A DEFENCE OF THE WAY TO THE TRUE CHURCH against A. D. his Reply. Wherein 

The MOTIVES leading to Papistry,  
And questions, touching the RULE of Faith,  
The AUTHORITY of the Church,  
The SUCCESSION of the Truth, and  
The BEGINNING of Romish Innovations: are handled and fully disputed.    
By JOHN WHITE Doctor of Divinity, sometime of Gunwell and Caius Coll. in Cambridge.  I entreat and desire you all that, setting aside what this or that man thinks touching these matters, you will inquire what the Scripture says concerning them. Chrysost. in 2. Cor. hom. 13. 
LONDON, Printed for WILLIAM BARRET dwelling in Paul's Churchyard at the sign of the three Pigeons. 1614   

TO THE KING'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY, JAMES, BY THE grace of God King of great Britain, France and Ireland: defender of the Faith.  
MOst dread and renowned Sovereign, may it please your excellent Majesty: Such is the power of true Religion, and the hope that all men have to be delivered from error and their natural misery, and to attain supernatural and eternal good thereby, that they which have tasted it cleave unto it more than to all the hopes of this life beside: The law of thy mouth, 
Psal. 119.  saith David, is better to me then thousands of gold and silver. This is the reason why the cause of religion, and the state of our Church, this day under your highness most happy government, is so dear and acceptable to us, that the opposition and violence of our greatest enemies can never make us weary of defending it; but as the servants of Isaac, 
Gen. 26.  when the Canaanites stopped their wells, opened them again, and would never yield the inheritance of their master to the herds men of Gerar, no more can we endure the truth of religion to be choked with Popish heresies, or the inheritance of our Lord to be taken from us by the Swains of Rome: 
Nazianz orat. 2. de Pace.  Gods blessed truth being of that value that, in defence thereof, his meekest servants will stir, and the mildest fight before it shall be endamaged by their forbearance: Our assurance through God's mercy, of that we profess, and the benefit of our faith, and the certain knowledge of our adversaries ungodly and reprobate practices against it, is such, that no course of theirs can discourage us, no contention beat us off, no importunity make us shrink from that which we know to be the truth. 
Aen. Sylu hist. Bohem.  When a certain jester (set on by others as it was thought) in the presence of the king of Hungary, spoke to a Noble man of prague touching his religion, because he fancied not the Romish Service, but was addicted to Rochezana a follower of hus, the Noble man gave him this answer: If thou speak of thyself, thou art not the man thou conterfets, and so I will answer thee as I would a wise man; if by others setting on, it is meet I satisfy them; Hear me therefore: Every man useth Church ceremonies agreeable to his faith, and offers such sacrifices as he believes are acceptable with God: it is not in our own power to believe what we will; THE MIND OF MAN CONQVERED WITH POWERFUL REASONS, WILLING OR NILLING, IS TAKEN CAPTIVE: I am sufficiently resolved of the religion I follow; if I follow thine I may deceive men, but God that searches the hearts I cannot deceive; nor yet is it fit I should be like to thee: one thing becomes a jester, and another thing a Nobleman; this you may take to yourself, or report, if you please, to them that set you a work. This zeal of the truth, and conscience surprised with the authority thereof, is it which leads forward so many learned men of all sorts into contention with the Papists, and constrains them, both by vehement preaching and open writings, to oppose them who never cease to corrupt the faith, and poison all sorts of people with discontent and violent hatred against their brethren, and by the working of jesuits and Seminaries (much after the fashion of Antheninus the mathematician mentioned in Agathias) to shake all the quarters of your kingdoms: in which course, through long practice, and some connivency, and for want of straighter execution of the laws against them (the dangerous sequel whereof we will daily pray God to turn aside) they are grown so vehement and fiery that scarce any part of our faith can please them; no not the truths that we hold in common with themselves, nor any part of your highness government, because it is not held in capite of the Pope. 
Athenae.  The stoics believing that none but a wise man could do any thing well, concluded, that therefore none but a wise man could make good pottage, or season a mess of broth well: and because, in their conceit, their master Zeno was the wisest of all men, they concluded again that the broth could not be good if it were not made after Zenoes' direction; whose use was to prescribe to the twelfth part of a Coriander seed: possible that he might have primatum ollae, or lest the cooks of Lacedaemon should exempt themselves from his jurisdiction. This Hildebrandine humour, of overruling all things, so possesseth our Adversaries, that now the Church of England hath neither God, nor faith, nor religion; the King of England no crown, no dominion, no subjects; the state no justice, no laws, no government; because the Pope gives not the ingredients, or confirms them not.  
I am the meanest person and least able of many, and the best I can do falls short of that which these exquisite times require. 
Theodor. de provid. l. 8.  Theodorite says; The majesty of things depends not a little upon the manner of handling them; and therefore such as meddle with any high argument, have need of great power both of tongue and conceit; because such as weigh the force of words more than the nature of things, judge of the things according to the weight, or weakness of the words. But the condition of the place where sometime I lived, transported with much superstition, and importuned with Romish Priests and their books, and, sometime, their libels set upon our Church doors, drew upon me a necessity of doing what I was able; when for divers years I was enforced, by private writings and conference, to maintain, or expound, what I preached openly. The benefit whereof I found to be such, both in stablishing my own conscience, and recovering the people, and repelling such as seduced them, that I was easily drawn forward to proceed, and much of my time to bestow in dealing with the Seminaries: until at the length it is now come to this, that I am enforced in the open view of the world what I have spoken in the ear, 
Mat. 10.27.  secretly, that to publish on the housetop, and, now again the second time, to do that which I thought at the first, to do but once. My own private condition is not such that I should greatly care what any man writ against me, & all that read my adversaries Reply will easily perceive him unworthy to be honoured by an Answer, and most unworthy to have his name or Characters mentioned in your highness presence; but when the cause itself is Gods, and belongs, as part thereof, to the common cause of our Church, I would not by despising a mean Adversary forsake it, or give occasion to any that had used my former Book to misdoubt what I have written: but having, in my private life, many spare hours (whereof I must one day give account) I would bestow them the best way, in doing something that might help my countrymen out of their superstition. And although my Adversary with whom I deal be of no great note (for the Heralds cannot find his pedigree till they come to noah's Ark) yet his arguments and discourse transcribed from Doctor Stapleton, and Gregory of Valence (two of their chiefest writers) being such as are most used, for the depressing of the Scripture and succession of our Church, and for the advancing of the Pope's authority in the matters of faith; I understand to be so grateful to Zenoes' disciples, by reason they relish so pleasingly of the Coriander, that I have thought it not amiss to bestow my answer; that if, reason and the truth will do it, they may be satisfied. The truth is of that composition and strength itself that God can relieve it by his weakest instruments, in whom he shows his power and workmanship against his proudest adversaries. Deus ita artifex magnus in magnis ut minor non sit in minimis. And therefore S. Austin confesses to him: Omnipotens manus tua, semper una & eadem, creavit in coelo Angelos, in terra vermiculos, non superior in illis, non inferior in istis: And this my poor endeavour I most humbly present to your Highness, whose gracious speeches, not long since, to me, both touching my former writing, and this Defence thereof, then scarce begun, have emboldened me: though my own affection, I think, itself would have swayed me herein if I had never seen your Highness.  
The general apprehension of the good which the Church obtains by your most gracious zeal and constancy for religion (the lively sense whereof infuseth itself, as the soul into the parts of the body, into all quarters, not of your kingdom alone, but of the Christian world round about us) moves all men to your Highness, whose sufferings, endured for the same, at the hands of Antichrist & his ministers, have taught us that the greatest Princes living, as well as meaner persons, may be persecuted for the testimony of Christ; and being possessed with the zeal of his house, can and will in defence thereof, expose themselves, their crown, their reputation, their children, their life, and all the hopes of this world, to the most imbruted enemies that ever were: and neglecting the deceivable pleasures of their Court, and trampling their own greatness under their feet, can tell how to make themselves a way to eternity; and, by cleaving to the Church, and resisting Antichrist, assure their state, and make their honour greater, and lay up in their bosom the assured hope of a better kingdom in the world to come. This is it, most dread Sovereign, that affects us all, and leads your poor subjects, towards you: that now whatsoever any is able to speak, to write, to think, to breath; he thinks to be yours by right, by whose means and example all men speak, and write, and think, & breathe the purer: 
Veget. procem. ad Valentinian.  and in affection (where Princes reign but by permission) we feel ourselves to be yours so far, that unfeignedly we think Neque recte aliquid inchoari nisi post Deum fauerit Imperator. Which our Adversaries shall now give us leave to say the freelier, where the King's learning matches his power, and (without the help of any man's flattery) is seen to board their Colleges; that, whose countries and persons he governs not by his laws, their Schools and consciences he gins to overrule with his disputations. Which thing we hold to be so far from impairing Royal dignity, that 
* Suarez.  he who hath said it, must hereafter be deemed one of the King of Arragon's oxen, when, 
Non hominis sed Bovis vocem este respondit. Alphons apud Anton Panorm. l. 1. Naveler.  after so many mighty Princes in all ages honoured more for their learning and writing● then for all their greatness beside: David, Solomon, julius Caesar, Constantine, and Charles the Great; justinian, Leo, Palaeologus, Cantacuzenus, the Alphonsi, and divers more: after the Emperor Sigismond, commended for playing the Deacon at the Council of Constance: Henry the eight writing for the seven Sacraments, whose book, subscribed with his hand, they glory to have in the Vatican; 
Possevin. Concil. Mediol. 1. sub Borthom.  the Cardinal of Milan thinking it the highest commendation he could give the late king of Spain, in eius regia dignitate, ut verbo complectar, sacerdotalem animum licet aspicere: he will now have the use of your highness pen in maintenance of your laws and religion, and whereby most graciously it pleased you to offer them instruction before you would execute your authority against them, to be the laying by of your imperial dignity; never remembering that for a king to descend to the Preacher, 
I the Preacher have been king in jerus. Eccl. 1.12.  is the work of piety and clemency towards his subjects, but for the Priest to climb into the king's throne and play the Monarch, is the brand of Antichrist.  

2 Sam. 14.  The King is as the angel of God in hearing of good and bad, his words will seasonably give your highness occasion, by speedy and diligent execution of your laws, to let jesuits and Seminaries, and the disciples of Hildebrand, see you are a King still, that by assuming the Doctor, when you please, can teach them their duties; and by exercising your power when you have done, will repel their practices with effect, and free your people from their presumptions. Their shameless abusing your highness lenity, and taking spirit by being suffered to multiply their contestations against your sacred person, government, and people, makes us all wish, when Edicts do no good, they might hear the Lion roar, that his voice might once chase such cowardly beasts out of the forest, and unearth them too if they would still be running into their holes for harbour. The Landgrave of Hesse (a mild and gracious Prince, but whose clemency was much abused) being cast, by adventure, on a Smiths forge, overheard what the Smith said all the while he was striking his iron: 
Oth. Meland.  Duresce, inquam, duresce, utinam & Langravius durescat. And the presumption of this generation is such in corrupting the truth with their books, and opposing it with their heresies, in casting the state also and your sacred person into those manifest and dismal perils, (from which they will never desist so long as they are among us) that your subjects are generally of the Smith's mind, to wish, these sons of Beliall, that fly-blow Religion, and blast the laws, and honour, and the estimation of Princes, with their breath; placing their greatest piety in the greatest mischiefs they can bring to their Prince and country, may feel the metal harder that by law is tempered for such as are of their spirits, and know not how to use your highness clemency. I speak not of simple Recusants, but fugitive jesuits, and Seminaries, that have renounced their allegiance to their natural Sovereign, and made themselves the Pope's creatures, and vowed him blind obedience in all that he shall command them. For many Papists, 
Maffae. vit. Ignat.  when their seducers are removed, shall come home to obedience, and repenting them of their Idolatry and superstition, embrace your highness government, and the Religion established: but when unnatural fugitives, and such as they have jesuited, have attempted to consume us, and, by blasphemous writings, unnatural reports, traitorous libels, barbarous conspiracies, from time to time these fifty years together, have undermined our state, and, by the woeful ruin of some, have showed what they intent to all Kings and Princes that entertain not their vassalage, 
Sylu. Girald. Topograph: Hib. M. Wrightinton and M. Brettergs horse, oxen and kine, killed in their pastures, a little before the late Queen's death: and now lately, the messengers horses; poisoned at Wigan in Lancashire.  it is not to be hoped that their fair protestations can give us assurance, as we had experience lately in him that writ the QVODLIBETS: but as it is noted of the Irish long ago, A securibus nulla securitas; si securum te reputes securim senties: est longè fortius timenda eorum ars quam Mars, eorum pax quam fax, eorum mel quam , malitia quam militia, proditio quam expeditio, amicitia praefucata quam inimicitia despicata. Their poisoning of so many your highness subjects with heresies, and reviling God's blessed truth, their preying upon the states and persons of their followers, and filling them with hatred and reprochfulnesse against their brethren, till it come to the kill of our very cattle and dumb beasts; is the least of their doings: the state and government hath been odiously defamed, the laws reviled, the judges railed on, and threatened; the Nobles disgraced, and in favour of the formallest Miscreants, and to bolster out the damnablest treason that ever was, the PUBLIC ACTS AND RECORDS of the kingdom, entered in the view of God, and men and Angels, are discredited, and denied. Yet these are the persons, beginning where the Devil did when he seduced Adam, that become our ghostly Fathers, and are canonised for Martyrs: Sine Scriptura Theologi, sine miraculis Apostoli, sine veritate Catholici, sine pace sacrifici, sine patientia Martyrs: sine vera fide religiosi. Their zeal for the Catholic faith and salvation of souls is pretended, but their drift is to captivate all to the Pope's Monarchy, and their own ambition. 
Plutarch. Zonar.  When Caesar was desirous to lead Cleopatra in triumph, that she should not mistrust, or prevent him, he sent her word that he was in love with her. 
Philostrat.  Philip of Macedon, leading an army against Byzantium, said, that hearing of the beauty of the city he was going a wooing, and would make love to her. But the Orator told him again, it was not the manner, in his country, to go a wooing with swords, but with music, and they that were in love brought not instruments of war, but of melody. It were to be wished that as Philip, by this conceit, was entreated to spare the city, so your highness clemency might have persuaded these men to let the Pope's plenitudo tempestatis alone, & spare their country: but when their practices are made the profession of their Catholic faith, and their loathsomest treasons the cause of the Catholic Church, and the punishments inflicted for the same accounted martyrdom; when they have made their private quarrels the public faith of their Church; what hope is there but they will persevere? When Ephesus was distressed with a dangerous battery, 
Polyaen.  in a time of siege, the Governor, with ropes, tied the walls and gates to Diana's Temple, that so, being consecrate to the goddess, the enemy should assault them at his peril. This is now become the jesuits policy, first to tie every thing to the Temple, making their innovations and conspiracies the Church's cause, and then cry them down for heretics that find any fault: that so neither Church nor state, nor magistrate, nor subject, nor laws, nor Religion, nor Court, nor country, can be free from their intermeddling. 
Cedrens.  There was a time when the Eunuches were so potent and busy in the Greek Empire, overruling and disturbing all things, that it became the saying of a great man; if you have an Eunuch in your hand dispatch him, but if you have none, buy one and dispatch him. The jesuite and the Mass Priest hath plied his statizing in such fashion that his name may well be put in the room of the Eunuch: and before your highness laws against them be put in execution, that their haunts and harbours may be stopped, and the places of their entertaintment scoured, and the female hierarchy, where they breed, be put down, their plots will never have end; nor is it possible your highness state, or person, should have security. Our words against them are many, and some mislike our earnestness; But the King's danger made Croesus dumb son speak: 
Herodot.  and we had rather sustain the envy of our words then another day feel the issue of their deeds. 
Silu. Girald.  When the King of Meth asked advice of one Turghesie, how certain noisome birds, lately come into Ireland, that did much harm, in the country, might be destroyed, he answered, Nidos eorum ubique destruendos: the next way was to destroy their nests where they bred. They are none of Saint Colmans' birds that there should be any such danger in chase them: but what manner of birds they are your Highness may perceive by a story in Maximus Tyrius. One Psapho, 
Max. Tyr. serm.  dwelling in the parts of Lybia, desirous to be canonised a God, took a sort of prating birds, and secretly taught them to sing, PSAPHO IS A GREAT GOD; and having their lesson perfectly, he let them fly into the woods and hills adjoining; where continuing their song, other birds also, by imitation, learned the same, till the hedges rang with nothing but Psaphoes' ditty, GREAT IS THE GOD PSAPHO. The country people hearing the birds, but ignorant of the fraud, thought Psapho to be a God indeed and began to worship him. This same is the Pope's practice: desirous to effect his ambition, and show himself to be a God, he maintains a sort of discontented fugitives in his Seminaries, as it were in so many cages, where dieting them for the nonce, he easily teaches them what tune he pleases; and having done, takes off their bells and sends them home again, where filling every hedge and outhouse with their tunes, no marvel if other birds of the same feather, and as wise as themselves, by conversing with them, learn the like. This is the guile of Heretics, 
August.  the learned to ply with their art, and the simple with their errors.  
It is incredible and enough to amaze a man to listen them, whether he read their books, or hear their people's wild discourse. Modesty is banished, christian charity, that should guide all men in seeking the truth, is extinguished; confidence and prefidence carry out all things; the sacred Scriptures are put to silence, the persons of men are sacrilegiously disgraced, 
Gen. 37.31.  as joseph's coat was dipped in blood: the Pope's Breves, and bare lust, sway all things with them; no rule of reason, no example of the ancient Church, no precedent of antiquity, may be opposed against the Pope's will: his breast must inspire all things, his determination must be the rule of all men's faith, Not what is spoken, but who speaks must be regarded. 
Staplet. Albertin.  The Bishop of Rome is the infallible rule of faith. Hence it comes that all their questions and disputations Hildebrandize, and are fortified with such conclusions of the Pope's infallible and unerring authority, and grounded thereupon, as the ancient Church never heard. This was the uttermost that Mahomet could do for the establishing of his Koran. 
Alchor.  Three Angels taking him into a mountain, the first ripped his breast, and washed his bowels in snow; the second opened his heart, and took out a black grain which was the portion of the Devil; the third closed him up again, and made him perfect: then they weighed him in a pair of balance, and ten men being not able to counterpoise him, the Angel bad, Let him go, for no number of men should be able to weigh against him. If it had not been the Pope's good fortune in this manner to have been washed, and cleansed, and weighed by the latter Divines of the Church of Rome, the jesuits specially, in their Schools, he had fallen short of Mahomet, and the controversies between him and us were soon at an end, when not his will, but the word of God, in a free council, should determine them.  
We are not the first that have complained of the corruptions of Rome, and the Pope's usurpations, but all ages have done it before us. Clemangis, in a certain Epistle to Gerson, says, That all things falling to decay, and going to nought, in such manner as never was before, yet no man might bewail or utter it: and what means of remedy, what hope of amendment, saith he, can there be where we may speak neither of amendment nor remedy: where they that give the wounds are counted good, and excellent, and rare men, worthy of all commendations and reward; and they which endeavour to keep them off are called lewd, perfidious, and wicked persons, worthy of all shame and reproach? The immoderate and unbounded ambition of the Pope, being the Patriarch of the West, and the pride of his Clergy, were the first occasion that so many errors and corruptions came into the Church: for the administration and managing of all things being in their hands, it was an easy matter, howsoever men complained, for the court of Rome to bring in what it pleased. 
De Sept. stat. eccl.  Vbertine says, Albeit among the Locusts there be but one King that hath all manner of principality in evil, yet the sanctity of Prelates could not, on the sudden, be brought to such wickedness, until first, for a long time together, they began to fall, by pompous ambition: and multiplying the superfluous state of temporalities; by Simoniacal covetousness, perverse elections, and carnal promotion of such as they favoured, and neglect of spiritual worship: these wicked dispositions going before, the Devil, at last, by these means might fully bring in the complete form of the GRAND MISCHIEF. 
In Lament. jerem.  Pascasius complained 700 years ago, that there was almost nothing belonging to secular life but the Priests of Christ administered it, nor no worldly affairs but those that served at the altar put themselves into it. And hence it comes, and not from any ordinance of God, or example of the ancient Church, that the Pope, with his Bishops and Cardinals, so presumptuously contest with God's anointed Kings. It was not so when Christ said, it shall not be so among you. 
Luc. 22. Liberat. breviar.  Nor when Leo the first, with many of his Bishops, UPON THEIR KNEES, ENTREATED THE EMPEROR and his wife for a Synod. Nor when Leo the fourth, 
Grat.  said to the Emperor Lewis, That if he had done any thing inconueniently, or not holden the path of his laws, he would reform what he had offended, AT HIS JUDGEMENT. Nor when the Emperor justinian began his laws with we COMMAND the Bishops and patriarchs of Rome, Constantinople, 
Novel.  and Alexandria. 
Auentin.  Nor were his Prelates the companions of Princes, when Charles the Great took down the Bishop of Mentz about his proud Crosiar staff, with such words as these: See, our shepherds, that profess the Cross of Christ, in ostentation, in wealth, in excess, challenge the greatest Emperors. But these monsters grew up since. Thomas of Aquin, (or Thomas of England) says, that which bred them was the love of temporalties. 
Tho. in 6. Gen.  Ex TUNC exorti sunt in Ecclesia gigantes, in magnis & mirabilibus supra se ambulantes, qui potius videntur Reges, vel Marchiones, quam Episcopi, vel Abbates, & ideo non mirum si per eos erigatur statue Babilonis, & terrena civitas dilatetur. These men (not remembering that howsoever in picture, the eye be one of the noblest parts, 
Plato Timae.  yet every colour is not fit to paint it: lest so it cease to be an eye) with outward greatness and usurpations would set forth their Priesthood. And in very deed abusing the favour and liberality of godly Princes, (who thought nothing too much they did for the Church) to their own lusts, and ambition, 
* The Emperor gave the Pope some time, So by power him about, That at the last the silly kime, The proud Pope thrust him out. Chave. Sim. Schard. Hypomnem.  thus at last they shouldered into their thrones, and stole their sceptres. One Rupescissanus, a Friar, told the Cardinals, some 300 years since, that the Pope and they were the Peacock whom all the birds had enriched with their feathers, whereby she was grown so proud that she would never know herself till the Kings of the earth should come, another day, and taking every one his own feather, leave her as bald and naked as they found her. And then as their pride was the beginning of all these errors and corruptions in Religion, that trouble the world, so their humiliation shall be the end of them.  
It hath pleased God in a special manner to call your Highness to this work, and by your hand to dedicate it; your most Christian MONITORY to the Emperor and Princes, performed with admirable learning, and invincible spirit hath made the entrance, and as it hath purchased your Highness that reputation in God's Church, and honour with strangers, and authority with adversaries, and admiration with all, which few Princes, since Constantine, have had before; so shall it, in time, and by degrees, 
Apoc. 18.  awaken the Kings of the earth, and declare itself to be the loud cry and mighty voice of the Angel which God hath sent to raise them up and to call his people out of Babylon. And although the jesuits, & their complices by their busy writing, would seem to oppose it, yet it so sticks in their crown, that from the Cardinal to the Friar, they give themselves no satisfaction in answering, but still as one of them sallies forth another follows him, as if they meant openly in the field to bewray their weakness and cry for help; and though they fight desperately, yet is it as the Goth, mentioned in Procopius, with his enemy's weapons stricken, and sticking in the top of his pate, whereof he died as soon as he returned out of the field. And albeit their words be vile, and all honest ears abhor so sacred Majesty to be violated thereby, yet the love of your subjects, and the service of God's whole Church toward you for the same, shall weigh them down. And God who hath called your Highness with David, and Constantinen, to be reproached, and threatened, by such as Shemei, Doeg, Zosimus, and Ennapius were, will give you the same honour in all generations to come, that they have had: and when the jesuits have that opinion that their Lord the Pope is God upon earth, so far above Emperors and Kings, no marvel if their burden give them courage and make them lusty. 
Alchor.  For the Ass that bore Mahomet in his Nurse's lap feeling the preciousness of his load, pricked up his ears and out went all the company; and when some asked, if this was the beast that yesterday was not able to stand on her legs, but was feign to be lifted up, that now went so lustily, she answered, O that ye knew who I carry on my back. It was the conceit she had of her burden that gave her this courage and lift up her ears.  
But leaving them to their presumption, who, as Isidodorus Pelusiota speaketh, bear themselves on their Priesthood as if they had a tyranny, when they have wearied themselves with resisting the truth offered them, & are swallowed up of their own pride and turbulence, your highness throne shall be established, and the soul of your enemies shall be cast out as out of the midst of a sling; and all their followers of what sort soever which so unthankfully have been content to reap the fruit of your peaceable government, and gracious favour, and bounty and clemency towards them, but will not join in the worship of God, nor follow your Highness in the exercise of the word and Sacraments; shall see their turpitude. The rest by their prayers to God for your highness safety, and sacrifice of their best affection thereunto, will make it appear that your care of their peace, and zeal for the truth, hath not been in vain. And let not your highness doubt the good success of your cause. When Luther first began to stir against the Pope's pardons his friends cried he would never be able to prevail, 
Chemnit.  and bade him go to his Cell, and pray Lord have mercy on him, for there was no dealing against the Pope. But his fatal hour being come, God showed the contrary, and throwing down the Tables of those money-changers, made it soon appear that there is no counsel or power against the Lord. Nazianzen says, that the Emperor jovian, taking the cause of Religion into his hand, and labouring to have the world consent therein (which is your highness most noble and proper endeavour) thereby both strengthened religion, and brought strength from religion to himself. Your Majesty in our late Sovereign Queen Elizabeth hath observed, that no power of the enemy can hurt Gods anointed that honour him; and such as have heard your Princely speeches, many times touching this matter, can tell you have fixed your confidence in him that will preserve his servants, when a thousand shall fall at their side and ten thousand at their right hand. 
Psal 91.  Your Highness is more than an ordinary man: God hath set his own image, as it were upon his gold, in an eminent manner upon you, which he hath not done upon other men: your cause is God's cause, your zeal and constancy is for God's truth; they are God's inheritance and peculiar people you defend, it is your right you stand for, and a blessed government you maintain. Your enemies are Gods enemies, and uphold themselves with the basest dishonesty, foulest means, and detestablest practices, that ever were: And therefore as God hath suffered you for the manifesting of his glory, to be the object of their fury, so he will make you the precedent of his mercy to all posterity. His promise made to josuah shall never fail you, 
josh. 1.5. Psal 46.  I will not leave thee nor forsake thee. We will not fear though the earth be moved, & the mountains fall into the midst of the sea. Though the waters thereof rage, and the mountains shake at the surges of the same. Yet is there a river whose streams shall make glad the City of God, even the Sanctuary of the Tabernacles of the most high God is in the midst of it, and it shall not be moved. Our God shall relieve it early: when the nations raged and the kingdoms were moved, God gave his voice and the earth melted; the Lord of hosts is with us, and the God of jacob is our refuge. Our enemies, like Arians, are ceased to be Christians. Lucifer Caralitanus says, Cum sitis Ariani, inhumani, impij crudeles, homicidae, non amplius eritis Christiani. And your people that obey and serve you, 
Isid. Pelusiot.  being a company holden together by true faith, and the best policy, are part of the Church of God for which Christ gave himself to die. Your highness most happy government is the fountain of our well-doing: when Princes maintain religion and execute justice, punishing wicked men, and rewarding the godly, 
Psal. 72.  than they come down like rain upon the mown grass and as showers that water the earth. One part of the King of Persia his Title in ancient time was that he did Rise with the Sun, and give eyes to the blind night. 
Theophy●. Simocat. Lips. pol.  And the King of Mexicoes' Crown oath had wont to be, I will minister justice to all, the Sun I will make to shine, and clouds to rain, and the earth to be fruitful; the rivers will I store with fish, and all things with plenty. For godly Princes procure all these things from God to their people, which must be acknowledged, when tyrants and such as fear not God, by their evil government, and neglect of religion, many times darken the air, and hinder the rain, and make the fields barren, and rivers empty. Pliny inquiring the reason why the fields, adjoining to Rome, in old time were so fruitful, says, It was because they were tilled by the chief governors, such as Fabritius, and Cincinnatus were, Ipsorum tunc manibus Imperatorum colebantur agri, gaudente terra vomere laureato & triumphali aratore. Which your Majesty doing so painfully with your own hands, in a more noble field, the Church of God; all godly minded shall bid God speed the plough, and daily wait till the briers and thorns be rooted out, and the dew of God's grace fall on the barren part, that the Ploughman may never be weary nor his hand weak, nor his workmen unfaithful to him, but all that are about him, and his Noble servants by his example may give over sleeping, and put their hand without looking back, to the same work; that the envious man, that soweth tars, may be driven forth, and their own houses may be the greenest and cleanest part of the field: till he come that shall give end and rest to every labour, and recompense, beyond all that can be thought, the workman's travel: and binding the good corn in sheaves, cast the tars into unquenchable fire. God evermore continue and increase his mercies to your Highness, and lay your enemies at your feet, that you may see an end of all dissensions, and 'stablish peace and unity in the Church.  
Your majesties most humble subject JOHN WHITE.   

To the Reader.  
IT is now five years since I published a book called THE WAY TO THE TRUE CHURCH, wherein my purpose was nothing else but only to show the weakness and insufficiency of those Motives which lead so many to Papistry, and to bring to trial such reasons as the jesuits and Seminaries ground themselves upon, in persuading their people against us: making it more than plain that the corruptions of the Church of Rome are maintained, and the communion of our Church in the doctrine, preaching, and the Sacraments thereof, is refused, by such as follow the Papacy, upon weak and false grounds that cannot be defended. This poor book, it seems, hath not a little incensed my Adversary, and discontented many that yet should follow reason and the truth of things, and not be transported with rumour and common impression. For man being a noble creature, endued with reason, and faculty to discourse, and having a rule left him of God, whereby to examine things, should not tie his faith and conscience to the authority, or person of any, more than the truth and the reason and evidence of that be says will bear him out. It was never heard of in the world, till now of late years, that the Pope and his definitions were the rule of faith, or that men were bound to follow whatsoever he should appoint; but the Church of God, every where, till tyranny oppressed it, examined his doctrine, accepting and allowing that which agreed with the sacred Scriptures, and the first antiquity, and rejecting the rest; and albeit many errors had long prescription, yet the godly still held them to that rule of our Saviour: BUT FROM THE BEGINNING IT WAS NOT SO. Mat. 19.8. Our Adversaries therefore may, in some points possible, pretend antiquity; but PRIORITY, which is the first and best antiquity, they cannot in any one thing wherein they refuse us: and whether the zealous and resolved Recusants will believe it or no, yet it is certainly true, there is no one point of Papistry Catholic, that is to say, such as hath been from the beginning, generally received as an article of faith by the universal Church. And though it be granted that many parts of his religion have long continued in the world, yet were they never the certain or general doctrines of the Church, but the corruptions of some therein, which, in time and by degrees, obtained that strength and credit which now they have: it being the easiest thing of a thousand for the Pope and his clergy sitting at the stern, when themselves had once embraced them, with their strength and learning to give them authority in the world: when Mahomet himself by policy and tyranny was able, in time, to spread abroad, and a universally, the doctrine of his Koran, which now is 800 year old, and is followed by many and great nations, as close as Papistry is either in England or Italy. But when the Scripture makes it plain, that FROM THE BEGINNING IT WAS NOT SO; and the Histories and monuments of antiquity, and the books of the elder Papists and such as were chief in the Church of Rome, bear witness that these things were misliked, and in all ages complained of; and that which the Church of England now professes was the faith of most godly men and holy Bishops (though, the power of the governors in the Church of Rome increasing, they were suppresed) they do but deceive themselves that think our faith a new faith, or the points of Papistry the old religion. I have, as well as I have been able, and as diligently as I could, with an unpartial eye, and many tears to God, for his direction in the business, and with a heart hating contention, and possessed as much as any man's living, with desire of peace and unity: (whereof my 17 years residence in Lancashire can give plentiful witness) read the Scriptures, and traveled through the writings of the Fathers, and observed the course of former times, and well advised myself of that which the learned of the Church of Rome in later times have written from the elder Schoolmen to the later jesuits; (though with all humility I acknowledge myself to be the meanest of any that have taken this course; and much lament my own weakness) yet am I ready, whensoever God, the judge of all secrets, and the terrible revenger of falsehood and partiality, shall call me forth of this world, to testify that my faith and religion and the points thereof maintained in my writings and preaching, is the truth; agreeable to the first antiquity; and the contrary, defended by the jesuits, and followed by Romish Recusants, error and uncatholicke. And if any persons presumed to be learned, on the other side, have either in their life or death, showed extraordinary zeal for their Roman faith; I desire I may be allowed my own knowledge, both of some such persons and of their judgement, and outward carriage: and not be importuned to follow that which unskilful and unable, and partial friends have apprehended, rather than my own clear knowledge both of them and their cause. And if the Church of Rome have in it divers learned (between whom and us, my Adversaries will endure no comparison) that writ against us, yet my certain experience of their manner of writing one against another, and against known antiquity, and their strange maintenance of the foulest and unworthiest things that are; and my knowledge of the means whereby, and the ends whereto, they are trained up to this writing; and my daily exercise in their books, have long since removed from me all opinion of them; and taught me that learning, as beauty, can play the bawd, and make them love it that shall fall by it, and enamoured of it, that little know the danger of it. Let the several points of their faith, which with that learning they maintain, be well understood, and considered, (for the most understand them not) and let the manner of their proceeding in that they defend be judiciously looked into, and it will easily appear that learning and wit, 
Gen. 38.  like Thamar, hath prostituted herself, and sits in the highway, and so she may have children, she will deceive judah her own father. And when all learning, and the ripest wits, and holiest Divines the Church of Rome hath, are now wholly employed in maintaining the Pope's power over Princes, absolving subjects from their allegiance, excusing equivocating, and the POWDER-TREASON; and making the actors Martyrs; and dissolving the very joints and bands whereby the world, and Christian society, is holden together; it is high time to let the authority of men's persons alone, and look another while into the reasons and causes they maintain; and when they have found the truth to cease from contending, and labour by obedience and submission thereunto to bring glory to God, that our tongues may profess, and our lives glorify his heavenly Majesty.  
Having therefore written, in my former book to this effect, and plainly showed all this and much more; that my countrymen, and the people of our nation, if they pleased, might see the trial of things: it is fallen out, that the Romish side finds itself, in an extraordinary manner; touched therewith: & after many rumours, & vows to confute me, at last, about 18. months since, I received this Reply which here thou seest. And, although I take no pleasure in contentious writings, but (as time shall show, if I continue my course and God give means) intent that which shall clear the controversies without contention; yet when I had heard many reports of something that would be done, with effect, against me, I was willing to give satisfaction again, lest the ignorant might be persuaded something was written indeed that could not be answered. It is not unlikely but others also (for they have more helps, means, and leisure than I have) as soon as they can be furnished, will be doing: & more may yet be written: for so he sends me word that writ the last Triumph of Purgatory (an Author that sure will overthrow the Chariot and lay all in the mire if he be set to drive it) and so I have been often told, and sent word: and therefore if any shall chance to write in form and without passion (whereof this man is full) and with modesty will say what he thinks, speaking directly and home to that I have said, without declining or shrinking from the point that presses him, that I may find him an honest minded man, and not a Mercurialist; I will gratify him again, with the same that he brings; and freely revoke and confess any error that he shall show to have escaped me. If I be otherwise dealt with that nothing be sought but the disgrace of my person, & undirect discrediting of my book; it is likely that I shall take my resolution from the circumstances of my adversary when I see him, and do as his book against me shall deserve. In the mean time, be admonished of 4. things touching this Reply and my own Defence. First, that whereas he hath in the same book, written against M. wootton, a learned Divine, as well as me; I meddle only with that which concerns myself: and therefore, taking his book before me, I answer only the passages that are against me. Next, all that I meddle with is set down verbatim as it lies; and the number of his page in the margin over against his text. Then I have in this sort gone through his whole book, till within a little of the end; which containing no new matter, but the same that I had occasion to answer divers times afore, I would lose no time about it. Fourthly, I have answered fully and directly to every word he saith: by which diligence, I have benefited the Reader so much, that howsoever my Adversary may seem mean, and unworthy confuting, yet he shall not lose his labour in reading, but find my pains bestowed profitably upon him such as he is: who yet (to give him his due, though he rail hard and uncivilly, and write an obscure and unpleasing style) hath replied with all the best and sutablest arguments he could find in Stapleton, Bellarmine, and Valentia; touching the points depending, and only fails in replying to that which I had answered before.  
Hereafter let me entreat the good and courteous Reader, if he will vouchsafe to use my writings, not to judge of them but by his own trial and examination. For they have secretly to their well-willers, laid imputations upon them, who being surprised with conceit are afraid to make the trial or to meet the truth. The quotations, for example, or Authors alleged may be challenged, & reported to be false: yet this Reply hath charged but only one in all his book: and they which have been loudest and earnestest, may find in such a multitude possible some, to prove that the diligentest writer may be overseen: but the substance they cannot discredit. If I have erred in any thing, or mistaken an Author, I acknowledge myself to be a man that may err; and I humbly submit what I have done, not only to the Church wherein I live, but to every moderate and peaceable minded man therein: yea I will, with all respect of his person, hear, and advise of, any thing that an adversary shall inform me of, if he will hold the rules of Christian truth and charity; and go forward with me in that course to seek the truth: which all men see evermore to be lost where words and wrangling give the sound. And I entreat, even those that cleave most to the Church of Rome, to persuade themselves that whatsoever I have written is for their sakes, that if it were possible they might discern the truth offered them, and the wickedness of the jesuits that lead them. I malign no man's person, I hate none that is among them; but being called to be a Preacher of the Gospel, I am desirous to bestow my spare hours in maintenance of that I preach: and for the which I were ready to sacrifice my life, much more to bestow my time and travel; that if it might so please God, we might be all as one; and the state and government wherein we live, be no longer tossed and entangled with our disagreements. They cannot but see that God, by establishing the King's throne, and blessing it against the malice & unnatural practices of their Church, gives testimony on our side, and checks the Pope and all his counsels, thereby to invite them to peace and unity: they know that we invocate one God, and believe all the articles of the Creed and rule of faith, and preach and press godliness of life without partiality, punishing sin and rewarding well doing, as much as can be done in any kingdom or state that themselves allow: they have seen, within the memory of man, innumerable souls giving their life for the testimony of that we believe: only we differ in divers articles, which potent and skilful adversaries, at several times, in ages past, brought into the Church: let our writings be unpartially weighed, and the Scriptures be diligently read, and the first Antiquity well considered, and it will appear they are in an error, and kept in bondage thereto, only through the subtlety and cunning of their mass Priests. God of his goodness open their eyes and ears that they may embrace the truth and come forth of Babylon, and, shaking off their superstition, content themselves with the Testament of jesus Christ, to whom be all honour and power ascribed for ever. Amen. xii. Maij 1614   

A Table of the Questions and Controversies, either purposely and largely handled, or, by occasion, briefly falling out, between my Adversary and me, in this Defence.  
A  

ANtichrist and his persecution, with the time of his Reign, as the Papists hold it. pag. 361. and 378.  
Apocrypha, not Canonical Scripture. pag. 61. and 62. in the mark  
Assurance of grace and salvation. Chap. 16.  
Antecedent and Consequent will of God. pag. 212.  
Authority of the Church and Scripture. Chap. 30. nu. 4.   
B  

Baptism of infants, by Scripture. pag. 151. nu. 3.  
The Bull against Mich. Baius. pag. 48. nu. 5.   
C  

Catholic discipline what. pag. 5.  
Church defined and distinguished. pag. 365. nu. 2. 

