THE COPIES OF CERTAIN LETTERS WHICH HAVE passed between SPAIN and ENGLAND in matter of RELIGION.  
Concerning the general Motives to the Roman obedience.  
Between Master JAMES WADESWORTH, a late Pensioner of the Holy Inquisition in Seville, and W. BEDELL a Minister of the Gospel of jesus Christ in SUFFOLK.  
LONDON Printed by William Stansby for William Barret and Robert Milbourne. 1624.   

TO THE MOST HIGH AND EXCELLENT PRINCE, PRINCE CHARLES'.  
I Should labour much in my excuse, even to mine own judgement, of the highest boldness, in daring to present these Papers to your Highness, if there were not some relieving circumstances, that give me hope, it shall not be disagreeable to your higher goodness. There is nothing can see the light, which hath the name of Spain in it, which seems not now properly yours, ever since it pleased you to honour that Country with your presence. And those very Motives to the Roman obedience, which had been represented unto you there, in case you had given way to the propounding them, are in these Letters charitably and calmly examined. Between a couple of friends, bred in the same College (that of the foundation of Sir WALTER MILDMAY of blessed memory, whom with honour and thankfulness I name) chosen his Scholars at the same election, lodged in the same Chamber, after Ministers in the same Diocese. And that they might be matchable abroad as well as at home, attendants in the same rank as Chaplains, on two Honourable Ambassadors of the Majesty of the King your Father in foreign parts; the one in Italy, the other in Spain. Where, one of them having changed his profession, and received a pension out of the holy Inquisition house, and drawn his wife and children thither, was lately often in the eyes of your Highness: very joyful I suppose to see you there, not more I am sure, than the other was solicitous to miss you here. These passages between us I have hitherto forborn to divulge, out of the hope of further answer from Master Wadesworth according to his promise; though since the receipt of my last (being silent to myself) he excused him in sundry his Letters to others by his lack of health. Nor should I have changed my resolution, but that I understand that presently after your Highness' departure from Spain, he departed this life. Which news though it grieve me as it ought in respect of the loss of my friend, yet it somewhat contenteth me, not to have been lacking in my endeavour, to the undeceiving a wellmeaning man touching the state of our differences in Religion; nor as I hope to have scandalised him in the manner of handling them. And conceiving these Copies may be of some public use, the more being li●ted up above their own meanness by so high patronage, I have adventured to prefix your Highness' name before them. Humbly beseeching the same, that if these reasons be too weak to bear up the presumption of this Dedication, it may be charged upon the strong desire some way to express the unspeakable joy for your Highness' happy return into England, of one amongst many thousands,  
Of your Highness' most humble and devoted servants W. BEDELL.   

THE CONTENTS.  

1. A Letter of Master Wadesworth, containing his Motives to the Roman obedience. Dated at Seville in Spain, April 1. 1615. printed as all the rest out of his own hand-writing. pag. 1.  
2. Another Letter from him requiring answer to the former, from Madrid in Spain, April 14. 1619. pag. 16.  
3. The answer to the last Letter, Dated Aug. 5. 1619. pag. 17.  
4. A Letter from Master Wadesworth upon the receipt of the former. From Madrid. Dated Oct. 28. 1619. received May 23. 1620. pag. 23.  
5. The answer to the last Letter. june 15. 1620. pag. 25.  
6. A Letter from Master Wadesworth, from Madrid, june 8. 1620. pag. 29.  
7. A Letter of Master Doctor Halls sent to Master Wadesworth, and returned into England with his marginal notes. pag. 30.  
8. A Letter returning it enclosed to Master Doctor Hall. pag. 36.  
9 A Letter sent to Master Wadesworth, together with the Examination of his Motives. Octob. 22. 1620. pag. 36.  
10. The Examination of the Motives in the first Letter. pag. 39    

The heads of the Motives reduced unto twelve Chapters, answering unto the like figures in the Margint of the first of Master WADESWORTHS' Letters.  

Chap. I.  
OF the Preamble. The Titles Catholic, Papist, Traitor, Idolater. The uniformity of Faith in Protestant Religion. pag. 39   

Chap. II.  
Of the contrariety of Sects pretended to be amongst Reformers. Their differences, how matters ●f Faith. Of each pretending Scripture, and the holy Ghost. pag. 44.   

Chap. III.  
Of the want of a humane external infallible judge and Interpreter. The objections answered. First, that Scriptures are oft matter of controversy. Secondly, that they are the Law and Rule. Thirdly, that Princes are no judges. Fourthly, nor a whole Council of Reformers. The Pope's being the judge and Interpreter overthrown by reasons; And by his palpable misse-interpreting the Scriptures in his Decretals. The style of his Court. His Breves about the Oath of allegiance. p. 50.   

Chap. FOUR  
Of the state of the Church of England, and whether it may be reconciled with Rome. Whether the Pope be Antichrist, PAULO V. VICE-DEO, OUR LORD GOD THE POPE: the Relation de moderandis titulis, with the issue of it. pag. 72.   

Chap. V.  
Of the safeness to join to the Roman being confessed a true Church by her Opposites. Master P. Wottons' perversion printed at Venice. The badge of Christ's sheep. pag. 82.   

Chap. VI  
Of fraud and corruption in alleging Counsels, Fathers, and Doctors. The falsifications imputed to Morney, Bishop jewel, Master Fox, Tyndals' Testament: Parsons four falsehoods in seven lines. A taste of the forgeries of the Papacy. In the ancient Pope's Epistles, Constantine's Donation, Gratian; The Schoolmen and Breviaries by the complaint of the Venettan Divines. The Fathers not untouched. Nor the Hebrew Text. pag. 91.   

Chap. VII.  
Of the Armies of evident witnesses for the Romanists. Whence it seems so to the unexpert Soldier. The censure of the Centurists touching the Doctrine of the Ancients. Danaeus of Saint Augustine's opinion touching Purgatory. An instance or two of Imposture in wresting Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine. p. 108.   

Chap. VIII.  
Of the invisibility of the Church said to be an e●asion of Protestants. The promises made to the Church, and her glorious Titles, how they are verified out of Saint Augustine; falsely applied to the whole visible Church, or representative, or the Pope. pag. 118.   

Chap. IX.  
Of lack of uniformity in matters of Faith in all ages and places. What matters of Faith the Church holds uniformly; and so the 〈◊〉. Of Wicliffe and Hus, etc. whether they were martyrs. p. 12●.   

Chap. X.  
Of the original of Reformation in Luther, C●luin, Scotland, England Whether King Henry the eight were a good head of the Church. Of the Reformers in France and Holland. The original growth and supporting of the Pope's Monarchy considered. pag. 122.   

Chap. XI.  
Of lack of Succession, Bishops, true Ordinations, Orders, Priesthood. The fabulous Ordination at the Nagshead examined. The Statute 8. Elizabeth. Boners slighting the first Parliament, and Doctor bancroft's answer to Master Alabaster. The form of Priesthood inquired of. pag. 139.   

Chap. XII.  
Of the Conclusion. Master Wadesworths' agonies and protestation. The protestation and resolution of the Author, and conceit of Master Wadesworth, and his account. pag. 158.    

The Copies of certain Letters, which have passed between Spain and England in matter of RELIGION.  

Salutem in Crucifi●o▪ To the Worshipful my good friend Mr. WILLIAM BEDE●●▪ etc.  
Master Bedell,  
MY very loving friend After the old plain fashion, I salute you heartily, without any new fine compliments or affected phrases. And by my inquiry, understanding of this Bearer that after your being at 〈◊〉▪ you had passed to Con●tantinop●e. and were returned to Saint 〈◊〉, in 〈◊〉 and with health, I was exceeding glad thereof▪ for I wish you well as to myself: and he telling me further that to morrow, God willing▪ he was to depart from hence to embark for England, and offering me to deliver my Letters if I would write unto you, I could not omit by these hasty scribbled lines to signify unto you the continuance of my sincere love, never to be blotted out of my breast (if you kill it not with unkindness like Master joseph Hall) neither by distance of place, nor success of time, nor difference of Religion. For (contrary to the slanders raised against all, because of the offences committed by some) we are not taught by our Catholic Religion, either to diminish our natural obligation to our native Country, or to alter our moral affection to our former friends.  
And although for my change becoming Catholic, I did expect of some Revilers to be termed rather than proved an Apostata, yet I never looked for such terms from Master Hall, whom I esteemed either my friend, or a modester man; whose flaunting Epistle I have not answered, because I would not foil my hands with a Poetical Railer, more full with froth of Words than substance of Matter, and of whom according to his beginning, I could not expect any sound Arguments but vain Flourishes, and so much, I pray, let him know from me if you please.  
Unto yourself, my good friend, who do understand better than Master Hall, what the Doctors in Schools do account Apostasy, and how it is more and worse than Heresy, I do refer both him and myself, whether I might not more probably call him Heretic, than he term me at the first dash Apostata: but I would abstain from such biting Satyrs. And if he, or any other, will needs fasten upon me such bitter terms, let them first prove that in all points of faith I have fallen totally from Christian Religion, as did julian the Apostata: For so is Apostasy described and differenced from Heresy. Apostasia est error, h●minis baptizati, contrarius fidei Catholicae ex toto: and, Haeresis est error pertinax, hominis baptizati, contrarius ●idei Catholicae ex parte. So that he should have showed, first, my errors in matters of Faith; not any error in other Questions, but in decreed matters of Faith (as Protestants use to say) necessary unto salvation. Secondly, that such errors were maintained with obstinate pertinacy, and pertinacy is, where such errors are defended against the consent and determination of the Catholik▪ Church; and also knowing that the whole Church teacheth the contrary to such opinions, yet will persist in them: and yet further, if there be any doubt, he must manifest unto me which is the Catholic Church. Thirdly, to make it full Apostasy, he should have convinced me to have swerved and back-slidden (as you know the Greek word signifies) like julian renouncing his baptism, and forsaken totally all Christian Religion▪ a horrible imputation, though false, nor so easily proved as declaimed: But I thank God daily that I am become Catholic, as all our Ancestors were till of late years, and as the most of Christendom still be at this present day, with whom I had rather be miscalled a Papist, a Traitor, an Apostata, or Idolater, or what he will, then to remain a Protestant with them still For in Protestant Religion I could never find uniformity of a settled faith, and ●o no quietness of conscience, especially for three or four years before my coming away, although by reading, studying, praying, and conferring, I did most carefully and diligently labour to find it among them.  
But your contrariety of Sects and opinions of 〈◊〉, Zwinglians, Caluinists, Protestants, 〈◊〉, Cartwrightists, and Brownists, some of them damning each other; many of them avouching their Positions to be matters of Faith (for if they made them but School questions of opinion only, they should not so much have disquieted me) and all these being so contrary, yet every one pretending Scriptures, and arrogating the Holy Ghost in his favour. And above all (which did most of all trouble me) about the deciding of these and all other Controversies which might arise, I could not find among all these Sects any certain humane external judge, so infallibly to interpret Scriptures, and by them and by the assistance of the Holy Ghost so undoubtedly to define questions of Faith, that I could assure myself and my soul, This judge is infallible; and to him thou oughtest in conscience to obey and yield thy understanding in all his determinations of Faith, for he cannot err in those points. And note that I speak now of an external, humane, infallible judge. For I know the Holy Ghost is the Divine internal and principal judge; and the Scriptures be the Law or Rule by which that humane external judge must proceed. But the Holy Scriptures being often the Matter of Controversy and sometime questioned which be Scriptures, and which be not, they alone of themselves cannot be judges: and for the Holy Ghost likewise every one pretending him to be his Patron, how should ● certainly know by whom he speaketh, or not? For to Men we must go to learn, and not to Angels, nor to God himself immediately. The Head of your Church was the Queen (an excellent notable Prince) but ● Woman, not to speak, much less to be judge in the Church; and since a learned King, like King Henry the eight, who was the first temporal Prince that ever made himself Ex Regio jure, Head of the Church in spiritual matters, a new strange Doctrine, and therefore justly condemned by Calvin for monstrous. But suppose he were such a Head, yet you all confess that he may err in matters of Faith. And so you acknowledge may your Archbishops and Bishops, and your whole Clergy in their Convocation-house even making Articles and Decrees: yea, though a Council of all your Lutherans, Cal●●●nists, Protestants, etc. of Germany, France, Engiana, etc. were all joined together, and should agree all (which they never will do) to compound and determine the differences among themselves, yet by your ordinary Doctrine of most Protestants they might in such a Council err, and it were possible in their Decrees to be deceived. But if they may err, how should I know and be sure when and wherein they did or did not err? for though on the one side ● posse ad esse non valet semper consequentia. yet 〈◊〉 valet, and on the other side 〈…〉 potentia, quae nunquam ducitur in actu●. So that 〈◊〉 neither in general nor in particular, in puo●●que 〈◊〉 private, in head nor members, joinely nor severally you have no visible, external, humane, infallible judge, who cannot err, and to whom I might have recourse for decision of doubts in matters of faith. ● pray let Master Hall tell me, where should I have fixed my foot? for God is my witness, my soul was like Noah Dou●, a long time hover & desirous to discover land, but seeing nothing but movable and troublesome deceivable water, I could find no quiet centre for my conscience, nor any firm foundation for your faith in Protestant Religion. Wherefore hearing a sound of harmony and consent, that the Catholic Church could not err, and that only in the Catholic Church, as in Noah's Ark was infallabilitte and possibility of salvation; I was so occasioned, and I think had important reason, like Noah's Dove, to seek out, and to enter into this Ark of Noah. Hereupon I was occasioned to doubt, whether the Church of England were the true Church, or not▪ For by consent of all, the true Church cannot err; but the Church of England, head and members, King, Clergy, and People, as before is said, yea a whole Council of Protestants by their own grant may err, ergo, no true Church. If no true Church, no salvation in it; therefore come out of it: but that I was loath to do. Rather I laboured mightily to defend it, both against the Puritans, and against the Catholics: But the best arguments I could use against t●e Puritans from the Authority of the Church, and of the ancient Doctor's interpreting Scriptures against them, when they could not answer them, they would reject them for Popish, and f●ye to their own arrogant spirit, by which forsooth they must control others This I found on the one side most absurd, and ●o breede an Anarchy of confusion: and yet when I come to answer the Catholic Arguments on ●he other side against Protestants, ●rging the like Authority and uniformity of the Church, I perceived the most Protestant's did frame evasions, in effect like those of the Puritans inclining to ●heir private spirit, and other uncertainties.  
Next therefore I applied myself to follow their opinion, who would make the Church of England and the Church of Rome still to be all one ●n essential points, and the differences to be accidental. confessing the Church of Rome to be a true Church though sick, or corrupted, and the Protestants to be derived from it and reform: and to this end I laboured much to reconcile most of our particular controversies: But in truth I found such contrarieties, not only between Catholics and Protestants, but even among Protestants themselves that I could never settle myself fully in this opinion of some reconciliation, which I know many great Scholars in England did favour. For considering so many opposite great points, for which they did excommunicate and put to death each other, and making the Pope to be Antichrist, proper or improper, it could never sink into my brain how these two could be descendent, or members ●ound nor unfound participant each of other Rather I concluded, that ●eeing many of the best learned Protestants did grant the Church or Rome 〈…〉 true Church, though 〈…〉 And contrarily, not only the Catholics, but also the Puritans, Anabaptists, Brownists, etc. did all deny the Church of England to be a true Church: therefore it would be more safe and secure to become a Roman Catholic, who have a true Church by consent of both parties, then to remain a Protestant, who do alone plead their own cause, having all the other against them: For the testimony of ourselves, and our contraries also, is much more sufficient, and more certain then to justify our selves alone. Yet I resisted and stood out still: and betook myself again to read over and examine the chiefest controversies, especially those about the Church, which is, cardo negotij (and herein because the Bearer stays now a day or two longer, I will enlarge myself more than I purposed) and so I would needs peruse the Original quotations and Texts of the Counsels, Fathers, and Doctors, in the Authors, themselves which were alleged on both parts, to see if they were truly cited, and according to the meaning of the Authors: a labour of much labour, and of travel sometime to find the Books, wherein I found much fraud committed by the Protestants; and that the Catholics had far greater and better armies of evident witnesses on their sides, much more than the Protestants; in so much, that the Centurists are fain often to censure and reject the plain testimonies of those Ancients, as if their new censure were sufficient to disaucthorize the others ancient sentences. And so I remember Danaeus in Commentarijs super D. Augustin Enchirid▪ ad Laurentium. Where Saint Augustin plainly avoucheth Purgatory: he rejects Saint's Augustine's opinion, saying, hic est naews Augustini: but I had rather follow Saint Augustins opinion, than his ce●sure; for who are they to control the Fathers?  
There are indeed some few places in Authors, which prima fancy seem to favour Protestants, as many Heretics allege some texts of Scriptures, whose sound of words seem to make for their opinions: but being well examined and interpreted, according to the analogy of faith, and according to many other places of the same Authors where they do more fully explain their opinions; so they appear to be wrested, and from the purpose.  
In fine, I found myself evidently convinced, both by many Authorities, and by many Arguments, which now I do not remember all, nor can here repeat those which I do remember: but only some few arguments I will relate unto you which prevailed most with me, besides those afore mentioned.  
First, therefore I could never approve the Protestants evasion by Inuisibility of their Church: For though sometime it may be diminished and obscured, yet the Catholic Church must ever be visible, set on a hill, and not as light hid under a Bushel; for how should it enlighte●●nd teach her children, if invisible, or how should Strangers, and Pagans, and others, be converted unto her? or where should any find the Sacraments, if invisible?  
Also the true Church in all places and all ages, ever holds one uniformity and concord in all matters of Faith, though not in all matters of ceremony or government: But the Protestants Church hath not in all ages, nor in all places such uniform concord, no not in one age, as is manifest to all the world, and as Father Parsons proved against Fox's martyrs, Wickliff, Husse, and the res●: ergo the Protestants Church, not the true Church.  
Again, by that saying, Haereses ad originem revocasse est refutasse; and so considering Luther's first rancour against the Dominicans, his disobedience and contempt of his former Superiors, his vow breaking, and violent courses, even causing rebellion against the Emperor, whom he reviles, and other Princes most shamefully, surely such arrogant disobedience, schism, and rebellions, had no warrant nor vocation of God to plant his Church, but of the Devil to begin a schism and a sect. So likewise for Calvin, to say nothing of all that D. Bolsecus brings against him. I do urge only what Master Hooker, Doctor Bancroft, and Saravia do prove against him, for his unquietness and ambition, revolving the Commonwealth, and so unjustly expelling and depriving the Bishop of Geneva, and other temporal Lords of their due obedience, and ancient inheritance. Moreover, I refer you to the stirs, broils, sedition, and murders which Knox and the Geneva Gospelers caused in Scotland against their lawful Governors, against their Queen, and against our King, even in his Mother's belly. Nor will I insist upon the passions which first moved King Henry violently to divorce himself from his lawful wife, to fall out with the Pope his friend, to marry the Lady Anne Bullen, and soon after to behead her; to disinherit Queen Mary, and enable Queen Elizabeth; and presently to disinherit Queen Elizabeth, and to restore Queen Mary; to hang Catholics for traitors, and to burn Protestants for heretics, to destroy Monasteries, and to pill Churches: were these fit beginnings for the Gospel of Christ? I pray was this man a good head of God's Church? for my part, I beseech our Lord bless me from being a member of such a head, or such a Church. I come to France and Holland, where you know by the Huguenots and Geuses all Caluinistes, what civil wars they have raised, how much blood they have shed, what rebellion, rapine, and desolations they have occasioned principally for their new Religion, founded in blood like Draecoes laws: But I would gladly know whether you can approve such bloody broils for Religion, or no? I know Protestants de facto, do justify the civil wars of France and Holland for good against their Kings, but I could never understand of them quo lure: if the Hollanders be Rebels (as they are) why did we support them● if they be no rebels, because they fight for the pretended liberty of their ancient privileges, and for their new Religion; we see it is an easy matter to pretend liberties, and also why may not others as as well revolt for their old Religion: Or I beseech you, why is that accounted treason against the State in Catholics, which is called reason of State in Protestants? I reduce this argument to few words, That Church which is founded and begun in ma●ice disobedience, passion, blood, and rebellion, cannot be the true Church: but it is evident to the world that the Protestant Churches in Germany, Franc●, Holland, Geneva, etc. were so founded, and in Geneva and Holland are still continued in rebellion: ergo, they are not true Churches.  
Furthermore, where is not Succession both of true Pastors and of true Doctrine, there is no true Church: But among Protestants is no succession of true Pastors, (for I omit here to treat of Doctrine) ergo, no true Church. I prove the minor: where is no consecration nor ordination of Bishops and Priests, according to the due form and right intention required necessarily by the Church and ancient Counsels, there is no succession of true Pastors▪ but among Protestants the said due form and right intention are not observed, ergo, no succession of true Pastors. The said due form and right intention are not observed among Protestants in France, Holland, nor Germany, where they have no Bishops, and where Lay men do intermeddle in the making of their Ministers. And for England, whereas the Counsels require the ordines minores of Subdeacon and the rest, to go before Priesthood; your Ministers are made per saltum without ever being Subdeacons'. And whereas the Counsels require three Bishops to assist at the consecration of a Bishop, it is certain that at the Nagshead in Cheapside where consecration of your first Bishops was attempted but not effected (whereabout I remember the controversy you had with one) there was but one Bishop, and I am sure there was such a matter: and although I know and have seen the Records themselves, that afterward there was a consecration of Doctor Parker at Lambeth, and three Bishops named, viz. Miles Coverdall of Exeter, one Hodgeskin Suffragan of Bedford, and another whose name I have forgotten, yet it is very doubtful that Coverdall being made Bishop of Exeter in King Edward's time (when all Counsels and Church Canons were little observed) he was never himself Canonically consecrated; and so if he were no Canonical Bishop, he could not make another Canonical: and the third unnamed, as I remember (but am not sure) was only a Bishop Elect, and not consecrated, and so was not sufficient. But hereof I am sure, that they did consecrate Parker by virtue of a Breve from the Queen as Head of the Church, who indeed being no true Head and a Woman, I cannot see how they could make a true consecration grounded on her authority. Furthermore, making your Ministers you keep not the right intention; for neither do the Orderer nor the Ordered give nor receive the Orders as a Sacrament; nor with any intention of Sacrificing. Also they want the matter and form with which according to the Counsels and Canons of the Church holy Orders should be given; namely for the matter, Priesthood is given by the delivery of the Patena with bread, and of the Chalice with wine: Deaconship by the delivery of the book of the Gospels; and Subdeaconship by the delivery of the Patena alone, and of the Chalice empty. And in the substantial form of Priesthood you do fail most of all, which form consists in these words, Accipe potestatem offerendi sacrificium in Ecclesia pro vivis & mortuis, which are neither said no● done by you, and therefore well may you be called Ministers, as also Lay men are, but you are no Priests. Wherefore I conclude, wanting Subdeaconship, wanting undoubted Canonical Bishops, wanting right intention, wanting matter and due form, and deriving even that you seem to have from a Woman the Head of your Church, therefore you have no true Pastors, and consequently no true Church. And so to conclude, and not to weary myself and you too much, being resolved in my understanding, by these and many other Arguments, that the Church of England was not the true Church, but that the Church of Rome was and is the only true Church, because it alone is Ancient, Catholic, and Apostolic, having Succession, Unity, and visibility, in all ages and places; yet what agonies I passed with my will, here I will overpass. Only I cannot pretermit to tell you, that at last having also mastered and subdued my will to relent unto my understanding, by means of prayer, and by God Almighty's grace principally, I came to break through many tentations and impediments, and from a troubled unquiet heart to a fixed and peaceable tranquillity of mind, for which I do most humbly thank our sweet Lord and Saviour jesus, before whom with all reverence I do avouch and swear unto you, as I shall answer it in the dreadful day of judgement when all hearts shall be discovered, that I forsook Protestant Religion for very fear of damnation; and became a Catholic with good hope of salvation; and that in this hope I do continue and increase daily: and that I would not for all the world become a Protestant again. And for this which here I have written unto you in great haste, I know there be many Replies and Rejoinders wherewith I could never be satisfied; nor do I desire any further Disputation about them, but rather to spend the rest of my life in devotion; yet in part to give you, my dear good friend, some account of myself, having now so good an occasion and fit a messenger, and by you if you please to render a reason of my Faith to Master Hall, who in his said printed Epistle in one place desires to know the motives thereof, I have thus plainly made relation of some points among many. Whereunto if Master Hall will make any Reply, I do desire it may be directly & fully to the points and in friendly terms, upon which condition I do pardon what is past: and of you I know I need not require any such circumstances. And so most seriously entreating and praying to our gracious Lord to direct and keep us all and ever in his holy Truth, I commend you unto his heavenly grace, and myself unto your friendly love. Seville in Spain, this first day of April. 1615.  
Your very affectionate and true loving friend, JAMES WADDESWORTH.   

To the Worshipful his respected friend Master WILLIAM BEDELL, at his house in Saint Edmundsbury, or at Horinger, be there delivered in Suffolk.  
Kind Master BEDELL,  
MIne old acquaintance and friend having heard of your health and worldly welfare, by this Bearer Master Austen your neighbour, and by him having opportunity to salute you with these few Lines, I could not omit; though some few years since I wrote you by one who since told me certainly he delivered my Letters, and that you promised answer, and so you are in my debt, which I do not claim not urge so much, as I do that in truth and before our Lord I speak it, you do owe me love in all mutual amity, for the hearty affectionate love which I have and ever did bear unto you with all sincerity. For though I love not your Religion (wherein I could never find solid Truth, nor firm hope of salvation, as now I do being a Catholic, and our Lord is my witness who shall be my judge) yet indeed I do love your person, and your ingenuous, honest, good, moral condition, which ever I observed in you: nor do I desire to have altercations with Master joseph Hall (especially if he should proceed as Satirically as he hath begun with me) nor with any other man, and much less would I have any debate with yourself, whom I do esteem and affect as before I have written: nor would I spend the rest of my life (which I take to be short, for my lungs are decaying) in any Questions, but rather in devotion, wherein I do much more desire to be hot and fervorous, then in Disputations, beseeching our Lord to forgive my coldness, yea my neglect therein, and to pardon and free me from all sin, and to guide and keep you in all happiness even as I wish for mine own soul, through the Redemption of our sweet Saviour, and by the intercession of his holy Mother, and all Saints, Amen. Written in haste from Madrid, 14. April. 1619.  
Your assured true friend, JAMES WADDESWORTH.  
Received I●ne 4. 1619.   

To the Worshipful my very good friend Master JAMES WADDESWORTH at Madrid, deliver this.  
Salutem in Christo jesu.  
THe late receipt of your Letters (good Master Waddesworth) did diversely affect me with joy and shame; and I know not with whether most. I was glad to hear of you, and your prosperous state, much more to receive a kind Letter from you. Ashamed, therein to be called upon for debt; who have ever endeavoured to live by that rule of the Apostle; Owe nothing to any man. Yet not so much for that which you must urge the debt of love, sith by that Text it appears, that it can never be so discharged, as there should not be more behind to pay. And yourself who challenge this of me, do owe me as much or well more. For let me tell you, I have the advantage of you herein by my profession, for where your love is to me as to a man, or to an honest man, nor can by your present persuasion go any further, I can and do love you as my dear brother, and fellow member in the mystical body of our Lord jesus Christ. And from this ground (to his knowledge I do appeal) I do heartily pray for you, and bear with you, and as the Apostle enjoins, Rom. 15. 7. Receive you with a true brotherly affection. I am not therefore ashamed of this debt, but do rejoice as much in the owing of it, as in the payment. But my shame grows from the being behind with you in the office of writing. Wherein yet hear my honest and true excuse. Neither will I go about to set off one debt with another. For you may remember how at our parting you promised to write to me touching the state of Religion there, which if we shall make out a perfect reckoning, I account to be a good debt still. But this I say, when your Letters of the first of April, 1615▪ came to my hands, I purposed to return answer by the same Bearer, who as he told me, was to return about the Midsummer following. But I had a sudden and extraordinary journey which came between, and kept me from home till after the Commencement, so as that opportunity was lost. Besides, upon the reading of your Letters, I perceived your intention was to have them imparted to Doctor Hall, expecting in a sort some reply from him. To him therefore did I send them. After some months I received this answer, which though I had once purposed to conceal, as not willing to be the mean of any exasperation between you, yet now hoping of your wisdom and patience I send you enclosed, that it may be some evidence of my true excuse. Upon the receipt of it, I began to frame an answer to the points of your Letter, according to your desire, full, and in friendly terms. I had well-nigh finished it, when I was presented to this Benefice, and thereby entered into a world of distractions. These, together with the labour of writing it over, and uncertainty of safe conveying my Letters to you, did make me procrastinate my payment, till now to my shame you should need to demand it. And that I may by the more shaming myself obtain a more easy penance from you; I confess to you, I was sometime half in the mind (having especially differred it so long) to suppress it altogether. First, out of mine own natural disposition, who have ever abhorred contention: and whereas in matters of Religion there ought to be the fairest wars, I could never yet meet with any of that side of so patient a mind, but by opposition he would be unsettled. For yourself, though I knew your former moderate temper, and (as I remember I wrote to Doctor Hall) believed you in that which you protest, that out of conscience you were such as you profess; yet me thought I perceived by your quick manner to him, and some passages in the conclusion of your Letter, you were rather desirous to enjoy the quiet possession of your own opinion, then come to any further disputation whose is the right. And in truth the time of that trial had been proper, before your departure: nor you had to● far engaged yourself; and were to justify by your constancy, the wisdom of your change. Besides, since the sum of the error of that side, as I have ever conceived it, is believing rather too much, then failing in any point necessary to salvation, that notable place of the Apostle, Rom. 14. 1. came to my mind, especially after that I had once occasion to preach of it, where he forbids controversies of disputations with those that are infirm in faith. Who art thou (saith he) that judgest another man's servant? he standeth or falleth to his own Master. Why should I grieve you, and perhaps make my friend mine enemy (as Saint Paul the Galathians) by saying the truth. The world is full enough of contentious writings, which as by your letter appears you had seen ere ye resolved. If those had not satisfied you, what could I hope to add to them? These things moved me; but as you say, they did not yet satisfy me. For all men are interessed in the defence of truth, how much more he that is called to be a Preacher of it? All Christians are admonished by Saint jude, to fight for the faith once given to the Saints; how much more those that are leaders in this warfare: How could I say I loved our Lord jesus Christ, if his honour being questioned I should be silent? How could I approve to mine own soul that I loved you, if I sufered you to enjoy your own error, suppose not damnable. Besides that, you and perhaps others also might be confirmed in it, perhaps interpreting my silence for a confession that your Motives were unanswerable. But therein I was not only resolved self to the contrary, but thought it so easy to resolve any indifferent mind, as me thought it was more shame not to have done it at the first, then praise to do it at the last. As for the success of my endeavour, I was to leave it to God. Many and secret are the ways of his Providence, which serveth itself sometimes even of our errors, to the safer conduct of us to our final happiness. Some I had known, and heard of more, who being at first carried away with the shows of Unity, Order, Succession, infallibility; when they found them empty of Truth, and the cloaks of Pride, ambition, covetousness, joined with an obstinacy to defend all corruptions how palpable so ever, by finding the difference of these Hulles from their Father's Table, had with the prodigal Son returned home again. To conclude, I accounted myself still in debt, and was I confess to you unwilling to die in it; and sometimes vowed to God, in the midst of my troubles, if I might once see an end of them, to endeavour to discharge it. And now having by his mercy not only attained that, but a new occasion presented me presently thereupon, by your calling for satisfaction to pay it, and means offered me to send it safely: I take this motion to proceed from God, and do humbly desire his Majesty to turn it to good. It remains therefore, good Master Wadesworth, that I do entreat your pardo● of that slackness that is past, and gentleness to take it as I shall be able to pay it. My employments both ordinary and extraordinary are many: the bulk of it is to great to convey in one Letter, consisting of sundry sheets of paper; and at this present there lies an extraordinary task upon me, so as I cannot presently writ it out. I do therefore no more now but acknowledge the debt, and promise speedy payment. Unless I shall add this also, that I do undertake to pay interest for the forbearance; and according as I shall understand by Master Austen shall be fittest, and safest, to send it in parts, or all at once. To the conclusion of your last Letter, wherein you profess your desire to spend the rest of your life rather in the heat of devotion, then of disputation, desiring pardon of coldness that way, and of all other your sins, and that it would please God to guide and keep me in all happiness as yourself, through the redemption of our sweet Saviour, and by the intercession of his holy mother and all Saints. I do most thankfully and willingly subscribe Amen: returning unto you from my heart your own best wishes. Neither is it my purpose to call into question the solidity of truth, or firmness of the hope of salvation, which you find in your present way. This only I say. 
* Even for us also hath Christ died, and for our redemption hath he shed his blood. Sinners indeed we are, but of his flock, and among his poor sheep are we numbered.  Et pro nobis Christus mortuus est, & pro nostra Redemptione sanguinem suum fudit. Peccatores quidem, sed de ipsius grege sumus, & inter eius oviculas numeramur: This is my tenet. And if the doctrine of the holy Bible do contain solid truth, and believing in the name of the Son of God do give firm hope of salvation, according to Gods own record, 1 john 5. 10. 11. 12. we are persuaded we have both. I will add this more; We know that we are translated from death to life, because we love our brethren. With this Oil in our Lamps, which we desire may be always in store in our Vessels also our hearts, we attend the coming of the Bridegroom; and say cheerfully, 
* Even so come Lord jesus.  Etiam veni Domine jesu. To whose gracious protection I do most heartily commit you, and do rest,  
Your assured friend and loving Brother, W. BEDELL. Horningesherth this fifth of August 1619.   

