; and an unusual herb did grow at the bottom thereof; which after it growing up, and once touching the garment of the Image, had power to cure all diseases. Thus Eusebius.  
Concerning Prayer to Saints, S. 
(r) lib. de civet. Dei 22. cap. 8.  Augustin relating of a holy woman, called Palladia, being diseased, and praying to S. Steven before his tomb or monument, thus writeth: Adsanctum Martyrem orare perexerat; quae mox ut cancellos attigit, collapsa velut ad somnum, sana surrexit: that is, She coming to pray to the holy Martyr, and touching the cancels or borders of his monument, fell (as it were) into a sleep or slumber; but waking, she found herself cured of her sickness. Thus Augustine, who reporteth this miracle to be done in the presence of himself, and diverse others.  
Touching the honouring the Relics of Saints bodies, S. Augustine relateth, how at the dead bodies of Geruasius and Protasius (which were many years after found incorrupted) a blind man received his sight: A miracle (saith Augustine) done at Milan, 
(s) Lib. 9 Confess. c. 7. &. 8.  when I was there, many people being witnesses thereof. S Augustine also 
(t) Lib. de civet. Dei 22. c. 8▪  mentioneth, how ten infirm people were in the sight of himself and many hundreds more, being eyewitnesses thereof, miraculously cured, at the Monument of S. Steven.  
To be short, the working of miracles at the monuments of Saints was so frequent in S. Austin's days, that thus he 
(u) Aug. ubi supra.  writeth: It would require many books to set down the miracles of healings & curings done only at the monument or tomb of S. Steven: A verity so irrefragable, and acknowledged by all men of those times, that D. 
(x) Contra Duraeum l. 10. pag. 8●6,  Whitaker thus confesseth of this point saying: I do not think those miracles vain, which are reported to have been done at the monuments of Saints.  
Touching the many Miracles performed by Monks (who confessedly being Catholics in Religion, could not work any one true Miracle, if their Religion were false) read 
(y) Histo. l. 4. c. 13. & lib. 6.28.  Zozomene, 
(z) In vita Hilarion.  jereme 
(a) In his Theoph.  Theodoret, and 
(b) Viz. Socrates hist. lib. 4. c. 18. Euagrius hist. lib. 6. cap. 22.  others (besides our own Centurists) by diverse of which Miracles, men were raised from death to life; others were cured of diseases by Prayer; the raging and inundation of the Sea was suddenly stayed, and the like.  
But to omit for brevity other infinite Miracles, recorded by the Fathers of the Primitive Church (many of them being exhibited in proof of the catholic faith; and all of them performed by men, that professed the catholic faith;) we will descend to these later ages, 
(c) Cent. 4. col. 493  by degrees even to our days. And first for the space of thirteen hundred years next after Christ, we will content ourselves in that behalf (besides that, which is already delivered) with the testimonies and acknoledgments of the Magdeburgenses our Brethren, who out of the most approved and authorized Chronicles and writers, do record the miracles of every age successively; making the thirteenth chapter of every Century, the subject thereof. To whose writings concerning so many ages, for greater expedition, they being earnest Protestants and enemies to the Roman Religion, I refer the Reader, as to so many impartial witnesses.  
In the fourteenth age, many were eminent for working of miracles, but especially S. Nicolaus Tolentinas, S. Catharine of Sienna, and S. Bernardinus; as Antoninus 
(d) In 〈◊〉 part. histo. tit. 23. & 24.  relateth. In the fyfteenth age, S. Vincentius was celebrious for Miracles, as also S. Antonius, whose life may be read in Surius.  
And lastly to arrive to this our own age; It is most certain that S. Franciscus 
(e) Vide Surium.  de Paula wrought diverse most stupendious miracles; also that 
(f) See the book of the life of Xaverius.  Xaucrius the jesuite, in the conversion of the East Indians, did work the like; for the more precise examination of whose Miracles by oath, 
(h) See Abraham Hart well his book hereof, servant to the Archbishop of Canterbury.  the King of Portugal did send forth a Commission to his Viceroy there, dated in April 1556. the which were so evidently true, that D. Whitaker 
(g) Lib. de Eccles. count. Bellar. p. 353.  acknowledging them, calleth them Antichristian Miracles. Again the Miracles done in Congo in Africa upon it Conversion to the present Roman Religion, are diuulged by Protestant (g) Writers.  
But we will come near at home, and will somewhat insist in the many astonishing Miracles wrought these late years in the low Countries at Sichem; of which forty (or above) are recorded by the learned and eminent man 
(i) In his book entitled: Diva Sichemiensis, sive Aspricollis, then being a Protestant▪  justus Lipsius, then living in those Countries; one of too great judgement to give credit (much less to diuulge in print) every fabulous wonder, which might come to his ears (and a man, with whom in my younger ears I have had intercourse by letters:) Therefore we may morally assure ourselves, that he would not record any one, for miracle, but such (and so himself affirmeth) as either by his own knowledge were warranted for true, himself seeing and speaking with the parties upon whom the miracles were wrought; or by the testimonies of many Oaths, taken before the Magistrates in those places. The consideration of which Miracles, fortified with all probabiltyes of truth whatsoever (especially, either all, or most of them consisting in supernaturally curing, without any physic, incurable diseases) hath, and doth still, much prevail with me; and the more in regard of that great confidence of truth, which the foresaid justus Lipsius showeth in his relation of them, for thus he writeth: 
(k) Vbi supra p. 1. & 5.  Ecce in oculis & auribus omnium gesta: ecce concursu, plausu, fructu gentium celebrata: quae sides potest esse in rebus humanis, si hac non est? and again: Miracula Sichemiensi in agro evenere, itemque eveniunt, a bitris his sensibus: Nos ●idemus, nos audimus quis profestus abnuet? in so much that in respect of his own reverence given to the place of Sichem, (where these miracles were wrought) he 
(l) Vbi supra p ●6.  mentioneth, that himself made a pilgrimage to it. But enough of Sichem; and thus far concerning the glorious guyft of working Miracles, promised by our Saviour ever to be in his Church; never practised as yet by any one Protestant; but in all ages peculiar to the catholic Church; and all this by the plain confessions of us Protestants.  
Now, what can we justly reply, or oppose against the Miracles wrought by the members of the catholic Church? To deny the working of all such Miracles, were to deny all Ecclesiastical records & testimonies, and indeed to take away by the same ground all authority of history, either ecclesiastical or profane. Therefore if we will but ascry be as much credit to the writings of Zozomene. Augustin, Jerome Chrysostom, Theodoret, Eusebius, & others of those primitive times, recording the miacles of their days; as we commonly give to the Commentaries of Caesar, or to the Lyues of Livy, or any other ancient profane Authentical Author, we must be forced to acknowledge, that such miracles were really wrought, and no forged lies. Again touching the particular miracles of Sichem (diuulged by Lipsius, as is said,) it is known, that in Brahant, and all other Provinces now under the Archduke, near adjoining to Sichem, there are many Protestants at this day; how chanceth it then, that among so many Miracles there said to be done, no one Protestant would take exception against any one of them, as not done at all, or otherwise but effected by confederacy of parties, and by deceit? Which one point (considering, how vigilant we Protestants are to take advantage of our Aduerl●ryes proceed) mightily strenghneth the certainty and truth of the said Miracles, Neither for the disgrace of all Miracles in general, as mere forgeryes, is it sufficient to allege some one or two (perhaps) supposed to be Miracles, and yet found after to be but feigned; for if any one Miracle (among so many hundreds, as are related by grave Authors) be true, supposing for the time, all the rest to be false; that one Miracle irrefragably and demonstratively proveth the truth of catholic Religion; since God concurreth to the working of Miracles only with those of a true foyth, or to confirm true Faith.  
Again, by the former Reason, we should reject all the books of holy Scripture; seeing there were some other counterfeited Books, obtruded for Scripture, being merely forged under the Apostles names, as 
(m) Hist. l. 3. c. ●●▪  Eusebius 
n Cone. Adverse. leg. & Proph. l. 1. c. 20.  Augustin 
(o) Hist. l. 7. c. 19  Zozomen do witness.  
Or secondly, shall we, confessing the matter of fact of miracles, (as granting them to be truly done) yet seek to ascry be the doing of them to the power of the Devil, terming them Antichristian Wonders, and lying signs, as Osiander 
(p) Cent, 10.11.12. etc.  and the Centurists 
(q) Cent. 4. col. 1445. & Cent. 5. col. 148●. etc.  do style them? Do we not blush thus in our answer to conspire and compart with the Pharisces, in condemning the Miracles of our Lord and Saviou: this Man 
(r) Matth. 1.  casteth not out Devils, but by Beelzebub the Prince of Devils? But against this second refuge; First it cannot be applied to those infinite Miracles, recorded in confirmation of diverse catholic points, by Zozomen, Augustin, Jerome and oaths (as above in part is showed) since those Miracles were wrought in the Primitive Church, and long before Antichrist his coming, even according to our own doctrine of Antichrist, first reign; who commonly teach, that he came not before the first six 
(s) So doth teach D. Fulke in his answer to a counterfeits Gaetholike p. 30. D. Willet in his Symops. p. D. Downham in his treatise of Antichrist l. 2. p. 4. & others  hundred years, placing his first coming in Boniface the third, Anno Domini 607. Secondly, Antichrists miracles are no true miracles, but such (as our own learned Visinus truly teacheth) As, the order of Nature olserued, may be effected by the deceit of Men, or Devils. But instantly to cure diseases, without any secondary humane means whatsoever; or upon the suddayn to stay the natural flowing (x) of the Sea, and the like (where Omnipotency is necessarily required, to suspend the working of that, which Omnipotency first ordained) is both supra and contra Naturam; and therefore can be accomplished only by his power, who is able at his pleasure to disjoint the est ablished course of Nature. 
(t) In Comment. Catech p. 28.  And yet even of these kinds of Miracles there are abundant testimonies of approned Authors, that they were performed in the catholic Church, throughout all ages of the said Church. Thus we see, 
(u) evag. l. 4.  now weak our former enasion is. And therefore I cannot but commiserate our own D. Whitaker, who foreseeing all other former answers to be defective; betaketh himself to this last despairing refuge; to wit, that 
(x) Lib. de Ecces. p. 48.  God doth give power of working true Miracles unto false, teachers, not to confirm their false Opinions, but to tempt those, unto whom they are sent. Omisery and feebleness of Novelisme in doctrine, which is forced (through it own poverty) to sustentate & support itself for the time, by maintaining assertions, repugnant to the providence and charity of God towards man, and to all light of natural reason: for here the Doctor acknowledgeth them to be true miracles, and wrought only by God, and yet only exhibited for temptation of others. And thus, if we believe that doctrine, which is accompanied with true miracles, wrought by God alone, may we not well say (supposing the doctrine to be false) with one writer, Domine, 
(y) Rich. de sancto Vic●●●. l. 1. de Trinit. e. r.  si errorest quod credimus, à te deceptisumus? And with this I here end, agreeing in part with S. Augustine, whom as (among other reasons) Miracles did (as himself 
(z) Tom. a. contra epist. Manich. c. 4.  affirmeth) justly hold within the Catholic Church's bosom; so the forces of miracles (among other Motives) hath first reduced me to the said Church's bosom; since indeed I can repute it, little less than a miracle, that a man of judgement and reading, should incorporate himself into any other Church, than which is honoured and confirmed with miracles.   

THE VII. MOTIVE. Absurdityes in the Protestants Religion.  
IT is most true, that our Protestamnt Faith is not involved with such obscurityes, perplexing the judgement of Man, as we find to be in the Catholic faith (where, in some points instead of discourse, the understanding yieldeth an unexamined & humble assent; & where reasons of credibility first urged concerning faith, cause us in the end to expect no reasons for proof of faith, laudo 
(a) Ter●●●. de Corona m●litis.  fidem quae antea credit, quam didicit,) the primitive cause of the disparity hereof being, in that the Protestant faith (eloquar an sileam? but my tonguescornes any longer to betray the truth) is indeed a mere Negative faith, consisting for the most part in annihilating & destroying the positine assertions of the Catholics. Which being so, what then can be more easy to the Understanding, then to conceane, that such or such a thing or point not? Since so the understanding is only exercised; like the ear judging of silence, or the eye of darkness. Never the less if we take into our consideration, diverse of the Protestants positions, we shall find included therein (in lieu of high Misteryes) such real contrariety in sense, and gross absurdityes in the immediate & inevitable illations from them, as that they impugn all natural light; and so a man beginning to give assent thereto, ceaseth to be himself, that is, a Creature endued with reason.  
I will exemplify this in some few for a taste; & I will only pass them over with a gentle pen, rather intimating them to the Reader, then displaying them at large. And first touching the actual faith (for habitual with them is not sufficient) which 
(b) So Luther teacheth lib. de captiu. Babil. c. de Baptis. See further of this Article agreeing with Luther, Kenmiti●●●n 2. part, a●am. Condil. Trid. ad Ca●on. 〈◊〉. and the Centurists, Cent. ●. c 4. col 63. and Cent. 5. c. ●. col. 517.  Luther and others exact of infants, at the time they are baptised; and this by force and mediation of the words pronounced by the Minister. Now what judgement can give assent hereto? To wit, that faith can be wrought by certain words, and yet the party believing, not to hear or understand the words: fides ex auditu. If Infants understand the words of Baptism, why do they resist (what they can) their baptising, by wailing and other motions of the body? Or how can their unwillingness thereof be excused from sacrilege? And thus their Baptism washeth not away, but contracteth new blemishes. Poor Innocents', who know not whether they live or no, and yet they must be presumed actually to know the misteryes of faith: since otherwise in the cold severity of these our men they cannot be saved: strange, harse, and incridible! Not, the late invested soul departing from it body baptised, is assured of it salvation; since it is free from original sin, as enjoying the benesit of this sacred mystery, where the ablution of the body is the abstersion of the soul; Caro 
(c) Tert. l●de resierrect. carn.  abluitur, ut anima emaculetur, free from actual, as wanting reason, whereby it otherwise might work against reason.  
In our doctrine of justification do we 
(d) Ita Luth in art. 10.11, 12. Mela●ct. in locis titul. de fide. Caluiu. in Antid. Concil. Trident. sess. 6. Kemuit. in exam. Concil. Trident. sess. 6.  not teach, that sin is remitted by a sole special faith, by the which a sinner thinketh himself to be just? Which granting, we grant, that the truth of the thing depends upon the opinion (though later) had thereof, and not the opinion (as in reason it should) upon the truth of the matter. Which is no less, than to grant, that things subsequent in nature, can exist in priority of being, before things precedent in nature; or that the effect (still remaining the effect) can produce it cause.  
Further I do here urge: When I begin to believe, that I am just? Either I am thus Just, or not Iust. If just; then I am not justified by that faith, by the which I believe I am just; because this faith (as is said) is later than my justice. If unjust; then this faith of mine, by which I believe I am just, is false; therefore it is no divine and supernatural faith. Finally, if by this faith of mine I am just, then do I want all sin; If I have no sin, I cannot without committing sin, repeat that sentence in our Lord's prayer: Dimitte nobis debita nostxa, forgive us our sins. For it is a sin to ask remission of sins, when it is certain, that I have no sins to be remitted: See what absurdityes, justification by faith engendereth.  
Concerning that heathenish and impious doctrine, which teacheth, that God is the author of sin (for howsoever we verbally disclaim from it, yet do our positions 
(e) Luther saith, God worketh the wicked work in the wicked. and again, Nulliest in mani●quippiam ●ogi tare mali aut boni, fed ●●mnia de necessitate absoluta venit●nt. In assertion bas damnat. per Leonem. art. 36. Beza saith, God ex●yteth the wicked will of one th●ef to kill another. In his display of Popish practice. p. 202. D. Willet, God not only permitteth, but leadeth into temptation with an active power, and not permissieuly. In Synops. papism. pag. 〈…〉 ●●●ngiius saith, God moveth the thy fe to kill etc. and the thief is enforrel to sin. Tom. 1. d providentia. fol. 306.  necessarily include the same:) Now what can be more dissonant from all probability of Truth, or further from winning an assent in our understanding, then to believe, that who redeemed us by death from sin, should thirst after our eternal death, by forcibly incyting us to sin? That who by his sacred Word most vehemently dissuades us from offending him by our wickedness, should (not withstanding such his persuasive dissuasions) will us to persevere in our wickedness? That who in this life temporally chastizeth us, thereby to draw us from all enormous courses, should most effectually work in us a resolution still to lie grovelling in the mud of such enormities? To be short, that he whose nature is even goodness itself, should be the fountain, from whence all evil & impiety receives it emanation and flowing; thus most desiring that which he most hateth. And here when we are charged by our Adoersaryes with whole shot of Texts of 
(f) E cles. 2 & 14 Toby ●●. Psal. 3.943.36, 7● besides infinite others, in both the old & new Testament.  Scripture, prohibiting sin, as the soul of all evil, threatening most dreadful punishments for the perpetrating thereof; and promising most honourable and mutificent rewards for the avoiding of the same; then do we labour to divert the forces thereof, by interposing an idle and intentional distinction of a double 
(g) Of this double will in God, Calu. instis l. 1. c. thus saith. Non capimus, quomodo fiers velis Deus quod facere vetat. , Will in God (whereby indeed we distinguish God from justice and Mercy:) The one his secret and concealed Will; the other his ●e●ea●ed Will in the Scripture, impugning his concealed will: As if God were a deluder of men, speaking one thing, yet intending another: thus proffering his lip-favours of grace, and rewards for the avoiding of sin, but inwardly resolved to impel man irresistably thereto, and after to punish him eternally for the same; so injurious it is to God, and repugnant to the natural light of our Understanding, to ascribe any other Will unto him (whose love here towards man, is increased through man's hate towards sin, thus Hate engendering Love) than an unleavened and pure intention, desirous only of our relinquishing of sin, and of our soul's salvation: Nolo 
(h) Ezech. 18. , mortem peccatoris, sed magis ut convertatur & vinat. Since otherwise it would follow, that by sinning against his Commandments (a strange duty consisting in breach of duty) we performed his will and Commandment: such exhorbitancyes in sense this our doctrine exhaleth forth.  