The visibleness of the Church, at large. Chap. 37.38.39.  
In what sense the Church Militant is, sometime, invisible. pag. 355. 360. 373.  
Hypocrites not true members of the Church. pag. 369.  
Where the Church was before Luther. 386. 390. 394.  
How the Church is subject to error. pag. 421. nu. 2.    
Counsels subject to error. Chap. 47.  
Charles, the Emperor, his book against Images. pag. 458. nu. 5.  
Conception of the B. Virgin in sin. Chap. 49.  
Communion in one kind. Chap. 55.   
E  

Celebration of Easter. pag. 150. nu. 2.  
Err: the Church may err. pag. 421. nu. 2. 

And how Counsels. Chap. 47.    
Errors came in by degrees, into the Church. pag. 519. nu. 1.   
F  

Fathers, their consent with Protestants. pag. 410. and Chap. 45. 

They professed not Papistry. Chap. 43.  
The Papists manner of rejecting them. pag. 177.    
Fundamental and not Fundamental points of faith. Chap. 17.  
Frankford Council against images. Chap. 48.   
G  

Grace, assurance of grace. Chap. 16.  
Gregory what faith he taught. pag. 433.   
H  

Hypocrites no true members of the Church. pag. 369.  
Hildebrands' doctrine touching the Pope's power over Princes. pag. 27. nu. 2. & inde.   
I  

jesuits when, and to what purpose, ordained. pag. 13. 

The maintainers of turbulency and treasons. pag. 25. and 81.  
Charged with purging books. pag. 56. and 72. with inhumanity. pag. 87. with training up their people in ignorance. pag. 54. and 92.    
Invocation of Saints by prayer. Chap. 13. and 14,  
Implicit faith and all the doctrine of the Papists touching the same. Chap. 23.  
Image worship, and the doctrine of Rome touching the same. pag. 453. and 528. and Chap. 53.  
justification of the Gentiles. Chap. 22. nu. 1.   
L  

The Laity forbidden the Scripture. pag. 479. 

Permitted, in ancient time, to read them. Chap. 51.    
Luther whence he had his assurance, and who taught him. pag. 320. nu. 8. 

His rejecting the Fathers. pag. 310. nu. 2.  
He sought reformation with all humility. pag. 317.  
Where the Church was afore his time. pag. 386. and 390. and 394.     
M  

Marriage of Priests. Chap. 52. and Chap. 58. nu. 2.  
Mass Priests: see jesuits.  
Mass. pag. 74. and Chap. 58. nu. 5.  
Merits. Chap. 7. and Chap. 58. nu. 4.   
N  

The second Nicen Council. Chap. 48.   
O  

Original sin. pag. 530. nu. 6.   
P  

Peter being at Rome, and being Bishop of Rome. pag. 534. nu. 2.  
Pope, how many Princes he hath been Traitor to. pag. 34. nu. 3. 

The Papists make him the rule of faith, and judge of all. pag. 67. and 79. and 299. and Chap. 34. and 35.  
His supremacy chap. 54. and pag. 525.  
His succeeding of Peter. pag. 537. nu. 2. and 3.  
He hath erred and been an Heretic even in Cathedra. pag. 543. nu. 7.    
Purging of books. pag. 56. and 72.  
Prayer to Saints. Chap. 13. and 14. 

For the dead. Chap. 57 nu. 3.    
Protestant religion whether it bring men to desperation. p. 401. nu. 8.  
Pardons. Chap. 57 nu. 2.  
Purgatory. Chap. 57 nu. 2.  
Priest's marriage. Chap. 52. and, Chap. 58. nu. 2.  
Predestination whether for grace foreseen. pag. 220. nu. 10. & inde.  
Predetermination of man's will by Gods will. pag. 236. nu. 21.  
Papists cast off the Fathers. pag. 177. maintain salvation without the knowledge of Christ. pag. 162. have changed the ancient faith. pag. 339. purged the ancient writings. pag. 56. and 72.   
R  

Rome a whore. pag. 11. n. 2.  
Roman Clergy, their covetousness, Ch. 4. nu. 1. and Ch. 5. Their charity. pag. 23. nu. 3.  
Real presence. pag. 76.  
Rule of Faith and the properties thereof. Ch. 26. and Ch. 35, nu. 6.   
S  

Scripture put down. pag. 9 and 65. and 79. and 250. Translation thereof into the vulgar tongue. pag. 63. and Ch. 51. Such translations forbidden the laity. pag. 479. nu. 2. Scripture proves and expounds itself. Ch. 19 and 20. and 32. The sufficiency thereof against Traditions. Ch. 27. and 30. and 31. and pag. 274. Obscurity and perspicuity of it. Ch. 29. The light of it. pag. 280. What certainty or infallibility there is in translations. Ch. 28. How particular men are assured of the sense of the Scripture. pag. 314.  
Spirits private. Ch. 32. and pag. 315.  
Saints their invocation. Ch. 13. and 14. How they are supposed to hear us. pag. 105.  
Sufficient grace whether given to all. pag. 231. nu. 15.  
Succession of the true Faith in the Church how it was. Ch. 44.  
Succession of the Romish faith set forth in Catalogues how answered; pag. 406.  
Service in an unknown language. Ch. 50.   
T  

Transubstantiation Ch. 56.  
Traditions preferred, and Scripture put down. pag. 9 65. 79. 250.  
Treasonable doctrine and traitorous practices defended by Papists. pag. 27. & inde.  
Translation of the Scripture into the mother tongues. pag. 63. See Scripture.   
V  

Vacancy in the Sea of Rome. pag. 541. nu. 5.  
Virginity of the B. virgin Mary. pag. 149. nu. 1.  
Woman Pope, pag. 542. nu. 6.   
Scripture expounded at large.  

1. Tim. 2.4. God will all men to be saved. pag. 210. nu. 4.  
2. Tim. 3.15. All Scripture is inspired of God, etc. Chap. 31.  
1. Cor. 14. Ch. 50.    

THE CONTENTS OF THE Several Chapters of this Book.  
CHAP. 1. 
THe title of A. D. his Reply. A wonder not far from Rome. Writers not putting their names to their books censured by the jesuits. The Pope's jester. The name of Minister and Priest. Church the pillar of truth. The way of Catholic discipline is the way of the Scripture. The jesuits Method in persuading to Papistry. The manner of A. D. his Replying: and his promise to rail.  Chap. 2. 
The Papists trampling of the Scriptures and preferring their Church. The Church of Rome touched in her honesty and reputed for a whore. The conditions of a whore.  Chap. 3. 
The order of the jesuits, why and to what purpose erected by the Pope; they are that to the Pope that the janissaries are to the Turk. Their aboadments.  Chap. 4 
Some examples of the jesuits rapine. Touching the present Pope Paul 5. and his nephew Burghesi. The jesuits devouring those that entertain them.  Chap. 5. 
Touching the rapine and covetousness of the Romish Clergy. And their single life; and what the world hath thought thereof,  Chap. 6. 
Touching the turbulence of our jesuits and Maspriests in the State, and their unthankfulness to the King. The seditious doctrine of the Church of Rome, leading to all disobedience against the Magistrate, and rebellion whensoever occasion shall serve. Tyrones' rebellion, and the Spanish invasion promoted by the Pope. A Catalogue of about forty Emperors, Kings, and Princes destroyed or vexed by the Pope and his Clergy. A consideration upon the doctrine of the Pope's power to depose kings.  Chap. 7. 
Concerning the doctrine of Merits taught in the Church of Rome, and touching the Bull of Pius and Gregory against Michael Bayus the Dean of Lovane.  Chap. 8. 
The Papacy brought in by Satan. The jesuits spirit of contradiction. The Church of Rome revolted. The five patriarchs were equal at the first. Plain Scripture against the Papacy. The ignorance of Popish laity. Corruption of writings by the Papists. Reformation desired long before it came. Advice given to A.D.  Chap. 9 
The Apocrypha not accounted Canonical Scripture. Papists professing to expound against the Fathers. The new English translation of the Bible. Traditions equalled with the holy Scripture. About the erring of Counsels. And the sufficiency of the Scriptures.  Chap. 10. 
The practice of the Papists in purging books. The sacrifice of the Mass and real presence denied. Points of Papists absurd. The Pope Lords it over all. Papists need pay no debts. May be traitors to murder Princes. jesuits plots in the powder-treason. The Pope's dispensing with sin. A meditation for all Papists.  Chap. 11. 
The Papists manner of dealing with immodesty, and uncharitableness Briarly and Walsinghams' books noted. Some reports of the Papists meekness and mildness. Hunt a Seminary arraigned at Lancaster. The dumb cattle slaughtered in Lancash. The general desire of us all to reduce them to charity.  Chap. 12. 
Touching the ignorance that Papistry hath bred among people. Their barbarous manner of praying avoched. Of john the Almoner, a legend. The manner how a certain Priest baptized. The Replies zeal for recusants of the better sort. A Lancash. gentleman alleged by the Reply A note of a French Knight. The success of preaching in Lancash.  Chap. 13. 
Touching prayer to Saints. Mediation of redemption, and intercession. Bonaventures' Psalter. Christ the only mediator of intercession: Reasons why we desire not the dead to pray for us as we do the living. The prayers of a Friar and an Archbishop. It cannot be showed that the dead hear us. Devices of the Schoolmen to show how they hear us. God not like an earthly King. In their Saint-inuocating they Platonize. Men equalled with Christ.  Chap. 14. 
More touching the worship of Saints. The same words used to Saints that are to God The formal reason of worship. The harsh prayers made to Saints how excused. Navarres form of devotion. Counterfeits bearing the name of Fathers; S. Austin's doctrine to use no mediator but Christ.  Chap. 15. 
The jesuits insolency censured. Note books. A relation showing how the jesuits train up their novices to dispute The doctrine of the jesuits touching formal lies and equivocation. The Repliars' motion to Protestant Ministers answered.  Chap. 16. 
Touching assurance of grace and believing a man's own salvation. Perfection of the Scripture and necessity of the Church Ministry. How the justified conclude their salvation from the Scripture. The justified have the assurance of faith. This is declared: full assurance void of doubting taught by the most in the Church of Rome. Touching perseverance.  Chap. 17. 
Concerning points fundamental and not fundamental: the distinction expounded and defended. Who shall judge what is fundamental and what not. A jest at the election of Pope Leo the x.  Chap. 18. 
Touching the perpetual virginity of Marie. The celebration of Easter. The baptism of infants. The jesuits halting. And the Scriptures sufficiency.  Chap. 19 
How the Church proves the Scripture. The jesuits plainly confess that the Scripture alone proves itself to be God's word. The Scriptures are principles, indemonstrable in any superior science. All other testimonies resolved into the testimony of the Scripture. Touching evidence and the compossibility thereof with faith.  Chap. 20 
A continuation of the same matter, touching the Church's authority in giving testimony of the Scriptures. The Scripture proves itself to be God's word. The light of the Scripture. How we are assured of the Scripture by the Spirit. The reason why some see not the light of the Scripture. The Papists retiring to the Spirit. And casting off the Fathers. A Council is above the Pope. The Pope may err.  Chap. 21. 
Which is the Militant Church. And the Catholic. The Church of the elect invisible. A rancid conceit of the jesuite.  Chap. 22. 
Reports made by Papists, that the Protestants are without religion. They hold the justification of the Gentiles, without the Gospel or knowledge of Christ. No salvation but in one true religion. The Repliars' tergiversation.  Chap. 23. 
Touching the implicit faith that is taught in the Church of Rome. How defined by them. In what sense the Protestants mislike, or allow it. Arguments made for it, answered. The ancient Church allowed it not.  Chap. 24. 
Touching the necessity and nature of the Rule of faith. And how it is revealed and communicated to all men, that none need to despair.  Chap. 25. 
The text of 1. Tim. 2.4. God wils all men to be saved, etc. expounded. The diverse expositions that are given of those words. God's antecedent will, as they call it, is not his will formally. The antecedent and consequent will of God expounded diverse ways.  Chap. 26. 
The properties of the rule of faith described. None follow private spirits more than our adversaries. How the Rule must be unpartial, and of authority.  Chap. 27. 
The Repliars' tergiversation. The state of the question touching the sufficiency of the Scripture alone, and the necessity of the Church ministry. The speeches of divers Papists against the perfection of the Scripture. In what sense the Scripture alone is not sufficient.  Chap. 28. 
Touching our English translations of the Bible, their sincerity and infallibleness. How the unlearned know them to be sincere. The new translation lately set forth by the King's authority defended. Momus in his humour. The subordination of means.  Chap. 29. 
Touching the obscurity of the Scripture. The necessity of means to be used for the understanding of the Scripture proves not the obscurity. Traditions debarred. A Council is above the Pope. The Scripture, of itself easy to all that use it as they should. The certain sense of the Scripture and the assurance thereof, is not by tradition.  Chap. 30. 
Touching the all-sufficiency of Scripture to the matter of faith. It shows itself to be God's word. Luther's denying S. james epistle. How the Papists expound the light of the Scripture. What they, and what we hold about the authority of the Church. How express Scripture is required.  Chap. 31. 
Wherein the place 2. Tim. 3.15. alleged to prove the fullness and sufficiency of the Scripture alone, is expounded and urged against the jesuits cavils.  Chap. 32. 
Touching private spirits that expound against the Church. Such private expositions refused by the Protestants. And yet the Papists have no other. All teaching is to be examined even by private men. Certain propositions showing how the Church teaching may be, or may not be examined and refused.  Chap. 33. 
How a private man is assured he understands and believes aright touching the last and highest resolution of faith. Luther's rejecting the Fathers. Occhams' opinion that no man is tied to the Pope or his Counsels. The Beraeans examined the doctrine that they were taught. The faith of the believer rests upon divine infused light. M. Luther sought reformation with all humility. Scripture is the grounds of true assurance. Who the Pastors were of whom Luther learned his faith. His conference with the Devil. By the Church the Papists mean only the Pope.  Chap. 34. 
The Papists pretending the Church, have a further meaning than the vulgar know. The Pope's will is made the Church's act. Base traditions expounded to be divine truth.  Chap. 35. 
The Papists pretending the Church mean only the Pope. How and in what sense they understand the doctrine of the Apostles to be the rule of faith. They hold that the Pope may make new articles of faith. And that the Scripture receives authority from him. Unlearned men may see the truth when the Pope and his crew sees it not. And they may judge of that they teach. The jesuits dare not answer directly.  Chap. 36. 
An entrance into the question touching the visibility of the Protestant Church in the former ages. Wherein it is briefly showed where and in whom it was.  Chap. 37. 
Not the Church, but the Scripture is the rule. The question touching the visibleness of the Church, proceeds of the Militant Church. In what sense we say the Militant Church is sometime invisible. The Papists think the Church shall be invisible in the time of Antichrist. Their contradictions touching Antichrist briefly noted.  Chap. 38. 
The Papists cannot prove the Church to be always visible in that sense wherein we deny it. The diverse considerations of the Church distinguished. His quarrels made for our doctrine touching the Churches several states answered. The faithful only are true members of the Church. Upon what occasion the question touching the visibleness of the Church first began.  Chap. 39 
The Papists are enforced to yield the same that we say touching the invisibleness of the Church. Their doctrine touching the time of antichrist's reign. And the state of the Militant Church at some times. Arguments for the perpetual visibleness of the Church answered. In whom the true Church consisted before Luther's time.  Chap. 40. 
Again touching the visibleness of the Church, and in what sense we say it was invisible. Many things innovated in the Church of Rome. The complaints of Vbertine and Jerome of Ferrara. All the Protestants faith was preserved in the midst of the Church of Rome. A jest of the Terinthians. What religion hath bred desperation.  Chap. 41. 
A narration of a popish Doctor and professor of divinity in the Church of Rome, translated out of Acosta de temp. novissimis. lib. 2. cap. 11. and Maiolus dies canicul. tom. 2. pag. 89. and inserted for answer to that wherewith the jesuite reproaches our Church in the last words of his precedent reply.  Chap. 42. 
An objection against the Repliars' Catalogue. divers articles condemned by the Fathers mentioned in the Catalogue, that the Church of Rome now uses. What consent there is between antiquity and papistry.  Chap. 43. 
Whatsoever the Fathers of the primitive Church believed, is expressed in their books. The Repliar is driven to say, they held much of his religion only implicitly. What implicit faith is according to the Papists. The death of Zeuxis. The Father's writ that which cannot stand with papistry.  Chap. 44. 
The whole Christian faith delivered to the Church hath succeeded in all ages, yet many corruptions have sometime been added, how, and in what sense the Church may err. A Catalogue assigned of those in whom the Protestants faith always remained. What is required to the reason of succession.  Chap. 45. 
The Fathers are not against the Protestants but with them. Touching the Centuries rejecting of the Fathers. The cause of some errors in the Fathers. Gregory's faith; and converting England. The Papists have been formal innovators. How they excuse the matter.  Chap. 46. 
The errors broached by the later Divines of the Church of Rome. Their errors maintained by that Church, and their writings to good purpose alleged by Protestants. How that which they speak for the Protestants is shifted of. One reason why we allege their sayings. That which is said in excuse of their disagreement, answered.  Chap. 47. 
Counsels have erred and may err. What manner of Counsels they be that the Papists say cannot err. It is confessed that both Counsels and Pope may err.  Chap. 48. 
Touching the Counsels of Niece the second, and Frankford. How the Nicene decreed images to be adored. What kind of Council it was. And what manner of one that of Frankford was. Frankford condemned the second Nicene. Touching the book of Charles the Great, and of what credit it is.  Chap. 49. 
The ancient Church held the blessed Virgin to have been conceived in sin. The now Church of Rome holds the contrary.  Chap. 50. 
Touching Service and prayer in an unknown language. The text 1. Cor. 14. expounded and defended against Bellarmine. The ancient Church used prayer in a know language.  Chap. 51. 
The Church of Rome against all antiquity forbids the lay people the use of the Scripture in the vulgar language. The shifts used by the Papists against reading: spiteful speeches against it. Testimonies of antiquity for it. The Repliars' reason against it.  Chap. 52. 
The marriage of Priests and Bishops lawful and allowed by antiquity. Some examples hereof in the ancient Church. The restraint hereof is a late corruption. Priests were married even in these western parts a thousand years after Christ.  Chap. 53. 
Wherein is handled the doctrine of the Church of Rome touching the worship of images, and the distinctions whereby the same is maintained are examined. And our adversaries finally convicted of giving God's honour to their images. The ancient Church was against image worship.  Chap. 54. 
The Pope's supremacy was not in the ancient Church: neither is it acknowledged at this day by many Papists. Nun Brigets speech touching the Pope. And Cyrils' riddle.  Chap. 55. 
The Communion in ancient time was ministered to the people in both kinds. An innovation in this point, in the Church of Rome. The pretences used against the Cup.  Chap. 56. 
Touching Transubstantiation. It was made an article of faith by the Lateran Council 1200 years after Christ. How it came in by degrees. The Fathers never believed nor knew it.  Chap. 57 
Touching the first coming in of errors into the Church, with the Persons, Time, and Place. Purgatory and pardons not known in the ancient Church, nor in the Greek Church to this day. The true reason why the ancient prayed for the dead.  Chap. 58. 
The Pope's supremacy. Single life of Votaries. The worship of images. The merit of works. The sacrifice of the Mass. And the Popish doctrine touching original sin: all of them innovations. The disagreement of Papists in their religion. And namely in their doctrine of original sin.  Chap. 59 
Objections against the outward succession of the Pope. Touching Peter being at Rome. His Pastoral office, what it was. Whether there be any divine authority for the Pope's succession. Not certain what Popes have succeeded one another. Vacancies divers times in the Sea of Rome. The story of the woman Pope, of what credit. The Pope hath been an heretic, and erred è Cathedra. The Pope succeeds by Simony and violence. Such succession is a nullity by his own law. The Pharisees in Moses chair, how? A. D. defends the succession of an ASS. Many Popes at once. Vrbanus his cruelty towards the Cardinals. What the Protestants say touching the succession of the Church of Rome.    

Good Reader, in the printing of this Book, some faults are committed: some whereof are not great: but the rest, noted with this mark, * concern the sense or reading more materially. The marginal quotations some excepted I could not correct, but hope they are reasonable perfect. Correct them as followeth.  
The first number signifieth the page, the second the line.  
Page. 3. line 26. shreene, screen. 8. 12 it is good, it is a good. 11 25. down, down. 14. 11. use, useth 16.14 Lonel, Lovel. 20. 11.* her mot er, our mother. * and it was, when it was, 24 19 Cuyckins, Cuyckius, 34 5. * the king. Now may, the king: how may. 15. * possible, impossible. 36.5. not so much, not much. 38. 11.* seventh, second. 45. 26. Anard, Ruard. 60. 2 * of mind, of wind 71. 3 ingeniously, ingenuously. 80. 27 * serveth, seemeth. 81 16. * against him his, against his. 86. 26. compiled fraud, fraud compiled. 94. 35. * see, see. 103. 13. Sato, Soto. 105. 15. * uncertain. And, uncertain, and 106. 11. please. pleaseth. 109. 1. * to heaven, to have. 112.28. the like, the life. 113 5. * in cause, in state. 116 1. * charging. Chargeth. 138. 9. * one promise, on praemis. 145. 20. none, now 14●. 10. * Casenists, Casuists. 148. 10. this, a poor, this poor. 14 and them, put it forth. 34. to believe, not to believe 156. 27. contrived, contained. 157.30 yeed. yield. 174 4 * in themselves, in the Scripture. 180. 35. * visible, invisible. 181. 14.* invisible members, invisible, the members. 188. ●6. answer for, answer. For. 192. 23. that which, the which 194. 11 Henriquex, Henriquez. 199. 33. * Eusebius, Justine Martyr. 200. 20. daughter, son. 213 9. * this of God, this will of God. 12. as they call, such as they call. 226. 21. or* his purp. for his purp. 228. 5. none, Noah 229. 18. * no man's, one man's 230 2. by oaths, by others. 12. * the works eu●●, the sin even of corrupt mass was not, but was. 238. 29. * deliberate, not deliberate. 245. 34. * the cause, since, the conscience. 259. 29. * He replies sec. he replies: Secondly. 264. 23. says it over, saith it over and over. 265. 25. or translation, of translation. 275. 28. * motion, notion 286. 31. lastly, put it out, and set the figure 7 that follows there. 287. 16. conceived, contained 21. dives, diverse. 299. 1. * what heresies, what he replies. 304. 35. * in the fourth proposition, in four propositions. 311. 3 is is it, is it. 315. 9 * first and last, highest and last. 318. 12. RIGHR, RIGHT. 319. 26. may do, can do. 335. 16 knows not, knows not. 341. 20. we might impart, we impart. 367. 32. * universal, univocal. 368. 7 manner, matter. 373. 21. held in the substance, nor held the substance. 381. 37. ever by, even by 403. 18. them them that, them that. 414. 30. * yet many yet the main. 437.9. Nan●us, Nonnus 448. 26. Council, Counsels. 460. 15. had been, have been. 471. 24. * as the profit, all the profit. 485. 18. * Then I have, Thus I have. 450. 8. And expounds how, and he expounds how. 505. 6. not with, not only with 504. 23. * to any other, to ●●●ther. 511. 31. * be revolved, be renewed 513. 33. * showed them, thawed them. 527. 17. that contrary, the contrary. 529. 4. * Again whether, Again whereas 532. 1.* that it is sin, some that it is sin. 11. That it, some that it. 13. That it, some that it. 544 4. * alleged, alleging. 29. VNLERA, VNLEAR.  
In the Margin I observed by the way.  
Pag. ●7. letter c c. 52. Ch. 53. 23. r orthodonograph, orthodoxagraph. 24. *. see c. 53. see Ch. 52. 38. r Sano, Saxon. 67. c. Chap. 35. 1 Ch. 34. 1. & 35. ●. 77. ● * Ch. 54. Ch. 53. 95. d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 108. u put forth the whole quotation **. 113. d Abulens. parad. l. 34. Abul. parad. l. c. 34. 121. * came to, come to. * 133. line 15. action, occasion. * 148. * cap. 35. and 36. chap. 34. and 35. * 158 * cap. 28.3. chap. 27. 3. * 194. * see vers, see Gerson 261. e Philocrat, Philostrat. 280. i noted afore, noted afore pag. 62 in the marg. 528. ● Abul. in Sent. Abul. in Deuteron.   

THE WAY TO THE TRUE CHURCH defended against A.D. his Reply.  

CHAP. 1.  
1. The title of A.D. his reply. A wonder not far from Rome. 2. Writers, not putting their names to their books, censured by the jesuits. The Pope's jester. 3. The name of Minister and Priest. 4. Church the pillar of truth. 5. The way of Catholic discipline is the way of the Scripture. 6. The jesuits Method in persuading to Papistry. 7. The manner of A.D. his replying: and his promise to rail.  
THis A.D. having taken my book into his correction, entitles what he hath written against it, A REPLY made unto M. Anthony Wootton, and M. john White, MINISTERS: wherein it is showed, that they have not sufficiently answered the TREATISE OF FAITH; and wherein also the truth of the chief points of the said TREATISE is more clearly declared, and more strongly confirmed by A.D. student in Divinity. Wherein I mislike divers things. First that he styles it A REPLY, which is nothing less: when he replies neither to all, nor in form to any thing; but only repeating the conclusions and arguments of some part of the Treatise mentioned; and without any order, making choice of what he lists, in my book, to confute, he sets down my answers imperfectly: and skipping from one thing to another, and dissembling or quite omitting the strength and substance of that I writ, he replies to few things in comparison: and most an end occupies himself in rehearsing things that he should have defended. This is a sorry kind of Replying, and 
a We hold it UNWORTHY the title of an Answer wherein all the authors best reasons are dissembled, and quite omitted. B●●arl. protest apol. p 61  unworthy the Title, especially in these days, when our Seminaries have challenged to themselves such an opinion of substantial dealing, and going throughstitch with every thing they take in hand, and the poor Book having been so terribly threatened. They have had it now four years to blow upon, and many heavy imputations have been laid upon it, by no mean persons of their sect, that would seem to have skill and courage; and is all now resolved into this poor REPLY? If they thought it unworthy the answering, why would they meddle with it? If they would needs be meddling, why have they not done it sincerely and in form? I have 
b Onus eccl. p. 30. n. 13.  read; how not far from Rome, there hath been heard in the air as it were the noise of an army, and blowing of trumpets, and going off of guns; as if there had been some great business towards: and yet when men have come near to view, they have seen nothing but a heard of swine, and the footings of certain strange beasts upon the ground: this, be like, was to warn the Pope, that the noise of his champions, and clamours of his people, was but a meteor, that would end in a little gruntling and trampling.  
2 Next, I mislike the concealing of his name, and shrouding of himself under a couple of letters: yet because the ordinary practice thereof seems to have legitimated it, I will forbear all other kind of censuring, and only in the words of three of his own side, let him see what I might say of it. The first is 
c Search p. 16.  Walsingham: When I came to view and peruse the book—, and finding it to be without name of author, having only a most bitter intitulation; I began first to marvel at that, because I did see no reason why any Protestant writer should conceal his name in so worthy a matter as is the defence of his religion—: for which his labour and learned travel, he might assuredly hope for so great praise and commendation, not only from men, but reward from God also; whose truth and Gospel he should acquit from such and so great blemishes of falsehood and untruth, as were by the adversaries thereof objected against it. So he. The second is Cardinal Bellarmine: 
d Tract. de potest. sum. Pont. adu. Ba●cl. praefat.  He that set forth Barklies' book, neither put to his name, nor the name of the Printer, or place where it was printed—: he was afraid belike, and not without cause, either that he should be punished or discommended for it—. These are no signs of a good work. For he that evil doth, hateth the light, lest his works be reproved; whereas he that doth the truth, comes to the light, that his works may be known to be of God. joh. 3. The third is jesuite Becane: 
e Quaest. Batav opusc. tom. 3. p. 140.  Yea, but you have another name, which you dissemble. What's the reason? Your Hollanders will think one thing; but I think another. MY OPINION IS YOU DO IT, THAT YOU MAY THE MORE SECURELY LIE AND PLAY THE IMPOSTOR. It is not said for nothing in the Gospel, He that evil doth, hateth the light: and in the Epistle to the Thessalonians, They that are drunk, are drunk in the night. And certainly, IF YOU WERE A GOOD MAN, YOU WOULD NOT BE ASHAMED OF YOUR NAME, to confess who you are: now when you do otherwise, how can any man choose but suspect you? When you fly the light, WHO WILL NOT TAKE YOU FOR A NIGHT-BIRD? But Papists may do that which is not permitted us. For 
f Poggh. face●.  the Pope was wont to have his jester, when he told him tales to make him sport, to do it standing behind a cloth, in a corner, for being outfaced. And it should seem our Seminary-priests have obtained the same favour; that standing out of fight, behind the shreene, they may be the bolder to utter that, which, being bashful, they would be loath to speak bare faced. If this be so, I am satisfied: good reason every Order enjoy his privilege.  
3 In the Title also he calls us Ministers, 
g Such is the ordinary and common ignominy and dishonour, to be reputed a MINISTER in the English Church, that I suppose very few or no Catholic Priests of that nation would change their HONOUR, even in England, with so base and infamous a generation. R. B. resolute. relig. p 54. Of which HONOUR of Popish Priests in the times past, one writes: Nam homines Ecclesiastics sua cul●a ita profanarunt, & s●, & ordinem suum, quod iam planè, & à magnis & à paru●s, in toto mundo, habeantur despectui. joh. Mar. Belg. de schism. & council. pag. 467. ex Alan. Chartier.  in contempt. But we have the vantage of him: for whereas he cannot show one place in all the new Testament, where the Preachers of the Gospel, and Pastors of the Church, are entitled Priests, as he is: albeit the name may be used well enough in his due sense, by those that are the Ministers of jesus Christ, and not the vassals of Antichrist; we can show where they 
h Act. 13.2. & 20 24. 1. Cor. 4 1. 2. Cor. 3 6. & 5.18. Eph. 3.7. & 4.12. & 6.21. Col. 1.7.23.27. & 4.7 1. Thess. 3 2.1. Tim. 4.6. 2. Tim 4.5.11.  are called Ministers, and their work ministery: and our contentment is, that being called to the work of this ministery, we carry a Name that imports no more. Whereas mass-priests, and Soulepriests, Friars, jesuits and Seminaries, not only are the titles of those that wear Christ's livery, and do service to Antichrist, but are become the names of the unnaturallest monsters and wickedest persons that live in the world; as all the Churches and States thereof, this day, feel by experience, and this kingdom can well testify.  
4 Under the Title he writes this sentence of Scripture: Ecclesia est columna & firmamentum veritatis: The Church is the pillar and firmament of truth. 1. Tim. 3. He had read belike in 
i Rat. 3.  Campian, that the name of the Church would terrify the Protestants, and make them pale for fear: and therefore he would affix it: though I, for my part, will think he do it not so much to terrify us, as to gull his own with the name of the Church. If he had, in any good fashion, defended the exposition and application he made of it, 
k THE WAY, § 15. Reply, pag. 223  in his Treatise, he might have used it the better, and it would have made us the more afraid: but having left it in the lash, where I answered it, he is not worthy so fair a text should come under his title. Nevertheless, there is good use to be made of it against himself. For if the Church be the pillar of truth; and the Papacy, which he strives for, in his Reply, be the pillar of lies: than it will follow, the Papacy is not the Church. The first proposition is his text. The second, neither his Reply nor Treatise can put by. The conclusion therefore is the truth. And so the Text may keep his place to good purpose.  
5 On the backside of the same page, he hath placed in Latin and English this sentence of Saint Austin, de util. cred. c. 8. If thou seem to thyself to be sufficiently tossed, (to wit, in doubts, questions, or controversies of faith) and wouldst make an end of these labours, follow the way of the Catholic discipline which did proceed from Christ himself by the Apostles, even unto us; and from hence shall be derived to posterity. I guess his mind was to allude to the title of my book, which I called THE WAY: and because therein I defend the way of the Scripture, followed by the universal Church, which he likes not; therefore he brings S. Austin revoking us to the way of Catholic discipline. This man, sure, hath a strange apprehension, 
* Denique addimus Ecclesiam, quae nunc Pontifici Romano obtemperat— true ac merito Catholicae nomen sibi vendicare; eademque ratio ne fidem eius Catholicam esse censendam & appellandam. Suar. de fens. si● Cathol. adverse. Anglic. sect. ere. l. 1. c. 12. nu. 9  to think, that wheresoever the Fathers use the word Catholic, they understand thereby this New-Roman-Catholicke: and when they speak of Catholic discipline, they understand his Church proposition determined by the Pope: when they affirm nothing else, but the doctrine contained, and written in the Scriptures to be Catholic, and the discipline whereby men are directed, both in faith and manners. So S. Austin expounds himself 
l Cap. 6.  in the same place: Believe me, whatsoever is in those SCRIPTURES, is lofty and divine; THERE is altogether IN THEM, the truth and discipline most accommodate for the renewing and repairing of our minds, and so qualified, that there is NO MAN BUT FROM THENCE HE MAY DRAW THAT WHICH IS SUFFICIENT for him, if to the drawing he come devoutly and godly, as true religion requires. So also Theophilus Alexandrinus 
m Epist. 1. Pas. chal. pag. 377.  calls the medicines taken out of the holy Scriptures, for the curing of heresies, the ecclesiastical discipline. The WAY to the Church therefore, and S. Augustine's WAY of Catholic discipline, are both one, because they both are the way of the Scripture, and that sufficient and easy way, which the simplest that is may find, though the Pope with his authority and traditions intermeddle not; and he that will seek the Catholic discipline by Saint Augustine's consent, must do it in the SCRIPTURE, which I doubt will not greatly please this jesuite, who hath spent all his time in groping for it about the Pope's stool, he being the man, when all is done, that must determine this discipline, and 
* Cum Pontisex definite, Ecclesia per caput suum loquitur. Suar. ubi sup. c. 2●. nu. 7.  the mouth whereby their Catholic Church must utter and expound it.  
6 In the next page follows a Table of the contents of his book: and after that, a short Preface to the Reader, wherein first he commends his book that I confuted, and his Method used therein, to bring men to resolution, and then shows how he was urged, by our writing against it, to this Reply: excusing himself for the plainness of his style, and concluding with a grievous complaint of our unsincere dealing; which he proceeds to show in that which follows. The Commendation that he gives his Method, may not be denied: for we allow Apes to hug their young ones, and heretics to conceit their own devices; and I must confess, it is good round Method indeed for the purpose, and profitable, for them, to be followed. For if you will see it, this it is: Good Eve for your soul's health, I were ready to shed my best blood: and therefore have ventured my life, as you see, (upon the entertainment you know of, such as I find in the hiding rooms) to bring you home to the Catholic Church, your Method is this: Close up your eyes, and examine nothing, but obstinately renouncing the Protestants, and stopping your ears against the Scriptures, in all things believe us, who on my own word are the Church of God; and submitting yourself to the direction of your ghostly father, without more ado be resolute, and you shall easily be persuaded of our Roman faith. This is a good sure Method to resolution, and makes many resolute, indeed: and the jesuite having found by experience how kindly it works with good natures, had reason to commend it; though in any indifferent judgement, it be a poor one, as will appear. The rest of his Preface is trash: come we to that which is material.  
7 After the Preface, to show my unsincere dealing, whereof he complains, he makes a title of examples of gross untruths, gathered out of M Woottons, and M. Whites books; by which the discreet reader may see how little sincerity or care of truth they have had: and consequently, how little credit is to be given to their writings: and having dispatched M. Wootton, he comes to me with these words: Now to come to M. White, whose book is said to do much more harm among the simple, then M. Woottons' doth; I hope I shall lay open such foul want of sincerity, and care of truth in him, as it will plainly appear, that those which shall hereafter take harm by giving credence to his words or writings, shall show themseluis to be very simple indeed. So that, in all probabilie, he should have some great matter to show, that makes so large an offer; and yet every one of these examples will prove in the scanning, so many testimonies of his own weakness and immodesty: when having had the book four years in his hands, and so many of his consorts to join with him in replying, (all which time their rage against it, and desire to discredit it, and vows to confute it, appeared well enough) yet now at the last can object no other examples of untruth, than these. And that we may know he comes furnished, he calls for a railing room to brawl in. 
* Jtaque ne in posterum quidem, Lipsi rosas: ogita sesamam aut papaver, sed spinas si as a●●ynthium & acetum. Lips. con 1.10.  I must crave the reader's patience, if contrary to my usual course, he find me in this passage something sharp; because M. Whites outrages are such, as require more than an ordinary sharp reprehension. Let him therefore take the Gun room, or if he will the 
n Lucian jupit Tragoe 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  cart where in old time they used to rail freeliest. I am indifferent what he say, having propounded to myself to answer not his scurrility, but his Divinity: though he keep so good promise, in this he threatens, and his insolences both in railing and bragging be such, that it were able to dissolve into some passion or other, the best patience that an adversary can have. And had he as well performed the gross untruths he undertakes to show, as he hath his sharpness which he promises, he might have gone for a good paymaster: but to rail, and run away, is women's fight. If he would have men to think my outrages are such, as he says; he should have expressed some of them, and quoted the pages of my book, where the reader might see them; which when he doth not, nor cannot do, the reader may suspect he says this to make way for his own railing. For the Book itself will testify what I have done, better than any thing I can say here; wherein there are, I deny not, many sharp and bitter speeches against the abuses of the Church of Rome, but they are not mine, but the Papists, whom, being urged thereunto, I allege: it is one of the things that hath always made me have a base opinion of our adversaries; that these foul tales of their Church, being blabbed out by themselves, yet they would never give us leave to report them again, or mention them. Other outrage or railing then this, I have used none, nor never did in all my conflicts with them, neither is it my manner to practise or defend it: but by this my last will & testament, I bequeath it in legacy to himself, and 
o Namely to D. Harding, Stapleton, Sanders, Parsons, Euans, Surius, Fevardentius, Great. ferus, I'acenius.  his Clergy, and other his consorts, whose spirit I have reasonably tasted these many years together. 
p Jude v 9  The Angel disputing with the Devil, about the body of Moses, durst not blame him with reviling speeches, but bad the Lord rebuke him. According to which example I wish there were less bitterness, and more going to the argument in their writings. For mine own part, 
q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Isid. Pelus. pag. 453.  I think it not so meet to speak every thing that my adversary deserves to hear, as to let nothing pass me, that becomes not myself.   