To the Worshipful Master WILLIAM BEDELL at Horningesherth near Saint Edmundsbury in Suffolk, these.  
Salutem in Crucifix.  
WORTHY SIR,  
I Was exceeding glad to perceive by your kind, modest, and discreet Letters of 5. of August last, that you are still permanent in your own good nature, and constant in your love to me: not like Master joseph Hall, neither bitterly reviling nor flourishing impertinently. Unto whom I pray you return▪ his scoffing railing Letter, with these few marginal notes. I pray God forgive him, and make him a more humbler and meeker man. And I for my part do freely pardon all his foul terms against me. And though in gratitude and justice I am bound and so do love and respect you more than him, for your greater courtesy to me, and for your better value in yourself; yet even him I can and do and am bound to love not only as an enemy, or a creature of God, or as I do you for an honest, moral, good, discreet man, but even further and beyond that which you seem to understand that we cannot by our doctrine proceed in love: viz. as men having souls for whom our Saviour hath died; and so as possible members though indeed not actual branches of his mystical body: yea for such as may come to be engrafted and bear fruit in him, when we may be withered, cut off, or fallen away. As for your serious Apology and excuse for not answering my first Letters all this while, I do easily admit it, and assure myself that all the circumstances, impediments, and occasions were such, as you affirm: nor did I expect, nor urge, in my first nor second Letters any answer about Controversies in Religion (for I ever said we could say nothing of substance which before had not been said) but only gave you by Master's Hals occasion some few reasons of my faith, wherein still I protest I had rather be devout then be troubled to dispute, not for fear or doubt, but because I am so fully resolved in myself, and do think it a very superfluous labour toties & melius ab aliis actum agere. So that I desired rather answer of courtesy then of controversy, which now by Master aston's means I received, and do much esteem it, and heartily thank you for it. Nevertheless, when your Reply unto my plain and few reasons come, I will for your sake both read them over, and according to my little health, less leisure, and my poor ability (which is least of all) return you some such short rejoinder as it shall please almighty God to enable me, being glad to perceive by your last that you do subscribe to our Intercession by our blessed Lady, and other holy Saints; which also I hope and wish you would fully extend to our Invocation of Saints as Intercessors, not as Redeemers, for that were Blasphemy indeed and Idolatry; from which our sweet Saviour deliver us, and ever keep you my good dear friend, as I desire.  
Madrid, in haste, 26. Octob. 1619. JAMES WADDESWORTH.   

To the worshipful my very good friend M. JAMES WADDESWORTH, at Madrid, deliver this.  
Salutem in Christo jesu.  
YOur Letters of the 26. of October (beloved Master Waddesworth) were long upon the way and came not to my hands till the 23. of May. In them I received your courteous acceptation of my excuse for my former silence, & censure of Doctor Hall Letter with the profession of your love to me and him, further than I accounted you could by your Doctrine proceed, viz. as redeemed by Christ, and possible members of his mystical body. Truly Sir, I will not change words with you here about, but I account still to be an honest man, restraineth from that, to be redeemed by our Saviour, since that is as large as humane nature, this is given to fewer, of whom a man may say as our Lord doth of one in the Gospel, that they are not far from the Kingdom of God. Howsoever, I have still my intention that we out of our profession may love you better than you can us: since it is more to be an actual, than a possible member of Christ; and the Communion of Saints is a staighter bond, than Redemption by Christ, and possibility of being engrafted and bearing fruit in his mystical body. And I would to Christ that of all other Controversies this were the vehementest between us, which should love each other most. Wherein although I would strive and do my best to have the better, yet see how equally I would contend. For both I would acknowledge freely, myself far short of that which I may by my profession do in this kind, and persuade myself better of your secret affection to us, than you may by your pofession express. I will not easily believe that you can find in your heart to count that man a Dog, and out of the Church, and in state of damnation, that steadfastly believeth in our Lord jesus Christ, and by him in the B. Trinity; that confesseth all the Doctrine of holy Scriptures, the sum whereof is in the Creed; that lastly, with a charitable affection embraceth all that hold this faith, throughout the world, yea even those that hate and persecute him to the death. Wherein I forbear for the present to enlarge, because I speak more of it in my answer to your first Letters; which Master Aston gives me hope that himself ere long will consign into your hands. Now by his direction, I send you only advice of the receipt of your last, with hearty thanks for them, desirous not to run further in arrearages with you in this office of writing. This one thing I add, that where you write you are glad I do subscribe to your intercession by the Saints, wishing me fully to extend it to invocation of Saints as Intercessors, though not as Redeemers; I should be very glad if I could as well content you in all other points, as that one: coming thus prepared in all controversies with you, and all men, to yield whatsoever I may, saving the truth. But as I conceive it, there is great odds between these two. To desire God to grant us this or that good thing by the intercession of the Saints; and, To use invocation of themselves. The one supposeth only that the Saints in glory generally knowing the warfare of those on earth, are careful for them, and omit not this act of never failing charity to pray for them. These prayers it hopes, and desires of God may be helpful to us, by the only merit of our Lord jesus Christ; in the same sort as those of the Saints wheresoever on earth; as 2 Cor. 1. 10. 11. Ephes. 6. 1. Philem. ver. 22. The other, that the Saints departed know our wants, and states in particular, and hear our prayers, and by consequent know our hearts: which is flatly contrary to the Scriptures 2 Chron. 6. 30. Esay 63. 16. To omit now that you do not only desire them to pray for you, but ask at their hands grace and glory, trust in them, vow to them, swear by them, offer and receive the sacrifice of the New Testament to their honour and glory, and desire it may be accepted by their patronage. Wherefore as I am glad to perceive that you do reverse those blasphemies indeed, Salua me Saluatrix; Redime me Redemptrix; and will not subscribe to those words of Bellarmine, non erit absurdum si sancti viri redemptores nostri aliquo modo, id est secundum aliquid, non simpliciter; & largo modo; non in rigore verborum esse dicantur: and again, cur inepte dicantur Sancti viri aliquo modo passionibus suis delicta nostra posse redimere? so I hope and wish you would do the like for calling upon them, and presenting their merits unto God; and as ye may more safely and sweetly speak unto our jesus, who is our Advocate with the Father, entered into the Holy of Holies to appear before God for us. To his gracious protection I commit you, and do rest  
Horningshearth this 15. of june, 1620. Your assured friend and loving Brother W. BEDELL.   

To the worshipful his much respected friend Master WILLIAM BEDELL at Horningshearth by Saint Edmundsbury in Suffolk, these.  
My very good Friend  
MAster BEDELL, my last unto you was by a Gentleman who went from hence about six months since; but I have understood he fell sick at Paris, by the way, and so was first hindered there in his journey, and afterward again at Brussels fell to a relapse, which detained him so long, that although now very lately I hear he is recovered and gone forward into England, yet in so long delays & so often sicknesses, I know not whether he have lost or forgotten my former Letters: wherefore out of this consideration, and by the opportunity of this Bringer, and by the true hearty affection which I bear you, being desirous to signify unto you the continuance of my sincere love, I could not pretermit this so good an occasion, though hereby I have nothing else to say, nor entreat, but if we have ●arres, yet our dissension may be rather in the matter and cases, then betwixt our persons, as discreet Lawyers use to plead vehemently each for his Client's justice, and yet remain betwixt themselves without breach of amity, and abstaining from opprobrious injury; wherein I have great confidence that you will proceed both more moderately in all the circumstance, and to better purpose in the substance than Master joseph Hall, unto whose Letter directed to you, and by you sent unto me, I wrote certain Marginal Notes only, and so returned the same by the above named Gentleman, whereof also (if it return to your hands) I would entreat you to send me a Copy both of his Text and my Gloss, for then being in haste I remained with neither. Our Lord keep you, and guide us all to his truth, and to heaven.  
Madrid, 8. june, 1620. JAMES WADDESWORTH.   

The Letter of Master D. HALL., mentioned in the formerwith Master WADDESWORTHS' marginal notes.  
GOod Master Bedell, what a sorry crab hath Master Waddesworth at last sent us from Seville? I pity the 
a I pray see within how short a compass he proves himself a Poetical rai●er by his Epithets, not only against me, but ●euiling a whole Nation, and the Religion of the best part of all Christendom.  impotent malice of the man; sure that hot Region, and 
a I pray see within how short a compass he proves himself a Poetical rai●er by his Epithets, not only against me, but ●euiling a whole Nation, and the Religion of the best part of all Christendom.  sulphurous Religion are guilty of this his choler. For aught I see he is not only turned Papist but Spaniard too. Ibi vi●itur ambitiosa paupertate: The great man would not foil his fingers (for that is his word) with such an adversary as myself; he should have found this conflict his foiling indeed; but he scorns the match; and what wonder if he that hath all this while 
b This m●cke if it were true yet would I rejoice in ●t, not only to ●it on his stairs, but to m●ke clean his shoe●s.  sat on Father Creswels' stairs, scorn the unworthiness of him whom an English University scorned not to set in the chair of Divinity? But whence is this my contempt? I see but two vices to clear myself of; Poetry and 
c I termed him a Poetical Ra●ler, not accusing nor 〈◊〉 him for a Poet 〈◊〉 taxing him for raising poetically using the word as sometimes it is in the worst sense when it is abused: neither condemning Poetry nor ●o●rouing him for a Poet▪ out a po●ticall Ra●●er: as he doth ●●●selfe by that Epistle 〈…〉 better Letter.  Railing; of the latter you shall acquit me if you will but read that my poor Epistle which he sleights thus: Let your eyes judge whether ever any thing could be written more mildly, more modestly, more lovingly. Of the former I must acquit myself; Cuius unum est sed magnum vitium Poesis: what were I the worse if I were still a lover of those studies? If he could have had leisure to tend upon any thing besides that Father's Packets, he might have seen most of the renowned and holy Fathers of the Church eminent in that profession for which I am scorned; amongst many others Tertullian, Lactantius, Nazianzen, Prudentius, Fulgentius, Apollinarius, Nonnus, Hilarius, Prosper, and now in the upshot 
d I willingly pardon 〈◊〉 is pe●●icall railing and false epithets, for that one true word 〈…〉 Bernard to be devout.  devout Bernard, and why should their honour be my disgrace? But the truth is, these were the recreations of my minority; nun● oblita mihi. And if Poetry were of the deadly sins of their Casuists, I could smart for it in my 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Is this a fit scandal to ●ake up from so far? What my proficiency hath been in serious studies, if the University and Church hath pleased to testify: what need I stand at the mercy of 
e Pardon for S. Bernard's sake.  a fugitive. But if any of 
f A brave man a● arms, etc.  his Masters should undertake me in the cause of God, he should find I had studied prose. As for these vain flourishes of mine, if he had not taken a veny in them, and found it smart, he had not struck again so 
g Pardon for S. Bernard's sake.  churlishly? Was it my Letter that is accused of Poetry? there is neither number, nor rhyme, 
h I would there were not.  nor fiction in it: Would the great School man have had me to have packed up a Letter of syllogisms? which of the Fathers (whose high steps I have desired to tread in) have given that example? what were to be expected of a monitory Epistle which intended only the occasion if he had pleased of a future discourse? We ay slanders 
i Satis pro imperio.  list not learn to write Letters from beyond the Pyrenees. Howsoever, I am not sorry that his scorn hath cast him upon an adversary more able to convince him; I am allowed only a looker on; therefore I will neither ward nor strike; his hands are too full of you: my only wish is, that you could bear him sound again; whereof I fear there it little hope. There was never adversary that gave more advantage: he might have served in th●se Coleworts nearer home. I profess I do heartily 
k This appears by your railing on him, as he that justified himself from swearing, by ●●wd swearing By God he did not 〈◊〉.  pity him; and so if it please you let him know from me. What Apostasy (which is the only hard word I can be charged with) 
l This were in pro●e one absurdity by a greater & to vndert● be that some one Text of Scripture is false or f●ged because all the whole Bible is 〈◊〉 Or having called one a jew or Bas●ard etc. to make him amends by ●elling him all his kindred were such. But that Book● and Chapter is indeed pitifully professed: And by it and 〈◊〉 nuating here 〈◊〉 offence of ●oo much charise may be easily 〈◊〉 the ●●stance of your proficiency on 〈◊〉.  impute to the Roman Church I have professed to the world in the first Chapter of my Roma Irreconciliabilis: if I offend not in too much charity, there is no fear: say what you will for me, I have done, and will only pray for him that answers me with contempt: farewell, and commend me to Master Sotheby, and your other loving and reverend Society; and know me ever,  
Your truly loving friend and fellow labourer, IOS. HALL.. Waltam. jan, 10. 1615.  
Good Master Bedell, this Letter hath lain thus long by me for want of carriage. I now hear you are settled at Horningsherth. whereby I wish you much joy. I am appointed to attend the Ambassador into France, whither I pray you follow me with your prayers.  
May 15.   

To my Reverend and worthy friend Master Doctor HALL., at Waltham deliver this.  
SAlutem in Christo. Good Master Doctor, this Letter of yours since my receipt of it, hath been a traveller, further than you or I; which being some months since returned into England, I return to you that it may relate what entertainment it hath found in foreign parts. It is now a year and more that I received a Letter from Master Waddesworth, challenging an old debt of me, an answer to his Letters which occasioned this of yours. I wrote back, and among other things enclosed this your Letter, which he hath censured as you see. His answer by reason of the sickness of the Gentleman that brought it, first at Paris, and after at Brussels came not to me till the latter end of May, and now lately another I received from him, wherein he desires a Copy both of your Text and his Gloss, as he calls it, as having reserved none for haste. I have not yet sent him my answer to his Motives which hath long lain by me for lack of leisure to copy it out, and means safely to convey it, being well towards a choir of Paper. My ancient fault, tediousness. But the Gentleman that brought me his former Letter, hath undertaken ere long to consign it into his hands. Therein I endeavour to use him with the best respect I can devose, only oppugning the Papacy and Court of Rome. Now Sir, that which I would entreat of you, is this: You know the Precept of the Apostle touching them that are fallen, lend me your hand to set him in joint again. And be pleased not only not to reflect upon the weakness of his Gloss, but not so much as upon the strength of his stomach ● though that be also weakness, as Saint Augustine well calls it, 
* 〈…〉  infirmitas animositatis Writ a letter to him in the Character 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which shall either go with mine, or be sent shortly after. Who can tell what God may work? Surely, at least we shall heap coals of fire upon his head. Although if all be true that I hear, it is not to be despaired but he may be delivered out of the snare of error, the rather because he hath not that reward or contentment which he expected. He lives now at Madrid with the Persian Ambassador Sir Robert Shirley, and hath good maintenance from him, being as his Steward, or Agent. The kind usage of his ancient friends, may perhaps bring him in love with his country again, etc. This for that business. Now. etc.  
October 2▪ 1620.   

To the worshipful my very good friend Master JAMES WADDESWORTH at Madrid deliver this.  
Salutem in Christo jesu.  
SIr, I received by Master Fiston your letters of the eight of june, and as I hope ere this time you understand, the former which I mention in them: to which I wrote in answer, and delivered the same to Master Aston the 15. of the same Month. Doctor Hals letter with your marginal Notes which in your last you require, I send you herein enclosed. Though if I may persuade or entreat you both, neither should the Text nor Gloss make you multiply any more words thereabout. Upon the receipt of your Letter I spoke with Master Aston, who told me that he held his resolution for Spain, whereupon I resolved also to send by him mine answer to your first: as thinking it better to do it more safely, though a a little later, then sooner, with less safety. And here Sir at length you have it. Wherein as to my moderation for the manner, I hope you shall perceive that setting aside our difference in opinion, I am the same to you that I was when we were either Scholars together in Emmanuell College, or Ministers in Suffolk. For the substance, I do endeavour still to write to the purpose, omitting nothing material in your Letters. If sometimes I seem overlong, and perhaps to digress somewhat from the principal point more than was necessary, I hope you will pardon it, sith you required a full answer, and the delay itself had need to bring you some interest for the forbearance. And because you mention the vehemency of discreet Lawyers (although me thinks we are rather the Clients themselves, that contend, since our faith is our own and our best freehold) let me entreat of you this ingenuity) which I protest in the sight of God I bring myself.) Let us not make head against evident reason, for our own credit, or fashion, and factions sake, as Lawyers sometimes are wont. Neither let us think we lose the victory, when truth overcomes. We shall have part of it rather, and the better part, since error the common enemy to us both, is to us more dangerous. For truth is secure and impregnable; we, if our Error be not conquered, must remain servants to corruption. It is the first praise, saith Saint Augustine, to hold the true opinion, the next to forsake the false. And surely that is no hard mastery to do, when both are set before us, if we will not be either reckless, or obstinate. From both which our Lord of his mercy evermore help us, and bring us to his ever lasting Kingdom. Amen.  
Horningshearth, Octo. 22. 1620. Your very loving Brother W. BEDELL.    

THE COPIES OF CERTAIN LETTERS, etc.  
Salutem in Christo jesu.  

CHAP. I.  
Of the Preamble. The titles Catholic, Papist, Traitor, Idolater.  
SIr, I do first return you hearty thanks, for the truth and constancy of your love, and those best effects of it, your wishing me as well as to yourself, and rejoicing in my safe return out of Italy. For indeed further I was not: though reported to have been both at Constantinople and jerusalem, by reason of the nearness of my name to one Master William Bidulph, the Minister of our Merchants at Aleppo, who visited both those places.  
I thank you also, that your ancient love towards me, hath (to use that word of the Apostle) now flourished again, in that after so many years, you have found opportunity to accomplish your promise of writing to me: though not as ye undertook of the state of Religion there, yet which I confess I no less desired, the Motives of the forsaking that you had professed here. Whereof since it hath pleased you, as ye write, now to give me an account, and by me to Master Doctor Hall, with some expectation also as it appears of reply from one of us, I will use the liberty which you give me, and as directly as I can for the matter, and in Christian terms for the manner, show you mine opinion of them, wherein I shall endeavour to observe that Precept of the Apostle; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whether it be to be interpreted, loving sincerely, or seeking truth lovingly. Neither soothing untruth for the dearness of your person, nor breaking charity for diversity of opinion. With this entrance, my loving friend, and if you refuse not that old Catholic name, my dear brother, I come to your Letter. Wherein though I might well let pass that part which concerns your quarrel with Master Doctor Hall, with aetatem habet; yet thus much out of the common presumption of charity, which thinks not evil, give me leave to say for him, I am verily persuaded he never meant to charge you with Apostasy in so horrible a sense as you count, viz. a total falling from Christian Religion, like that of julian, an obstinate pertinacy ●n denying the principles of the Faith necessary to salvation, or a renouncing your Baptismee The term Apostasy, as you know, doth not always sound so heinously. A Monk forsaking his Order, or a Clerk his habit, is in the Decretals styled an Apostata. Granatensis saith not untruly, that every deadly sin is a kind of Apostasy. The Apostle Saint Paul speaking of Antichrists times, saith, there must come an Apostasy before Christ's second coming: and how this shall be he shows elsewhere. Men shall give heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of Devils, and such as speak falsehood in hypocrisies Whereby it seems that Antichrist himself shall not professedly renounce Christ and his Baptism. His Kingdom is a mystery of iniquity; a revolt therefore, not from the outward profession, but inward sincerity and power of the Gospel. This kind of Apostasy might be that which Master Hall was sorry to find in you, whom he thought fallen from the truth, though not in the principles of Christian doctrine, yet in sundry conclusions which the reformed Churches truly out of them maintain. He remembered our common education in the same College, our common oath against Popery, our common calling to the same sacred function of the Ministry, he could not imagine upon what reasons you should reverse these beginnings. And certainly, how weighty and sufficient soever they be, we are not taught by our Catholic religion to revenge ourselves, and render reproach for reproach with personal terms; much less to debase and avile the excellent gifts of God, as is Po●sie, the honour of David and Salom●n, by the testimony of the holy Ghost himself. These courses are forbidden us when we are reiled upon, and calumniated; how much more when as Saint Peter speaks, we are beaten for our faults; as it falls out in your case, if these motives of yours be weak and insufficient; which we shall anon consider.  
You say, you are become Catholic. Were you not then so before? The Creed whereinto you were baptised, is it not the Catholic faith? The conclusion ●ertes of Athanasius Creed, which is but a declaration thereof, saith, Haec est fides Catholica. 
This is the Catholic 〈◊〉.  Or is not he a Catholic that holds the Catholic faith? That which was once answered, touching the present Church of England, to one in a Stationer's shop in Venice, that would needs know what was the difference betwixt us and the Catholics. It was told him none: for we accounted ourselves good Catholics. When he unwilling to be put of in his answer, for lack of due form in his question, pressed to know what was the difference betwixt us and them there. He was a sweared, This; that we believed the Catholic faith contained in the Creed, but did not believe the thirteenth Ar●●cle which the Pope had put to it. When he knew not of any such Article; the Extravagant of Pope Boniface was brought, where he defines●● to be altogether of necessity to salvation, to every humane creature to be under the Bishop of Rome. This thirteenth Article, of the thirteenth Apostle, good Master Wadesworth, it seems you have learned, and to are become, as some now speak and write Catholic Roman. That is in true interpretation Vniuersall-particular● which because they cannot be equalled, the one restraining and cutting off from the other, take heed that by straightening your faith to Rome, you have not altered it, and by becoming Roman, left off to be Catholic.  
Thus, if you say, our ancestors were all till of late years. Excuse me Sir, whether you call our ancestors the first Christian Inhabitants of this I'll, or the ancient Christians of the Primitive Church; neither those, nor these were Roman-Catholikes; Namely, the Fathers of the African Council, and amongst these Saint Augustine: and therefore by Pope Boniface his sentence be undoubtedly damned for taking upon them, by the Devil's instinct (if we believe another 
* 〈…〉.  Pope Boniface) to wax proud against the Church of Rome. Such Catholics, if ye mean the most of Christendom be at this day. Beware of putting yourself upon that issue. Believe me, either ye must frame a new Cosmography, yes, a new world, or else ye are gone if it come to most voices in Christendom. Touching the names of Papist, Traitor, Idolater. The first is no miscalling you, as comprising the very character that difference●h you from all other Catholics. Neither by our Rhemists' advice should you be ashamed of it, sith to be a Papist, 
〈…〉  by their interpretation is nothing else, but to be a Christian man, a child of the Church, and subject to Christ's Vicar. The wise State of Venice have a little different notion of their Papaelines, excluding from sundry their consultations under that name, such of the Nobility as are obliged to the Pope by Ecclesiastical promotions. True it is that they apply it also to Papalines in faction, such as are superstitiously devoted to the maintaining of all the Pope's usurped authority; in which sense shaped you are no Papist.  
A Traitor I am assured M●ster Doctor Hall will never call you, unless he know that you have drunk so deep of the Cup of error, as to believe the Pope ●y depose your Prince; that you are not bound to obey him being so deposed; that in that case, it is lawful, yea meritorious to kill him; that they are Martyr's that are executed 〈◊〉 plotting to blow him up with Gunpowder, though undeposed; hoping it would be no less agreeable to hi● Holiness, than (that which he desired) to have kep● him from coming to the Crown at first. If you be thus perfectly a Papist, not only we here in England, but I believe his Catholic Majesty, under whose obedience now ye live, whensoever he should be that Prince, would account you a Traitor, and punish you accordingly. I hope you are far from these furies.  
For Idolatry, if to give divine honour to creatures, deserve that name, consider how you can defend or excuse those prayers to the Blessed Virgin, Tu no● ab ●oste protege. & ●or â mortis suscipe. And to the Cross, Augepus ●●stitiam re●sque dona veniam: I omit to speak of the Pope's Omnipotency. I hope also you keep yourself from this Idolatry.  
In Protestant religion, you say, you coui● never ●●nae Uniformity of a settled Faith. How so? when you had that same 
* 〈…〉  one only immoveable and vnreforma●ie ●nie of ●aith as Tertullian calls it, every Lord's day recited ●n your ●earing, if not by your mouth. I mean the Creea, of which Irenaeus 
* 〈…〉.  saith, that he which is able to say much of 〈◊〉 exceeds it not, nor he that less 〈◊〉. which Saint Augustine calls the rule common to great and 〈◊〉; which mig●● well enough have settled and quieted 〈◊〉 conscience. whilst you laboured to find the truth in all doubtful questions. Whereto how carefully and diligently you used the means of reading, studying, and praying for three or four years, God and your conscience best know. For conferring, I cannot yield you any testimony, notwithstanding our familiarity, and that we were not many miles asunder, and you were also privy, that I had to do in these controversies with some of that side, and saw some sample of the work. I come now to your motives.   

CHAP. II.  
Of the Contrariety of Sects pretanded to be amongst Reformers.  
IN the front whereof is the comm●on exception, to our contrariety of sects and opinions, etc. First, what are all these to the Church of England, which followeth none but Christ? Then, if it be a fault of the reformed Churches, that there is strife and division amongst them, as who will justify it; yet let it find pardon, if not for Corinth's sake, 
1. Cor. 3. 3. Socrat. 1. 4. c. 2●.  and the Primitive Churches what time Themistius was fain to excuse it with an Oration to Valens the Emperor, yet even for Rome's: where also you cannot but know, that in very many and most important points, Divines hold one thing and Canonists another; The French, and lately also the Venetian Divines, resist to his face, him, that others say no man may be so hardy as to ask, Domine cur ita facus? though he should draw with him innumerable souls to hell. Your Spanish Prelates and Divines, would never acknowledge in the Council of Trent (the mysteries whereof are come out at last) that Episcopal authority was derived from him, nor consent to that circumventing clause Proponentibus Legatis, etc. and were strong that residence is, de iure divino; howsoever they were overruled by the Italian faction: whether they have yet changed their minds, you can better tell then I. The old faction of the Thomists and Scotists is yet a foot, as I perceive by Rada his Controversies. In the beginning whereof the Censor of the Book hath this sentence. Qua prop●er audiendi nullatonus sunt, qui has Theologicas contentiones è medio omnino expl●dendas arbitrantur. There is another lately risen between the Dominicans and the Jesuits; both in as great matters, and pursued with as great vehemency, as those of the reformed Churches, excepting only a few fiery spirits of Saxony. But in the Church of England, as reformation was not brought in by any one man, but by the joint consent of the whole, so it is yet continued. Lutherans, Zwinglians, Caluinists, are not known among us, save by hearsay. Whereof it is some sign, that yourself do not know them well, as it seems, when you distinguish them from Protestants. A name first given to the Princes and free Cities of Germany, that sought reformation in the Diet at Spire, Anno 1529. and from them passed to us and other Countries where it was effected. Who are then Protestants, if the Lutherans and Zwinglians be not? For of both these there were in that Diet; the Heluetians and parts adjoining of Germany, having been reform at home, first by the preaching of Zuinglius; the Saxons, and the remnant of Luther. Who much about one time and without any correspondence, began to oppose the Pope's Indulgences, and differed not for aught that ever I could yet understand, save in the manner of Christ's presence in the Eucharist. Yea, in that also taught uniformly, that the body and blood of our Saviour are present; not to the Elements, but to the receiver, in the use, and without Transubstantiation. As for those whom you call Caluinists; and the rest Puritans, Cartwrightists, and Brownists, tell me in good sooth, Master Wadesworth, how do they differ from the reformed Churches in Helueti●, or the Church of England, save in the matter of government only? See th●n all this contrariety of Sects meetly well reconclled. For Puritans, Cartwrightists, and Brownists, are in substance of Doctrine all one with Caluinists, and these with Zwinglians, who were of the first Protestants, and differ little or nothing from those whom ye call Lutherans. Whereof this may be a sensible proof, that commonly their Adversaries and yourself after call them by the same name, the Protestant Churches in Germany, France, Holland, and Geneva. And Pope Leo the tenth in his condemnatory Bull; and likewise Charles the fifth in his Imperial Edict, do reflect wholly upon Luther and his followers, without any mention of the other at all. To conclude this matter; as it is undoubtedly a sign of a good mind to dislike contention, and diversities of opinions, and it may have pardon to apprehend sometimes more than there is indeed; like to the melancholic old man in the Comedy, whose suspicion makes him to multiply on this manner. 
Plaut. Aulular.  Qui mihi intromisisti in aedes quingentos coquos, so to muster up empty names, without any real difference, as Puritans, Cartwrightists, Brownists; to make differences in a few opinions about Government or Sacraments, Sects and contrarieties, hath not the character of ingenuous and sincere dealing, which from you Master Waddesworth, I did and do expect.  
But some of these damn each other, avouching their Positions to be matters of Faith, not School questions of opinion only. Here indeed there is fault on all sides in this Age, that we cannot be content with the bounds which the ancient Church hath set, but every private opinion must be straightways an Article of Faith. Every decision of a Pope, every Decree of a Council. And then as men are easily enamoured of their own conceits, and as Gerson wisely applies that of the Poet, Qui amant sibi somnia fingunt; as if the very marrow of Religion consisted in those points, those that think otherwise are Heretics, and in state of damnation. The Roman faction goes further, to Fire and Faggot, and all exquisite torments, as if those things that make against the Papacy, were more severely to be punished then the blasphemies of the jews, or Mahumetisme itself. I do not excuse the reformers of this bitterness, wherein after your departure out of England, my nameless Adversary that undertook Master Alablasters' quarrel, giving me over in three of his demands, ran riot in the first, about this point of opposition among ourselves, and raked together all the vehement speeches of Luther, and some of his followers, against those whom they call the Sacramentaries. Why, who will undertake to defend Lutbers speeches, or all that falls from contentious pens? But even out of those testimonies, which himself brings for the worst that he could on the contrary part; it appears, this eagerness is not mutual. And in truth, both we in England, and the Helue●ians, and French, do maintain a brotherly affection towards them of Saxony, how spitefully soever some of them write of us. And even of those whom he calls Lutherans, as I perceived while I was at Norimberg, the moderator sort are alike affected towards us. But as touching the avouching our opinions to be matters of Faith (which exception is common to you with him) that which I should have answered him, if I had found in him any thing but spite and scorn, I will say now to you. Verily in some sort even the least conclusions in Divinity are matters of Faith. For both Faith hath to do with them, and they are fetched by discourse, from the first Principles holden by Faith, whence our whole Religion is called by Saint jude, the Faith once delivered to the Saints. And the least error in them, by consequence overthrows the same principles whence they are deduced. That makes some, to move attention in their Readers to say, The questions are not about small matters, but of the principal Articles of Religion, even about the foundation. As Cu●aeus whom he cities, saith, the question is of two Articles of Faith. First, of that which teacheth that in Christ two natures are united. Secondly, of the Article, He ascended into Heaven. Why? do not both sides agree to these? Yes. But one side fetches arguments against ubiquity from these places, and thereupon saith, the question is about these Articles; perhaps also chargeth the other to deny them. He cities Pappus writing thus, Agitur inter nos de Omnipotentia Dei, etc. The controversy betwixt us, is about the Omnipotency of God. The personal union of the two natures in Christ. The communication of properties. The glorious body of our Saviour, etc. Lo again, every place of argument or defence is made the matter of Controversy. Out of these and such like confessions on either side, my nameless Adversary will needs enforce, with great pomp and triumph; what think ye? That such sanctified men (this is his scoffing language) go not together by the ears for Moonshine in the water. Again, That all those Myrmidonian fights and bloody encounters be not de lanâ Caprinâ aut de umbrâ asini— Why, who said they were? I will set down here my words, that you may judge of the conscience of this man, and have with all the substance of my answer to this objection. And what if some outrageous spirits on each side, trans●ported with passion in their oppositions, have used most bitter and unbeseeming speeches to their Adversaries, and sometimes have showed each other small humanity; are you so simple as not to discern between the choler of some few opinionate men, and the consequence of their opinions? Have you forgotten Saint Hierome and Ruffinus deadly foe-hood, which was rung over the world? or Epiphanius and Chrysostom's, or Victors and the Greek Bishops? which proceeded so far about a trifle, that he excommunicated them; which is little less I think then to condemn to the pit of Hell. And yet if I should put it to your judgement, I am persuaded you would grant they held all truth necessary to salvation. For you must remember Pope Boniface had not yet coined the new Article of the Faith, that I mentioned before. What shall I speak of Saint Paul and Barnabas, which grew to such bitterness, and that about a very little question of conveniency, that though they were sent out together by the Holy Ghost, they broke off company. These be humane passions, which wisdom would we should pity, when they grow to such extremities, upon so small cause; rather then from their outrage to gather there is just cause to increase. Do we not see that even natural brethren do sometimes defy one another, and use each other with less respect than strangers? Now from hence would you conclude they be not brethren; and hearten them on, and say to the one, that sith his half brother is not so near to him, as he with whom he is thus at odds, he must fall out worse with him. You should well so deserve the hate of God, for a make-hate between brethren. These were all my words set down in answer to his objecting our own contentions and condemning each other, to prove that therefore we could not hold continuity with the ancient Church of England, from which we dissented much more. I held as you may perceive, that neither amongst ourselves, nor from our predecessors we disagree in any truth necessary to salvation. He makes me to say, our dissensions are about Moon shine, and de umbrâ asini, & de la●â caprinâ, and trifles, and matters of no consequence. To return to you, good Master Waddesworth, let men avouch as confidently as they will touching their own positions, Est de Fide. N●hil certius apud Catholicos, and of their contraries cry out. They are Heretics, renew ancient heresies, race the foundation, deny the Articles of the Creed, God's ●●●ipoteney, etc. all because themselves by discourse, can (as they think) fasten such things upon them: A sober Christian must not give heed to all that is said in this kind. These things must be examined with right judgement, and ever with much charity, and patience, remembering that ourselves know in part, and prophesy in part. In a word● this should not have so much disquieted you.  
Nor yet that which you add, That every one pretends Scripture. Best of all, 
Hom. 33. 〈◊〉 Act.  saith Saint Chrysostome, For if we should say we believe humane reasons, thou mightest with good reason 〈◊〉 troubled, but when as we receive the 〈◊〉, and they be simple and true, it will 〈…〉 thing for 〈◊〉 to judge, etc. And to what purpose indeed serves the faculty of ●●●son perfected and polished with learning? wherefore the supernatural light of Faith? wherefore the gift of God in us Ministers conferred by the imposition of hands? but 〈◊〉 which side handles the Word of God deceitfully, which sincerely. But here again, Each side arrogates the Holy Ghost in his favour. What then? If we ourselves have the anointing, 
1. joh. 2. 20. 27 & 4. 1.  we shall be able as we are bidden to try the spirits, whether they be of God or no? For we will not believe them, because they say they have the Spirit, or cannot be deceived, but because their Doctrine is consonant to the principles of heavenly Truth, which by the writings inspired by himself, the Holy Ghost hath graven in our hearts. Which writings are well acknowledged by you, to be the Law and Rule, according whereunto, in judgement of Religion we must proceed.   