Touching the Pope being Antichrist: do we not maintain, that the Pope is that Antichrist, which is foretold in God's holy 
(i) 2. These 2.  write? And do we not withal confess, that during the time of his reign, till Luther's 
(k) Luther in epist. ad Argentina. Christum 〈◊〉 nobis primo vulgatum aude●●●is glori●●. See the testimonies above touching the invisibility of the Church.  revolt, our Church was altogether unknown and latent; so as further we acknowledge, that for the space of many hundred years, the Papacy 
(l) D. Field in his book of the Church l. ●. c. 6. saith, The Church when Luther began was that apparent Church, wherein Luther, & the rest were baptised, ●eceaued their Christianity, ordination, and power of Ministry. osiander ●p●som. ●ent. 16. p. 1073. Ecclesia, quae sub Papa●u fuit, ●obuit ministerium Euangelij, sacra biblia, Baptismum, Coenam Domini etc. And Luther in loc. comm. class. 1. saith: In medijs furoribus etc. Even in the midst of the furours of the Dragon and the Lion, there did remain Baptism, the Eucharist, the power of the Keys▪ holy Scripture etc. Thus Luther.  alone enjoyed the safe keeping of the Scriptures, and an available administration of the Sacraments. Now here I would demand of our Inuisibilists, how these two assertions can stand together; to wit, the Pope is Antichrist, & the Pope (so being) preserved for so many ages the Scripturer incorrupted, and administrated the Sacraments profitably? Which if they can, then can Israel be found in Babylon, and participation be between Christ & Belial; then must Antichrist only preserve the means for the descryall of Antichrist; and he who is falsehood itself, be (by our own inference) columna & firmamentum veritatis: Then can heavenly musick● (for at least in part the Pope expounded the Scriptures truly) proceed from the Dragon's voice, and medicinable physic be drunk out of that cup, which shall inebriate the Kings of earth; then must our soul's salvation (for without the use of the Sacraments it cannot be obtained) be wrought by our soul's chiefest enemy, and Heaven be purchased by the mediation of the Man 
(m) 2. Thess. ubi supra. , of sin, and son of pocalyps (thus is Antichrist become Christ's setuantes best supporter) keep safe those records, whereby those many hundred thousand 
(n) Apocalyp. 14.  of Christ's Virgins, make their claim to the inestimable reward, allotted for their vowed chastity. As easily may we believe, that the Ark and the Idol Dagon could be placed together; or dream with Copernicus, that the heavens stand still, and the earth moves. Neither will that extravagant answer given by some of 
(o) Doctor Whitak. lied Eccles. p 165. so saith. And Beza epist. Theo. ep. 1. Volui● Deus in papatu seruare Ecclesiam, et fi papatus non est Ecciesia  us, when we are demanded to reconeyle these points, avail us at all.  
The Church was in the Papacy; the Papacy was in the Church; and yet the Papacy was not the Church.  
O Delphic, and Enigmatical! or other childish, idle, and false! since, if we believe S. Augustine: Nihil prodest esse in Ecclesia, nisi sis cum Ecclesia.  
Lastly diverse of us Protestants (I do not say all) do imply in our writings, that a man may have valuation in any religion, so he hold the fundamental points of the Trinity, the Incarnation, that Christ suffered for us etc. This is evident from the testimonies of such of our Protestant Brethren, as acknowledge the Lutherans, who descent from them in the doctrine of the Real presence, and the Puritans differing also from them in several articles of faith, for members of the Church: Yea our Brother, M. D. 
(p) In his treatise of the kingdom of Israel, and the Church. p. 94.  Morton (I infinitely marvel, he would ever suffer such words to fall from his pen) teacheth, that the very Arians may be saved; for ●●us he writeth: The Churches of the Arians are to be accounted the Church of God: because they hold the foundation of the Gospel, which is faith in jesus Christ, the son of God & Saviour of the world: where by the way I note, that it is strange he should be so severe towards catholics (if reports be true) being so indulgent to the very Arians. To this sentence D. 
(q) In his answer to a counterfeit Catholik● p ●9.  Fulk seemeth well to agree, saying: The true Church under the Emperor's Constantine, Constans, and Valens, was greatly infected with the heresies of Arius. Thus in his judgements, an Arian is a member of the true Church, and consequently in state of salvation. But our foresaid D. 
(r) Vbisupra p. 91.  Morton comprehendeth all sects and heresies whatsoever within the compass of God's Church (and consequently of salvation) if so they believe in Christ; for thus he writeth: Wheresoever a company of men do jointly and publicly, by worshipping the true God in Christ, profess the substance of Christian Religion, which is faith in jesus Christ the son of God, and Saviour of the world, there is a true Church, notwithstanding any corruption whatsoever. Where we are to note the last words, notwithstanding any corruption whatsoever. Good God how different is this man (as hereafter I will show) from the judgement of the ancient Fathers, and practise of the Primitive Church?  
But to proceed, this most pernicious (yet plausible) doctrine, being the Prodromus, and forerunner of Libertinisme, originally springeth from the Private Spirit; since this spirit giveth reynes to every Man to believe, what itself best suggesteth.  
But since the Canker hereof is secretly spread into the hearts of many men at this day; I will therefore rest the longer in discovering the absurdity and falsehood thereof, by stirring a little the earth about the root of it; it being indeed a faith consisting in a waist of faith, and a Religion resting in the denial of the necessity of any one Religion.  
And first it is certain, that without faith a Man cannot be saved: sine 
(s) Hebr. 11.  fide impossibile est placere Deo. And again qui 
(t) Marc. 16.  non crediderit, condemnabitur. Withal it is as certain, that this faith (according to that: 
(u) Ephes. 4.  una fides, unum baptisma) ought to be One, True, and Supernatural: for if it be not One and True, it saveth not Man, but seduceth him, since Truth is One, and Error, various and multiplicious. Now here I urge, that one faith cannot be in several Sects; seeing these Sects teach points not only in themselves disparate and different, but contradictory and merely repugnant.  
Furthermore, that that faith, which saveth man, must be entire and true in all points, is confirmed by other two irrefragable Reasons. The first altogether insisted upon by S. Thomas 
(x) ●n ●. distinct. 23. & 22 q. 5. art. 5.  and all chief Schoolmen, is this: True Christian faith, as being a supernatural and infused Virtue, hath a necessary reference to two things; the first is that, which Devynes here call, Prima Veritas revelans, which is God revealing all truths of faith, to the Church; the second the authority of the Church, which God here useth as a means, by the which he propoundeth the said truths to be believed: So as no true supernatural faith can be produced but where these two concur. The first of these is called by the Divines: Obiectum formale of faith; the second, Amussis, Regula, or the Propounder of the articles of faith.  
Now from hence it proceedeth, that whosoever denyeth any one Truth, propounded by the Church (to whom God revealeth it) doth not believe any other Article with a true faith; Since the authority of the Church doth indifferently and alike propound all Articles to be believed; Therefore who beleiueth the Article of the Trinity, or the Resurrection of the body, through the Authority of the Church, propounding them to be believed; will also believe Freewill, Prayer to Saints etc. and any other point; seeing these are no less propounded by the Church to be believed, as revealed by God, than the former are. Thus it is evident, that who beleiueth one article of true Christian faith, and beleiueth not another; this Man beleiueth not any one article, by reason of the authority of God's Church (and consequently, hath no true supernatural faith at all, which is available to Salvation) but beleiueth it, in regard only of the probability of the point in his judgement; and thus it is not Belief, but Opinion only in such a Man. For seeing the same credit and affiance is ever to be given in all things, to the same authority; whosoever doth not believe the said authority in any one point, doth not (as is said) believe it in any other; from whence it followeth, that the authority of God & his Church is equally contemned in the denial of the smallest articles, as of praying to Saints, Purgatory etc. as in the greatest articles of the Trinity, Incarnation, or any other sublime and high mystery.  
The second Reason: It is peculiar to Virtue's Theological, and Infused, to be obliterated and extinguished by one only contrary Act. Thus for example, one mortal Sin wholly taketh away Charity and Grace; One act of desperation the virtue of Hope; the same may be exemplifyed in the virtues of Penance, Religion, and others. Now here by the same reason I infer, that one Heresy (I mean an obstinate mantayning of any one error in faith, how small soever, against the authority of God's Church) depriveth a man of true faith, which (as other Virtues above are) is supernatural, theological, and infused.  
In this next place, we will see, how the judgements of ancient Fathers do approve the former doctrine. Two or three for instance shall serve. And first, that light of the Latin Church, I mean, S. Augustine 
(y) Lib. 18. de civil. Dei c. 91.  doth thus pencil forth an heretic: Qui in Ecclesia Christi aliquid prawns sapiunt, si correpti, ut sanum rectumque sapiant, resistant contu naciter, Haeretici fiunt; & foras exeuntes, habentur in exercentibus Haereticis. That is, Who beleiueth any wrong or false thing in the Church of God, and being admonished to believe the truth, do resist contumaciously, they become Heretyks; and departing out of the Church, they are reputed for open and wilful Heretyks.  
S. Ambrose thus answerably writeth; 
(z0 Lib. ●. in Luc. 〈◊〉 9  Negat Christum, qui non omnia quae Christi sunt confitetur he denyeth Christ, who beleiueth not all points or articles concerning Christ. Thus who denyeth Lymbus Patrum, denieth that Christ descended thereinto, and consequenly he denyeth Christ. Finally S. Gregory 
(a) Orat. ●7.  Nazianzene thus elegantly conspireth heerto: Vnum unicohaeret, & ex ijs quaedam verè aurea & salutaris fit catena; ideo si vel unum dogma auferatur, aut reddatur incertum tota catena disrumpetur. That is: One Article of faith is so cohering with another, that of them all, there is made a goalden and healthful chain of faith; so as if but one article be taken away, or made but doubtful, the whole chain becometh broken. See the like agreeing testimonies in 
(b) Apud Theod. l. 4. hist. c. 19  Basil, 
(c) Lib. ●. Apolog. contr. Ruf.  Jerome, 
(d) Lib. 1. epist. 6. ad Magnum.  Cyprian, and 
(e) In Sym.  Athanasius.  
The ancient Father's mind in this point is manifested (besides by their particular Sentences) from the practice of the Primitive Church against Heretics; I mean from the perusal of the Catalogues of heeresyes written by them, as is evident out of the Catalogues of heresies, and other such writings composed by Irenaeus, Hierome, Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodoret, Philastrius and others; in all which we shall find diverse condemned and branded for express Heretics, for their wilful maintaining (in our judgements) but small errors; though otherwise they believed all the chief points of Christian faith, as the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the like. For proof whereof I will here allege the words of S. Austin against the Pelagians; whom he absolutely & resolutly condemneth for Heretics, for their believing, that man could keep the law of God only by force of nature, without the force of God's grace. His words are these: Nec 
(f) Epist. 120. c. 37.  tales sunt Pelagiani etc. Neither are the Pelagians such men, as thou shouldest easily contemn them; for they live continently; are laudable in good works; they believe not in a false Christ (as the Manichees do) etc. yet because they are ignorant of the justice of God, endeavouring to make it their own, they are Heretyks and cast out of the Church. And thus far for a touch of the practice of the ancient Church, and the Fathers like conspiring testimonies herein; where I may remit the Reader, to what hath been above alleged, touching the condemination (by the Primitive Fathers) of our Protestant doctrynes Which ancient Fathers, as being learned and virtuous, neither would nor durst, register any for Heretyks, but those, who by the whole Church of God were reputed for Heretyks (as afore I have ●●ted:) which point is made more evident, in that we do not find any one of the said Fathers (among so many) to be contradicted by any other orthodoxal Father, for such his proceeding.  
But to leave humane authority, and to come to divine; if we look into God's sacred Word, it is clear, that who maintaineth any one Heresy, the same hath no more true hope of his salvation, than a Heathen or a Publican: for we find our Saviour to use this commination: Qui 
(g) Matt. 18.  Ecclesiam non audi●●it etc. He that will not hear the Church, let him be to thee, as a Heathen or Publican. Where we may observe, that Christ said not, Who will not hear the Church in all things, but absolutely pronounced, Who will not hear the Church. If then a Sectary or Heretyke will not hear the authority of the Church, proposing such and such points (for example of Freewill, Indulgences, Prayer for the dead etc.) to be believed, how shall he escape the Anathema here threatened? And though these words immediately be intended of fraternal correction; yet a fortiori, they are to be understood of him who rejects the authority of the Church in matters of faith Since this man's contempt towards the Church is fare greater, & less pardonable. For who refuset● to obey the Church in one point, doth (as above is said) wholly and absolutely contemn all the authority of the Church.  
Again, we find the Apostle speaking of the works of the flesh (meaning those works, which are committed by wicked men without the assistance of the Holy Ghost) thus to write: 
(h) Galat. ●.  The works of the flesh are Adultery, Fornication etc. Idolatry, Witchcraft Hatred, Debate, Emulations, Wrath, Contentions, Seditions, heresies etc. they which do such things, shall not inherit the kingdom of God: where we find the word Heresy particularly set down in our English Bibles; though the latin word being Sectae, is more remiss, and therefore increaseth here the force of our illation. Now from hence, I thus argue: As the Apostle doth in this place pronounce sentence of condemnation against the Sin of fornication, though but once committed; so also against but one sect or Heresy: Since he here maketh no mention of the plurality of times, in committing any Sin, nor of the number of heresies; before the workers and defendours of them can deserve damnation.  
And thus fare of our Adiaphorists or Neutrals in faith (for I can term them no better) who though they believe some articles, that are true, yet believe those truths falsely; as not relying upon the grounds of belief (to wit, God revealing, and the Church propounding.) And indeed such men (if they be punctually examined (are found to believe nothing, but their Sense, at most their judgement: So they give credit to the matter, but not to the Author; and so much every man affoards to a discredited and blemished witness. Away then (among Christians) with this tepidity or cold indifferency in faith, which is of that charitable disposition (forsooth) as to promise that to all others (I mean Salvation) of which itself is not capable. Therefore to conclude, my last Arrest and sentence heerin it; that indifferently to allow all Religion, is to take away all Religion; and that Neutralisme in faith, finally discargeth itself into Libertinisme in manners.  
I will here stay my Pen, passing over many other Positions of like nature, breathing such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and impossibilityes, which we maintain. Only I say, as above I touched, that if we balance them with the most abstruse difficultyes to be found in the catholic Religion (yea with those in the doctrine of the Real Presence) we may conclude, that those more easily may become the Object of our belief (and so to be believed) then these, and other such like exorbitant, gross, and absurd Assertions or Connexion's of ours. Since those former only transcend Reason; these manifestly impugn Reason: By believing the first, we forbear to be Heathens; by believing these other, we cease to be Men: Those do advance and magnify in Man, the power of God; these obliterate and deface in him (by giving assent thereto) the Image of God. To be short, those may be apprehended by the light of faith; these are even incompatible, with the light of our Understanding.   

THE VIII. MOTIVE. Deceits and sleights practised by Protestant Writers.  
I HAVE ever been of mind, that matters of Religion are to be proceeded in with a fearful and innocent pen; and that who approacheth thereto, aught with 
(a) Exod. cap. 3.  Moses to put their shoes off their feet, the place wherein they stand, being holy ground, that is, aught to cast off all imperfections of intended calumnies, impostures, and other frauds, in regard of the venerable subject to be entreated of. I would to God, I could not justly charge my own brethren with faultiness herein, so exempting them out of the number of those, who (to use the Prophet's phrase) Dolosam 
(b) Ose. 12.  calumniam diligunt. But it falleth out far otherwise, to their dishonour and my grief; since (if trial be made) we shall find many Babylonians to dwell in our supposed Jerusalem.  
Our own fraudulent deportements in this great business of Religion (great, in that it concerns our soul's interminable weal or woe) have much disedifyed me, begetting at the first in me a staggering opinion, whether that can be Truth, which needeth such supporters of deceit and collusion. I will exemplify in diverse. And to omit our pretence of the Private spirit, for the avoiding of all authorities, as already discovered above: The first kind of these shall concern the English translation of our Bibles: The sleight consisteth in translating such texts, as mention Traditions, and merit of Works. I will here forbear to show, how the Scripture 
(c) joan. ●ic. & 1. Thess. 2.  commandeth us, not to rely only upon Scripture, or how our men have borrowed our faith herein from the old Heretics, Nestorius 
(d)  habetur in sexto Synodo act. 1.  and Dioscorus, so as we receive by Tradition to reject Traditions: The imposture only in translating it is, wherein I now dwell. Whereas then the new Testament maketh relation of good traditions and bad, wicked and jewish traditions, expressing them both by one and the same greek word, to wit, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which properly signifieth Traditio: Now our English translations in such 
(e) 1. Cor. 2. I pray you Brethren that you be mindfud of m●, and as I have delivered unto you, you k●ep my Ordinances. The l●ke translating of the word Ordinances is in 2. Thess. 2.  texts, wherein are understood good and profitable Traditions, do translate instead of the word Traditions, the word Ordinances. But where the texts speak of wicked 
(f) Matth. 15 Why do you transgress the Commandments of God by your Traditions.  and frivolous Traditions, there they remember precisely to set down in their translations the right word Traditions, and not the word Ordinances, or any other word in lieu of it, as may be seen in these Texts quoted. But this (I fear) was done, in dislike of Apostolical traditions, that so the ignorant Reader should never find the word tradition in Scripture in a good sense, but always in a bad and disallowed: Though now in our last translation (but not in any former) for the better plastering of the matter, we put in the margin of such texts speaking of godly Traditions, the word, Traditions.  