CHAP. II.  
1. The Papists trampling of the Scriptures, and preferring their Church. 2. The Church of Rome touched in her honesty, and reported to be a whore. The conditions of a whore.  
Pag. 22.  A. D. First in his epistle Dedicatory, in which he speaketh not to simple men, but to his most reverend Fathers in God, Toby the Archbishop of York his Grace, Primate and Metropolitan of England: and to George Lord Bishop of Chester, his very good Lords: he affirmeth to our disgrace, that all our speech is of the Church, no mention of the Scriptures, or God our Father, but of our Mother the Church: the which he confirmeth with a scurrilous comparison, Much like, saith he, as they writ of certain Ethiopians, that by reason they use no marriage, but promiscuously company together, it cometh that the children follow the mother, the father's name is in no request, but the mother goeth away with all the reputation. Thus he. Now how loud, and lewd an untruth this is, I refer to the judgement of any man almost never so simple, supposing he have had any ordinary conversation with Catholics, or be in a mean measure acquainted with their words and writings. For what man is so simple, who cannot discern this to be evidently contrary to our ordinary practice and common speech, and contrary to our profession, and public doctrine of faith? And is it then possible, that a Minister, whose name is White, should have a face so black, as without blushing, so soberly to assevere such a notorious untruth, especially in the sight or hearing of those his good Lords, and reverend Fathers in God? Surely it is marvel, that those his reverend Fathers, or some for them, did not examine and mark this and other his gross untruths; or marking them, that they would, for their credit's sake, suffer them to pass (especially twice) to the print. And much more marvel it is, that in stead of reproving the man for such his shameful untruths, (which had been the duty of reverend Fathers in God) they would permit him to use their names in the forefront or beginning of his book, by which men may suppose, that they by their authority do canonize, or at least give countenance to so many his gross errors, and untruths, as are found in this his book. 
1 THe first example of my outrages and insincerity, is in those words of the epistle Dedicatory: All their speech is of the Church, no mention of the Scriptures, or God our Father, but of our mother the Church, etc. Wherein if there be any trespass, yet he shows it but meanly, by saying it is a lewd and loud untruth; and referring the matter to such as are acquainted with Catholics, and their writings. For this, and the railing that follows, and his empty marveling at the BB. that would permit me to say so, purges not Papists from the imputations, but charges them deeper. For S. Chrysostome says, that 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. hom. 22. Rom.  when a man's adversary falls to scolding, it is a sign he is guilty. And if the truth must be tried by the words and writings of his Catholics, than the matter will go well enough on M. Whites side. For how should the common people, of whom I properly spoke, talk of the Scripture, which they know not, 
b THE WAY, § 2. n. 3. See Staplet. relect. pag. 535.  which they are forbidden to read, 
c THE WAY § 1. n. 3.  which they must believe contains the least part of that which belongs to their faith? The Rhemists 
d Annot. Luc. 12 11.  teach lay Catholics, when any of them are called before the commission to answer, that he is a Catholic man, and that he will live and die in that faith which the Catholic Church teaches: and this Church can give them a reason of all the things which they demand of him: and he that answers thus, they say, saith enough, and defends himself sufficiently. Here we see, all their speech is of the Church, no mention of the Scriptures. And he that dwells among them, or hath occasion to discourse with them of religion, shall find the truth of that I say. And this is agreeing with the public profession, and doctrine of their Church. For it is holden, 
e Quod ad nos pertinet, certior & fi●mior est Ecclesiae authoritas quam Sripturae Az●●. Inst. tom. 2 l 5 c. 24. See Abulens. q. 13 proem in Matth. Caiet. apol de author Pap. par. 2. c. 13. ad 5. Dried, de eccl dogm. l. 2. c. 3. ad 4.  that the authority of the Church is greater than of the Scriptures. 
f Stapl relect. controu. 4. q 5 pag. 494. 495.  That the Church's authority is it that makes us receive the Scripture, and every thing that is to be believed: yea, the Church is to be heard MORE CERTAINLY than the Scripture, because her doctrine is MORE MANIFEST AND EVIDENT THAN the doctrine of the Scripture—. And 
g Medin. de rect. in Deum fid. l 5. c. 11 refert Azor. to. 2 p. 602.  our faith, whereby we believe the matters of faith, is reduced to the authority of the Church; because we give NO CREDIT TO THE SCRIPTURES, but for that the Church propound the canon thereof to be believed. And finally 
h Stapl relect. pag 548.  the Church hath the power to expound the Scripture, from whom we must receive the sense thereof: 
i Pag. 550.  which authority of the Church, is the tower and bulwark of our faith, whereto every faithful man must retire when any question ariseth. Pope Gregory the 13 
k D. 40. Si Papa annot.  says, Men do with such reverence respect the Apostolical seat of Rome, that they rather desire to know the ancient institution of Christian religion from the Pope's mouth, then from the holy Scriptures: and they only inquire what is his pleasure, and according to it they order their life and conversation. By which words of theirs it is clear, that I said the truth. For to what purpose should they allege or mention Scripture for themselves, that thus place all the power, virtue and efficacy of it in their Church; that in every issue, fly, for the exposition of it, to their Church? that find such wants and defects in it, that all things must be supplied out of their Church? If there were any error in my speech, it lay in another point, because I did not say, all their speech is of the Pope, no mention of the Scripture, but of the Pope. I should in stead of the Church, have said, the Pope of Rome. For 
l See below c. 35 n. 1 THE WAY. digr. 16. n. 4.  howsoever they use the name of the Church, yet thereby they mean nothing but the Pope's will: he is the Church's mouth, and head, and from him the Church receives her prerogatives: neither do we know or believe any thing to be the doctrine of the Church, or sense of the Scripture, unless he deliver it. This is their doctrine.  
2 So that I might with good discretion compare our adversaries to such as follow their mother only, and their mother herself to one of the Ethiopian kind, without any imputation of scurrility. And the jesuite should not have set up his comb at the BB. about the matter; for they will answer, that a great Archbishop, Thomas Becket of Canterbury, long afore them, did more than they have done, for they only heard me utter the speech, but he uttered it himself, 
m jewel. def. apol. pag 762.  Our mother Rome is turned whore for money: which being so, I could not imagine, when I writ, how our adversaries should call upon any, but their mother, whose children they were of the surer side. But if he think I have slandered his mother's honesty, the Court is open, let him take his action against me, and he shall hear my answer. Francis Petrarch a most learned man 
n joh Mar. Belg pag. 441.  called Rome, The whore of Babylon. Budaeus: 
o De Ass. pag. 590. & 601.  If we consider the face and habit of our Clergy (speaking of the Church of Rome) we shall be constrained to say, the spouse hath renounced her husband, and bidden him deal in his matters himself—. Now the spouse of Christ forgetting the band of marriage, not only lies from her husband, but without all respect of shame, goes up and downe the streets and high ways, and plays the whore, from Province to Province. Matthew Paris: 
p Hist. pag. 535.  The unsatiable greediness of the Roman Church so prevailed, that all blushing set apart, like a common and shameless whore, she prostituted herself for money to all comers. joannes Saris buriensis: 
q Policrat. pag. 402.  An incestuous wooer is descended into the bosom of the Church. Mantuan: 
r Silu. l. 1.  Mars is become father to our Romans, and a whore their mother. Onus Ecclesiae: 
s Cap. 43. n. 7.  God by the Prophet Ezekiel speaks to the Church of our days, in these words: Thou hast committed fornication exceedingly, and art not satisfied, but hast multiplied thy fornication upon earth, and dost all the works of a whore, and of an impudent woman. All these that thus speak, were of the Church of Rome's bedchamber, and attended on her, and saw who came in and out, and therefore their testimony proves that I said of her. Besides, Nun-Bridget 
t Meretrix solet esse Procax in verbis, Leui● in moribus, Pulcra fancy, Ornata vestibus. Revel. l. 1. c 15.  says, the marks of a whore are four, Shamelessness in words, Levity in manners, A fair face, And gay clothes. All these agree to the Church of Rome, as every body knows: therefore I demand judgement, and my charges against the jesuite.   

CHAP. III.  
1. The Order of the jesuits, why and to what purpose erected by the Pope. They are that to the Pope, that the janissaries are to the Turk. 2. Their abodements.  
Pag. 24.  A. D. It would be too tedious to touch all particulars which may be observed in this his Dedicatory epistle; in which like a man run mad or frantic through fury, he raileth and rageth against our religion, and the professors thereof, without care either of truth, sincerity, modesty, or common civility. I will, as I purposed, give the reader only a taste, leaving it to his discretion to think of the rest, as he shall see cause. The jesuits (saith he) which are the Pope's janissaries, that guard his person, and were brought in now at the last cast, when the state of the Papacy was at a dead lift, to support the weight of the main battle, have pestered the land with their writings, and filled the hands and pockets of all sorts of people with their papers: yea fans and feathers are lapped up in them, wherein it is admirable to see, how presumptuously they take upon them, in disgracing our persons, belying our doctrine, and coining and defending strange opinions of their own, never heard of afore, etc. How false this his relation is, in divers respects, the discreet reader, if he be acquainted with jesuits, will easily discern. As namely in that he saith, the jesuits be the Pope's janissaries, &c: that they have pestered the land, and filled the hands and pockets of all sorts of people with their writings, etc. that they are admirably presumptuous in disgracing the persons of Protestants, and in belying their doctrine, and incoyning and defending opinions never heard of afore. 
1 THe jesuite, it should seem, was the son of some passionate woman, that can neither give over afore he be tedious, nor go forward quietly: but in stead of giving his reader a taste of my insincerity, will give him a taste of his own immodesty and intemperance. I said, the jesuits were the Pope's janissaries, that guard his person, brought in to support the main battle, when the Papacy was at a dead lift: whose writings farced with lies and novelty, fill the land, and as followeth: but mark his answer, The discreet reader, if he be acquainted with the jesuits, will easily discern, how false this is: and so leaves it to his discretion to think as he shall see cause. This is a simple reply, when after a boisterous fit of railing, if the reader favour him not with his discretion and old acquaintance, he hath nothing to say, and to beg credit against that we see with our eyes, and palpably feel under our fingers. For 
a Maff. ubi infra  this order was first confirmed by the Pope in Octob. 1540 the reason that moved him thereto, was that the Papacy being at a dead lift, they might help to support. The words of Maffaeus a jesuite himself, are, 
b Lib. 2 c. 12. vit. Ignat. Loiol  that when Ignatius, by the means of Cardinal Contarenus, offered the Pope the form of their Order, (wherein among other things it was contained, that to the other three solemn vows which are common to other Orders, they would add a fourth special vow; that whithersoever it should please the Pope to send them, about the affairs of religion, into the countries of Christians or infidels, thither without grudging, stay or reward, they would readily go) as soon as he had viewed it, he said, This is the Spirit of God, and he hoped God himself had stirred up the courage of this band, AT SUCH A TIME, to be no small help to THE AFFLICTED STATE of the Church. Ribadineira, another jesuite, 
c Vit Ignat. l. 2. c. 18.  says, God by a singular kind of providence, sent Ignatius to help his Church NOW WHEN IT WAS READY TO FALL, that he might set both himself and his sons the jesuits to be a wall for the house of God—. Let us set before our eyes the end why the society of the jesuits was instituted, which verily was the same which the present time of the Catholic Church required: The society therefore of jesus, was chief erected for the defence and propagation of the faith, as is contained in the apostolic letters of their confirmation—. Since the birth of Ignatius THE LIGHT OF OUR RELIGION WAS IN GREAT PART OBSCURED—: and therefore it was by the incredible providence of God, that this new Society should be ordained principally for the defence of faith. This plainly shows, how and to what purpose that Order was erected; since which time it is easy to see, that 
d See Byzar. rer. Persic. lib. 9 pag. 213. & P. jou. hist. l. 14. sub sin.  what the Turks janissaries are to him, the same have these been to the Pope, being also drawn by tricks and devices out of every country, to furnish the Papacy, and execute the Pope's ambition and lust, under the pretence of Religion; no otherwise, nor honestlier, than the Turk 
e In queis, ob confirmatam bellicae laudis opinionem, in omni Turcarum expeditione, & summa virium, & vincendi certissima ratio semper fuit. jou. l. 13. p. 138. See Byzar. ubi sup.  takes the children of Christians, and by education makes them his best soldiers, and use them to fight against their own parents and country: by which device the Pope supplied the want of learning and discipline, that began to fail in his Church, which otherwise by this had been at a low ebb. They say, God raised them up; we, that Satan. They cry out, that Luther was raised out of hell by the Devil, (who yet was the servant of Christ, and worthy of eternal honour) they must give us leave to say the same of Ignatius and his companions: which of us say true, must be tried by the doctrine that Luther and the jesuits teach; and Christ jesus, the judge of all controversies, one day will determine.  
2 If I complained (to them that should mend it) of their filling all things with their presumptuous and heretical writings, until it comes to fans and feathers, that also is truth; for to omit our own knowledge, and the Legends of collapsed Ladies, they object it one against another, how 
f Quod lib. p. 39  the women dote, and run riot after them—, and 
g Pag. 65.  to huff and ruff it out, a council of women must be called to cock a hoop, and that 
h Pag. 39  a jesuite is a pearl for a Lady. And touching their innovating all things, their belying our doctrine, their coining of new opinions, their turning Popery into jesuitisme, their reducing all things into their own course, and Machavillian managing of the Papacy, I refer the reader to the declarations made against them by their own fellows the Seminaries, if he list not himself to see these things, every day in the year, with his own eyes.   

CHAP. FOUR  
1. Some examples of the jesuits rapine. 2. Touching the present Pope Paul 5, and his nephew Burghesi. The jesuits devouring those that entertain them.  A.D. He passeth from the jesuits to the Seminary priests, 
Pag. 24.  of whom in his railing humour, he saith, that since the Harpies were chased away, and Bel was overthrown, never was there such a greedy and ravenous Idol, as the Seminary with his back and belly, sinking and drowning all that entertain him. But truly he might better have applied this calumnious comparison (of Priests with the Harpies, and the Idol Bel) to most of the married ministery, and to those their hungry and proud brats, that love little to fast, and desire much to go fine. as also that other gross similitude of Moloch the Idol of the Ammonites, with the seven aumbries, ready to receive Meal, Pigeons, a Sheep, a Ram, a Calf, an Ox, etc. (which he apply to the same Seminaries) suiteth much better with the said married Ministers, then with the Seminaries. For the Seminaries as they live single, have no need of so many aumbries, but can be contented with such poor pittances from hand to mouth, as the charity of good people will afford them: whereas married Ministers, especially if they have many children, had need to have many aumbries filled with all such stuff, as was in the said aumbries of that Idol, to wit, Meal, Pigeons, etc.: saving only that they love not to have an aumbrie to entertain any body's children besides their own. 
1 THis is the third example of my insincerity, wherein he gets it miss in the first word, hoping, that when I begin to speak of the Harpies and Moloch, I pass from the jesuits to the Secular priests, as if this imputation (which indeed is a foul one) were laid only on the Seminary; but he is deceived: for I pass not from the jesuite, but stick upon him still, and avouch indifferently of them both, that since the Harpies were chased away, and Bel was overthrown, and Moloch polluted, there was never such a greedy and ravenous Idol. For proof whereof, I referred myself to the Quodlibets, written by one that lived and died a Seminary Priest himself, and therefore could best tell the conditions of a jesuite. He says, 
a pag. 112.  they collect and hoard up great sums of money; 
b pag. 85.  they have cozening and coney-catching tricks to pick a man or a woman's purse, and to get all their lands by it. And he shows divers instances, 
c p. 89. & inde.  of Gilbert and Drury, that got from divers gentlemen all they had, whereof the proverb arose, when one was cozened of that he had, Such a one is Gilberted, Such a one is Druryed. They tell of Gerard the Priest, that cozened Drury of Suffolk of his manor of Lozel, and other land to the value of 3500 pounds: of M. Anthony Rowse cozened of a 1000 pounds: of M. Edward Walpoole, of whom the said Gerard got 1000 marks. Of M. Linacre being prisoner in the Clinke, they got 400 pounds. Of 1000 pounds drawn from young Huddleston. Of M. Wiseman cozened of all his land. Of M. Nic. King, M. Roger Lee, the Lady Lonell, Mistress Haywood, Mistress Wiseman, Mistress Fortiscus, all of them not Gilberted or Druried, but Gerarted. And he tells of divers gentlewomen, whom they persuaded to become Nuns, and to give them their portions: one of which portions sometime amounted to above 200 pound. And many such like reports he makes touching their molochisme in other things. Waldensis the Friar 
d Sacramental part 2. pag. 217  makes much ado with a follower of Wickliff, and a married priest, for spending a young man's inheritance of 40 pound a year: and says, he was detected thereof before the Bishop of Norwich: but how true or false soever that were, it was nothing to the cheating of our jesuits, whom the most that entertain them, find to be the ruin of their houses. What myself knew in Lancashire, and many worthy gentlemen of that country will testify touching this matter; the sinking and drowning of many a house that hath entertained them, this reply must not think to outface with a little boldness: but give me leave, for my own part, to abhor them the more, that so desperately deny what our whole State knows to be true. And I pity the Recusant that sells the Seminary, his ghostly father, the fox case for half a crown, and buys of him again the tail in hobby-horses for ten groats.  
2 But whereas the jesuite says, the comparison of Moloch would sort better with married Ministers, and their hungry proud brats, that love little to fast, and desire much to go fine; I can easily quit him: for his Priests fruitfull-single life will not abide the ripping into, whatsoever his stomach be against Minister's marriage. And if I had been of his counsel when he writ this, he should have mentioned it with less passion, unless he could have disputed better against it, 
e Reply pag. 281, & 282. See below c. 53.  where it fell in question. But if our brats be that which sticks in his stomach, let him have patience but a little, and I will ease him. The Pope that now is, hath 
f The former Popes, to cast some cloak over their infamy, were wont to call their children their nephews. Guicciard hist. pag. 8. Engl.  a Nephew that is a Cardinal, called Burghesi, dearer to him then any of our children are to us: 
g Nows homo suppl. ad imp. pag. 22. & inde.  it is reported of him, that his father Paul hath given him, in Ecclesiastical revenues, 250000 scutes by the year; all Benefices without cure are given him. The Pope creates such Cardinals, as in the next election may stick to his Nephew: young men, ignorant and base, that will be content with small revenues, and hang upon his Nephew, Lantes, Capponus, Barberinus, Spinola, Tontus, Lanfranke, de Lenis, and Philonardus. Tontus was a poor Attorney, and an Organist of a Church. Lanfranke a Surgeon in a hospital for the pox. De Lenis and Philonardus, vicar's of hell. Such poor, ignorant, and base Cardinals he makes, that his Nephew may buy their voices the next election to be Pope. This is written from Rome, by one that it seems hath not been far from his elbow, and is a Roman Catholic, but yet would have a general Council to reform these things, and create a lawful Pope, which 
* Ecclesiae vero Pastore caret; intrusi Papatum depraedantur. p. 1.  he says, they have wanted, ever since Sixtus Quintus. Now the jesuite may the better digest Ministers brats, when he sees his holy father hath one of his own, that thus devours more than all the Ministers children in England do; and no bodies children beside, can be entertained for him. This Burghesi is a fit log to hue a Moloch out of, and his uncle a priest that faithfully ministers to his Idol. And to purge his humour of railing, yet a little better, let the jesuite be advised, that how hungry soever our Ministers brats be, yet I am certain, and readers will confess, they are neither prouder nor finer then disguised Seminaries, whose apparel, entertainment and furniture, is well known to be both rich and costly, at the least: yea such, that were they of God, and not the Harpies▪ I speak of, as things stand with them, they would not use, but shroud themselves at a lower rate, and with less charge to their friends; and were I a jesuite lurking in the land, as they do, I would disguise myself in motley, rather than my maintenance and lust should thus overthrow such as gave me entertainment. What I have seen with my eyes on the back of a Seminary, I may not speak; but it is the report of our 
h Dialog. between a Secul. priest and a lay Gentl. pag. 90  adversaries▪ themselves, that a jesuite hath worn a girdle, hangers, and rapier, worth ten pounds; a jerkin worth as much; and made himself three suits of apparel in a year; his horse, furniture and apparel valued at a hundred pounds; he spent by the year four hundred pounds without inheritance. That which maintains this, and all the furniture of our swaggering gallants, the jesuite may not call poor pittances from hand to mouth: for I am sure he scorns it, and will leave it to hungry Ministers for them to live upon, who would be glad, many a one of them, of one moiety of an ordinary Seminaries maintenance, and yet cheerfully and effectually labour in the Church, and are contented with that they have, and possible keep more true hospitality, than 
i The jesuits having gotten judas his office etc. Quod lib. pag. 37 70  they that have gotten judas his office to carry the bag; and my assurance is, that there be few that shall come to read this, but will witness with me, and can call to mind, many such Ministers; and testify the general experience that our State hath of our Seminaries covetousness and single life, that 
k Non est quod fraudem obducas ô amice; ex ensue lu enim in curia Romanam commi. grass Harpyas comperium est, ibique tam domicilium c●nslitu●sse Alph Arragon. quem refert Panormit de dict. Alph. p. 3.  I might well compare them, as I did, to ravening Harpies, and wide gorged Idols, that under pretence of religion and persecution, seek nothing but their backs and bellies, and the satisfying of their lust and ambition. For we cannot but speak the things we hear▪ and see; and we speak it not in hope to make them ashamed. For words will not chase Harpies from the prey; but in commiseration of our people, that suffer themselves thus to be abused, and in detestation of that hypocrisy, that under pretence of long prayers devour widows houses.   

CHAP. V.  
1. Touching the rapine and covetousness of the Romish Clergy. 2. And their single life: and what the world hath thought thereof.  
1 LEt not the jesuits, with talking of their single life, and poor pittances from hand to mouth given them of charity, go about to hide that which cannot be: for (to supply what was wanting in my former speeches) the young wolves will take after their dam. The Church of Rome their mother, of whom they are come, hath been noted for a ravening wolf in all ages, that would never be glutted with spoil. So long as Gaude matter nostra Roma standeth in Vrspergensis, her insatiable ravening will not be forgotten. Thus he 
a Chron. p. 321.  writes, that was well acquainted with her gourmandize: Rejoice, O Rome our mother, to whom the catarackes of the treasures of the earth are opened, that to thee may flow rivers, and heaps of moneys in abundance. Rejoice in the iniquities of the sons of men, the price of whose wickedness is given thee for thy recompense. Be merry with Discord, thy helper, which is broken out of the infernal pit, to heap up to thee manifold rewards of money. Thou hast gotten that thou thirstedst after; sing a song merrily, for by the wickedness of men, and not through thine own religion, thou hast conquered the world; not men's devotion, or conscience, but their wickedness and contentions bought with a price, have drawn them to thee. Matthew Paris 
b Hist mayor. pag. 56.  saith, that the most gracious Sea of Rome, never used to refuse any that used 
* Dummodo albi aliquid, vel rubei intercedat  the intercession of gold and silver. And that 
c Pag. 335.  the Roman Church was so inflamed with greediness, and open covetousness, that Ecclesiastical goods not being sufficient, it shamed not to disinherit, and make tributary, Emperors, Kings and Princes:— and Churchmen, whose words were sweet as honey, and supple as oil, yet were unsatiable horseleeches, saying the court of Rome is her mother, and our nurse, and it was the root of all evils, doing the deeds not of a mother, but of a stepdame: and 
d Pag. 747.  he saith, it was like a gulf, devouring up all men's revenues, and the possessions almost of all Bishops and Abbots. And 
e Pag. 890.  he tells the answer, that a B. elect made to King Henry the third, moving an accord between him and certain Monks, with whom he was at variance: Knows not your innocency yet, the dropsie-thirst of the Romans, which hath been felt so often? I know (saith the King) it will never be staunched; to whom the Elect, Nor shall the spring of my treasure ever be dried up, till enough be powered into their wide chaps, and spongy maws, that I may have my will of the Monks. Theodoric. of Niem, 
f Nem unio. pag. 379. Laberi. th' c. 37.  The Pope's exchequer is likened to the sea, whereinto all rivers fall, and yet it overflows not; so into it are daily carried from all parts of the world many pounds of gold, and yet it is not filled; wherein there is a generation, whose teeth are swords to eat the poor upon the earth, and many horse leeches, crying, Bring, Bring—. 
* O iustissimae g●ntes nostrae, vel quasi rectè cum infernali bus furijs, seu Harpyis, & Tan talo, sortem siti bundi posituri, qui nunquam satiamur. p. 380.  O most just nation of ours; like infernal furies, or Harpies, and Tantalus, that are never satisfied. Alanus Chartier: 
g Refert joh Mar. Belg. de schism. pag. 467  Covetousness hath so blinded the understanding of Clergy men, that thereby their damnation is evident; and it hath brought such calamity upon the temporal goods of all men, that it threatens ruin to the whole Church. Onus Ecclesiae: 
h Cap. 23. nu. 1.  Our Priests now adays fish not for men, but for honour:— plying temporalties, and loving themselves, but neglecting the love of God, and their neighbour; worse than the laity, sucking the blood and milk of the Church. Picus Mirandulanus in an oration to Pope Leo, 
i In Fascic ren. expet. & fugi●● pag. 209.  calls upon him to restrain the greediness of priests, and set them bounds to their mischievous covetousness; and to revenge the patrimonies of godly men, which they have eaten and devoured. This made Paulus Langius cry 
k P. 875.  in his history, Peter, Peter, Christ had thee not milk and shear, but feed, feed. All histories and monuments of times complain of this more than I can say.  
2 The States of the Empire in Germany, about the year 1523, exhibited 
l Grauamin● Germaniae.  a hundred grievances touching this matter: wherein they showed, that 
m Nu. 1.  all things in the Church of Rome, tended to the drawing of money. To get money they dispensed with 
n Nurse 1.  fasting, with 
o Nu. 2  the times of marriage, with 
p Nu. 3. & 6.  adulteries, incest, perjury, murder, theft, usury. 
q Jam aut numerandum, aut absolute. one sibi carendum est: nempe quod in hoc reseruati sunt, ut vel indo nummorum al●quid eis accrescat. nu 5.  The Pope and his Bishops reserved cases to themselves: 
r Sed & in futurum im●une, ut eas transgred● l●ceat, indulto promittitur. n. 6.  gave licences aforehand to sin. Sent pardoners abroad, 
s Processitque eousque eius mali serpigo, ut pauperum ac simplicium illorum, sanguinem vorent & medullan. n. 7.  that for money and yearly rents, promised the country people, such or such a Saint should receive them into their tuition, that they should not be subject to the disease whereof the Saint was patron. 
t Nu. 8.  The Friars so peeled the country, and lay upon honest householders, that they eat them out of doors. 
u Nurse 10.  When suits arose, the parties were drawn to Rome, and could not have their cause determined in their own courts at home: 
w Nu. 11 & 12.  or had judges deputed them by the Pope. 
x Nu. 13.  Immunities and exemptions were granted. 
y Nu. 14.  The Presentation of Benefices void was given to courtesans, and unable persons: 
z Nu. 18.  who also had devices, by the rules of the Pope's Chancery, to disturb the possession of the honestest beneficed men that were. 
o Nu. 19  Such as were officers or familiars to the Pope or Cardinals, defrauded m●●● of their right of patronage, that they could not get the Benefices and dignities, whereof they were lawful patrons. 
p Nu. 20. & ind●.  The Pope's Chancery overruled all things. 
q Nu. 34. 35.  Men were excommunicated for trifles, and many times for nothing. 
r Nu. 40. 41.  Clergy men got other men's inheritances. 
s Nu. 47.  Bishops admitted vile and unable persons to be priests. And for the 
t Nu. 48.  consecration of 
u Nu. 49.  Churches, 
w Nu. 50.  altars, Churchyards, 
x Nu. 52.  baptizing bells, 
y Nu. 52.  making new Holidays, 
z Nu. 53. 54  confirming and consecrating Abbots and Abbasses: drew great sums of money. 
a Quae ipsi immani vendunt pretio. nu. 54.  The Pope daily made new offices, which he sold for much money. 
b Nu. 56.  Bishops and their officers, for money drew men out of the temporal courts into their own courts, and there most unreasonably molested and peeled them. 
c Nu. 67.  They punished sin by the pursed 
d Nurse 68  released none, that was never so unjustly called into their court, until they had received money. 
e Nu. 75 76.  Officials for money suffered and dispensed with usury, concubinage, adultery. 
f Nu. 78.  They put the poorest tradesmen that were, to pay them a weekly fee. Ostlers, Bakers, Butchers, Millers, Badgers. 
g Nu. 82.86.  Priest's would minister no Sacrament to such as were not able to give them money. 
h Nu. 91.  Bishops not only tolerated the concubinage of Priests for money, but made such as were continent and lived chastened, to pay rend for a concubine; which being paid, they might live continently or keep concubines as they would. 
i Nurse 93.  The Monks and Priests visiting the sick, drew them to give in legacy what they had to themselves. These are some of the Roman Churches Harpismes, whereby it may appear what manner of persons the Clergy men of Rome are, where they rule. There is 
k Pro libert. eccl. Gallic. adu. Rom. aul. dosens. Paris. Curiae.  a book that the Parliament of Paris offered to Lewis the 11, King of France, touching this matter. It is said 
l Nu. 67. & inde  there, that if Decrees of the Pragmatical sanction were not maintained, there would yearly be transported to Rome out of the kingdom, above a thousand thousand crowns. And that the Pope had had in the three years lust past, for Archbishoprickes and bishoprics a hundred thousand crowns. For Abbeys a hundred and twenty thousand crowns: for other dignities a hundred thousand crowns. For Benefices five and twenty hundred thousand crowns: for divers things there mentioned, above two hundred thousand crow●es. 
m Nunc verò, arte Romana, sic exhaustum est aurum ex popularium loculis, ut aerea tantùm, minutaque nobis moneta relicta sit: & nummularijs pontem dica tum iam pu●rilium pupparum & icuncularum fictores incolant. nu. 71.  By which means the shops of Goldsmiths were drawn so dry, that none but such as made puppets and children's gauds, dwelled in them. In England what was raked together, 
n See B. jewel def. apol. p. 757  is as monstrous; that an Englishman might well say to the Pope, as 
o joan. Sarisb. Polycrat. p. 329.  he did: All things are had for money, and without money nothing will be had—. The Bishop of Rome himself, is grown heavy and intolerable to all men—. They ransack countries for their spoil, as if they would rake the riches of Croesus together. There is a God, that not only hath left this abominable extortion to be a mark of Antichrist, but will also in his appointed time be revenged of it. Saint Austin 
p De verb. Doni. ser. 19 in fin.  says, We cannot say, no man convinceth us of extortion, no man chargeth us with violence: for now and then flattery extorts greater booties from widows, then can be extorted by torments. All is one with God, whether a man possesses other folks goods by violence or circumvention, as long as any ways he holds that which is none of his own.  
3 There is as much to be said to his girding at our marriage and children; which he would never have done, if he had remembered either how weak they are in disputing against it, or how vile and brutish their own Priests single life is known to be. Let him that refuses the Protestants Clergy for their marriage, first inquire whether he can mend himself by following the Pope's single Priests. Theodoricus of Niem 
q Nemo. unio. pa 5. 377.  writes, that in the parts of Ireland and Norwey, according to the custom of the country, It is lawful for the Bishops and Priests openly to keep their concubines; and when twice a year they visited the parish priests that were under them, they used to bring their concubines with them to the house of the said priests; neither would their concubines suffer the Bishops to visit without them. And the same fashion was observed by the Priests of Gasconie, Spain, and Portugal, and the countries adjoining; WHEREBY there were, in a manner, more children borne in those parts, then in lawful marriage. Vdalricus the Bishop of Auspurg 
r Epist. ad Nic. de Coelib. cleric pag. 1255. orthodonograph.  writes, that when a certain Pope sent to draw a pool for fishes, there were taken up and brought him above six thousand infants heads; whereupon he thought it was better to marry. Aluarus Pelagius: 
s Planct eccl. p 64. col. 4.  The Priests live most incontinently, and would to God they had never vowed continency, especially in Spain and Regricolae; in which provinces the children of lay men are not many more than the children of clergy men:— for many years together they rise up every day from the side of their concubine. Alanus Chartier: 
t Refert joh. Mar. Belg. de schism & council. pag. 464, & 467.  Our Churchmen have made their Order most vile and contemptible for their viciousness; they are despised of all, both small and great: for the Ministers of the Church leaving the use of marriage, follow wandering, dissolute and unlawful lusts, that I say no worse. Nun Bridget: 
u Revelat. p. 64  The Canons marry no wives, because of their canonical name, but impudently they have concubines, day and night. Priests also and Deacons keep whores, that with their great bellies walk among other women. Picus of Mirandula: 
w Orat. de morib. reform ad Leon. pag. 209.  The priests in that time slept with the women at the door of the Tabernacle, but in our time they break into the sacred houses, and fie for shame, women are brought in to satisfy their lusts; and boys that Sodomitically are abused against nature, are lent and given them by their parents, and these boys afterward are promoted to be priests. The Princes of Germany at a Diet at Norimberge, 
x Gravam. German. n. 31. & 91  affirmed, that their priests being forbidden by the Canon laws their lawful wives, did nothing but attempt the chastity of matrons and virgins, the wives, daughters, and sisters of lay men: and in most places the Bishops and their officials, not only tolerated priests concubines for a sum of money, but made continent priests also that lived without concubines, to pay taxation of concubinage, and so they might keep if they would. Cuyckins a Bishop of Ruraemond, hath lately written a 
y Spec. concub.  book against concubinary priests, wherein he reports a hundred of these things, and 
z Paraenet. epi. pag. 19  be saith of the Canons of a certain Church, that they lived in whoredom, scarce two in a College were free. There is no history or monument, but testifieth these things; and all travelers and countrymen know the same to be true. The Roman Catholic may now, if he please, make a stand, and well bethink himself what such virtue there is in his priests single life, that the lawful marriage of Ministers should so presumptuously be entertained, 
* See c. 53.  which in the best ages was allowed, and never misliked by the universal Church, till the Romish faction for the more liberty of their unbridled lust, quarreled and refused it.   