CHAP. III.  
Of the want of a humane external infallible judge and Interpreter.  
AS to that you say, did about all trouble you, the want of a certain humane external infallible judge to interpret Scripture, and define Questions of Faith without error. What if you found not an external humane judge, if you had an internal divine one? And having an infallible Rule by which your humane judge should proceed, why should you trust another man's applying it, rather than your own, in a matter concerning your own salvation? But i● God have left us no such external judge, if Antiquity knew 〈◊〉, if Religion need none, it was no just motive to leave us, that you could find none, amongst all those Sects which 〈…〉. And how much less if you have 〈…〉 amended yourself where you are; which we shall consider by and by?  
I say then first, that to make this your motive of any moment, it must be showed, that God hath appointed such a judge in his Church. Let that appear out of some passage of holy Scripture. For your conceit or desire that such a judge there should be, to whom you might in conscience obey, and yield yourself, because he could not err●, doth not prove it. You would know the Truth, only by the authority, and sole pronouncing of the judge's mouth. A short and easy way, which to most men is plausible, because it spares the pains of study and discourse. To such especially, as either out of weakness dare not trust their own judgement, or account it shall have the merit of humility, to be led by their Teachers. But what now if God will have you call no man your Father upon earth? If he will send you to his Word? and after you have received the Faith by the Church's testimony out of the easy and plain places thereof, bid you search the Scriptures, to find the Truth in the remnant, and pick it out by your own industry. 
Luke 16.  The rich man being in hell torments (in whose words I doubt not but our Saviour doth impersonate and represent the conceits of many men living in this world) presumes that if one were sent from the dead his Kinsmen would hearken to him, but he is remitted to Moses and the Prophets. The jews as I perceived by speech with some of them at Venice, make it one of their motives, that our Lord jesus is not the Christ. He should not, say they, have come in such a fashion, to leave his own Nation in doubt and suspense; and scandalise so many thousands; but so as all men might know him to be what he was. Miserable men! that will give laws to God. Of which fault be you a ware also (good Master Waddesworth) and be content to take, not to prescribe the means by which you will be brought unto the knowledge of the Truth▪ to use what he hath given, not to conjecture and divine what he must give.  
But God fails not his Church in such means as be necessary. Let us therefore consider the necessity of this judge. Where I beseech you consider (for I am sure you cannot but know it) that all things necessary to salvation are evidently set down in holy Scripture? This both the Scriptures themselves do teach, and the Fathers avouch, namely Saint Augustine and Saint Chrysostome, and others. I forbear to set down their words, or further to confirm this Lemma, which I proved at large against another adversary, and shall at all times make good if it be questioned. Besides these points, there are a great many other though not of such necessity, yet evidently laid down also in the same Scriptures, by occasion of them. Many by just discourse may be cleared from these, and the former. If any thing yet remain in suspense, and unknown, yea or if you will erred in, so it be not wilfully and obstinately, yet shall it be ever without peril of damnation to him that▪ receiveth what the holy Ghost hath plainly delivered. What necessity then of your imaginary judge? Yes▪ for Unity is a goodly thing, not only in matters necessary, but universally in all. Controversies must not be endless. But how comes it to pass then that your judge, whosoever he be, doth not all this while decide the question touching the Conception of the Blessed Virgin, that is between the Dominicans, and Franciscans, nor that between the Dominicans and Jesuits touching Grace and freewill; and all other the points that are controverted in the Schools; to spare contention and time (a precious commodity among wise men) and give this honour to Divinity alone, that in ●t all doubts should be reduced to certainties? Or if it seem no wisdom to be hasty in deciding such questions; wherein witty and learned men are engaged, lest in stead of changing their opinions, they should fall to challenge not only the infallibility, but which were more dangerous the authority of their judge: If it be thought better to leave scope to opinions, opposition itself profitably serving to the bolting out of the truth. If unity in all things be as it seems despaired of, by this your Gellius himself; 
Cic. ●. de Legibus.  why are we not content with unity in things necessary to salvation, expressly set down in holy Scripture: and anciently thought to suffice, reserving infallibility as an honour proper to God speaking there? Why should it not be thought to suffice, that every man having embraced that necessary truth, which is the rule of our faith, thereby try the spirits whether they be of God or no. If he meet with any that hath not that doctrine, receive him not to house, nor salute him. If consenting to that, but otherwise infirm or erring, yet charitably bear with him. This for every private man. As for the public order & peace of the Church, God hath given Pastors and Teachers, that we should not be carried about with every wind of doctrine, and amongst them appointed Bishops, 
〈…〉  to command that men teach no other or foreign doctrine, which was the end of Timothy his leaving at Ephesus, 1. Tim. 1. 3. Then, the Apostles themselves by their example, have commended to the Church the wholesome use of Synods, 
Act. 15. 6.  to determine of such controversies as cannot by the former means be composed; but still by the holy Scriptures, the Law or Rule, as you say well, by which all these judges must proceed. Which if they do not, then may they be deceived themselves, and deceive others as experience hath showed, yet never be able to extinguish the truth.  
To come to Antiquity. There is not any one thing belonging to Christian Religion, if we consider well, of more importance, then how the purity of the whole may be maintained. The Ancients that write of the rest of Christian Doctrine, is it not a miracle, had they known any such infallible judge, in whose Oracle the security of all, with the perpetual tranquillity of the Church is contained, they should say nothing of him? There was never any Age wherein there have not been heresies, and sects▪ to which of them was it ever objected that they had no infallible judge? How soon would they have fought to amend that defect, if it had been a currant doctrine in those times, that the true Church cannot be without such an Officer? The Fathers that dealt with them, why did they not lay aside all disputing, and appeal them only to this Bar? Unless perhaps that were the let which Cardinal Bellarmine tells the Venetians, 
Rispos●a ad vn● lettera, etc.  hindered Saint Paul from appealing to Saint Peter, l●st they should have made their Adversaries to laugh at them for their labour. Well: howsoever the Cardinal hath found out a merry reason for Saint Paul's appealing to Caesar's judgement, not Peter, lest he should expose himself to the laughter of Pagans: what shall we say when the Father's write professedly to instruct Catholic men, 
Tertull. de Prescript. etc.  of the forepleading and advantages to be used against Heretics, even without descending to trial by Scriptures? or of some certain general and ordinary way to discern the Truth of the Catholic Faith from the profane novelties of heresies? 
Vincent. Lyrine●s.  Had they known of this infallible judge, should we not have heard of him in this so proper a place, and as it were in a cause belonging to his own Court. Nay, doth not the writing itself of such books show, that this matter was wholly unknown to Antiquity? For had the Church been in possession of so easy and sure a Court to discover and discard heresies, they should not have needed to task themselves to find out any other. But the truth is, infallibility is, and ever hath been accounted proper to Christ's judgement. And as hath been said, all necessary Truth to salvation he hath delivered us in his Word. That Word, himself tells us, shall judge at the last day. Yea, in all true decisions of Faith, that Word even now judgeth, Christ judgeth, the Apostle sits judge▪ Christ speaks in the Apostle. Thus Antiquity.  
Neither are they moved a whit with that objection: That the Scriptures are often the matter of Controversies. For in that case the remedy was easy which Saint Augustine shows to have recourse to the plain 
a Lib. de Vaitate.  places, and manifest such 
b Eccles. c. 5. &. 19  as should need no interpreter: for such there be, by which the other may be cleared. The same may be said, if sometimes it be questioned, which be Scriptures, which not. I think it was never heard of, in the Church, that there was an external infallible judge, who could determine that question. Arguments may be brought from the consent or descent with other Scriptures, from the attestation of Antiquity, and inherent signs of divine authority, or humane infirmity: but if the Auditor or Adversary yield not to these, such parts of necessity must needs be laid aside. If all Scripture be denied (which is as it were exceptio in iudicem ante litis contestationem) Faith hath no place, only Reason remains. To which I think it will scarce seem reasonable, if you should say, though all men are liars, yet this judge is infallible; and to him thou oughtest in conscience to obey and yield thy understanding in all his det●rminations, for he cannot err. No not if all men in the world should say it. Unless you first set down there is a God, and establish the authority of the books of holy Scripture, as his voice, and thence show if you can, the warrant of this privilege.  
Where you offi●me, the Scriptures to be the law and the rule, but alone of themselves cannot be judges; if you mean, without being produced, applied, and heard; ye say truth. Yet Nicodemus spoke not a●isse, 
joh. 1. 51.  when he demanded, Doth our law judge any man, unless it hear him first? he meant the same which Saint Paul, when he said of the high Priest, thou sittest to judge me according to the law: and so do we when we say the same. Neither do we send you to Angels, or God himself immediately, but speaking by his spirit in the Scriptures, and (as I have right now said) alleged, and by discourse applied to the matters in question. As for Princes, since it pleased you to make an excursion to them, if we should make them infallible judge, or give them authority to decree in religion as they list, as Gardiner did to King Henry the eight, it might well be condemned for monstrous, as it was by Calvin, As for the purpose, Licere Regi interdicere populo usum calicis in Coena, Quarè? Potestas. 〈◊〉. summa est penes Regem, quoth Gardiner. This was to make the King as absolute a Tyrant in the Church, as the Pope claimed to be. But, that Princes which obey the truth, have commandment from God, to command good things, and forbid evil, not only in matters pertaining to humane society, but also the religion of God, this is no new strange doctrine, but Calums, 
Institut. l. 4. c. 20. August. contr. Crescon. l. 3. c. 51.  and ours, and S. Augustine's, is so many words. And this is all the Head-ship of the Church we give to Kings. Whereof a Queen is as well capable as a King, since it is an Act of authority, not Ecclesiastical Ministry; proceeding from eminency of power, not of knowledge, or holiness. Wherein not only a learned King, as ours is; but a good old woman (as Queen Elizabeth, besides her Princely dignity was) may excel as yourselves confess, your infallible judge himself. But in power he saith, he is above all: which not to examine for the present, in this power Princes are above all their subjects I trow; and Saint Augustine saith plainly, to command and forbid, even in the religion of God, still according to God's Word, which is the touchstone of good and evil. Neither was King Henry the eight, the first Prince that exercised this power, witness David, and Solomon, and the rest of the Kings of judah before Christ, And since that Kings were Christians▪ the affairs of the Church have depended upon them, and the greatest Synods have been by their Decree, 
Proëmiol. 5.  as Socrates, expressly saith. Nor did King Henry claim any new thing in this Land, but restored to the Crown the ancient right thereof, which sundry his predecessors had exercised as our Historians and Lawyers with one consent affirm.  
The rest of your induction of Archbishops, Bishops, and whole Clergy in their Convocation house, and a Council of all Lutherans, Caluinists, Protestants, etc. is but a needless pomp of words, striving to win by a form of discourse, that which gladly shall be yielded at the first demand. They might all err, if they were as many as the sand on the sea shore, if they did not rightly apply the rule of holy Scriptures, by which, as you acknowledge the external judge, which you seek, must proceed. As to your demand therefore, how you should be sure when, and wherein they did, and did not err; where you should have fixed your foot? to forbear to skirmish with your confirmation (That though, à posse ad esse non valet semper consequentia, yet, aliquando valet: &, frustra dicitur potentia quae nunquam dueitur in actum.) To the former whereof I might tell you, that without question, nunquam valet: and to the second, that I can very well allow, that errandi potentia, among Protestants be ever frustra. This I say freely, that if you come with this resolution to learn nothing by discourse, or evidence of Scripture, but only by the mere pronouncing of a humane external judge's mouth, to whom you would yield your understanding in all his determinations: if, as the Jesuits teach their Scholars, 
Regula 1. & 1●.  you will wholly deny your own judgement, and resolve, that if this judge shall say, that is black, which appears to your eyes white, you will say it is black too; you have posed all the Protestants; they cannot tell how to teach you infallibly. Withal I must tell you thus much, that this preparation of mind in a Scholar, as you are, in a Minister, yea in a Christian, that had but learned his Creed, much more that had from a child known the holy Scriptures, that are able to make us wise to salvation, 
1. Tim. 3. 15.  through the faith that is in Christ jesus, were too great weakness, and to use the Apostles phrase childishness of understanding. 
1. Cor. 14. 20.   
But at length you heard a sound of harmony and consent, that in the Catholic Church, as in Noah's Ark was infallibility, and possibility of salvation; which occasioned you to seek out, and to enter into this Ark of Noah. The sound of consent and infallibility is most pleasing and harmonious, and undoubtedly ever and only to be found in the Catholic Church, to wit, in the rule of Faith, and in the holy Scriptures, and such necessary doctrine as perfectly concordeth with the same. But as in song many discords do pass in smaller notes, without offence of the ears, so should they in smaller matters of opinion in the Church, without the offence of judicious and charitable minds. Which yet I speak not to justify them; nay, I am verily of the mind, that this is the thing that hath marred the Church music in both kinds, that too much liberty is taken in descant to depart from the ground, and as one saith, notae nimium denigrantur. The fault of the Italians: though they think themselves the only songsters in the world. But to return to you, tell me, I beseech you (good Master Wadesworth) was this the harmony that transported you. The Pope himself saith, I cannot err, and to me thou oughtest to have recourse for decision of doubts in matters of faith. And whereas this is not only denied by Protestants, but hath been ever by the French, and anciently I am sure by the Spanish, lately by some Italian Divines also, unless he use due means to find the truth; yea, whereas it is the issue of all the Controversies of this age; in this snare you fastened your foot, this was the Centre that settled your conscience, this the solid and firm foundation of your faith. What? and did it not move you, that some limit this infallibility of the Pope thus, if he enter Canonically, if he proceed advisedly, and maturely, using that diligence that is fit to find out the truth; that is (as you said before) proceeding by the rule, the Scriptures? Albeit to the Fathers of the African Council it seemed incredible (as they write in their Synodall Epistle to P. Celestine standing for appeals to himself) that God can inspire the right i● trial to one, denying it to many Bishops in a Council. Tell us then, who made you secure of these things? or did you in truth, never so much as make question of them, but hearing this harmonious sound; The Pope is the infallible judge, you trusted the new Masters of that side, Gregory de Valentia, and Bellarmine, that whether the Pope in defining do use diligence or no, if he do define, 
Analyst Fidei Cathol. pa 8.  he shall define infallibly. Alas Sir! if this were the rest you found for the sole of your foot, instead of movable water, you fell upon mire and puddle; Or rather like to another Dove mentioned in Scripture, columba seducta non habens cor, 
Oseae, 2. 1●▪  by the most chaffy shrap that ever was set before the eyes of winged Fowl, were brought to the doorefall. Excuse my grief, mixed I confess with some indignation, but more love to you, though I thus write. Many things there be in Popery inconvenient, and to my conceit weakly and vngroundedly affirmed, to say no more; but this is so absurd and palpably a flattery, as to omit to speak of you, for my part I cannot be persuaded that Paulus the fifth believes it himself. For consider I pray, what needed anciently the Christian Emperors, and sometimes at the request of the Bishops of Rome themselves, to have gathered together so many Bishops from so diverse parts of the world to celebrate Counsels, if it had been known and believed then, that one man's sentence might have cleared all controversies, and put all heresies to silence? How durst sundry holy, and learned men have rejected his decisions, whether right or wrong is not now the question, unchristianly out of doubt on their parts, if he had been then holden the infallible Oracle of our religion? As when Polycrates, with the Bishops of Asia, and Irenaeus also yielded not to Victor, excommunicating the Eastern Churches about the celebration of Easter, when Saint Cyprian, with the first Council of Carthage of eighty six Bishops had decreed, that such as were baptised by heretics, should be rebaptised, and certified Stephanus of this Decree, and he opposed it, and would have nothing innovated, would Cyprian after that have resisted and confuted Stephanus his letter, had he known him for infallible? And how doth he confute him? as erring, writing impertinently, 
Epistol● ad Pompe●um.  contrary to himself. Yea, let it be observed, that he doth not only not account Stephanus infallible, but not so much as a judge over any Bishop. See the Vote of Cyprian, and note those words. Neque enim quisquam nostrum Episcopum se esse Episcoporum constituit, an't tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem collegas suos adigit, quando habeat omnis Episcopus pro licentia libertatis & potestatis suae, arbitrium proprium, tanquam iudicari ab alio non possit cum nec ipse possit alterum i●dicare. Sed exspectemus universi iudicium Domini nostri jesu Christi, qui unus & solus habet potestatem & praeponendi in Ecclesiae suae gubernation, & de acts nostro iudicandi. A passage worthy to be noted also, for the clearing of the independence of Episcopal authority from the Pope, which I now let pass. Neither was Saint Cyprian herein alone: Firmilianus, and the Eastern Bishops, resisted Stephanus no less, as appears by his Epistle, which in the Roman edition of Manutiu●▪ set forth by the command of Pius the fourth, with the survey of four Cardinals, whereof one is now a Saint, with exquisite diligence; is wholly left out. And Pamelius saith he thinks purposely, for himself is of the mind that it had been better it had never come forth. But to return to our purpose. The Fathers of the Council of Africa, and Saint Augustine amongst them, resist three Popes succeeding each other, Zosimus, Boniface, and Coelestinus, about appeals to Rome; shall we think they would ever have done it, if they had known or imagined them to be the supreme and infallible judges in the Church? I let pass the Schism between the Greek and the Latin Church, which had not happened, if this doctrine had been anciently received. Nay, it is very plain in story, that the Bishop of Rome's lifting up himself to be Universal Bishop chiefly caused it. To conclude, neither Liberius, nor Honorius, to omit many other Bishops of Rome, had ever been taxed of heresy, if this had anciently been currant, that the Pope is infallible. I will not stand now to examine the shameful defence that Bella●mine makes for the latter of these, bearing down Fathers, Counsels, Stories, Popes themselves, as all falsified or deoeived herein. Wherein because he is learnedly refuted by Doctor Raynolds, I insist not upon it. This I press, that all those Writers and Counsels, and amongst them Pope Leo the second accursing Honorius, did not then hold, that which by Pighius and the Jesuits is undertaken, that the Pope is infallible. Even the Council of Basil, deposing Eugenius (for obstinately resisting this truth of the Catholic faith, That the Council is above the Pope) as an Heretic, doth show the sense of Christendom even in these latter times how corrupt soever, both in rule, and practice.  
And because you make this infallible judge to be also an infallible Interpreter of holy Scripture, how happens it that Damasu● Bishop of Rome consults with Hierome about the meaning of sundry Texts of Scripture, when it seems himself might have taken his pen, and set him down quickly, that which should have taught both him and the whole Church, not only without danger but even possibility of error? Sure we are little beholding to the diligence of our Ancestors, that have not more carefully registered the Commentaries (or because they have had for sundry Ages small time to write just Commentaries) the expositions which in their Sermons, or otherwise the Bishops of Rome have made of holy Scripture. A work which if this Doctrine were true, were more worth than all the Fathers; and would justify that blasphemy of the Canon Law, where by a shameful corruption of Saint Augustine, the Decretals of Popes are enrolled amongst the Canonical Scriptures. 
●. in 〈◊〉 Dist. 19  I am already too long in so plain a matter: yet one proof more which is of all most sensible. Being admonished by this your conceit of an infallible Interpreter, I chanced to turn over the Pope's Decretals, and observed the interpretation of Scriptures. What shall I say? I find them so lewd, and clean beside the purpose, yea oftentimes so childish & ridiculous, both in giving the sense, and in the application, that I protest to you in the presence of God, nothing doth more loath me of Popery, than the handling of holy Scripture by your infallible Interpreter alone. Consider a few of the particulars, and especially such as concern the Popes own authority. 
Significasti de electione. joh. 21. 15.  To justify his exacting an oath of fealty of an Archbishop, to whom he grant● the Pall, is brought our Lord jesus Christ who committing the ●are of his Sheep to Peter, did put too a condition, saying, Sid diligis me pasce oves meas. Christ said, if thou lovest me feed my sheep; Why may not the Pope say, If you will swear me fealty, you shall have the Pall. But first he corrupts the Text: Christ said not, If thou lovest me: Then, Christ puts not Peter's love as a condition of feeding, but feeding as a proof and effect of his love. And if the feeding of Christ's sheep were sought, love to him and them might suffice to be professed, or if he would needs have more than Christ required, to be sworn. What is this to the oath of fealty? Strait after to the objection, that all oaths are prohibited by Christ, nor any such thing can be found appointed by the Apostles after the Lord, or in the Counsels, he urges the words following in the Text, 
Matth. 5. 34.  Swear not at all; quod ampli●s est à malo est, that is saith he, Evil compels us by Christ's permission to exact more. It is not evil to go from the Pope's obedience? to condemn Bishops without his privity? to translate Bishops by the King's commandment? See the place, and tell me of your Interpreters infallibility. Treating of the translation of Bishops, or such as are elected unto other Sees, he saith: 
Inter corpor. De translatione Episcopi.  That since the spiritual Bands is stronger than the carnal, it cannot be doubted but Almighty God hath reserved the dissolution of the spiritual marriage that is betwixt a Bishop and his Church, to his own judgement alone; 
Matth. 19 26.  charging that whom God hath soyned man sever not. For it is not by humane but rather divine power that spiritual marriage is dissolved, when as by translation or session by the authority of the Bishop of Rome (whom it is plain to be the Vicar of jesus Christ) a Bishop is removed from his Church. An admirable interpretation of the Text, Quos Deus coni●nxit! by which the Pope not only challengeth that which is proper to God's judgement only, as he saith, viz. to dissolve the bond of spiritual wedlock; but because that is the stronger, of ●arnall it seems also; when it shall please him.  
The anointing of a Prince since Christ's coming is translated from the head to the shoulder, 
De sacra Vnctione. Esay 9 6. 1. Sam. 9 24.  by which Principality is fitly designed, according to that which is read, Factus est principatus super humorum eius; for signifying also whereof, Samuel caused the shoulder to be set before Saul. Who should ever have understood these Texts, if your infallible Interpreter had not declared them? But this is nothing yet to the exposition of those Texts which the Pope interprets in his answer to the Emperor of Constantinople, 
Solicit. De maioritate. 1. Pet, 2. 13.  as Subditi estote omni humanae oreaturae propter Deum, etc. He tells him that Saint Peter wrote that to his own Subjects, to provoke them to the merit of humility. For if he had meant thereby to lay the yoke of subjection upon Priests, it would follow that every servant were to rule over them, since it is said, omni humanae creaturae. After, Iris not barely set down, Regi praecellenti, but there is put between, perhaps not without cause; tanquam; And that which follows, ad vindictam malefactorum, laudem vero bonorum, 
Vers. 14.  is not to be understood that the King or Emperor hath received the power of the sword upon good and evil men; save only those who using the sword are committed to his jurisdiction according to that which the Truth saith, They which take the sword shall perish with the sword. For no man ought or can judge another's servant, 
Matth. ●6. 5●.  since the servant according to the Apostle standeth or falleth to his own Lord. For the love of God consider this interpretation, and compare it with Saint Chrysto●e upon Rom. 13. Nay do but read the Text attentively, and judge of the infallibility of your Interpreter. Strait after he tells the Emperor, that he might have understood the prerogative of Priesthood out of that which was said, not of every man but of God, not to the King but to the Priest, not to one descending of the Royal stock but of the Priestly lineage of the Priests, to wit, 
jerem. ●. 10.  which were in Anathot. Behold, I have set you over nations and kingdoms, to pull up, and destroy, to build and to plant. See the prerogative of the Priesthood out of Ieremies calling to be a Prophet. O if he had been high Priest! This had been a Text for the nonce. But he goes on. It is said in God's Law also, 
Exod. 22. ●8.  
* Thou shalt not rail on the Gods, nor curse the Prince of ● thy people. Gen. 1. 16.  Dijs non detrabes, & Principem populi tui non maledices. Which setting Priests before Kings calls them Gods, and the other Princes. Compare this exposition with David's and Paul's, Psal. 82. and Act. 23. 5. and ye shall see how the Interpreter hath hit the mark. Again, ye ought to have known, quod fecit Deus duo magna luminaria, etc. See the exposition, and the difference between the Pope and Kings both in the Text and Gloss. Now although the Gloss writer were no excellent Calculator, yet out of Clavius the account may be cleared: who tells us the Sun exceeds the Moon 6539. times and 〈◊〉 
Io●. 21. 16.  I let pass the collection out of Pasce oves meas, that ●e belongs not to Christ's fold that doth not acknowledge Peter and his Successors his Masters and Pastors: 
Matth. 16. 19  out of Quodcuinque ligaveris, that nothing is excepted. Indeed the Pope excepts nothing, but looseth Vows, Contracts, Oaths, the bond of Allegiance and Fealty between Subjects and their Princes: The Commandment of Christ, Drink ye all of this, etc. But our Lord expounds himself, john 20. Whose sins ye remit, they are remitted, etc.  
Ex ore sedentis in throno procedebat gladius his acutus. 
3 Ex ore. De his quae fiunt, Tit. 11.  This is, saith the Pope, the sword of Solomon, which cuts on both sides giving every man his own. We then who albeit unworthy bold the place of the true Solomon, by the favour of God, do wisely exercise this Sword, when such causes as in our audience are lawfully canvased, we do with justice determine. This interpretation first corrupts the Text, for it hath not, out of the mouth of him that sat on the Throne, but that sat on the Horse; next, it perverts it, for it is not the sword of justice but of Christ's Word, which is more piercing than any twoedged sword that issueth out of his mouth. 
Heb. 4. 12▪  As for that of justice, he never assumed it, but renounced it rather, 
4 Per venerabil●m. Qu● filij sint legitime. Deu●. 17. 8.  when he said. Man who made me a divider to you? Luk. 12. 14. To prove that in other Regions besides the patrimony of the Church, the Pope doth casually exercise temporal jurisdiction, it is said in Deuteronomie, Si difficile sit & ambiguum, etc. And because Deuteronomie is by interpretation ●he second Law, Surely by the force of the Word it is proved, that what is there decreed should be observed in the New Testament. For the place which the Lord did choose is known to be the Apostolic See. For when as Peter fleeing went out of the City, the Lord minding to call him back to the place he had chosen, being asked of him, Lord whither goest thou? answered, I go to Rome to be crucified again. The Priests of the Tribe of Leus are the Pope's coadjutors. The high Priest or judge, he to whom the Lord said in Peter Quodcunque ligaveris, etc. His Vicar who is a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedeck, appointed by God the judge of quick and dead. He that contemns the Pope's sentence is to be excommunicated, for that is the meaning of being commanded to be put to death. Doth not this well ●ollow out of the word Deuteronomie? And Rome is the place that Christ did choose, because he went, he said, to be crucified there. Only there is a scruple of the high Priest, for as much as he that is high Priest after Melchisedecks' order 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath a Priesthood that passes not into another, Heb. 7. He adds there, that Paul that he might declare the fullness of power, writing to the Corinthians saith: Know ye not that ye shall judge the Angels? 
1. C●r. 6. ●.  how much more the things of the world? Is this then the Pope's plenitude of Power, to judge secular things? or was Corinth the Apostolic See, and so many Popes there even of the meanest of the Church? What shall we say to that exposition of the famous Text. T●● es Petrus & super ha●● petram a edificabo Ecclesiam mea●: 
Matth. 16. 18. Cap. Fundament● de Elect. in 6.  The Lord (he saith) taking peter into the fellowship of the undivided Unity, would have him to be called that, which he was himself, that the building of the eternal Temple might by the marvellous gift of God consist in Peter's firmness. What is this undivided Unity? Not of the Trinity, I trow, or Natures in Christ. What then? his office? of which he said a little before out of the Apostle, that no man can lay any other foundation but jesus Christ. Yes: that from Peter as a certain head he should as it were pour abroad his gifts into his whole body. That the Church might stand upon Peter's firmness. This foundation Saint Paul knew not, when he blamed I am of Ceph●s. Peter's infirmity cannot bear up the weight of such a building, much less (which we must remember the Romanists understand by this jargon) the Papes his Successors.  
Such another interpretation is that of Pope Boniface, 
joh. 10. 16. Extra Vnum Testam.  that makes Vnum Ouile & unus Pastor, the Church and the Pope. But it is plain our Saviour alludes to the prophecies, Ezek. 34. 23. & 37. 24. where the Lord calls that one Pastor his servant David. What blasphemy is this, thus to usurp Christ's Royalties? What Father, what Council, what Catholic man ever interpreted this Text on this manner? By which the Pope while he seeks the name of the Shepherd, shuts himself out of Christ's fold?  
Yea the same Pope calls the Church his Spouse also, 
Cant. 4. 9 c. quoniam. De Immunitate.  and so other Popes since. Saint john the Baptist tells them, that he that hath the Bride is the Bridegroom. Saint Paul prepared her to one husband Christ, If she be the Pope's Spouse with her will, she is a Harlot: if against her will, he is a Ravisher, and our Lord jesus Christ will deliver her out of his lewd embracements, crying out of the violence which she suffers, as it is to be hoped shortly.  
That in the Church's power are two swords, the spiritual and temporal, we are taught by the words of the Gospel, saith the same Boniface. For when the Apostles said, Behold, there be two swords here (to wit, in the Church) when the Apostles spoke thus, 
Luk. 22. 38.  the Lord answered not that is was too much, but enough. Certainly, he that denies the temporal sword to be in Peter's power, doth ill observe the speech which our Lord utters, Put up thy sword into the sheath. No doubt an infallible interpretation; by which it should appear that both the swords that were in our Saviour's company, hung by Saint Peter's side, or else that some other had the spiritual, leaving none to Saint Peter, but that which he might not use. The exposition is Saint Berenards, you will day, But in an Epistle paraenetical to the Pope himself; Saint Bernard might have leave to use allusions, and after his manner to be liberal of all that the See of Rome challenged, that he might have the more authority to reform the abuses of it. As to grant Peter the temporal sword, but so, as he must not use it. Quid tu gladium denno usurpare tents, quem semel iussus es ponere in vaginam? and he shows how these two swords be the Churches. The one to be drawn out for the Church, the other also by the Church. This by the Priests, that by the Soldier's hand, but at the beck of the Priest, and bidding of the Emperor. But the Pope in a Decretal Epistle, pretending to teach the world, in a point as he pronounces necessary to salvation, with such an interpretation as this; argues little reverence to the Word of God, and a very mean opinion of the judgements and consciences of christian men, if they could not discern this to be a stranger's voice, not Christ's. Besides that, he changes Saint Bernard's words, and clean perverts his meaning. For, exerendus, he puts in exercendus. For, ille Sacerdotis, is militis manu, sed sanè ad nutum Sacerdotis & iussum Imperatoris. Pope Boniface thinking iussum to absolute in the Emperor, makes him to be the executioner and joins him with the Soldier, on this manner. Ille Sacerdotum, is manu Regum & Militum sed ad nutum & patientiam Sacerdotis. Saint Bernard makes the executive power to be in the Soldier, the directive in the Priest, the commanding in the Emperor. Pope Boniface makes the Kings and Soldiers to have only the executive, the directive & permissive to be in the Priest. Yea sword, he saith, must be under sword. 
Rom. 13. 1.  For where the Apostle saith, There is no power but of God, que autem sunt, à Deo ordinata sunt; more fully in the original text, the powers that are, are ordained, that is, appointed of God: the Interpreter here dreams of order and subordination, and cities a saying of Dionysius, that the lowest things are reduced to the highest by the middlemost; a conceit that makes nothing to the purpose of the Apostle in that place.  
He proceeds and tells us, that of the Church and power Ecclesiastical, 
jerem. 1. 10.  is verified the prophecy of jeremy. Behold I have set thee this day over Kings and Kingdoms, etc. Tell me, good Master Wadesworth, what is to pervert the Scriptures, if this be not, to apply to the power Ecclesiastical, that which is spoken of the word and calling Prophetical? Yet more, The earthly power, if it swerve out of the way shall be judged of the power spiritual, but if the spiritual, that is lesser; of that which is superior to it. But if the highest, it may be judged of God only, not of man, the Apostle witnessing the spiritual man judgeth all things, 
1. Cor. 2. 15.  but himself is judged of none. We are come at length, as it were to the fountains of Nilus to the original of the infallibility of your judge; and if he have here rightly interpreted Saint Paul, we learn that no earthly power, no Magistrate is a spiritual man, unless he be one of the Pope's spiritualty. For these be Saint Paul's spiritual men, that judge all things. Yet this must receive limitation. For no man may judge the Pope, the supreme Spiritual man, for of him it seems Saint Paul meant it, his authority he saith is not humane, but divine, by the divine mouth given to Peter, and his successors, when the Lord said to him, Quodcunque ligaveris.  
For conclusion, 
Rom. 12. 2.  whosoever resists this power thus ordered of God, resists the ordinance of God, unless as Manichaeus he fain two beginnings: which (saith he) we judge to be false and heretical, sith by Moses record, not in the beginnings, 
Gen. 1. 1.  but in the beginning God created Heaven and Earth. Who would not acknowledge the divine authority and infallibility of your Interpreter, both in confirming his purpose, and convincing heresies from so high a beginning, as this first sentence of holy Writ? What rests now, but after so many testimonies he infer▪ Furthermore, to be under the Bishop of Rome we declare, say, define, and pronounce that to every humane creature it is altogether of necessity of salvation. Thus saith your infallible judge and Interpreter of Scripture, the centre of your conscience, and foundation of your Faith, not as a private Doctor, but as Pope, in his own Law, intending to inform and bind the Church, and that in matters with him of the greatest importance that may be, touching his own authority, and as he pretends absolutely necessary to salvation, to all the sons of Adam.  
I might heap up many more, but these may suffice for a sample. You may (and so do by yourself I beseech you) observe these kind of interpretations in other points also, and in other the Decretals & Breves of Popes; which as I hear, are lately come forth in great volumes. You shall find many mysteries in your faith, that perhaps you know not of, as, 
a Rom. 8. 8. Syricius Epist. 4▪ & Innocent. Ep. 2.  That you cannot please God because you are married: for so is that place of the Apostle interpreted, qui in carne viwnt Deo placere non possunt. That not only the wine in the Chalice, but the water also is transubstaniated first into wine, then into Christ's blood. That it was 
b joh. 19 34. c. Inter cunctas.  not watery moisture, but the true element of water which issued out of Christ's side. You shall find 
c Rom. 10. 10.  confession of sins to the Priest, proved by the text, Cord creditur a'd iustitiam, ore autem fit confessio ad salutem. 
d Matth. 13▪ 8.  That the good ground, that received the seed in the Gospel, is the religion of the Friar's Mi●●rs. 
e jam. 1. 27.  That this is that pure and immaculate religion with God and the Father, which descending from the Father of lights, delivered, exemplariter & verbaliter, by the Son, to his Apostles, and then inspired by the holy Ghost, into Saint Francis and his followers, contains in itself the testimony of the Trinity. This is that, which as Saint Paul witnesseth, no man must be troublesome unto, which Christ hath confirmed with the prints of his Passion. The text is, 
f Gal. 6. 17.  decaetero nemo mihi molestus sit, ego. n. stigmata Domini jesu in corpore nemo porto. It is marvel, if Saint Paul were not of the order of Saint Frances. That when Christ said, 
* Matth. 28. 20. Lo I am with you, etc. Clem. 3. de Reliq. Tract. in job 50.  Ecce ego vobiscum sum omnibus diebus, he meant it of remaining and being with them even by his bodily presence. Saint Augustine upon the same text denies this, and saith, that according to the presence of his body he is ascended into heaven, and is not here. That 
g. C. Ma●●nus De cognat. spirit. 4. Mat. 19 5.  the Father of the child christened, and his Godfathers wife may not marry, because, according to the Lords word, the husband▪ and the wife are made one flesh by marriage. 
h C. non debet De consang. 1. Cor. 7. 4.  That the number of Four, doth well agree to the degrees prohibited in corporal marriage, of which the Apostle saith, The man hath not the power of his own body, but the woman, nor the woman power of her body, but the man, because there are four humours in the body, which consist of the four Elements. For conclusion, you shall find it by a commodious interpretation concluded, contrary to many texts of Scripture, out of Scripture itself, that 
i Cum ex. De. ●aeretici● 5.  no simple and unlearned man presume to reach to the subtlety of the Scripture, because, well it was enacted in the law of God, 
Heb. 12. 20.  that the beast which should touch the mountain should be stoned. 
Exod. 19 13.  For it is written, 
Ecclu. 3. 22.  Seek not things higher than thyself. 
Rom. 12. 3.  For which cause the Apostle saith, Be not more wise than it behooveth, but be wise to sobriety.  
One thing more also you shall find, that now adays this spiritual man and sole infallible interpreter of Scripture, seldom interprets Scripture, or uses it in his decretals and Br●●es, Nay the style of his Court hath no manner of smack or savour of it. A long compass of a sentence, intricate to understand, yea, even to remember to the end, full of swelling words of vanity, with I know not how many ampliations and alternatives; after the fashion of Lawyers in Civil Courts, not of sober Divines, much less of the Spirit of God in his Word. Some man would perhaps think this proceeds from an affectation of greatness, and the desire of retaining authority, which seems to be embased by alleging reason, or Scripture, and interpreting texts. For my part, I account it comes as much from necessity. For it is notorious, that neither the Popes themselves, nor those of the Court the Secretaries and Dataries, which pen their Bull and Breves, have any use or exercise in holy Scripture, or soundness in the knowledge of Divinity, or skill in the original tongues, wherein God's Word is written; all which are necessary to an able Interpreter. And therefore it is a wise reservedness in them, not to intermeddle with that wherein they might easily fault; especially in a learned age, and wherein so many watchful eyes ate continually upon them. And to this very poverty and cautelousness I do impute it, that the present Pope in his Breves about the Oath of Allegiance, useth not aword of Scripture: But tells his faction, that they cannot without most evident and grievous injury of God's honour take the Oath, the tenor whereof he sets down word for word; and that done, adds. Quae cum ita sint, etc. Which things (saith he) since they be so, it must needs be clear unto you out of the words themselves, that such an oath cannot be taken, with the safety of the Catholic faith, and of your souls, sith it containeth many things which are apparently contrary to faith and salvation. He instances in no one thing, brings neither Scripture nor reason, but a Quae cum ita sint, without any premises. Which loose and ungrounded proceeding, when as it is occasioned the Archpriest here, and many other of that side, to think those letters forged, or gotten by surreption; he sends another of the same tenor, with this further reason. Haec aut●● est mera pura, integraque volunt as nostra. This is now to be more than an Interpreter, even to be a Lord over the faith of his followers, to make his will a reason. What would ye have him do? to allege a better he could not, a weak and unsufficient one he was ashamed, he thought it best to resolve the matter into his sole authority. Whereby he hath proved himself a fallible both judge and Interpreter, yea a false witness against God and the truth; commanding by the Apostle Christian men to be subject, and to give every man their dues, fear to whom fear, honour to whom honour; and much more (if there be any difference) allegiance to whom allegiance.   