The like course we take in translaring the greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifying dignus, in english worthy; and the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be made worthy; for in those Texts 
(g) Luc. 21. watch at al●ry●as praying, that you may be accounted worthy to stand before the son of God. The like i● done in the Greek verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. in Luc. 20. & 2. Thess. 1.  which concern merit of works, wherein these foresaid words are used, we translate them to seem to be worthy, and to seem only to be made worthy, thereby to weaken such texts for the proving of merit of Works: But in other Texts 
(h) O how much forer punishment shall he be worthy, which treadeth under foot the son of God  not touching the doctrine of merit, we can be content to translate the said words truly, that is, to be worthy, and to be worthy indeed. But alas! is God's holy word so little favourable to our Protestant faith, that we must be forced thus to adulterate and corrupt it for the better sustaining of our cause?  
The next sort of Collusions may be extended to our deceitful setting down the doctrine supposedly maintained by Catholics; indeed obtruding upon them certain absurd Positions, from which they utterly disclaim. And thus do we no less charge them with believing of errors, then with not believing of our presumed truth.  
To instance this. Touching the merit of works; Do we not usually affirm in our Sermons & Books that the Papists do so believe to be saved by their own works without the passion of Christ, as that we hold their doctrine therein to be dishonourable to his Passion? We do. And yet the Council 
(i) Sess. 6.  of Trent (wherein is contained a summary of their faith) teacheth that all good works, which a Christian can do, receive their force, value, and price from the Passion of our Saviour; for otherwise it holds them as no good works; to which works as proceeding only from the grace of God, the Catholics teach, our Saviour 
(k) Matt. 3 16. & 10  hath promised his reward: So confidently they affirm, that it is of the grace of God, that we concur with the grace of God; and worthily, since as the soul informs the body, so Grace informs the Soul.  
Touching the Catholics praying to Saints; We charge them in great estuation and heat of words, that thereby they dishonour Christ his Passion; making the Saints in praying to them their Redeemers and Saviour's. When (God knoweth) all that the Catholics do, is but to pray to them, that so the Saints (as being more gracious in the sight of God) would intercede for them: with no other intention, then S. Paul requested the 
(l) Rom. ●s I befeech you etc. strive with me by prayers to God for me.  Romans 
(m) 1. Thess. 5. Brethren pray for me. The like words he useth to the Hebrews c ●5.  Thessalonians, and Hebrews in his Epistles, that they would remember him in their prayers to God. And from hence doth grow, that most warrantable distinction of Mediators, to wit, of Reaemption (of which kind the Catholics, no less than we, acknowledge no other, than Christ alone) and of Intercession, of which sort, every virtuous and good man (much more, the Saints and Angels) may be (without any indignity to our Saviour) one for another; since no prayers (even by the Catholics own doctrine) are available, but such, as are founded in the belief in Christ, and in the virtue and force of his most dear and precious Passion: So wilfully we mistake the doctrine of the Church of Rome herein.  
Concerning Indulgences, How frequent are these and the like bold reproaches with us? That the Paprsts teach, the Pope can give aforehand pardon for any subject to murder his King; that he can absolve one from the sin, which here after he is to comnit. What fooleries are these? And how idly do we diver berate the air in delivering in our Sermons such improbable or rather senseless assertions; they being indeed incompatible with common Reason? Do not the Catholics own books show; first, that the Pope can no more forgive aforhand any one sin, which hereafter is to be perpetrated, than he can create a new world; since the object of the Sacrament of Penance is a sin already committed? Secondly, that the Pope cannot remit the guilt of sin (I mean the punishment of damnation due to sin) by means of any Indulgences; for it is their own general doctrine, that no man can be partaker of any Indulgence, but at the time of his receiving thereof, he must be in state of grace, to which state he is first brought by virtue of a sacramental Confession, or (when that cannot be obtained) by force of a true and perfect Contrition? Thirdly and lastly, that the guilt of eternal damnation being afore remitted (as is said) by the sacrament of Confession, or (in want thereof) by perfect Contrition, there remains a temporal punishment for the said sins afore remitted, for the satisfying of God's justice; which temporal punishment (as being the only object of Indulgences) the Catholics hold, the Pope as Christ's Vicar here upon earth, and dispenser of his spiritual Treasure, can either-lessen or wholly take away (if so the party be capable thereof, in being at that instant in state of Grace, and performing the pennances enjoined upon him) by applying unto him upon just occasions the superbundancy of Christ's passion. In whose passion for the more fully satisfying of all eternal (much more temporal) punishment, the sheeding of one drop of blood was sufficient to redeem thousands of Worlds; since then (his Humanity being accompanied with the Divinity) Innocency did suffer for sin, justice for offence, Health for infirmity, and finally God for Man. Thus, and no otherwise do the Catholics teach herein, as is evident out of their chiestest 
(n) Set hereof S. Thomas Aquinas 4. sent. d. 10. art. 5. Sotus 4. sent. d. ●● Caietan tom. 1. Bellar lib. de indulg. possim.  writers: Who (notwithstanding their defence of the doctrine of Indulgences) may (I fear) justly charge us Protestants with relying too much upon a I lenary Indulgence (as I may term it) of a solifidian faith.  
The next point of this nature shallbe concerning Images; touching which our Eiconomachis, or impugners of the lawful use of them, do run into strange exhorbitancy of speeches; accusing Catholics, that they place a kind of divinity or deity in Images, and that they pray to them (so wonderfully doth prejudice of opinion transport men's minds & tongues.) When the Catholics are charged herewith (yea the most silly and ignorant women on their side) they answer, that for the images themselves, they know, they are made of stone, wood, or such other matter; and that in regard of their substances, they account them no better than stone, wood, or the like: They use them (they say) not to pray to them (since this were no better, than a godless religion, or a devout impiety) but only (besides a peculiar respect given unto them, above other things made of like substances) to supply the wants of their ●emory, that so their corporal eye being fixed upon them, the eye of their understanding, during the time of their devotions, may be more intent upon our Saviour's Passion, or the Saints represented in them. See hereof the second Council of 
(o) Act. 7.  Nice, 
(p) Epist. 119.  S. Augustine, 
(q) Lib. 7. epist. 107.  S. Gregory, S. Thomas Suarez, & others.  
Finally, do we not diuulge, that the Pope, and his Church advance themselves above the Scripture, allowing for Scripture that, which is not; and altering at their pleasure the true sense of the scripture, by obtruding upon it, any sense of their own. Good God that men (otherwise learned and witty) should thus idly in their speeches and writings rarell out the time working with such improbity of libour and toil the●pyders web, which is so easily swept away▪ Labor●ose nihil agunt (to say with Seneca.) The Pope and the Church thus far proceed: They declare only, what books be Scripture, or not Scripture, among many Apochriphal writings; and which construction of true Scripture (among many suggested senses thereof) is the intended meaning of the Holy Ghost. Thus they neither make nor unmake Scripture, nor impose any sense upon it, which afore it had not, but only declare, which afore it had. And thus by this means, they assume no more to themselves, than any private Protestant practiseth by the help of his revealing spirit. But what? Must it needs be inferred, that the Pope, and the Church for such their proceeding, seek to be above the Scripture? Then may it be alike concluded that the judge is above the Law, since he expresseth, what is Law, and which is the true meaning of the Lawgiver therein. All that hence may be truly deduced, is this, viz. That the Pope and the Church is not above Scripture (which with all reverence they affect) but above the judgements of private men expounding the Scripture.  
But here (to make an end of the Catholics mistaken doctrines) I cannot, but call to mind, how I was several times accustomed to charge the Priests, and others of their Religion appearing before me, with the defence of the former absurdityes (though I confess, I did then well know, what their learned men did hold therein:) And I do assure the Reader, that the Priests, being expostulated hereof, did seem half amazed at these my strange demands. Yea one of the Priests (a bold and resolute man) thus answered me: My Lord, if you demand of me and others in earnest, whether these senseless positions be our do Irines, it seems, you know not, what the Catholic Church teacheth herein; and than it is strange, his Majesty should place you in seat of judgement against us, to punish us for that Religion, yourself not knowing the doctrine, which the said religion teacheth. An answer blunt and without respect, yet not much to be disliked, since it is a wrong to truth, to be outfaced and depressed with calumnies.  
Towards the Ancient Fathers we have several peculiar deportments; first we strive to break through their authorities with sleighty evasions; this failing, next to break down their authorities by open disclayminge.  
Thus in the former manner we proceed diverse ways. First, when any place of a Father is objected against us, we endeavour (so loath we are to make an absolute departure from them, if possibly it could be avoided) to interpret the Father's words in some other sense, than they are urged by our Adversaries or intended by the Fathers. Thus where 
(r) Lib. 4. de Trinit. cap. 〈◊〉 4.  Augustin, 
(s) Lib. 6. desacerd.  Chrysostome, 
(t) In psal. 38.  Ambrose, & 
(u) Lib. 6. contra Parmenianum.  others, do teach, that the Sacrament of the Excharist containeth in itself a true and proper sacrifice; Our Brethren in answer hereto, say these Father's meaning only to be, that the prayer poured out by the faithful at the time of the Communion are Spiritual Sacrifices. But this is but a shadow of an answer, since the Fathers affirm literally, that the body and blood of Christ (without the least intimation of any prayers) being offered up in the celebration of the Eucharist, is a proper and true sacrifice: Quid gratiùs offervi (saith 
(x) V by supra.  Augustine) aut suscipi possit, quàm car● sacrificij nostri, corpus effectum sacerdotis nostri?  
Next if the place of the objected Father be so perspicuous, as that it will receive no other tincture of Interpretation, than what the natural colour of the sentence will properly bear; we then labour to oppose another Father against him in the said point; or (if possibly we can) the said Father against himself, by urging some seeming contrary sentence our of him; & all this to disvalue in the Readers eye the authority of the said Father. Thus where Basill is produced in defence of Traditions, D. 
(y) Lib. de sacra scriptura p. 670  Whitaker answereth thereto (pretending some other contrary place out of Basill) saying: Basilius secumpugnat. After the same manner D. Whitaker 
(z) V by supra pag. 6.6.  avoideth S. Augustins authority touching Traditions, saying: Although Augustine in this place may seem to favour Traditions, yet in other places he defendeth earnestly the perfection of the Scriptures: An unworthy aspersion upon the Fathers; as if they were of that wavering irresolution in their faith, as to maintain mere contrary doctrines, at one and the same tyme.  
Another sleight used by us is, that if the Father urged in defence of any catholic point, can be deprehended to have maintained any one acknoledged error; then we usually reject the said Father's authority in all points of catholic Religion. This chief taketh place in the produced testimonies of Cyprian, Tertullian, and Origen, every one of them maintaining their peculiar error. This evasion is most weak, except we could prove, that these Fathers are condemned by the joint consent of other Fathers, for their holding of catholic doctrynes (which is impossible to prove) as well, as they were written against by other Fathers, touching their acknowledged Errors.  
Another of our Sleights or Subtiltyes toucheth Mission and Vocation of Ministers, which the Scripture teacheth to be visible, according to those words of the Apostle: No 
(a) Hebr ● 5.  man taketh to him the honour of Pryesthood, but he, that is called of God, as Aaron was; which calling in the Apostles times, was only by Imposition 
(b) 2. Tim● 1.  of Bishop's hands. Now then when we are charged by our Adversaries in the first planting of Protestancy, to want this lawful Vocation and Mission (since no man did either send us, nor from any did we receive this Imposition of hands) we to extricate and free ourselves out of this Labyrinth, have excogitated out of the delicacy of our wit (or rather extreme Necessity) a new kind of calling, honouring it with the title, of an Extraordinary, and immediate calling from God, Without any authority of man therein. And so our first broachers of Protestancy do challenge this to themselves (besides, that our doctrine of the Inuisibility of the Church, potentially implieth the same.) Answerably heerto Caluin thus saith: Quia 
(c) So alleged to say, by Lascivius (a protestant) in his book de Russar●●̄ &c. religion's p. 2●.  Papa tyrannide etc. Because through the tyranny of the Pope, the true order of ordination was interrupted, therefore in these days we have need of a new help; and this guyft is altogether extraordinary. Likewise D. Fulke 
(d) Against Stapleton & Martial. p. 2. : The Protestants, that first preached these last days, had likewise extraordinary calling. A sleight, invented to free ourselves from the authority of the visible Church of God, examining this our Vocation and Mission, and yet withal most uncertain in itself; since every heretic, stamping any new blasphemies whatsoever, may with the like indifferency and freedom, assume to himself this extraordinary Calling or Mission to preach his said blasphemies▪  
And thus far hereof: where we see, that without any example, since the Apostles times, till the days of Luther, we reduce the warrantablenes of our own Calling to the Ministry, to our own bate and naked justifying of it; as at other times, we presume to recall the authority of the Scripture, & the exposition of confessed Scripture, the testimonies of the Fathers, and the continual practice of the whole Church, to the balance and examination of our own private Spirit: Such a Fastus, & Magistrality we do take to ourselves, in laying the first & fundamental stones of Protestancy.  
But in the last place, when all other shows of answers are wanting, rhen we flatly & peremptorily reject their authorities, pronouncing them to be absolute mantayners of Papistry. Touching our sharp & severe condemnations passed upon them, both in particular and in general, I refer the Reader to the former chapter, concerning our rejecting of the Fathers. But even here we show ourselves not impoliticke; and thus we varnish over our bad cause with this borrowed colour. When our Adversaries charge us for rejecting the Father's testimonies in proof of the present Roman Religion, our accustomed shift is, to turn the question controverted, from the authority of the Father alleged, to the authority of the Scripture; saying in such, and such a doctrine, the Papists rely upon the Fathers, men subject to error; whereas we 
(a) Answerabey hereto Beza thus saith: If any shall oppose against me the authority of the encient Fathers, I do appeal to the word of God So related by D. Bancroft in his Survey p. 219.  Protestant's in the same points rest upon Scripture, (thus subtly making an Antithesis & opposition between the Scripture and the Fathers.) And we appeal to all learned men (say they) whether the Scripture is not to be preferred before the Fathers. This reason in a clear eye is transparent: for the Question here is not, whether the Scripture is to be preferred before the Fathers; since the Catholyks grant, that the Scripture, as being most divine, certain, and infallible, is to overbalance by infinite degrees all other writings whatsoever; but the touch of the point here controverted is, whether the ancient Fathers urging the Scripture are to be preferred before the Protestants urging the Scripture; that is, whether the expositions of the Fathers given upon places of scripture in proof of the Papists religion (as we call them) are to oversway the contrary expositions of the same texts, given by our novellizing Brethren And here the question resteth.  
But I will close this point touching the Fathers, with a cautelous and pregnant observation of our Brethren. Whereas we reject the Fathers for maintaining the Papists religion; the articles of the same religion, as they are believed by our Adversaries, we 
(b) This different appellation is precisely observed by Illyri●us, and the other Century writers, by D. Whitak. and by diverse other Protestant's  usually term, heresies, Idolatry, blasphemies etc. thereby to show, that the Papists are no members of Christ's Church; the which very articles, being taught by the Fathers, we gently style them in the Fathers, naevos, naeniae, and (at the most) e●rores, sears, blemishes and errors; to the end, to intimate, that we do not separate ourselves from that Church, in which the Fathers are. Deceitfully, and withal unlearnedly; either heresies in all, or but blemishes and errors in all; since it is the doctrine, which denominates and gives appellation to the Man; not the Man to the doctrine.  
Hitherto we have taken in part a view of the several sleights practised in our answers to the Catholyks authorities. Next we will call to mind our like carriage holden by us, in impugning our Adversaries and their doctrine.  
And first touching Counsels or Definitions of the Pope; When we make show to produce either of these authorities against the Catholykes, we commonly urge some Provincial, or Nationall Council, under the name of a general Council (the difference wherein an ignorant Reader doth not easily discover;) Or else we produce some one or other Council, which for number of Bishops assembled, may be termed General, yet Schismatical; that is, a Council not celebrated and allowed by the chief Pastors of God's Church and thus we urge the Council of Constantinople, assembled against the doctrine touching Images, Anno Dom. 730. it being very numerous, but celebrated without the authority of the Pope or any Patriarch, the Patriarch of Constantinople only excepted, who for assenting to the Council, was deprived of his Patriarchship.  
Sometimes again we insist in the authority of a lawful general Council, to prove the beginning of some point of our Adversaries doctrine, but then our urging of it is commonly attended on with a wilful mistaking: for the Council doth but only first impose the name of the article, the doctrine itself being believed many ages before. Thus doth D. 
(c) Lib 7. contra Duraeum pag 480.  Whitaker (besides diverse others of us) allege the Council of Lateran for bringing first in the doctrine of Transubstantion; Whereas this Council only imposed the name of Transubtantiation (as the Council of Nice did the name of Tr●nity, the doctrine being received long afore) the doctrine of Transubstantiation being generally many ages afore believed and taught by Cyrill 
(d) Peter Martyr contra Gardiner. part. 4. p. 724. , Cyprian 
(e) The treatise attributed to Vrsinus called, Commonefactio cui●sdā Theologi de sancta Coena p. 2.1. , Eusebius 
(f) Centurists Ceut. 4. col. 10. pag. 980.  Emissenus, 
(g) Centurists Cent. 5. col. 517.  Chrysostome, & 
(h) D. Humphrey jesuit sm. part. 2. ●at. 5.  Gregory the great, even by our own Confessions.  
When we object the Decree of any Pope, thereby to show the first Institution of such a catholic point, we often make choice of some catholic articles, where the Decree of the Pope toucheth only the execution or practice of the doctrine, afore partly intermitted through negligence, and not the doctrine itself. In this sort we find D Whitaker (who hath much dishonoured his good parts by these unworthy proceed) to allege Innocentius the third Pope of that name, saying 
(i) Contr● Duraeum l. 7. p. 490.  Innocentius the third was the first, that instituted an●icular Confession for necessary. Whereunto our Adversaries do answer, that this Innocentius commanded, that the practice of Confession should be better and more often observed; they further proving even by the confession of our own Centurists, that Tertullian and Cyprian (who lived long before Innocentius the third) did teach (to use the Centurists 
(k) Cent. 3. c. 6. c. 27.  words) Confession even of thoughts and lesser Sins. With the same fraud doth (e) D. Whitaker charge Pope Calixius, 
(l) Lib 7. centra Duraeum pag. 480.  with the first instituting of the fast of Lent, being in his time negligently observed; the doctrine of which fast was so ancient, that 
(m) Exam Coucil. Tried part. ● pag. 89.  Kemnitius thus writeth hereof: Ambrose Maximus, Taurinensis, Theophilus, Jerome, and others do affirm the fast of Lent to be an Apostolical Tradition. Now the Collusion here used in these examples, resteth in a wilful confounding of the first Institution of a thing, with a renovation of the practice of the said thing.  