CHAP. VI  
1. Touching the turbulency of our jesuits and mass-priests in the State, and their unthankfulness to the King. 2. The seditious doctrine of the Church of Rome leading to all disobedience against the magistrate, and rebellion, whensoever occasion shall serve. Tyrones' rebellion and the Spanish Invasion promoted by the Pope. 3. A catalogue of about forty Emperors, Kings and Princes, destroyed or vexed by the Pope and his Clergy. 4. A consideration upon the doctrine of the Pope's power to depose Kings.  A. D. He falsely and slanderously chargeth both Priests and lay Catholics with disloyalty to the magistrate; affirming, 
Pag. 25.  that all our religion is full of doctrine whence proceedeth monsters of conspiracy against the State. Then turning his poisoned pen against the Pope, with ministerial railing rhetoric, he saith, This is the practice of the man of Rome: in the palace of Constantine, where formerly of old, godly Bishops had wont to be entertained, he stalleth up purpled Machiavillians, and unreasonable beasts, to pray upon Constantine's successors, and devour the Princes of the earth: and to every pillar of our Churches almost in Europe, he chaineth wolves and Lybards to fly at our throats, whensoever we come within their reach: and these herds that we see, of Friars, Seminaries, mass-priests, jesuits, pretending to be pastors of our souls, be nothing else but so many Bears and bloody Tigers chained to the pillars of our Churches, the fatal enemies of Princes and their people, to suck their blood, etc. And again: The Turks Lions at Constantinople, with feeding and familiarity of their keepers, become tame and gentle: but the Pope's savages of Rome, by no forbearance or mercy showed them, can be mollified: no gentle usage can tame their nature, no clemency will reconcile them, no diet will suage their thirst of blood, etc. I might relate more out of this spiteful epistle, but this is sufficient to let the reader see the man's humour of shameless, scurrilous, and slanderous lying, and of outrageous, malicious and pestiferous railing. 
1 I Charged the Priests and jesuits with two things: their doctrine against the peace and security of kings and magistrates; and their barbarous practices against their lives and kingdoms. Wherein because they have exceeded the cruelty of beasts, and the nature of the untamablest monsters that are, according to the manner of describing such creatures, I compared them to Tigars' and Lions, etc. This the jesuite, as if he were one of them himself, storms and rages at, as you see, as if he would burst the chain. But to no purpose: for I alleged the words of Possevine, Zamorensis, and Carerius, with some particular examples, to confirm my saying; the which either he should have satisfied, or have confested the accusation, or have holden his tongue. Now when he doth none of these, but calls that railing and lying, which all the world sees to be true, there is little hope he will ever be tamed. My discharge is, that I have written nothing but what 
a Revera imperialis felicitas Papali semper impugnatur in vidia Pet. de Vin. ep. 31. l. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Anna Porphyro. Alc. xiad. p. 32.  the Kings of the earth have heretofore complained of themselves, and found by grievous experience, to be true; and what 
b Praef. monito. omnibus Christianis monarc. etc.  his sacred Majesty that now is, (the mildest Prince that ever ruled) is constrained to complain of openly to all the world. 
c Novit ille qui nihil ignorat, quod Praesidentes Romanae ecclesia suae astuta & sagaci prudentia, secundam temporum vari etatem, sua variarunt statuta: modo imperium sublimando, modo paulatim deprimendo; sed si quilibet esset contentus fuis limitibus & unus alium coad invaret, sicut facere teneatur, puto quod pax esset in universo orb. Alberic. de Rosat. quem refert jacobat. de council. pag. 779. A.  And had I read nothing in the stories of former times, nor known their doings in ages past, yet I have seen enough within these twenty years, to teach me what to think of mass-priests, and all that follow their doctrine. And if I said, that no forbearance could mollify them, no gentle usage can tame their nature, no clemency reconcile them; I did it because the forbearance that Queen Elizabeth used toward them, many ways, and all her time, was admirable; yet while she lived, most wretchedly they sought her blood, and most barbarously handled her fame; and now she is gone, with no less fury and rage they prosecute her memory, that was the incomparable Princess of the world. And when his gracious Majesty that now is, ever since his reign hath used them with all respect, releasing many of their fines, granting pardon to divers jesuits and Mass priests, granting them divers suits, forbearing to execute his most just proclamations against jesuits and Semi●●ies; using finally most gracions and favourable speeches of Papists, better than they deserve, in Parliament, and otherwise; yet this cursed generation of Amalek could never be reconciled, but still conspired his death many times over; and then the ruinating of all by POWDER: and at this day, by books openly published against him, traduce his Name, Religion, and Government; that the meanest subject in his kingdom could not be baselier entertained, with railing and presumption: Seminaries and jesuits leading the ring in all this; and applying thereto the holiest things of their religion; so far forth, that hardly an instance can be given of any injury or unloyall part against him, since his blessed reign among us, but these Roman priests have been the authors: 
d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Simoc. hist Maurit. p. 200.  as if the sacred majesty of a kingdom were no less to be played with then children's trifles. You that are thus without humanity, unnatural, ●●pious, cruel, murderers, how can you be called Christians? 
e Pro Athan. lib. 1. pag. 65.  says Lucifer Calaritanus to the Arrians; and I to the jesuits.  
2 But forsomuch as these Assasines so desperately deny their profession, and plead their innocency, denying that which their religion teaches so manifestly; I will take a little pains to confirm what I have said, something more fully; the rather because they bear the world in hand we bely and slander them; and such as know no more than the jesuits tell them, imagine it is so indeed: and therefore I say still, and here write it in capital letters, that THE CHURCH OF ROME TEACHES DISLOYALTY AND REBELLION AGAINST KINGS, AND LEADS HER PEOPLE INTO ALL CONSPIRACIES AND TREASONS AGAINST STATES AND KINGDOMS: this I show by the doctrine and assertions of the chiefest Divines therein. Augustinus Triumphus: 
f Sum de eccl. potest. q 40. art. 1.  The Emperor of heaven may depose the Emperor of the earth, in as much as there is no power but of him. But the Pope is invested with the authority of the Emperor of heaven: he may therefore depose the Emperor of the earth. 
g Art. 3.  The Emperor is subject to the Pope two ways: first by a filial subjection in spiritual things, in as much as spiritual gifts from him, as from the fountain, are derived to the Emperor, and to all the children of the Church. Secondly by a ministerial subjection in his administration of temporal things. For the Emperor is the Pope's minister, by whom he administers temporal things. Aluarus Pelagius: 
h De Planct. eccl. l 2. c. 13. p. 3.  The Pope hath universal jurisdiction over the whole world, not only in spiritual, but in temporal things: albeit he exercise the execution of the temporal sword, and jurisdiction, by his son the Emperor, as by his advocate, and by other Kings and princes of the world. The Pope may deprive Kings of their kingdoms, and the Emperor of his empire. 
i Cap. 21.  The Pope may deprive him of the empire that is disobedient, and persecutes the Church. Such shall every Prince be expounded to be, that receives not the Pope's religion. Capistranus: 
k De Pap. & council. author. pag. 65.  The Emperor, if he be incorrigible, for any mortal sin, may be deposed and deprived. The sentence of the Pope alone, without a council, is sufficient ●gainst the Emperor, or any other. It is manifest therefore how much the Pope's authority is above the imperial celsitude: which it translates, examines, confirms, or infringes; approves or rejects. If he offend, he punishes, deposes, and deprives him: and when he judges his sentence to be unjust, he revokes and abrogates it. Thomas of Aquine: 
l 22. q. 12. art. 2  Any man sinning by infidelity, may be adjudged to lose the right of dominion: as also, sometime, for other faults. The infidelity of those that have received the faith, may sententially be punished in this, that they shall not bear rule over believing subjects: for that would tend to the great corruption of the faith—: and therefore so soon as any one, for apostasy from the faith, by judgement is denounced excommunicate, IPSO FACTO, HIS SUBJECTS ARE ABSOLVED FROM HIS GOVERNMENT, AND FROM THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE, whereby they were bound unto him. And lest it might be thought, that the meaning is only of such Kings as are unbelievers and apostates; mark how Cardinal Tolet expounds it: 
m Refert Allen answer to the book of Engl. Iust. p. 68  Note, that albeit S. Thomas named only an Apostata, yet the reason is all one in the Prince's case that is excommunicated. For so soon as one is denounced or declared an excommunicate, all his subjects be discharged of their obedience. For though the crime of a Prince be notorious, yet before declaration be made thereof by the Church, the vassals are not assoiled from obedience, as Caietan well holdeth: which declaration being made by the Church, they are not only discharged of their loyalty, but are bound not to obey him any more, except it be for fear of their lives, or loss of their temporal goods. As it was in England, in the time of Henry the 8: whom though the subjects were bound not to obey, after he was denounced excommunicate; yet for that he was a cruel man, and would either have killed or spoiled them, they were excused in obeying him. So he. Which words being reported by D. Allen, he adds of his own: Thus doth this notable Schoolman write; neither do we know any Catholic Divine, of any age, to say the contrary. But he deceives the reader touching the point of excommunication. For the doctrine is, that subjects are discharged from obedience, before the Prince be denounced or declared. Dominicus Bannes: 
n 22. pag. 590. idem Greg. à Valen. ubi infra.  Where there is evident knowledge of the crime, the subjects may lawfully, if they have strength, exempt themselves from the power of the Prince, before the sentence declaratory of the judge—. This conclusion is followed by Caietan, and it is the more common opinion with Thomas his disciples, and they approve it. Excommunicating therefore, or not excommunicating; denouncing his disobedience by the Pope, or not denouncing it, is all one to the discharging of his subjects from their allegiance, if the King give not the Pope contentment. 
o Name in casu posito, adest semper voluntas interpretativa Pontificis ratiha bitio ipsius. Sed haec voluntas obtinet vim sententiae. ban. ubi sup.  For the Pope's will hath the force of a sentence; and where the King will none of his religion, or will not subject himself to his lust, his will is always expounded to be against him; and the evidence of his deed obtains the force of a sentence. And so to proceed. Franciscus Victoria: 
p Relect. pa. 83  I say the Pope hath most ample power, because, when it is necessary to a spiritual end, he not only may do all things that secular Princes may, but he may create new Princes, and remove others, and divide their kingdoms, and divers other things.— 
q Nu. 14. p. 26.  If the Pope say that such a government tends to the detriment of spiritual health, or that such a law cannot be observed without mortal sin, or that it is contrary to the law of God, or that it maintains sin; then we must stand to the Pope's judgement, forsomuch as the King hath nothing to do to judge of spiritual things. Simancha Pacensis: 
r De Cath. inst. tit. 23. n. 11. p. 98.  If Kings or other Christian Princes become heretics, forthwith their subjects and vassals are freed from their government. 
s Tit. 45. nu. 25. pag. 209.  If any Prince be unprofitable, or make unjust laws against religion, or against good manners, or do any such like thing to the detriment of spiritual things; the Pope, observing due circumstances, may apply a fit remedy; even by depriving such a King of his government and jurisdiction, if the cause require it. D. Nicolas Sanders: 
t Visib. monar. pag. 70.  It is moreover to be supplied, that albeit the King, when he was first made, were a Christian Catholic, yet if afterward he become an Apostata or heretic, true reason requires that he be removed from his government—. 
u Pag. 71.  The matter is now brought to this pass, that it is fit an heretical King be removed from his kingdom—. 
w De clau. Dau pag. 25.  If any be so ravenous, that of a lamb he become a wolf, devouring the flock, stealing, slaying, and scattering the sheep, (which the Pope will say every Protestant Prince doth) if any thing betid this man otherwise then well, let him thank himself, that voluntarily runs upon the sword of the Church. Gregory of Valence: 
x Tom. 3. pag. 444 c.  If the crime of heresy or apostasy from the faith, be notorious that it cannot be covered, then, even before the sentence of the judge, the aforesaid punishment (of being deprived from his dominion and authority over his subjects) is in part incurred; that is to say, so far that the subjects may lawfully deny obedience to such a heretical Lord. Mariana a jesuite: 
y Instit. reg. pag. 61.  It is a wholesome meditation for Princes to persuade themselves, that if they oppress the commonwealth, and grow intolerable through their vices, they live upon those terms that they may be killed, not only lawfully, but with glory and commendations—. 
z Pag. 64.  All this pestilent and deadly brood (thus he speaks of such Kings as he calls tyrants; which are all Protestant Princes) it is a glorious thing to root out of the society of men—: it is therefore confessed, that a tyrant may be slain either by open force and arms, or by making assault upon his palace—: and if they that have killed him escape, they are honoured all their life after as great personages; but if it fall out otherwise, they die a sacrifice grateful to God and men. 
a Pag. 65.  No difference whether ye kill him with sword or poison. When Tyrone rebelled in Ireland, in the year 1602, the school Doctors of Salamanca sent the Papists there this determination, 
b Refert quaest. bipart. in M.G. Blackw. p. 156.  That the Bishop of Rome might by arms restrain such as opposed the Catholic religion. Tyrones' war against the Queen was just, and by authority from the Pope; and all Catholics were bound to further him in the same; and so doing, their merit and hope of eternal reward, should be no less then if they had warred against the Turk. But all Catholics had sinned mortally that had served the English against Tyrone, neither should they obtain salvation, or be absolved by any priest, from their sins, unless they repent and forsook the camp of the English. The same thing was also to be deemed of such as in that war had helped the English with arms and munition, or paid them the accustomed subsidies. But such as were in Tyrones' camp, in no case were traitors; nor had denied any due obedience, or unjustly occupied the Queen's lands, but rather had endeavoured themselves to set at liberty themselves and their country, being oppressed with unjust and impious tyranny, and to their power defended the orthodox faith: as Christians and Catholics ought to do. This was the resolution of the Pope's University in Portugal, for the confirmation of as vile and detestable a rebellion, as ever any was. The like was done in Desmonds' rebellion, D. Sanders being sent into Ireland to resolve and encourage the traitors, 
* Quem virum, magno l●terarum incommodo, dolenius defu●ctum, non multo post, in Hibernia, dumb in eam insulam veram religionem restituere contendit. joh Marian. tract. pro edit. vulg. c. 7. sub fin. pag. 56.  among whom, by the just judgement of God, he died in extremity and misery. In the year 1588., 
c Meteran. Belgic. hist. l. 15. p. 473.  when the Spanish fleet should invade our nation, for the promoting of that design, D. Allen was made a Cardinal, and sent into Flanders with the whole administration of the English affairs committed to him by the Pope: who, among other his practices, had the Pope's declaration printed in English, that should be published upon the arrival of the Fleet: in which declaration, the sentence of excommunication against the Queen, was confirmed, and she deprived of her kingdom, honour and dignities, and all men commanded to receive the Prince of Parma. The writings of this Allen, Parsons, Sanders, and Creswell: their Doleman, Philopater and Rossaeus (a book canonised by the Pope in consistory) are so scandalous this way, that I abhor to report the things they writ. Bellarmine hath taken upon him to be the principal patron of this doctrine; &, in maintenance thereof, hath published divers treatises. There was never any 
d And there was a wicked man, named Sheba, the son of Bicri, a man of jemini, and he blew the trumpet and said, We have no part in David, nor inheritance in the son of Ishai; every man to his tents, o Israel. 2. Sam. 20.1.  Sheba blew the trumpet of rebellion, as he hath done. His assertions are these. 
e De Pont. l. 5. c. 6.  The Pope, as chief spiritual Prince, may change kingdoms, and take them away from one, to give to another, if it be necessary for the saving of souls, as we will prove—. It is a good rule that the Gloss gives, when the Imperial and Pontificial laws, touching the same thing, are found to be contrary, if the matter of the law be a thing belonging to the danger of souls; then the Imperial law is abrogated by the Pontificial. 
f Cap. 7.  If the Christians, in times past, deposed not Nero, Dioclesian, and julian, and Valens the Arrian, and such like; that was because they wanted temporal strength. For that they might lawfully have done it, appears by the Apostle—. Besides, to tolerate a King that is an heretic or an unbeliever, labouring to draw men to his sect, is to expose religion to evident danger—: but Christians are not bound, nor may, with the evident danger of religion, tolerate an unbelieving King.— When Kings and Princes become heretics, or hinder religion, they may be judged by the Church, and be deposed from the government: neither is there any wrong done them, if they be deposed—. If any Prince of a sheep become a wolf, that is to say, of a Christian become an heretic; the pastor of the Church, by excommunication, may drive him away, and withal command the people that they follow him not, and so deprive him of his dominion over his subjects. 
g Cap. 8. § Praeterea cogere.  Any Bishop whatsoever, much more the Prince of Bishops, may exercise temporal power over them that have received temporal power over other. 
h Tract. de potest. sum. Pont. adv. Gul. Barcl. pag. 97.  When the Pope sees a Christian Prince infected with heresy, by the sentence of excommunication he separates him from the company of the godly: and lest he infect others, he absolues his subjects from the oath of their allegiance: and, if need so require, he commands them, under the pain of the same excommunication, that they neither reckon of him, nor obey him as their King. 
i An. ●089. n. 11.  Caesar Baronius alleges, and commends, out of Ivo, a Breve of Pope Vrbane the second, wherein it is pronounced, that they are no homicides who kill such as are excommunicate. For we do not judge them to be murderers, who burning with the zeal of their Catholic Mother, against such as are excommunicate, happen to have killed any of them. Gregory 7 commonly called Pope Hildebrand, 
k Baro. an. 1076 n. 32. Gregor. 7. epist. l. 2. ep. 55.  set down these among the Pope's privileges; that the Pope may use the arms of the Empire: that Princes must kiss his feet: that it is lawful for him to depose Emperors: that he is no Catholic man, nor so to be accounted, that agrees not with the Church of Rome: that he may absolve subjects from their fidelity to the wicked. Suarez the jesuite, in his 
l Def sid. Cath. adu. Angl. sect. erro. l. 6. c. 4. nu. 18.  late book against the King, writes thus: It is to be said, that after the sentence condemnatory is given against the King, by lawful authority, touching the depriving him of his kingdom; or, which is all one, when by sentence his crime is declared to be such, as by the law hath such a penalty imposed; then he that hath pronounced the sentence, or he to whom it is committed may deprive the King of his kingdom, even by killing him, if either he cannot otherwise do it, or if the sentence be justly extended to this punishment.— If the Pope depose the King, yet he may not be killed or expelled, but by those only to whom he shall commit the doing thereof: but if he commit the execution to no body, than it belongs to him that is lawful successor of the kingdom; or, if there be no successor, it shall appertain to the kingdom itself—: and therefore, as I said, only his lawful successor, if he be a Catholic, hath that authority; (to kill or depose him) or if he neglect it, or there be no successor, than the community of the kingdom, so that it be Catholic succeeds in that right thus to kill or expel him. Let the Reader here note, not only that the Pope and his Church teach and command the murder of God's anointed Kings, (which any heart, not stupefied with Atheism and reprobate sense, would tremble at) but appropriate the doing thereof to Papists alone, challenging the right of committing so execrable wickedness to appertain to none but Romish Catholics; and disdaining that any should have a hand in doing this execrable mischief against the King, but only a follower of the Pope's religion. This is the doctrine that I mentioned, and meant when I said, their religion was full of doctrine teaching conspiracy against the State: stirring subjects up to treason and rebellion. For when 
m Rex autem Jacobus (ut in libro primo probavimus) a crimine infidelitatis, s●u haeresis, & apostasiae, excusari non potest. Suar. ibid. c 6. nu. 10.  the King, by reason of his religion, is made an heretic, and reputed a persecutor of the Church, and disobedient to the Pope: and the Pope not only hath power, but is also bound by his place to excommunicate, deprive and depose such; and to absolve the subjects from their obedience to them; yea, howsoever, to rid the world of them, as of tyrants; it being the duty of all, and that under pain of damnation, and as they will be counted good Catholics, to obey the Pope in all things against the King. Now may any Papist warrant his religion from the imputation? and what security can he give to the State? what pawn to his Sovereign for his loyalty? that the King and his State may be certain he will never practise or stir against them. For if the Pope, by right, may do all this; and he believe, as his religion teaches, that he is bound in all things to obey the Pope, as the supreme Pastor of his soul, and monarch of the world; he must, whensoever occasion shall be offered, do his uttermost to fubuert the present State, and to plant the Pope's religion and jurisdiction. I will suffer myself per possibile to be persuaded, that many Recusants and some mass-priests love the King, and are true hearted to the State, and will never consent to treachery: but this is that I say; they cannot do this out of the principles of their own religion, which teaches them to obey the Pope against all the world: or if they say, the Pope errs, and his Divines speak untruly in these points; what infallible assurance can they have that they err not, and mislead them not in the rest of their religion? Let it be well and seriously considered, if it be not possible that they which unjustly and erroneously condemn the oath of allegiance, do as erroneously condemn the faith which by that oath they say is ratified? They shall give me leave to think, for my part, that as his Majesty, by the confession of so many Papists, holds the truth against the Pope, in the matter of the oath; so he holds the same truth against him in the matter of his faith: and they that deceive the Papists in forbidding them to take the oath, deceive them no less in forbidding them to come to Church, and communicate with our religion.  
3 The Pope's practice hath been answerable to his doctrine, in regard whereof I said as I did, that he and his clergy, were no better than so many Bears and Tigers, the fatal enemies of Princes and their people, to suck their blood. The which because the Reply outfaces with passion, I will demonstrate by examples, and then let the Reader judge if ever any savage Bear or Tiger filled his den with the bones of men and beasts, as this wolf of Rome hath his church with the spoils of Princes; there being no age, since his teeth were grown, wherein he hath not to the uttermost of his power, made havoc of their lives and kingdoms. LEO ISAURUS the Emperor of Constantinople, about the matter of Images, was excommunicated by Gregory the second: 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cedrens. p. 373. P. Diac. miscell. pag 617. Sigon. de reg. Ital. pag. 103.  he forbade the payment of his tribute, and gave away his country to the Lombard's, whereby he and his successors lost all the Western empire, which the Pope and the French King afterward shared between them. Baronius 
b An. 730. n 5.  says, the Pope, in this act, left a worthy example to posterity, that heretic Princes should not be suffered to reign in the Church of Christ. LUDOVICUS PIUS that was King of France and Emperor, 800 years after Christ, was thrust out of his kingdom 
c Sollicitato in patrem Gregorio Pontifice Rom. Papir. Masson. annal. pag. 104.  by the French Clergy and the Pope. The story is this: 
d Io. Mar. Belg de schiss. & con. p. 426.  A detestable and pestilent council assembled at Compendium, where the Clergy men of that time most impiously conspired against Lewis their sovereign Lord and Emperor. For they, as it is likely, taking it grievously that Lewis would reform the superfluity of their apparel, conspired against him, arming the sons (Pippin, Lewis and Lotharius) against their father; so that they put him him in hold, the Bishop of Rome consenting and helping them. Then, in the said Council, the same Bishops and Prelates condemned him, deposed him, and made him betake himself to a Monks cowl. CHILDERICKE that was King of France a little before him, 
e Aimoin. gest. Franc. p 403. P. A●●mil. p 71. Papir. Masson. annal. in Child. p 83.  was deposed, and thrust into a Monastery by the Pope's advice, who for that purpose discharged the French of their allegiance to him. A Bishop was sent unto him, to demand whether were fit to reign, Childericke that was of no authority, or Pippin that swayed the State: and he answered, it was better he were king that swayed the State; and so Childericke was deprived, and Pipin crowned. OTHO the GREAT, that was Emperor in the year 963, was in danger to have been cast out of Italy by Pope john the 12. 
f Jnde eijciendum existimavit. ●igo. reg. Ital. p. 271.  The stories say, he did his uttermost thereunto: and that 
g Luitpr. l. 6. c. 6.  the reason why the Pope hated the most holy Emperor, was not so much unlike the reason why the Devil hated his Creator. The Emperor, as we see, thinks and works the things of God, maintains the secular and ecclesiastical affairs with his power, adorns them with his manners, repairs them with his laws: Pope john is an enemy to all these things. HENRY the first, the Emperor, had Pope Bennet against him. 
h Benn. Card. vit. Hildebr. pag. 42.  The story says, he endeavoured to cast him from the succession of the Empire: for which purpose he sent a crown to Peter the King of Hungary, with this verse, The Rock hath given Rome to Peter, and the Pope hath given this crown to thee. HENRY the fourth, the Emperor, was so shamefully vexed by three Popes, one after another, Hildebrand, Vrbane, and Paschalis, that it is more than tragical. The quarrel that Hilderand picked against him, was about 
i Naucler. pag. 777.  investitures, and 
k Sigon. de regn. Ital. pag. 342.  simony, and 
l Confictis, conscriptisque super eo criminibus quae pessima & immundissima potuit odium & li●or excogitare Vita Henric. 4. pag. 46. in Fascic. rerum expet.  other crimes most untruly laid to his charge. But 
m Sigon. pag. 360.  Hildebrand excommunicated him, and absolved the subjects from their obedience; and first set up against him 
n Avent pag. 458. Baron. an. 1080. n. 16. Geneb. chron. 595.  Rodulfe the Duke of Sueden and Burgundy, sending him a Crown, with this verse engraven, 
o Petra dedit Petro, Petrus diadema Rodolfo. Avent.  The Rock gave the Crown to Peter, and Peter gives it to Rodulfe. But he miscarried, and perished miserably in his treason. Then 
p Ipsius Vrbani authoritate regnum adversus patrem, in Lombardia suscepit. Sigon. reg. Ital. p. 384.  Vrban, the successor of Hildebrand, set up Conradus his son, who made war against him; and dying 
q Neque à Mathildú unquam Pontificisque concilij, discessisset. Sigon. pag. 387.  in that rebellion, 
r Naveler. pag. 801.  another of his sons, who afterward succeeded him, was armed against him, 
s Vita Hen. pag. 49.  who took him prisoner, and forced him to resign up the empire. The extremities and indignities whereunto the Pope brought this noble Emperor, have filled the books of writers: among many other, this was one, 
t Benn. vit. Hildebr. pag. 41. Fr. de Ros●ers Stem. Loth. pag. 219.  that Pope Hildebrand would not release him from his excommunication, till on a time in the midst of winter, he came bare footed to Canusium, where the Pope lay, and so waited three days before the gates of his palace for his absolution, which he hardly obtained by the intercession of Duchess Matilda, and not long enjoyed, being still undermined with the Pope's treasons to his dying day. HENRY the fifth, his son, for maintaining 
3 Naucl p. 812.  the privileges of the empire, and the custom of his predecessors, touching the investiture of Bishops, 
a Vrsper. p. 272 & inde. Naucl. generat 38. Sigo. pag 409. & inde.  was excommunicate by Paschalis the second, and by him and his successors miserably vexed till his death. 
b Vrspe. p. 281.  The Bishop of Traiectum conspiring against him, and making an assault, was apprehended and put in prison, and afterward delivered. LOTHARIUS, his successor, 
c Otho Frising. l 7. c. 18.  about the same matter of investitures, 
d Otho. c. 20. Naucl. p. 826.  and about the right to the Duchy of Apulia, was molested and crossed by Innocent the second, who made 
e Rex venitante fores, iurans prius urbis honores: Post homo fit Papae, sumi● quo dante coronam. Radevic. p. 266. Sigo. p. 433.  the verses, touching the Emperors being the Pope's vassal, to be written in his palace at Lateran; whereupon afterward 
f Rade. ubi sup.  there grew so great contention in the time of Frederick. 
g Naucl. p. 827.  The same Pope joined also with the enemies of the Emperor CONRADUS, his successor, and hindered him that he should not recover the Empire. FREDERICK the first, called Barbarossa, was at the time of his empire, entangled with the Pope and his clergies treasons. The stories mentioning a dangerous conspiracy against him, 
h Vrsp. p 301. Naucl. p. 843.  say, the greater part of the Cardinals and the Pope's hands were in it; who took a great sum of money to excommunicate him. The despites and presumptions of the Pope against him are monstrous: 
i Papir. Masson de ep. utb. pag. 205. Naucl. pag. 856.  at last, to purchase his peace, he was feign to cast himself groveling upon the floor, while the Pope set his foot upon his neck, and insulted over him, with those words of the Psalm, Thou shalt walk upon the Lion and the Asp: the young Lion and the Dragon shalt thou tread under thy feet. HENRY the sixth, that was son to this Frederick, and his wife the Empress, 
k Rog. Houed, annal. p 689.  were crowned by the Pope, holding the Crown between his feet, and so setting it on their heads: and having thus crowned the Emperor, he struck it off again with his foot, to show that he had power to depose him. The next Emperor was PHILIP, his brother, against whom the Pope so set himself, that he said, 
l Vrsperg. p. 319 Naucl. pag. 898  either he would have Philip's crown, or Philip should have his mitre; and thereupon continually opposed himself, and stirred up Count Otho against him, 
m Vrsp. p. 324. Naucl. p. 906.  who miserably slew him in his privy chamber. After him succeeded OTHO the fourth; 
n Walsi●. ypod Ne●s●●. p. 46●. Naucl. p. 910.  him Innocent, who then was Pope, excommunicated, absolving his subjects from his obedience, and forbidding them to call him Emperor. The next Emperor was FREDERICK the seventh; who first was vexed by Honorius; 
o Vrsp. pag. 3●7 Pan ●●f Collen. hist. Ne●pol p. 245.  then excommunicate by Gregory, for false and frivolous causes, without all order of judgement, and others made Emperors against him. The treasons, wars and businesses that were stirred up against this Emperor, by the Pope, are innumerable. His complaints hereof are in every story: 
p P●●●●e Vin. lib. ●. ep 31.  that the happiness of Emperors was always opposed by the Pope's envy. 
q See Pand. Collenut. hist. Neap. l. 4. pag. 157. & inde.  Many things are laid against him by the Pope's favourites; but yet they all mention the Pope's unreasonable proceeding against him. 
r K●an●z. ano. pag 225.  When ALBERT the first, sent to Pope Boniface to confirm his election, he refused to do it, and said that himself was both Emperor and Pope: in sign whereof, the time of jubilee then being, he showed himself the first day in his Pontifical robes, and the next day in the h●b●t of an Emperor, with a naked sword borne before him; saying with a loud voice, Behold here are two swords. This Boniface is he of whom 
s ●●atin. in Bonif. 8.  they writ, that he studied with terror rather than religion, to subdue Emperors, Kings, Princes, and nations: and endeavoured according to the lust of his own mind to give and take away kingdoms, thirsting after gold more than can be expressed. HENRY the seventh, commonly called of Lucenborow, after 
t Naucls p 999.  the Pope and his Cardinals opposing his coronation, and 
u Avent p 597.  stirring up enemies against him, 
w Av nt. p 598. Naucler. p 991.  was at last poisoned by a Monk, in the Sacrament. LUDOVICUS BAVARUS 
x Auinionenses ●●llae vn●●que 〈◊〉 gescebant vari●. ad con tu●band●m Germantam, d●s●or d●e m●●a serere ●extabant: n●hil immotum nihil denique in e●dë statu relinquere connitebantur. Auent. pag. 630. Naucl. pag. 996.  was excommunicated by john the 22, and miseraby vexed all his life time. In his cause it was that Occam, and so many other learned men writ in defence of the Emperor, against the Pope. CHARLES the fourth 
y Naucl. p. 101.  could not obtain his coronation, but on condition that he would not stay in Rome or Italy; which yet were part of his kingdom. WENCESLAUS 
z Auent. p 645. Theodor Niem pag. 68  was deposed, and another put into the Empire against him, by Boniface the 9 SIGISMOND, who took so much pains in the Council of Constance against hus and Jerome, 
a Venerat in eandem sententiam Eugenius. Naucl. p. 1055.  was yet withstood and resisted in his voyage into Italy, by Eugenius. JOAN the Queen of Naples, 
b Pand. Collen p. 221.  was deprived of her kingdom by Pope Vrban; 
c Naucl. p. 1024 Pand. Collen. p. 227.  who consented to her murder. MANFRED the King of Naples and Sicily, 
d Naucl. p. 946.  had the Duke of Anjou armed against him by Vrban the fourth, by whom he was slain. CONRADINUS the King of Naples and Sicily, being taken prisoner by Charles, brother to the French King, 
e Pand. Collen. p. 186. Paral. Vrsperg. p. 11.  was miserably put to death by the Pope's counsel: who being demanded what was to be done, answered, The life of Conradine is the death of Charles; and the death of Conradine is the life of Charles. PHILIP AUGUSTUS the French King, 
f Mart. Polon. append. p. 237. Naucls p 982. Paralip. Vrsper. p 27.  was deprived by Boniface the 8, and his kingdom given to the Emperor Albert, because he would not acknowledge it to be holden of him. King JOHN of England 
g Matth. Paris. p 223. Walsing. ypodig. Neustr p. 461.  was pitifully vexed, and deprived of his kingdom, by the Pope and his Bishops, and the French King set up against him; and at last was 
h See Act. and Monum.  poisoned by a Monk. HENRY the second, about the death of Becket, who had wrought many uproars in the State, 
i Gul. Neubridg pag. 169. Math. Paris. p. 125.  by the Pope's appointment was whipped by Monks. JULIAN and LAURENCE, the Dukes of Florence, 
k Conscio & adnuente pontifice. Volater. pag. 51  by the Pope's practice were assaulted in the Church at the time of the elevation of the host, and the one grievously wounded, the other murdered outright. GEMIN OTTO the brother of the great Turk, being prisoner, was poisoned 
l Guicciar. hist. pag 66.  by the Pope, hired thereunto by 
m P. Io●i. hist. pag. 25. l. 1.  a promise of two hundred thousand crowns, and the seamless coat of Christ. The PRINCE of ORANGE was grievously murdered by 
n Dinoth. de bell. civil. Belg. p 398 & inde.  a Papist: who, for the same, is highly commended by 
o Comment. rerum in ●●b. gest. p. 1122. & inde.  Surius the Friar. HENRY the third, late King of France, after 
p Meter. Belg. hist. pag 494.  infinite treasons and conspiracies of the Sorbonists against him, was at last 
q Ibid. p. 496.  murdered by a Dominican Friar: which murder, the Pope by 
r Orat. sixth 5. in consist. an. 1589.  a solemn oration in the Consistory, commended to the skies. His successor, HENRY the fourth, was wounded by 
s Rod. ●otter. comen. p. 106  a disciple of the jesuits, suborned thereunto by the jesuits; in memory whereof a pillar was erected in Paris against the jesuits, and they banished the Realm. There is 
t Fran. de Veron apolog. pro joh. castle.  a book written by a Papist in defence of him that did this, wherein his deed is not only justified, but extolled 
u Pag 40.  as a most noble deed, joined with virtue, and heroical, to be compared with the greatest and commendablest deeds that ever were done, or are mentioned in any story. Afterward, as we all know, this noble Prince was miserably slain by a popish miscreant. HENRY the 8. of England, was 
w Sand. de scis. Anglic. ●. ●8.  excommunicate by Pope Clement, about the matter of his divorce; 
x See Gu●cciar l. 19 pag. 891.  which in his own judgement he thought to be lawful. GEORGE the King of Bohemia, 
y Bonfin. deca. 4. l. 2. sab init. Mart. Crom. rerum Polo. pag. 776  was excommunicate by Pius the second; and Mathias the King of Hungary armed against him. JOHN the King of Navarre, 
z Plat. in jul. 2.  was bereft of half his kingdom, by the practice of julius the second, 
a Bin. vit. jul. 2.  who was wont to say; It was not fit the Levites should serve others, who ought to bear rule over others. The VENETIANS lastly, 
b See Botter. comment. l. 12. p. 267. & inde. Gallo Belgie. an. 16●6.  about the maintenance of their State against the Clergy, were excommunicate by the Pope that now is; save that he shrunk in the wetting, and durst not go forward. For 
c Papit. Masson annal. Franc. pag. 289.  since the time that Popes have been so prodigal of their curses, they have lost their sting: and no marvel; for rare things are admired, when that which is daily done is contemned. QUEEN ELIZABETH of most happy memory, since the tenth year of her reign, 
d See Sand. schism. Angl. pag. 182.  about which time Pius Quintus excommunicated her, till her dying day was never free from their malice 
e See the answers that the priests in the Tower made in their examinations, an. 1582. Maij 13. as they are set down in Concert. ecc Cathol. in Angl adu Caluinop. pag. 241. & ind. : the Popes and their Clergy, by treasons, invasions, rebellions, conspiracies, infamous writings, and all the fury that the devil could suggest, assailing her: the whole declaration whereof would fill large volumes. And now finally, HIS MAJESTY that is, succeeds her in the tasting of the same, and worse, practices: wherein the jesuits and mass-priests have been the Pope's principal executioners 
f Brevia Pont. & the defence thereof by Bellarm. Less. Coquae. Capel. Sticiop. Suar. Becan. Eudaem. and others. : his allegiance refused, the Pope's omnipotency maintained: his Person disgraced, reviled, conspired against, the Powder-treason plotted, by these men. Yet there is an old prophesy in 
* Telesphor. de tribulat. pag. 31. Antichristus non poterit subiugare Venetias, nec Parisios', nec Civitatem regalem Angliae.  Telesphorus, that Antichrist shall never prevail against these cities, Venice, Paris, and London.  
4 Here are upon 40 instances given, in justification of that I said: now the Reader may judge as he please. In answer whereof, my adversaries will plead a right the Pope and his Clergy had, to do all this; but the fact itself they will not deny. And as all States in the world know his right to be none, so 
g Parisienses de eccl. & polit. potest. Blackw. Widdringt. Barkly: the Divines of Venice: yea many large books written against it, by great Divines old and new in the Church of Rome. Many whereof may be seen printed together by Goldastus in the three tomes of his Monarchia.  not a few disdain it in the Church of Rome itself.   