CHAP. FOUR  
Of the state of the Church of England, and whether it may be reconciled with Rome.  
But of your interpreters infallibility enough. Your next doubt, whether the Church of England were of the true Church or no, was resolved with a Paralogism, partly by reason of equivocation, and diverse acception of the terms the Church, and to err, partly by composition and division in the connexion of these by those Verbs [can, or may.] Let us examine the several parts of your Syllogism.  
The Proposition. The true Church cannot err, is confirmed by the consent of all. Excuse me Sir, if I withhold my consent, without some declaration and limitation. I say first it must be declared whether you mean the Catholic Church, or a atrue part of the Catholic Church. For there is not the like reason of these to error. Against the Catholic Church, 
Math. 16.  hell gates shall not prevail; against particular, when Christ doth remove the Candlestick out of his place, 
Reuel. 2. 5.  they do. Witness the Churches of Africa, sometimes most Catholic. And thus it seems you must take this term, since your doubt was whether the Church of England be of the true Church or no, Besides, I must desire to know, what manner of errors you mean; whether even the least, or only deadly, and such as bar from salvation, which the Apostle calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, heresies of perdition, 2 Pet. 2. 1. Take now your own choice; for if you speak of every error, the proposition is false, even of the Catholic Church, much more of any particular Church. Yea, I add further, not only of the Catholic Church by denomination from the greatest part, or by representation, as the Pastors or Prelates thereof met in a Council, which is still the mixed Church, but even that which is Christ's true body, whereof he is the Saviour, and which shall be with him for ever. As for deadly and damnable errors, this true and properly called Church, both in the whole and every part of the mixed Church, is yet privileged from them finally: 
〈…〉  for it is kept by the power of God to salvation, it is not possible the Elect should thus be seduced. 
〈…〉  Truth it is, that by such errors particular visible assemblies, universally and obstinately defending them, become falsely called Churches, from which we are to separate ourselves. Example in the Synagogue, and in Churches of the Arians.  
Now let us see your Assumption. But the Church of England, head, and members, King, Clergy, and people, yea awhole Council of Protestants may err by your own grant. I answer, the Church of England that is the Elect in the Church of England, which only are truly called the Church, can never deadly err. This no Protestant will grant ye. The mixed Church of England, head, members, King, Clergy, and the residue of the people, and a whole Council of Protestants, may err damnably, and therefore much more ●all into lesser errors. This they grant. And if they shall so err obstinately, they shall deservedly lose the name of a true Church. But they deny they do thus err; yea they deny that they err de facto, at all.  
What follows in conclusion? Ergo, No true Church. This shortness in suppressing the verb, would make a man think you meant to cover the fault of your discourse. And indeed you might by that means easily beguile another, but I cannot be persuaded you would willingly beguile yourself. Sure you were beguiled, if you meant it thus. Ergo, it is no true Church. See your Argument in the like: A faithful witness cannot lie. But Socrates or Aristides may lie by his own grant. Ergo, no faithful witness. He that stands upright cannot fall: but you Master Waddesworth by your own grant may fall, Ergo, stand not upright. Perhaps your meaning was, Ergo, it may become no true Church, to wit, when it shall so err damnably. But than it follows not, There is now no salvation in it, and therefore come out of it now. When you show that, I shall account you have done wisely to go out of it. Show that in any one point, and take me with you. In the mean while, for my part, I shall sooner trust that chapman that shall say to me, Lo here is a perfect yard, I will measure as truly as I can, and when I have done take the yard and measure it yourself; then him that shall say here is thus much, ye shall not need to measure it, but take it on my word: yea though one of his Apprentices should stand by and say, he could not deceive me though he would; as Benedictus a Benedictus, tells the present Pope, Volens nolens errare non potes.  
Where you relate, your endeavour to defend the Church of England, and tell of the Puritans rejecting those Arguments you could use from the authority of the Church, and of the ancient Doctor's interpreting Scriptures against them, flying to their own arrogant spirit: I cannot excuse them for the former, nor subscribe to your accusation in the latter. Perhaps you have met with some more fanatical Brownists or Anadaptists, whom here you call Puritan. But these that are commonly so called, which differ from the Church of England about Church government and ceremonies only, give indeed to little to the authority of men, how holy, learned, or ancient soever. Which is their fault, and their great fault, especially in matters of this nature; yet they fly not to their own spirit as you charge them.  
That which you add that you perceived the most Protestant's did frame the like evasions when you came to answer the Arguments against them on the other side; when you shall show this in particulars, I shall believe it. In the mean while I believe you thought so; for commonly mediocrities are aggravated with the hatred, & slandered with the names of both extremes. But in the question between the Popish faction and us, you might easily have discerned why the argument from bare authority, is not of such validity. For ceremonies and matters of order may be ordered by wise men, & are not the worse, but the better if they be ancient, yea if they be common to us with Rome, which Puritan will by no means allow. In doctrine, if holy men, yea if an Angel from heaven shall innovate any thing, we are not to admit it. Now the controversies between the Romanists and us, are most about doctrine, and they exceed as much in extolling the authority of the ancients in their private opinions and incommodious and strained speeches, as the Puritans in depressing them. We hold the mean, and give as much to the authority and testimonies of the Fathers, as may stand with the truth of holy Scriptures, and as themselves defer to the writing of others, or require to be given to their own.  
Next you tell, of your following their opinion who would make the Church of England and the Church of Rome still to be all one in Essential points, and the differences to be accidental. Confessing the Church of Rome to be a true Church, though sick, or corrupted, and the Protestants to be derined from it, and reform. This opinion is not only as you write favoured of many great Scholars in England, but is the common opinion of all the best Divines of the reformed Churches that are or have been in the world, as I showed in part of another work, which as I remember you had a sight of. Wherein yet I fear you mistake the term, accidental, which doth no● import that our differences are but sleight and of small consideration, but that all those opinions and abuses which we reform and cut off, are not of the Faith, but superfluous and ●oraine, yea hurtful and noisome to it, as the weeds are to the corn, which overgrow and choke it. And to follow this similitude, the state of the Church under the Roman obedience, and that part which is reform, is like a field overgrown all with weeds, thistles, tares, cockle: some part whereof is weeded and cleansed, some part remains as it was before; which makes such a difference to the view, as if it were not the same corn. But being better considered, it will be found all the difference is, from the weeds, which remain there, and here are taken away. Yet neither here perfectly, nor all where a like, but according to the industry of our weeders, or conveniency of the work, with care of the safety of the good corn. By this Parable, you may see what is to be hoped of your labour to reconcile most of our particular controversies. For although I doubt not but in some it may be performed, where the difference is rather verbal then real; and in the manner of teaching, rather than in the substance of doctrine. And if moderate men had the matter in handling the flame of contention in a great many more might be trodden down and slaked, suppose the sparks not all extinct; yet in some other, it is as possible to make the weed and corne-friends, as your and our opinions; where there is none other remedy but that of our Saviour, Every plant that my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted out. Neither doth this impossibility arise more out of the nature of the things, than the affection of the persons. For the Pope and the Court of Rome, which are those that domineer on that side, do no less out of the fear of their own ruin deadly detest all reformation, than the reformed out of their present view and former feeling, the tyranny of the Papacy, which they see doth excommunicate, and put to cruel death all that are of this way. And which is a prodigious thing, where they tolerate the blasphemous and professed enemies of Christ, even with allowance of the public exercise of their Religion, there do they burn men professing Christ's religion, according to the ancient and common rule thereof, with that uprightness of conscience, that if they had as many lives as there be Articles thereof, they would give them all rather than renounce any of them.  
As for the Protestants making the Pope Antichrist, I know it is a point that inrageth much at Rome. But if the Apostle Saint Paul, if Saint john in the Revelation, describe Antichrist so, as they that do but look upon the Pope well, must be forced to say as the people did of the blind man in the Gospel, some, this is ●e; others, he is very like him; if himself and his flatterers do, and speak such things, as if all others should hold their peace, do in a sort proclaim, I am he; what can the Protestants do with the matter? I will take the liberty here to relate to you, what I saw while I was in Venice, the rather because it is not impertinent to our present purpose. And though perhaps you may have heard somewhat of it, yet the particulars are I suppose unknown in those parts. And yet it doth more import they were known there then otherwhere, being occasioned by a subject of the Crown, though of a name and family whereto it is not much beholding.  
In the year 1608. F. Thomas Maria Carafa, of the order of the Friar's Preachers, Reader of Philosophy in Naples, printed a thousand Theses to be disputed thrice; once at Rome in the Church of Saint Marie super Mineruam, twice in Saint Dominickes at Naples. Of these five hundred were in Logic, Natural Philosophy, Metaphysicke, and Mathematics; five hundred more in Divinity, amongst which that was one. Solus Petrus & success●res in totam Ecclesiam illimitatam iurisdictionem habent. These were all included in the form of a Tower, and dedicated with an Epistle to the present Pope Paulus the fifth, to whose arms alluding he saith, idem Draco biceps qui utrumque polum amplexus imperio ad Ecclesiae pomoerium tanquam ad amaenissimos Hesperidum hortos peruigil excubat, nullius Herculis vim metuens, turris etiam mea sit custos. On the top of his Tower, was this representation curiously and largely cut. An Altar, with two Columns, and their ornaments, according to the rules of Architecture. In the midst for the Altar piece was the Pope's picture, very lively portrayed to the breast. Over his head was the word, Vultu portendebat imperium. Above on the top of the front, in three compartments his arms thus. On the one side the spread Eagle alone, the word Ipse mihi fert tela pater. On the other a Dragon, and by it Meliora seruo. In the midst both together in one scutcheon with the cross Keys and triple crown in the crest. On either side of these columns were depending Crowns and Sceptres, whereof six were on the right hand after the Christian fashion. The Imperial above, other underneath, and lowest the Corno of the Duke of Venice, so they call a certain Cap the Prince useth to wear being of Gold Embroidery, and somewhat resembling a horn. There were also Turkish Turbanes, and Diadems of diverse fashions, as many on the left side. By these on either side of the columns, were two of the four parts of the world. Europe and Africa on the one, Asia and America on the other, in the habit of Ladies sitting upon their proper beasts couchant, each offering unto him that was above the Altar of their commodities, Corn, Fruits, Incense, etc. On the base of the column on the Christian and European side, was the word, Et erunt Reges nutritij tui. On the other, Vultu in terram demisso puluerem pedum tuorum lingent, Esai. 49. Agreeable whereto there was made flying over their heads two Angels, on each side, one with these sentences in their hands. That over Europe and afric; Gens & regnum quod non seruierit illi, in gladio & in fame, & in peste visitabo super gentem illam ait Dominus, Hier. 27. That over Asia and America: Et dedit ei Dominus potestatem & regnum, & omnes populi ipsi seruient: potestas eius potestas aeterna quae non auferetur & regnum eius quod non corrumpetur, Dan. 7. Now just underneath the picture of the Pope, on the foreside of the Altar, was this inscription, PAULO V. VICE DEO CHRISTIANAE REIP. MONARCHAE INVICTISSIMO ET PONTIFICIAE OMNIPOTENTIAE CONSERVATORI ACERRIMO. The Copies of these Theses were sent as Novelles from Rome, and did the more amuse men at Venice, because of the controversy that State had with the Pope a little before, and the seeing their Dukes Corno hanged up among his Trophies, under all other Prince's Crowns. But most of all the new title Vice-Deo, and the addition of Omnipotency gave matter of wonder. The next day it was noised about the City, that this was the picture of Antichrist; for that the inscription P A V ⁵ L ⁵⁰ O V. ⁵ V ⁵ I ¹ C 100 E-D 500 E O, contained exactly in the numeral Letters the number of the beast in the Revelation 666. What anger and shame this was to the Popish faction, I leave it to you to esteem. But whom could they blame, but themselves, who had suffered so presumptuous and shameless a flattery to come forth, with public approbation, annexing also so blasphemous an inscription, as unawares to them by the providence of God, should so plainly characterise Antichrist? But to heal up this matter again, not long after we had fresh news went about, that Antichrist was borne in Babylon, had done many miracles, was coming toward Christendom with an Army. We had an Epistle stamped at Venice, pretended to be written at Rome, An. 1592. by the Rever. D. Valentinus Granarensis touching the birth of Antichrist his stock, progeny, country habitation, power, marvels, life, and death, out of the holy Scriptures, and Fathers, printed Cum privilegio. And as for the Title Vicedeus, as if they would have it in despite of all men: one Benedictus à Benedictis a subject of the Venetian State, setting out a Book against Doctor whitaker's position, De Antichrists, at Bologn● (for at Venice it was not suffered to be printed) revives it with advantage. He dedicates it thus, Paulo Quinto Pontifici Vniversalis Ecclesiae Oecumenico, summo totius Orbis Episcopo atque Monarchae & supremo Vice-Deo. These Titles he heaps upon the Pope again, and again, and that ye may judge of his wit by one place, in the conclusion, exhorting Doctor whitaker's to repentance; he tells him, that by his example his King, and with the same King james the first, many Englishmen, convertentur ad Dominum Deum, & ipsius loco ad Vice-Deum confugient. And pag. 135. he saith of Gregory the Great. Totum mundum quasi Monarcha ac Vice-Deus optimè & irreprehensibiliter rexit, etc. He might have learned of him, that his other Title Oecumenicus Pontifex, is the very name of Antichrist, the name of blaspheme, by which he doubts not to presage, that Antichrist was near, and an Army of Priests ready to attend upon him. In this if ever in any thing, it seems your judge was infallible.  
It will be said here, it is not in the Pope's power what his followers will say of him, he styles himself the Servant of God's Servants. If the Canonists will call him, Our Lord God the Pope, 
Apologia pro Garneto, c. 5.  first, it may be denied. Secondly, it may be laid to the oversight of the Writers or Printers. Thirdly, if it be showed to be left standing still in the Gloss of the Canon Law, by them that were appointed to oversee and correct it, what marvel if one word escaped them, through negligence, or weariness, or much business? And yet if they thought the sense of the word not so usual indeed in the ordinary talk of Christians, but not differing from the custom of Scripture was to be allowed to an ancient Writer, the matter deserves not such outcries. But the Pope, such is his modesty, never usurped this Title full of arrogancy, never heard it with patient ears. To this, let it first be considered, that the Censors of such things as come to the Press, are not to be imagined such Babes, as not to know what will please or displease his Holiness. Especially in writings dedicated to himself, a man may be sure they will allow nothing the second time, and after some exception and scandal taken at it, but what shall be justified. How much more in the Pope's own Town of Bologna, and when his Chaplain could not be allowed to print it at home. But to let all these go; we may have a more sensible proof how the Pope tastes these Titles. That which he rewards he approves: Benedictus was shortly after made for his pains Bishop of Caorli. How worthily he deserved it you shall judge by his book; which at my request vouchsafe to read over, and if there be any merit, you shall sure get great meed of patience in so doing. That you may not doubt of the Pope's judgement concerning these Titles, you shall further know, that the matter being come to the knowledge of the Protestants in France, and England, made them talk and write of it broadly, namely the Lord of Plessis, in his Mysterium iniquitatis, and the Bishop of Chichester in his Tortura Torti. This gave occasion to the Cardinal Gieurè, to relate in the Officio Santo at Rome of the scandal taken hereat, and to make a motion, De moderandis titulis. It was on foot sundry months. At last the Pope revoking it to himself, blamed those that had spoken against these Titles, and said, they were no whit greater than the authority of S. Peter's Successor did bear. To return thither whence I have a little digressed. In the question whether the Pope be the Antichrist or no, for my part I despair of all reconciliation. For neither doth there appear any inclination at all in the Pope to reform any thing in Doctrine or Government, nay he encroacheth daily more and more upon all degrees even among his own subjects, and resolves to carry all before him at the breast, with his Monarchy and infallibility. On the other side, the Reformers partly emboldened with success, partly enforced by necessity, chiefly tied with band of conscience, and persuasion of truth, are not like to retract what they have affirmed in this behalf, and whatsoever their differences be in other things, in this point they have a marvelous unity amongst them. These in France having been molested for calling the Pope Antichrist have been occasioned (as I have heard) some few years since to take it into their Confession, thereby to justify themselves according to th' Edicts of Pacification giving them liberty to pro●esse their Religion. In England as you know it is no part of the doctrine of our Church, yet a commonly received opinion. Howbeit this is so far from hindering, that the reformed Church's and those which heretofore were, or at this present are under the Pope's obedience be one Church, that is, all members of the Catholic; that the Protestants without this cannot make good the other. For Antichrist must sit in the Temple of God, and that is in the Church, as Chrysostome and Theophylact interpret it, and God's people could not be commanded to go out of Babel, if he had none there.   