Again, we sometimes object (thereby to intimate an uncertainty of Catholic Religion) some canon or sentence decreed afore by a lawful Council and true Pope, and after impugned by another lawful Council and true Pope. But this then (which the vulgar doth not observe) doth concern not matter of faith and doctrine (which never suffereth any alteration by Popes or Counsels) but only matter of fact; the sentence whereof) though afore given) may without any impeachment of the Church's authority, upon better and later information, be altered. Such were the alterable decrees of the Pope's Formosus, and Stephanus the seaventh, in their several Counsels, grounded principally upon matter of fact, & usually objected by us against our Adversaries; of which point see Sigebert in his Chronicle.  
Whereas our Adversaries (as above is delivered) show, that many of our Protestant doctrines were condemned for heresies by Augustine, Hierem, Epiphanius, & others in those primitive times. Now we by way of recrimination do confidently avouch the same of diverse Catholic articles, to wit, that even in those days they were condemned for heresies by the said Fathers: but how truly we aver this (good Reader) observe, and if thou be a Protestant, blush in thy brethren's behalf. Two examples shall serve for many.  
Well then, D. 
(o) In his Challenge concerning the Roman Church p. 113.  Sutcliffe, and D. 
(p) In his answer to a counterfeit Cath. pag. 22.  Fulke insimulate the Catholics with the heresy of the Collyridans, who according to Epiphanius were condemned (as these men say) for worshipping the Virgin Mary. But let 
(q) Haeres. 79.  Epiphanius here explain himself, his words are these: Hi qui hoc docent qui sunt, prae terquam mulieres? Who teach this, except they be women? So as this sect consisted only of women, of whom Epiphanius thus further writeth: Sellam 
(r) Vbi supra.  quadratam ornantes, panem proponunt, & offerunt in nomine Mariae etc. that is: These women adorning a square table, do set bread thereupon, and offer it in the name of Mary. Thus their error consisted in instituting a feminin Priesthood, & in sacrifying to Mary, believing her to be a God. And thereupon Epiphanius in the very same place thus censureth hereof: Deo ab aeter●o nullatenus Mulier sacrificavit etc. And again: Neq Deus est Maria etc. & nemo in nomine eius offerat. How fare distant are the Catholics from maintaining this Heresy, either in their doctrine or practice?  
Again for a second example. D. 
(s) In his answer to a Counterfeit Cat●. pag. 22.  Fulke thus speaketh to the Catholics: Of the Heretics Caiani, you have learned to calupon the Angels, he alleging Epiphanius for the same. But Epiphanius words are these fare different from D. Fulkes application: Non 
(t) Haeres. 38.  posse, aiunt, aliquos saluari nisi etc. The heretics Caiani taught none could be saved, till they had gone through all sins; and committing thereupon wicked things and actions they called upon the name of such, as were true Angels, and of such as were by them untruly termed Angels; referrin to this Angel, and that Angel (proprian actionem) their peculiar action; saying when they committed their wickedness: O tu Angelo, utor tuo opere O Angel, I now use or execute thy work etc. Thus their error consisted not in calling upon the Angels, but in calling both upon true & false Angels, as making them Patrons of their wicked actions. Would any man think, we should wrong our own reputation and honours in using these wilful and iniustifyable misapplications and forgeryes against the Catholics? We are scholars, and should remember, that as learning beautifyeth the mind, so candour and integrity learning. And therefore it is strange to see D. Willet in his Tetrastyson Papiseni, D. Fulke, and D. Sutcliffe in their afore alleged books, thus to blo● paper in labouring (by these, and other such like detortions of the Father's words) to persuade their Readers, that many articles of Catholic Religion were condemned for heresies in those ancient times.  
But to proceed to other passages of this our Scene, whereby we seek thus to blear the judgements of our credulous followers; The better to grace our Religion with the venerable title of Antiquity, some of us 
(u) D? Pulk in his answer to a counterfeit Cat●. passim. M Wotion in his defence of D. Perkins pag. 500 touching jovinian.  are not ashamed to insist in the former old registered heretics of the primitive church above rehearsed, urging them for Protestants. But what gain we hereby? For first not any one of them did hold more, than two or three points of Protestancy, in all others being Catholic. Again such their points of Protestancy (though first broached so long since) were instantly condemned by the whole Church of God: And who knoweth not that erring Antiquity is no better, then late appearing Innovation? I here pass over our alleging for these later ages (as partly above touched) of Waldo, Wicklifse, Husse, Polydore Virgil, Nilus, Cassander, and the like, for members of the Protestant Church; of which not any one was a perfect Protestant, both because every one of them ever believed most articles of the Catholic Church, dissenting from it only in two or three: as also in that diverse of them maintained sundry gross 
(x) Whereof see their ow● books yet extant.  and absurd doctrines, both in our, and the Catholics judgements, and this with great stiffness and pertinancy of will, which pertinacy ever consummates & perfects an heresy. And thus by this their obstinancy contemning the authority of God's Church, they became (as I may term them) formal and positive heretics; though heresy be but a privation.  
To prove, that Catholics do disagree in matters of Faith, we object some differences among them, but such (if they be well observed) do not rest in the Conclusion itself of the doctrine believed, but in the manner, or some other circumstance of the Conclusion or article of faith, which manner (except it be defy ned by the Church) may be disputed of, and severally mantained without breach of faith: Thus they all conspire and agree in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as Schoolmen speak) though not in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; which later point is commonly reduced and tried by scholastical divinity. Thus for example, when Christ descended into Lymbus Patrum, to deliver the souls of the Just from thence: some few Catholics maintain, that he descended efficacioussy and virtually only; others (which is the more sound opinion) that he descended in soul, and really. But all of them believe, that there was a true Lymbus Patrum (which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or conclusion itself) from whence Christ delivered the souls of the Patriarches. And I refer to any scholar's judgement this inference: Some Papists do teach & believe, that Christ did descend into Lymbus Patrum, only virtually or efficaciously; others (and this with fare greater consent) that he descended in soul, and really: Ergo, some of them do believe there was not a Lymbus Patrum, exorbitantly concluded.  
To this Head may also be referred, how our Protestant 
(y) D. jewel in his Apology of the Church of England p. 96. D. Fulke in his answer to a counterfeit Catholic pag. 65. D. Willet in his Synops. p. 60.  Doctors (they are not ashamed to urge it, and yet I am half ashamed but to relate it) for proof of disagreements in catholic Religion, have objected the diverse Religious Orders in the Church of Rome; to wit, that some are Bernardins other Franciscans and the like; some go in black other in grey or white; these do eat flesh, those do not &c. These arguments (as discovering our extreme penury of better stuff) were far more conveniently forborn, then insisted upon, since they prove no contrariety at all in matters of faith (for they all believe the same articles of catholic Religion) but only do show, who were the first beginners of those Orders; and that some members of the catholic Church do live in a more gentle and remiss, others in a more strict and severe degree of devotion and Virtue (like the Centurion and Zachaeus, who by different ways honoured Christ:) Nevertheless they all take the three essential Vows (I mean, of Chastity, Poverty, and Obedience) necessary to every Religious Order; and by their first Institution, do spend much time in Prayer, which is the Wing of the Soul; much time in fasting and other corporal chastisements, the wings of Prayer; good Men, still mortifying both body and Soul; their Will being indeed to deny their Will, and their freedom consisting in restraint of Liberty; comforting themselves with that sentence of Augustin: Omnia inucnit an De●, qui propter Deum ●mnia relinquit. And thus far hereof.  
Concerning the Marks of the Church, what stratagems of wit do we use? Do we 
(z) So teacheth D. Whitguift in his▪ defence of the answer p. 81. Calu. insti. c. 1 sect. ●●. D. Whitaker cont. Campian. rat. ●. pag. 44. and others.  not maintain (as a Cardinal point of our Profession) that the true preaching of the Word, and administration of the Sacraments, are the only signs of the true Church, to distinguish it from all false Synagogues and heretical Conventicles? To what end are these erected by us for Notes? To the end (forsooth) that ourselves alone may be the sole judges, which is the true Church. For we reject all authority of Fathers, Counsels, and practise of God's Church in teaching, when, and where the Word is truly preached, and the Sacraments duly ministered; and in the closure of all we will suffer no other judgements, than our own, to pass upon these points; though every registered heretic may and will, with as great confidence in his own Opinion, challenge these Notes to his Church and Professors, as we do. And thus by these Meandrian winding, we reduce the knowing, which is the true Church, unto the grave Appeal, made to our own Private Spirit (above discovered) within the vast Circumference whereof, this particular Collusion (besides many others) is contained.  
I have been over long in revealing our own blemishes and scars, (so Light discovereth Shame) and indeed I grieve (as tendering my brethren's reputation) that so unworthy a subject should so long arrest my Pen. Therefore I will close up in few words diverse other sophistications & subtiltyes practised by us, both in impugning and answering our Adversaries. As how we are accustomed to deprave, either by adding to, or concealing part of the sentence, in the testimonies of the Authors, produced by us (I speak confidently, for upon my own knowledge, we Protestants rest inexcusable heerin:) As also how after the end of the authority produced in a different letter, we begin with some few short words of our own, directly against catholic Religion, causing them to be printed in the like different letter; that so the Reader through diversity of the letter, may take them for the words of the for mer alleged Author; And if we be expostulated thereof, we then ascribe it to the Printers oversight.  
And for the better preventing of all discovery thereof (as also when we urge some authorities without corrupting the words, yet insisted upon by us, most differently from the Authors mind) we often all●adg the Authors name only, but without any citation of the Book, where such words are to be found; and if of the Book, yet without noting the chapter of solio; or if with noting the folio, yet not showing what edition (when their are diverse) we do follow, seeing the same sentence or authority in several Editions is to be found in several folios. Also I briefly pass over, how ambitiously and affectedly we fill the margins of our Books with numberless citations of Texts of Scripture, merely impertinent for proof of the point questioned, but serving only to cast dust to the eyes of the ignorant; How in refuting our Adversaries Book, when we seem to answer to some objected Authority or argument, we often give slip to the authority or point produced, and either by degrees fly to the state of the Question (as though afore it were not acknowledged) or to the Scripture (the accustomed Ocean of Heretyks, wherein they may wander up and down at large) or to some by-circumstance, 
(a) Hier. in epist. ad Paulinum, Sola Scripturarī● ars est, quam sibi passim omnes vendicant● bane garrut● anus, hanc destrus Senex, have Sophista verbosus, hanc universi praesumunt, lacerant, docent ●n requam discunt.  merely accessary to the doubt there controverted, or use long and extravagant discourses & ambages of Words; and all this, to entertain the Reader therewith, that so unespyedly we may divert the Readers eye and memory (being thus fixed upon our digressions) from the Authority or Reason alleged. And finally how in our Answering, we still set down in our books only such passages of our Adversaries writings, whereunto we are able to give best colour of answer; concealing the most material and forcing proofs and arguments of our Adversaries said Books; Or if pretending integrity, we do reprint our Adversaries Books at large, than we commonly make choice of a very dark, and little Character or letter for it, thereby more easily to withdraw the Readers eye from perusing it at full; our own answer thereto being set down, in a fair, large, and pleasing letter or Print: So cautelous and subtle we are in our proceed heerin. But enough of this Subject, and Sir Edwin 
(b) In his relation of Religion.  Sands his words (a man of great eminency among us) shall seal up all the Premises of this chapter: The Protestant Writers in relation of things, have abused this present age, and prejudiced Posterity; Love and Dislike have so dazzled their eyes, that they cannot be believed. But here I must take leave to use a kind of introversion upon our former deportments. When I first noted diverse of these peculiar deliveryes of our own Brethren, I confess, I was moved to a virtuous anger. O how often (sweet jesus) did I demand in silence of spirit: Can that Religion be true, which for the supporting of itself, is forced to fly to these Collusions and Deceits, as to it strongest Sanctuary? Must the light of the Gospel be needs thus blemished (for it own maintenance) with such works of darkness? Cannot true faith be preached and planted in men's souls, but by such deceivable means? Yes. Different Centres have ever in their Orbs different motions; and truth and falsehood cannot run one and the same line of proceeding. Poor man then, that I am; have I so many years in my sermons and speeches so much laboured to persuade to that Religion, which otherwise, then by these base and ignoble means cannot be upholden? But merciful Lord look upon me with the eye of Pity: I acknowledge my fault, and do confess in the words of jeremy, that perhaps even from my tongue and pen at unawares, calumniam sustinuerunt filij Israel: 
(e) Iere●● cap. 50.  The Catholyks and their religion I have wronged and depraved: so justly are thy own words verified in my weakness: Quod natum 
(d) joan. cap. 3.  est ex carne, caro est: flesh and blood were the motives, which for some years passed sealed up my lips from delivering and preaching the Truth.   

THE IX. MOTIVE. That the doctrine of Catholic Religion, tends directly to virtue; of Protestancy, to vice and Liberty.  
THE Prophetical King delivereth this Encomion or praise of the kingdom of Christ, which is his church: That it is, Lex 
(a) Psalm. 18.  Domini immaculata, testimonium fidele, praeceptum Domini illucidum? Meaning hereby, that the doctrine of the Gospel of Christ containeth nothing that is false, in respect of faith, nothing unjust or wicked, in regard of manners. The former point being in part already discussed, in this other I will a little insist, briefly running over some few articles both of the Catholic and Protestant Religion; and so will refer to the indifferent Reader, which is that faith, which leadeth to the broad way 
(b) Matt. 7.  of destruction, and which to the narrow & straight 
(c) Luc. 1●. & Matth. 7.  way of life.  
And first touching our Protestant doctrine of justification by only faith, what liberty breedeth it in man's soul? Since by it we are taught, that notwithstanding our perpetrating of the most facinorous crimes, one naked act of faith in believing, that Christ died for our sins, washeth away all our ordure and stench. This faith assureth us, that Confession of sins is needles; that all satisfaction and Almesdeeds are bootless; that instantly upon our deaths (without suffering any temporal punishment in Purgatory) we fly up to heaven: And all this because Christ hath suffered, and paid for us all; so little we believe that saying: Satisfactio 
(*) Tert. l. de penitent.  Confession disponitur, Confessio poenitentia nascitur, poenitentia Deus mitigatur. Now doth not this open the sluice to all licentiousness? May not a man reply upon this ground, that we need not either to pray or fast at all; since Christ hath prayed and fasted for us?  
Our doctrine of depriving man of Freewill, how prejudicial is it to a virtuous life? Since it deadeth and blunteth all our endeavours in seeking to live virtuously: For it teacheth, (to deliver it in Luther's 
(d) Serm. de Moyse.  words) That the ten Commandments appertain not unto Christians; or in M. Fox his phrase, That the ten Commandments were given us, not to do them, but to know our damnation, and to call for mercy to God. And hereupon one Thesis or Conclusion of our faith is, The impossibility of keeping the Commandments, taught by us all, and particularly by D. Willet 
(f) Synop. papism. p. 〈◊〉.  in these words: The law remaineth still impossible to be kept by us, through the weakness of our flesh: Neither doth God give us ability to keep it, but Christ hath fulfiled it for us. Now if we want , to what end should we strive to observe the Commandments by mortifying our passions, or by for bearing the actions prohibited by them? Or to what end are admonitions to virtue, or threats deterring from vice to be used, either by God in his holy write, or by man in humane laws? In like sort, this doctrine of want of Freewill teacheth us, that we have not the gift of Chastity: a doctrine most 
(*) M. Perkins in his reformed Cath. pag. 161. saith: The vow of continency is not in the power of him, that voweth.  dangerous to all men and women unmarried; and also to those in state of Wedlock, when the one party either through absence or impotency cannot discharge the due of Marriage. And out of this puddle streamed that filth of Luther's words: It 
(g) Tom. 5 Wittenberg. s●rm, de Matrimo.  is not in our power to be without a woman etc. It is as necessary as to eat drink, purge, make clean the nose etc. And again: If the wife will not let the maid come. What flesh-divinity is this? Thus doth our first Evangelicall Prophet (who vaunted ever much of the spirit) like a good peacemaker, join those two things together (I mean the Spirit and the Flesh) which the Scripture 
(h) Matt. 1●. Rom. 8. Cala●. 1.  ever divideth and opposeth.  
Our doctrine of the division of sins, teacheth, that to the faithful professors of the Gospel, all sins (though in others most heinous and grievous) are but 
(i) Musculus in loc. comm. de pe●cat. se●t, 5. and D. Pulke against the Rhemish Testament in epist. joan.  venial. Now what encouragement to sin doth this doctrine afford to all those, who are persuaded, they have true faith? Since by this their doctrine, commit they what sins they will; they learn their sins shall not be imputed unto them. And hereto even D. Whitaker 
(k) De Eccles. count. Bellarm. contro. 2. quast. 5. p. 301.  accordeth in these words: Si quis actum fidei habet, eipectata non nocent. Sin doth not hurt him, who actually believeth. And Luther: No 
(l) In his Sermons englished, & printed anno 1578. pag. 126.  work is disallowed of God unless the Author thereof be disallowed. And M. Wetton. To 
(m) In his answer to the late popish arti●ies pag. 91. & 41.  the faithful sin is pardoned, as soon as it is committed, they having received forgiveness of all their sins past, and to come: strange and dangerous assertions.  