CHAP. VII.  
Concerning the doctrine of Merits taught in the Church of Rome: and touching the Bull of Pius and Gregory against Michael Baius the Dean of Lovane.  A. D. To pass therefore from this his epistle Dedicatory, 
Pag. 26.  to his Preface to the Reader. §. 1. he falsely chargeth the Church of Rome to hold doctrine which it doth not hold, but expressly condemn. Concerning merit of works (saith he) it holdeth, that when men, having conversed godlily and righteously in this mortal life to the end, obtain eternal life, this is not to be deputed to the purpose of God's grace, but to the ordinance of nature, appointed presently in the beginning, when man was created: neither in this retribution of good things is it looked to the merit of Christ, but only to the first institution of mankind, wherein by a natural law it was set down, that by the just judgement of God, the keeping of God's commandments should be rewarded with life, as the breaking of them is with death. Thus far is M. Whites relation. But how false this relation is, may appear, not only in that the contrary doctrine is ordinarily taught by our Divines, as may be seen in Halensis 3. part. 9.69. mem. 5. art. 3.5. D. Thom. 1.2. q. 109. art. 9 Roffensis refut. art. 36 Tapper de lib. arbit. Bellarmine l. 5. de justif c. 12. 14. 15. and others. 
Conc. Trid. Sess. 6. c 16.  Whereunto may be added the Council of Trent, sess 6. c. 16. where it is expressly defined, that to those that work well unto the end, and put their hope in God, life everlasting is to be propounded, both as a Grace (note the word Grace) mercifully promised to the children of God, through jesus Christ, and as a hire faithfully to be given to their good works and merits, by the promise of God himself. By which definition of the Council we may learn, that by our doctrine, life everlasting is not obtained by nature, but springeth of God's grace and mercy, and the merit of our Saviour Christ. And although our good works do merit, yet it is not our works, as done by nature, but as done in and by the grace of Christ, as is further declared by the said Council, which saith, that Christ jesus doth, as the head into all the members, and as the vine into the branches continually infuse virtue to those that be justified. 
Ibidem.  The Church-vertue doth always go before, accompany and follow their good works, without which virtue, these their works could not by any means be grateful to God, and meritorious. This lo is the doctrine of our Church, and not that temerarious and heretical proposition, which M. White relateth out of one Michael Baio, who is so far from being an approved author, sufficient to declare what is the doctrine of our Church, as that he is disallowed, and this his proposition expressly condemned by Pius Quintus, who was in his time chief Pastor of our Church. 
1 IN the fifth place he accuses me for charging the Church of Rome with that which one Michael Baius a popish Doctor, and the King's professor at Lovane, writ touching merits. But I answer three things. First, that I know no reason why their Church may not be charged with that which Baius writ, as well as ours is charged with this and that which any Protestant writes. For 
a This made the Protestants Apology, so often quoted in A. D his Reply, swell so big.  a few private and doubtful places are culled out of the writings of our men, and objected to the whole body of our Church, by our adversaries, as our doctrine. But the jesuite writing in his 
b THE WAY §. 6.  Treatise, that all Catholic learned men acknowledge the Pope's definitive sentence, and submit their judgement thereunto; who would think that Baius, so learned a man, should maintain any thing against that which the Pope allows? specially being one of those that were at the Council of Trent, and knew the mind thereof, and printed his book three years after. Secondly, when I writ, I had Baius 
c De merit op. printed at Lovan by John Bogard. an. 1565. in 8.  his book by me, and knew nothing but I might allege it: he was a popish Doctor, and the King's public Reader, and Deane of the University of ●ouan: one that was a principal Divine of the Trent Council, but three years before: his book privileged by the King of Spain: and no where in all the Indices that I have seen, either forbidden to be read, or commanded to be purged, as those books are, which the Church of Rome mislikes in good earnest. I answer thirdly, that what I alleged out of Baius, is the doctrine of the Church of Rome, and the jesuits: this I will prove, and then answer the jesuits arguments to the contrary.  
2 First I say, that the Church of Rome holds, whatsoever I alleged out of Baius. For I gathered no more out of his words, but that the salvation of our souls is expected for the merit of works, and not to be ascribed to the merit of Christ only. This is the current doctrine of Rome, contained in the words of the Trent Council, alleged by the Reply to go no further. Next, Michael Baius words, considered in themselves, as they sound contain the doctrine of the Church of Rome, for any thing that the jesuite can show to the contrary. And if it be objected, that other Papists writ otherwise, and confute him, I care not for that: for they writ at this day one against another, in every point of their faith, and agree in nothing: in the questions of Predestination: the concourse of God's help with inferior causes: Praedeterminations: the Pope's primacy: taking the oath of allegiance: worship of Images: : Transubstantiation: Antichrist: Latin service: and yet all the jesuits living cannot prove this to be their Church's doctrine rather than that. And therefore as touching his adversaries that deal against him, Baius his opinion may be the Trent opinion, as well as theirs: nay better: for he was there present, when the doctrine of merits was concluded and agreed upon, and his book alleges the Council on his side.  
3 But I will show, that the words of Baius affirm no more, than other Papists maintain. They contain only three propositions. First that our works merit. This proposition they all hold, as the jesuite will confess: and it is enough to evacuate the merit of Christ, and translate it to ourselves, and so consequently to damn him that holds it, because by merit is meant such a worthiness in the work, as of it own nature, by the way of 
d Dico Deum reddendo vitam aeternam servare justitiam commutativam. Peasant. 1.2. q. 114. pag. 468. Dicendum est in Deo esse proprium attributum justitiae, habens quandam convenientiam formalem, ●isi analogam, cum justitia commutativa creata: raetione cuius, propria & for malis justitia commutatius dici potest, licet à rigore huius justitiae, prout est in creaturis, aliquando discrepat & differat, in obiecto formali suo. Atque hanc justitiam maximo Deus exercet in retribuendis praemijs me●●● rum, vel condignis satisfactionibus acceptandis. Suar. opusc. disp. de justit. Dei. sect. 2. n 27.  COMMUTATIVE JUSTICE, deserves eternal life. And it is no matter though they will answer, that the Grace of God makes us able to do these works: for so much Baius also says for himself: but the point is, that if eternal life be given properly, by an act of commutative justice, to my work, done by what Grace soever, then salvation is neither the sole nor proper effect of Christ's death. The second proposition contained in Baius words, is, that Christ only made us able to do good works, but such works being done, than the reward is given, not for the merit of Christ, but for the condignity of the work. This is holden by others. Vasquez 
e 12. q. 114 disp 222. n. 30 pag. 917.  says: When the works of a just man condignly merit eternal life, as the wages and reward that is equal to them, there is no need that the condign merit of another such as the merit of Christ is, come between, that unto them should be rendered eternal life: for the merit of every just man, in respect of the man himself, hath some thing peculiar, which the merit of Christ hath not; namely to make the man himself just, and worthy eternal life, that he may worthily obtain the same: but the merit of Christ, albeit most worthy to obtain eternal life for us of God, yet hath not this efficacy and virtue, to make us formally just, and worthy eternal life; but men, by virtue derived from him, attain this effect in themselves. This doctrine allows salvation and blessedness to us, in the same manner that God, in the covenant of works, rendered it to Adam, or to the Angels; for 
f Ipsa igitur (Gratia) etiam homini reparando fuit necessaria: quia non alia stantem Angelum à ruina potuit custodire, nisi illa qua lapsum hominem, post ruinam, potuit reparare. una est, in utroque Gratia operata: in hoc ut surgeret, in illo ne caderet: in illo ne vulneretur, in: flow ut s●naretur: ab hoc infirmitatem repulit, illum infirmari non sinit; illius esca, istius medicina. Fulgent ad Trasim l 2. pag. 269. Adam ante lapsum non fuit per utres suas naturales, praecisè etiam cum Dei generali influentia, sufficiens ad igendum aliquem actum moraliter bonum, seu vere virtuosunt, quinimo, ultra praedicta, fuit sibi necessarium aliud Dei auxilium speciale. Gregor. Arim. 2. d. 29. q. 1 concl. 2. pag. 107. See Mag. 2. d. 29. Ibi Tho. Argent. art. 3. Dur. qu. 1. Capreol. qu. 1. concls. 3. & 4. Suar. tom. 1. disp. 42. sect. 1. §. Dico tamen.  they also had the grace of God to enable them to work, as we have the merits of Christ, but that grace went no further. The third proposition contained in Baius words is, that good works have the reward of eternal life due unto them, not of grace, but of their own nature, because God in the beginning by the law of nature, appointed the reward to be rendered to him that well did. The same is taught generally in the Church of Rome, by all them that hold, 
h Vasq. 1.2. tom 2. pag. 803. c. 4. in these words delivers his opinion of merit.  when a man being in the state of righteousness, through the grace of God doth good works, than the said works merit eternal life, and are equally worthy of the reward, though God make no covenant in Christ to accept them: and that they have no increase of dignity coming to them by the merits or person of Christ, but before God make any promise to us in him, they are in justice worthy the reward: and though God have made a covenant to accept such works, done by grace, yet the merit and worthiness thereof arises not, nor is founded on that covenant, but the promise is founded on the merit of the work, because it were injustice if God should not reward a good work. And thus the greatest Divines in the Church of Rome teach. 
a Panopl. p●g. 110.  Lindan: I think they do not worthily enough set forth the grace of Christ in our good works, who think God rewards the good works of just men with eternal life of free grace, and the vouchsafing of his own clemency; because the reason of true merit, which is engendered in good works, through the dignity of Christ's Spirit, their author, seems to deserve GREATER praise, then that God should only VOUCHSAFE it the reward FREELY. Anard: 
b Artic. 9 pag. 126.  Far be it from us that we should wait for eternal life, AS A POOR MAN DOTH FOR ALMS; for it is MORE GLORIOUS for us, like conquerors and triumphers, to possess it as the garland and crown that is DUE to our labours. Suarez: 
c Tom. 1. pag. 645. B.  It must not be denied, but our merits are true merits, in such sort, that the works of the godly, proceeding from grace, have in themselves an inward dignity, and the same proportion to the reward which they should have, understanding a man to be just, and to work well, without the merits of Christ: as many think of the Angels, and of man in the state of innocency. 
d 12. disp. 214. c. 4. n. 17.  Vasquez: Although God have made a promise to the works of just men, yet neither that promise, nor any covenant or favour of God, belongs any ways to the reason of the merit. Bellarmine: 
e De iustif. l. 5. c. 17. pag. 993. A  The works of the just merit eternal life condignly, by reason of God's covenant and the work together: NOT BECAUSE THE GOOD WORK HATH NO PROPORTION TO ETERNAL LIFE WITHOUT GOD'S COVENANT TO ACCEPT IT; but because God is not tied to accept it to the reward, though it be equal thereto, unless his covenant come between. D. Stapleton: 
f De justificat. pag. 237.  We are said to please God, and to be acceptable to him in and for Christ: and our justice is said to lean upon Christ's justice, because the beginning and progress thereof is of Christ, and depends thereon as on the efficient cause—: and, Christ's justice supplies our defects, NOT BY SUPPLYING ANY UNPERFECT ACT THAT IS IN OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS, and so making it perfect, that it might stand before God's judgement seat—; but if such imperfection of our righteousness be without sin, it is admitted for true righteousness, and admitted in the just judgement of God. 
g Alph. Virués. Andrad Horát. Caiet. Bonaven. Mart Distor. Thom. Ricard. Romae. Conrade. Capraeol. Dried Clictovae. Tilet. Vincent. Soto. all cited for this opinion by Vasq. 12. disp. 214. n. 9 & 18.  The most of our adversaries hold this; and teach a condignity in our works, arising out of THEMSELVES, abstracting from the merits of Christ, and promise of God: which promise is founded on the work; and which merits of Christ add nothing to the value of the work, but only elevates the person of him that works. Whence it follows, that the reward must needs be given by the first covenant, made with Adam: which is as much of Baius his opinion, as I alleged.  
4 Thus I have showed that Baius in his words by me quoted, teaches no other doctrine than is ordinarily taught by other Divines in the Church; and the jesuits arguments to the contrary, are easily answered. To the first; there can be no more showed out of their writings, but that life eternal is obtained by grace, and the merit of Christ, inasmuch as they are the root of merit, which 
h Quicquid ad humani generis reparationem pertinet, id non nostris moritu propriis, neque justo Dei judicio tribuendum est, quia alioqui saltem ex part, essemus nostri redemptores; sed tantum proposito gratiae Dei, per redemptionem quae facta est in sanguine Christi. Pag. 12.  Baius denies not; but yet for all that, holding that works so done, have in them an intrinsical righteousness, and worthiness of their own; they must needs hold consequently, that God in justice is bound to reward them, in the same manner that he rewards Angels, or would have rewarded Adam if he had never fallen, which was by the covenant of works. And it should seem the jesuite by his manner of citing them, saw not the books themselves, but borrowed the quotations of his friends. For first touching Alexander, he quotes 3. part. 9.69. (which I presume is misprinted in stead of qu. 69.) memb. 5. art. 3. 5: whereas in the 5. m. there are only 4 articles, and in the 3d art. 
i Pag. 249.  he speaks expressly against him, that if a man do that which is in himself to do, God necessarily gives him grace. In which words he plainly ascribes merit to works done by nature; which is Pelagianisme. The best that he says against nature for grace, is in 
k Concedendum est ergo necessariam esse gratiam, indistincte ad merendum & consequendum beatitudinem. m. 1. art. 1.  another place; but that Grace, whereby he says we merit, he expounds to be our own work, wrought by the power of God's grace, which is the very point that Baius holds. Bellarmine's opinion is uncertain, he doth nothing but chop and change; a man of no resolution, but a very weathercock, yet he hath one good saying on the jesuits side: 
l De iustif. l. 5. c 7.  By reason of the uncertainty of a man's own righteousness, and for fear of vainglory, it is the safest way to repose our whole confidence in the sole mercy and goodness of God. But 
m See Vasqu. 1.2. tom. 2. pag. 794. c. 7.  his fellows whip him for it. The other three, Tapper, Fisher, and Thomas say no more, but that our works merit by grace; in which point they cross not Baius, for he also allows grace, and says not that they merit by nature, but that being done by grace, the reward is given, not by a new covenant in Christ, but by the same that God made with Adam in pure nature; from which opinion they also cannot be freed, inasmuch as they hold the merit of works, not to be founded on God's covenant in Christ, but God's covenant to be founded on the merit, as I have touched before. To the Council of Trent, I answer, that Baius was there present, and in all probability knew the meaning of it, either to be with him, or not against him; else he would not have published his book 
n The Council ended an. 1563. he printed his book 1565.  two years after the Council was ended: and these very words of the Council (eternal life is the grace of God) 
o Cap. 6.  he answers, and expounds to his own sense, that it is the grace of God, because it is due to the merits that proceed of grace; which grace he denies not to be the root of merit, but he denies it to have any influence into the reason of meriting: as I have expounded in the third proposition. And if the Reader will see the true meaning of these words of the Council, whereby so many are beguiled, here it is: 
p Vasqu. p. 819. n. 84.  Where life eternal is called a grace, mercifully promised to the sons of God: I answer, that life eternal is not called a grace mercifully promised, because the works whereto it is given are not equal of themselves to it, or condignly worthy of it—; but because the merits, whereto it is rendered, are of God's mercy; and so life eternal, in respect of the root thereof, is called grace. 
q Pag. 820. n. 88  Again: The Council of Trent affirming life eternal to be a reward, which is to be rendered faithfully by promise: if it be well marked, nothing favours their opinion (who hold our works not to merit of themselves, but because God hath made a promise to reward them) for that word BY PROMISE, must not be joined with THE REWARD, as if the meaning were, that life eternal is given as a reward, because it is given by promise; which it should not, if the promise were not: but it must be joined with that (TO BE FAITHFULLY rendered to their good works and merits) for this to be FAITHFULLY rendered, it hath by promise. Wherefore WITHOUT THE PROMISE of God, eternal life should be rendered CONDIGNLY to the works of the just, as the wages, stipend, and crown of righteousness; taking righteousness for that equality which is to be observed between the dignity of works and eternal life: but yet it should not be given FAITHFULLY, or of fidelity; because where there is no promise, there is no fidelity: for fidelity is that truth which is in keeping promises. Whereby we see, that it was not the mind of the Council, to ascribe eternal life to the grace of God, otherwise then so far forth as that grace makes us able to merit it ourselves; which is the very opinion of Baius, that I alleged.  
5 To the Bull, whereby he says, this opinion of Baius is expressly condemned; I answer, that when I alleged Baius, I knew not of the Bull, but since 
r In Possevin. appar. verbo Mich. Baius. and at the end of Vasqu. para. in epist. Pauli.  I have seen it, and been admonished thereof; nevertheless Baius his proposition is not thereby condemned: the words of the Bull, are these, after it hath set down some 80 propositions, extracted out of Baius. Many of these propositions might in some fashion be defended, yet as they are intended by such as defend them in the rigour and proper sense of the words, we condemn them 
* As Paul, the now Pope, in his late censure of ●ecanus his book, says, Many things therein are false and temerarious, RESPECTIVELY: because this censure being extorted from him, to avoid a worse inconvenience, should not simply condemn Becanus his opinion, (which Bellarmine himself, whose hand is to the Censure, hath broached as well as he, in his writings) but only made a show of condemning them, to serve the present turn, and to delude the Princes of the world, with hope of that which he will never do, till he see his occasions fit than now they are.  respectively, as heretical, erroneous, suspected, rash, and scandalous. By which condemnation, 
s 1. 2. disp. 190. n 176. pag 516.  says Vasquez a jesuite, maintaining some things mentioned in the same Bull, it doth not appear, what censure doth agree severally to each proposition; but by the words it is manifest, that all those notes and censures together (temerarious and heretical) do not belong to the said propositions, but every one by itself, that is to say, every one hath his proper censure; and thus some propositions are only condemned, as lying open to scandal. Thus Vasquez their great Schoolman and a jesuite, answered the Bull, when it was objected against him, for holding certain propositions therein; in the prosecution whereof he shows, that many things contained in it are condemned only because of his manner of defending them, with some violence and intemperance. And he says, 
t See the jesuits admonition to the Reader, prefixed to the Bull, at the end of Vasquez paraphrase; wherein he shows that Baius is mistaken, and not truly understood by such as have dealt against him; and that the Pope's Bull censures his doctrine no otherwise than Vasquez affirms.  he learned this to be the intent of the Bull from Cardinal Tolet, who was a commissioner sent by the Pope to Lovan, for the composing of these contentions, and therefore best knew the meaning of the Bull. Belike Baius was somewhat passionate in the maintenance of his opinions, much like this jesuite, and so the Pope by a Bull censured him: which being so, how will the jesuite make it appear to me, that this singular proposition, which is the twelfth in number, is condemned as 
* Note what propositions they be that our adversaries account to be heretical, temerarious, scandalous, etc. as it is noted by Lud. Carbo. in his sums. Duo genera propositionum haereticarum— primum continet errores manifestos contra veritates in verbo Dei expressa●, aut per Ecclesiam iam determinatas. Alterum in quo continentur errores contra veritates evidenter ex primo genere collectas—. And then a little before: Jdeo aliqua propositio dicitur haeretica, quia haresim designat; sed hoc non facit nisi adsit pertinacia—. Propositio erronea est illa qua adversatur veritati ex propositione de fide evidenter collectae—. Propositio quae dicitur sapere haeresim est illa quae licet non appareat haerisis manifesta, quin potius potest habere bonum sensum, tamen ex circumstantijs potest praebere saporem vel suspicionem haeresis.  ista propositio: justus ex fide vivit.— Propositio temeraria quando asseritur aliquid contra communem Ecclesia & Doctorum sententiam, sine ratione firmissima.— Propositio scandalosa est illa quae apta est gignere scandalum circa doctrinam & veritatem fidei. Ludo. Carb. sum. tom. 3. l. 1. c. 56.  heretical and temerarious, or further then as he held it with violence and passion▪ Let him read the Bull, and he shall find therein many propositions, that himself will not condemn. The second is, that as an evil work of his nature merits eternal death, so a good work of it own nature merits eternal life; yet 
t Sicut se habet culpa ad poenam, ita opus virtutis ad gloriam. Sed culpa ex condigno meretur poenam; ergo & actus virtutis, ex condigno meretur vitaem aeternam. Tho. 2. d. 27. art. 3. Quae quidem satis indicant non minus sempiternam foelicitatem justorum esse praeclaris operibus debitam, quàm aeternos cruciatus eorum sceleribus qui non noverunt Deum. Andrad. orthod expl. pag. 517. God gives as well everlasting life and glory to men for and according to their good works; as he gives damnation for the contrary works. Rhem annot. Rom. 2. n. 6.  this is generally holden among all their Divines. The eight proposition is, that in such as are redeemed by the grace of Christ, there can be found no good merit, which is not freely given to him that is unworthy; yet the jesuite says here, that all our works merit by the grace of Christ; which is false, if the Bull censure truly: for to have no merit, but such as is freely given to him that is unworthy, and to have merits that are not freely given, but the party is worthy, are contrary. The 14 is, that our works at the last judgement shall receive no ampler reward, then by the just judgement of God they deserve: yet Vega 
u De justificat. q. 5.  holds this opinion. The 30 is, that no tentation can be resisted without the grace of Christ: yet 
x Abulens. in Matth 19 q. 178. Gregor. Arimin. 2. d. 28. Cassal. quadrip. instit par. 1. l 1 c. 25. Bellarm. great. & lib. arb. l. 5. c. 7.  many School men hold it. The like may be showed in other propositions there censured, and yet commonly holden by the learned in the Church of Rome; whereupon I conclude, that the Bull is no sufficient argument to prove the place I cited out of Baius, not to be the doctrine of the Church of Rome: but the jesuite would use the name thereof, to serve the present turn, when he had no true understanding of the drift and purpose of it.   

CHAP. VIII.  
1. The Papacy brought in by Satan. 2. The jesuits spirit of contradiction. 3. The Church of Rome revolted. The five Patriarches were equal at the first. 4. Plain Scripture against the Papacy. 5. The ignorance of popish laity. 6. Corruption of writings by the Papists. 7. Reformation desired long afore it came. 8, 9 Advice given to A.D.  
A. D. In the same Preface I find many other notable untruths, 
Pag. 27.  as §. 3. where he affirmeth, that the Papacy was brought in by Satan at the first, and is still continued, only to seduce the world. 
1 BY the Papacy I mean all that mass of innumerable errors in doctrine and Church-governement, wherein they differ from us; and of it I do confidently affirm, as 
a §. 48. n. 1.  I expound in THE WAY, that in process of time it grew as a scab or a disease in the Church, which in the beginning knew no such faith; and forsomuch as 
b Mat. 13.25.  all innovations are tars; & the enemy that sows tars among the wheat, is the devil: therefore I affirmed, and yet do, that the Papacy was brought in by the devil, as all other heresies were. And forsomuch as 
c Parum enim interest an cum daemone quis habitet, an cum viro Apostata. Effrem test pag 793. Mihi certe ille nunquam aliud quàm diabolus erit, quia Arianus est Hilar. count Auxe. sub fin.  there is little or no difference between the Devil and an Apostata, or an heretic; therefore I add, that to communicate with the Papacy, is to follow 
d 1. Tim. 4.1.  the doctrine of devils.   
A. D. And again, 
Pag 28.  that Catholics seek nothing but to be contrary to Protestants: and even hate the name of peace. 
2 I did not only say this, but I showed it also: first by relating the pains, that in vain, and to no purpose hath been taken with them, to bring them to reconciliation; and namely at the conference at Regenspurge, where divers points being agreed, it is well known how Ecchius a man of an unquiet spirit, 
e See his Apol. adu. Bucer. sup. act. colloq. Ratispon.  laboured to dissolve the agreement, and discredit all that was done with the Emperor and States, that had taken so much pains therein. Then by the froward words of two jesuits, Bellarmine and Maldonate; whereto I add a third, as refractory as they. Lorin a jesuite having related the judgement of six great learned men against the vulgar Translation, in a certain place 
f Comment. in 2. Pet. 1. pa. 62●  says, They please him not for this cause, because he would have Catholics more favourable to the vulgar Translation, and more to abhor the sense of heretics. That is to say: rather than they shall agree with us in the truth, he would have them follow the old Mumpsimus in a lie. This is the malapert spirit in our adversaries, that I speak of; whereby the Reader may guess, what love they have to peace, when upon hatred against us, because they will not be said to yield, they will not accept of that, which themselves think may be truth.   

Pag. 28.  A.D. Also §. 6. where he affirmeth, that the present Roman Church in wholly departed in the questions controverted from the ancient, and retaineth nothing but the title: and that the ancient Church of Rome professed the same faith, which Protestants now profess. 
3 This matter is purposely showed in 
g Digr. 49. & 51  THE WAY, and handled at large in this Defence; and it is not only true, but so easy also to be showed, that the jesuite durst not so much as look in the face, that which I here added, to demonstrate it. He thinks his denial is confutation enough; and so it is possible with his followers, that read his Reply, but list not to hear, what I added, to make my word good. First out of Pelusiot, how a Church may lose the faith, and yet retain her name still. As Lais many a day after she was turned courtesan, yet was called Lais still: and then out of Balsamon and Nicephorus, two patriarchs in the Greek Church. That in ancient time the Pope had not this primacy, nor Rome the royalty, that now they have. To them I add another testimony out of Theodore Stuclites: 
h Lib. 2. ep 129. ad Leo. Sacell.  The divine and heavenly points of faith, are committed to none but those to whom Christ said, Whatsoever you bind upon earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever you shall lose upon earth, shall be loosed in heaven. But who are they to whom this was commanded? The Apostles and their successors. And who be these successors? He that now holds the first sea of Rome: he that holds the second of Constantinople: he of Alexandria, and Antioch: and he of jerusalem. This is the fivefold top, that is, the power of the five patriarchs of the Church; in their power is the judgement of divine doctrines. This man (and his name stands in 
l Menolog. Grae Novemb. 11. tom. 4. Bibl. SS. Patrum.  the Greek Calendar) in his time (to fit the controversy depending between the student and me) thought all the patriarchs together to have the right of judgement, and not he of Rome alone: which shows that it is true which the Cardinal of Cusa 
m Cusan. conc. l. 2. c. 12.  writes, that by custom of men's obeying him, he hath gotten beyond the bounds of ancient observation. And so the head being departed, I hope the body stayed not behind.   
A.D. And §. 11. where he affirmeth, 
Pag. 28.  that Protestants have the Scripture in manifest places free from all ambiguity for their side. 
4 If this be not true, say directly, why do you teach most blasphemously, that the Scripture is so obscure? so defective? so dangerous for the people to meddle with? Why do you forbidden the people the reading of it in the mother tongue? What Protestant, if he would study to do it of purpose, can speak plainer than they against 
n Exod. 20.4. Deut. 4.15.  images, 
o Apoc 19.10. & 22.8.  the worshipping of Saints, 
p Act. 10.25.  the Pope's pride, 
q 1. Cor. 14.  Latin prayers and Service, 
r Luc. 17.10. Phil. 3.12.  Merit, and perfection of works? 
s Psal. 37.37. Apoc. 14.13.  Purgatory, 
t Luc. 22.25.  the Pope's primacy, 
u 1 Cor. 10 16.  Transubstantiation, 
w 1. Sam. 26.8. Rom. 13.1.  Deposing and murdering Kings: 
x 1. Tim. 4.3.  Distinction of meats for conscience? what finally can be spoken plainer in defence of 
y 1. Tim. 3.2.11.12.  Priest's marriage, or to show the Pope and his crew to be 
z 2. Thes●●3. Apoc. 17.18.  that Antichrist? etc. The Scripture therefore is manifest enough for us: but 
a Hos. de expr. Dei verb.  our adversaries have a rule, that the Scripture, as it is alleged by Protestants, is the word of the devil; and therefore be it never so manifest, yet it must not be manifest when we allege it.   
A.D. And again, 
Pag. 28.  that Protestants have the principles of religion contained in the Lord's prayer, the Creed, the ten Commandments, leading directly to every point of protestancy, and that for this reason the Church of Rome forbiddeth the reading, and exercise of these things to the people, lest they should see so much. 
5 As for example, to pray to God alone, and to no other; for the Lords prayer teacheth us to pray to him that is our Father, to whom it belongs to forgive us our trespasses, and whose is the kingdom, the power, and the glory: all prayers being to be made after this form, we are directly lead from praying to Saints (to whom these things agree not) to call on God alone. Secondly, the second commandment leads directly against image-worship; and that is the reason, why the Papists have not only forbidden the reading of it, but also 
a In their Catechisms. Van. Canis. Ledesm. Office of our Lady: and other.  put it clean out, in their ordinary Catechisms. Thirdly, the Creed saying that Christ being ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of God, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead, teaches plainly to believe that he comes not down every day to be eaten in the Sacrament, under the forms of bread and wine. In like manner we affirm these three, the Creed, the Lords prayer, and the ten Commandments, to be such a rule, as serves to conclude in true and perfect consequence, whatsoever we hold against our adversaries: and whether the Church of Rome have not forbidden the people to use them, I refer myself to the times of King Henry the 8, what time the people with incredible joy and admiration first heard them in the English tongue: I refer me to the manner of their praying, mentioned 
b Ch. 12.  hereafter, which had not been, if they had been permitted the use of these things. And because the jesuite denies this, let him say truly, what encouragement have they given the common people to read the Scriptures? to use the Lords prayer, and the rest, in their mother-tongue? to exercise themselves diligently in these things? Let them show us the time when, the words wherewith, the benefit that hath ensued thereby? No: they have reviled and reproached these things, and bred a hatred of them in the people, and all to keep them in ignorance: myself continued many years in a parish, where there were not a few Recusants; and in all the number, I did not in the time, though I made trial of many, find one that could say, and pronounce these things in the English tongue, unless he were (which few were) booklearned. Among many other, I came to an aged woman's house, and desiring her to repeat unto me the Creed, she said it in fustian Latin, (of that sort which I have expressed 
c Ch. 12.  a little below) and assaying to teach it her in English, she answered, that seeing her Latin creed had served her turn to this age, she would now learn no new. And when I asked her, who jesus Christ was, that the Creed said was borne of the virgin Mary; she answered, she could not tell: but by our dear Lady, it is sure some good thing, or it should never have been put in the Creed; but what it is, I cannot tell you: for I was never taught so much myself. This woman afterward heard me willingly, and rejoiced to hear the understanding of these things; and reported strange things of the barbarous ignorance, and irreligion of those times, wherein she was brought up. The experience that we have of these things, shows how, and in what sort Papists exercise their people in the principles of Religion: and my own particular knowledge hereof, obtained by conversing divers years among them, is such, that all the Seminary Priests and jesuits in England, if there were ten thousand of them, shall never outstare it with their great looks.   
A.D. And again, 
Pag. 28.  that the ancient Fathers are for Protestants in express terms, in all things that they held constantly, and certainly with one consent, and that in the principal points, touching Scripture, justification, Merit of works, Images, and all the rest, they writ most clearly with Protestants. 
6 This I showed throughout my writing in every point I stood upon; and if it be not so, shrink not, but answer: why have you corrupted the writing of the Fathers? 
d De unit. eccl. in the Rom. & Antw. prints: and in all that follow them.  Cyprian, to avoid his evidence against the Pope's Supremacy? 
e Hom. 49. in open imperf. Paris. in 8. an. 1557 See Bellar. de verb. Dei. l. 4. c. 11. §. Sexto profert. & Posseu. appar. to. 1. pag. 847.  Chrysostome, where he justifies the Scriptures? 
f Ind. expurg. Hisp. pag. 18.  Gregory Nyssen, where he speaks against the worship of creatures? Why do you 
g I●d. ex purge. Belg. pag. 12.  profess, that in the old Catholic writers, you bear with many errors; and when in disputation they are opposed against you, you extenuate and excuse them, and many times, by devising a shift, deny them, and feign some fit sense unto them? Why do you take order, that 
h Posseu. biblio select. l. 1. c. 48. pag. 38.  in the public Libraries of Princes, and others, every one shall not see the manuscripts, Greek, Latin, or any other, which are not permitted by the Church, because these also must be purged? What is the meaning of that speech, which 
i Apparat. verb Anton. Florent.  Possevine the jesuite uses of Antoninus and his writings; that he now enjoying the blessed light of heaven, no doubt desires that all his writings should be reviewed, and occupied purer, then of old they were? Say now, and dissemble not: is it not a violent presumption, that the Fathers are clear for Protestants, when Papists thus purge and censure their writings, in such things as are in controversy between us? and are they not resolved in this damned course of purging books, when they think the authors in heaven rejoice to see their works hereby made purer? Verily Erasmus 
k Ep. ad Card. Mogunt.  said, that many things are condemned in Luther's books as heretical, which in Austin and Bernard, are read for good Divinity. And our contentment is, that daily experience shows this to be true. 
l Ph. Camerar. medit. hist. to. 2. pag. 39 Macro. l. ●. c. 8.  They writ how the Romans at the siege of Carthage, according to their manner, first conjured the Dij tutelares out of it afore they proceeded: Be thou a God, he, or she, that protectest the people or city of Carthage, but specially thee the Patron thereof, I worship thee first, and then entreat thee to abandon Carthage, the city, the places, the temples, every thing thereof, and to come away to us and ours, and dwell in our city, our places, our temples, and be our Patrons. So do we vow you plays and sacrifices. Thus play our adversaries in printing the books of the ancient Fathers and Schoolmen: If thou be a God or a Goddess, come forth; if a doctrine or a period, that protectest the Church of the Protestants, come away we entreat thee, forth of the Text, forth of the Table, forth of the Margin, into our Indices expurgatorij, and we vow to sacrifice you in the fire.   
A D. Again, that Protestants have done nothing against the Church of Rome, but innumerable people in all ages wished it long ago. 
7 I said another thing, immediately before this, that the jesuite skips: We have the mercies of God to plead for us, whereby our Church hath been miraculously upholden. When they threatened, God defended us: when they practised, and expected our ruin, God disappointed them: when they wrought all manner of treasons, yet God delivered us. The conscience of his own guilt, and the envy of our well-doing, would not let him mention this: yet here again I commend it to him, that by considering the behaviour of his side towards us, he may the better discern what they are. And to that he hath observed, I answer, that I showed the truth thereof in the same place, by the example of Gerson, and testimony of Nauclere; which the jesuite dissembles, because his occupation is not to observe the grounds of my speeches, but to rail me down: yet the 
m Reformationê autem generalem ecclesiae extremè necessariam fore nostru temporibus mores corrupit totius orbis praenuntiant: cum revera penè omnis caro corrupit viam svam. jac. de Parady. Collect. de sept stat. eccl.  willingness to accept reformation, and the joy of all nations when it came, and the detestations they showed of the Romish tyranny that had oppressed them, shows, I said the truth. And if I had to do with an adversary of any worth, or that were fit for a discourse, or saw it otherwise needful to satisfy others, I would in confirmation hereof, repeat my words that I then used; What ceremony? what doctrine? what custom? what one parcel of their superstition have we refused, but the world, long since, complained of it? The tyranny and oppression of old Babylon, was never so complained of. I will only mention the speech of Gerson, that was Chancellor of Paris, almost a hundred years before Luther, whose books, from the beginning to the end, contain almost nothing but complaints of the Church's state: he 
n Tom. 1. pag. 241. E.  says: Let experience answer what hurt, what danger, what confusion the contempt of the sacred Scripture (which yet is sufficient for the government of the Church, unless Christ were an unperfect lawgiver) hath brought; let the Clergy be viewed, which should have married heavenly wisdom which is peaceable and chaste, if it have not committed fornication with that adulterous harlot, earthly, human, and diabolical wisdom. The state of the Church also, is it not all become as it were brutish and monstrous?— That many doubt not to consult, that this state of the Church were better to be governed by the inventions of men, then by the divine evangelical law; as if the soul were less than the body, and spiritual food less than carnal. This assertion, on my faith, is not only false, but blasphemous: for the doctrine of the Gospel, by the professors thereof, hath enlarged the Church as far as heaven; which the sons of Agar, seeking after earthly wisdom, have thrust into the mire; and it is the mercy of God, that it is not wholly fallen. The which things, because my conscience testifies, I speak not for gain, or of ambition, or for mine own credit, but for the maintenance of the truth, and common good: because this court of Divines hath little promoted the truth, if not contemned it, which notwithstanding hath purchased to itself all the glory it can.   

Pag. 28.  A. D. All these be very gross untruths, and some of them such, as not only Catholics, but also learned Protestants will confess to be false; yea even M White himself, either must confess himself to be blockishly ignorant, or carelessly inconsiderate, or else he must grant, that he hath affirmed these things against his own knowledge, and conscience. Which being so, I might here make an end, without saying any more, as having given the Reader a taste of M. Whites want of truth and sincerity, sufficient to make any discreet man beware how he giveth credit to these his writings. 
8 Away with this intolerable bragging, and let the pen be put into the hands of some, if any such be among them, that will dispute; if ever it were a time to leave wording, and fall to reality, this it is, wherein our adversaries by the glorious and unlimited reports of their own sincerity, have raised up the opinions of so many to the expectation of matter at their hands: and indeed the distraction of so many people's minds about religion, require, and even cry for material and sound dealing; and is this now the performance thereof, with reviling words to pester their books, and to the matter to reply, Hoc nihil invariabile? Gross untruths: blockishly ignorant: against his own knowledge and conscience: carelessly inconsiderate: I might here make an end, etc. Was this all the jesuite could say against that which M. White confirmed by plain authorities? could he confute his writing, no otherwise then thus? Then M. White tells him again, that as he hath written nothing, but what all learned men know to be true; and many have objected against the Church of Rome, long ago, to far better purpose than himself is able to do: so his knowledge and conscience, and the conscience of thousands with him, are the firmlier assured of these things, in that his adversary is able to say so little against them.   
A.D. Yet because in the 12. 
Pag 29.  § of his Preface he offereth (as he saith) certain external marks and sensible tokens, whereby the falsehood of the Roman Church may be discovered, and the most resolute Papist that liveth, moved to misdoubt of his own religion; I have thought it not amiss to examine these his marks and tokens, as supposing that if I find him to fail of truth and sincerity in these, men will not expect to find it in the rest of his book, in regard he intending to move by these his mark and tokens, even (as he saith) the most resolute Papist that liveth, to misdoubt of his religion; it is like he would use all his diligence and care, that such a careless man in so bad a cause could, not only to bring sensible, but also sound and substantial matter, and that very truly and sincerely set down, as knowing that such resolute Papists will not be easily moved to misdoubt of their (so ancient and well grounded) religion by any sleight marks or tokens, though never so seeming sensible, especially if they may sensibly perceive them to be unsincerely and untruly propounded, and urged against them. That therefore the Reader may better guess what truth and sincerity he may expect in the rest of M. White his book, I have thought fit briefly to view, and run through these his marks and tokens. 
9 What Reader now, but would imagine the jesuite to be with child of some substantial matter, and yet it will prove but a tympany of mind? and therefore I desire the Reader diligently to observe what passes between us. For I say again, that if a man never look further, those very things which I mentioned as external marks, and sensible tokens of the Roman Churches iniquity, are sufficient of themselves to move the hottest and zealousest Papist alive, yet once again to lay his hand upon his heart, and better to look into his religion. And what account soever the jesuits resolute Papists, that will not so easily be moved, make of that I said, yet still I offer it to their 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Isid. Pelusio. ep. 191. lib. 3.  more retired, and unpreiudicate considerations; especially now when this jesuite hath studied out what he can to lay in against it: and finding the demonstrations (whereby, though very briefly, yet really, I showed every Mark) to be too hot for his mouth, meddles not with them, but passes them over, and says not a word to them, but only repeats the motive, and making a face at it, so lets it go, not mentioning the arguments whereby I declare it. 
b Chrysost.  This is the power of truth, and the grace of innocency, when her enemy is her judge, and the devil her accuser, and wrath, and fury, and calumny, and hatred are impaneled against her, yet she is quit and justified.    

CHAP. IX.  
1. The Apocrypha not accounted Canonical Scripture. 2. Papists professing to expound against the Fathers. 3. The new English translation of the Bible. 4. Traditions equalled with the holy Scripture. 6. About the erring of Counsels. 7. And the sufficiency of the Scriptures.  