CHAP. V.  
Of the safeness to join to the Roman being confessed a true Church by her opposites.  
But you concluded hence, that seeing many of the best learned Protestants did grant the Church of Rome to be a true Church, though faulty in some things; and contrarily not only the Romanists, but Puritans, Anabaptists, and Brownist deny the Church of England to be so, therefore it would be more safe and secure to become a Roman Catholic, etc. This discourse hath a prithee show at the first blush, and perhaps was used to you since your coming to Spain, as it was to some there before. At my coming to Venice I fell upon certain letters and reports, set forth as it was told me by F. Possevine, and not unlike by his mindfulness to all occasions to advance the credit of his society. Amongst them there is one said to be a true Relation of the manner how M. Pickering Wotton was converted to the Catholic Roman faith, indicted as it is said and subscribed by himself before his death. In which by a certain Father of the company of jesus an Englishman by nation, the like discourse was used, as it is said, to him. That he should consider well, that he and other Protestants did not deny that the Catholics might be saved in their faith, whereas all the Catholics that either lived at the present, or ever were, hold it as a most certain Article of Faith, that the Protestants and other heretics cannot be saved out of the Catholic Church; therefore if he should become a Catholic, he should enter into that way which was safe, by the consent of both parts. This consideration be saith moved him not much then. But after praying to God, as he was also advised by that Father, to direct him into the right way, if he were out of it, suddenly he saw a certain light very clearly before his eyes in form of a cross. Whereupon incontinently there was offered unto him such a heap of reasons and arguments by which was showed that the Catholic faith is the only way of salvation, and that of the Protestants on the contrary most absurd and abominable, that most evidently he was convinced, without any the least doubt. And these reasons which then offered themselves to him, were for the most part such as he did not remember that he had ever heard them in all his life. Thereupon with unspeakable joy he called back the Father, told him what had happened, prayed him to hear his confession, and he examining him upon all the heads of the Catholic religion, which he most firmly and entirely believed, heard his confession, etc. But this narration deserves little credit. First creating Master W●tton for the greater glory of their triumph a Baron▪ unless the Fathers in Spain, or Possevine in Italy have a faculty to create Barons. Next it is a very improbable thing that Master Wotton dying of a Calenture should have so good a memory, as to indite so exact and artificial a Narration, with such formality, and enforcements in fit places, as any Reader of understanding must needs perceive, came out of a diligent forge, and needed more hammering and fyling then so. But that of all other is most Legendlike, that howsoever this motive of yours is used, yet it is not made the effectual inducement, but a heap of reasons in the twinkling of an eye, and causing him not only to believe in the gross, but to be able to give accounted of all the heads of the Catholic religion (that is all the points of controversy at this day, between the Romists and the reformed Churches) in a fit of an Ag●e, in the twinkling of an eye? Excuse me: this is beyond the blind beggar that recovered his sight at Saint Alban that could tell the names of all colours as soon as he saw them. What then? Was not Master Wotton reconciled? and saw he not a light in form of a cross? Yes: and this your motive was used to him also, and perhaps moved him more than all the heap of reasons beside. But shall I tell you here what I have heard from the mouth of one that was himself then in Spain, that both could know the truth of this matter, and had no reason to tell me a lie, sith what he said came freely from himself, without fear, or hope, or almost enquiry? The Gentleman being sick, and weak in his brain, the Father that Possevine tells of, brought under his gown a picture, and upon a sudden presented it before him: this might be the light in form of a cross (perhaps a very image of Christ crucified) which together with the lightness of his fancy, occasioned that your motive though itself also very light, might carry him: as a little weight is able to sway much, where the beam itself is false. If this be true (as I take the living God to record I feign no thing, but do relate what hath been told me) as on the one side I doubt not, but God in his mercy did interpret of the Gentleman's religion, according to his right judgement and persuasion in his health, and not according to the erroneous apprehension of his fancy in his sickness (which even in his best health was ever very strong in his sleep) as some that have conversed with him have told me: So on the other side, they shall bea●e their judgement whosoever they were, that would with so cruel a craftiness take advantage of his infirmity, and make his story after a stale to draw on others. As for the heap of Arguments to convince the Protestants faith to be absurd (that must be by the way the Articles of the Creed) Possevines Catholic Hyperboles are well enough known in Venice, and he hath been there told to his head, 
A●uertiment●al P Ant Possevino. p. 7. & 14.  That if in things past, whereof he might have been informed, he proves a most lying Historian, it might more easily fall out, that he should prove a most false and ridiculous prophet in things to come.  
And in truth he hath proved so hitherto. Wherefore, I reckon these garnishments of Master Wottons' perversion, to be like the rest of his news, touching the Conquest of Moscovia by Demetrius that Impostor, whom he boasteth in a manner to have been the Scholar of his Society. W●ere he tells the world that the army cried out often. God and the prayers of our Fathers (the Jesuits) have subdued the hearts of our enemies, and inclined them under our Noble Prince Demetrius. That Demetrius turning to the Priests of the company of jesus, was heard to say [lo that which you foretold me, O Fathers, in the time of that sorrowful flight of ours, is now come to pass, to wit, that as the Lord God had afflicted me much, so on the contrary he would much comfort me, and that therefore I should not doubt of a full victory.] These words Possevine stamps in his former Relation in Capital letters. But when this bold enterprise was overthrown, and this suborned fugitive slain and shamefully dragged up and down the streets of Moscow, then lo the reports were, That a light was seen over his body in the night time, etc. Let them that walk in darkness follow such lights as these be. We are no children of the night, nor of darkness. Leaving therefore those unheard of Arguments, which Possevine hath not only cunningly drawn a veil over, that we may not see them, but exempted by privilege of a miracle that we may not try them, this which he hath showed us, let us bring it a little to the clear daylight.  
And even at the first view it is apparent that this Argument is merely foreign; not drawn from any thing, à par●e rei, as what the true Church is, what it teacheth, or such like, but from opinion and testimony. What men say of that of Rome, and of the Reformed Churches, etc. Now opinions are no certain grounds of truth, no not in natural and civil matters, much less in religion. So this Argument at the most is but Topical and probable. Let us see the parts of it. And first that ground. The testimony of ourselves, and of our contraries is much more sufficient and certain then to justify ourselves alone. Surely neither the one nor the other is sufficient, or certain. It is true, that if other proof fail, and we will follow conjectures. he is in probability an honester man, that others beside himself say well of, than he that alone testifieth of himself. And yet according to truth, this latter may be a right honest man, and dwell, as we say, by ill neighbours, or where he is not known, or requires not the testimony of other men: Whereas the other being indeed a knave, is either cunning to conceal it, or hath suborned other like himself to say for him, or dwells b● honest men that judge and say the best. And in this very kind, our Saviour attributes so little to testimony, 
Luk●. 6. 26.  as he pronounces a woe to them that all men speak well of. So in our case it is more probable I grant, if there were no other Argument to clear it, but opinion, and most voices, that you have the true Church, and are in the way of salvation than we because we give you a better testimony than you do us. But it is possible we are both deceived in our opinions, each of other; we through too much charity, and you and others through ignorance or malice. Herein undoubtedly we have the advantage of you and the rest, and do take that course which is more safe and sure to avoid sin, that if we do fail of the truth, yet we be deceived with the error of love, which as the Apostle saith, hopeth all things, and is not puffed up. We avoid at the least that gulf of rash judgement, which, me thinks, if the case be not too to clear we should all fear, With what judgement ye judge, 
Matth. 7. 6.  ye shall be judged. Thou that judgest another condemnest thyself. 
Rom. 2. 1.   
But that you may a little better consider the weakness of this discourse, if the testimony of ourselves and our contraries were sufficient and certain to make tru●h, and ever more safe and secure to follow that side which hath that testimony, it had been better to have become a jewish Proselyte, in the Apostles times then a Christian ● For the Christians acknowledged the jews to be the people of God, heirs of the promises, and of Christ, and styled them Brethren, notwithstanding their zeal to the ceremonies, and traditions of their Fathers, excused their ignorance, bare with them, laboured to give them content in all things. Whereas they to the contrary called those that professed Christ, Heretics and Sectaries, accursed them, drew them out of ●heir Synagogues, scourged them, cast them in prison, compelled them to blaspheme: as you do now Protestants to adjure, though in other cruelties I confess you go far beyond them. By like reason a Pagan in Saint Augustine's time, should rather have made himself a Christian among the Donatists, then with the Catholics. For the Catholics granted the Donatists Baptism to be true, accounted them Brethren. The Donatists to the contrary renounced their Brotherhood and Baptism both, rebaptised such as fell to their side, used these forms to their friends, Save thy Soul, become a Christian: like to those used by your Reconcilers at this ●ay. 
Aug. Epist. 4●. & 〈…〉. ●9. De 〈◊〉 l. ●. c. 7.   
Lastly consider, if this ground of the testimony of our contraries for our part, and their lack of ours, for theirs be sure; you have justified the cause of the Protestants in the main question, which is the better religion. For whatsoever a Protestant holds, as of Faith, you cannot deny to be good and Catholic, nor any Christian man else. For he binds him to his Creed, to the holy Scriptures, and goes no further: and in these he hath your testimony for him. But he denies many things which you believe, and accounts them foreign, yea repugnant to Faith, as the Pope's infallibility, Transubstantiation, Purgatory, worshipping of Images, invocation of Saints. In all these you speak only for yourselves, in some of these you have not us only, but all other Christians your opposites, to say nothing of the jews and Turks, whom I might as well chocke you withal, as you do the Protestants with Anabaptists. So by this reason our profession is more safe and secure, and questionless is more Catholic then yours. Neither have we in this discourse the Argument only as you see very appliable and favourable to us, but (which I would entreat you by the way to observe) the conclusion itself often granted by moderate and sober men of your own side, viz. that our course is in sundry things more safe than yours. As in making no Image of God. 
Abulensis.  In trusting only in the merits of Christ. 
Bellarmine.  
Faber.  In worshipping none but the Trinity. In directing our prayers to our Lord jesus Christ alone. 
Erasmus.  In allowing Ministers to marry. 
Cassander.  In di●ers other points also many of your side say the same with the Protestants, 
Hofmeister.  
Aeneas Silvius.  and defend us from the imputations which others of you lay upon us, as is showed in the Catholic Apology, by the Reverend Bishop of Chester.  
This to the proposition. Let us come to the Assumption, where you mince too much the Protestants opinion touching the Church of Rome, when you make them say, It is peradventure faulty in some things: Nay without peradventure, they say, It is corrupt in doctrine, superstitious and Idolatrous in religion, tyrannical in government, defiled in manners, from the crown of the head to the sole of the foot no soundness in it, as the Prophet saith of another like it; 
Isai 1. 6.  yet the vital parts not perished, ready to die, 
Doctor Raynolds. Thes. 5.  yet not dead. A true Church though neither the Catholic Church, nor yet a sound member of the same. That also is false in the assumption, that the Puritans deny the Church of England to be a true Church. Unless the Puritans and Brownists be with you all one, which you have made diverse Sects above, and then are you to blame as to multiply names (whereof I have told you) before, so now again to confound them.  
What is now the Conclusion? It would be more safe and secure to become a Roman Catholic. But the Proposition will not infer thus much simply, but only in this respect. For Topical arguments (as you know) hold only, caeteris paribus. We must then inquire if there be no other intrinsecall arguments by which it may be discerned, whether cause be the better, whether pretence to the Church and Truth, more just, more evident. Whether it may be warranted to return to Babel, because God hath some people there; when as he commands those that are there to come out of it. How safe it may be willingly to join with that part of the Church, which is more corrupt in Doctrine and Manners, when we may continue with that which is reform. These points were to have been scanned, ere you concluded and executed as you did.  
And such Arguments there want not. Christ our Lord hath given us amongst others, two infallible Notes to know his Church. My Sheep, saith he, 
job 10. 27.  hear my voice: 
Chap. 13. 35.  and again, By this shall all men know that ye are my Disciples if ye love one another. What shall we stand upon conjectural Arguments from that which men say? We are partial to ourselves, malignant to our opposites. Let Christ be heard who be his, who not. And for the hearing of his voice, O that it might be the issue! But I see you decline it, Therefore I leave it also for the present. That other is that which now I stand upon: the badge of Christ's sheep. Not a likelihood, but a certain token, whereby every man may know them. By this, saith he, shall all men know that ye are my Disciples, if ye have charity one towards another. Thanks be to God: This mark of our Saviour is in us, which you with our Schismatics, and other enemy's want. As Solomon found the true Mother by her natural affection, that chose rather to yield to her Adversary's plea claiming her child, then endure it should be cut in pieces, so may it soon be found at this day, whether is the right Mother. Ours, that saith, give her the living child, and kill him not; or yours, that if she may not have it, is content it be killed, rather than want of her will. Alas, saith ours, even of those that leave her, these be my children, I have borne them to Christ in Baptism, I have nourished them as I could with mine own breasts his Testaments. I would have brought them up to man's estate, as their free birth and parentage deserves. Whether it be their lightness or discontent, or her enticing words and gay shows, they leave me, they have found a better Mother. Let them live yet, though in bondage. I shall have patience; I permit the care of them to their Father; I beseech him to keep them that they do none evil; if they make their peace with him, I am satisfied, they have not hurt me at all. Nay but, saith yours, I sit alone as Queen and Mistress of Christ's family; 
Reuel. 18. 7.  he that hath not me for his Mother, cannot have God for his Father. Mine therefore are these, either borne or adopted: and if they will not be mine they shall be none. So without expecting Christ's sentence, she cuts in pieces with the temporal sword, hangs, burns, draws those that she perceives inclined to leave her, or have left her already. So she kills with the spiritual sword, those that subject not to her, yea thousands of souls that not only have no means so to do, but many which never so much as have heard whether there be a Pope of Rome or no. Let our Solomon be judge between them: yea judge you (Master Waddesworth) more seriously and maturely, not by ghesses, but by the very mark of Christ, which wanting yourselves, you have unawares discovered in us, judge I say without passion, and partiality, according to Christ's Word; which is his Flock, which is his Church.   

CHAP. VI  
Of fraud and corruption in alleging Counsels, Fathers, and Doctors.  
YOur next Motive was, That in examining the questions especially about the Church, where you laboured to peruse the original Quotations and Texts of the Counsels, Fathers, and Doctors, you found, as you say, much fraud committed by the Protestants. This imputation of fraud is very usual and common to both sides; and verily I believe some on both sides are faulty. For whether out of humane infirmity, mistaking the meaning of Authors, or slips of memory, trust of other men's Quotations, who tie not themselves to the words, but give the sense they conceive; how easily may testimonies be alleged clean besides the Author's minds? He that hath strongly conceited any thing, findeth it in all that ever he readeth, or falleth upon. Too much heat in contention, and desire of victory, blindeth the judgement, and maketh a man heedlessly lay hold upon any thing, that he thinks may serve his turn. As we see sometimes in the writings of the Fathers, which had to deal with ancient Heretics, alleging the Scriptures themselves besides the purpose. Sometimes haste and desire of contracting makes one cut off some words, and explain and press those that make for him; and perhaps leave out something material▪ presently the other side cries out clipping, forgery, falsification, and what not? But although all this may be called fraud in respect of the Reader, who is by this means deceived in his evidence, and therefore if he be not aware may pronounce amiss, yet is it nothing to that kind, when with an evil conscience and of set purpose falsehood is set forth, and Truth outfaced. Wherein I cannot tell what you have found. I could have desired, and do yet if your leisure may serve, you would show the particulars. I do profess here to you, that I have seen and even felt with my fingers such dealing in the Romish faction, as I cannot resolve whether I should account them more shameful slanderers, and false accusers of others, of fraudulent handling; or bold and shameless, in the practising of it themselves. When the Lord of Plessis his book of the Sacrament came out, how was it calumniated in this kind, with falsification? Du Puy in a public Cartel offered, that of 306. passages in the Preface, he would show as clear as the Sun at noon day, 283. were falsified, corrupted, and mangled, and the rest of no importance. The Bishop of Eureux after Cardinal, undertook to show in the book itself 500 enormous falsities by ●ale, and without hyperbole. The matter was brought to a trial before the King of France, and nine places examined of this number. And as was beforehand promised the Pope's Nuncio, the business should be so carried that the advantage should remain on the part of the Church of Rome, and the Pope receive contentment, & in these very words the lie should rest with the Heretics. Morney was borne down. The King's letters to the Duke of Espernon of this victory, were blown over France, sent to Rome, printed with a discourse thereabout, set forth at Antwerp, and translated into English, with some alteration and Turksing by F. Parsons▪ Wherein he saith a French jesuit Fronto Ductus discovered in it at least a thousand falsehoods for his part. He accuseth Bishop jewel, and Master Fox of the like crime; he saith that in two only leaves of his book, a certain learned Scholar did discover thirty wilful and voluntary corruptions and falsifications that cannot be excused, and himself besides these thirty, noted so many other plain falsehoods and manifest wilful lies, as might well double the former number. And by Arithmetic he multiplies this number with the number of the leaves, the number he saith will rise to 30000. by which john Fox his book will as much exceed john Sleidans' story in number of lies (in which were found only 11000) as it doth in bulk and bigness. This manner of writing of these men, brings to my mind that which Sir Thomas More writes of Tyndals' New Testament, 
Dialog. l. 3. c. 8.  wherein he saith, were founden and noted wrong and falsely translated above a thousand Texts by tale. The language is like, and the cause is the same. Men were loath these books should be read. The substance of them was such as could not be controlled; the next remedy was to forestall the Readers minds with a prejudice of falsification, that so they might not regard them, but cast them out of their hands of their own accord. The Vulgar sort would be brought out of conceit at the first hearing, with vehement accusation. Even wise men would suppose though there should not be any thing near so many wilful faults, yet surely there must needs be a very great number, and that could not happen but with a very bad meaning; this admitted, who would vouchsafe them the reading? And in truth among those that favour the reformed part, I have me● with some that out of this buzz of falsification in the Lord of Plessis book, cared not for reading it; whereby may be thought in what account it should be with all those who esteem all F. Parson's Libels to be Oracles. But shortly: Sith neither the Cardinal Perone, nor F. Parsons have had the means, or will, to decipher those hundreds and thousands of falsifications in Sleidan, Bishop jewel, Master Fox, or Plessis, in these so many years, as have run since they wrote; and as for the last, he hath set forth the book again, with all the authorities at large in the margin, in the Authors own words, and hath answered all those that bayed at it, till they are silent, what remains but that we count this multiplying of F. Parson's, may be joined with Equivocation, to make up the art of falsehood; wherein he and his faction may justly claim to be the worthiest Professors in the world. But without any multiplication or other Arithmetic, in the fifth page of that Relation of his, in the seven first lines are four notorious, I will not say lies or falsifications, but falsehoods by tale. The first: That the trial being begun upon the first place, that was found false. The French discourse printed at Antwerp cum privilegio, and approbation of the Visitor of books, saith: And as to the said first Article, nothing was judged thereabout by the said Commissioners, nor pronounced by my said Lord the Chancellor, and the King said that it should be remitted to another time to deliberate thereabout. The second: He (that is, Plessis) would have passed to the second, but the Bishop refused so to do, except the Ministers and Protestants there present would first subscribe and testify that this first place was falsified. He said in the page before, that Plessis appeared at last with some four or five Ministers on his side. There were no Ministers appeared with him on his side. No Protestants, no creature did subscribe, or was required so to do. The third: Which at length they did, viz. subscribe, this place was falsified. A utter untruth. Whereof there is not a word in the said printed Narration. The fourth: as well in this as in all the rest. There was no subscription, as I said, at all. The Commissioners were all of the Roman profession, saving Causabon; and he no Minister. They never pronounced, much less subscribed that any of those places examined were falsified. Of the first place of Scotus they pronounced nothing. Of the second, of Durand, That the opposition of Durand was alleged for the resolution. And this they would have remitted also as the former to another time, save that the Bishop insisted, saying, it was in vain to dispute if they would not judge, addressing his speech diverse times to the King, to the intent he should signify his pleasure to the Commissioners; and then his Majesty drawing near to them, they gave their opinions upon that Article as before. This was that which F. Parsons stumbled at when he wrote, The Ministers and Protestants there present subscribed and testified, that it was falsified, and so all the rest. For being ouerioyed with this news which he did not well understand (to think the charitablest of him) he thought the Commissioners had been part at least Protestants, and Ministers: and had subscribed, whereas they pronounced their sentence viva voce, by the mouth of the Chancellor, never using the term falsification; yea in some of the rest they acquitted the L. of Plessis, as in the passage of P. Crinitus though they said Crinitus was deceived. In that of Bernard, that it had been good to distinguish the two passages of Saint Bernard out of the same book with an et caetera. Not to stand now upon that, that in the rest of the places he hath a reasonable and just defence with indifferent men, for the omissions he was charged with in Chrysostome, Hierome, Bernard, and Theodorit: and in that of Cyril, the King himself said aloud, that both sides had reason▪ but F. Parsons not having as it appears received perfect information of the particularities of this affair, was so hasty to write according to the partial intelligence he received at Rome, that he faults himself in the same kind, that he imputes to another. And if he should meet with some severe adversary, that would multiply his falsehoods by his leaves and lines, as he dealeth with Master Fox, and then extend by proportion his pamphlet to the bigness of Master Fox his Book of Martyrs, he would find, that he provides very ill for himself that is to rigorous and censorious to other men.  
But I leave him, and come to the fidelity of the Popish faction, whereof I shall desire you to take a taste in one of the questions which you name about the Church, even that which is indeed cardo negotij, as you say, the controversy of the Pope's authority. For the establishing whereof: First, the Epistles of the ancient Bishops of Rome for the space of about 300. years after Christ are counterfeited. The Barbarous not Latin but lead of the style, and the likeness of them all one to another, the deep silence of antiquity concerning them; the Scriptures alleged after Hieromes translation, do convince them of falsehood. And by whose practice and procurement we cannot doubt, if we ask but as Cassius was wont Cui bono? For at every bout the authority of the Pope, and privileges of the Roman See are extolled and magnified.  
Next, the Donation of Constantine is a senseless forgery; 
Dist. 96. c. Constantinus.  and so blazed by some of the learnedest of the Roman Church. Read it advisedly, either in Gratian, or in the Decrees of Sylvester, with the Confession, and Legend of Constantine's baptism, and say out of your own judgement if ever any thing can be more fraudulent, more sottish? And because I have mentioned Gratian, his whole compilation is f●ll of falsification, and corruption of Antiquity: take an example or two in the matter we have in hand. 
Concil. Mile●. ●. 72.  The Milevitene and after the African Councils underpaine of Excommunication prohibit appeals beyond the Seas. 
Concil. A●ric. c. 12.  Which Canons were made purposely to meet with the usurpations of the Bishops of Rome, of which I have spoken some what before. Now in the citing this Canon, Gratian adds this goodly explication; 
c. placuit. qu. 9 6  nisi forte Romanam sedem appellaverint; thus excepting that abuse which these Counsels directly sought to prohibit. 
De doctrina. Christt. l. 2.  Again, Saint Augustine to inform a Christian man what Scriptures he should hold for Canonical, bids Gratian●its ●its it thus, inter qu●● (Scripturas) sane illae sunt quas Apostolica sedes habere & ab ea alij meru●runt accipere Epistolas: and accordingly, the 〈◊〉 of that Canon is; Inter Canonicas, The Decretal Epistles are numbered amongst the Canonical Scriptures. True it i●, that in the end of the next Canon, Gratian adds a good limitation, and worth the remembering, that this must be understood of such Decrees, in which there is nothing found contrary to the Decrees of the Father's foregoing, nor the precepts of the Gospel. Belike even in Gratians time it was not holden impossible, that in the Sanctions and Decretals of Popes, something might be decreed contrary to the Gospel, which may be added to your judge's infallibility, which hath been touched before.  
But these be old tricks of the Champions of the Papacy. At this day perhaps it is better: yes, and that shall ye understand by the words of the children of the Church of Rome themselves the Venetians. But first ye are to know, that among certain Propositions set forth in defence of the state, there was one, the fourth in number of eight, That the authority promised by our Saviour Christ to Saint Peter under the metaphor of the Keys is merely spiritual. For confirmation whereof after other proof was said, that the authority of the highest Bishop is over sin and over souls only; according to the words of that prayer of the Church about Saint Peter— qui B. Petro animas ligandi atque soluendi Pontificium tradidisti. Cardinal Bellermine undertook to answer these Propositions, and coming to this place, he saith; that peradventure God's providence to take away such deceits, whereby the author of these Propositions would deceive the simple, with the words of the holy Church misunderstood, inspired into the reformers of the Breuiarie that they should take out of that Prayer the word (animas) as anciently it was not there, nor aught to be; because that prayer was form out of the words of the Gospel. Quodcunque ligaveris, & quodcunque solueris. Now mark the rejoinder that is made to him by johannes Marsilius, who numbering up his errors in the defence of every proposition, roundly tells him? Erra XIIII. perch dice, etc. He errs in the XIV. place for that he saith, that those which have taken out of the Breuiarie the word (animas) were inspired by the holy Ghost. I 〈…〉 Quodcunque 〈◊〉, with the word (〈◊〉) by that text which explaineth them, 〈…〉; sins being in the soul and not in the body, lest any should believe that the Pope were, Domi●●s in 〈◊〉 & spiritualibus, of goods, of bodies, and of souls, and that he might lose and bind every thing, as it seems the L. Cardinal believeth. And they explained them with the word 〈◊〉, by which explication a remedy is put unto all those discords which may arise between the Pope and Prince's 〈◊〉 & tuo, Whereas those which have lat●ly taken it away out of the Breuiarie, 〈◊〉 a new stirred up occasion of discords and contortions. Besides that, it is a thing known of all men, that in the Books of the Counsels, of the Canons, of other Doctors, in a word, 〈◊〉 in the very Br●maries and Missals there have been and are taken away those things which are in favour of Princes of the Laity, to see if at length there might be established the opinion de illimita●a Potestate Pontificis in t●mporalibus. 〈…〉 he as ●e that compar●s together the Books printed in the year● 30. in 50. and those at this day, as well of the Counsels as others, evidently 〈◊〉 the vintage, that 〈◊〉 it is, that we post vindemial, have found some few clusters for the defence of our gracious Prince. This is a means if it go on further, to make all writings to lose their credit, and to ruin the Church of God. Be it spoken by the occasion that the Lord Cardinal hath given ●e thereof▪ and for charity's 〈◊〉, and for the desire that these writings be no more touched; which be also said with all humility and reverence.  
He errs in the XV. place, for that he saith ●hat in the ancient Breviaries there was not the word animas. And I have seen Breviaries written with 〈◊〉 abou● 200. years ago, and printed above an hundred; in them is the word animas; and if it were not▪ yet ought it to be put in, to take away the occasions of discords.  
Thus he there; As for the Prayer corrected, or corrupted rather; if you look the old Breviaries, yea even that set forth by Pi●s the Fifth, printed by Plantine, with the Privilege of the Pope, 
Ex Decreto 5▪. Council. T●d.  and his Catholic Maiest●e, Anno 77. upon the nine & twentieth of june, ye shall find it to run thus. Deus qui B. Petro Apostolo ●uo collatis clavibus r●gui coelestis animas ligandi atque solu●ndi Ponti●icium tradid●st●, concede ut intercessionis eius auxilio peccator ●m nostrorum nexibus liberemur. Per Dominum▪ Now in the late correction animas, is left out, and we understand the reason.  
In the end of the same book there is ●n advertisement to the Reader, the beginning whereof I will not stick to set down verbatim; it is this. Because in this Defence I have often said, that Authors are made to recant, and that out of their books many things are taken away sincerely said, in favour of the power of Temporal Princes, to establish by these means the opinion, De supremâ authoritate Papae in temporalibus; I have thought good to advise the R●ader, that the quotations by me brought, are taken, ad verbum, out of those books which are incorrupt, and contain the opinion of the Authors sincerely. And that the more ancient the Copies be, and further from these our times, so much ●he better they be. And in particular I desire that he be advertised, that the Cap. Novit de iudicijs, printed in Rome the year 1575. by joseph de Angelis, with licence of Superiors, it the text which was followed by the Author of the eight Positions, and by me; which contains sincerely the opinion of Na●arrus, and of the Parisians. Which in the books printed since, is changed in such manner as it is no more the same, but is become the contrary, to wit, that of 〈◊〉, etc.  
Tell me, good Master Wad●sworth, in the ●ight of God, what is fraud, if this be not. And thus not only the Authors of this age any way inclining to reformation, as Erasmus, Rhe●anus, Cassander, F●rus; but, Vines, Faber, Cajetan, Pol. Virgil, Guicciardine, Petrarch, Dante, yea Authors of six or seven hundred years old, are set to School to learn the Roman language, and agree with the Trent●aith ●aith. For it is not the authority and Monarchy of the Pope alone that is sought, though that be Summa summarum, whereunto all comes at last, but no voice must be heard discenting from that which he teaches. Therefore it is, that Bertramus Presbyter is appointed by your Spanish Index printed at Madrid, to be wholly abolished. The former had catechised him to say in stead of visibiliter, invisibiliter, with many other pretty explications, as where he saith, the Elements in the Lord's Supper, Secundum creaturarum substantiam, quod prius fuerant ante consecrationem, hoc & post consistunt, the explication is, secundum externas species Sacramenti. But the surest way was to take him clean away: and so indeed in the Bibliotheca Patrum he is, and that purposely, as Marguerinus de la Bigne confesseth in his Preface.  
The Ancient Fathers are perhaps free. For the Council of Trent appointed, that in the writings of the ancient Catholics nothing should be changed, sa●e where by the fraud of heretics a manifest error is crept in. But who shall be the judge of that? The Inquisitors and Censors themselves. For my part, I cannot say that I have spent many hours in the trial of this point, nor have I had ancient Copies thereto requisite. But I will entreat you to consider with me one example, or rather two or three in one Father, and in the matter that I named, whereby you may guess at the rest. In Saint Cyprians Works imprinted at Rome, by P. Manutius, sent for to Venice by Pius the Fourth, to set forth the Fathers, as himself saith, most perfectly cleansed from all spots, the Epistle of Firmilianus Bishop of Caesarea, beginning, Accepimus per Rogatianum, is wholly left out; and Pamelius thinks purposely, and adds, perhaps it had been more wisdom it had been never set out at all. Saint Cyprian was not of that mind, who translated it into Latin, as the style itself witnesses, and Pamelius also is enforced to confess. The matter is, it is to quick and vehement against Stephanus Bishop of Rome. He saith he is moved with just indignation, at the manifest folly of Stephanus, that boasting so much of the place of his Bishopric, and that he hath the succession of Peter, upon whom the foundations of the Church were set, brings in many other Rocks, etc. He saith he hath stirred up contentions and discords throughout the Churches of the whole world. Bids him not deceive himself, he hath made himself a Schismatic, by separating himself from the Communion of the Ecclesiastical unity, for while he thinks he can separate all from his communion, he hath separated himself only from all. He taxes him for calling Saint Cyprian a false Christ, a false Apostle, and a deceitful workman, which being privy to himself that these were his own due, preventingly he objected to another! No marvel if this gear could not pass the Press at Rome.  
In S. Cyprians Epistle, De Vnitate Ecclesiae, these words, & Primatus Petro datur, etc. & after, Vnam Cathedram constituit: and again, Et Cathedra una, are foisted into the text in that Roman edition. In that of Pamelius also besides these, another clause is added, forsooth, out of Gratian, and a Copy of the Cambron Abbey [Qui Cathedram Petri super quam fundata est Ecclesia deserit.] These patches being all left out, the sense is nevertheless complete and perfect: and for the last, which speaks most for the Pope's Chair, the supervisors themselves of the Canon Law, by the commandment of Gregory the thirteenth, acknowledge, that in eight Copies of Cyprian entire, in the Vatican Library this sentence is not found: but besides these there is one wherein his opuscula alone are contained, and another at Saint Saviour's in Bologna, in which it is found. But what account they make of it appears by this, that supplying the whole sentence in another place of Gratian, they leave it out. Wherein as their conscience is to be commended, and Manuti●● his modesty, or theirs who surveyed that edition, that would not follow one Copy against eight; so is Pamelius boldness to be corrected, that out of one, and that not fully agreeing with Gratian, neither shames not (as himself says, veriti non sumus) to force in this reading into the text, against all the rest printed and manuscript, which he used above twenty in number, as he sets them down in a Catalogue in the beginning of his edition. It is now little more than two hundred years ago, that Friar Thomas of Walden wrote against Witcleff. He in the second Book of his first Tome, the first Article, and second Chapter, cities this very place of Cyprian, and cities it to fort●fie Witclefs assertion of his own mind. For having recited Witclefs words, he concludes them thus; Haec ibi, and then proceeds. Addam●t & nos quod Cyprianus dicit omnes Apostolos pares fuisse & pote●tate & ho●●re. Addamus quod Hieronymus dicit, super omnes Apostolos ex aequo fortitudo solidatur Ecclesiae, etc. Yet, neither in that Chapter, nor in that whole discourse doth he once mention these words, now conveied into Cyprian, nor any where else that I can find in all his Work, though he cite this Tractate often under the name of Liber contra haereticos & schismaticos. How fit had it been to answer the objection out of Cyprian by Cyprian, if he had not found that Gratian after his manner had been too bold or negligent in this passage. The same Author in his third Tome De Sacramentalibus, Doct. 10. cities a long place out of this same Treatise beginning at those words. An esse sibi cum Christo videtur qui adversum Sace●dotem Christi facit, etc. Again, Cap. 81. two places; one immediately before the sentences charged with those former words, another after. The one beginning, Loquitur Dominus ad Petrum▪ Ego tibi dico quia tu es Petrus, etc. the other Vnitatem tenere ●irmiter & vendi●are debemus, etc. Certainly unless Waldenses meant by fai●t-pleading to betray the cause he undertook, he would never have omitted so pregnant passages as these be, for Peter's Primacy, and the Pope's Chair, had they been extant in Cyprians work when he wrote, But we cannot doubt of his good affection to the See of Rome, either for his order's sake, o● his dedicating that work to Pope Marti●e the Fi●th, or his approbation of the two first Tomes, which he saith, he caused to be seen and examined, per sollennes viros, and testifies of to be commended of all, encouraging him to write the third. It remains therefore that Cyprian hath received this garnishment since Waldens' time. And here with this occasion of his silence about those things which are thrust into Cyprian, I will, though besides my purpose▪ use his testimony about a certain sentence of the Author of the imperfect work upon Matthew, ascribed to Saint Chrysostome, which the Romish faction will needs raze out. It is in the eleventh Homily, about the middle. The words are these: Si enim vasa sanctificata ad priuat●s usus transferre peccatum est & periculum, sicut docet Balthasar qui bibens in calicibus sacris de regn● depositus est & de vita. Si ergo haec vasa ad privatos usus transferre sic 〈◊〉 est [in quibus non est verum corpus Christi 〈◊〉 mysterium ●orporis eius continetur] quanto magis vasa corporis nostri quae sibi Deus ad habitaculum praeparan●● non debemus locum dare Diabolo agend● in iis quae vult. In this sentence the words that I have enclosed from the rest are inserted saith Bellarm●e by some Scholar of Berengarius, 
De Sacram.  for they are not in all Copies. 
Euch. l. 2. c. 32.  No marvel. That is more marvel that they are in any, since the Canonising of Transubstantiation. But in Walde●s time, and before, the words were th●s read, for in his third Tome, Cap. 30. they are thus cited, save tha● by the error of the print ministerium, is put for mysterium, and he adds there. 〈…〉 But, saith Bellarmine, These words 〈◊〉 not to the matter in hand, for the Author of the 〈◊〉 spoke of the holy vessels of Salomon's Temple, which 〈…〉; and in those vessels, neither was the Lords true body, nor yet the mystery thereof. Well, if they be not to the purpose, if they speak of the vessels of Salomon's Temple, let them stand in the Text still. What need ye purge them out of the newer editions at Antwerp, and Paris. Belike Father john Matthews saw further into this matter then Bellarmine, for he casts out this sentence with the dregs of the Arians, although there be no Arianisme in it that I can perceive. The truth is, the Author speaks of the Vessels used in the Lord's Supper in his own time. For those words, sicut docet Balthasar, etc. are brought in by the way, for a confirmation from a like example, the sense hanging in the mean while, which is resumed again when he goes on, Si ergo haec vasa, as any indifferent Reader may perceive. Yea, take away these words, & the sinews of the sentence are cut, for the force of the argument lies in the comparison of the profaning of the holy vessels, and of our bodies; That is a sin, yet Christ's body is not contained in them, but the mystery thereof: but God himself dwells in these.  
These examples, to omit some other, do make me think, that howsoever the corrupting of the texts of the Fathers, is not perhaps so usual, as of other Writers, and good reason why, they know that many look narrowly to their finger's, neither is there any place almost, that is of special pith, that hath not been observed and urged in the handling of the controversies of this age, by some one or other; yet where there is any colour of differing Copies, or any advantage to be taken that way, it is not slipped. And who knows not, that sometimes the change of a Letter, yea, of a Point or Accent; makes the whole sentence of another meaning? 
De Verbis Domini, Serm. 15. c. 11.  As for example● that of Saint Augustine, Qui fecit te sine te, non iustificat te sine te. Read it interrogatively, and it is as strong for 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉, as if it be read assertively, for Cathar●●● and the 〈◊〉.  
And in very deed when I consider the eagerness of these men, to win their purposes, and their fearful boldness with the holy Word of God, I know not how a man should look for conscience or respect at their hands in the writings of men. For to omit that the Trent-fathers' have canonised the Vulgar Latin Edition, which so many times departeth from the original inspired by the holy Ghost, adding, detracting, changing, often to a divers, sometimes to a contrary sense. To let pass also how Sixtus V. and Clemens VIII. do tyrannize oue● and delude the Faith of their followers, about that Edition, binding them unto two divers Copies, and sometimes flat contradictory; and so, as the form of each must be inviolably observed, without the least particle of the Text added, changed, or detracted. The former, derogating all Faith and authority from whatsoever Bibles hand●written, or printed, of the Vulgar edition, which did not agree with that which he set forth ad verbum & ad literam. The latter, telling, that when the same Pope endeavoured to set it out, he perceived not a few things to have crept into the holy Bible, through the fault of the Press, and that it needed a second care, whereupon he decreed to bring the whole work again to the Anuile, had he not been prevented by death; so derogating all Faith from the ●ormer. Whereas the truth is Sixt●● did not only endeavour to set out his Bible, but prefixed his Bull before it ad perpetuam rei memoriam, and sent one of the Copies to the State of Venice (as I heard at my being there) howsoever since it was cunningly recovered again, set it to sale publicly, and saith in his Bull, that he corrected the faults of the Press with his own hand, and (which most of all convinceth Pope Clement's Preface of falsehood) the difference of these Editions is not in fault of the prints, but in that the one follows the old erroneous reading, the latter the reading of other Manuscripts according with the Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek, or the Latin edition of the Catholic King's Bible, observed by the industry of the Divines of Lo●aine. But to forbear to urge this contradiction in the very foundation of belief, which some man peradventure would press so far, as to infer, that the Romanists have no faith (for he that believes contradictories believes nothing.) What shall we say of that impiety, to corrupt the original Text according to the vulgar Latin? See an example hereof in the first promise of the Gospel, Gen. 3. where the Serpent is threatened, that the seed of the Woman shall crush his head. The vulgar Edition leaving here the Hebrew, the Seventie, and Saint Hierome himself, as appears by his questions upon Genesis, tran●●ates Ipsa. She shall bruise thy head. So it stands now in the authentical Scripture of the Church of Rome, and herein Sixtus and Clemens are of accord. The Divines of Louvain observe, that two Manuscript Copies have Ipse. That the Hebr●w, Chaldie, and Greek, have it so likewise. Why then did not either Sixtus or Clemens, or they themselves having Copies for it, correct it, and make it so in the authentical Text? I will tell you. By colour of this corruption, the Devil envying Christ's glory, like an obstinate enemy rather yielding himself to any than his true Conqueror, hath given this honour to the Virgin Mary. To her it is attributed in that work which I think to be the most ungodly and blasphemous that ever saw the Sun: The Lady's Psalter, wherein that which is spoken of God by the Spirit of God is writhed to her. In the 51. Psalm, Quid gloriaris in malitia, o malign Serpens, etc. Why boastest thou in malice, o thou malignant Serpent and infernal Dragon, Submit thy head to the Woman, by whose valour thou shalt be drowned in the deep. Crush him, o Lady, with the foot of thy valour, arise and scatter his malice, etc. And in the 52. speaking to the same Serpent. Noli extolli, etc. Be not lifted up for the fall of the Woman, for a Woman shall crush thy head, etc. So in that Anthem: Haec est mulier virtutis quae contri●it caput Serpentis. Yea which I write with grief and shame, to her doth good Bernard apply it, Hom. 2. super Missus est, and which is more strange, expounds it, not of her bearing our Saviour, but, Ipsa proculdubio, etc. She doubtless crushed that poisonful head, which brought to nought all manner of suggestion of that wicked one, both of temptation of the flesh and of pride of mind. To her doth the learned and devout Chancellor of Paris apply it. 
Serm. de Natiui●ate Mar. Virgins.  Has pests universas dicimus membra Serpentis antiqui, cuiu● caput ipsa virgo contrivit. And what marvel in those times, when the plain Text of the Scripture ran so in the feminine gender, of a woman, and few or none had any skill of the Greek or Hebrew? Who should that SHE be, but she that is blessed among women? Now although that thanks be to God, it is known that this is a corrupt place, out of the Fountains, yea out of the Rivers also the testimonies of the Fathers, referring this to Christ, as Irenaaus, justine, Cyprian, Clemens Alexandrinus, Hierome, yea Pope Leo himself, yet because no error of the Church of Rome may be acknowledged, how palpable soever; they have cast how to shadow this corruption, and set some colour upon it, that howsoever this reading cannot be true, yet it may be made like to truth. Lo in the Interlinear Bible set forth by the authority of King Philip the father of his Majesty that now reigns with you, the Hebrew Text is reform according to the Latin, 
See D. 〈◊〉 Conf. with Hart. c. 6. 〈◊〉  IPSA. There was some opportunity hereunto, by reason that the Letters of the Text without pricks would bear both readings. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hu, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hiu. And this selfsame word for the Letters the base of reading, is so pointed in this Chapter verse 19 and applied to Eve She is the mother of all living. And so elsewhere, as Gen. 28. 1. and 21. Hereunto perhaps was added, that the pricks are a late invention of the Rabbins, as many think, and no part of the Hebrew Text. And that not only Leo Castro, and such as accuse the present Hebrew Copies as falsified, but those that defend them also, do many of them confess. Hereupon it was resolved, as it seems, to point this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For that it was not by mistaking but purposely done▪ Franciscu● Lucas in his Annotations upon the place doth assure us; and saith it was Guido Fabricius his deed. And indeed other things there be in that work, which savour not of the learning and integrity of Arias Montanus, as for example, the Etymology of Missa from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But as Boldness is not always as provident, as Ignorance or Malice is bold, these Correctors marked not, that the gender of the Verb, and the affix of the Noun following, are both Masculine. So although the Orthography would be framed to consent, yet the Syntaxe doth cry out against this Sacrilege. And yet our Rhemists, as I am informed, in their lately set forth Bible, with a long note upon this place, defend the applying of this Text to the blessed Virgin, and the old reading Ipsa. What should a man say? Necessity makes men desperate, and as the Apostle saith, 
〈◊〉. 3. 13.  Evil men and deceivers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.  
These be frauds indeed, in the strictest sense, wilfully corrupting the Texts of good Authors, wilfully maintaining them so corrupted; not abstaining from the holy Scriptures themselves. For as to that other kind, depraving the sense, retaining the words; it were endless to cite examples. Bellarmine alone, as I believe, passeth any two Protestants that ever set pen to paper, perhaps all of them put together.   