Our doctrine of Reprobation, teaching, that let one, who is reprobate, labour never so much to serve God in virtue and piety, nevertheless he shall not, nor cannot be saved, engendereth many terrors in the soul of man, and cannot, but discourage man from virtue and piety. In like sort our undoubted certainty of salvation taught by us, giveth to man a great liberty to sin; since by this doctrine a vicious life (though contaminated with all kinds of flagitious enormities) cannot prejudice him, who is assured of salvation. And which is more, this certainty of salvation we teach, even during our voluntary committing of sin; since otherwise if upon the new committing of any sin, the party should begin to be uncertain of his salvation, than was his former certainty no true certainty at all. And hither tend those most dangerous words of Luther A 
(n) Tom. 1. wittem. de captiu. Babyl. fol. 74.  Christian man is so rich, that although be would, he cannot lose h s salvation by any sin, how great soever, unless he will not believe. And those of D. Fulke: David 
(o) In the tower dispu●. with Edm. Camp. the second day's conference. ●. b.  even when he committed adultery, was and remained the child of God. What bellowes of Libertinisme are these our positions?  
Concerning good Works, how much do we disparage them by our doctrine, since we teach, they cannot justify man, nor merit any thing at God's hands? Now who believeth this, can he with any alacrity undertake feriall and painful works (they being otherwise cross and repugnant to man's natural disposition?) therefore how dangerous are these and the like positions of our own Brethren? viz. To hold 
(p) Illiricus in praefat. ad Rom.  that good works are in respect, but of presence necessary to salvation (as some Protestants do hold) is a papistical error. Yea Illyricus 
(q) Vid● Acta ●ol loq. Aldeburgen. p. 120 sect. 11.  further proceeding, saith thus: Good works are not only not necessary to salvation, but hurtful to it, alleging in defence of this monstrous opinion even Luther. tindal thus assenteth hereto: There 
(r) Act. Mon. p. 1330.  is no one work better than another, as touching to please God; to make water, to wash dishes, to be a sour, or an Apostle, all is one to please God.  
But to descend more particularly to the doctrine of good works: And first of Chastity, thus basely hereof doth Luther speak, saying: If we 
(s) Tom. 5. Witten. ad c. 7.1. Cor f. 107  respect the nature of Matrimony, and single life in themselves, Matrimony is as gold, and the spiritual state of single life, as dung And D. Whitaker 
(t) Contra Camp rat. 8. p 15●. See also D. Fu●k against the Rh●mish Testament in 1. Cor. 7.  depresseth Virginity in these words, saying: Virginity is not smply good, but after a certain manner: How much are the thousands of Virgins mentioned in the Apocalips (who follow the Lamb, wheresoever he goeth) behoulden to these two good men?  
Of Voluntary poverty, we find D. Willer thus to aver: He 
(u) In his Synops. p. 245.  is an enemy to the glory of God, that changeth his rich estate (wherein he may serve God) for a poor. Belike our Doctor was afraid to be perfect in following our Saviour, by giving his goods to the 
(*) Matt. 19  Poor.  
Of Fasting, our said D. 
(x) Synop. p. 24●.  Willet thus pronounceth: Neither is God better worshipped by eating, or not eating. And M. 
(y) In his reformed Cathol. p. 220.  Perkins: Lasting in itself is a thing indifferent as is eating and drinking. It is well, that these our Brethren were not Ninivites, since perhaps they would have sought to appease God's wrath, by eating and drinking rather, then by 
(z) jonas 4.  fasting. But to the point. Seeing then by these our former doctrines, all good works are bootless and unnecessary; and any sins whatsoever not prejudicial to man's salvation (if so he can but believe) I refer to all impartial judgments, whether in an even libration and weighing of the matter, these our positions tend not directly to the suppressing of Virtue, and advancement of sin and sensuality.  
Now if we next cast our eyes upon the Catholic positions, they do (in my judgement) contain the very seed of all virtue and godly conversation: since they teach Confession of sins (a thing ungrateful to man's nature) & this to be accompanied with a true resolution (at least not to commit after the like, or otherwise improfitable. They teach restitution for injuries committed; set times of Fasting, and Prayer; they further propose to the Cedar of Libanus (I mean to those of the Church, who strive to arrive to the height and perfection of Christian virtue) Chastity, Obedience, and Poverty. By Chastity, the professors thereof overrule and beat down all rebellious suggestions of the flesh; by Obedience, they curb the invate obstinacy and pride of man, wholly submitting themselves in their lives to their Superiors disposal; thus being become men merely passive, and in whom (as showing no reluctation therein) there is found no Reaction; by Poverty, they renounce all superfluityes, and riches of the world fruitless for the most part, and through abuse, barrenner than Want; following herein the Council of the 
(a) 1. joan. 2.  Evangelist in contemning the world: principles so peculiar to Catholics, and so disclaimed from by us Protestants, that one 
(b) jacobus Acontius serm. 4. in c. 21. Lucae.  of us lamenteth thereat, thus saying: A serious and Christian discipline is censured with us, as a new Papacy, and a new Monachisme. And Sir Edwin 
(c) In his relation of Religion. etc.  Sands (a great Master in Israel) through rack of truth, and his own experience in travel, is forced thus to confess: Let the Protestants look with the eye of Charity upon those of the Papacy, and they shall find some excellent Orders of government, some singular helps for increase of godliness and devotion, for the conquering of sin, for the prositing in Virtue etc.  
But setting a part the different doctrines of both sides, and coming to peruse the lives of both professions, we shall find no small disparity therein. Touching the Protestants, I will pass them over in silence, they being heretofore (and yet are) my dear Brethren, whom I affect with all true Christian Charity; referring each man to his own experience of these days, and to Luther's judgement of his time, saying: The 
(d) In poslida. Euangel. Dom 1. Aduentus  world groweth every day worse, men are now more revengeful, covetous, and licentious, than they were ever in the Papacy. Only I cannot forbear my own, and others men's observation; which is, That men departing from the Catholic Church to us, ever become worse in conversation, than afore; and leaving us to embrace our Adversaries religion they instantly begin a more reformed life. Touching the first, who more depraved in all licentiousness and luxury, than our Renegades, or Protestant janisaryes (as I may term them) after they have once forsaken the Catholic Church; they being descended from those, mentioned in job 
(e) Cap. 15.  Bibunt (quasi aquam) iniquitatem: They even meditate how to become extremely vicious; and (as I may say) they hold it a sin to be but second in any sin, so much they affect all principality therein. Witnesses hereof are the revolted Priests (the very scumm and improfitable burdens of the earth.) Good God what base, treacherous, and inhuman motions have some of them made to me, for my employing of their service! But I will stay my pen.  
Concerning those, who leaving Protestancy, become Catholyks; Many, even Protestants do observe and confess with me, that by such their change in faith, they make a greater change in manners (the will thus expecting to partake of the Understandings good) still bettering their course of life, and regulating in part their former exorbitancyes. Myself have much marked this alteration, and one example I cannot without wrong pass over: It is this. One year in my Vice chancelouriship in Oxford (my dear mother, from whose breasts, I have sucked my best milk) there was a Master of Arts, a man of reasonable years; in judgement a most forward and earnest Protestant; of a delicate and choice wit; good literature; a great spirit; but extremely dissolute, and lose in manners, as wholly given over to Sensuality. I wished him well for his good parts (though his tares did overgrow his wheat) and for his friend's behalf. My many persuasions for his change of life, was but as seed sown in a barren ground; in so much, as I was forced otherwise to chastise him for his public disorders. This Man leaving Oxford, traveled beyond the Seas; there stayed some years; altered his judgement in Religion; renewed his studies; was made Priest; returned into England; was apprehended, and convented before me, than B. of London At the first sight I remembered well the Man, and he me. I could him I was sorry to hear that he had changed jerusalem for Babylon (I did mean England, for Rome, and the light of the Gospel, for supposed blind Superstition.) I talked with him in private: He denied not his Priesthood: I urged him, that his former bad Course of life served, as a disposition to his now worse state. I proffered him (if so h● would return to the Truth) to procure (besides his liberty) present competency of Means, and hereafter better advancements; for I thought, such a man might be much serviceable in our Church. He kindly thanked me for my proffers. But I remember, at my touching of his life, he gushed out into abundance of tears, fully acknoledging his former enormous courses; and his tears ceasing, thus replied: My Lord, (for this was his answer) it is to be feared, that I may say with some Ancients: perijssem si non perijssem, since the reflecting upon the deformity and ugliness of my own former wicked courses, was occasionally a means for my change of Religion, and my incorporating into God's Church, through his infinite mercy, who worketh good out of evil, as once he 
(f) 2. Cor 1.4.  did command Light to shine out of Darkness. Me thought I saw compunction & humility in his face (such a change there was between him, and his former self:) he told me, for temporal benefits, he expected none; his enlargement he desired so far forth, as thereby he might more fully execute his Priesthood; saying he desired no other harvest in this World, then to reduce poor straying souls to the Catholic Church. But touching my motioning his revolt in his faith, his reply was, that if he had as many lyues, as there are stars in Heaven (a supernatural and wonderful resolution) he would lose them all, before he would change his religion. I inquired of his carriage in prison, and I was informed, that, besides the affliction of the place (which might seem sufficient) he used diverse voluntary austerityes. The end was, I not prevailing with him in my desires, did hasten his banishement. But observing his different comportmentes at these two different times, how often thought I (for then I made no other construction, though I grant, since I have given it another Comment) must it be the mishap of the Gospel of Christ, and the advantage of Superstition, that a Man professing the true saith, must engulf himself in all wickedness; and after coming from the light into the darkness of Error, must instantly breathe penitency of former sins, humility, charity, and sanctity of life? But enough of this Man.  
As concerning other Priests in general, my experience taken from their often appearance and conviction before me, assureth my judgement, that (abstracting from the Laws of the Realm) they are good Men, greatly devoted to virtue and piety, labouring (with exposal of their lives to imminent danger) to save seduced Souls. And indeed it is above the level of Nature, to see most of them, Gentlemen by birth, of liberal education, having otherwise competency of means (yea some heirs to their parents whole Patrimony and state) thus to shake hands with the world, and all the pleasures thereof (so bearing a spiritual death, in a natural life) and ready only for the good of other souls, to become so many young isaac's, expecting to be made sacrifices, if the Angel of mercy stay not the hand of the Law. Thus where some two or three of them (among many scores) through a base revolting pusillanimity (commonly ushered afore with a secret vicious course) are glad to purchase an ignoble life with overthrow, the rest stand prepared to suffer a most happy death with Victory.  
For the Lay-Catholykes, I know they are commonly of most tender Consciences. How many (besides men) even Women, yea Gentlewomen and Ladies of note, have been afore me? to whom I have proffered all kindness, if they would show but the least relenting in the smallest point of their Religion; but their resolution was so unalterable, that I was wont to muse thereat, and say to myself: see how weakness remains firm and unuanquished, when strength oftentimes doth fall and yield. Besides, how many young gentlewomen of good portions, and fitting for the World, do leave for ever their Country & friends, only to cloister themselves within a wall, and there to sper●● all their days in Chastity, fasting, prayer and devotion? Holy jesus, forgive me, for my hindering of diverse such, from taking this holy Course.  
But to hasten to an end. Since the doctrine of Catholyks and Protestans are so different in nature; the one even exhaling forth liberty and sensuality; the other virtue, piety, and mortification; and since the like disparity would be found in their lyues, if due examination were made thereof; what else, can I conclude, but that the catholic Religion is the true Religion, and Protestancy but Error & Innovation? Except I should maintain (contrary to the providence, goodness, & charity of God, and to all natural Reason) that true faith must needs be accompanied with a bad life, and false faith with a good life; as if Truth in doctrine had interleaged and covenanted with Vice, and Virtue with falsehood and Error, to deceive Mankind.   

THE X. MOTIVE. That Luther and Caluin are chief Patroness of Arianisme; and therefore in other points of faith are not to be followed.  
NUM QVID 
(a) Matt 6 7.  colligunt de spinis vuas aut de tribulis ficus? saith our Blessed Saviour. By which words I am taught, that Truth in particular doctrynes, hardly taketh it flowing and emanation from those Men, who are transcendently evil, either in their lives, or in their maintenance of any execrable blasphemies. Since than I find Luther and Caluin (the two chief Corner-stones in the edifice of our Protestant Church) mainly in their writings to impugn the sacred Mystery of the holy Trinity (the most supreme and Cardinal point of Christian Religion,) I cannot easily be induced any longer to embrace and entertain other dogmatic points of faith (as true) first broached in these days by them. Good Protestant Reader, who shalt deign to peruse this passage I do not wish thee here to blush through shame, at these thy Grand Master's proceedings (for that were an over mild and gentle redargution of them;) but I will thee even to grow pale through fear and horror, to find Men (upon whose credit and affiance thy faith, and consequently the weal or woe of thy own Soul greatly dependeth) to rise to that ascent of Impiety, as to revive and raise up out of the depth of Hell the most blasphemous Heresy of Arius, against the Majesty of the Son of God, and Saviour of the world. But here I see it is true; 
(b) Tert. contra Gentes.  fiunt, non nascumtur Christiani.  
To come to the point. And first concerning Luther, Is it not confessed, that Luther was so adverse to the Blessed Trinity, as that he would not brook this Verse to stand in the Litanyes: 
(d) In postil. maiore Basileae, printed 15●7.  Holy 
(c) Vide Enchirid. precum, anni 1543.  Trinity, one very God, have mercy upon us? He affirming (c) the word Trinity, to be an humane invention, and to sound coldly. And hence it is, that Luther in these ensuing words disgorgeth forth his poison against the most sacred Trinity: Anima 
(e) Luth. ●il. count. jacobum Latomum tom. 2. Wittemb latinèedito anno 15●●. though in later editions these words are purposely left out & omitted.  mea odit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; & optimè exegerunt Ariani, ne votem illam prophanam & novam, regulis fidei statui liceret. that is, My soul even hateth the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Consubstantialie; And the Arians justly urged, that this profane and new word should not be inserted within the rules or principles of our faith. And beer upon also it well may be that Luther purposely expungeth out of his Dutch Bibles, this following place of Scripture, being a markable text in proof of the Trinity: There be 
(f) 1. joan. 5.  three which give witness in Heaven; the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three be one And thus much for some taste of Luther's mind herein; who stands so justly chargeable with this execrable Heresy of Arius, that Zu nglius writing against him touching that subject, thus rebuketh him: In 
(g) Tom. 2. in resp. Luth. sol. 474.  verbis Lutheri gravissimi errores latitant etc. There lie most great errors in Luther's words. When I read Luther's book, it seems to me, that a beastly Hog doth gruntle in a garden, beset with most fragrant flowers so impurely, so unlike to a Devyne, and so improperly Luther disputeth of God & all holy things Thus Zuinglius.  
To come to Caluin (Luther's heyre-apparent, though by his own industry, he hath much improved (as I may say) his bequeathed inheritance:) calvin's absolute dislike of the Trinity, and the doctrine thereof is manifested three several ways. First by his own speeches delivered against the Trinity; & his different expounding (from all Antiquity) the chiefest passages of Scripture, usually alleged in proof of the Trinity. Secondly, from the testimonies of other learned Protestants (for I purposely forbear all authority of Catholics herein) charging Caluin with Arianisme. Thirdly, from the examples of the new Arians, who before their revolt thereto, were commonly earnest and forward Caluinistes. To begin with the first. And first we do find Caluin to tread the steps of Luther, in disallowing that summer prayer: Holy Trinity, one God, have mercy upon us. For thus Caluin 
(h) In epist 2. add Polonos in tract theolog. pag. 796.  writeth: Precatio, sancta Trinitas, unus Deus miserere nostri, mihi non placet, ac omnino barbariem sapit. That is, That prayer, holy Trinity one God, have mercy upon us, pleaseth not me since it wholly tasteth of Barbarism. Touching Caluins contrary interpreting of the chiefest texts of Scripture, alleged by all antiquity, for proof of the Trinity, two or three texts shall serve for example. And first that principal passage: I, and 
(i) joan. 10.  the Father are (unum) one, viz. thing, ever mainly insisted upon by the 
(*) Viz. Basi●. l. 1. in Eunom. circa finem. Chrysost in hunc locum Augu. in hunc locum, & omnes adj.  Fathers against the old Arians, for proof of the Trinity, is thus avoided by Caluin: Abusi 
(k) In joan. cap. 10.  sunt hoc loco veteres, ut probarent Christum esse Patri 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Neq: enim Christus de vnita●e substantiae disputat, sed de consensu &c That is, The Ancients have abused this place, to prove from thence, Christ to be consubstantial to his Father; for Christ here disputeth not of the unity of essence, but of the unity of consent and Will; this being indeed the old condemned interpretation of Arius. Again, that text: Thou 
(l) Psalm. 2.  art my Son (hodie) this day I have begotten thee, interpreted not only by the Fathers, but even by the Apostle 
(m) Hebr. cap. 1.  himself, to prove Christ's divinity, is in these words shifted off by Caluin Scio 
(n) Calu. in psal. 2.  hunc locum de aeterna Chris●i generation● à mult is fuisse expositum, qui & in verbo (hodie) argutè philo ophati sunt etc. I know well, that many have interpreted this place of the eternal generation of Christ, subtly disputing about the word hodie.  