Pag. 29.  A. D. The first mark is (saith he) their enmity with the holy Scripture: this is an evident untruth, proceeding either out of ignorance, or out of enmity and malice against us. For who knoweth not, that we be so far from having enmity with sacred Scriptures, as we reverence and respect them far more than Protestants do? partly in that we accept all the books of them, which the ancient Church hath delivered to us, as sacred and canonical: whereas Protestants by their private spirit, thrust some of them as it were by the head and shoulders, out of the Canon: and partly also for that we hold such reverent regard to the divine truth contained in them, as that we do not presume either to translate or interpret them according to our private fancy or judgement, but conformably according to the approved spirit and judgement of the universal Catholic Church: whereas the Protestants have so little regard, that they permit every man to rush without reverence, into the sacred text to translate it, if he have skill in the learned tongues, or to interpret it by his private spirit, although he have no skill in any besides the vulgar tongue. 
1 THe enmity and rebellion of the Roman Church against the Scriptures, is so apparent, that the jesuite thought it his best policy not to meddle with that, whereby I showed it more fully in the 22 Digr. but to wrangle at that I here only touched briefly by the way; bearing the Reader in hand, that I have in this place used all the diligence and care I could, and brought the soundest and substantiallest matter that I had, when I only in few words pointed at it. First he says, they be so far from having enmity with the Scriptures, that they reverence them more than we do. His reasons to persuade this, are two. First they accept all the books of the Scriptures, which the ancient Church hath delivered us for Canonical, whereas Protestants by their private spirit thrust some of them (he means the Apocrypha) out of the Canon by the head and shoulders; I answer, that we deny no part of the Canon which the ancient Church received; and this bringing in of the Apocryphal books, Wisd. Ecclesiast. Toby, judith, Maccab. and the rest, into the Canon, convinces the Church of Rome of that contempt of the Scriptures which I mentioned, when it exalts and advances to the honour of divine inspired Scripture, that which is not so, nor was esteemed so in the ancient Church. For Rebels to place another in the same throne with the King, and to give him equal power and honour with him, and to make his laws equal to the Kings, is as much as if they thrust the King out of the throne. For a wife to yield those duties to a neighbour, that are proper to her husband, makes her an adulteress, though otherwise she deny him nothing. And it is untrue that the jesuite says, the Apocrypha was esteemed canonical Scripture in the ancient Church; for 
a Legit quidem Ecclesia, sed eos inter canonicas Scripturas non recipit, etc. jero praef. in Prou. Non sunt in Canone. Praef. in 1. Reg. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Conc. Laodic. e vlt. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Athan. synops. p. 63. Athanasius reckoned the books of Scripture, according to the mind of the Nicen Council, says B●ron. an. 63. n. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Melito apud Euseb. hist. pag. 43. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— Origen. apud Euseb. pag 65. Haec sunt quae Patres intra Canonem concluserunt, ex quibus fidei nostrae assertiones constare volverunt. Sciendum tamen est quod & alij libri sunt qui non Canonici, sed Ecclesiastici à maioribus appellati sunt— quae omnia legi quidem in Ecclesiis volverunt non tamen proferri ad authoritatem ex his, fi●ei confirmandam. Cypr. exp symb. n. 36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Epiph. pag. 534. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Cyril. jerosol. pag. 30. Catech. Hic verissimus divinitus datarum est Scripturarum Canon. Amphiloch. Icon. Iamb. pag. 730.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Naz. Carm. p. 36. In viginti duo libros Lex Testamenti veteru deputetur. Hilar. in Psal. pag 615. Sunt autem libri veteris Testamenti 24. Victorin. apocal. pag. 718. Hij sunt libri— qui in Ecclesia pro Canonicis habentur.— Veteris Scripturae libri sunt viginti duo Leont. de sect. pag. 1848. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Damasc. orth fid. l. 4. c. 18. pag. 348.  all Antiquity shows the contrary, that it was used, but not to ground faith upon; and therefore the Papists putting it into the Canon, abuse the Scripture, and antiquity; and Protestants judging it not to be Scripture, follow not their private spirit, but the public spirit of the ancient Church in the purest times. And 
b Liber Judith, Tobia, Macchabaeorum, Ecclesiasticus atque liber Sapientiae non sunt recipiendi ad confirmandum aliquid in fide. Occam. dial. p. 212. Non sunt in Canone sanctorum librorum reputata sive confirmata: nec inter libros Legis & Prophetarum, nic inter Hagiographos computantur— sicut liber Sapientiae, liber Judith, liber Tobiae, liber Maccabaor Turrecr. c. Sancta Rom. d. 15. n. 19 & d. 16. c. Apostolor. n. 5. The Apocrypha denied to be Canonical Scripture by Antonin. sum. mor. part. 3. tit. 18. c. 6. §. 2. Lyra Praef. in Tob. Hugo Cardin. praef. in Ios. Caietan. in Hest c. vlt. Picus Mirandul de fid. & ordin. cred. theor. 5. And many others.  the learnedst also of our adversaries are of the same judgement (the Church of Rome never wanting those in it, that in all ages gave testimony to the truth) that it is not Canonical Scripture; whereby the Reader may see the jesuits rashness and ignorance, when he says, the Protestants of their private spirit thrust the Apocrypha by the head and shoulders out of the Canon. For the other books, as Jerome saith, the Church doth read for example of life, and instruction of manners: but yet it doth not apply them to establish any doctrine: say 
* Art. 6. idem R. jacob. praef. monitor. pag. 39  the articles of our Church.  
2 His second reason to prove, that the Church of Rome reverences the Scripture more than we do, is, because they presume not to translate them, or interpret them according to their own private judgement, but conformably according to the spirit of the universal Church; whereas Protestants permit every man to rush into the Text, to translate or interpret it. Both the parts of this reason are false. First the Papists out of the reverend regard to the divine truth contained in them, presume not either to translate or interpret the Scripture according to their private judgement, but according to the judgement of the universal Church. Here are three untruths. First, that in their expositions and interpretations they follow the universal Church: for therein they follow only the Pope's will, and practise of the present Roman Church, which are not the universal Church: this is showed in THE WAY, Digr. 16. And 
c Si quando occurrerit aliquis sensus textui conso●us, quamuis à torrent doctorum alienus, loctor aequum se prebeat censorem: nullusque detestetur illum ex hoc, quod dissonat à priscis Doctoribus: Non enim alligavit Deus expositionem Scripturae priscorum Doctorum sensibus: alioquin spes nobis tolleretur exponendi Scripturarun. Caietan phloem. in Gen defended and followed herein by Andrad. pro council. l. 2. Communu opinio Doctorum non est attendenda quando altera contraria opinio favet potestati clavium, aut iurisdictioni Ecclesiae aut p●ae causae. D. Marta de iurisd. part. 4 pag. 273.  their learned men profess to follow new expositions, that the ancient Fathers never used. Secondly, that in their Translations they follow the universal Church. For the vulgar Latin is not the Translation of the universal Church; neither was any man bound to it, till the Council of Trent; and their translations into the mother tongues (when they are enforced thereunto) following the vulgar, follow the universal Church no more than it doth. The corruption of that Translation, I have showed in THE WAY, Digr. 7. Thirdly, that they translate not the Scripture, but according to the judgement of the universal Church: as if they used translations into the mother tongue; which is untrue thus far; that they use them not, but being enforced thereto by some extremity: but utterly forbidden them, and cry out against them, as I have showed elsewhere.  
3 The second part of his second reason is likewise false, that Protestants permit every man to rush, without reverence, into the sacred Text to translate it, if he have skill in the learned tongues, or to interpret it by his private spirit, although he have no skill in any besides the vulgar tongue: for we mislike private spirits, and expositions more than our adversaries do, who tie all to the Pope's sole will; when we allow no exposition afore it be squared to the rule of faith, and the sense of the true Church. And touching translating, there is as much regard with us, as was when the Church was purest: no man's private translation is canonised, but that which is publicly used, is done by public authority; an example whereof we had these last years, in the new Translation, 
* The comparison will scarce please those that absurdly hold the Septuagint, and the author of the Latin vulgar were Prophets infallibly guided in translating, by God's Spirit, as the Apostles and Prophets themselves were. See Io. Marian. tract. pro vulg. edit. c. 13 & 23. Matth. Aquar. in Capreo. prol pag 7.  PERFORMED WITH AS GOOD ADVICE, AND BY AS LEARNED AND GODLY MEN, AS EVER JOINED TOGETHER IN SUCH A WORK SINCE TRANSLATION WAS USED. And if some private men, skilful in the learned tongues, as Wickliff, or tindal, for example, when better means failed, translated the Bible of themselves: so did Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus, Origen, jerom, Lucian, Isychius, and 
d Fuere autem pene innume rabiles olim editiones Latinae Posseu. appar. v Biblia. p. 223.  innumerable others, and divers also lately in the Church of Rome. Saint Austin 
e De Doct. Chr. l. 2. c. 11.  says, They which turned the Scripture out of the Hebrew tongue into Greek, may be reckoned, but the Latin interpreters cannot by any means: for in the first times of the faith, as a Greek book (of the Scriptures) came into any man's hands, that thought himself to have some little faculty in both the tongues, he would be bold to translate it: the which thing truly did more help then hinder the understanding, etc. In which words of Saint Austin (besides the customs of those times in translating the Bible, that in every place the vulgar might use it, which I presume my jesuite will grudge at) we see they translated then, as boldly and commonly, and more, than any among us now do. Or if the jesuite will not allow us the privilege of that time, yet he may not for shame object that to our Church, which is done in his own, where Vatablus, Munster, Pagnin, Montanus, and others; men as private, as any translator among us, have translated or corrected the text out of the learned tongues; and which I commend to the jesuits good memory and contemplation, and to the consideration of all the Papists in England, their translations agree with ours, and differ from the vulgar Latin, as much as ours.   

Pag. 30.  A.D. Now although we hold, that Scripture is not the only rule, yet this doth not argue, that we be enemies to the Scripture, or that we are void of all means to secure us of the truth. For first we hold the holy Scripture to be one rule, yea a principal rule of our faith, which we should not do, if we were enemies to the Scripture. And one reason why we hold something else besides Scripture, to be with Scripture the rule of our faith, is partly because so we learn out of the Scripture, as in the Treatise and this my Reply will appear: partly because we find it necessary to admit some other infallible rule and 
* This infallible means is the authority of the Church, Fathers, Counsels, and Pope which i● so far from being yielded by ourselves to be subject to error (in any point of doctrine, authoratively concluded) that even M. White himself, who here affirmeth the Church, Fathers, Counsels and Pope, to be yielded by ourselves to be subject to error, doth a few pages before acknowledge, that it is a principle of our own, that a general Council cannot err: so careless this man was, what he said or unsaid, so he might seem to say something against us. A.D.  means, which may infallibly assure us, both what Books be Scripture, and what translation, and what interpretation is to be followed, for finding out the divine truth contained in Scripture. 
4 This is his reason why the Church of Rome denies the Scripture to be the whole rule of faith: for the understanding whereof, have your eye upon my words. I said, that one of their practices against the Scripture, is their depriving it from being the total rule of faith: and I added, that hereby they left themselves utterly void of all means to secure their faith by, and to find the truth: inasmuch as the Church, the Fathers, the Counsels, the Pope himself, which is all the rule they can pretend, are subject to error, and so by themselves confessed to be. To this he replies three things: first that they hold the Scripture to be one rule, yea a principal rule of our faith, which they would not do, if they were enemies to the Scripture. I answer distinctly three things: first, sometime some of them, when they are pressed, & cannot shift themselves, say as the jesuit here doth, the Scripture is the rule, and the principal rule too; yea more, so Bellar. Tho. Antonine, & others, whose words I have reported in THE WAY. Secondly, howsoever some of them sometime speak thus, yet again others allow it to be but a part of the rule: that is to say, such as contains but one part of things belonging to faith. Thus you see the jesuit expounds himself in his next words: we hold something else beside Scripture, to be with Scripture the rule of faith. Becan 
f Circ. Caluin. pag 278.  says, The total and full rule of our faith, is Scripture and Tradition both together: and this is defined in 
g Sess. 4.  the Trent Council. And it is enough to show their contempt and disdain of the Scripture, when thus they accuse it of imperfection, and match base and uncertain traditions with it. Therefore until they can prove, first that this defect is in the Scripture: next, that this defect is supplied by Traditions; and then thirdly that these whereof they boast, are the true Traditions proceeding from the same Spirit, that the Scripture doth, and left of God to supply this defect of the Scripture, they can never shake off the imputation laid upon them, that they be enemies to the Scripture. Thirdly, they do not hold the Scripture to be a principal rule, neither as the jesuite speaks. Would they did for their own sakes: but the jesuite knows it is holden to be the least part of the rule. The Bishops of the Council of Basil 
h Concil. Basil. p. 104. Bin.  say, The authority of an universal Tradition, or of a Council, is equal with the authority of the Scripture. Caesar Baronius: 
i An. 53. n. 11.  Tradition is the foundation of the Scriptures— and excels them in this, that the Scriptures cannot subsist, unless they be strengthened by Tradition: but Tradition hath strength enough without the Scriptures. Cardinal Hosius. 
k Conf Polon. pag. 383.  The least part of the Gospel is written, and the greater part by far is come to us by Tradition. Gregory the 13. 
l D. 40. Si Papa. in annot.  Men do with such reverence respect the Apostolical seat of Rome, that they rather desire to know the ancient institution of Christian religion from the Pope's mouth, then from the holy Scripture; and they only inquire what is his pleasure, and according to it they order their life and conversation. And if it be observed how these Traditions in every question and point of religion are preferred before the Scripture, this that I say will appear to be true; which they would not do, if they were not mortal enemies to the Scripture, and slaves to the Pope's absolute will.  
5 The second thing he replies, is, that the reason why they hold something else beside Scripture to be the rule, are two. First because we learn so out of the Scripture, which he says, he hath showed both in his Treatise, and in this Reply. This is false, as appears in my Answer to his Treatise, and shall yet further be manifest in this Defence against his Reply. Secondly, because we find it necessary to admit some other infallible rule and means to assure us, both what books be Scripture, and what interpretation is to be followed: which means is the authority of the Church, Fathers, Counsels, and Pope. This reason is answered 
b §. 9 n. 3. and there Dig●. 2●  in THE WAY; and hereafter in this DEFENCE: and albeit the true Church of Christ (which is not the Pope, and his Consistory) be a subordinate means, out of the Scripture itself, to teach and lead us forward to the knowledge of the Scripture, and the interpretation, as a judge shows and expounds the law; yet this proves not the Scripture not to be the rule, but shows that God hath commanded the ministery of his Church to teach, and guide us by that rule. For let any Papist say: is the Law itself but one part of the rule of our obedience to the King, and the judge the other, so that the Law and the judge both together make but one rule, because we find it necessary to admit the judge as a means infallibly to assure us, both which is the Law, and what interpretation thereof is to be followed? Not the Law, in respect of us, hath all his authority in itself from the King: and is the complete rule of every man's obedience, (for more is no man bound to, than the Law requires) and yet magistrates are used to expound and publish it. So is it with the Scriptures: and therefore the Protestants have means sufficient to secure their faith.  
6 But where he says in the margin, that this infallible means (that must so necessarily be admitted to assure us what books be Scripture, and what interpretation is to be followed) is the authority of the Church, Fathers, Counsels, Pope: I must admonish him, 
c See THE WAY, digr. 16. n. 4. and below chap. 35. n. 1.  that the current doctrine of Rome, is, that neither Church, Fathers, nor Counsels, exercise this authority infallibly, but only the Pope: and that his sole definitive sentence is the last and highest authority to secure us: and therefore the jesuite is bound out, and all Papists with him, for ever, from pretending any other infallible means beside the Pope, whose judgement alone being their Lodestar, they do but flatter themselves, and mock us to our faces, when they talk of Church and Counsels. But because I said, the Church, Fathers, Counsels and Pope, by themselves were yielded to be subject to error, and so consequently could not secure them; therefore he objects, that, a few pages before, I acknowledged that it is a principle of their own, that a general Council cannot err. If by their own principles a Council cannot err, which I confess there, than it is false that I say here, the Church, the Fathers, a Council, the Pope, are yielded by themselves to be subject to error: I answer, that in the Council of 
d Epist. synodal de author. cuiuslibet council. general. sup. Papam.  Basill, ann. 1432. it was adjudged, that a general Council cannot err, whether the Pope confirm it or no. Since which time, 
e Alliac. Gers. Mayor Panorm Almain. Ludou. Rom. quos refert Azor. to 2. pa. 565. & 575. Viri quidam doctissimi sentiunt, Concilium generale, legitimè congregatum, etiam absent Papa, solid●m certamque habere authoritatem, priusquam à summo Pontifice confirmetur. Can. loc. pag. 257.  very many of the best learned in the Papacy have followed that opinion; & thereupon I said, it was a principle of their own, that a general Council cannot err; speaking nothing of the Church, Fathers, or Pope: and yet forsomuch as 
f jacobat. de conc. p. 347. Bellar. de conc c. 11. Turrecr. sum. l. 3 c. 58. concls. 2. Caietan apol. par. 2. c 21. Azor. par. 2. l. 5. c. 12. favour Can pag. 259 loc.  the jesuits & others hold the contrary, that a Council not authorized by the Pope may err; forsomuch as Counsels receive all their strength from the Pope: and 
g Occam. dial par 1. l. 5. c. 25. & 26. favet Waldenf. doct. princip. l. 2. c. 19  some, that they may err though the Pope do confirm them: & 
h Hadr. 4. de sacram. Euchar pag. 26.  others, that the Pope may err even in his authorative conclusions: therefore I objected here, that themselves confess all these may err. This is neither carelessness, nor yet saying and unsaying in me, but in them, that have no principle, but it is contradicted among themselves: for what I said a few pages before, I spoke according to the opinion of some; and what I say here, according to the contrary opinion of othersome. Let the jesuite show me an unforme opinion touching this matter in his Church, and he shall deliver me hereafter from such quarrels and exceptions as this is. In the mean time, when there is no certainty or agreement in his church touching that they hold against us, but some say this, and some that, he must give us leave to charge it with both opinions, or with neither, until they are agreed upon a certainty.   

Pag. 30.  A. D. On the contrary side, Protestants, who will admit no rule, but only Scripture, do not this for pure friendship, and good will to the Scripture, but for enmity, or not very good will to the Church, whose authority while they do not admit to be infallible, they have left themselves utterly void of all means sufficient to secure their faith by, and to find out the divine infallible truth contained in the Scripture, as in the Treatise, and Reply, is largely showed. 
7 The Protestants I grant, and hear solemnly affirm, admit no rule, whereby to try what is matter of faith, and what is not, but only Scripture: the Church hath her authority, if it be the true Church: and lawful Counsels, & godly Bishops, whereof the Pope is none, are the ordinance of God to propound this faith unto us; but the whole rule of the Church's judgement, is only Scripture; which if the student will, I will say over again in capital letters, ONLY SCRIPTURE, ONLY SCRIPTURE, and NOTHING but Scripture: for the exposition and confirmation whereof, I refer him to THE WAY which he lost, when he made his Reply, Digr. 3. And this we do for pure friendship and good will to the Scriptures and Church both: lest ungratefully against the Scriptures, & perniciously against the Church, by relying upon men, we should leave ourselves void of sufficient means to secure our faith by. For 
a Cyril. jerosol. catech. pag. 15. Graec.  saith the ancient Church, the security of our faith, 
d Syllog Whatsoever he taught by word of mouth, the same by his Epistles he revoked to their memory. But he taught all things belonging to faith, by word of mouth: Therefore by his Epistles he revoked the same to memory. But his Epistles are written: therefore by writing he revoked to their memory all things belonging to faith: Therefore all things belonging to faith are written.  is from the demonstration of holy inspired Scriptures: 
b Iren. l. 3 c. 1.  For the disposing of our salvation, we have not known by any other, but those by whom the Gospel came unto us, the which then they preached, but afterward by God's appointment they delivered unto us in the Scriptures, to be the foundation and pillar of our faith. And: 
c Ibid. c. 2.  When heretics are convinced out of the Scriptures, they fall to accusing them, as if they were not right, nor from authority, because they are variably spoken, and from them the truth cannot be found of those that know not Tradition, inasmuch as this truth was not delivered by writing, but by word of mouth. Thus speaks the ancient Church, in express terms pointing to our adversaries; whereby the Reader may judge which of us bear most good will to the Church and Scriptures: and if the jesuite will yield to that Nicephorus q writes in his Ecclesiastical history, that whatsoever S. Paul being present taught by word of mouth among the Corinth's, Ephesians, Galatians, Colossians, Philippians, Thessalonians, jews, Romans, and many other towns whereunto the holy Ghost sent him, and whom he begat in the faith of Christ; the same being absent by his Epistles sent to them, he compendiously revoketh into their memory. Then forasmuch as the Apostles preached nothing to any, but what they set down in the Epistles; the Protestants have good reason to admit only Scripture, because it contains all the preaching of the Apostles whatsoever. Let the jesuite in the course of his studies, and all Papists in the heat of their zeal, mark these and such like our grounds, and well consider them.   

Pag. 32.  A.D. As concerning his second mark, wherein he says, the very face of our Church is clean contrary to the first antiquity, if he mean, that there is some accidental difference, either in personal qualities of particular men, or in some point of outward estate, and manner of government, betwixt the first primitive age or infancy of the Church, and that other estate, which after it had, and now hath, when it is at full growth: this is not an argument sufficient to make men doubt of our religion, more than to see some accidental alteration betwixt the infancy & elder age of a man is any argument sufficient to make one doubt whether he be substantially the same man or no: but if he mean that there is any substantial difference in any doctrine of faith, his assertion is very false, as I declare in the Appendix annexed to this my Reply, where particular answer is made to the chief matters, against which here he taketh exception. 
8 I mean, and express so much, that between the present Roman Church and the ancient, there is a substantial difference in many doctrines of faith, and not such an accidental difference only, as the jesuite mentions. And because I desire no man to credit my bare word, I named the Hierarchy of the Church of Rome consisting in the state and jurisdiction of the Roman clergy, which is simply the substantiallest point that they count of, and four other points: and my speech was of that latitude, that it chargeth them with innovation in all the rest, the book itself afterward showing it in particular so fully and directly, that all the jesuits in England dare not lay railing and cavilling aside, and answer what I said, temperately and ingeniously: for that which the jesuite says in the Appendix, he hath made particular answer, is untrue: he hath answered particularly to nothing, nor can he. But knowing his sectaries were either so slothful that they would not read his book so far, or so forgetful, that when they came to the Appendix, this matter would be out of their head, he was bold in this place to promise what he never meant there to pay; though whatsoever he say there, is sufficiently answered. I am sorry at my heart for my countrymen, that have these tricks put upon them to seduce and pervert them. I beseech them by the mercies of jesus Christ, that as I penned my book out of my love to them, and desire of their salvation, (for the which I would sacrifice my life, and all the hopes I have in this world) so they will faithfully examine how the contents thereof are answered by this Reply; who, if I be not deceived, is far unable to meddle with these things.    

CHAP. X.  
1. The practice of the Papists in purging books. 2. The sacrifice of the Mass, and Real presence denied. 4. Points of Papistry absurd. 6. The Pope Lords it over all. Papists need pay no debts. May be traitors to murder Princes. 7. jesuits plotters in the Powder-treason. The Pope's dispensing with sin. 8. A meditation for all Papists.  
A. D. M. Whites third mark, is set down by him in these words: 
Pag. 31.  There is no point of our faith, but many learned in their own Church hold it with us. And no point of Papistry that we have rejected, but some of themselves have misliked as well as we. And this (saith he) may be demonstrated in all the questions that are between us, and they know it, etc. Thus far are M. Whites words. The which contain in them so many black lies, as there are instances, which may be given of particular points, both of Catholic doctrine rejected by Protestants, and not misliked by any of ourselves, and of Protestant doctrine not patronized nor held by any learned men of our Church. And to omit other instances, I ask M. White, how many learned men of our Church have denied the Mass to contain a Sacrifice, in such sort as Protestants do deny? How many also will he find to affirm, that Christ his blessed body is only figuratively in the Sacrament, or in such sort, that the real substance of it, is no nearer them that receive the Sacrament, than heaven is to earth, as by the Caluinists is held against the Roman Church? Let M. White for his credit produce, if he can, many or any learned men of our Church, which hold in these points with Caluinists against the Roman faith. As for the Index expurgatorius (which M. White mentioneth) and the practice and use of it, our Authors have sufficiently answered, namely N.D. in his Warnword, and the author of the book called the Grounds of the old and new religion, in his answer to M. Crashaw, annexed to the said book. 
1 THat which I said, I showed in my book; where in every controversy that fell out between us, I have produced popish writers one against another, either justifying our doctrine, or crossing their own: and I have so truly alleged them, that the quotations being many hundreds, this jesuite in all his, Reply, hath not so much as enterprised to answer one of them, but only that of Baius, whereby the Reader may guess, whether in this my assertion I have lied or not. He says there be so many black lies as there be instances in my words, (and I confess I have often heard of the sound of a lie, that it hath rung so loud, that it might be heard from Rome hither, though of the colour I never heard before, until the jesuits began to paint them) yet the argument I used to prove that I said, the purging, and razing, and forbidding so many of their own writers, is unanswerable. N. D. in his Warnword, and A.D. in his Reply, and he that scribbled I know not what against M. Crash. may satisfy such as are full gorged with prejudice; but let the indifferent reader judge, if the publishing of books, which the authors, whose names they bear, never writ, and the razing and purging of their writings, be not a manifest sign, that they find the doctrine of their Divines in former times to be against them, and to cross the present opinions of their Church. The which their practice, the jesuite makes a light matter, but it must be better considered. It is our plea against the Church of Rome, that the doctrine thereof is altered, and that we hold nothing but what the learned in that Church taught as well as we, many a day since. And this we are ready to show in every question, out of their books. 
a This is so manifest, that it cannot be denied. 1. First, the books thus purged are extant, which are of the chiefest of their Diui●e● Caietan, Folydore, Masius, Ferus, Alphonsus, Molineus, Eugubinus, Lud, vives, Erasmus, Duarenus, Faber, Rhenanus, and innumerable others. 2. The directions for the purging of all authors, by putting into them, and taking out of them, and razing what they writ, called Judices expurgatorij, according whereunto they are to be newly printed, are extant: one set forth in Flanders, another in Spain, a third in Portugal, a fourth in Naples, a fift at Rome; all which are publicly to be seen; of which sort there are many more, that we have not yet come by, and daily more are made, as the jesuits and their governors can espy in any book, what they mislike. In these Indices you may see what is to be put out, and what to be foisted in, in the books mentioned. 3. There is straight order that no book● be printed before it be thus purged. The Spanish Index says in the preface thereof, that of necessity some things must be wiped out, and cut off. The King of Spain authorizing the Index of Flanders, says in his letters patents prefixed, that for the propagation of religion, he had caused all the Libraries both public and private to be purged—: and learned men to be employed in the reading and revising of books, that they might the better and in shorter time be purged; commanding all Prelates secretly, without the privity of any, to have an Expurgatory Index by them, and according thereunto to blot out in books the places noted. 4. Pope Leo the tenth, in a certain decretal appoints and ordains, that hereafter for ever no man shall print or cause to be printed any book or writing in the city of Rome, or in any other place, unless first by his Vicar or Minister of his Palace or by some Bishop or other thereunto deputed, it be diligently examined, and subscribed (7. Decretal. pag. 534.) To what purpose this examination is intended, appears by the rule of the Trent Council: Such books as handle good matter, and yet have some things interlaced by the way, which belong to heresy or impiety, may be permitted after they are purged by the authority of the Jnquisition (Ind. lib. prohi●. reg. 8) Again: Such as publish Manuscript books before they be examined and allowed, shall be punished. (Reg 10) Let Bishops and Jnquisitors have faculty to purge all books whatsoever, according to the prescript of this Jndex—. They which are put in trust with correcting and purging books must diligently look into all things, and attentively note them; not such things only as manifestly offer themselves in the course of the work, but if there be any thing that lies privily in the Annotations, Summaries, Margins, Tables, or in the Prefaces, or Epistles dedicatory of such books; the things to be corrected and purged, are these that follow: heretical assertions, or such as are erroneous, savouring of heresy, scandalous, offensive, temerarious, and schismatical, (such as they will expound any thing to be, that hath been written contrary to the present jesuitisme, though it were holden never so generally in the Church of Rome heretofore) such as induce any novelty against the rites and ceremonies of the Sacraments, and against the received use of the Church of Rome. Profane novelties also devised by heretics—. But in the books of later Catholics, written since the year 1515. if that which needs correcting, can be mended, by taking away or adding a few things, let it be done, otherwise let it be altogether blotted out. (instruct. post Ind.) 5. Possevine the jesuite says, that in the public Libraries of Princes, and others, special care is to be had that Manuscript books not permitted by the Church, be not open to the view of every one, because they also must be purged. (Bibl select. pag 36.) and that Antoninus an Archbishop in the Church of Rome 140 years since, now enjoying the light of heaven, no doubt desires that all his writings should be reviewed and occupied purer than of old they were. (apparat verb Anton. Flor) M. Witherington says, It is not the Pope's manner to permit either the deeds or opinions of their predecessors, which help the papal authority, to be impugned or called into question; and therefore as well the Pope himself, as the Ordinaries of places, and Inquisitors are careful enough that no books come abroad, which any ways derogate from the Pope's authority; and if that they do come abroad, that they be suppressed or not read by any without special faculty till they be purged, which is the cause why it is so hard a thing in these times to find any clause in the books of Catholics, calling the Pope's temporal power in question, or to know what such authors thought touching the same power, who most an end are enforced to speak their mind in the words of the censors. (Apol. n. 449) Hasenmullerus speaking of this practice of the Inquisitors, reports many things, that it were too tedious to report. pag. 275. And the like doth junius (praef. Ind. exp. Belg.) to whom I refer thee.  Wherein to prevent us, daily they raze and wipe those things out, and put the contrary in, and so publish their books (the most devilish and dishonest course, that ever any sect used to help themselves) and burn up the old editions, that are the true copies, which the Authors writ, and whereby that should be tried that we say. So that in the ages to come, when the old copies shall be worn out, and their New-purged once shall have gotten a little antiquity, these desperate Termagants will resolutely deny that ever any such thing was written, or any such purging ufed; & so it shall be generally maintained, that the things that the jesuits and censors have clapped into their books, were written by the authors themselves. If this can be answered, what do pillories and papers, ordained for forgers? when not a poor parchment of evidence, but the deeds and evidences of the Christian world shall thus be forged? and all antiquity be jesuited, and reduced by this practice to the new cut?  
2 In the mean time I answer the jesuite, that I will stand to my offer, if he will let the trial be made by books unpurged; such as are the true copies, that the authors published: that there is no point of our faith, but many learned in their own Church hold it with us: and no point of Papistry that we have rejected, but some of them have misliked it as well as we: and his two instances of the Mass and Real presence, I accept: though I have answered them 
a Pag. 158. letter m. & 178. . e. & 379. . f.  in THE WAY so directly, that it was his best policy to dissemble it, and to require me for my credit to do that, which I had done already. For to his first demand: How many learned men of our Church have denied the Mass to contain a sacrifice, in such sort as Protestants do deny? I answered 
b Vbi sup.  in two several places. For the understanding whereof, and the applying my said answer to this place, the Protestants deny that Christ in his last Supper, which the jesuite absurdly calls the Mass, offered any propitiatory sacrifice (properly so called, according to the real notion of the word sacrifice) of his body and blood. This I showed by the testimony 
c Can. loc. l. 12. c. 13. Suar. come 3. d. 84. f. 2. Azor instit. moral. tom. 1. l. 10. c. 18.  of three several Papists, to be denied by some Catholics in the Council of Trent: and they consequently deny as we do, that the Priest offers any such sacrifice; 
d Christus ea quae ab alijs obseruanda instituit, ipse primitùs obseruarit Tho 3. q. 81. art. 1.0. In hac quaestione initium sumendum est ex facto Christi, quod exemplar est actioni● nostrae, & fundamentum ac primum initium huius mysterij. Fra. Suar. ubi sup. pag. 949.  because the Priest now doth no more than Christ did then in his Supper. They therefore that deny, Christ offered any sacrifice, deny it also in the Priest. And then I alleged a discourse of Thomas, where he propounds the question, Whether in this Sacrament, Christ be immolated, that is, sacrificed? and his answer is, that the celebration of this Sacrament, is called the sacrificing of Christ: for two causes. First because images are used to be called by the names of the things, whose images they be; as when we behold a picture on a table, we say, this is Cicero. Now the celebration of this Sacrament, is a certain image representing the passion of Christ, which is his true sacrificing, and therefore is called the sacrificing of Christ. Next in regard of the effect of Christ's passion; because by this Sacrament we are made partakers of the benefit of our Lord's passion. In which words making no mention of such real and unbloody sacrificing, as the Church of Rome now teaches; it is more than plain, that he believed it not. For if he had, he would have uttered it as fully as he doth other things. Besides these, I add the Master of Sentences, who 
e If we talk of all Divinity, the books of Peter Lombard, Master of the Sentences, is held to be the first methodical work, that drew all divinity into a certain form. Walsing. p. 128.  professing to set down all the points of Divinity, most exactly, as our adversaries say: yet no where in all his book, mentions this kind of sacrifice, but 
f 4. d. 12 §. Post haec quaeritur.  propounding the question: Whether that which the Priest doth in the Eucharist, be properly said to be a sacrifice or immolation; and whether Christ be daily sacrificed, or were only once sacrificed: his answer is: To this it may briefly be said, that which is offered and consecrated by the Priest, is called a sacrifice and an oblation, because it is a memorial and representation of the true sacrifice and holy immolation, made upon the altar of the cross; and Christ died once upon the Cross, and was there sacrificed in himself, but he is daily sacrificed in the Sacrament, because the remembrance of that which is once done, is retained. These words show plainly, that some learned men in the Roman Church, have denied the Mass to contain a sacrifice, even in such sort as Protestants deny it.  
3 So there be also that affirm, the real substance of Christ's body to be no nearer them that receive the Sacrament, than heaven is to the earth, as the Caluinists hold. For Picus Mirandulus 
g Conclus. pag 64. nu. ●4. & pag 65. n●. 20.  says, the body of Christ is sacramentally on the altar, but locally in heaven: and one body cannot be in divers places at once. And the opinion of the Caluinists is no otherwise then 
h Effectum tandem ut in hanc insaniam prorumperet (Berengarius) ut verum corpus & sanguinem Christi non esse an pane & vino docuerit— haec haeresis, apud Heluetios, hoc nostro tempore per Caluinum revocatae est. Prateol. Elenc. verbo Berengarius.  Berengarius; and yet Waldensis 
i Sacrament. Eucharist. c. 19 pag. 17. tom. 2.  writes, that there were many, that with the Church of Rome condemned Berengarius (for his manner of speaking) which yet thought as he did. And 
k THE WAY p●g. 349.  I alleged a saying of 
l 4. d. 10. q. 1. §. Quantum.  Scotus, that from the beginning since the matter of this Sacrament was believed, it hath ever been believed, that Christ's body is not moved out of his place in heaven, that it might be here in the Sacrament, and yet it was not in the beginning so manifestly believed, as touching this conversion. Where Scotus affirms, that it hath not always been believed, that the body of Christ is moved out of heaven to be in the Sacrament; 
* Note, touching the form of recantation prescribed to Berengarius, by Pope Nicolas; wherein the Pope enjoins him to say: I confess— the bread and wine after consecration to be the true body and blood of Christ, and to be sensibly handled in the hands of the Priest, yea broken and chewed with the teeth of the faithful. Which words are read de Consec. d. 2 ego Bereng. and pressed by the Papists to explicate & prove their transubstantiation: that it is confessed to be too gross, and merely false, if the words be understood as they sound, of the body of Christ. So the Gloss: Nisi sanc intelligas verba Berengarij, in maiorem incides haeresim quàm ipse habuit. §. Dentibus. Turrecremata. Nec iste modus loquendi, est tenendus. Ibi. nu 1. §. Respondeo. Hervaeus. Quod quidem vocabulum, ut sc. à dentibus tereatur, non est extendendum, sed exponendum & restringendum; ut sit sensus, non quod corpus verum Christi teratur dentibus, sed quod illae species, sub quibus realiter est, tereantur dentibus. Et ideo est alia opinio communior & verior, etc. 4. d. 10. qu. 1. pag. 17. But this Gloss is proved untrue by this, that the words thus expounded, contain nothing against Berengarius opinion, who had denied only the gross and real presence of Christ's flesh.  it was sometime therefore believed (by some body in the Church of Rome, belike) that his blessed body, touching the place and manner of presence, was as far from them that receive the Sacrament, as heaven is from earth. This for the real and spiritual presence. If the jesuite dare put his Transubstantiation to the trial, let him look into 
m Digress. 49. nu. 9  THE WAY, and hearken what many of his own learned men say of it; and when he hath done, let him take a view of the poor answer, that in this his Reply he hath made unto them.   