CHAP. VII.  
Of the Armies of evident witnesses for the Romanists.  
WHere you add that you found the Catholics had far greater and better Armies of evident witnesses then the Protestants, it might perhaps seem so to you, as your mind was prepared, when you had met with such cunning mustermasters as the Romanists are. Who sometimes bring into the field to make their number seem more, after the old stratagem of war, a sort of Pages and Lackeiss, unworthy to hold any rank in the host of God, under the names of the Fathers. Sometimes to confirm their part, give out a voice confidently, that all the ●orces which they see aloof in the field are on their side, whereas when it comes to the battle they shall find that they will turn their arms against them. Sometimes they change the quarrel itself; in which case how easy is it to bring Armies, as you say, into the field, to fight against Nobody and evident witnesses, to prove that which no man denies? For the purpose, that the Bishops of Rome hath had a primacy of honour, and authority; when as the question is about a Monarchy, and infallible judgement, an uncontrollable jurisdiction. Herein if you please, see how Bellarmine alleages the Fathers, Greek and Latin, in the 15. and 16. Chapters of his first Book, de Summo Pontifice. So for proof of the verity of Christ's Body and Blood in the Lord's Supper, he spends a whole Book only in citing the testimonies of the Fathers. To what purpose? When the question is not of the truth of the Presence, bu● of the manner; whether it be to the Teeth and Belly, or Soul and Faith of the Receiver. Sometimes they will bear down the unexpert Soldier their Reader, that he sees the Father's fight for them; as Pighius and Bellarmine come in often with their Vides in the end and application of a testimony. Whereby it comes to pass that the Scholar if he be of a pliable disposition, or loath to be counted dim-sighted, yields himself to his Teacher, and sees in the Fathers that which they never dreamt of. But surely, Sir, had you given that honour to the holy Scriptures, which of the jews was given to them, and our Lord jesus Christ allows it in them; and then employed as much travel in the searching and looking into them, as you profess to have done in the perusing the Counsels and Fathers, perhaps God had opened your eyes, as those of El●sha his servant, to have seen, that there are more on our side then against us, horses indeed and charets of fire, able to put to flight and scatter never so great armies of humane authorities and opinions. But this place of the Scriptures hath no place amongst all your motives.  
As touching that which you say of the Centurists often consuring and rejecting the plain testimonies of the Ancients. It is true, that in the title De Doctrina, they note a part, the singular and incommodious opinions the stubble and errors of the Doctors. Wherein to tell you my fancy, if they commit any fault, it is, that they are to rigid and strict, referring into this Catalogue, every improper and excessive speech, which being severed from the rest of the discourse, may often seem absurd: as it may also seem strange that our Saviour should teach a man to hate his Father and Mother, or pull out his eyes, or give him his cloak that hath bereaved him of his coat. Whereas these and the like have in the place where they stand, admirable force and grace, being taken with an equal and commodious interpretation. But it is are clear as the noon day, that sundry such errors and singular opinions there be in the Fathers, as cannot be justified. They speak not always to your own minds, not only prima fancy, and in sound of words, but being never so well examined and salved. Witness Sixtus Senensis in the fifth and sixth Books of his Bibliotheca. Witness Pamelius, Medina (though blamed for confessing so much by Bellarmine) yea witness Bellarmine himself. Wherefore if the bare authority of the Fathers must bind us, undergo the same law ye give, if as your Belgic Index confesseth, you bear in them with many errors, extenuate them, excuse them, by devising some shift, often deny them, and give them a c●modious sense, when they are opposed in disputations, give the liberty ye take. Or if (as we think) these be base courses and unbeseeming the ingenuity of true Christian minds, acknowledge this honour as proper to the Scriptures, to be without controversy received, examine by the true touchstone of divine authority all humane writings, how holy soever their Authors have been. Try all things, as the Apostle commands, hold fast that which is good.  
Your instance in Danaeus his Commentaries, super D. Aug. Euchiridion ad Laurentium, was not all the best chosen. For neither doth Saint Augustine in that book treating professedly of Purgatory, avouch it plainly, or yet obscurely. Nor doth Danaeus reject his opinion with those words, Hic est nae●us Augustini, or the like. The heads of Saint Augustine's discourse are these. I. That whereas some thought that such as are baptised and hold the Faith of Christ, though they live and die never so wickedly, shall be saved, and punished with a long but not eternal fire, he thinks them to be deceived, out of a certain humane pit●; for this opinion is flatly contrary to other Sc●rptures. II. He interprets the place of Saint Paul, touching the trying of every man's work by fire, of the fire of tribulation, through which as well he that builds gold and silver, that is, minds the things of God, as he that builds hay and stubble, that is, too much minds the things of this life must pass. III. He saith that it is not incredible, that some such thing is done after this life also; and whether it be so or not, may be enquired of. FOUR But whether it be found or no, that some faithful people, according as they have more or less, loved these perishing things, are later or sooner saved: yet not such as of whom it is said, that they shall not possess the Kingdom of God, unless repenting as they ought, they obtain forgiveness; as for the purpose, be fruitful in alms; which yet will not serve to purchase a licence to commit sin. V. That the daily and lighter sins, without which we are never in this life, are blotted out by the Lord's Prayer. And so the greater also, if a man leave them, and forgive others his enemies; which is a worthy kind of alms: but the best of all is a sinners amending of his life. Lo how plainly Saint Augustine avoucheth Purgatory, Of which he doubts whether any such thing can be found or no. Expounds that Scripture that seems most strong for it, all otherwise, and so as it cannot agree thereunto. If it be found, is sure it will not serve for greater sins. And for lesser defects, yea the greatest shows, another a surer remedy, which intruth makes Purgatory superfluous. In this doctrine, Danaeus is so far from controlling Saint Augustine, that he applauds him; and saith, that declaring his own opinion of Purgatory, he pronounceth plainly, that the whole defining of this matter is uncertain, doubtful, and rash; which since that Augustine wrote being now an old man, certainly it cannot be doubted but that he did altogether reject Purgatory: yea and he shows this fire itself to be unprofitable. Thus Danaeus there. But the censure that was in your mind, I believe is that upon another passage of Saint Augustine in the same Book, where he treats, whether the souls of the dead are eased by the piety of their friends that are living. And thus he determines it. That when the Sacrifices either of the Altar, or of whatsoever alms are offered for all such as are deceased after Baptism, for such as are very good folk, they are thanksgivings; for such as are not very evil, they are propitiations: for those that are very evil, though they be no helps to the dead, yet they are consolations, such as they be to the living. And to such as they are profitable unto, it is either that they may have full remission, or that their very damnation may be more tolerable. Upon this Chapter thus saith Dan●us. Hoc totum caput continet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Augustini, and after he adds, Itaque hic foenum & stipulam aedificat vir pius & magnus. But you, ye say, had rather follow Saint Augustine's opinion than his censure. Perhaps as one saith, rather err with Plato, then hold the truth with others. If that be your resolution, what should we use any more words? Believe then if you please, that the commemoration of Christ's sacrifice in the Lord's Supper, or the oblations of the faithful, are to be made for all that decease after Baptism, in the attempting of whatsoever sin they die, yea suppose in final impenitence of any deadly crime. That such as be damned may thereby have their damnation made more tolerable. Believe that without any impropriety of speech, the same form of words may be a thanksgiving for one, and an appeasing of God's wrath for another. Believe also (if you can believe what you will) that Saint Tecla delivered the soul of Falconilla out of hell, and Saint Gregory the soul of Traian, and that as may seem saying Mass for him, sith he was forbidden thence forth to offer any host for any wicked man. Bele●●e that Macarius continually praying for the dead, and very desirous to know whether his prayers did them any good, had answer by miracle from the scull of a dead man an Idolater, that by chance was tumbled in the way. O Macarius when tho● offerest prayers for the dead, we feel some ease for the time. Believe that on Easter even all the damned spirits in hell keep holy day, and are free from their torments. Saint Augustine, such is his modesty, will give you leave to believe 〈◊〉, as well as Purgatory, if you please, as he is not unwilling to give, as large scope to other men's opinions as may be, so they reverse not the plain and certain grounds of holy Scripture. In all these you may if you please follow authors also; as Saint Damasce●●, Paladius, Prudentius, Sigebert, and others. But give the same liberty to others that ye take. Compel no man to follow your opinion, if he had rather follow Danaeus reasons. For myself, I would sooner with Saint Augustine himself, whose words touching Saint Cyprian, Danaeus here borrowed, confess this to be, 〈…〉 coopertum 〈…〉, then be bound to iustif●e his conceit touching the commemoration of the dead in the Lord's Supper. And as he saith of Saint Cyprian, so would I add, Ego h●ius libri authoritate non teneor, 〈…〉 Augustini non ut Canonicas habeo, sed eas ex Canonic●s considero; & quoth in iis 〈◊〉 scripture 〈…〉 cum 〈…〉 quod non congruit cum pace eius resp●●. Which words I do the rather set down, that they may be Luther's justification also against F. Parsons, 
Relation 〈…〉  who thinks he hath laid sore to his charge when he cities very solemnly his Epistle ad Equitem Germ. Anno Domini 1521. where he saith, he was tied by the authority of no Father, though never so holy, if he were not approved by the judgement of holy Scripture. Surely this is not to deny and contemn, as he calls it, or as you to control the Fathers, to account them subject to humane infirmities, which themselves acknowledge. But the contrary is to boast against the truth, to seek to fore judge it with their mistake, which needs not so much as require their testimonies.  
I will forbear to multiply words about that, whether the testimonies of Antiquity which favour the Protestants be many or few: whether they do indeed so, or only seem, prima fancy; whether they be wrested or to the purpose; whether all this may not by just or reason be affirmed of the passages cited by 〈◊〉 Romanists out of Antiquity, setting aside matters of ceremony, and government (which yourself confess by and by may be diverse, without empeaching unity in Faith) and opinions, ever to be subjected to the trial of Scriptures, by their own free consent and desire. judge by an instance or two, that this matter may not be a mere skirmish of generalities. Tertullian in his latter times, whether as Saint Hierome writes through the envy and reproach of the Roman Clergy, or out of the too much admiring chastity and fasting, became a Montanist, and wrote a Book de Pudicitia, blaming the reconciling of Adulterers and Fornicators. In the very entrance almost thereof, he hath these words. Audio etiam edictum esse propositum, & quidem peremptorium. Pontifex scil. Maximus Episcopus Episcoporum dicit. Ego & maechiss & fornicationis delict a paenitentiâ functis dimitto. Pamelius in his note upon this place, writes thus, Bene habet: & annotatu dignum quod etiamiam in haeresi constitutus, & adversus Ecclesia●● scribens, Pontifice● Romanum Episcopum Episcoporum nuncupet, & infra Cap. 13. bonum Pastorem, & benedictum Papum & Cap. 21. Apostolicum. Thus Pamelius; and presently latches forth into the Privileges of the See of Rome, and brings a number of testimonies for that forgery of Constantine's donation. The like note he hath in the life of Tertullian, where he makes the Pope that set forth the former Edict to have been Zephyrinus; quem, saith he, Pontificem Maximum etiam iam haereticus Episcopum Episcoporum appellat. Baronius also makes no small account of this place, and saith, The title of the Pope is here to be noted. And indeed, prima fancy (as you say) they have reason. But he that shall well examine the whole web of Tertullians' discourse, shall find that he speaks by a most bitter and scornful Irony, as Elias doth of Baal, when he saith, he is a God. The word scilicet might have taught them thus much. Yea, the title Pontifex Maximus, which in those days, and almost two ages after, was a Pagan term, never attibuted to a Christian Bishop, first laid down by Gratian the Emperor, as Baronius also notes, in the year of our Lord, 383. because it ●auoured of Heathenish superstition, though it had been, as a title of Royalty used by the former Christian Emperors, till that time. This title, I say, might have made them perceive Tertullians' meaning; unless the immoderate desire of exalting the Papacy did so blind their eyes, that seeing, they saw, and yet perceived not. In the same character, though with more mildness and moderation, is the same title for the other part of it, used by Saint Cyprian, in his Vote in the Council of Carthage. Neque. n. quisquam nostrum se esse Episcopum Episcoporum constituit aut tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem Collegas suos adigit. Bellarmine saith, he speaks here of those Bishops that were in the Council of Carthage; and that the Bishop of Rome is not included in that sentence, who is indeed Bishop of Bishops. What! and doth he tyranniously enforce his Colleagues to obedience also. For it is plain that Cyprian joins these together, the one as the presumptuous title, the other as the injurious act answering thereto, which he calls plain tyranny. And as plain it is out of Firmilianus Epistle, which I vouched before, that Stephanus Bishop of Rome heard ill for his arrogancy and presuming upon the place of his Bishopric, Peter's Chair, to sever himself from so many Churches, and break the bond of peace, now with the Churches of the East in Asia, now of the South in Africa. And he was in as ill conceit with Cyprian for his breaking good order, and communicating with Basilides and Martialis justly deprived in Spain; as Saint Cyprian was with him, when he styled him, a false Christ, and a false Apostle. But the holy Martyr was of a more patient and calm spirit, then to be moved with such reproaches; nay, he took occasion, as it should seem, thereby to write of patience. From this mildness it was, that he so closely taxed the presumption of him, that made himself Bishop of Bishops, and by terror (which what it was Firmilianus Epistle shows, threatening Excommunication) would compel his Colleagues to his own opinion. None of us saith he, doth thus. As the Apostle, we preach not ourselves; we commend not ourselves; We are not as many, that adulterate the Word of God, etc. Bellarmine takes the first kindly. No marvel, saith he, for this the Bishop of Rome's due. But they go together, he must be content to take both, or leave both. Such another place there is in Saint Augustine's Epist. 86. the words are, Petr●● etiam inquit Apostolorum Capu●, coeli 〈◊〉, & Ecclesia fundamentum. Where in the Margin, the Divines of Louvain, the overseers of Plantines edition, set this note, Petrus Ecclesia fundamen●●m. Why might they not? The words ye will say of the text. But these words of the text be not Saint Augustine's, whose opinion is well enough known, That it is Christ confessed by Peter; that is the foundation of the Church; but they are the words of an undiscreet railer 
* Vrbici cuinsd●m.  of the City of Rome, against whom Saint Augustine in all that Epistle most vehemently inveighs. This arrogant Author endeavours so to defend the Roman custom of fasting on the Saturday, as he reproaches all other Churches that used otherwise. And that we may see with what Spirit he was led, he brings the same text that is brought, in Pope Siricius, and Innocentius Epistles, against the marriage of Clergy men, Qui in carne sunt Deo placere non possunt, and many other Scriptures wrested, and far from the purpose; at last comes the authority of Peter, and his tradition very Pope-like alleged, Peter, he saith, the head of the Apostles, porter of heaven, and foundation of the Church, having overcome Simon the Sorcerer, who was a figure of the Devil, not to be overcome but by fasting, thus taught the Romans; whose faith is famous in the whole world. I remit you to Saint Augustine's answer to this tradition. This I note, that where your Censors do race out of the Margins of former editions, such notes as do express the very opinions of the ancients, and in their own words, here they can allow and authorise such marginal notes, as are directly contrary to their meaning. Yea, which are earnestly oppugned by them; when they seem to make for the authority of the Pope. Good sir, examine well this dealing, and judge if this be not wresting the Fathers, and applying them clean from their purpose.  
In fine, you found yourself, you say, evidently convinced. Persuaded, I believe, rather than convinced. Else if the force and evidence of the Arguments, and not the pliableness of your mind were the cause of your yielding, me thinks they should work like effect in others, no less seriously seeking for truth, and setting all worldly respects aside, earnestly minding their own salvation than yourself. Which I well know they do not, neither those which hitherto have been examined, nor those which yet remain to be considered in the rearward.   

CHAP. VIII.  
Of the invisibility of the Church, said to be an evasion of Protestants.  
THe first whereof is, the dislike of the Protestants evasion, as you call it, by the invisibility of their Church. Give me leave here to tell you plainly, ye seem to me not to understand the Protestants doctrine in this point. Else ye would have spared all that, The Catholic Church must ever be visible, as a City set on a hill, otherwise how should she teach her children, convert Pagans, dispense Sacraments? All this is yielded with both hands. The Congregations of which the Catholic Church doth consist are visible. But the promise made to this Church, of victory against the gates of hell, the titles, of the house of God, the base and pillar of Truth (an allusion, as I take it, to the bases and pillars that held up the veil or curtains in the Tabernacle) the body of Christ, his Dove, his undefiled, are not verified of this Church in the whole visible bulk of it, but in those that are called according to God's purpose, given to Christ, and kept by him to be raised up to life at the last day. This doctrine is Saint Augustine's in many place●, which it would be too tedious to set down at large. In his third book, De doctrina Christiana, among the rules of Tychonius, there is one which he corrects a little for the terms, De Domini corpore bipertito; which he saith, ought not to have been called so, for in truth that is not the Lords body, which shall not be with him for ever, but he should have said of the Lords true body and mixed, or true and feigned, or some such thing. Because not only for ever, but even now, hypocrites are not to be said to be with him, though they seem to be in his Church. Consider those resemblances taken out of the holy Scripture, wherein that godly Father is frequent, of chaff and wheat in the Lord's floor, of good and bad fishes in the net, of spots and light in the Moon. Of the Church carnal and spiritual, of the wicked multitudes of the Church, yet not to be accounted in the Church. Of the lily and the thorns; those that are marked which mourn for the sins of God's people, and the rest which perish, which yet bear his Sacraments. Consider the last Chapter of the book, De Vnitate Ecclesiae, and that large Treatise which he hath of that matter, Epist. 48. The place is long, which deserves to be read, for the objection of the Universality of Arianisme (like to that of Papism in these last ages) which Saint Augustine answers in the fifth book, De Baptismo contra Donatistas' cap. 27. That number of the just, who are called according to God's purpose, of whom it is said, The Lord knoweth who are his, is the enclosed garden, the sealed fountain, the well of living waters, the orchard with Apples, etc. The like he hath. l. 5. c. 3. & 23. he concludes, that because such are built upon the Rock, as hear the Word of God and do it, and the rest upon the sand: now the Church is built upon the Rock, all therefore that hear the Word of God and do it not, are out of question without the Church. In the seventh book, cap. 51. Quibus omnibus consideratis●— Read and mark the whole Chapter. Out of these and many more like places, which I forbear to mention, it appears, that albeit the true Catholic Church is such as cannot be hid, yet considering that it consists of two sorts of people, the one, which is the greater part, who do not indeed properly belong to it: the other, the fewer, truly and properly so called, to whom all the glorious things spoken of the Church do agree. The face therefore of the mixed Church may be overrun with scandals, 
De Vnitate Eccl. c. 24. Euarrat. in Psal. 103. come. 1.  as in all times almost. The greatest number may sometime be Idolaters, as in the Kingdom of Israel under Achab. The principallest in authority may be false teachers, as the Priests and Prophets in jeremy's time: the sons of pestilence may sit in Moses Chair, as they did in Christ's time. Yet still the Church is the ground and pillar of Truth in the Elect: Ipsa est praedestinata columna & firmamentum veritatis. The Sheep hear not Seducers, john 10. 8. to wit, finally, and in any damnable point. Thus was it before Christ, thus since, thus in the Church of England, before, yea, and since it was reform. Thus in that of Rome itself at this day. There is a distinction of Thomas, of those that be in the Church, which rightly ● interpreted agrees fully herewith. 
2. 2. q. 2. ar. 9  There are some, De Ecclesia numero tantum. Some, numero & merito. The former are such as have only fidem informem, the latter formatam. Now though the persons of such, as be in the Church be visible, yet the Faith and Charity of men we see not, and to argue from the privileges of the Church, numero & merito, to the Church, numero tantum, is a perpetual, but a palpable paralogism of the Romish faction: which is grosser, yet when they argue to the Church representative; and grossest of all when one man is made the Church, and he (as themselves grant may fall out) a Devil incarnate.   

CHAP. IX.  
Of lack of Uniformity in matters of Faith, in all ages and places.  
ANd in this self same Paralogism you were beguiled with, in the next point of Uniformity and concord in matters of Faith. The true Church, ye say, ●uer holds such Uniformity. It is utterly false in the Visible and mixed Church, both before Christ and since. It is false in the Church of Rome itself; whose new-coined faith, patched to the Creed, by Pius the Fourth, came in piecemeal out of private opinions and corrupt usages, nor ever was in any age uniformly holden, or taught as matter of Faith, even in it, as it is at this day. So by your own discourse it should be no true Church. And taking matters of faith so largely as it seems you do, in opposition to such things as be ceremonies or of government; it is untrue also of the Church of the Elect, or properly so called. For though the Faith in the principles thereof be ever the same, yet many conclusions of Faith have sometimes lain unsearched out, and like some parts of the world unknown, till by the industry of God's servants, occasioned also by the importunity and opposition of Heretics, they were discovered. Sundry common errors also there have been, which in succeeding ages have been cleared and reform: as, the chiliasts. That Angels have bodies: That children after they be baptised are to be communicated: That Heretics are to be rebaptised.  
To the Assumption First, the Protestants challenge not to themselves any Church as their own; which I must advertise you of here, because formerly also you do use this phrase. The Church is Christ's, both the visible and invisible. Next, taking matters of Faith for foundations or articles of Faith necessary to salvation, the Church of Christ hath in all ages had uniform concord with the Protestants at this day in such matters, as appeareth by the common rule of Faith the Creed; and so hath also the Church under the Pope's tyranny. As to the Trent-additions they are foreign to the Faith, as neither principles nor conclusions thereof: neither can yourselves show uniform consent and concord in them (and namely, in the 11. of them) in any one age, especially as matters of salvation, as now they are canonised. How much less can ye show it in all other conclusions of Faith; whereabout there have been among you, as are now among us, and ever will be differences of opinions, without any prejudice for all that unto the unity of the Faith of the Church, and title to the name of it. As for Wicliffe, Hus, and the rest, if they have any of them borne record to the Truth, and resisted any innovation of corrupt Teachers in their times, even to blood, they are justly to be termed Martyrs, yea albeit they saw not all corruptions, but in some were themselves carried away with the stream of error. Else, if because they erred in some things, they be no Martyrs, or because we descent from them in some things, we are not of the same Church, both you and we must quit all claim to Saint Cyprian, justine Martyr, and many more whom we count our Ancients, and Predecessors, and bereave them also of the honour of Martyrdom, which so long they have enjoyed: You see, I hope, by this time the weakness of your Argument.   