Again, that markable passage above touched, There 
(o) 1 joan. 5.  be three, that give testimony in heaven, the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost; and these three be one. Which words all Fathers 
(*) Hier. in hunc locum Cypr. l. de unit. Eccles▪ ●than. in l. 1 ad l be●ph.  and Interpreters ever expounded of the Trinity, is thus answered by Caluin: Quod 
(p) Calu. in hun. locum.  dicit tres ess● unum, ad essentiam non refertur, sed ad conscusum potiùs That is, Where it is here said, these three are one; these words are not to be referred to one, in respect of essence, but rather in respect of consent. And thus far of some few chiefest texts of all (pretermitting diverse others 
(q) As in Genes. c. 1. touching the word E●oim, and Genes c. 19 Psal. 33. & di●e● 3 other texts proving the Blessed Trinity.  for brevity) proving the doctrine of the most B. Trinity; yet otherwise depraved and misconstrued by Caluin  
Now that Caluin is charged by diverse Protestants, for maintaining of Arianisme, is no less evident. For (among others) Aegidius Hunnius (a most remarkable and learned Protestant) writeth a book against Caluin even of this subject, entituling it, Caluinus judaizans: Hoc est Iudaicae glossae & corruptelae, quibus Ioannes Caluinus illustrissima Scripturae sacrae loca & testimonia de gloriosa Trinit ate etc. aetestandum in modum corrumpere non exhorruit In like sort the said Author writeth a second book of the same subject calling it: Antiparaeus. Again, Conradus 
(r) In theolog. Caluinist. l. 2. fol. 38. 39.4●. etc.  Schlusselburg (a Protestant) deeply and frequently chargeth Caluin with Arianisme. joannes Matthaeus (a Protestant) writing against Caluin for teaching Arianisme, entitleth his book: De cavendo Caluinistarum fermento etc. Also Pelargus (a Protestant) thus passeth over Caluin and his scholars in these words. Non 
(s) In his admenit. de Arianis  hic Caluinum & Caluinianos' in plurinis scripturae expositionibus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, laboriosè ostendam etc. That is, I here pretermit to show, how Caluin and the Caluinists in many expositions of sacred Scripture, do play the jews, and the Arians. Lastly Stancarus (a Caluinist in other points) thus writeth to Caeluin: Conclusum 
(t) Contra minist●os Ge●teuenses & Tygu●inos.  est (o Caluine doctrinam tuam de filio Dei esse plane Arianam; de qua resilias quamprimum te ●ro atque obsecro: that is: O Caluin, it is concluded that thy doctrine touching the Son of God, is plainly Arian; from which I beseech thee, that thou wouldst presently departed.  
Now to cross these learned men's judgements passed upon Caluin, it is not sufficient to affirm, that Caluin ever in his life professed himself to believe the doctrine of the Trinity: since such his profession can be, but only external, and in words: for how can he be presumed inwardly and undoubtedly to believe that doctrine, the greatest authorities in proof of which doctrine himself laboureth to overthrow, at least, to enervate and weaken?  
Touching the third point, to wit, that most of our new Arians at this day were afore earnest Caluinists, is averred by diverse learned Protestan s And first M. Hooker thus faith of this: 
(u) In his Eccles. policy l. 4. p. 183.  The Arians in the reformed Churches of Poland (meaning thereby the reformed Churches of the Caluinists there) think the very belief of the Trinity to be a part of Antichristian corruption; And that the Pope's triple crown is a sensible mark, whereby the world might know him to be that mystical beast spoken of in the Revelation; in 〈◊〉 respect so much, as in his doctrine of the Trinity. Again the afore alleged Stancarus 
(x) Contra Ministros Ge●teuenses & Tygu●mos. fol. 94.  thus peremptorily averreth: The reformed Churches of Geneva and Tigure, are Arians. jacobus 
(y) ●●●n praefat. refutat. Apolog. Davaei.  Andraeas (a learned Pro●estant) thus giveth his judgement herein: Minimù mirandum est ex Caluinianis in Polania, Transilua●is & H●ungaria, ●ly●que locis, quamplurimos ad Arianismum accessisse &c that is: It is not to be wondered, that very many Caluinists in Polonia, Transiluania, Hungary, and other places, do embrace Arianisme etc. to which impiety the doctrine of Caluin hath prepared way. Thus Andraeas: to whose sentence the learned 
(*) In his Antiparaeus p. 97  Hunnius subcribeth in these words: Tot celebres Anti-trinitary ex Caluinianorum Scholis & Ecclesijs prodierunt etc. So many eminent Antitrinitarians (or enemies to the doctrine of the Trinity) have issued out of the Schooys and Churches of the Caluinists etc.  
But to seal up the truth hereof, with producing examples of particular men, who being Caluinists, became Arians, I will here content myself with one testimony only. Adam Neuserus (a Caluinist of great note, and once chief Pastor of Heidelberge) became an Arian, and after a Turk, and thereupon flying to Constantinople, did write from thence to one Gerlachius (a Protestant Minister) in july 2. anno 1574. in this sort. None 
(a) This is related by Osiander in Epitome. ceut. 16. p. 208.  is known to be in our time made an Arian, who was not first a Caluinist, as Seruetus, Blandrata, Paulus Alciatus, Francis us David, Gentilis, Gebraldus, Silvanus & others: Therefore who feareth to fall into Arianisme, let him take heed of Caluinisme. Thus much Neuserus for example of himself, and these other particular Arians, who first were Caluinists. And thus far of this subject, where we find by several kinds of proofs, that Luther & Caluin are Posthumi to Arius, and that Man's Understanding in these our times, never receiveth the deep and full dye of Arianisme, except first (as for a due preparation thereto) it be drenched and steeped in the tincture of Caluinisme.  
But now to turn back upon the Premises, and upon myself: What Reason can I probably have, that Luther, Caluin, and their offspring (thus mainly erring in the fundamental points of Christianity) doth not also err in other lesser principles of their own religion? Is it possible, that the wronging of Christ in his Essence, being, & honour, should be a step or disposition, to preach in other points, the true faith of Christ? Or shall the supporters and revivers of Arius (the designed enemy of my Saviour) be my instructors and guides, touching my belief in my Saviour? No. Such Pseudochristians, and their serpentine and hidden malice against thee (sweet jesus) I loathe, and disclaim from: who, though not as the Lamb of God (which taketh away the Sin of the world) yet as the Lion of 
(b) Apoc. cap. 5.  the Tribe of juda (which confoundeth his enemies) will for thine honour's sake, inflict just punishments upon them, for these their perpetrated indignities.   

THE XI. MOTIVE. That there is unity in Faith in Catholic Religion; and disagreements in faith in Protestancy.  
AMONG other incommunicable Attributes of God, it is ascribed unto him, that he is 
(a) Since his unity is opposed to all multitude, as his simplicity of nature is to all composition.  summè Vnus (though this his unity of Essence and Nature comprehendeth (eminenter) all multiplicity of perfections in creatures.) This Unity by way of Analogy (that so the spouse might be herein like to her Bridegroom) God hath imprinted upon his Church, as an inseparable mark or Character. And this consisteth, in that her members are to embrace one faith, one Religion, and (according to the Apostles words) endeavouring 
(b) Ephes. 4.  to keep the unity of spirit in the band of peace; continuing 
(c) Philip. 1. & 1. Petr. 3.  in one spirit and one mind. Which sacred and indelible stamp of unity is so proper to God (even in this secondary acceptance) that therefore the 
(d) 1. ●or. 14.  Apostle styleth him, the God not of dissension, but of unity. Hear than it cometh to be examined, to which Church this venerable title of Unity may best seem to be appropriated. Touching the Catholic Church, we find our own Brethrens (though loath to ascribe to her greater perfections, than she truly enjoyeth; for willingly, Nolunt 
(e) Tert. coutra Gentes.  audire, quod auditum damnare non possunt) to confess thus much: Contentiones 
(f) D. Whitak de Eccles. count. Bellarm. cont. 2. q. 5. pag. 327.  Papistarum sunt frivolae & futiles, de figmentis & commentis sui cerebri; meaning hereby, that the Catholics contentions strike not at the hart of their Religion, but concern things only of small moment; so granting their differences to be only about Indifferencyes. But D. Fulke 
(g) Against Hes●ms, Sanders &c p. 295.  acknowledgeth of this point more fully, saying: As for the consent and peace of the Popish Church, it proveth nothing, but that the Devil had then all things at his will, and therefore might sleep, thus granting an unity of faith in the Roman Church, but falsely obtruding it upon the enemy of Unity.  
But if now we look back upon ourselves, it is clear, that D. Whitaker 
(h) Vbi supra.  had good reason to say: Nostrae contentiones sunt propter fidem, they shaking indeed the whole Systema, and frame of Protestancy. For we do nothing else, but by our reciprocal writings one against another, labour to reedify the tower of Babylon: Such a tumultuous and confused heap and mass of dissensions in doctrine we have raised up by our pens, and now raised cannot say them; we resembling heerin the Moon, which is able to stir and move the humours in man's body, but not of force to dissipate and dispel them. And first we disagree even in the approval or dispronall of Scripture; since there are whole Churches 
(i) These books are denye● by most Lutherans in Germany, both beertofore (& particularly by Kennitius in ●nchi●id. p. 63. end in exam. Conci. Tri. part. 1. p. 55.) and at this day, they not suffering these books to be printed in the same volume with other acknowledged Scripture.  in Germany, and all professing Protestancy, which at this day do reject the Epistles of Iame●, of jude, the second of Peter, the second and third of john, the epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalips Secondly we disagree in our translating of confessed Scripture, as hereafter shallbe demonstrated. Thirdly, we disagree in the construction of that Scripture, which we acknowledge to be Canonical and truly translated, as will more fully appear hereafter in our mutual accusations.  
But to approach more nearly to this point; the Reader is to conceive, that our interchangeable dissensions and condemnatious in matters of Religion are in several sorts. First the Lutherans with the Sacramentaryes, I mean with the Zuingliaus and Calninists. Secondly the Sacramentaryes condemning the Lutherans. Thirdly, the Lutherans among themselves. Fourthly the Sacramentaryes among themselves, under whom are comprehended the Protestants and Puritans here in England.  
And first to begin with the judgement of the Lutherans passed upon the Sacramentaryes, Luther himself thus saith: We 
(k) Thes. 21. contra Lovaniens.  seriously judge the Zwinglians & Sacramentaryes, to be heretics, and aliens from the Church of God. And again he saith: The 
(l) Epist. ad joannen Heruag. Typograp. Argent.  Sacramentaryes began their opinion of the Sacrament with lies, and with lies they end it. And yet further: We will 
(m) Tom. 7. in defence verbo. Coenae Domini fol. 386.  reprove and condemn them (to wit the Sacramentaryes) for Idolaters, corrupters of God's word, blas●emers and deceavers; and of them, as of the enemies of the Gospel, we will sustain persecution and spoil of our goods &c. Thus much Luther himself.  
Neither are Luther's Posthumi (I mean the Lutherans, whom by testimony of D 
(n) In his answer to F. Camp. his 8. reason.  Whitaker the English Protestant's embrace, as their dear brethren in Christ) more mild in censuring the Sacramentaryes, than their Father was. For Luke 
(o) Enchi. count. Calu. cap 7.  Osiander (a Lutheran) speaking of certain wicked assertions touching Christ, saith thus: But here (gentle Reader) beyond & above those blasphemous things which in the discourse afore we have heard against the Son of God, out of the opinion of our Adversaries (the ●aluinists) there openeth itself a gulf of hell of Caluinian doctrine, in which God is said to be the Author of sin. etc. And hence of necessity, must arise in the hearts of men manifest blasphemies against God. West halus (a Lutheran) averreth, 
(p) Apol. cont. Calu. p. 430. c. 19  that all the Caluinian works are stuffed with taunts, curses, and lies. And he further affirmeth: That there are certain pages of Caluins' works of which every one containeth above twenty lies & taunts. 
(q) In his epist, dedicatory to the computations of Caluins' deprauations.  Hunnius (a most remarkable Lutheran) chargeth Caluin, that he wresteth the Scriptures horribly, from their true sense, to the overthrow of himself and others. Brentius 
(r) In recognit. Prophetar.  saith: All the Zwinglians works are full of depravations, cunnings, deceits and slanders. Conradus 
(s) In praesat. Theo. Ca●ui●▪  Schlusselour●e confidently averreth; That the Caluinists do nourish Arian, and Turkish impietyes in their hearts, which doth not seldom, at sit times openly disclose itself. And thus passing over the censures, which the Books Caluinus judaizans, and Caluino-papismus (both written by Lutherans) do give, besides many other books written against him, and the Sacramentaryes by the Lutherans; this already set down, shall suffice concerning the Lutherans çondemnation of Caluin, and other Sacramentaryes.  
Next let us observe how the Sacramentaryes carry themselves towards Luther. And first Zuingliùs 
(t) Zuing. tom. 2. in resp. ad Luth. Confess. fol. 4●8 & 469.  calleth Luther, Martion (the old heretic) & further saith, that Luther is guilty of high blasphemy against the nature and essence of God, in that he taught, that Christ died according to his Divinity. He Further speaketh of Luther touching the same point, saying This can be, by no reason, explained or excused: for Luther clearly and manifestly confesseth, that he will not acknowledge Christ to be his Saviour, if only his Humanity had suffered. Zuinglius, also writing in another place against 
(u) In resp ad Luther. I. desacrament. fol. 401.  Luther's doctrine, thus provoketh. Thou (Luther) shalt be forced either to deny the whole Scriptures of the new Testament, or to acknowledge Martions Heresy. And in the same place fol. 478 Zuinglius saith of Luther thus:  — En ut totum istum hominem Satan occupare conetur. 
Caluin speaking of Luther's heresies 
(x) Instit. l. 4. c 317. §. 〈◊〉 17.  saith: By the Lutherans Martion is raised out of Hell; and in one 
(y) Admonit. 3. ad Westphalum.  place, Caluin thus further writeth: The Lutherans are forgers and Liars joannes (z) Campanus (a Sacramentary) thus anathematizeth Luther: 
(y) In colloq. lat. Luth. tom. 2. cap. de Adverse.  As certain as God is God, so certain it is, that Luther was a devilish liar.  
Finally for greater brevity (occasioned rather through leaving much out of this subject, then contracting of all which can be said) Oecolampadius (that 
(a) ●ial. contra Melancth.  glittering Caluinist) affirms, that the Lutherans bring forth only a colour and shadow of the word of God (as Heretyks commonly are accustomed to do.) They bring not the Word of God and yet they will seem to build upon the Word of God; & of Luther in particular he thus saith: Let 
(*) Oecol. in resp. ad confess. Luther.  Luther take heed, least being puffed up with pride, he be deceived by Satan. See with what full and intemperate terms the Caluinists do charge Luther, from whom they first received the supposed splendour of their Gospel; bearing their selues heerin, as ungratefully, as the Moon doth to the Sun, which in enjoying her greatest borrowed light, showeth her greatest Opposition: He taking that name, as supposed to be (according to the Etymology) Lanspas domus Dei.  
Now, as we have seen, the Lutherans condemning the Sacramentaryes, and the Sacramentaryes them again; So neither of these two s●rtes doth absolutely approve such, as are of their own faction. And first we find, that Conradus Schlusselburg 
(b) In Catalogue heretic. ●ostritemporis l. ●.  (the foresaid Lutheran) placeth six sorts of his own Lutherans in the Catalogue of Heretyks: And so through the disallowing of one another's doctrine, did first rise the distinction of Molles and Rigidi Lutherani; so as it is manifest even out of their own books and Inuectyves, that they hold one another for Heretics.  
Touching the differences between the Caluinists amongst themselves; they are these which follow, to wit, Concerning the Church's Visibility; Christ's suffering in soul the pains of Hell, his descending into Hell after death; Baptism of lay Persons in time of Necessity; reprobation and Universality of Grace; whether in case of adultery, the innocent party may marry again; whether Usury be lawful; Whether Christ's body be really and substantially present in the Sacrament to the mouth of faith, as D. Whitaker, M. Hooker etc. do hold, or but Sacramentally only present, as the Puritans maintain; whether Bishops be lawful, or Antichristian; whether the sign of the Cross in baptism, and the use of the surplice be lawful; whether the Civil Magistrate may be head of the Church; and finally (to omit many other doctrines, controverted among the Protestants) whether God doth decree and will Sin, or but only decree to permit sin. All which points (besides many more) are severally maintained by several Protestants; yea most of the points by those Protestants, not being Lutherans, which are adverse to the Puritans.  
To exemplify in one or two of the former: Doth not 
(c) Lib. de Coena Domini & l. 4. Instis. c▪ 15. § 1.  Caluin condemn Zuinglius for teaching, that the Sacraments are bare external signs? And is not Caluin reciprocally condemned by Zuinglius 
(d) Epist. ad quandam Germaniae civitat. fol 190.  again, because he attributed more to the Sacraments, then external signs? Castalio (a Sacramentary) charging Caluin to be the author of Sin, maketh a distinction of the true God, and of Caluins' God; and among other things he thus saith: By 
(e) Lib. ad Calf. de praedestin.  this means, not the Devil, but the God of Caluin is the Father of lies; but that God which the holy Scripture teacheth, is altogether contrary to this God of Caluin. And then after: The true God came to destroy the works of the Caluinian God: And these two Gods, as they are by nature contrary one to another; so they beget and bring jorth children of contrary disposition, to wit, that God of Caluin, children without mercy, proud etc. Thus fare Castalio. D. 
(f) In his Meditat. upon 122. Psalm.  Willet (a formal Protestant) speaking of certain doctrines maintained by M Hooker, D. Covell, and others, and thinking them to be erroneous, thus writeth: From this fountain have sprung forth these, and such other whirlepoints and bubbles of new doctrine; As for example, that Christ is not originally God etc. That Sacraments do give and confirm grace etc. And rejecting diverse other points, thus concludeth: Thus have some been bold to teach and write, who as some Schismatics (meaning the Puritans) have disturbed the peace of the Church, one way in external matters concerning discipline; they have troubled the Church another way, by opposing themselves by new quirks and devices, to the soundness of doctrine amongst Protestants. Thus D. Willet.  
But now in this last place, to come to the mutual accusations of English Protestants only, & English Puritans only (as most nearly concerning us) we find, that the book entitled Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical, printed anno 1604. by the appointment of the Bishops, doth ipso facto excommunicate the Puritans, for their maintaining of these positions following (besides others) as they are in that book set down.  
The worship in the Church of England is corrupt; superstitious, unlawful, repugnant to the Scriptures.  
The articles of the Bishop's Religion, are erroneous, their rites Antichristian etc.  
The government of the Church of England under his Majesty by Archbishops, Bishops, and Deans, is Antichristian, and repugnant to the word of God.  