Pag. 32.  A.D. The fourth mark is set down by M. White in these words: The most points of Papistry are directly, and at the first sight absurd, and against common sense, and the law of nature. If he mean that they seem at the first sight absurd, etc. to the seduced people of his sect, who neither believe, nor rightly understand either the things by us believed, or the reason or authority for which we believe them; than it may be he saith true, but nothing to the purpose For if this were a sufficient mark to make us misdoubt our religion, by the like reason other heretics, or infidels, who do not believe the mysteries of the blessed Trinity, the Incarnation, etc. might think to make us misdoubt the truth of these mysteries, because they (who neither believe these mysteries, nor rightly understand them, nor the reasons and motives which make us believe them) will say that these mysteries are directly and at first sight absurd, etc. yet in truth they are not absurd, nor against, but above our reason and sense: so I say to M. White, although other points of our religion seem to him absurd, yet in truth they are not absurd, neither are they contrary to, but at most above the reach of natural reason. 
4 I do not object against the religion of the Papacy, that it is but above the reach of reason. For many mysteries of the true faith are so, the which we must believe, and 
n Nec quisquam potest intelligentiam Dei apprehendere, nisi qui toto se despecto, conversus ad sapientiam Dei, omnem quaerendi ratiocinationem transtuleri● ad credendi fidem. Oros. l. 6. c. 1.  not examine by sense: but that many points thereof are absurd, and directly against sense, and the light of nature; which no piece of true religion is: as for example, that a man endued with reason, should fall down and adore, and invocate an image; 
o showed in THE WAY, §. 50. n. ●6. & 51. n 7. and below, chap. 54.  the which in the Church of Rome is taught and practised. As many other points are as absurd as it. But if it be true, which the jesuite says, that they are mysteries, which we understand not, being a seduced people, not acquainted with the authority whereupon they are believed; that is another matter that I knew not before: for they are to blame that will demand reason for the mysteries of Rome, that have authority beyond reason; 
p Apoc. 17.5.  whose forehead hath the word Mystery written in it: and I had forgotten 
q Quia in his quae vult, ei est pro ratione voluntas. Nec est qui ei dicat, cur ita facis. Gloss. §. Veri. c. Quanto de transl. ep. Sacrilegij insta● esset disputare de facto suo. Glos. §. Quis enim. d. 40. Non nos. Jta nos ad judices revocas, ac si nescires omnia iura in scrinio pectoris nostri collecata esse? sic flat sententia. Loco cedant omnes; Pontifex sum. Paul. 2. Platin. p. 304.  a rule in his law, that forbids men to ask any reason of his doings. But in the mean time where are the jesuits 
r Introd. q. 4. p. 100  prudential motives, without which nothing ought to be believed? because the understanding cannot assent to the thing propounded without some probable motive? For religion bids not men be stocks.   
A. D. And one cause why the common sort of Protestants do at the first sight think them absurd is, because they have not heard points of our doctrine truly related, and declared, as our Authors declare them, nor the reasons, and authorities set down, for which we believe them; but have heard such ignorant, or malicious Ministers as M White, make false relation of points of absurd doctrine to be held by us, which we do not hold, but abhor. As to go no further, M. White falsely relateth in this very place that we hold the Pope to have right to Lord it over the Scriptures, Fathers, Counsels, Church, and all the world. That we teach also men to murder the King: to pay no debts: to blow up the Parliament: to dispense with murder, and whoredom, etc. These, and such like, be not points of our doctrine, but shameless and slanderous untruths, by which simple people are drawn by ignorant or malicious Ministers, to mislike our doctrine in general, and to be apt to have a worse conceit of every point of it in particular, especially at the first sight, then by due examination they shall find it to deserve. 
5 Not Protestant's only think Popery absurd, but many Papists also, censuring the points I have named, and misliking them, show plainly that I spoke true: yet the Reply says, the cause why the common sort of Protestants think Popery absurd, is, because they hear not the points of Papistry truly related, but their ignorant and malicious Ministers charge them to hold what they hold not. This is false: for first these Protestants that thus condemn Papistry, do daily read the Papists own books, which are not restrained and prohibited with 
a The reading and use of Lutheran books forbidden, not only the vulgar, but all others, of what state, degree, order, or condition soever they be: though Bishops, Archbishops, or greater: only the Jnquisitors are excepted: by a Decretal of julius the 3. See Sept. Decr. l. 5. tit. 4. de lib. prohib. c. 2.  that severity wherewith ours are prohibited in popish countries: that if any ignorant or malicious Minister would falsely report what the Church of Rome holds, yet they may hear the adversaries tell their own tales, having partly through their policy, partly through the connivency of the Superior, that liberty to publish their writings, that ourselves have not much more. Next, the Ministers of England, both in their preaching, writing, and conference, report the doctrine of Papists as truly as it is delivered in their own books, and observed out of their conversation; but many of them are so foul and vile, that they may not endure the reporting; and therefore when we mention them, they deny them, and are ashamed of them, as many are of their bastards: an evident example whereof, the jesuite gives in this place; for the points here mentioned, are truly related, and are neither shameless nor slanderous, not yet untruths, but the sincere and faithful report of that execrable doctrine that Papists, and none but Papists, have taught and practised: and because the jesuite is somewhat peremptory in denying this, I must put him in mind that I showed in THE WAY, every one of these points out of their books; and for the clearer discharge of myself, and all others that object these things to them, I will yet again show them, one by one.  
6 First they hold the Pope's Lordship over the Scripture. Cardinal Cusanus 
b Ep. 2.  writes, The Scripture is fitted to the time, and variably understood; so that at one time it is expounded according to the fashion of the Church: and when that fashion is changed, the sense of the Scripture is also changed. 
c Ep. 3.  Again, When the Church changeth her judgement, God also changeth his. And 
d Ep. 7.  no marvel, seeing the letter of the Scripture is not of the essence of the Church, if the practice of the Church at one time interpret the Scripture of this fashion, and another time on that. The Council of Trent hath anathematized him that shall deny this his Lordship: 
a Sess. 24. can. 3  If any man say, that only those degrees of consanguinity and affinity which are expressed in Leviticus, can hinder marriage to be contracted, and dissolve that which is contracted; and that his Lordship the Church cannot dispense in many of them, or ordain more degrees to hinder and dissolve, let him be anathema. D. Stapleton 
b Princip. fid. pag. 351. Relect pag. 514.  affirms, that the Church, his Lordship, may add other books to the Canon of the Scripture, which yet belong not thereunto. Cardinal Hosius 
c De author. sac. Script. lib. 3. pag. 169.  defendeth, that the Scriptures were of no more authority than Aesop's Fables, but that the Church and Pope's approved it. Augustinus Anconitanus 
d Qu. 60. art. ●.  says, that his Lordship may dispense in the Law of Moses. Delgado 
e De auth. scrip pag. 47, & 48.  writes, that the assertions of the Pope in matters of Faith, reach as far as the teaching of the Apostles, or the holy Scripture: and he says, There are, who allow them to appertain to the divine Scripture. 
f Trac. de iurisd pag. 64. part. 1. Idem Capistran. de auth. Papae, & council. p. 95.  D. Marta says, The Pope in his administration is greater than Paul, and may dispense against him in things not concerning the articles of faith. Secondly, they hold his Lordship over the Fathers. D. Marta says, 
g De iurisdict. par. 4. pag. 273.  The common opinion of the Doctors is not to be regarded when another contrary opinion favours the power of the keys, or a pious cause. Thirdly touching Counsels: 
h Azor. instit. tom. 2. pag. 574. Bellar. de conc l. 2. c. 13. 17. Antonin. sum. mor. par. 2. tit. 3. c. 11. §. 10. Turrecr. sum. de eccl. l. 3 c. 63. concl. 1. & l. 2. c. 104. Caiet tract. de autho. Pap. & council. c. 6. 7. 10. 11. & apol. eius tract par. 2. c. 7. 8. 9 10. Capist. p. 104. b. Allan. de potest dup. n. 74.  the jesuits hold, that the Pope's judgement is to be preferred before a whole Council. Dominicus jacobatius a Cardinal, 
i Tract. de council. l. 6. art. 2. pag 337. B. Romae per Ant. Blade. an. 1538. in fol.  says, that in causes of faith, if the Pope have the judgement of his Cardinals concurring with him, then without doubt, albeit the doubt arising were most difficult, yet the Pope's opinion were to be preferred before a general Council. And that no man think the Cardinals have power to overrule or sway him, so that he should not Lord it over them also, Palaeotus himself a Cardinal, and practised in the Consistory many years, 
k De consist. part. 5. q. 4. pag. 295. & Jude.  tells us, that when the Pope hath once determined a thing, and is come to the end of his consultations, the Cardinals must be so far from dissenting, that as obedient sons they must give example to others of obedience—: yea subscribe to his Bull, though it be against their conscience—. For the Pope's authority depends not on the counsel given by Cardinals, but rests on his own will, who of divers opinions propounded to him, may choose that which serveth rightest to himself. Fourthly, touching Scriptures, Fathers, Counsels, Church, and all the world together, Suarez the jesuite 
l Tun. 1. disp. 44. sect. 1. p. 677. B.  says: I grant therefore the Pope's determination is the truth, and were it contrary to the sayings of all the Saints, yet were it to be preferrrd afore them. Nay, if an Angel from heaven were opposed against him, the Pope's determination were to be preferred. Fiftly, they maintain him to be above the Church, as appears by that hath been said of his eminency above and against Counsels. Palaeotus 
m De consist. par. 1. q. 2. p. 61.  says, that as a universal agent he contains under his authority, all Ecclesiastical powers, as particular agents: and without exception, he alone may forgive all men's sins, and exercise iurisdidiction over all. Sixtly he Lords it over Kings: jacobatius 
n Tract. de Concil. in fin. vlt. c pag. 778.  says The Emperor holds his Empire of the Church of Rome, and may be called the Pope's Vicar or Official. Capistranus, 
o De Authors Pap. & council. pag 94.  that to him as to Christ, let every knee be bowed,— and Emperors, & the greatest Princes submit their heads. Bozius 
p De temporal. Monarch. pag. 52.  hath written a book to defend that the supreme temporal jurisdiction belongs to the Pope, so that he is universal Monarch of all the world. D. Marta 
q Part. 1. pag. 45. de iurisdict.  says, The Pope hath the same power that Christ had to rule over all nations and kingdoms. Seventhly that to Pay no debts, to such as they count heretics, is the doctrine of our adversaries 
r The way pag. 317.  I showed in the express words of Ouandus, a late schoolman 
s 4. D. 13. prop. 30 p. 348.  that says, He that fails to make payment sins not, because the other man's heresy hath discharged him— Debtors may excuse themselves by excepting against him his heresy that demands the debt. Angelus Clavasinus 
t Sum. Angel. v Heresim. n. 15 the same is in sum. Armil. v. Heresis. n. 11. & silvest v. Heresis 1. n. 14. §. undecima.  says, whosoever they be that stand bound to heretics, by any obligation, they are ipso facto discharged: therefore if any man have promised payment to such heretics, or sworn it, at a certain day, he is not bound to perform it. 
u And note that even in this our present corrupt time, with schism & heresy, Catholics want not good means to pay their tithes duly to God, being such a number of poor Catholic Priests without any livings of the Church which were not ordained for Caluinisticall Ministers, but for the provision of Catholic Priests; to whom in case they now pay their tithes God will reward it. Hopkins memor. pag. 333.  Their doctrine also that teaches the people of our country to cousin their Ministers of their tithes, and pay them to the poor Catholic Priests, is not far from this. Eightly they teach to murder the King. This I have showed at large, 
* Cap. 6.  a little before. When D. Parry came over to murder good Queen Elizabeth, one of the Pope's Cardinals writ this letter to him. Sir, the Holiness of our Lord (the Pope) hath seen your letter with the credence enclosed, and cannot but praise your good disposition, and resolution, which you writ, holdeth to the service & benefit public. Wherein his Holiness exhorteth you to continue, and to bring to pass, that which you promise. And to the end you may be the more aided by that good spirit, which hath induced you to this, his Blessedness granteth you full pardon, and forgiveness of all your sins, as you requested; assuring you that besides the merits, which you shall receive in heaven, his Holiness will make himself a farther debtor, to acknowledge your deservings in the best manner that he may: and so much the more, because you use so great modesty in not pretending any thing. Put therefore in act your holy, and honourable thoughts, and look to your safety. And so I present myself heartily to you, and wish you all good, and happy success. From Rome the 30 of januarie, 1584. Yours to dispose N. Cardinal of Como. 
x Rod. Botter. comment. pag. 109.  When castle, that wounded the last French king was examined, By whose teaching, and persuasion he had learned to kill the King, he answered, that he had heard of many, that the murder was lawful, because they called him a Tyrant; being demanded again, whether the jesuits used to say it were lawful to kill the King, he answered, he heard many say, that fact was lawful, because he was out of the Church, and excommunicated. There is 
y Fra. de Veron. Constant. apol. pro joh. castle. pag. 133.  a book written by a Papist in maintenance of this Chastels' deed. In this book he says, if Harmodius, and Aristogiton, Scevola, and Brutus, only for love of their country, having no other light to go before them, cast themselves into such danger by murdering Tyrants, what think you, ought a Christian, and a French man, and one that burns with the zeal of Phinees, Ehud, and Elias, to do for their Catholic Church, for which Christ died, and wherein men are sure of their salvation? And agreeably to this 
z Amphith. pag. 101.  writes Bonarscius a jesuite: Hath the Pope no power against the King of France? Shall Dyonisius, Machanidas, Aristotimus, Tyrants, Monsters of the world, oppress France, and shall no Pope encourage up a Dion, a Timoleon to dispatch them? shall many Monsters hold the Commonwealth in bands, and shall no Thrasibulus move his hand?— shall there be no man to play the soldier upon this beast, the King of France? And that we may know who were the authors of his death, which not long after ensued, 
a Pag. 258. Bellarm. gave better words (Tort. p. 108) but this had more skill in prophecy.  thus Francis of Verone, Chastells' patron, prophecies: Though the Prince of Orange scaped the first 
* With a pistol at Antwerp. whereof he scaped. See Dinoth. and Meteran.  blow given him in his cheek: yet the next hit; whereof this was a presage: as the blow given by castle shall be the forerunner of another blow, to come hereafter.  
7 Ninthly the conspiracy for the blowing up of the Parliament was allowed and ratified by jesuits and Popish Priests: Garnet, Gerard, Oldcorn, Greenewell, beside others whom we never yet saw. 
b See Act. S. Garnet. M●teran. rer. Belg. tom. 2 pag. 385 D. Eliens. Tor. pag. 279. & inde. D. Abb. anti log. c. 9 10. 11. 12. Casaub. ad Front.  First certain lay Recusants, Catesby, Percy, Winter, Tresham, Wright, devised the plot, and then the jesuits fell in with them. GARNET imparted the Pope's Breves to Catesby, whereby he was stirred up to devise some way how to take away the King: and when he had bethought himself of this powder plot, first, in general terms, he breaks with Garnet a case; What if in some case the innocent should be destroyed with the guilty: and Garnet affirmed they might, so that it were for a good, able to recompense the loss of those innocent persons. Afterward the thing was plainly opened to him, (not in confession as it is said by Garnets' Patrons) and he concealed, allowed, and encouraged it; whose authority was it that drew so many into it. And this is manifest by his examinations, confessions, and his own handwriting, and his private conference with Oldcorn in the Tower. TESMOND plotted together with Garnet: and when the villainy was discovered, went up and down to raise open arms against the King. OLD CORN, alias HALL., defends the plot after it was discovered, to his Catholics, and will not have them let down their courage for the ill success, which many times followed a good cause. HAMMOND, in Winter's house, absolved the traitors, when the treason was revealed, and they all ready to take arms. GERARD gave them the sacrament to bind them to secrecy. All these things, with their circumstances are now laid open by the public writings of our state, and are cleared against the desperate cavils of our adversaries, out of the public records. Lastly, that the Church of Rome dispenses with murder, and whoredom, is plain, by that which I have showed touching the Pope's dispensing with the murder of Princes. and the jesuits enterprising it. But this is yet more fully to be seen in 
c Taxa Camerae: & cancel. apost. to be seen in Tractat. iur. D D. tom. 10. and in Recusat. council Trident. in 4. printed Angentor. 1565.  the Taxation of the Pope's chamber and Chancery, where there is no sin so great, but absolution and dispensation may be had for the money rated. Among the grievances of the States of Germany this was 
d Gravam. Ger. n. 3. infascic. re. expet. & fug.  one, that the Popes pardoners granted freedom for 
* Noxas praeteritas nut futuras.  times to come, and so filled the country with all whoredom, incest, perjury, murder, theft, rapine, usury. Onus Ecclesiae 
e Cap. 15. n. 47. pag. 27.  says, it is manifest our Mother the Church, with her children, are not a little perplexed and rend, about the rule and manner of penances and pardons, and without God's great help she will never be able to deliver herself.  
8 And thus not only the common sort of Protestants, but the resolutest Papists also, that are, may see whether we relate the points of their doctrine truly, or no, and the Reasons, and Authorities for which they are believed among them: and when their deeds are so apparent, that very children in the streets observe them, and all their books so full of these damnable doctrines, that they contrive almost nothing else; they must not think with crying out black lies, ignorant, and malicious Ministers, shameless, and slanderous untruths, to shift themselves: it were a better way for them, and more expedient for the salvation of their souls, and the edification of so many people, from whom with fraud, and treachery they conceal these things, to confess them, and forsake them, remembering there is a God, that hates lying, and will be revenged on treason, and falsehood. For our parts, when we report these things, we do it not in malice, or untruly; but to admonish the world what wolves they be, that thus jet up and down in sheeps clothing.    

CHAP. XI.  
1. The Papists manner of dealing, with immodesty and uncharitableness. Briarly and Walsinghams' books noted. 2. Some reports of the Papists meekness and mildness. Hunt a Seminary arraigned at Lancaster. The dumb cattle slaughtered in Lanc. The general desire of us all to reduce them to charity.  A. D. The fifth mark, saith M. White, is their intemperate, and unchristian proceeding against us: for (saith he) if they were of the truth, they would not defend themselves, and deal against us with gross lying, uncharitable railing, irreconcilable malice, which are the weapons darkness, but with gravity, and sincerite, as becomes Christ's Gospel. Thus he, who with more truth might have told, many of his owne-Protestant 
* Whether this imputation made by M. White against us be more fitly applied to Protestants, or catholics, I refer me to those, who shall with indifferency read and compare, their writings, and particularly I wish the reader to read, and note what after due examination was found, and is set down in pri●e by M. Walsingham once an earnest Portestant, and now a good Catholic, converted partly by observation of the sincerity of catholics, and gross lying evidently found to be frequented by not only one, but divers chief protestant writers.  brethren of these soul faults, with which he falsely chargeth us, and might also have found himself so grossly guilty in the same kind, as he should have been afraid to cast these stones of calumniation against us, lest with shame they should be more justly returned against himself whom I have now so freshly taken with the manner of intemperate, and unchristian proceeding against us, to wit, with gross lying, unchristian railing, and malice, I will not say, (as he doth) irreconcilable malice, because I will in charity hope the best, that he may repent, and amend, and so be reconciled to us: which reconciliation, when he shall sincerely desire, and seek, he shall by experience find, that we do not bear irreconcilable malice, but will with all charity receive him, and that he need not fear, that we will use any ceremony of exorcizing him, as a possessed person, which is never used by us, when ordinary Protestants, even Ministers, are converted, as those that have been converted can tell. He shall then find also that, which now prejudicate conceit will not let him see, that our authors, who charge Protestant writers with absurd opinions, had just cause so to do, and that there is among us ordinarily that spirit of meekness, and forbearance, far more than is, (ceteris paribus) or can be expected to be among Protestants: Ordinarily (I say) because so far forth as any of our men have threatened, or attempted any unfit thing, or have in their writings or actions demeaned themselves otherwise then in Christian duty they ought, our Church doctrine doth disallow it, and therefore no reason, that their private faults, or errors should be ascribed to our Church: whereas on the contrary side, it may be doubted, whether Protestants may in like manner plead that their Church doctrine doth also disallow all misdemeanours of their men, because divers of even their 
* See the Protestants Apology.  principal pillars, and chief men, either by words, examples, or writings have without controlment of any of their Church Canons opened the gap to far more rancour, impatience, and rebellion against their Catholic Sovereigns, then can be showed in Catholics against their Protestant Princes. 
1 IN all this you see not a word that disprooues my objection, but only a little passion, and wrinkling of his face, joined with some charitable speeches, concerning himself, all which is easily done by a man of his practice, but I contemn it, and therefore to the matter. I named in my Book for a taste some special points wherein I thought the lying, and malice, wherewith I charged them might appear: their giving it out that we hold God to be the author of sin deny good works to be necessary: put women recusants into the stews: pull down Churches: make havoc of their Cardinals, Archbishops, Doctors, Nobles, Queens. What not? as if there had never been any persecuted, as Papists be. That they hold us Protestants to be possessed; that they have an order in their Church to exorcize, and conjure a reconciled Protestant, that all the Queen's time most unnaturally and barbarously they threatened the land, and by execrable treasons conspired against it: and that they have reported, and practised these things, I showed out of their book, naming the place, and leaf of every book, as the reader may see; and thereupon charged them with intemperate, and unchristian proceeding against us, and said that if they were of the truth, they would not thus defend themselves with lying, railing, and malice. Wherein how truly I speak, the reader must judge by this, that the jesuit excepts not against my quotations, wherein I showed this, which are true, and full; but answers me with bare denials, and idle passion, alleging the books of Walsingham, and Briarly, wherein he says they have showed Protestants to be more guilty of these things (as if he should have replied, Ask my fellow, if I be a thief) which of themselves are enough to justify my speech, if there were no other matter extant to charge our adversaries withal, this ways, that Papists deal against us with the weapons of darkness, for there cannot lightly be more falsehood and compiled fraud together in so small a compass, then is in these books; but whereas he says in the margin that Walsingham was once an earnest Protestant, and is now become a good Catholic, I advise him not to be too confident, for he knows that some having, upon Walsinghams' grounds, fallen to Papistry, yet have not long continued so, but upon a new search have with comfort, and peace, returned back again, whence they went, and therefore the surest way were to follow the order of the Pontifical, and conjure him, the which way of conjuring such as are reconciled to the Church of Rome, I say again, is prescribed in a 
a Pontifical. Roman. part. tit. ordo ad reconciliand. pag. ●06. of the old. print.  solemn Book containing the form of many ceremonies used therein, that it is the desperatest, and basest shift that can be, thus to deny such an order: specially the book containing, and prescribing it, being lately printed again at Rome. And if the said Walsingham turned Papist, as the jesuit reports, by observing the sincerity of Catholics, and the gross lying, that he found in Protestant writers, I pity his case, that would refuse his religion upon supposal of that which is not so: for, to speak of that which I have searched into myself, the places objected to Bishop jewel, a man of incomparable learning, and piety, whose name is sufficient to bear down all that speak against him, I find, that as the things taxed in him, will be justified, so himself in his life time, in the second edition of his defence, cleared the most of them, against Stapleton, Harding, and the rest: whose objections they are that Walsingham hath set down, dissembling the answer that the Bishop himself made unto them; and if I be not deceived, the pretended Walsingham writ not that book, who being, as he saith himself, but a Deacon, and unskilful at those times in the controversies, could not object, answer, meditate, and conceive the things contained in that Book: the style, and matter thereof bewrays another author, and our adversaries were never yet so curious, but they could be content, with any forgery, and foppery, to advance their cause, and with policy to promote their religion, which Gods blessed truth, that needs no man's lie, would abhor to do.  
2 And whereas the jesuit says, there is ordinarily among them the spirit of meekness, and forbearance more than can be expected among Protestants, and if any Papist have threatened, and attempted unfit things, our Church doctrine doth disallow it: would this were true. For I have showed, that their Church, and doctrine, have allowed, taught, and defended the murder of kings, and the absolving of their subjects from obedience; their books also are full of vile, and inhuman speeches against our state, the jesuits themselves joined with the rest in the treason of Gunpowder: their books are written not with Ink, but vinegar. In Queen Mary's time they showed such meekness, as the Turk uses to do at the sacking of a town; the barbarous rage of the Clergy, in those days, against the poor servants of jesus Christ, was such, that it cannot be forgotten; the common sort of Recusants I have seen so inflamed with fury, that all the water in Trent would not quench it, if occasion wanted not. I saw Hunt, a Seminary Priest, behave himself so outrageously at the bar at Lancaster, where he was arraigned, for an assault made upon the way, upon certain officers, that were carrying a prisoner, whereof he shot 
* G. Travis.  one into the thigh with a pistol, that Sir Thomas Hesckith, the Queen's attorney, at that time, giving evidence against him, called to have him set farther off him, and some company stand between, for doing him mischief, his outrage, in countenance, and words were such. The Bull of Pius against good Queen Elizabeth, the writings of Cardinal Pool against the state in king Henry's time, the devilish behaviour of the Pope's clawbacks, and vassals in their writings, this day toward his Majesty: remember Pruritanus with his Quaere quare: remember 
b M. Wrightintons' cattle at one time, and M. Bretters at another, a little before the Queen's death  the poor dumb beasts pitifully butchered in Lancashire, and the Spanish invasion, with the Zeal and fury wherewith the chiefest of your side advanced it: remember finally the Inquisition, and the order of the execution, and talk no more of meekness, and forbearance; all which is not objected in malice either to incense them, or make them odious, but only, by laying open their sin, to draw them to repentance, and their followers to obedience; when this their carriage hath so shaken the land, & disenabled the state, that we cannot think of it, but many a time, and often, for fear of the event, and jealousy of his Majesty and his children, with weeping tears; nor speak of them, but as jacob did of his children, 
c Gen. 49.5.  Simeon, and Levi brethren in evil, the instruments of cruelty are in their habitation, let not my soul come into their Council; if we could prevail that way, we would entreat them, that are their acquaintance; the band of nature, and humanity should conjure them, religion by her sacred majesty should beseech them, our common Baptism, the Seal of our Christian profession, should importune them, their dearest country, like Coriolanus mother, should be sent out unto them with breasts displayed, and weeping tears, and her hair hanging about her shoulders to reconcile them: but nothing can do it: no entreaty, no forbearance, no benefits. Rome hath alienated, and imbruted them, and how to show them love we know not, but must say as the Roman Lady did to her son in arms against his country: 
d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Plutarch Coriol.  We cannot pray both for our own safety, and thy health, but as our enemies would pray against us, for either the country must perish, or else you must be taken out of it.   

CHAP. XII.  
Touching the ignorance that Papistry hath bred among people. Their barbarous manner of praying avouched. Of john the Almoner, a legend. The manner how a certain Priest baptised. 2. The replies zeal for recusants of the better sort. 3. A Lanc. Gentleman alleged by the reply. A note of a french Knight. 4. The success of preaching in Lanc.  A. D. The sixth mark (saith M. White) is that prodigious ignorance, whereunto they fall, who live in papistry, 
Pag. 35.  for proof whereof he setteth down certain examples which he saith, he hath observed from the common people, to wit, these ensuing: Creezum zuum patrum onitentem, etc. Little Creed etc. White pater noster etc. After which having too other examples of like odd stuff, he further saith, Their prayers, and traditions of this sort are infinite, and the ceremonies they use in all their actions, are nothing inferior to the Gentiles in number, and strangeness, which (saith he) any man may easily observe, that converseth with them, etc. And it cannot be answered (saith he) that these are the customs of a few simple people: for this which I say is general through the country, the whole body of the common people, Popishly addicted, practising nothing else until it please God by the Ministry of the Gospel to convert them, yea the most men, and women devoted to Papistry, though well borne, and brought up for civil qualities, and of good place in the country, yet lie plunged in this ignorance. This is the Ministers lying relation, which I thought fit to recite something at large, as being such, and so gross of itself, as it will without any thing said by me, sufficiently discredit itself. And I marvel with what face, he that in his last Mark, hath so soberly preached against intemperate, and unchristian proceeding, gross lying, uncharitable railing, &c: can now come, & sit as it were on an Alebench, and relate such notorious, ridiculous, and slanderous untruths. Unto which first I say, that notwithstanding all the conversation I have had this many years, with Catholics of divers sorts, rich, and poor, old, and young, learned, and unlearned, in the South, and in the North, I may protest, that until I read them in M. Whites book, I never heard of any one of these examples to be used by any Catholic, nor indeed did I ever before here of any one of these absurd forms of prayer to be so much as extant in the world. Secondly I say, that diverse Catholics, of far better credit, than M. White (living in that very country, where M. White liveth, and having far more inward conversation with Catholics which live thereabouts, than he is like to have) have been demanded, what their knowledge was about this point, and no one of them did know, any Catholic man, or woman, that did use to say their prayers in such a ridiculous sort. But admit the Minister had met at the Alehouse, some drunken old man, or some doting old wife, of whom he might perchance receive this ridiculous rotten stuff, to say nothing, of what better knowledge of the necessary points of Faith, such persons in their better wit, and sense, might have, I ask M. White, whether he think that these few examples be sufficient to justify this general assertion, wherein he saith, their prayers, and traditions of this sort are infinite, and the ceremonies they use in all their actions nothing inferior to the Gentiles in number, and strangeness. What? Have we infinite prayers, and traditions like the white pater noster, little creed, & c? Do we use also ceremonies, not only in some, but absolutely in all our actions? And are these ceremonies nothing, not a jot inferior to the Gentiles, in number, and strangeness? Surely this is strange, and so strange, that he were a strange man who would believe it, especially having never seen, nor observed any such matter: but what man is there, who although he lived never so long in company of Catholics, did, or could see, or observe, any such matter? yet M. White (forsooth) will needs persuade us, that any man that converseth with Catholics may easily observe it. Well, let us go forwarward, and believe (if we can) that M. White with Lynceus eyes hath seen, or observed, that which no other person, nor we ourselves have seen, nor possibly can see, and observe. At least good M. White, give us leave to answer, that if you have seen, and observed some such matter, yet it is not in all of us, nor in the most of us, nor in many, especially of eminent quality, or note among us: but at the most in some one, or few simple people, whose ignorance to attribute to us generally, or indefinitely, would smell rankely of brutish ignorance, or abundant malice. Nay (saith M. White) it cannot be answered, that these are the customs of a few simple people: for this that I say, is general throughout the country, the whole body of the people Popishly addicted, practising nothing else, until it please God by the ministry of the Gospel to convert them: yea the most men, and women, devoted to Papistry, though well borne, and brought up for civil qualities, and of good place in the country, yet lie plunged in this ignorance. And say you so Sir Minister indeed? Do you say, that these customs be general throughout the country? Do you also say, that the whole body of the common people popishly addicted do practise nothing else but Creezum zuum, little creed, white pater noster, &c: And this (not for some short while, till themselves by their own wit, or some other of the wiser sort of Catholics, perceive, and correct this foolish custom, but absolutely all the while they continue Catholics) until (which seldom happeneth to sound Catholics) they be converted (or rather perverted) by the Protestant Ministry? Do you also say, that besides the whole body of the common people, yea even the most men, and women devoted to Papistry, though well borne, and brought up for civil qualities, and of good place in the country, yet lie plunged in this ignorance? Do you, Sir Minister, say all this? Surely if you say it, and will stand to it, you deserve the whetstone. For if this be not a gross lie, I know not what is. If you have a face to affirm this, worthily may your countrymen wonder, and say (as a person of good esteem, and place in that your country hath affirmed, that many of your countrymen having read this part of your book have wondered, and said) What truth may we think can be expected in the process of this man's book, whilst he citeth Authors, which few have means sufficiently to examine, or when he telleth of things done in former times, or foreign countries, when we find him so shameless, and impudently false in relating home matters, so contrary to our certain, and direct knowledge? 
1 LEt the contumelies, and intemperance be swept out, and the matter be considered: our Seminaries have their disease, that void their excrements at their mouth, and Rome that breeds them is a 
a Apoc. 17.1. & 19.2. Pro. 30.20.  whore, that neither can blush, nor abide with any patience to hear of her qualities. That which I writ touching this prodigious ignorance of the people, that live in Papistry, and the manner of their prayers, is true, when all the jesuits in England have railed at it, what they can, and all the faces that they can set upon it, shall never outface that which for 17. years together, I had daily experience of, and saw with my eyes. I protest in the words of Bernard 
b Epist. 42. pag. 804.  of naked things, I have spoken nakedly, neither do I uncover secrets, but reprove shameless filthiness. Would God these things were done privately, and in chambers, would we alone saw, and heard them; would we might not be credited, when we utter them; would the noah's of our time, had left us any thing, wherewith we might cover them. Now when the word round about sees these things, must we alone hold our peace? my head is broken on every side, and when the blood gushes out round about, shall I think to hide it? Whatsoever I put about it will be bloodied; and my shame will be the greater, thus to go about to hide, that which will not be hidden. This is it that I say for myself against the jesuits reproaches: come we now to his Reply. First he answers, that in all his acquaintance, here, & there, he may protest, that he never heard any one of these his examples, and absurd forms of Prayer to be used by any: and diverse Catholics of far better credit then M. White, being demanded their knowledge about this point, have not known any Catholic man, or woman to use them. Wherein he mocks the reader to his face three times over. First in producing himself, and his Catholics for witnesses, whom no man knows, against M. White, that stands openly in the face of the world, and is known to all; where he dwells, and what he is: and lies subject, in his person, and name, to the open, and secret, censure of the world, if he speak untruly: whereas this masked jesuite, and his Catholics of so good credit, and his person of good esteem, whose words he alleges, are all shadows, and Idols; that no man knows to whom any thing that they say, can be imputed, because they are invisible: we hear the sound of an A, and a D. and the Ghost possibly of a Gentlewoman, but what they are, and where, and how I may let my country see their face, that thus walk in the dark, I know not: but these are the ways of jesuits, a mask, a dark room, a blind lantern, a vault, and two, or three, blank letters: and thence they fight with all this noise. Next he mocks us again, in that he says he never heard any of these forms: for no doubt he hath heard, as bad as these in other words, if he have not heard these: and I make no question but some of those Catholics, that have been demanded their knowledge about this point; if they were overheard, when they say their prayers, would speak no better. For I have heard many repeat their prayers, yet never did I hear one speak in any tolerable form. And any man may easily perceive it is scarce possible, that they, which understand no Latin, should pronounce it otherwise, then as I have set down. Thirdly where he says, he, and his Catholics never heard any of these things: as though Seminaries ordinarily used to examine, or hear how their people say their prayers, who are well known to have many things else they mind more: and, when their people have learned to refuse the Church, that they once possess them, they greatly pass not, either what they be, or how they pray, so they pray not with understanding: But he says, M. White, met at an Alehouse some drunken old man, or some d●●ing wife, and of them he might receive this rotten stuff. Indeed the Legend tells of john the Almoner, that seeing his people in the time of divine service, going out of the Church to the Alehouse, took his book, and followed them, saying that where the sheep were, there the Shepherd must be also: yet M. White never used that course, when his people went to the Alehouse, but left it to Seminaries, who were as good Alebeaters, in their disguised habit, as either the drunken old man, or the doting old wife here mentioned And to let the jesuit plainly understand, where I received this ridiculous rotten stuff, I observed, and learned it of the people, where I dwelled, divers whereof I have heard thus to say their prayers, when I have examined them, or otherwise entreated them, sometime at their own houses where they dwelled, and sometime at mine; and I know the guise of popish people so well, that scholars excepted, the laity of them generally, as well young, as old, sober, as drunken, gentle, as simple, pronounce their Latin prayers no better; which is the barbarous ignorance that I reported. We read in 
a De consecrat. d. 4. Retulerunt,  Gratian, how Priests baptized in Nomine Patria, & Filia, & Spiritua sancta; and no man I think will deny, but in king Henry, and Queen Mary's times, many Mass priests in all parts of the land went ordinarily to the Grammar school to learn to read their Portuisse: that no man wonder at this brutishness in the laity, which was little less in a great part of the Clergy: and what I said of their Ceremonies also, those that live in the country know to be true. And what they savour of, whether the purity and simplicity of Christianity, or the fashion of the Gentiles; 
b Tertull. de coron. militis.  so much detested by antiquity, let who so will judge. For my own part though I judge not such as use them in their simplicity, and ignorance, yet I abhor, and detest those wretches, that taking upon them to be their ghostly fathers, yet suffer them to live in that brutish superstition.  
2 But that which the Reply takes most unkindly, is a speech that I added, after I had set down those forms of prayer: It cannot be answered that these are the customs of a few simple people: for this is general throughout the Country, the most men and women devoted to Papistry, though well borne, and of good place, yet lie plunged in this ignorance; which last words were, it should seem, a Prophecy. For you see how the touching of this sore puts him into passion, and my Book was scarce come out, when many of this Better sort, had it by the end; and quarreled it: yet if we had means to make the trial, it would fall out to be true: for I know not what faculty, or privilege a gentleman, or his wife, for example, that understands no Latin, hath to pronounce it any better, than their tenants; & here I avouch again in his presence that knows all things, that the same ignorance, and rudeness wherewith I charge the vulgar people, I have observed in divers of the better sort: and the jesuit is but unwise to deny it. For if white Pater noster, and little Creed be good Physic for the vulgar, I know not but catholics of greater note may use them too. 
c Phil. Camerar. meditat. hist.  When an Emperor lay in the pang of the gout, he cried out, that now he differed nothing from a cloune, he felt the same disease, and the same pain, and pangs without any difference. So I suppose this rude ignorance in such as are well borne, and of good place, is of no other nature, then that which is in the common sort: yet the jesuit you see is earnester for them, than the rest, and possibly he hath reason. Ladies, and Gentlewomen, and men of worth can see better, than a poor client: it's not a drunken old man, or a doting wife, that can merit a Seminaries zeal; leave them in an Alehouse with M. White, saying their white Pater noster. But is Sir Minister so bold as to charge any that are well borne? would to God Sir Minister had not seen Diana's nakedness: it would have stayed a great deal of barking, that hath been after him. YET WHAT HE WRIT, IS STILL TRUE, IF ALL THE SEMINARIES IN ENGLAND HAD IT IN CHASE. I will seek the disgrace of no man's person of any degree; I know the country to have many good Gentlefolk in it; I only report the barbarism that Popery hath bred in such as follow it: and though I have no acquaintance, or knowledge with all; yet 
d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Eustath. Iliad.  the experience of some allows me to speak as I do: that this ignorance is general, and the most, yea of the better sort, addicted to Popery, are plunged in it.  
3 And that which the jesuit reports, my Countryman, a man of good esteem, & place said of my book, is not greatly material, supposing some Popish Gentleman, or woman said so. For besides himself, whosoever he be, that country hath many noble, & godly Gentlemen, as good as he: whereof some have seen my Book, and reported otherwise both of it, and me: and it may be the Gentleman alleged, if he were well examined, would prove as learned as the Knight that Claudius Espencaeus 
e In 2. Tim. pag. 118.  tells of, who being demanded his belief touching the holy Ghost, answered, he knew not whether there were an holy Ghost or no. And my comfort is, that when this present place that I now write, shall come into their hand, they will call to mind the travel I took among them with all instance, and lenity to do good; and the scandalous, and lying reports, wherewith Seminaries use to defend themselves: they know me, and Seminaries, and Popish Gentlemen, and have ability to compare us one with another: in the mean time, I esteem the man and his deposition alike: he a man of no great esteem, that hath not so much, as a name: and will be commanded by a poor student to stand upon the stage like a riddle for all readers to guess at: and his deposition is suitable, when he taxeth a man with shamelessness, and impudency, for noting that which, a thousand to one, will be proved by his wife; and possible by himself, if they use to say any prayers at all.  
4 Whereas I said also this general barbarousness did abound in the people, until it pleased God by the Ministry of his Gospel to convert them: he replies, that this seldom happens to sound catholics to be converted, or rather perverted by the Protestant Ministry: I answer (for let the truth be known in every thing, that I have affirmed) that the Protestant Ministry hath not been fruitless among the people, but hath most happily converted thousands; and that country, some part of it especially, where the word hath been more frequent, yields at this day, and long hath done, as many, and as sound professors of the truth, as any part of our kingdom. And in the backwardest part thereof, many people have joyfully received the truth, and acknowledged the errors, wherein the guile of Seminaries have holden them; and many that appeared to be sound catholics, have done this. I heard an aged yeoman, after a Sermon effectually preached, 
* At Gooznar, near to Pr●ston.  in a parish where Seminaries most haunt, when the preacher had done, stand up in his seat, and desiring his neighbours to make means to obtain a competent Preacher into the place, profess, It was true the Preacher said, and that his old religion (as he termed it) had allowed them to live in all naughtiness. This showeth, that Popish superstition would soon be rooted out there, and those locusts soon be blown away, if the word were effectually preached among them.   