CHAP. X.  
Of the original of reformation in Luther, Calvin; Scotland, England, etc.  
IN your next Motive taken from the original of Reformation, before I come to answer your Argument shortly couched in form, I must endeavour to reform your judgement in sundry points of story, wherein partly you are misled and abused by Parsons and others of that spirit, partly you have mistaken some particulars, and out of a false imagination framed a like discourse. First for Luther, it was not his rancour against the Dominicans that stirred him up against the Pope, but the shameful merchandise of Indulgences, set to sale in Germany, to the advantage of Magdalen, sister to Pope Leo X. Believe herein if not Sleidan yet G●●cciardine l. 13. And of all that mention those affairs, it is acknowledged, that at the first, and for a good time he showed all obedience, and reverence to the Pope. The new History of the Council of Trent, written by an Italian a subject and part of the Church of Rome, as should appear by the Epistle Dedicatory of the Reverend and learned Archbishop of Spalleto, prefixed to his Majesty, speaketh thus of the matter. Questo died occasione, etc. This gave occasion to Martin, 
Pag. 6.  to pass from Indulgences to the authority of the Pope, which being by others proclaimed for the highest in the Church, by him was made subject to a General Council lawfully celebrated. Whereof he said that there was need in that instant, and urgent necessity. And as the heat of disputation continued, by how much the more the Pope's power was by others exalted, so much the more was it by him abased, yet so as Martin contained himself within the terms of speaking modestly of the person of Leo, and saving sometimes his judgement. 
Pag. ●.  Again, After his departure from the presence of Cardinal Cajetan at Augusta, he saith, he wrote a letter to the Cardinal, confessing that he had been too vehement, and excusing himself by the importunity of the Pardoners, and of those that had written against him, promising to use more modesty in time to come, to satisfy the Pope, and not to speak any more of Indulgences, provided that his adversaries would do the like. This was Luther's manner at the first, till the Bull of Pope Leo came out, dated the ninth of November, 1518. Wherein he declared the validity of Indulgences, and that he as Peter's Successor and Christ's Vicar had power to grant them for the quick and dead; that this is the doctrine of the Church of Rome, the Mother and Mistress of all Christians, and aught to be received of all that would be in the Communion of the Church. From this time forward Luther began to change his style, 
Pag. ●.  And (saith he) as before he had for the most part reserved the person and judgement of the Pope, so after this Bull he resolved to refuse it, and thereupon put forth an Appeal to the Council▪ etc. You see then how submissively Luther at first carried himself. But extreme tyranny over-comes often a well prepared patience.  
Touching his causing rebellion also against the Emperor, ye are misse-informed: his advice was asked about the association of the Protestants at Smalcald, 
Sleidan l. ●.  he said plainly, he could not see how it could be lawful, further than for their own defence, joh. Bodin, in his second Book de Repub. cap. 5. hath these words. We read also that the Protestant Princes of Almain before they took arms against the Emperor, demanded of Martin Luther if it were lawful. He answered freely that it was not lawful, whatsoever tyranny, or impiety were pretended. He was not believed; so the end thereof was miserable, and drew after it the ruin of great and illustrious houses of Germany. As for the war in Germany it began not till after Luther's death, neither was it a rebellion of the Protestants; the truth is they stood for their lives. The Emperor with the help of the Popes both money and arms, intended to root them out; and although at the first the Emperor did not avow his raising arms against them to be for Religion, yet the Pope in his jubilee published upon this occasion, did not let to declare to the world, that himself and Caesar had concluded a league to reduce the Heretics by force of arms to the obedience of the Church, and therefore all should pray for the good success of the war.  
That Luther ever reviled the Emperor, I did never till now hear or read, and therefore would desire to know what authors you have for it. Touching other Princes, namely, King Henry the eighth, I will not defend him, who condemned himself thereof. It is true that he was a man of a bold and high stomach, and specially fitted thereby through the providence of God, to work upon the heavy and dull disposition of the Almains, and in so general a Lethargy, as the world than was in, he carried himself (as fell out sometimes) very boisterously. But arrogancy, schism, rebellion, were as far from him, as the intention itself to plant a Church.  
As to his Vow-breaking lastly, if that Vow were foolishly made and sinfully kept, it was justly broken: perhaps also charitably, if he would by his own example reform such, as lived in whoredom, and other uncleanness, and induce them to use the remedy that God hath appointed for the avoiding of them, to wit, honourable marriage. All this matter touching Luther, unless I be ●eceiued, you have taken from 〈◊〉 Harding; that at least touching his rancour against the Dominicans, for it is his very phrase. But Master Harding both in this, and many things else discovereth his passion, and lack of true information in this affair. When with one breath he affirmeth, that, first, it was a Pardon of a Crusade against the Turks which was preached whereas it was an Indulgence to those that should put their helping hands for the building of Saint Peter's Church at Rome, as the Articles of this Pardon printed in English, one of the Copies whereof I have myself, do show. Secondly, next he saith the preaching hereof was granted to Friar john Tetzet. It was Friar john Thecel, or Tecel. Thirdly, he saith, the Elector of Mentz Albert granted this to T●ecel and the Dominicans, whereby Luther was bereft of the gain he expected. The truth is, it was Aremboldus a Bishop living at the Court of Rome, whom (having before been a Merchant of Genoa) Magdalen the Pope's sister put in trust with this merchandise, that appointed the Dominicans to be the retailers of these Pardons. The Archbishop of Mentz had nothing to do with it, otherwise then to allow and suffer it, which occasioned Luther to write to him, as to the Bishop of Brandenburg, and to Leo himself, to repress the impudence of the Pardoners. And Luther saith further in one place, that the Archbishop undertook to give countenance to this business, with that condition, that the half of the prey should go to the Pope, and himself might have the other half to pay for his Pall. By these errors hea●ed together it may appear what credit it is like Master Hardings' tale be worthy of, touching the remnant, that of rancour and malice against the Dominicans, and because he was bereaved of that sweet morsel, which in hope he had almost swallowed down, Luther made this st●rre. A hard thing me thinks it is, for any that lived at that day to set down what was in Luther's heart, what were his hopes, his desires, rancour, and spleen; much more for Master Harding, most of all for you and me. When the actions of men have an appearance of good, Charity would hope the best, Piety would reserve the judgement of the intention to God.  
Let us come to Calvin, touching whom I marvel not much that you say nothing of all that which Bolseck brings against him, who being by his means chased out of Geneva, discovereth as I remember in the very enetance, that he was requested by some of his good Masters to write against him. I once saw the book while I lived in Cambridge; it hath no show of probability that Calvin would go about to work a miracle to confirm his doctrine, who teacheth that miracles are no sure and sufficient proof of doctrine. I marvel rather that even in reading Doctor Bancroft, Master Hooker, and Saravia, all opposites to Cal●in in the question of Church Discipline, and therefore not all the fittest to testify of him or his actions, all late Writers, and strangers to the Estate and affairs of Geneva: of whom therefore besides their bare word, sufficient proof were to be required of what they say, you not only receive whatsoever they bring, but more than they bring. You say, they prove what never came in their minds; and what is not only utterly untrue, but even impossible. As that Calvin by his unquietness and ambition revolved the State of Geneva, so unjustly expelling and depriving the Bishop of Geneva, and other Temporal Lords, of their due obedience, and ancient inheritance. When as the Bishop and Clergy of Geneva, upon the throwing down Images there by popular tumult, departed in an anger, seven years ere ever Calvin se● foot within the gates of that City. A thing not only clear in story, by the Writers of that time, and since, Sleidan, Bodine, Calvin's Epistles, and life, but set down by those whom ye cite. Master Hooker in his Preface speaking of Calvin. He fell at length upon Geneva, which City the Bishop and Clergy thereof, had a little before, as some do affirm, forsaken, being of likelihood frighted with the people's sudden attempt for the abolishment of Popish Religion. And a little after. At the coming of Calvin thither, the form of their Regiment was popular, as it continueth at this day, etc. Doctor Bancroft. The same year that Geneva was assaulted viz. by the Duke of Savoy, and the Bishop, as he had said before, Page 13.) which was Anno 1536. Master Calvin came thither. If Calvin at his coming found the form of the government popular, If he came thither the same year that the Bishop made war upon Geneva to recover his authority, being indeed either affrighted, or having forsaken the Town before, how could Calvin expel him? And in truth Bodine in his second Book, De Rep. Chapter sixth, affirmeth, That the same year Genoa was established in a State Aristocratical, which was, he saith, Anno 1528. Geneva was changed from a Monarchy Pontifical, into an Estate Popular, governed Aristocratically, although that long before the Town pretended to be free, against the Earl, and against the Bishop, etc. What Saravia hath written touching this point I cannot tell, as not having his Book. But in Beza his answer to him, there is no touch upon any such thing. He joins with his complaint, of the sacrilegious usurping Ecclesiastical goods, in answer to his Proême. He dissents in that Saravia accounts the Seniors of the reformed Churches like to that kind which Saint Ambrose speaks of, brought in out of wisdom only, to rule the disorderly. Beza saith, they were not introducti, but reducti, Cap. 12. For the rest in all that answer there is nothing of Calvin, or any such revolving of the state as you accuse him of. Which makes me think, that herein your memory deceived you. It may be that in your younger time, falling upon these Authors, by occasion of the question of Discipline, which was then much tossed, ere ever your judgement were ripened, you form in your mind a false impression of that which they say of Calvin. You conceited them out of your zeal in the cause, to say more than they do, & thus possible unawares received the seeds of dislike of the doctrine of Calvin, as well as his discipline, which have since taken root in you. But you shall do well to remember, the difference you put a little before of these two▪ Christian doctrine is uniform and ever the same; government is changeable in many circumstances, according to the exigence of times and persons. And even the same men that write somewhat eagerly against Master Calvin, yet give him the pra●se of wisdom to see what for that time and state was necessary. Master Hooker saith of him, That he thinks him incomparably the wisest man that ever the French Church did enjoy since the hour it enjoyed him, and of his platform of discipline, after he hath laid down the sum of it. This device I see not how the wisest at that time living could have bettered, if we duly consider what the present state of Geneva did then require. But be it (and for my part I think no less) that herein he was mistaken, to account this to be the true form of Church policy, by which all other Churches, and at all times ought to be governed; let his error rest with him, yea, let him answer it unto his judge; but to accuse him of ambition, and sedition, and that falsely, and from thence to set that brand upon the reformation, whereof he was a worthy instrument (though not the first either there, or any where else) as if it could not be from God, being so founded; for my part I am afraid you can never be able to answer it, at the same Bar; no, nor even that of your own conscience, or of reasonable and equal men.  
For the stirs, broils, seditions, and murders in Scotland, which you impute to Knox and, and the Geneva Gospelers, they might be occasioned perhaps by the reformers there, as the broils which our Lo●d jesus Christ saith he came to set in the world by the Gospel. Possible also, that good men out of inconsiderate zeal, should do some things rashly. And like enough the multitude which followed them, as being foreprepared with a iusthatred of the tyranny of their Prelates, and provoked by the opposition of the adverse faction, & emboldened by success, ran a great deal further than either wise men could foresee, or tell how to restrain them. Which was applauded and fomented by some politic men, who took advantage of those motions to their own ends. And as it happens in natural bodies, that all ill humours run to the part affected, so in civil, all discontented people when there is any sorance run to one or other side; and under the show of common griefs, pursue their own. Of all which distempers, there is no reason to lay the blame upon the seekers of reformation, more than upon the Physicians, of such accidents as happen to the corrupted bodies which they have in cure. The particulars of those affairs are as I believe alike unknown to us both, and since you name none, I can answer to none. For as for the pursuing our King even before his birth, that which his Majesty speaks of some Puritans, is overboldly by you referred to Master Knox and the Ministers, that were authors of Reformation in Scotland. Briefly, consider and survey your own thoughts, and see if you have not come by these degrees● First, from the inconsiderate courses of some to plant the pretended Discipline in Scotland, to conceive amiss of the Doctrine also. Then to draw to the increasing of your ill conceit thereof, what you find reported of any of the Puritans, a faction no less opposed by his Majesty in Scotland then with us in England. So when we speak of religion (though that indeed be all one) ye divide us into Lutherans, Zwinglians, Caluinists, Protestants, Brownists, Puritans, & Cartwrightists, whensoever any disorder of all this number can be accused, then lo are we all one, and the faul● of any faction is the slander of all, yea of the Gospel itself, and of reformation. judge now uprightly if this be indifferent dealing.  
From Scotland you come to England. Where because you could find nothing done by popular tumult, nothing but by the whole state in Parliament, and Clergy in Convocation, you fall upon King Henry's passions, you will not insist upon them you say; and yet you do, as long as upon any one member of your induction, though it matters little whether you do or no, since F. Parson's will needs aver that he lived and died of your religion. Here first you mention, his violent divorcing himself from his lawful wife. We will not now debate the question how his Brother's wife could be his lawful wife: you must now say so. Whatsoever the Scriptures, Counsels, almost all Universities of Christendom determined. Yet me thinks it should move you that Pope Clement himself had consigned to Cardinal Campegius a Breve form to sentence for the King, in as ample manner as could be, howsoever upon the success of the Emperor's affairs, in Italy and his own occasions, he sent a special messenger to him to burn it. But what violence was this that you speak of? The matter was orderly and judiciously by the Archbishop of Canterbury with the assistance of the learnedest of the Clergy according to the ancient Canons of the Church, and laws of the Realm heard and determined. That indeed is more to be marvelled at, what moved him to fall out with the Pope his friend in whose quarrel he had so far engaged himself, as to write against Luther, of whom also he was so rudely handled as you mention before; having received also for some part of recompense, the title of the Defender of the Faith, having been so chargeablie thankful to the Pope for it. All these things considered, it must be said, this unkindness and slippery dealing of Clement with him was from the Lord, that he might have an occasion against the Pope, and that it might appear that it was not humane counsel, but divine providence that brought about the banishment of the Pope's tyranny from among us. His marriage with the Lady Anne Bullen, her death, and the rest which you mention of the abling or disabling her issue to inherit the Crown, I see not what it makes to our purpose. The suppression of the Monasteries, was not his sole Act, but of the whole State, with the consent also of the Clergy, and taken out of Cardinal Wolsey his example, yea, founded upon the Pope's authority granted to him, to dissolve the smaller houses of religion, on pretence to defray the charges of his sumptuous buildings at Oxford and l●swich, wherein if it pity you (as I confess it hath sometimes me) that such goodly buildings are defaced and ruined, we must remember what God did to Sh●loh, 
〈◊〉 7. 12.  yea to jerusalem itself, and his Temple there. 
Matth. 〈…〉  And that Oracle, Every tree that beareth not good fruit shall be cut down, and cast into the fire.  
You demand, If this man, King Henry, were a good head of God's Church? What if I should demand the same touching Alexander the Sixth, julius the Second, Leo the Tenth, or twenty more of the Catalogue of Popes, in respect of whom King Henry might be canonised for a Saint? But there is a story in Tully's Offices of one Lutatius, that laid a wager that he was (bonus vir) a good man; and would be judged by one Fimbria, a man of Consular dignity. He, when he understood the case, said, He would never judge that matter, lest either he should diminish the reputation of a man well esteemed of, or set down that any man was a good man; which he accounted to consist in an innumerable sort of excellencies and praises. That which he said of a good man, with much more reason may I s●y, of a good King, one of whose highest excellencies is to be a good head of the Church. And therefore it is a question which I will never take upon me to answer, whether King Henry were such or no, unless you will before hand interpret this word as favourably, 
Lib. 16.  as Guicciardine doth tell us men are wont to do in the censuring your heads of the Church. For Popes, he saith, now adays are praised for their goodness, when they exceed not the wickedness of other men. After this description of a good head of the Church, or if ye will that of Cominaeus, which saith he is to be counted a good King, whose virtues exceeds his vices. I will not doubt to say King Henry may be enroled among the number of good Kings. In special, for his executing that highest duty of a good King, the employing his authority in his Kingdom, to command good things, and forbid evil, not only concerning the civil estate of men, but the religion also of God. Witness his authorising the Scriptures ●o be had and read in Churches in our Vulgar tongue, enjoining the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, and ten Commandments to be taught the people in English, abolishing superfluous Holidays, pulling down those juggling Idols, whereby the people were seduced, namely, the Rood of Grace, whose eyes and lips were moved with wires, openly showed at Paul's Cross, and pulled asunder by the people. Above all, the abolishing of the Pope's tyranny, and merchandise of Indulgences, & such like chaffer out of England. Which Acts of his whosoever shall unpartially consider of, may well esteem him a better head to the Church of England, than any Pope these thousand years.  
In the last place you come to the Huguenots and Geuses, of France and Holland. You lay to their charge, the raising of civil wars, shedding of blood, occasioning rebellion, rapine, desolations, principally for their new religion. In the latter part you write, I confess, somewhat reservedly, when you say, occasioning, not causing, and principally, not only and wholly, for religion. But the words going before, and the exigence of your argument require, that your meaning should be, they were the causers of these disorders. You bring to my mind a story, whether of the same Fimbria that I mentioned before, or another, which having caused Quintus Scaevola to be stabbed (as F. Paulo was, while I was at Venice) after he understood that he escaped with his life, brought his action against him, for not having received the weapon wholly into his body. These poor people having endured such barbarous cruelties, massacres, and martyrdoms, as scarce the like can be showed in all stories, are now accused by you as the Authors of all they suffered. No, no, Master Wadesworth, they be the Laws of the Roman religion, that are written in blood. It is the bloody Inquisition, and the perfidious violating of the Edicts of Pacification, that have set France and Flanders in combustion. An evident argument whereof may b●e, for Flanders, that those Geuses that you mention, were not all Caluinists (as you are misinformed) the chief of them were Roman Catholics; as namely, Count Egmond, and Horn, who lost their heads for standing, and yet only by petition, against the new impositions, and the Inquisition, which was sought to be brought in upon those Countries. The which when the Viceroy of Naples, D. Petro de Toledo would have once brought in there also, 
An. 1547.  the people would by no means abide, but rose up in Arms to the number of 50000. which sedition could not be appeased, but by delivering them of that fear. The like resistance, though more quietly carried, was made when the same Inquisition should have been put upon Milan, 
1563.  sixteen years after. Yet these people were neither Geuses nor Caluinists. Another great means to alienate the minds of the people of the Low-countries from the obedience of the Catholic Majesty, hath been the severity of his Deputies there, one of which leaving the government after he had in a few years put to death 
* 18000.  8000. persons, it is reported to have been said, the Country was lost with too much lenity. This speech Meursius concludes his Belgic history with all. And as for France, the first broils there, were not for religion, but for the preferring the house of Guis●, and disgracing the Princes of the blood. True it is that each side advantaged themselves by the colour of religion, and under pretence of zeal to the Roman, the Guisians murdered the Protestants, being in the exercise of their religion assembled together, against the King's Edict, against all Laws and common humanity. And tell ●ee in good sooth▪ Master Wadesworth, do you approve such barbarous cruelty? Do you allow the butchery at Paris? Do you think subjects are bound to give their throats to be cut by their fellow subjects, or to their Princes at their mere wills against their own Laws and Edicts? You would know, quo iure, the Protestants wars in France and Holland are justified. First, the Law of Nature, which not only alloweth, but inclineth and enforceth every living thing, to defend itself from violence. Secondly, that of Nations, which permitteth those that are in the protection of others, to whom they owe no more but an honourable acknowledgement, in case they go about to make themselves absolute Sovereigns, and usurp their liberty, to resist and stand for the same. And if a lawful Prince (which is not yet Lord of his Subject's lives and goods) shall attempt to despoil them of the same, under colour of reducing them to his own religion after all humble remonstrances, they may stand upon their own guard, and being assailed, repel force with force, as did the Macchabees under Antiochus. In which case notwithstanding, the person of the Prince himself, ought always to be sacred and inviolable, as was Saul's to David. Lastly, if the enraged Minister of a lawful Prince, will abuse his authority against the fundamental Laws of the Country, it is no rebellion to defend themselves against force, reserving still their obedience to their Sovereign inviolate. These are the Rules of which the Protestants that have borne Arms in France and Flanders, and the Papists also both there and elsewhere, as in Naples, that have stood for the defence of their liberties, have served themselves. How truly I esteem it hard for you and me to determine, unless we were more throughly acquainted with the Laws and Customs of those Countries, than I for my part am. Once for the Low-Countries, the world knows that the Dukes of Burgundy were not Kings or absolute Lords of them, which are holden partly of the Crown of France, and partly of the Empire. And of Holland in particular they were but Earls. And whether that title carries with it such a Sovereignty, as to be able to give new Laws, without their consents, to impose tributes, to bring in garrisons of strangers, to build Forts, to assubjects their honours and lives to the dangerous trial of a new Court, proceeding without form or figure of justice, any reasonable man may well doubt; themselves do utterly deny it.  
Yet you say boldly they are Rebels, and ask why we did support them? It seems to some that his Catholic Majesty doth absolve them in the treaty of the Truce, An. 1608. of all imputation of rebellion. And if they were Rebels, especially for heresy, why did the most Christian King support them? As for Queen Elizabeth, if she were alive, she would answer your question with another. Why did Spain concur in practice and promise aid to that detestable conspiracy that was plotted against her by Pius V. as you may see at large in his life, written by Girolamo Catena? It is, you say, an easy matter to pretend privileges. But it is no hard matter to discern pretended privileges from true, and Treason from Reason of State, and old corruptions from old Religion. But to take arms to change the Laws by the whole Estate established, is treason whatsoever the cause or colour be: and therefore is was treason in the Rebels of Lincolnshire and Yorkshire in King Henry's days, and in the Earls of the North in Queen Elizabeth's, though they pretended their old Religion: and the same must be said of all Assassinate's attempted against the persons of Princes, as Parryes, Someruilles, Squires, against Queen Elizab●th, and the late powder-plot the eternal shame of Popery against King james.  
To your Argument therefore in form, admitting that it is no true Church, which is founded and begun in malice, disobedience, passion, blood, and rebellion, no nor yet a true reformation of a Church (for in truth the Protestants pretend not to have founded any.) The Assumption is denied in every part of it. And here I must needs say you have not done unwisely to leave out the Church of England, as against which you had no pretence, all things having been carried orderly, and by public counsel. But you have wronged those which you name, and either lightly believed, or unjustly surmised yourself, touching Luther, Calvin, Knox, the French, and the Hollanders, when you make them the raysers of rebellion and shedders of blood. Whose blood hath been shed like water in all parts of those countries, against all Laws of God and Man against the Edicts and public Faith, till necessity enforced them to stand for their lives. Yet you presume that all this is evident to the world, whereas it is so false and improbable, yea in some parts impossible, as I wonder how your heart could assure your hand to write it.  
Give me here leave to set down by occasion of this your motive, that which I profess next to the evidence of those corruptions which the Court and faction of Rome maintains, hath long moved myself. And thus I would enlarge your Proposition. That Monarchy (as now without lisping it calls itself) which was founded, supported, enlarged, and is yet maintained by pride, ambition, rebellion, treason, murdering of Princes, wars, dispensing with perjury, and incestuous marriages, spoils and robbery of Churches, and Kingdoms, worldly policy, force and falsehood, forgery, lying, and hypocrisy, is not the Church of Christ, and his Kingdom, but the tyranny of Antichrist. The Papacy falsely calling itself the Church of Rome is such. Erg●. The Assumption shall be proved in every part of it, and in truth is already by the learned and truly noble Lord of Plessis in his Mysterium iniquit at is. But his book I suppose you cannot view, and it would require a just volume to show it, though but shortly. It shall be therefore, if you will, the task of another time. And yet because I do not love to leave things wholly at random, consider a few instances in some of these. Pope B●niface III obtained that proud and ambitious title of Ecumenical, so much detested by Saint Gregory. Pope Constantine and Gregory the second, revolted Italy from the Greek Emperor's obedience, forbidding to pay tribute or obey them. Pope Zacharie animated Pipine high Steward of France, to depose Chilperick his Lord, and dispensed with the oaths of his subjects. Pope Stephen II. most treacherously and unjustly persuaded the same Pipine not to restore the Exarchate of Ranenna to the Emperor, after he had recovered it from Astulfus King of Lombard's, but to give it to him. Pope Nicholas II. and Gr●gorie VII. parted the prey with the Normans in Calabria, and Apulia, creating them Dukes thereof, 
He●ri● 〈…〉  to hold the Emperor of Constantinoples' country in vassalage of them. This latter also was the first as all Historians accord, that ever attempted to depose the Emperor, against whom he most impiously stirred up his own children, which most lamentably brought him to his end. Pope Paschal II. would not suffer (for the full accomplishment of this Tragedy) his son to bury him. Pope Adrian IV. demanded homage of the Emperor Frederick, Alexander III trod on his neck. Celestine III. crowned Henry VI with his feet. Innocent IU. stirred up Frederick the seconds own servants to poison him, practised with the Sultan of Egypt to break with him. This is that Innocent, of whose extortions Matthew Paris relates so much in our story; whom the learned, zealous, and holy Bishop of Lincoln on his deathbed proved to be Antichrist, and in a vision struck so with his crosier-staff that he died. Boniface VIII. challenged both swords, pretended to be superior to the King of France in temporal things also. Clement V. would in the vacancy of the Empire, that all the Cities and Countries thereof should be under his disposition, made the Duke of Venice, Dandalus, couch under his Table with a chain on his neck like a dog, ere he would grant peace to the Venetians. This Clement the V. commanded the Angels to carry their souls to heaven, that should take the Cross to fight for the holy Land.  
What shall I say more? I am weary with writing thus much, and yet in all this I do not insist upon private and personal faults, blasphemies, perjuries, necromancies, murders, barbarous cruelties, even upon one another, alive and dead, nor on whoredoms, incests, sodomies, open pillages, besides the perpetual abuse of the censures of the Church. I insist not upon these, more than you did upon King Henry's passions. I tell you not of him that called the Gospel a fable, or another that instituted his Agnus This to strangle sin like Christ's blood. Of him that dispensed with one to marry his own sister (for the uncle to marry with the niece, or a woman to marry two brothers, a man two sisters by dispensation, is no rare thing at this day.) The faculty to use Sodomy, the story of Pope joan, are almost incredible, and yet they have Authors of better credit than Bolseck. It may be said that john the two and twentieth called a devil incarnate, that Alexander VI the poisoner of his Cardinals, the adulterer of his son in law's bed, incestuous defiler of his own daughter, and rival in that villainy to his son, sinned as men, which impeacheth not the credit of their office. That Paulu● V. Vicedeus takes too much upon him, when he will be Pope-almightie; but the chair is without error. Wherein, not to insist for the present, but admitting it as true that wickedness of men's persons doth not impeach the holiness of their functions, which they have received of God, nor make Gods ordinances, as his Word and Sacraments of none effect. But tell me for God's love, Master Waddesworth, is it likely that this Monarchy thus sought, thus gotten, thus kept, thus exercised, is of God? Are these men that wholly forsaking the feeding of the flock of God dream of nothing now but Crowns and Scepter●, serve to the Church to no use in the world, unless it be to break the ancient Canons, and oppress with their power all that shall but utter a free word against their ambition and tyranny, are they, I will not say with you, good heads of God's Church, but members of it, and not rather limbs of Satan? Consider those Texts: My Kingdom is not of this world, Vos autem non sic. Consider the charge which Saint Peter gives to his fellow Presbyters, 1. Pet. 5. 2, 3, 4. Now I beseech our Lord deliver his Church from this tyranny, and bless you from being a member of such a Head.   