The Puritans in another 
(g) The mild defence of the silenced Ministers supplication to the high Court of Parliament.  of their books, thus write: Dowe vary from the sincere doctrine of the Scriptures? Nay rather many of them (meaning the Bishops & their adherents) do much swerve from the same touching general grace, and the death of Christ for every particular person etc. Touching the manner of Christ's presence in the Eucharist; that the Pepe is not Antichrist; concerning the necessity of Baptism etc.  
In another 
(h) Entitled, A Christian and modest Offer p. 1●▪  of the Puritans books we thus find them to say: If we be in error, and the Prelates on the contrary have the truth, we protest to all the world, that the Pope and the Church of Rome (and in them God and Christ jesus) have great wrong and in dignity offered unto them, in that they are rejected etc. But we will insist more particularly in relating the Puritans dislike in two things; the one concerns the Common prayer-book, the other our English Translations of the Bible  
Touching the first, the Puritans in one 
(i) Entitled, The petition of twenty two preachers in London.  of their books thus write: Many things in the Communion book are repugnant to the word of God. And again: In the Communion-booke there be things of which there is n● reasonable sense; there is contradiction in it, even in necessary and essential points of Religion; the holy Scripture is disgraced in it &c Others of them 
(k) In the Survey p. 20. & 24.  say thus: The Communion book of England is not agreeable to the word of God in many things. A third 
(l) Certain considerations printed anno 1605. fol. 10.11.12.  thus censureth of it: The Protestants Communion-booke and service i● naught, it hath gross and palpable repugnancy in it. This dislike of the Puritans of the Communion-booke is so evident, that D. Covell 
(m) In his exam. pag. 179.  their adversary, and allowing the Communion book, thus setteth down their judgement herein: The Communion-booke is boldly despised; gross errors, and manifest impietyes (meaning in their opinion) are in the Communion-booke. Thus much of the Communion-booke.  
Touching our English translations of the Scripture, we find the Puritans most violent & headlong in condemning of them. Answerably heerto diverse of 
(n) In the abridgement of a book delivered by certain Ministers to the King. pag 11. and 12.  the Ministers with one consent, thus writ of the english Translation: A translation, that taketh away from the Text; that addeth to the text; and this sometimes to the changing or obscuring of the meaning of the Holy Ghost. And again: A translation, which is absurd and senseless, perverting in many places, the meaning of the holy Ghost.  
M. Burges 
(o) In his Apology sect. 6.  speaks in this sort of the English Translation: How shall I approve under my hand a Translation which hath many omissions, many additions, which sometimes obscureth, sometimes perverteth the sense; being sometimes senseless, sometyms contrary? M. 
(p) In his advertisement to the Bishops.  Broughton (the great Hebrician) thus saith: The public translation of the Scripture in English is such as it perverteth the Text of the old Testament in eight hundred forty and eight places; and it causeth millions of millions to reject the new Testament, and to run into eternal flames. Thus he. D. 
(q) In his answer to M. Willam Reynolds pag. ●25.  Whitaker (though favouring the English Translation of the Bible, as much as possibly he may) thus confesseth: I have not said otherwise, but that somethings in the English translation might be amended.  
To conclude this point, we find, that at the Conference at Hampton Court before the King's Majesty, D. Reynolds (the foreman for the Puritans) openly refused to subscribe to the Communion-book; because (said he) it warranted a corrupt & false translation of the Bible. Thus far of this second point.  
Now in the last place, let us take a short view how we, that are moderate and Parliamentary Protestants, do censure of the Puritans. M. 
(r) powel in his considerations.  powel censureth the Puritans, to be notorious and minifest Schismatiks, out off from the Church of God. M. 
(s) In his enist. dedic. pag. 3.  Parks averreth thus: The Puritans seek to undermine the foundation of faith. And further he thus saith: The Creed it 
(t) Vbi supra.  self, which always hath been the badge and cognizance, whereby to discern and know the faithful from unbelievers etc. is the main point in question between us, and the Puritans. D. Covell 
(u) Exam▪ pag 71.  speaking of certain hot and firebrand Ministers, thus writeth: The first english Ministers so far dissented, that some books and the greatest part of Christendom was filled with irreverent, unholy, and unnatural Contentions etc.  
I will close this point with the testimony of a great 
(x) In the Survey of the pretended discipime c. 5. etc. 24. & cap. 3●  Pillar of our church, who thus chargeth the Puritans: They pervert the true meaning of certain places, both of Scriptures and Fathers, to serve their own turns. And again, the said Author saith of them: The word of God is troubled with such choppers & changers of it; finally (to leave out diverse other such passages) he further thus complaineth: The Caterbrawls, pittisull distractions, and Confusions among the Puritans, proceed of such intollerab e presumption, as is used by perverting and false interpretation of holy Scripture. And thus far for some taste (not setting down thereof the hundred part) of our recriminations used against the Puritans.  
But before I come to the Catastrophe and end of this Scene, I am to put the Reader in mind, that as avoiding prolixity, & unwilling to lance deeper into our own wounds, I pass over; first, How the very names of Lutherans, Caluinists, Protestants, and Puritans are not invented by the Papists, or out of malice by each others Adversaries; but even of Necessity, to distinguish the different doctrine of every Professor, as D. Whitakew 
(y) In his answer to to M. Reynalds prafat. p. 44. , and (x) Conradus Schlusselburge do acknowledge. 
(z) In his cate-log. heretic. p. 866.  Secondly I pass over the infinite books written by foreign Protestants, one against another, amounting to the number of four hundred and above, as is evident, to any one, who will peruse judocus Coccius his Thesaurus tom. 2. Hospinan his historia Sacramentaria part altera, and the yearly Catalogues of Books returned from Franekford. Thirdly I pretermit to show, how the Contentions of foreign Protestants (only for matter of Religion) have been so violent as that they have prohibited 
(a) Vide Hospinan in historta Sacram. part, altera fol. 393.  sale of each others Books, have appointed 
(b) Hosp. ubi supra.  Articles of Visitation, concerning the apprehending of each one's Adversaries; and (which is more) not forbearing to 
(c) Hosp. ubi supra fol. 395. & Ofiander epitome cent 16. p. 7●5.  enter into open arms and hostility. Lastly I pass over to mention the Books made by English Protestant's one against another, touching these questions following. 1. Of Christ's descending into Hell. 2 Of Bishops and Ceremonies. 3. Concerning the sufficiency of our Redemption by our Saviour's bodily death upon the Cross, or whether that his further suffering in Soul the pains of Hell, was also needful. 4. Concerning Universality of Grace. 5 Concerning the lawfulness or unlawfulness of Usury. 6. Touching the Innocent parties marrying again, in case of divorce upon Adultery, besides some others; the number of all which will amount to several scores.  
All this, I say, I pass over; but I cannot pass over but observe (and thereat smile) the subtle deportments of us Protestants, in this matter of our Dissensions; Since when we write one against another, we with great intemperance of words do deeply charge our Adversaries (other Protestants) with obscuring the Gospel of Christ, and labouring to maintain their own darkness of Ignorance, eve in the fundamental points of Christian faith as is showed. But when we Protestants are vpbrayded by our Adversaries (the Catholyks) for such our divisions in matters of faith; then the Case is altered, and we bear it out (as though the Sun equally and indifferently shined upon us all) averring with 
(d) D. ●e well in his Apology of the Church of England p. 101. saith thus: The Zwinglians and Lutherans are good friends, they vary not betwe●ne themselves upon the principles and foundations of our Religion, but upon only one question which is neither weighty, nor great. The like saith D. Whitak● in resp. ad rationes Camp. rat. 8. p. 155.  monstrous boldness, that the Protestant differ among themselves, not in any main points of faith, but only in Ceremonies, and some few matters of Indifferency; so making our pens and Controversyes (for our own advantage) to partake of the nature of diaphanous and transparent bodies, which are equally capable of light & darkness.  
In like sort, I cannot, but observe, in the throng of so many great differences among ourselves, the detriment we suffer, particularly by our dissensions, touching our Communion-Booke of Prayer, and our English Translation of Scripture: Since by the first, we are not resolved, how we ought to pray to God, & whether our prayers made for the remitting of our Sins, be not an increase of our sins (since wrongfully, and with a false faith to pray, is but to offend God.) And thus do we deprive ourselves of the chief means of pacifying God's wrath and indignation.  Prayer is a secondary Mediator between God and man; by means of it, God (as I may say) knoweth not that (to wit, our Sins) which from all Etermity he did know; nor remembers that, which before the perpetrating thereof, was firmly registered in the Book of his Prescience: Prayer indeed being the spiritual air, which refrigerates the heat of our Passions: Os 
(e) Psalm. 1●8.  meum aperui, & attraxi spiritum.  
In like sort we being at wars, which is the true Word of God in our translations of Scripture, we are in the mean time deprived (even by our own grounds) of the true judge for the appeasing & determining of Controversyes in Religion; since granting the Scripture to be this judge, yet this is to be understood of the Scripture, as it is pure in itself, and incontaminated; not as it is abastarded with false Translations. Besides being unresolued which is the true Word of God, we know not, which is that heavenly Kings true ●●mbassadour, bringing to mankind the comfortable message of Salvation; or rather which is the Great Seal of that most great God, whereunto he hath set his hand, obliging himself by promise, to give Pardon to all truly Penitent; every sentence thereof being indeed the lice of our Soul; and Soul of our Life: 
(f) joan. cap. 6.  Verba, quae ego locutus sum vobis spir tus & vita s●nt.  
But to conclude this Chapter; since the Catholyks (in respect of faith) enjoy a perfect Unity; since the Protestants maintain strange diversityes of doctrine, attended on with intestine simultyes, and  Anathematizing; And since I have but one poor indivisible soul, not capable of several ways; therefore I am resolved, that this one soul of mine, shall in her faith, (according to her own being and essence) tread the path of Unity; not of multiplicious Contrariety, and repugnancy in Religion.   

THE XII. MOTIVE. That Salvation may be had in catholic Religion, by the confession of Protestants.  
PERVERSITAS fidei est probata non credere, non probata prasumere, saith the ancient and learned 
(a) Aduer. G●osticos.  Tertullian. By which words, we are taught, that an indubious and and fully warranted Truth, aught to overbalance in matter of faith, all uncertain & iniustifiable fluctuations of a contrary judgement. Hear then the Question being, in what fa th' and Religion a man dying may be saved (a primary and Cardinal point) I find, that the learneder sort of Protestants do conspiringly search, that a catholic, or (in our own phrase) a Papist, dying a Papist, may be saved; but I do not find the like favourable censure of our learned Adversaries, so unanimously to pass upon us dying Protestants. Thus the first point, as being on all sides approved, I may securely believe; the second as not granted, I must apprehend (at least) as doubtful. The consideration of our own brethren's judgements here in the behalf of our Adversaries (I grant) hath much swayed me. For as some of us do teach: 
(b) Peter Martyr. in his Comm. places par●. 2 p. 319.  Among all testimonies, that testimony is of greatest respect, which is witnessed by the Enemy, since such an author by disproving the truth, most strongly approves it, and by impugning, propugnes it.  
This point then (to wit, that the hope of Salvation belongeth to Papists, dying Papists) shall be demonstrated four several ways, even from the ingenuous and plain acknowledgement of those Protestants, whose pens and writings have most strongly invaded the judgement of their Readers. First by showing, that diverse of us do hold, that the chiefest Articles of catholic Religion, are but points of judifferency, and compatible with Salvation; and (which is more) by proving, that sundry learned Protestants have actually and really believed the said Catholic Articles as true. Secondly by manifesting even from our own writings, that the Church of Rome is the true Church of Christ, and that in that Church Salvation is to be obtained. Thirdly from our doctrine & practice in baptising the children of Catholyks. Fourthly by insisting in diverse examples of particular men, which have died in the Roman and Catholic Church, and yet by us Protestants are reputed for glorious Saints in heaven.  
As touching the first, I will rest for greater expedition in some few of the chiefest articls of the Roman faith, the which being accounted by us as matters of indifferencyes, may stand (by our own censures) with salvation; from whence we may infer, that then much more many other articles of the said Religion be reputed by us to be of the like indifferency. And first concerning the primacy of the Church, Luther 
(c) In assert. art. 36.  himself thus saith: The Pope's supremacy is among those unnecessary trifles, wherein the Pope's levity and foolery is to be borne withal. Melancthon 
(d) In his epist. extant in the book styled Centuria epist. Theolog. epist 74.  proceedeth more plainly, saying: An agreement may easily be established in the Article of the Pope's Primacy, if other articles could be agreed upon. The doctrine of the Primacy (to wit that one must be chief in the Church of God) is taught by 
(e) Vbi supra.  Melancton, 
(f) So related by Hospinian hist. p. 389.  jacobus Andreas, 
(g) Luth. in loc. come class. c. 37  Luther, and D. 
(h) D. Covell. in his exam. fol. 106.  Covell, who giveth this reason thereof, saying: If there were not one supreme head in the Church of God, the Church should be worse, than the meanest Commonwealth, yea then any den of thiefs.  
Touching the real presence, D. Reynolds 
(i) In his conclus. annexed to his conference pag. 722.  so depresseth the weight thereof, that he saith: The Real presence is but as the grudging of a little ague, if otherwise the party hold the Christian faith. jacobus Acontius (a 
(k) In lib. stratagem. Satan. pag. 135.  learned Protestant) accordeth with D. Reynolds saying: It is evident, concerning as well those, who hold the real presence of Christ's body in the bread as those others, which deny it; that although of necessity the one part do err, yet both are in way of salvation, if in other things they be obedient unto God. The like judgement giveth 
(l) As he is cited by Amandus Polanus in his Syllog. Thes. Theolog. pag. 464.  Luther of Transubstantiation.  
Now the doctrine touching Communion under one, or both kinds, is of that indifferency with Luther 
(m) Ine●. ad Bohem.  that thus he saith thereof: Quamuis pulchrum etc. Though it were very good, to use both kinds in the Eucharist, and that Christ commanded herein nothing, as necessary; yet it were better heerin to seek after peace, then to contend touching the shecies or kinds.  
Now that the doctrine of the Real presence is true (besides that it is defended by Luther, and all the Lutherans, that Christ's body is really given in the Sacrament to the bodily mouth) it is further reached, that not only the efficacy of Christ's body (as the Sacramentaryes do hold) but that the body itself, after a wonderful and incomprehensible manner, is given to the mouth of the faithful. And this is acknowledged for true (though with great dislike of other Sacramentaryes) by 
(n) In script. Anglican. pag 548.  Bucer, 
(o) Contra Duraeum pag 119.  D. Whitaker, & 
(p) Eccles. policy l. 5. sect. 67.  M Hooker. In like manner the indifferency of one, or both kinds is defended by Luther, saying: Si ineris &c If thou shalt go to a place, where they use to communicate in one kind, communicate thou also in one kind; in like sort by 
(r) In cent. epist. theo. pag. 2●1.  Melancthon, 
(q) De va traque specie Sacram.  and by others alleged by D. 
(s) In his reply pag. 110.  jewel, who were (as I may say) but of halfe-bloud to Luther, in the doctrine of the Sacrament.  
Concerning Prayer for the dead, the indifferency of it (as not being necessary to salvation) is taught by M. Cartwright, thus writing: The doctrines of prayer for the dead, freewill, 
(t) So cited by M. Whitgift in his defence p. 82  and a number of other as necessary doctrines, are such wherein men being nuzzeled, have notwithstanding been saved. The same is likewise taught by D. 
(u) In his confut. of Purgatory pag. 3.6.  Fulke, and M. 
(x) In his answer to john d'Albins pag. 382.  Sparkes. Now the doctrine of prayer for the dead is taught and believed by 
(y) As witnesseth Vrbanus Regius in prima parte operum in formula cautè loquendi c. desanctorun cultu.  Luther, 
(z) Vrbanus Regius ubi supra.  Vrbanus Regius, 
(a) In script. Anglic. p. 450.  Bucer, and the 
(b) Printed anno 1649.  Communion-booke, in King Edwards tyme.  
The doctrine of  is taught as a point not necessary, by M. 
(c) In M. Whitgif defence ubi supra.  Cartwright in these words: If you mean by matters of faith those, without which, a man cannot be saved, than the doctrine, which teacheth, there is no freewill, or prayer for the dead, is not within your compass. By M. 
(d) In his opposition of the ●reed pag. 402.  Parkins, who thus writeth: A weakening error is that, the holding whereof doth not overturn any point in the foundation of salvation, as the error of freewill, and sundry such like. The doctrine of  is taught for true by the two Protestants Secanus, and Hemingius, as witnesseth D. 
(e) In his sinops. printed 1600. pag. 808.  Willet, and by diverse other Protestants, mentioned by M. 
(f) Act. mon. pag. 1533.  Fox.  
Of the doctrine of satisfaction & merit of works, D. Whitak. thus discourseth The 
(g) Contra Camp. pag. 73. and the like in his answer to Master Reynoldes. p. 135.  Father's thought by their external discipline of life, to pay the pains due for sin etc. which though it be an error, yet were they notwithstanding good men, and holy Fathers. Happy souls, with whom to fear wisely, was to free them from fire; they being indeed more truly confident of their salvation, than we Protestant's can be, through our uncertain certainty. Now the doctrine of the necessity of works to salvation, is affirmed by D. 
(h) Against the Rhemish Testament in 2. Pet. 2.  Fulke, and D. 
(i) In his 〈…〉 pag 90●  Willet, though contradicted by 
(k) In praefat. ad Roman.  Illirycus, for new papistry (to use his own words) as pernicious as the old. In like sort voluntary Poverty, Chastity, and Obedience are taught, by M. 
(l) In his Eccles. ●ist: l. 2. p. 102.  Hooker, and D. 
(m) In his defence of M. Hook. art 8 pag. ●2.  Covell.  
Concerning Invocation of Saints, D. 
(n) In the tower disp. with ●a. Camp. the 2. days conference argum. 8. R. 11 & R. 111.  Fulke, and D. Goad affirm, that this article doth not exclude men from being members of the Church of Christ: In like manner for honouring of Saints Relics M. 
(o) In his answer to Ichn d'Albins pag. 382.  Sparkes thus saith: We are not so hasty to pronounce sentence of condemnation of any, for such errors: as that either we think all must be saved, that hold one way, or all condemned, that hold another way. The doctrine of Invocation of Saints, is taught and believed by 
(p) ●n purgat. quorumdam articul. as also in epist. ad Georgium Spalatinum.  Luther, who thus writeth: De intercessione Divorum etc. Touching the intercession of Saints, I believe and judge with the whole Christian Church, that is, That Saints are to be honoured and invoked; by 
(q) In orat. 1. Chrysost. de Iwentio & Maximo.  Oecolampadius, by 
(r) Act. mon. pag. 462.  Bilney a Protestant, and by 
(s) Act. mon. pag. 1312.  Latimer.  
Finally the worshipping of Images is held a point indifferent, by M. 
(t) In his treatise tending to pacification pag. 104.  Bunny, who thus saith of this article, of the Conception of our Blessed Lady, and some others: In these or such like articles whosoever will condemn all those to be none of the Church, that are not fully persuaded, as we are therein etc. committeth an uncharitable part, towards those his Brethren.  
The doctrine itself of worshipping Images is defended; as true, by Thomas 
(u) Act. mon. pag. 462.  Bilney above alleged, and by certain Protestants of Germany, as Bezi 
(x) In his ●isp ad acta. ●loq montisbolgar. parte altera pag. 23.  relates. In like sort, reverence and bowing down at the name of jesus is affirmed, and commanded by Q Elizabeth's 
(y) Act. 92.3.  Injunctions, by D. 
(z) In his defence p. 742.  Whitguyft, 
(a) In loc. come. p. 59  Muscu●u●. and 
(b) in ep. Paul. ad Philipens. Coless etc. fol. 223.  Zanchius. But if bowing to the Name of jesus, being heard or read, be lawful; then followeth it irrefragably, that the honouring of Christ's Image is lawful: since the name of jesus is to the ear, as his Image is to the eye And thus far of certain main points of the Catholic Religion acknowledged but as matters of Indifferency by certain Protestants (and therefore not excluding in their judgements the beleivers of them from Salvation) and taught and believed for most true, by other learned Protestants.  
In this second place, we will show, that our learned Brethren, do teach, the Church of Rome (notwithstanding her certain supposed Errors) to be the true Church of Christ, and consequently her Professors to be, not Analogical and half Christians, but true and perfect Christians, and therefore not excluded (even by our own men's judgements) from the hope of Salvation.  
First then, we do find our Brother 
(c) In his treatise of the kingdom of Israel, and of the Church p. 24.  D. Morton (now Bishop of Coventry and Lichfyeld) thus to write: Papists are to be accounted the Church of God, because they do hold the foundation of the Gospel, which is faith in Christ jesus, the Son of God, and Saviour of the World: If then the Papists by the Church of God, it followeth, they are the true Church of God; since to speak with S. Cyprian: Adulterari 
(d) Lib de unit. Eccl.  non potest sponsa Christi incorrupta est, & pudica.  
In like sort, M. 
(e) In his fift book of Eccles. policy pag. 188.  Hooker giveth this honourable and worthy respect to the Church of Rome, saying: The Church of Rome is to be reputed a part of the house of God, a limb of the visible Church of Christ; & we gladly acknowledge them, to be of the family of jesus Christ. M. Bunny 
(f) In his treat. tending to pacific. p. 109 & 111.  speaking of the Catholics and I rotestants thus writeth: Neither of us may justly account the other to be none of the Church of God; we are no several Church from them, nor they from us. D. Field thus writeth: We 
(g) Of the Church l. 3. cap. 46.  doubt not, but that the Church, in which the Bishop of Rome, with more than Luciferlike pride exalted himself, was notwithstanding the true Church of God that it held a saving profession of the truth in Christ; therefore in his judgement, those which died in this Church, might be saved. D. Some: If 
(h) In his defence against Penry p. ●76.  you think, that all the popish sort, which died in the Popish Church, are damned, you think absurdly, and do descent from the judgement of all learned Protestants D. Barow: I 
(i) In his 4. sermons & 2. questions disputed ad Clerum p. 448.  dare not deny the name of Christians to the Romanists, sith the learneder writers do acknowledge the Church of Rome, to be the Church of God.  
To be short (leaving out the authorities of many others) D. 
(k) in his defence of M. Hook. etc. p. 77.  Covell thus averreth: We affirm them of the Church of Rome, to be paries of the Church of Christ, and that those that live and dye in that Church may notwithstanding be saved: This Doctor further charging those, that think the contrary, with (l) ignorant zeal. Thus we see, how the Sphere of Catholic Religion (even according to the Theoryes of our best Evangelicall Mathematicians) turneth upon the Poles of Man's salvation.  
A third way of proving the former verity, may be taken from the Protestants doctrine, and practice, touching the baptising of Catholic children; which baptism we Protestants teach to be good and available, whether it be ministered by Catholic Priests, or by Protestant Ministers; and this (as we 
(m) So teach the Deumes of Geneva in the propositions and principles disputed at Geneva p. 178. The same is taught by D. Whigist in his defence p. 623. by M. Hooker in his Eccles. policy. l. 3. pag. 131.  affirm) because they are comprehended within the covenant of eternal life, by means of the faith of their parents. Now when we Protestants baptise the children of Catholics, it is not (saith M. 
(n) Vbisupra.  Hooker very learnedly) in regard of God's promise, which reacheth unto a thousand generations; since if it were so, then (saith he) all the world might be baptised (meaning the children of jews, Turk's &c.) in so much, as no man is a thousand descents removed from Adam; but it is, by reason of the faith of their Catholic parents. And hence it is, that D Some 
(o) In his defence against Penry cap. 22.  affirms, That Infants & children of West Indian Christians (whose former Ancestors, in regard of their late conversion to Christianity, never knew the Christian faith) being baptised by their Catholic Priests, receive true baptism (to use his words) & are engrafted into Christ.  
But here I urge. If the faith of catholic Parents be available for their children's Salvation, much more than is it available for their own Salvation; except we will imagine their faith, to participate of the nature of the Air, which is a principal Cause, why all other things may be seen; and yet it self deprived of the benefit of being seen.  
The fourth and last Medium, which I will here use, for the warranting of the foresaid Verity of Catholyks Salvation, shall be to apply the former universal Truth of Schools & learned Protestants to particular Persons; that is, to set down the judgements of us Protestants, articulately and punctually passed upon certain men, who by our own Confessions, died Catholyks, whom nevertheless we affirm to be saved.  
And first touching the Fathers in general, whom to have lived and died Papists (as being rejected for their doctrine by us) is evident out of our former passages. Now of them 
(p) In his reply, & in doctor Whirgif. defence p. 82.  M Cartwright thus charitably writeth: I doubt not but diverse Fathers of the Greek Church, who were Patroness of Free will, are saved The like judgement D. Whitaker 
(q) Contra rat. Camp. pag. 78. us supra.  giveth of the Fathers, notwithstanding their doctrine touching Satisfaction and Merit of works; And the same judgement of us, is proved even from the word and title of Saint, which almost all the sober & learned Protestant's commonly give in their writings & speeches to Augustin, Jerome, Ignatius, and the rest of the Primitive Church. Now if we entitle them Saints, then do we acknowledge, they are saved, except we would say, there are some Saints, which are not saved.  
But to descend to more particular examples: Beda (as Osiander 
(r) In epitome. cent. 8. l. 2. c. 3.  witnesseth) was wrapped in all popish errors, wherein we at this day descent from the Pope; and yet he is acknowledged by D. 
(s) In ●esu●●sme par. 2. rat. 3.  Humphrey, to be in the number of godly men (to use his words) raised up by the Holy Ghost. Again, Gregory the Great, and Augustin, who first planted in England Christian Religion, are confessed by us, to have been Papists (as above is showed▪ and yet they are thus styled by us: That 
(t) M. Godwin in his Catal. of Bishops pag. 3. See the like commendation given to them by D. Fulke against Heskins, Sanders &c p. 561.  blessed, and holy Fathers S. Gregory, and S. Augustine our Apostle. S. Bernard by our acknowledgement, was so confessed a Papist, as that he was an Abbot, and 
(u) Osiand. in epitome. Cent. 12. p. 309.  Author of many Monasteryes in France, and Flaunders; and yet D. 
(x) Lib. de E cles. p. 369.  Whitaker thus writeth of him: Ego quidem Bernardum verè suisse Sanctum existimo. And Osiander 
(y) Cent. 12. p. 309.  termeth him: A very good man. Of Bernard, Francis & others. tindal 
(z) Act. mon. pag. 1338.  thus acknowledgeth: I doubt not but S. Bernard, Francis, and many others, like holy men erred as concerning Mass; thus he confessing them to be men of Sanctity and holiness, and consequently in state of salvation. And touching the same point, Luther 
(a) In col loq Germ. cap. de Missa.  thus saith: Private Massse hath deceived many Saints, and carried them away into error from the time of Gregory, for 800. years.  
Of S. Dominicke, who was the Author of the Order of the Dominican Friars, 
(b) In Chronic. p. 200.  Pantaleon (a Protestant) relateth much; and speaking greatly of his piety and virtue, concludeth thus: Dominicus erat vir doctus & bonus, & Praedicatorum Ordinem instituit. His like confessed Holiness is celebrated much at large by the 
(c) Cent. ●●. col. 1179.  Centurists. To conclude of these three former Saints, Luther thus confesseth: Fateor etc. I g●aunt, that the gifts of God were not wanting to Francis, Dominicke, and Bernard, and to others, who were the first Authors of Colleges for Monks, but these gifts are but personal. But such gifts cannot stand without true virtue, nor true virtue without hope of salvation. And thus fare of this most certain and undeleble truth, that Catholics dying as Catholik●, may be saved, confessed in the clear words of the most learned Protestants; from whence we may be assured of their judgements (especially delivered in the behalf of their Adversaries) answerable herein to their writings; since words are the natural shadow of the mind, cast by the light of the Understanding.  
But here do present unto us, two Porismata or Resultancyes, out of the Premises of this Passage. The first. That all true Reason persuadeth me to implant and engraft myself in that Church, which I find to be acknowledged, for the true church, promising Salvation to her members, even by her Adversaries. For if I die Catholyke (my life being agreeable thereto) both Catholyks and Protestants warrant my Salvation; But dying in the faith of Protestancy, the Protestant alone (and this in honour of their own Religion) assure me of it For there is never a learned catholic writer in the world (an observation much to be weighed) who granteth, that a Protestant dying with a positive, settled, and contumacious neglect of the catholic Church and faith, can be saved. This then being thus, shall I in so great a business leave a certainty for uncertainty? God forbidden. We Protestants expect to be believed in other our Positions and doctrines; Why not then in this? Since then the Protestants do teach, that Catholyks (so dying) are in state of Salvation, I am resolved, my brethren's writings shall have that powerful influence over me, as what themselues, do heerin teach, I will (through God's grace) put in execution. And so my Will shall become in this point, a ready and serviceable Handmaid to their judgements.  
The second. The Wrong, which we Protestants commit, in afflicting the Catholyks, and in unnaturally betrampling upon their dejected estates, only for matters of Religion. Alas! by our own doctrine, they are neither Babylonians, nor Egyptians; both they and we being (as we teach) Isralits'; why then should Israel thus persecute Israel? Are we not become the gaze of Christendom, thus to fight without an enemy? Thus for kindred to wound it own kindred, yea often the Father the Son? so turning our own swords into our own children's breasts; we still inciting his Majesty to greater severity (a Prince of his own disposition, of the most benign, merciful, and commiserating nature, that the World at this day enjoys) and all this for the Catholyks living in that faith and Religion, in which ourselves teach, they may be saved; thus do we make the confessed hope of their salvation, to be the sole cause of their pressures and calamities. Good God who would think, that Christians, the chiefest articles of whose faith are either reputed but as Indifferencyes, or (which is more) believed for true doctrine by their Oppressors; whose Church is acknowledged to be the 
d D● Morton ubi supra.  Church of God, holding the foundation of the Gospel; the 
(e) M. Hooker ubi supra.  family of jesus Christ; it being no several 
(f) M. Bunny ubi supra.  Church from theirs, nor theirs from it; holding 
(g) D. Field ubi supra.  a saving Profession of the truth in Christ; in which many 
(h) D. Covell with the other Doctors ubi supra.  dying, are by their Adversaries registered for most glorious Saints; should nevertheless be persecuted by other Christians of their own Country (yea their own flesh) for their only persevering in the foresaid Church, with confiscation of goods, restraint of body, and sometimes with sheeding of most innobloud, & suffering a cruel death: Obstupescite 
(i) Hierem cap. 2.  Cali super hoc, & portaecius des●lamini vehementer.  
Hear now I will stay my pen, making this last Motive, as a fitting Catastrophe for all: Since that Closure, and End is warrantable enough, which evicteth from the ingenuous Confessions of the most learned Protestants, that I may be saved in that Religion, wherein I am resolved to dye.   

THE CONCLUSION TO MY DEAR, AND REVEREND BRETHREN, THE LORD'S ARCH-BISHOPS AND BISHOPS OF ENGLAND.  
REVEREND, and Learned Brethren (the overlooking eyes of our Nation) my Pen here salutes your Lordships, before it taketh it last pause. This small Legacy I have determined to leave behind me, primitively for the justifying of my unrepented revolt from you in matter of Faith; for, Non 
(a) Tert.  suffundar errore, quo caruisse delector. Secondarily, for the benefit of those whose weak judgements have been abused, through their overhasty swearing Fealty to their Protestant Masters. To yourselves it is needles, as already enjoying the same, & other forcible demonstrations in the like behalf. divers of you have spent (I know) many years in seriously perusing the holy Scriptures, the voluminous Commentaries of the Lights of God's Church, the Ecclesiastical Histories of all ages, the Ecumenical Counsels of the Primitive Church, as also of later times, and all other authorities whatsoever, wherewith either Catholics or Protestant's seek to support their cause. Therefore open but the book of your own dispassionate, retired and secret judgements, given upon all the foresaid authorities, and I doubt not, but you may therein distinctly read the truth of Religion. Hear I speak in sincerity, I hold it (morally) most improbable, that such of you as have been much conversant in the study of Controversyes, can in your souls, give an absolute allowance to your own Religion; since in so doing, your own reading telleth you, that you are forced to break with all authority both Divine, and Humane.  
Give me leave to unbreast the secrets of my thoughts to you. The member dangerously affected in you, is your Will: It is Wife, Children, Honours, Preferments, and the like, (snares, wherewith myself heretofore have been shackled, but now with thankes to God, Laqueus 
(b) Psalm. 1●3.  contritus est, & nos liberati sumus) which withould the learnedest of you from open profession of the Catholic faith. O madness! He is a 
(c) Rom. 2.  jew, who is alone with a Iew. Let the Theory in this art be coincident with the practice, and incorporate your speculations in yourselves. Know, but withal do, and let your will be ready to execute the Arrests of your own learned judgments. You are all (as being in years) posting to your graves; and a Christian man's care ought to begin and end, in the circle of himself: Tu tibi primus, & ultimus. Can Wife, can Chíldrens, can Honours, or any other worldly blandishments free the body from the cold grave, or an vnrepenting soul from hellfire? Why then will you suffer, through an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or forgetful & insensible stupidity, the noble substance of your souls, to be thus immersed in these earthly benefits? Which being given to you, as means conducing to your ends, you in a retrograde manner, make them your sole ends. Or why so long do you thus struggle through over much solicitude and care, touching flesh and blood, as if in the end you could command time, and Repentance? Therefore for the honour of God, and good of our your own souls, curb your desires herein, and remember that Actions unrestrained in time resolve to Habit; Habit to Nature; and Nature is hardly changed. You are Christians, beat then the children of Babylon (I mean, your affections) against the stone, which is Christ, and let your Motte be: Deus meus, & omnia. Contemn all imaginary bugbears of ensuing losses & disgrace; since he is both Rich and Honourable enough, who gaineth Heaven.  
Now then, begin to espouse your Pens and Tongues to the Truth; and be not ashamed to profess that faith openly, which you find by your own study, and painful disquisition to be the true faith of Christ: ponder well that, o'er 
(d) Rom. 10.  fit confessio adsalutem, and loath that janus of dissimulation in Religion, where the eye looketh one way, the understanding another; still remembering, that as long as your bodies are in Egypt (I mean as long as you externally communicate with a false Religion) so long your souls cannot participate of the benefits of Israel: To conclude, you are Bishops in Europe, not of Asia, stain not then yourselves with the blemishes of those Asian Bishops, so much reprehended, by the beloved 
(e) Apoc. cap, 1. & 2.  of our Saviour. But above all, remember (and let this still be riveted in your thoughts) the time will come, when it will be sufficient for the best men, to answer for themselves; how hea●●y then and in supportable will that burden be for those, who marst give account, at that most dreadful day (besides for their own perpetrated sins) for the loss of all those poor souls, through want of true faith, damned in hell, which themselves through false and subtle persuasions have thus perverted? The inward convulsions and secret gryping whereof myself daily feeleth.  
But pardon me (dear Brethren:) the bloody Ruptures of my ulcered Soul wherein I glass your dangers) and my present languishments of body, give life unto my speeches, and emboulden me to pour words of oil into the wounds of your Consciences. I love you in Christ, & no waters of pain or tribulation (while I remain in this poor ruinous carcase) shallbe able to extinguish the fire of my Charity: But still my prayers shallbe, that by redeeming the time past, and true repentance (which changeth the mind of him, who is unchangeable, and shutteth up his eyes, who is ever vigilant) you may, while you live here upon earth, first expiate your errors committed, and after become truly serviceable to his divine Majesty; that so (after this our mortality is once put off) we all meeting together in the heavenly Jerusalem (to use the words of one Doctor) In lumine Dei, lumen Deum videamus.   
Your Lordship's poor, and loving Brother, joan: Londinens.  
FINIS.