CHAP. XI.  
Of lack of succession, Bishops, true Ordinations, Order, Priesthood.  
I Come now to your motive from succession. Where I marvel first, that leaving the succession of Doctrine, which is far more proper and intrinsical to the Churches being, you stand upon that of Persons and Offices. Yea, and about them too, immediately pass from that which is of Essence, to the external formalities in consecration and ordination, according to the ancient Counsels. Have you forgotten what you said right now, that matters of ceremony and government are changeable? Yea, but in France, Holland, and Germany, they have no Bishops. First, what if I should defend they have? because a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one, as Saint Jerome maintains, and proves out of holy Scripture, and the use of Antiquity. Of which judgement, as Medina confesseth, are sundry of the ancient Fathers, both Greek and Latine● Saint Ambrose, Augustine, Seduliu●, Primasius, Chrysostome, Theodorit, Oecumenius, and Theophylact: which point I have largely treated of in another place, against him that undertook Master Alablasters' quarrel. Besides, those Churches in Germany have those whom they call Superintendents, and general Superintendents, 
Cap. 8.  as out of Doctor Bancroft by the testimony of Zanchius, and sundry German Divines, you might perceive. Yea, and where these are not, as in Geneva; and the French Churches, yet there are, saith Zanchius, ●sually certain chief men that do in a manner bear all the sway, as if order itself and necessity led them to this course. And what are these but Bishops indeed, unless we shall wrangle about names, which for reason of State those Churches were to abstain from. As for that you say Lay men intermeddle there with the making of their Ministers, if you mean the election of them, they have reason; for anciently the people had always a right therein, as Saint Cyprian writes to the Churches of Leon and Astorga there in Spain, Plebs ipsa maxime habet potestatem vel eligendi dignos Sacerdotes vel indignos recusandi; and in sundry places of Italy this usage doth continue to this day. If ye mean it in Ordination, ye are deceived, and wrong these Churches, as Bellarmine himself will teach you, lib. De Cl●ricis, cap. 3. For amongst the Lutherans and Caluinists also, saith he, which have taken away almost all Ecclesiastical rites, they only lay on hands and make Pastors and Ministers, who though they be not Pastors and Bishops indeed would be so accounted and called.  
In England you miss first the lesser orders, and say, we are made Ministers per saltum, as if all that are made Priests among you were Psalmists, Sextens, Readers, Exorcists, Torchbearers, Subdeacons', and Deacons before. Remember I pray what the Master of the Sentences saith of Deaconship and Priesthood. Hos solos primitiu● Ecclesia legitur habuisse, & de his solis praeceptum Apostoli habemus. He means in the Epistles to T●●othy and Titus. Again, Subdiaeonos vere & Acolythos precede●te tempore Ecclesia sibi constituit. What? and were the Primitive and Apostolic Churches no true Churches? or need we to be ashamed to be like them? Besides, those Counsels that ye speak of, it should seem were of no great either antiquity or authority, when not only Presbyters, without passing through any order, but Bishops without being so much as baptised, were ordained. As Nectarius of Constantinople, Synesius of Cyrene, Ambrose of Milan, Constantine II. of Rome itself. This therefore is a very sleight exception.  
Your next is well worse, touching the Ordination at the Nagshead, where the Consecration of our first Bishops, as you say was attempted, but not effected. It is certain, you say, and you are sure there was such a matter, although you know, and have seen the records themselves, that afterward there was a Consecration of Doctor Parker at Lambeth. Alas Master Wadesworth, if you be resolved to believe lies, not only against public Acts, and your own eyesight, but against all probability, who can help it? I had well hoped to have found that ingenuity in you, that I might have used your testimony unto others of that side, touching the vanity of this fable, as having showed you the Copy of the record of Doctor Parker's consecration, which I had procured to be transcribed out of the Acts, which yourself also at your return from London, told me you saw in a black Book. Now I perceive by your perplexed writing, and enterlining in this part of your Letter, you would fain discharge your conscience, and yet uphold this lie, perhaps, as loath to offend that side where you now are: and therefore you have devised this temper, that the one was attempted, the other effected. But it will not be. For first of all, if that at the Nagshead were but attempted, what is that to the purpose of our Ordinations, which are not derived from it, but from the other, which as you say was effected at Lambeth? And are you sure there was such a matter? How are you sure? Were you present there in person, or have you heard it of those that were present? Neither of both I suppose: but if it were so that some body pretending to have been there present told you so much, how are you sure that he lied not in saying so; much more when you have it but at the third, or fourth hand, perhaps the thirtieth or fortieth. But consider a little, is it probable that men of that sort, in an action of that importance, and at the beginning of the Queen's reign, when especially it concerned both them and her to provide, that all things should be done with reputation, would be so hasty and heedless, as to take a Tavern for a Church? Why might they not have gone to the next Church as well? They thought to make the old Catholic Bishop drunken. Thus the Wisbich and Framyngham Priests were wont to tell the tale. Is it likely that they would not forethink that possible this good old man would not drink so freely as to be drunken, and if he were, yet would not be in the humour to do as they would have him? for who can make any foundation upon what another would do in his cups? What a scorn would this be to them? Men are not always so provident in their actions. True, but such men are not to be imagined so so●tish, as to attempt so solemn an action, and joined commonly with some great feast, and as you observed well out of the Acts, with the Queen's mandate for the action to be done, and hang all upon a drunken fit of an old man. Besides, how comes it to pass that we could never understand the names of the old Bishop, or of those whom he should have consecrated, or which consecrated themselves, when he refused to do it. For so do your men give it out; howsoever you say, it was not there effected. And in all the space of Queen Elizabeth's reign, wherein so many set themselves against the reformation by her established, is it possible we should never have heard word of it, of all the English on that side the Seas, if it had been any other than a flying tale? After forty five years, 
●●ristophorus à Sacro bosco Dubliniensis.  there is found at last an Irish jesuit that dares put it in print, to prove by it as now you do, that the Parliamentary Pastors lack holy orders. But he relates sundry particulars, and brings his proofs. For the purpose, this ordainer or consecrater, he saith, was Laudasensis Episcopus home senex & simplex. His name? Nay, that ye must pardon him. But of what City or Diocese was he Bishop? for we have none of that title. Here I thought once that by error it had been put for Landaffensis of Landaffe in Wales, save that three times in that Narration it is written La●dasensis; which notwithstanding, I continued to be of the same mind, because I found Bishop Boners name twice alike false written Bomerus. But lo in the Margin a direction to the Book, De Schismate fol. 166. where he saith this matter is touched, and it is directly affirmed, that they performed the Office of Bishops, without any Episcopal consecration. Again, that great labour was used without an Irish Archbishop in prison at London to ordain them, but he could by no means be brought thereto. So it seems we must pass out of Wales into Ireland, to find the See of this Bishop or Archbishop. But I believe we may sail from thence to Virginia to seek him; for in Ireland we shall not find him. Let us come to those that he should have ordained, what were there names? Candidati, if that will content you, more ye get not. Why they might have been remembered as well as the Nagshead, as well as Boners' name, and his See, and that he was Dean● of the Bishops, he means of the archbishopric, seed vacant, and that he sent his Chaplain (his name also is unknown) to forbid the Ordination. At least their Sees. To cut the matter short. Quid plura? Scoraeus Monachus post Herefordensis pseudo-episcopus coeteris, ex coeteris quidam, Scor aeo manus imponunt: fiuntque sine patre fili● & pater à fili●s procreatur, res seculis omnibus inauditae. Here is at length some certainty: some truth mingled among, to give the better grace, and to be as it were the Vehiculum of a lie. For john Scory, in King Edward his times, Bishop of Chichester, and after of Hereford, was one of those that ordained Doctor Parker, and preached at his ordination. But that was the ordination effected as you call it: we are now in that which was not effected, but attempted only. And here we seek again, who were these quidams that laid hands on S●ory? We may go look them with La●dasensis the Archbishop of Ireland. Well; hear the proofs. Master Thomas Neale, Hebrew Reader of Oxford, which was present, told thus much to the ancient Confessors, they to F. H●lywood. This proof by Tradition as you know is of little credit with Protestants, and no marvel: for experience shows that reports suffer strange alterations in the carriage, even when the reporters are not interessed. Iremeus relates from the ancient Confessors, 
Lib. 2. c. 29.  which had seen john the Disciple, and the other Apostles of the Lord, and heard it from them, that Christ our Saviour was between forty and fifty years of age before his passion. I do not think you are sure it was so. For my part, I had rather believe. Irenaeus and those ancients he mentions, and the Apostles; then F. Haliwood and his Confessors, and Master Neale. But possible it is, M. Neale said, he was present at Matthew Parker's ordination by john Scory. These Confessors being before impressed, as you are, with the buzz of the ordination at the Nagshead made up that tale; and put it upon him for their Author. Perhaps Master Neale did esteem john Scory t● be no Bishop, and so was scandalised though causelessly, at that action. Perhaps Master Neale never said any such word at all. To help to make good this matter, he saith, It was after enacted in Parliament, that these Parliamentary Bishops should be holden for lawful. I looked for some thing of the Nagshead Bishops, and the Legend of their ordination. But the lawfulness that the Parliament provides for, is (according to the authority the Parliament hath) ●iuill, that is, according to the Laws of the Land. The Parliament never intended to justify any thing as lawful, iure divino, which was not so; as by the Preamble itself of the Statute may appear. 
〈…〉  In which it is said, That diverse questions had grown upon the making and consecrating of Archbishops and Bishops, within this Realm, whether the same were, and be duly and orderly done according to the Law or not, etc. And shortly to cut off F. Halywoods' surmises, the case was this, as may be gathered by the body of the Statute. Whereas in the five and twentieth of Henry the Eight, an Act was made for the electing and consecrating of Archbishops and Bishops within this Realm. And another in the third of Edward the Sixth, for the ordering and consecrating of them, and all other Ecclesiastical Ministers, according to such form as by six Prelates, and six other learned men in God's Law to be appointed by the King should be devised, and set forth, under the great Seal of England. Which form in the fifth of the same King's reign, was annexed to the Book of Common Prayer, then explained, and perfected; and both confirmed by the authority of Parliament. All these Acts were 1. Mariae & 1. & 2. Philippi & Mariae repealed; together with another Statute of 35. Henr. 8. touching the style of supreme Head to be used in all Letters Patents and Commissions, etc. These Acts of repeal in the 1. Elizabeth were again repealed, and the Act of 25. Hen. 8. revived specially. That of 3. Edwar. 6. only concerning the Book of Common Prayer, etc. without any particular mention of the book or form of ordering Ministers and Bishops. Hence grew one doubt, whether ordinations and consecrations according to that form were good in Law or no. Another was, Queen Elizabeth in her Letters Patents touching such Consecrations, Ordinations had not used as may seem, besides other general words importing the highest authority in causes Ecclesiastical, the title of Supreme Head, as King Henry, and King Edward in their like Letters Patents were wont to d●: & that notwithstanding the Act of 35. Hen. 8. after the repeal of the former repeal might seem (though never specially) revived. This as I ghosse was another exception, to those t●at by virtue of those Patents were Consecrated. Whereupon the Parliament declares. First, that the Book of Common Prayer, and such order and, form● for consecrating of Archbishop's and● Bishops, etc. as was set forth in the time of King Edward the Sixth, and added thereto and authorised by Parliament, shall stand in force and be observed. Secondly, That all Acts done by any person about any consecration, confirmation, o● in●esting of any elect to the Office or Dignity of Archbishop or Bishop, by virtue of the Queen's Letters Patents or Commission, since the beginning of her reign be good● Thirdly, That all that have been ordered or consecrated Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, etc. after the said form and order, be rightly made, ordered, and consecrated, any Statute, Law, Canon, or other thing to the contrary notwithstanding. These were the reasons of that Act; which as you see doth not make good the Nags-head-ordination as F. Halywood pretends, unless the same were according to the form in Edward the Sixth days. His next proof is, that Bo●er Bishop of London while he lived, always set light by the Statutes of the Parliaments of Queen Elizaboth, alleging that there wanted Bishops, without whose consent by the Laws of the Realm there can no firm Statuee be made. That Boner despised and set not a straw by the Acts of Parliament in Queen Elizabeth's time, I hold it not impossible, and yet there is no other proof thereof, but his bare word, and the ancient Confessors tradition, of which we heard before. Admitting this for certain, there might be other reasons thereof, besides the ordination at the Nagshead. The stiffness of that man was no less in King Edward's time, then Queen Elizabeth's. And indeed the want also of Bishops might be the cause, why he little regarded the Acts of her first Parliament. For both much about the time of Queen Mary's death died also Cardinal Poole, and sundry other Bishops: and of the rest some for their contemptuous behaviour in denying to perform their duty in the Coronation of the Queen were committed to prison, others absented themselves willingly. So as it is commonly reported to this day, there was none or very few there. For as for Doctor Parker and the rest, they were not ordained till December, 1559. the Parliament was dissolved in the May before. So not to stand now to refute Boners conceit, that according to our Laws there could be no Statutes made in Parliament without Bishops (wherein our Parliament men will rectify his judgement) F. Halywood was in this report twice deceived, or would deceive his Reader. First, that he would make that exception which Boner laid against the first Parliament in Queen Elizabeth's time, to be true of all the rest. Then, that he accounts B. Boner to have excepted against this Parliament, because the Bishops there were no Bishops as not canonically ordained: where it was, because there was no Bishops true or false there at all. His last proof is. That D. Bancroft being demanded of M. Alabaster, whence their first Bishops received their orders? answered, that he hoped a Bishop might be ordained of a Presbyter in time of necessity. Silently granting, that they were not ordained by any Bishop: and therefore, saith he, the Parliamentary Bishops are without order Episcopal, & their Ministers also no Priests. For Priests are not made but of Bishops, whence Hierome. Qu●d facit, etc. What doth a Bishop, saving ordination, which a Presbyter doth not? I have not the means to demand of D. Alabaster, whether this be true or not. Nor yet whether this be all the answer he had of D. Bancroft. That I affirm, that if it were, yet it follows not, that D. Bancroft silently granted they had no orders of bishops. Unless he that in a false discourse, both where propositions be untrue, denies the Mayor, doth silently grant the Minor. Rather he jested at the futility of this Argument, which admitting all this lying Legend of the Nagshead, and more to; suppose no ordination by any Bishops had been ever effected, notwithstanding shows no sufficient reason why there might not be a true consecration, and true Ministers made, and consequently a true Church in England. For indeed necessity dispenses with Gods own positive Laws, 
Mark 〈…〉  as our Saviour shows in the Gospel much more than with man's: and such by Hieromes opinion are the Laws of the Church, touching the difference of Bishops and Presbyters, and consequently touching their ordination by Bishops only. Whereof I have treated more at large in another place, for the justification of other reformed Churches, albeit the Church of England needs it not. To confirm this Argument, it pleaseth F. Halywood to add●, That King Edward the Sixth, took away the Catholic rite of ordaining, and in stead of it, substituted a few Caluinisticall prayers. Whom Queen Elizabeth followed, etc. And this is in effect the same thing which you say, when you add, that Coverdale being made Bishop of Exeter in King Edward's time, when all Counsels and Church Canons were little observed, it is very doubtful he was never himself canonically consecrated, and so if he were no canonical Bishop, he could not make another canonical. To F. Halywood I would answer, that King Edward took not away the Catholic rite of ordaining, but purged it from a number of idle and superstitious rites prescribed by the Popish Pontifical. And the prayers which he scoffs at if they were Caluinisticall, sure it was by prophecy, for Calvin never saw them●ill Queen Mary's time; when by certain of our English exiles, the Book of Common Prayer was translated and showed him; if he saw them then. Some of them, as the Let any, and the Hymn Veni Creator, etc. I hope were none of Caluins devising. To you, if you name what Counsels and Church Canons you mean, and make any certain exception, either against Bishop Coverdale, or any of the rest as not canonical Bishops, I will endeavour to satisfy you. Mean while remember I beseech you, that both Law, and reason, and Religion should induce you in doubtful things to follow the most favourable sentence, and not rashly out of light surmises to pronounce against a public and solemn ordination, against the Orders conferred successively from it, against a whole Church. Wherein I cannot but commend Doctor Carrier's modesty, 
Pag. 7.  whose words are these. I will not determine against the succession of the Clergy in England, because it is to me very doubtful. 
De des●erata 〈◊〉 causa. ●. 11.  And the discretion of Cudsemius the jesuire, which denies the English Nation to be Heretics, because they remain in a perpetual succession of Bishops. And to take away all doubt from you, that some of these maintainers were only Bishops elect, and unconsecrated; besides Miles Coverdale, in King Edward's time Bishop of Exeter, cast in prison by Queen Mary, and released and sent over Sea to the King of Denmark, know that William Barlow was another; in King Edward's days Bishop of Bath and Welles, in Queen mary's beyond the Seas in the company of the Duchess of Suffolk and Master B●rtie her husband; at the time of Doctor Parker's ordination Elect of Chichester. A third was, john Scorie, in King Edward's time Bishop of Chichester, and at the time of the said ordination Elect of Hereford. A fourth was john Hodgeskin, Suffragan of Bedford. And these four, if they were all ordained according to the form ratified in King Edward's days, were presented by two Bishops at least to the Archbishop, and of him and them received imposition of hands, as in the said form is appointed.  
One scruple yet remains which you have, in that these men did consecrate Doctor Parker by virtue of a Breve from the Queen, as head of the Church who being no true head, and a woman, you see not how they could make a true consecrationr grounded on her authority. But to clear you in this also, you must understand the Queen's mandate served not to give power to ordain (which those Bishops had before intrinsically annexed to their office) but leave and warrant to apply that power to the person named in that Mandate. A thing, unless I have been deceived by reports, used in other Countries, yea in the Kingdoms of his Catholic Majesty himself. Sure I am by the Christian Emperors in the primitive Church, as you may see in the Ecclesiastical histories, and namely, in the ordination of Nectarius, that I spoke of before. Yea, which is more in the consecration of the Bishops of Rome, as of Leo VIII. whose Decree, with the Synod at Rome touching this matter, is set down by Gratian, Dist. 63. c. 23. taken from the example of Hadria●, and another Council which gave to Charles the Great, Ius & potestatem eligendi Pontificem, & ordinandi Apostolicam sedom, as you may see in the Chapter next before. See the same Dist. c. 16. & 17. & 18. and you shall find, 
C. Lectis.  that when one was chosen Bishop of Reate, within the Popes own Province, by the Clergy and people, 
C. Reatina.  and sent to him by Guido the Count to be consecrated, the Pope durst not do it till the Emperor's licence were obtained. Yea, that he writes to the Emperor for Colonus, 
C. Nobis.  that receiving his licence he might consecrate him either there, or in the Church of Tusculum, which accordingly upon the Emperor's bidding he performed.  
Yet another exception you take, to the making our Ministers, that we keep not the right intention. First, because we neither give nor take Orders as a Sacrament. By that reason we should have no true marriages amongst us neither, because we count not Matrimony a Sacrament. This Controversy depends upon the definition of a Sacrament, which if it be put to be a sign of a holy thing, these be both so, and a many more than seven. If a seal of the New Testament, so are there but those two, which we properly call Sacraments; 
Lib. 4. dist. 12.  Baptism, and the Lords Supper. In which last, as to the intention of sacrificing, surely, if ye allow the doctrine of the Master of the Sentences, that it is called a Sacrifice and Oblation, which is offered and consecrated by the Priest, because it is a memory and representation of the true Sacrifice and holy immolation made on the Altar of the Crosse. And, that Christ once died on the Cross, and there was offered up in himself, but is daily offered up in a Sacrament, because in the Sacrament there is a remembrance of that which wa● once done; 
De Consecrat. dist. 2.  which he there confirms by the authorities of the Fathers, cited by Gratian in the Canon Law. If this Doctrine, 
L●c. The●. lib. 12. cap. 12.  I say, may yet pass for good, and this be the Church's intention, we want not this intention of sacrificing. Add to this the confession of Melchior Canus, who saith, the Lutherans do not wholly deny the sacrifice, but grant a Sacrifice of thanks giving, which they call the 
* f. Fucharisticum.  Eucharist: they will have none for sin which they call propitiatory. If he had put hereto, unless it be in a mystery, he had rightly expressed the opinion of the Protestants.  
Thirdly ye object, we want the matter and form with which orders should be given: namely, for the matter in Priesthood the delivery of the Patena with bread, and the Chalice with wine: in Deaconship the delivery of the book of the Gospel, etc. By which reason the seven first Deacons had no true ordination, for then there was no Gospel written to be delivered them. Nor those Priests whom the Pope shall make by his sole word, saying, Esto Sacerdos. Whom notwithstanding sundry famous Canonists hold to be well and lawfully ordained; and Innocentius himself saith, that if these forms of Ordination were not found out, any other Ordainer might in like manner make Priests, with those words, or the like: for as much as these forms were in process of time appointed by the Church. And if we list to seek for these Metaphysical notions of matter and form, in Ordination, which at the most can be but by Analogy, how much better might we assign the persons deputed to sacred functions to be the matter (as those that contract are by yourselves made the matter in matrimony) and the imposing of hands, with the expressing the authority and office given to be the form? In Dionysius though falsely called the Areopagite, yet an ancient Author, ye shall find nothing else; nor which I may tell you by the way, any other orders, save Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.  
And to come to that wherein you say we fail most of all, the substantial form of Priesthood, tell me ingenuously, good Master Wadesworth, how do you know that our Lord jesus Christ made his Apostles, or they others Priests with this form, which hath no mention or footstep in the Gospel, or otherwhere in holy Scripture! Nor so much as in the Council of Carthage; that from whence the manner of giving other orders is fetched, nor in Gratian, nor in any other ancient Author that I can find, save in the Pontifical only. And is the present Pontifical of such authority with you, as the form of Priesthood, the substantial form, can subsist in no other words than those that be there expressed? To omit the late turkesing whereof, consider what Augustinus Patritius writes in his Preface before that which at Pope Innocent VIII. his commandment he patched together: That there were scarce two or three books found that delivered the same thing: Quot libri tot varietates. Ille deficit, hic superabundat, alius nihil omnino de eâre habet, raro ant nunquam conveniunt; saepe obscuri, implicati, & librariorum vitio plerung mendosi. And in truth in this your essential form of Priesthood, the old Pontificals before that which he set forth, either had other words at the giving of the Chalice and Paten as may seem; or wanted both that form and the matter also together. The Master of the Sentences declaring the manner of the Ordination of Priests, and the reason why they have the Chalice with wine, and Paten with hosts given unto them, saith it is, Vt per hoc sciant se accepisse potestatem placabiles Deo hostias offerendi. Hugo in like manner, Accipiunt & Calicem cum vino, & Patenam cum hostia de man Episcopi, quatenus potestatem se accepisse cognoscant, placabiles Deo hostias offerendi. Stephanus Eduensis Episcopus, in the same words: Datur eye Calix cum vino, & Patena cum hostia, in quo traditur iis potestas ad offerendum Deo placabiles hostias. So johannes januensis in his Sum, entitled, Catholicon, verbo Presbyter. If ye ascend to the higher times of Rabanus, Alcuinus, Isidorus, you shall find that they mention no such matter, of delivering Chalice or Paten, or words used at the delivery; and no marvel, for in the Canons of the fourth Council of Carthage they found none. Diony●ius falsely called Areopagita, whom I mentioned before, setting down the manner of ordaining in his time. The Priest upon both his knees before the Altar with the Bishop● right hand upon his head, is on this manner sanctified by his Consecrator with holy invocations. Here is all, s●ue that he saith, after he hath described that also which pertains unto the Deacon, that every one of them is signed with the cross when the Bishop blesseth them, and proclaimed, and saluted by the Consecrator himself and every one of that sacred Order that is present. The Greek Scholiast very l●uely shows the meaning and manner of this proclaiming. Her saith, The maintainer pronounceth by name when he signeth him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Such a man is consecrated from bein● Presbyter to be a Bishop in the name of the father, etc. and s. in the Presbyter and Deacon. Clemens Romanus ● F. Turrian and the rest of the Romish ●action deceive us 〈…〉 be not deceived themselves, in attributing to him the 〈◊〉 books of the Apostolic Constitutions that 〈…〉 name) cuts the matter yet more short, and without 〈◊〉 crossing or proclaiming, appoints the Bishop to lay his 〈◊〉 upon him, in the presence of the Presbytery and the Deacor● using a Prayer, which you may see at length in him; 〈◊〉 the increase of the Church, and of the number of them that by word and work may edify it: for the party elected unto ●he office of Priesthood, that being filled with the operations of healings, and word of Doctrine, he may instruct God's people with meekness and serve him sincerely with a pure mind, and willing heart, and perform holy services without spot for his people through his Christ, to whom etc. These last words which are in the Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Carol●● Bovius Bishop of 〈◊〉 interprets, & sacrificia pro populo tuo immaculata 〈◊〉. Marvel that he added not, tam pro 〈◊〉 quam pro defunctis. Sure if Saint Paul, Rom. 15. 16. had not added the word ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he had sacrificed also. This was the ●●cient and Apostolic manner of ordination, if the Author be worthy of credit. But that ye may perceive what tampering there hath been to bring ordinations to the form which the present Pontifical prescribes, consider with me the words of Amalarius Bishop of Triers in his second Book de Ecclesiast. Offices, where in the office of the Subdeacon thus he writes; Miror quâ de re sumptus usus in Ecclesia, etc. I marvel whence the use was taken in our Church, that very often the Subdeacon should read the Lesson at Mass, since this is not found committed unto him, by the Ministry given him in consecration, nor by the Canonical writings, nor by his name. And strait after, Nam primaro tempore; For in ancient time the Deacon read not the Gospel which was not yet written; but after it was enacted by our Fathers, that the Deacons should read the Gospel, they appointed also that the Subdeacon should read the Epistle or Lesson. It appears, then that in Amalarius time, who lived with Charles the great and Lewes his Son, that ridiculous fo●me was not in the Pontifical, where the Book of the Epistles is given to the Subdeacons', and power to read them in the holy Church of God, as well for the quick as the dead. The same Author coming to speak of Deacons, telleth of their consecration by prayer, and imposition of hands, & confuteth that in the present Pontifical (which he saith he found in a little Book of holy Orders) made he knows not by what Author, that the Bishop alone should lay hands on the Deacon. At last he adds, There is one Ministry added to the Deacon, viz. to read the Gospel, which he saith, doth well befit him, quia Minister est. But of the delivery of the Book of the Gospels, with authority to read the Gospel for the quick and dead, not one word. In the next Chapter of Presbyters he expounds their name, and saith further, hunc morem tenent Episcopi nostri. Our Bishops have this fashion, they anoint the hands of Presbyters with oil, which ceremony he declares; touching imposition of hands upon them, he remit●●s to that he said before in the Deacon. Then he shows out of Ambrose, and Hierome, that these are all one Order with Bishops, and aught to govern the Church in common, like Moses with the seventy Elders: as for delivery of Chalice and Wine, or Paten and Host, with power to sacrifice so well for the quick as the dead, he makes no mention. judge you whether these were thought to be the matter and essential form of Priesthood in his time. Yet one Author more will Iname in this matter, not only because he is a famous Schooleman, and one of Luther's first adversaries, and therefore aught to be of more account with that side, but because he professeth the end of his writing to be, circa Sacramentum ordinis cautos reddere, ne pertinax quisquam aut levis sit circa modum tradendi aut recipiendi ordines. It is Cardinal Cajetan, in the second Tome of his Opuscula, Tit. De modo tradendi seu recipiendi Ordines. Read the whole where these things I observe for our present purpose. 1. If all be gathered together which the Pontificals, or which reason or authority hath delivered, the nature of all the rest of the orders except Priesthood only, will appear very uncertain. 2. The lesser Orders and Subdeaconship according to the Master of the Sentences, were instituted by the Church. 3. The Deacons instituted by the Apostles, Act. 6. were not Deacons of the Altar, but of the Tables & Widows. 4. In Deaconship there seems to be no certain form for according to the old Pontificals, the laying of hands upon the Deacon hath no certain form of words, but that prayer. Emitte q●aesumus in eos S. Sauctum: which according to the new Pontificals is to be said after the imposition of hands. For the giving of the Book of the Gospels, hath indeed a form of words, but that impresseth not the Character for before any Gospel was written, the Apostles ordained Deacons by imposition of hands. 5. In the Subdeaconship also there is no Pontifical which hath not the matter without form, viz. the delivery of the empty Chalice, etc. These things with more which he there sets down he would have to serve to the instruction of the learned touching the uncertainty of this whole matter to ●each men to be wise to sobriety, that is, every man to be content with the accustomed Pontifical of the Church wherein he is ordained. And if ought be omitted of those things which be added out of the new Pontificals, as for example, that the Book of the Epistles was not given, with those words (Take authority to read the Epistles as well for the quick as the dead) there is no need of supplying this omission by a new ordination, for such new additions make no new law. Learn then of your own Caietane, that the new additions of delivery of the Chalice with wine, and Paten with Hosts, and authority to offer sacrifice for the quick and dead make no new Law. Learn to be content with the Pontifical of the Church, wherein you were ordained. Wherein first is verbatim all that which your Pontificals had well taken out of the holy words of our Saviour, Accipe Spiritum Sanctum quorum remisseris peccata remittuntur eyes & quorum retinueris retenta sunt. Which me thinks you should rather account to contain the essential form of Priesthood than the former, both because they are Christ's own words, and joined with that ceremony of laying on hands, which anciently denominated this whole action, and do express the worthiest and principallest part of your Commission, which the Apostle calls the Ministry of reconciliation, 2 Cor. 5. 18. 19 Then, because this office is not only deputed to consecrate the Lords body, but also to preach & baptise (which in your Pontifical is wholly omitted) in a larger, and more convenient form, is added out of Saint Paul, 1 Cor. 4. 1. and be thou a faithful dispenser of the word of God and of his holy Sacraments. In the name of the Father, etc.  
As to that you add, that we offer no sacrifice for the quick and dead, and therefore well may be called Ministers, as all lay men are, but are no Priests. I have met with sundry that pull this rope as strongly the other way, and affirm that because by the very form of your ordination you are appointed Sacrificers for the quick and dead, well may ye be Masspriests as ye are called, but Ministers of the New Testament, after S. Paul's phrase ye are none. For that office stands principally in preaching the word, whereof in your ordination there is no word said. And as little there is in Scripture of your sacrifice, which makes Christ not to be a Priest after the order of Melchisedech, etc. with much more to this purpose. Where my defence for your Ministry hath been this, that the form Receive the holy Ghost, whose sins ye remit they are remitted, etc. doth sufficiently comprehend the authority of preaching the Gospel. Use you the same equity toward us, and tell those hot spirits among you, that stand so much upon formalities of words, that to be a dispenser of the word of God and his holy Sacraments, is all the duty of Priesthood. And to you I add further, that if you consider well the words of the Master of the Sentences which I vouched before, how that which is consecrated of the Priest is called a Sacrifice and oblation, because it is a memorial and representation of the true sacrifice and holy offering made on the altar of the Cross, 
Heb. 10. 〈◊〉  and join there to that of the Apostle, that by that one offering Christ hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified, and as he saith in another place, through that blood of his Cross reconciled unto God all things whether in earth or in heaven; you shall perceive, that we do offer sacrifice for the quick and dead, remembering, representing & mystically offering that sole Sacrifice for the quick and dead, by the which all their fins are meritoriously expiated, and desiring that by the same, we and all the Church may obtain remission of sins, and all other benefits of Christ's passion.  
To the Epilogue therefore of this your last motive, I say in short. Sith we have no need of Subdeaconship, more than the Churches in the Apostles times, & in truth those whom we call Clerks and Sextens perform what is necessary in this behalf. Sith we have Canonical Bishops, and lawful succession. Sith we neither want due intention to depute men to Ecclesiastical functions, nor matter or form in giving Priesthood; deriving from no man or woman the authority of ordination, but from Christ the head of he Church; ye have alleged no sufficient cause, why we should not have true Pastors, and consequently a true Church in England.   

CHAP. XII.  
Of the Conclusion. Master Waddesworths' agonies and protestation, etc.  
YEt by these (you say) and many other arguments, you were resolved in your understanding, to the contrary. It may well be that your understanding out of it own heedless haste, as that of our first Parents while it was at the perfectest was induced into error, by resolving too soon out of seeming arguments, and granting too forward assent. For surely, these which you have mentioned, could not convince it, if it would have taken the pains to examine them throughly, or had the patience to give unpartial hearing to the motives on the other side. Bu● as if you triumphed in your own conquest, and captivity, you add that which passeth yet all that hitherto you have set down, viz. That the Church of Rome was and is the only true Church, because it alone is Ancient, Catholic, and Apostolic, having succession, unity, and visibility in all ages, and places. Is it only ancient? To omit Jerusalem, are not that of Antioch, where the Disciples were first called Christians, and Alexandria, Ephesus, Corinth, and the rest mentioned in the Scriptures ancient also? and of Antioch ancienter than Rome. Is it Catholic and Apostolic only? Do not these and many more hold the Catholic faith received from the Apostles, as well as the Church of Rome? For that it should be the Universal Church, is all one as ye would say the part is the whole, one City the world. Hath it only succession? where to set aside the inquiry of Doctrine, so many Simoniacs, and intruders have ruled, as about fifty of your Popes together, were by your own men's confession Apostatical, rather than Apostolical? Or Unity, where there have been thirty Schisms, and one of them which endured fifty years long, and at last grew into three heads, as if they would share among them the triple Crown? And as for diffentions in Doctrine, I remit you to Master Doctor Hall's peace of Rome, wherein he scores above three hundred mentioned in Bellarmine alone; above threescore in one only head of Penance out of Navarrus. As to that addition, in all ages and places▪ I know not what to make of it, nor wherso to refer it. Consider, I beseech you, with your wont moderation what you say, for sure unless you were beguiled, I had almost said bewitched, you could never have resolved to believe and profess, that which all the world knows to be as false, I had (well-nigh) said as God is true, touching the extent of the Romish Church to all ages and places?  
Concerning the agonies you passed, I will say only thus much, if being resolved though erroneously that was truth, you were withholden from professing it with worldly respects, you did well to break through them all. But if besides these, there were doubt of the contrary (as me thinks needs must be) unless you could satisfy yourself touching those many and known exceptions against the Court of Rome, which you could not be ignorant of) take heed, lest the rest ensuing these agonies were not like Sampsons' sleeping on Dal●lahs knees, while the locks of his strength were shaved, whereupon (the Lord departing from him) he was taken by the Philistims, had his eyes put out, and was made to grind in the prison. But I do not despair, but your former resolutions shall grow again. And as I do believe your religious asseveration, that for very fear of damnation you forsook us (which makes me to have the better hope and opinion of you, for that I see you do so seriously mind that which is the end of our whole life;) so I desire from my heart the good hope of salvation you have in your present way may be as happy, as your fear I am persuaded was causeless.  
For my part, I call God to record against mine own soul, that both before my going into Italy, and since, I have still endeavoured to find and follow the truth in the points controverted between us, without any earthly respect in the world. Neither wanted I fair opportunity had I seen it on that side, easily, and with hope of good entertainment to have adjoined myself to the Church of Rome, after your example. But (to use your words) as I shall answer at the dreadful day of judgement, I never saw, heard, or read any thing, which did convince me: nay, which did not finally confirm me daily more and more, in the persuasion, that in these differences it rests on our part. Wherein I have not followed humane conjectures from foreign and outward things (as by your leave me thinks you do in these your motives, whereby I protest to you in the sight of God, I am also much comforted and assured in the possession of the truth) but the undoubted voice of God in his word, which is more to my conscience then a thousand Topical Arguments. In regard whereof I am no less assured, that if I should forsake it I should be renounced by our Saviour, before God and his Angels, then in the holding it be acknowledged and saved; which makes me resolve, not only for no hope if it were of 10000 worlds, but by the gracious assistance of God, without whom I know I am able to do nothing, for no terror or torment ever to become a Papist.  
You see what a large distance there is between us in opinion. Yet for my part, I do not take upon me to forejudge you, or any other that doth not with an evil mind and self condemning conscience only to maintain a faction, differ from that which I am persuaded is the right. I account we hold one and the same faith in our Lord and Saviour jesus Christ, and by him in the blessed Trinity. To his judgement we stand or fall. Incomparably more and of more importance are those things wherein we agree; then those wherein we descent. Let us follow therefore the things of peace, and of mutual edification. If any be otherwise minded than he ought, God shall reveal that also to him. If any be weak or fallen, God is able to rai●e him up. And of you good M. Waddesworth, and the rest of my Masters and Brethren of that side, one thing I would again desire, that according to the Aposiles profession of himself, you would forbear to be Lords over our Faith, nor straightway condemn of heresy, 
2 Cor. 8. 24.  our ignorance or lack of persuasion concerning such things as we cannot perceive to be founded in holy Scripture. Enjoy your own opinions; but make them not Articles of our Faith: the analogy whereof is broken as well by addition as subtraction. And this self same equity we desire to find in positive Laws, Orders, and Ceremonies. Wherein as every Church hath full right to prescribe that which is decent and to edification, and to reform abuse; so those that are members of each are to follow what is enjoined, till by the same authority it be reversed.  
And now to close up this Account of yours, whereof you would have Doctor Hall and me to be as it were examiners and Auditors. Whether it be perfect and allowable or no, look you to it. I have here told you mine opinion of it, as directly, plainly, and freely as I can; and as you required fully, if not tediously. I list not to contend with you about it. Satisfy your own conscience, and our common Lord and Master, and you shall easily satisfy me. Once yet by my advice review it, and cast it over again. And if in the particulars you find you have taken many nullities for signifying numbers, many smaller signifiers for greater▪ correct the total. If you find namely that out of desire of Unity, and dislike of contention, you have apprehended our diversities to be more than they are: conceived a necessity of an external infallible judge, where there was none: attributed the privilege of the Church properly called, to that which is visible and mixed. If you find the reformed Churches more charitable, the proper note of Chists sheep: The Roman faction more fraudulent, and that by public counsel, and of politic purpose, in framing not only all later writers, but some ancient, yea the holy Scriptures for their advantage: If you find you have mistaken the Protestants doctrine touching invisibility, your own also touching uniformity in matters of Faith: If you have been misinformed and too ha●●ie, of credit touching the imputations laid to the beginners of reformation: For as touching the want of Succession and the fabulous Ordination at the Nag's head, I hope you will not be stiff, and persist in your error, but confess and condemn it in yourself: If (as I began to say) you find these things to be thus; give glory to God, that hath heard your prayer, entreating direction in his holy truth; and withhold not that truth of his in unrighteousness. Unto him that is able to restore and establish you, yea to consummate and perfect you according to his almighty power and unspeakable goodness, toward his elect in Christ jesus, I do from my heart commend you: and rest you,  Your very loving brother in Christ jesus, W. BEDELL. 
FINIS.    

Faults escaped.  
PAge 3. line 30. for them read him. p. 6. l. 17. for 〈◊〉 V. p. 7. l. 4. for come r. came. p. 33. l. 19 for whereby r. whereof. p. 49. l. 36. for them r. thou. p. 54. l. 35. for Court r. course. p. 55. l. 4. for 〈◊〉 b E●●l. r. ●ate Ecclesiast. p. 63. l. 14. for bumorum r. humerum. p. 64. l. 7. for you r. thee. p. 65 l. 8. for To prove r. ●. To prove. p. ●8. l. 31. side, one r. side one, p. 82 l. 3. for These r. Those. p. 83. l 1. for to all r. to take all. p. 85. l. 36. for report r. reports. p. 87. l. 24. for adjure r. abjure. p. 90. l. 32. for word r. sword. p. 97. l. 15. for the state r. that State. l. 3. for Gratian, neither r. Gratian neither, ibid. l. 1. for force r. farce. p. 103. l. 32. for sernone r. ser●●●●. p. 108. l. 1. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hi●. For. p. 109. l. 13. for Bishops r. Bishop. p. 112. l. 4. for greatest shows, r. greatest, shows another. p. 114 l. 16. for just or r. juster. ibid. l. 13. for maechiss r. maechiae. p. 116. l. 13. 〈◊〉 But the r. But that, ibid. l. ●26. for Such. r. ●. Such. p. 11●. l. 72. for whererein-frequent r. wherein-frequent. p. 119. l. for Com. 1. r. Cou●. 1. p. 120. l. 13. for grosser, yet r. grosser yet, ibid. l. 19 for and in this r and this. p. 130. l. 10. for affairs, in Italy r. affairs in Italy, p. 135. l. 1. for a ubiects r. assubiect. p. 147. l. 22. for both where r. where both p. 148. l. 19 for Litany r. Litany. p. 151. l. 33. for Gospel r. Gospel p. 154. l. 9 for primaro r. primaero.