CHAP. XIII.  
Touching prayer to Saints. 1. Mediation of Redemption & intercession. 2. Bonaventures' Psalter. 3. Christ the only Mediator of intercession. 4. 5. 6. Reasons why we desire not the dead to pray for us as we do the living. 5. The prayers of a Friar and an Archbishop. 6. 7. It cannot be showed that the dead hear us. 8. Devices of the Schoolmen to show how they hear us. 10. God not like an earthly king. 10. 11. In their Saint-inuocation they Platonize. 12. Men equalled with Christ.  
A. D. But let us see what M. White bringeth to give credit to this his incredible narration, 
Pag. 40.  and to take away the wonder of his countrymen, who admire his shameless impudence in relating home-matters so contrary to their certain, and direct knowledge. This brutish condition of their people (saith he) may the better be credited, and is less to be wondered at, because the open practice of their Church gives them example, and encourages them by their Idolatry, and superstition towards the Saints departed. For how can that people discern their ignorance, whose Pastors even before their eyes in their open Service, and printed books serve the Saints, and worship them with the same service, that they give to Christ? This, saith he, I offer for the seventh motive to induce any Papist to suspect his own religion. For it cannot be the faith of Christ, that takes his honour, and gives it to another. In their service, and prayers the Virgin Mary is made an intercessor for sin, as if Christ were not the sole Mediator, unless the merits, and mediation of another did come between. These are M. Whites words. In which he frameth a far more grievous accusation against us, than the former; as though not only the common people, or the most even of our men, and women, well borne and brought up for civil qualities, and of good place in the country, were in manner aforesaid brutishly ignorant, but that the open practice of our Church gives them example, and encourages them by Idolatry, and superstition towards Saints departed, in that in our open Service, our Pastors serve the Saints with the same service, that they give to Christ, taking his honour, and giving it to another: and in our service, and prayers, making the Virgin Mary intercessor for sin, as if Christ were not the sole Mediator, etc. A grievous accusation assuredly, if it be proved true, and no less gross slander, if it be (as I doubt not evidently to prove it) untrue. As concerning the l●st part of this accusation of the B. Virgin Mary, being made intercessor, as though Christ were not sole Mediator; I have answered sufficiently in relating, and refuting M. Wotton's untruths, where I show that Saints in heaven, or men living on earth, being made intercessors, do not hinder Christ to be sole Mediator. 
1 THe jesuite so relates, and confutes my words, as if I had only objected some small superstition in praying to the Virgin Mary, and no more; whereas the bare invocating of her is the least thing, that I stand upon. We urge the praying to her in 
* They say she is God. Dea matter. Paul. Cortes. in sent. pag. 65. Lips. virg. Hallens. Psalt. bonavent. and yet to the Turks they will deny this, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ricold. count sect. Mahum. p. 122. 10.  that manner, that I set down; and the doctrine published, touching her merits, and mediation, out of Dodechin, Bozius, Galatine, and others: whereby she is equalled with Christ: and the monstrous impieties about friar Francis out of Bencius, and Tursellin, jesuits; the which stuff, and infinite other, of the like nature, is it we say gives example to the vulgar, and which we think so odious, that the jesuite durst neither set it down, nor mention it, in his book, lest the world should see, and abhor it; but only occupying himself in defending the lawfulness of praying to the Virgin Mary, as if I had objected no more but that; so he leaves in a manner every thing unanswered, and touches not those fouler imputations, that lie against him. Nevertheless come we to that he says. First he denies not, but it were a grievous accusation, if it were true, that in the Church of Rome the Saints are served with the same service they give to Christ: & the B. virgin Mary made an intercessor for sin, as if Christ were not the sole Mediator: and therefore he answers, that in confuting M. Wotton's untruths, he hath showed, that the making of Saints our intercessors, hinders not Christ to be sole Mediator: 
a Pag. 14. of his Reply.  Because we do not hold Saints to be mediators of redemption, but of intercession only. Meaning the ordinary distinction that is 
b Alexan. part. 4. q. 92. in 1. art. 4. Bellar. de Sancto. beatit. p. 718. & 732. Grego. à Valent. tom. 3 p. 1273. E. Rhem. on 1. Tim. 2.5.  among them: that Christ only by nature being God and man, and by office and merits reconciling God to man, and needing no other to procure him grace with his Father; is the first author of all the good we receive from God: but so that the Saints nevertheless pray for us, and as persons nearer God, and more familiar with him, than we, commend our cause to him, and so are mediators of intercession. Whereto I reply two things. First that more than this is ascribed to Saints in the forms, that I allege. First, God is invocated by their merits, and for them desired to give eternal life: yea the Mas book hath a prayer 
c Breular. Sarisbu. fest. S. Tho. Cantuar. , that God, by the blood of Tho. Becket would save us, and bring us to heaven. When all effusion of blood, and merit of work, whereby eternal life is obtained, belongs to Redemption, as well as to intercession; and to no intercession, but only to Christ's. Next the holy Virgin is called our Life, our Hope, our Advocate, the mother of Grace, our Saviour, our Redeemer. Viega 
d Comment. in apocal. 12. pag. 584. ex Arnold. Carnot.  says, she is set above every creature; that whosoever bows the knee to Christ, should make supplication to his Mother also. And I am of mind, saith he, alleging the words of another, that the glory of the Son is not so much common with the glory of the Mother, as it is the same— and God hath in a sort, given his mercy to his Mother, and Spouse that reigns: and so the B. Virgin hath the kingdom of God divided between God, and her. These words import more than intercession. Thirdly they say of her 
e These speeches are alleged in the preface of the way  that with her Son she disposes of rights. With her Son she redeemed the world. Her death was for the redemption of the world. For her love God made the world. She is above Christ to command. They are saved by her, that cannot by Christ. Francis the Friar is made equal to Christ. All this is showed at large in their words, whereto the jesuite replies nothing: and it is 
* Macte Hyacinthe animo: quicquid petiveris unquam Me tribuente feres: caelica virgo canit. These verses are written in a medal (of that sort that are drawn in papers and are common among Recusants) where Hyacinthus, a Saint of Poland, is portrayed praying on his knees to the Virgin Mary and receiving the answer from her that is contained in these two verses.  more than can be contained in simple intercession abstracting from redemption.  
2 If our adversaries to these things would reply, that they are the foolish devotion of private persons, which they maintain not; it were an end, and we would charge them no longer herewith: but they neither can, nor will. They cannot; for the objections are the practice of the whole Church, set forth in their public Service books, and open writings of the jesuits; and our ancestors in former times, were trained up in this devotion. Neither will they do it. For first this jesuite smooths it up, and falls a distinguishing to defend it in general, which in particular for shame he durst not look in the face. Next, all the books of their Church are full of these things: 
f Printed at Venice, Paris, and Lipsia, and now lately at Paris by Nicol. du Fosse, ad ensign vasis aurei. See Chemnit. exam p. 595. & inde. & Tilen. sin tagm. tom. 2. p. 565. n. 24. & Cassand. consult. pag. 156.  and among other practices they have transformed the whole Psalter of David to the invocation of Mary, where every thing that David attributes to God is ascribed to her, by putting his name out, and hers in the room. In the end whereof all the other ordinary hymns and readings of the Church are turned to her likewise. And this book was publicly used throughout the Church of Rome, and bear this inscription: The Psalter of the B. Virgin compiled by the Seraphical Doctor, S. Bonau. the B. of Alba, and Cardinal Priest of the Church of Rome.  
3 Secondly I answer that the mediation of intercession, whereby our prayers are offered up to God, belongs to Christ alone. And therefore the Church of Rome, calling upon Saints to pray for them, and to commend their prayers to God, if it did no more, robs jesus Christ of his office. The antecedent, that it belongs to Christ alone to make intercession, & offer our prayers to God is proved: for the Scripture says. 
g Heb. 7.24. & 13.15.  Let us BY HIM offer the Sacrifice of praise, ALWAYS to God: Who hath an everlasting Priesthood, and therefore is able perfectly to save them that come to God by him: seeing he ever lives to make intercession for them. 
h 1. joh. 2.1.  If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, jesus Christ the just; and he is the propitiation for our sins: in which words we see that all authority, and power of intercession is immediately attributed to him, that is the High Priest of the Church, and that intercession is founded upon the Priesthood, and those merits: that he cannot be intercessor to mediate between God, and us in any sort, that is not such a priest. Again touching the offering up of our prayers to God, 
i Apoc. 8.3.  it is said, that an Angel came, and stood before the altar, having a golden Censer: and much odours was given unto him, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that he should offer with the prayers of all Saints upon the golden Altar, which is before the Throne. And the smoke of the odours with the prayers of the Saints, went up before God, out of the Angel's hand. The Angel that thus offers the prayers to God is 
k August. hom. 6. in Apoc. tom. 9 pag. 670. Pri mas. in hunc locum. Beda in apoc. tom 5 pag. 1085. Ambr. Ausbert. in apoc. vis. 3. p. 53. Hunc multi Christum esse existimant. Riber. in apoc. c. 8 3. Christus Angelus est habens thuribulum. Viega. ib.  jesus Christ the Angel of the covenant: and it is affirmed of our prayers, that he stands, for that purpose, to receive them, and offer them, and that out of this Angel's hand, they go up before the Lord. Nothing can be plainer than that of S. Paul, 
l 2 Tim. 2.5.  There is one God, and one Mediator between God, and man, the man Christ. In which words he affirms as well, that there is but one Mediator of intercession, as that there is but on redeemer; for they contain a reason why we should pray for all men, because there is one mediator that would all men should be saved, by whom we have access to God by prayer. Therefore he says but one Mediator to intercede for us: the which S. Austin resolutely concludes out of this place, 
m Cont. epist. Parmen. l. 2. c. 8. p. 32. tom. 7.  saying, If Paul were a Mediator, his other fellow Apostles should be Mediators also, and so there should be many mediators, and Paul should be against himself, where he says, There is one Mediator of God, and men, the man Christ, not only affirming him to be one Mediator, but so to be one, that he alone makes intercession immediately from ourselves to his Father, no other interceding between either God, and us, or himself, and us.  
4 Against this he replies 2. things. The first is 
n Reply pag. 14  his answer to M. Wotton: whither he refers me also: that the making of Saints to be Mediators of intercession robs Christ of his office no more, than the making living men in like manner Mediators of intercession. But this latter, to make living men Mediators of intercession, robs not Christ of his office, 
jac. 5. v. 16. Rom. 15. v. 30.  because S. Paul, and S. james make living men Mediators of intercession, one of them bidding us pray one for another, and the other entreating men to pray for him: ergo neither the former; when we make Saints departed our Mediators of intercession. The Proposition he proves: Because there cannot any substantial reason of difference be assigned, why those that pray to Saints, to pray, or make intercession to God for them, do more rob jesus Christ of his office, than those that pray living men to pray, or make intercession to God for them. To this I answer: there are 3. reasons assigned why it is lawful to use the prayers of the living, rather than the invocation of the dead. First it is an unchangeable rule, that no man in God's worship exceed the limits of his commandments. 
o Deut. 12.8. & vlt.  Ye shall not do every man what seems him good in his own eyes— but whatsoever I command you, take heed you do it: thou shalt put nothing thereto, nor take aught therefrom. 
p 1. Co 4 6.  That no man presume above that, which is written. Now that we may entreat, and use the prayers one of another, so long as we live, it is 
q Gen. 20.17. Eoxd. 32.11. Numb 16.48. 1. Sam. 12.23. Mat. 5.44. 2. Cor. 1.11. Ephes. 6.18. 1 Tim. 2.1. jac. 5.14.  written; and 
r Rom 15.30. jac. 5.16.  the texts alleged by the jesuit will show: in which regard by an impropriety of speech, and equivocally, the Saints living in this world, 
s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Nazianz. pag. 36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Nicet. pag. 536. Multi enim Sanctor●● mediationis ministerio usi sunt. Cyrill. Alexand. thesaur. pag 156.  are called Mediators: the which commandment, or allowance concerning the dead can no where be showed in all the Scripture. The Censure of Collen 
t Pag. 230.  says, The Scripture no where teaches the invocation of Saints, though notwithstanding for all that, it be to be received, and believed: and in 
u Antidid. g. pag. 43.  another book, the same Divines say, the Gospel indeed hath given no peculiar commandment touching this matter, though it may evidently enough be gathered out of it: but with such gatherings we are well enough acquainted, when the same Divines in that place, are feign to gather it from Christ's words upon the cross: Eli, Eli, Lammasabacthani. Eckius, though according to his fashion, he brag there are innumerable passages of the old, and new Testament making for it: 
* Enchirid. c. 15. ad 8.  yet confesses there is nothing expressly to be found in the Scripture that Saints must be invocated, and he adds: that this invocation of Saints ought not to be expressly delivered either in the old, or new testament for 2. reasons. Which he shows at large, and they plainly declare he thought there is no commandment for it in all the Bible. Suarez the jesuit 
x Tom. 2 in though disp. 42. sect. 1 pag. 434.  puts the question. Whether the Saints departed before Christ, did pray for others: and answers that in particular they could not— whence it followed that in that time prayers could not regularly be made to souls in that state— and that any man (in that time) directly prayed to the Saints departed, that they would help them, or pray for them, we no where read. 
y De Sanct. beatit. c. 19 §. item exod. etc. 20. §. Atque ex his.  Bellarmine agrees with him: that the Saints in the time of the old Testament were not invocated, because they were not yet in heaven. Salmeron another jesuit, 
z In 1. Tim 2. disp. 2. ar. 7. §. primum.  says, there is nothing touching this matter, to be found in any of the Epistles. Seeing therefore the Scriptures teach us to desire the prayers one of another, so long as we live together in this world, but not afterwards: this is one sufficient reason, why the prays of the living, one for another are allowed, and not the invocation of the dead.  
5 Another difference is that the invocation of the dead, used in the Church of Rome, & wherewith my words charge it, is not like the praying of the living one for another. For 
a Eorum. (qui sunt in hoc mundo aut in Purgatorio) suffragia non imploramus, orando; sed à vivis petimus colloquendo. Tho. 22. qu. 83. art. 4. ad 3.  who invocates the living? who prays God by their merits to save us? where is there among all the Texts that can be alleged, one rule, or example, that we should pray thus to a living man, as they do to a Saint: Save me o Saviour: redeem me o redeemer: and as is the prayers that I alleged? If one of the thieves upon the Cross, when our Saviour died, should thus have prayed to 
b joh. 19.25.  the holy Virgin— standing by, as the Friar lately did in France, when he was to be executed for murdering a man to have his wife.— 
c The prayer of a Friar upon the scaffold, when he died for a murder in France. an. 1609. Boter: comment. l. 16. p. 300.  But o thou the solace of such as are in misery, our Lodestar in the midst of this raging sea; the advocate of men, the Ark of the Testament; the altar of sinners; by thy suffrages o Virgin effect with thy Son, that I may have my desire: would the jesuits, I marvel, commend his devotion, as the reporter doth the Friar's zeal? or if this example fume into the jesuits head, were it lawful for a man upon his deathbed, to invocate the living standing by, as the 
d Fra. Ximenius of Toledo. Gomec de reb. Ximen. l. 7. pag. 242.  great Archbishop did the dead, when he died himself, to be his Patroness: All the Saints: but above all the mother of God: Michael the Archangel, Peter, and Paul, james, and S. Francis? or if at an open Sessions, at the Council of Trent, Sato, or Must, or one of the Friars, should have begun his Sermon, with a prayer to Cardinal Barrhomaeo sitting by, mutatis mutandis, as 
e Stephanus Arch. Patracens. in conc. Later. sub Leo. p. 621.  an Archbishop sometime began his at the Council of Lateran with his 
f Omnium splendot, decus & perenne Virginum lumen, genetrix superni, Gloria humani generis Maria unica nostri. Sola tu Virgo dōina●s astris Sola tu terrae, maris atque coeli lumen: inceptis faveas rogamus inclita nostris.  queam sacros reserare sensus, qui latent chartis nimium severis, ingredi, & celsae, duce te, benignae Maenia terrae.  invocation of the Blessed Virgin: O blessed Charles our Church's hope, and glory of our fading light: The best of all our Cardinals, in Consistory shining bright: Thou only showest the way that leads to heavens bliss & virtues lore: Thy life our safest lodestar is to guide us to the heavenly shore: I pray thee give me of thy grace, and fill me with thy verities: that I may boldly speak in place, and beat down Luther's heresies. If, I say, the Friar should have made such a prayer to him, would not his fellow Cardinals have envied his deity, & thought that invocation would have come soon enough after his death, when he had been Sainted? The living therefore are not prayed unto, nor entreated to pray to God, or make intercession, for us, nor any ways made mediators by their intercession, and merits; as the dead are; for that were against the office of Christ, but only as feeling members of this state, that see, and know the wants each of other, and that have a calling from God thereto; they join their prayers to the rest of the body, no man's merits, or advocation being interposed, but every one, with, and for others, immediately flying to jesus Christ.  
6 A third reason why it is lawful to entreat the prayers of the living rather than the dead, is, for that the living, whom we entreat to pray for us, understand, and see our particular wants, and are in state to take knowledge of our desire to be prayed for; as when Saint Paul bade the people pray for him, they heard, and understood him what he desired; which the Saints in heaven departed, though full of glory, and great endowments, do not. And here it is not enough to bring conjectures, and with show of words, and disputations, to lead our judgement, as in this cause our adversaries have taken great pains to pull upon themselves a learned error: but afore I can pray in this fashion to the dead with faith; if all other difficulties were cleared, I must have a sure ground in my conscience, that they hear me. And he that will persuade me to believe they do, must not come with Iffs, and Ands, and Metaphysical speculations, and the seeming opinions of men: but with that which may bring full assurance, and may support faith, as the Holy Ghost doth. 
g 1. Tim. 1.15.  This is a true saying, and worthy of all men to be received. 
h joh. 4.22.  We worship that we know: 
i 2. Cor. 4 3.  We approve ourselves to every man's conscience. Let it be made thus sure unto us, that when I pray, the Saints hear me, and it shall willingly be received, and believed. This reason doth not immediately proceed to show, that praying to the dead robs Christ of his office, but only that it is against faith; which being showed, thence it will easily be concluded, that then Christ is rob of his office, because all prayer against faith is against Christ's mediatorship in some part of the latitude thereof. Now if it so please the reader, let us see what assurance the Church of Rome can give, that the Saints know our prayers.  
7 First, it is clear that in all the Scripture there is nothing to prove it; but the contrary. For 
k 2. Reg. 22.20.  when josiah should die, God told him his eyes should not see the evil which he would bring upon jerusalem. And Solomon 
l Eccl. 9 5.  says, the dead know nothing at all. And 
m Es. 63 16.  the Prophet, in a prayer he makes to God, says, Thou art our Father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel knows us not; the which texts show manifestly, that the dead have as little knowledge of our state here, as we have of theirs, there. Or if it were otherwise, God would somewhere have revealed it; especially the revelation thereof being so necessary for the confirmation of this point, touching invocation: which 
n Superfluum videtur abeis ordinariè petere vs pro nobis oreni; quia non possunt ordinariè cognoscere quid agamus in particulari. Bellar. de purgat. l. 2. c. 15. §. praetere a animae.  by the jesuits own confession is in vain, where they do not ordinarily, as in Purgatory hear our prayers, the which for the most part being seated in 
o Plerunque hoc negotium plus gemitibus quam sermonibus agitur: plus flet● quam affatu. August. epist. 121. c. 10.  the heart, and thence immediately, without any noise of words, ascending up, who can understand them, but he that searches the heart? which Philo 
p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Philo judae. pag. 328. Paris.  says, is the musical, and loud instrument of our voice, and is heard by no mortal creature, but only by him, that is immortal, and unbegotten.  
8 Secondly our adversaries could never give themselves satisfaction in the point. They have raked together 
a See them in Serrar. Litanent. p. 141. & inde. & Bellar. de Sanct. beat ●. c. 20.  a number of ways whereby they think to expound themselves: but still they are uncertain. And their ways unsufficient to 'stablish their own conscience, as appears by the multiplying of their questions. 
b The knowledge of our prayers supposed to be brought them by Angels, and other Saints, is disclaimed by Bellar. ubi sup. yet Serrar. allows it. Horum decem moderum nullus omnino est qui adhiberi aliquando non possit. pag. 154.  Whether the souls of those that are prayed to be present, or not. If they be present, then whether it be really, so that they be in the place, where the party praying to them is: or virtually, only by, I know not what understanding the things uttered to them in our prayers. Or whether they have the understanding of our prayers from others, that give them knowledge. If this way, than who they be, that give them this knowledge: whether the Angels, that are about us, & know our actions, or God. If it be God, that gives them this knowledge, then how he doth it? whether immediately by himself, or by the ministry of others: if by others, than who they be? whether Angels that are about us: or the spirits of holy, and just men, that go from hence, and tells the Saints in heaven, what our prayers are. If immediately by himself, then how? whether directly, & formally; 
c Oratio relucet in divina essentia. Tho. Argentin. p. 178. ad 2. Beati vident in verbo devotiones mentales. Aquar. in Capreol. 4. d. 45. concls. 2. Beati in coelo cognoscunt orationes nostras in verbo. Ouand. 4. d. 45. pag. 94. see Mag. 4. d. 45. & ibi scolast▪ communiter. Tho. 22 q. 83. art 4. ad. 2. & 3. qu. 10. art. 2. This seeing of things in the word, as in a glass, is denied by many Schoolmen, Deus est speculum voluntarium— Occam 4. q. 13. art. 3. Si quaeratur an beati, cognition beata, cognoscunt orationes nostras; dicendum quod non. Duran. 4. d. 45. qu. 4. p. 463. Intellectus creatus, videndo divinam essentiam, non videt in ipso omnia quae facit deus, vel facere potest. Tho. 1. q. 12. art. 4. Nostra sententia affirmat nihil ex vi visionis, sed aliqua peculiari revelatione cognosci. Vasqu. disp. 50. n. 51. tom. 1. idem Aureol. quodl. & Alliac. 1. qu. 12. art 3.  so that they see in him as in a glass, by reason of the Beatifical vision, what is in the creature, and so consequently the prayers of the creatures? if they see them in God as in a glass: then whether it be 
d Beati, qui vident in verbo, vident à principio. Peasant. 1. Tho. pag. 72. concls. 2. Ca●et. 3. q. 10. art. 2.  from the beginning of their blessedness, so that instantly upon their glorification; and so soon, as they come into heaven, and see God, they see all things, that we do in him; or 
e Serrar. says this is the most usual and certain opinion. p. 155.  successively, one thing after another. But if God reveal the knowledge of our prayers to his Saints, not formally in this manner, by force, and virtue of his vision, but only accidentally, then whether it be not by 
f Dicendum quod essentia divina non est necessarium speculum, in repraesentando creaturas: imo voluntarium. Communicate enim effective notitiam matutinam. Deus autem est agens liberum, respectu omnis actionis ad extra. Aureol. quodli. 10. in sine. p. 107 Non est imagi nandum, sicut multi credunt, quod causa videndi creaturam in verbo sit, quia verbum est imago, vel idea ipsius; & eodem actu quo videtur idea, videatur ideatum: sed quia voluntariè causat visionem creaturae. Alliac. 1. q. 12. pag. 184. This is followed by Vasqu. ubi sup. and it necessarily destroys the glass. See Albertin. Corol. qu. 4. & 5. ex primo princip.  immediate revelation, so far forth, as it please him, by his peculiar will, to let them see what we pray: as in this life, he reveals sometime, things that are secret, to his Prophets. It is incredible, & such as cannot be presented in any reasonable compass of words, how the Divines of the Church of Rome labour to show these things; and to make every man his own opinion, seem most reasonable. But to no purpose: for albeit we acknowledge nothing to be impossible to God, yet it is not lawful to believe any thing, as his will, which he hath not revealed. For we must judge of his will by the Scriptures, which touching these speculations says never a word: and being in manifest places appointed to pray in Faith, how shall we pray to them, of whose hearing us we can have no Faith? For these things thus taught by the Schoolmen, relish well of man's wit, and learning; but what is there in the word of God to assure 
g Note the words of a jesuite. Notandum est, quod est de fide beatos cognoscere orationes quas ad eos fundimus, sed quod illa● videant in verbo, non est certum de fide, sed credo tamen esse probabile. Peasant. 1. part. qu. 12. pag. 77.  my conscience they be true?  
9 And were not the Church of Rome disposed to subvert the whole order of God's worship, and to rob our most gracious Saviour of the Glory, which for his boundless mercy belongs unto him; they would never maintain this invocation, and mediation of Saints. There being, by their own confession, no Scripture for it; and the Scripture speaking so graciously of Christ himself, that it could proceed from none, but the Devil, and Antichrist, thus to make Saint-mediators: when no creature in heaven, or earth, is so propense to mercy as himself. See what the Scripture 
h Es. 54.6.  says: The Lord hath called thee, being as a woman forsaken, and afflicted in spirit, and as a young wife when thou wast refused, saith thy Ged. For a little while have I forsaken thee, but with great compassion will I gather thee. For a moment, in mine anger, I hide my face from thee for a little season, but with everlasting mercy have I had compassion on thee, saith the Lord thy Redeemer. For this is unto me, as the waters of Noah: for as I have sworn, that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth, so have I sworn, that I would not be angry with thee, nor rebuke thee. For the mountains shall remove, and the hills shall fall down: but my mercy shall not departed from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace, fall away, saith the Lord, that hath compassion on thee. 
i Es. 65.24.  Yea before they call, I will answer, and whiles they spoke, I will hear. And our Saviour himself, hath told us, 
k joh. 16.23.  Verily, verily I say unto you, whatsoever you shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you. The Apostle also teaches, that 
l Heb. 2.14.17.  for so much as the children of God, were partakers of flesh, and blood, he also himself, the Mediator, took part with them, and in all things was made like to his brethren, that he might be merciful, and a faithful high priest in things concerning God, that he might make reconciliation for the sins of the people. These promises are such, that it is the greatest ingratitude, and impiety, that can be to misdoubt them, or, by flying to any other, to evacuate them. 
m Pet. Crysolog  One man trusts another upon a bond, or bill written in paper, and a few lines of writing secure the greatest contracts that are, yet the promises of Christ are still called in question, and men mistrust his mercy: so many books as there be in the Bible, and so many lines as we have written in the Scripture: so many assurances we have of his goodness: Every word of the Gospel, and every Sacrament of the Church, and every drop of his blood shed upon the cross, being our security to embolden us to come unto him.  
10 And whereas the pretence is, 
n Alexan. 4. part. qu. 92. in. ● art 4. Bonau. 4. d. 45. art. 3. q. 3. n. 46.  that it is for reverence to God, and to show our Humility; that 
* Gratias agimus, Porphyri, quod libris tuis, Deorum tuorum substantiam nobis prodidisti: didicimus per te, quatenus dij tui hominibus viventibus serniant. Iul Firmic. error. prof. rel. c. 14.  like as men seek to the King by the mediation of his servants, so we seek to God by the mediation of his Saints: This is expressly against the Scripture alleged, that conclude; our prayers are to be offered immediately to, and by Christ; and when all things in this life are depraved with sin, it is folly to make any thing therein the rule, and example of our serving God, 
o Es. 55.8.  whose thoughts, are not our thoughts, and whose ways are far above ours. Princes do not always understand, who give attendance, and sometime pride, or state, or business lets them: but it is not so with God. 
p Vopisc. in Aurelia. paulo ante sinem. p. ●08.  The Emperor Dioclesian's speech in Vopiscus, will a little open this matter. He would say, after he was retired from the Empire, to a private life: That there was nothing more difficult, then to govern well. Four, or five persons combine themselves, and take one counsel to deceive the Emperor. He being shup up at home, knows the truth of nothing, but is constrained to understand that only which they tell him. Thus the good, and wary Emperor is bought and sold. This inevitable ignorance in Princes mentioned by Dioclesian, which appertains not unto God; is reason why we use mediators to them. Let the words of Chrysostome touching this point, be noted: speaking of the woman of Canaan, that cried after our Saviour to heal her daughter. Mark, 
q Chrysost. hom. 16. ex var. in Matth. Loc. tom. 2.  saith he, 
r Pag. 1193.  the wisdom of the woman, she asks not james, nor beseeches john, nor goes to Peter, nor minds the company of the apostles, she seeks no Mediator, but in steed of them all, she takes repentance into her company, which was instead of her Advocate, and so she goes to the fountain itself: Therefore saith she, he descended, and therefore he was made man, that I also might have confidence to speak unto him, 
s Pag. 1199.  for if thou wilt entreat man, possible he sleeps, or is not at leisure, or his servant will vouchsafe thee no answer, but unto God there is need of none of these things: but wheresoever thou be, or wheresoever thou callest upon him, he hears thee. There is no need either of a porter, or a mediator, or a Minister, only say, Have mercy on me, and presently, God will be with thee. 
u Comment. in Rom. c. 1. §. revelatur. p. 177.  
t Tom. 3. p. 1047  Learn of this woman, that praying BY OUR SELVES we more prevail with God, then when OTHERS pray for us. Saint Ambrose 
u Comment. in Rom. c. 1. §. Revelatur. p. 177.  says. There be, that shaming to heaven neglected God, used this miserable excuse, that by these they may go to God as by officers we go to the king; but is any man so mad, or so unmindful of his salvation, as to give the king's honour to an officer? yet these men think themselves not guilty who give the honour of God's name to a creature, and forsaking the Lord, adore their fellow servants, as though there were any thing beside, that can be reserved to God For therefore men go to the king by Tribunes, and officers, because the king is but a man, and knows not to whom, he may commit the state: but for the promeriting of God, who knows all things, and the deserts of all men, there needs no helper, but a devout mind and he will answer such a one whensoever he speaks unto him. This holy Father's judgement was, that God must be sought to immediately, without the intercession of any, whosoever. And this is it, that Saint Paul meant in those words to the Colossians. 
* Col. 2.18.  Let no man bear rule over you by humbleness of mind, and worshipping of Angels: wherein he rebukes the customs of those, 
x 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrysost. tom. 7. in Coloss. see Balsam. in conc. Laod. ca 35.  which made Angels their intercessors, as Papists do, whose pretence was, that it was too much arrogancy to pray immediately to God, and therefore it were the better way to use the intercession of Angels. Thus the Greek Scholiast 
y pa. 697. veron.  expounds it. There were divers that under the pretence of modesty, forbade them to go to Christ by themselves, because they were not worthy, but the Angels must be entreated to bring us to God, saying, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  it was a greater matter, then to be brought by ourselves through Christ: thus bringing in the superstitious worship of Angels, whom they never saw: and Theodoret: 
z On Col. 2. pag. 766.  They, who brought in the worshipping of Angels, using the pretence of humility, gave counsel to pray to Angels, saying, that we could neither see, nor comprehend, nor come to God. And therefore must win us his favour by means of the Angels; and thereupon he says, that in the Council of Laodicea, it was ordained, that no man should pray to Angels: and reports, as an abuse against this text, that there were certain oratory's of Michael the Angel, wherein they used to pray to him. It is worth the marking to observe how Baronius entertains Theodoret for this exposition. 
a Bellar. de beatit. sanct. c. 20. Rhem. Col. 2.18.  divers before him labour to give him a favourable construction, but mark how Baronius takes him up: 
b An. 60. n. 20.  You may see (for it must necessarily be spoken) his words are so full against our invocation of Angels) Theodoret by his leave, hath nothing happily attained the sense of Paul's words, when in his Commentaries upon this Epistle he says, these things were written by Paul, because heretics than came in who boasted that Angels should be worshipped. For who these heretics were, let him say himself; and being once fallen into an error, he stumbled presently upon a worse, that he says the Canon of the Laodicen Council is to be understood of such hererickes, as taught the worship of Angels, and erected an oratory to Michael the Archangel: too inconsiderately attributing that to heretics, which of ancient time was done by Catholics.  
11 This opinion, of using the mediation of Angels, and Saints departed, arose from the Gentiles, and specially the followers of Plato, 
c Alcino. de doctri. Platon. c. 15. pag. 79. Porphyr. de abstinent. animal. l. 2. pag. 40. Apul. de deo Socrat. pag. 91. August. De civit. l. 8. c. 18. 19 & l. 9 c. 9  whose doctrine it was, that the spirits of men departed, and Angels, employ themselves in carrying our prayers to God, and therefore it is a good way to invocate them. Eusebius 
d Praeparat. evang. l. 12. c. 3. p. 338. graec.  reports the words of Plato: Certainly the souls of the Dead departed have a certain power, and are careful about the business of men. These things are true, but the reasons containing them are long: it is the best way therefore to credit that which others have reported concerning them, the reports being so manifold, and ancient. The which words of Plato, 
e lac. Ziglir. quem refert. Chemnit. jesuitism. pag. 100  cited sometime by a Papist, as Eusebius own, to prove the invocation of the dead, show, not only the affinity of the opinions of the Papists, and Gentiles, touching this point; but also the foundation whereupon they both stand: the ancient tradition of their elders. Afore I leave the point, I must according to my professed method, show the confession of some Papists touching this matter. 
f In 2. Tim. digr. 17. pag. 118.  Espenceus a Sorbonist: Are they well, and godly brought up, which being children almost a hundred years old, that is to say, old, and ancient Christians, do no less attribute to the Saints, and trust in them, then to God himself, and think God himself harder to be pleased, and entreated than they. Would God I lied, and there were no such. 
g Consult. pag. 154.  George Cassander: This false, and pernicious opinion is too well known to have prevailed, among the vulgar, while wicked men, persevering in their naughtiness, are persuaded that only by the intercession of the Saints, whom they have chose to be their patrons, and worship with cold and profane ceremonies, they have pardon, and grace prepared them with God: which pernicious opinion hath been confirmed in them, as much as was possible, with lying miracles. And there is another error that men, not evil of themselves, have chosen certain Saints, to be their patrons, and keepers, and put confidence in their merits, and intercession, more than in the merit of Christ: so far that the only office of Christ's intercession being obscured, they have substituted into his place the Saints, and specially the Virgin his mother, etc. 
h In Augu. De civit. l. 8. c. 27. pag. 494.  Lodovicus vives: There are many Christians, which most an end sin in a good matter, when they worship Saints both men, and women, no otherwise then they worship God; and I cannot see, in many, that there is any difference between the opinion they have of the Saints, and that which the Gentiles had of their gods.   
A. D. The which is more easily seen, 
Page. 4●.  when as all the intercession which we crave Saints departed, or living men to make for us, doth depend wholly upon Christ's merits, and mediation, and so to depend, as acknowledged by us, when in the ordinary Collects of the blessed Virgin and other Saints used by our Church, there is added, per Christum Dominum nostrum, through Christ our Lord. So that for this part of M. Whites accusation, I need say no more. 
12 This is his second reason, whereby he excuses praying to Saints, and would make it seem to be nothing against the Mediatorship of our Saviour, because they acknowledge the intercession of Saints to depend upon the merits, and mediation of Christ, and therefore in their prayers, and Collects to them, there is added Per Christum Dominum nostrum: Through jesus Christ our Lord: so that for this part of M. Whites accusation he need say no more: but this answer is unsufficient. For first, per Christum Dominum nostrum, is added in none of their prayers, used by their Church, that I alleged; nor in any of that sort, as will appear to him, that will take the pains to search their Primers, and Portuisses. That clause being added to prayers made to God, where the merits, and mediation of a Saint are mentioned therein; but not in such prayers as are directed to the Saints themselves: for then the abomination were greater, to make Christ their mediator to a creature. Next the adding of per Christum Dominum nostrum, hath no place in their idolatrous protestations touching the merits, and excellency of Friar Francis, Friar Dominicke, the holy Virgin, and others; to whom I showed, what monsters of merits they attribute, making them equal to Christ himself. The which may yet more fully be seen in their doctrine touching Friar Francis, wherein Christ, in all things that are written in the Gospel of him, is paralleled with him, in his Birth, in the Prophecies forerunning him, in his life, temptations, Disciples, doctrine, Miracles, Transfiguration, Passion, Ascension, and what not, as may be seen in the Book of his Conformities, 
a An. 1590. at Bonony.  lately printed; that we may know the present Church of Rome, and the Pastors thereof, at this day stand in the same damnable idolatry, which we hoped had been, but the private superstition of some paltry Friars. That book doth contain the most blasphemies against Christ, that ever did any since julian, and Porphyry gave over writing: and I do verily think, that as the Devil stirred up of old, 
b Philostrat. vita Apolon. Tyanae.  him that writ the like of Apollonius Tyanaeus, thereby to overthrow the Gospel, by writing a story of a damned Necromancer, that should in all things match Christ the Son of Marie: so the same Devil set the Friar a work to write this Conformity, that the merits of Christ might be suppressed, and a stinking idol set up in his steed: and yet the same is newly set forth, and at this day by open 
c Henr. Sedul. apologet. pro li. conform. Antuerp. 1607.  Apologies justified. But to leave this Roman Alcoran; what do they talk of the Virgin Maries intercession depending on Christ's merits, and mediation, who in their 
d Videtur quod probabiliter sustiners possit, quod B Virgo, etiam merito condign, meru●t esse matter D●i, & filium D●i concepisse Gab. 3. d. 4. q. vinc. dub. 3. Dico quod B. virgo, arte incarnationem, meruit filium Dei concipere, merito congrui. Bonavab. art. 2. q. 2. So others. Maio. ●. ●. in fin. Ricard. art. 3. q. 1. Alm. q. 1. dub 3. Marsil. q. 5. art. 3. dub. 3. concls. 2. & 3. Abulens parad. l. 34. & 38. Of which, some think the merit to be of congruity, some of condignity. They are loath to leave room for pure Grace in any thing that God doth for us.  schools, maintain that she merited, if not the Incarnation itself, yet that Christ should be made man, and born of her? whereof it follows necessarily, that there is some merit in her, that is not founded on the merit of Christ, but went before it, because before he was in cause to merit, she merited to be his mother. Thirdly, Christ hath by his obedience so merited all things for us, that he hath done it solely, immediately, and incommunicably; which are the three conditions of his merits: and therefore he that but subordinates the merits of a creature to the merits of Christ, robs him of his office; in that his merits have no condition to elevate, or advance the merits of another, to the making of intercession: and the reason is, because intercession, being for the pardoning of sin, and obtaining of infinite good, cannot proceed by any merits, but such as are infinite; which are Christ's merits alone. And if the jesuit understand not this, let him know that Christ is not only rob of his office by denying his merits, or not using them, but also by using & applying them otherwise then we ought, and not rightly; which is done when we believe him to be the root of all merit, but other merits notwithstanding procure us favour, and reconciliation, and eternal life with God. Therefore having prayed before, By the merits of all Saints, and the virgin Mary, forgive me my sin, Per Dominum nostrum jesum Christum will not mend the matter, unless it could be showed us out of God's word, that Christ had allowed us so to pray; and that his merits accompany not our prayer to the end, till they come to God, but stop at the Saint, and there give authority to his merit to carry them forth to God, and apply his grace unto us. Or if our Lady have any such authority, yet let it be inquired, whether the same commission be also extended to her girdle, that Papists pray to in the same fashion they do to herself: 
e Refert è Lippomann. jewel repl. pag. 398.  O blessed girdle, make us inheritors of eternal and blessed life: and keep our present life from destruction. O pure Girdle of a pure Virgin, preserve thine heritage, let us have thee to be our strength, and our aid, our wall, and our defence, our haven, and saving refuge.    

CHAP. XIIII.  
More touching the worship of Saints. 2. The same words used to Saints that are to God. 3. The formal reason of worship. 5. The harsh prayers made to Saints, how excused. 6. Navarres form of devotion. 7. Counterfeits bearing the name of Fathers. Saint Augustine's doctrine, to use no Mediator but Christ.  
A. D. Only here resteth to examine, whether we serve Saints, or the blessed Virgin herself, 
Pag. 41.  in our open service, with the very same service which we give to Christ: which if M. White could prove us to do really and formally, I would grant unto him, that it could not (as he saith it cannot) be excused from formal Idolatry. But if M. White, for proof hereof bring (as he bringeth) only names, titles, forms of speeches, etc. seeming in sound to be the same which we attribute to Christ alone, this his proof is not a real and formal proof, but an idle clamour, and a verbal quarrel. For by the circumstance of our inward meaning, commonly known, both by our ordinary practice, and public doctrine, it is evident that we do not, by these names, titles, and forms of speech, attribute to Saint Francis, or our blessed Lady, or to any Saint, the same service or worship, which we give to our Saviour, but in a far inferior respect, more or less, according to the more or less inward estimation which we have of their sanctity, dignity and merit, which we always conceive to be inferior to, and depending of the sanctity, dignity and merit of our Saviour Christ. Which answer if M. White will not admit for good, but do urge, that because the outward sound of bare words is the same, therefore the honour and worship is the same; I must tell him, that he doth not understand wherein the formal reason of honour and worship doth consist. For although outward words and actions be the signs by which we outwardly yield honour and worship: yet the chief thing, wherein honour and worship do consist, is the inward estimation and reverence thereupon ensuing, from which these outward signs proceed: which inward estimation and reverence being wanting, outward signs be mere mockeries, and not true honour and worship; and the inward estimation and reverence being present, maketh those signs to have in them the nature of true honour and worship, in such difference of degrees, as the inward estimation and reverence shall be different, as it may be, and is ordinarily very different, even when the outward words and actions, by which we express it, are the very same in substance or similitude. As for example, we honour God when we kneel to him, and call him Father, and we honour our earthly parent by kneeling in like manner unto him, and calling him Father: here the words and outward actions are altogether alike, yet because the inward estimation and reverence which we have towards God, and which we have towards an earthly parent, even in this action of kneeling, and in calling them by the same name Father, are far different. Therefore the honour and worship done to God, and done to our parent, by this word and action, are very far different. 
IN all this passage you see, the jesuite disclaims nothing of that I objected; neither the manner of praying to the blessed Virgin, and the Saints; nor those idolatrous and lying speeches of Bernardine, Bozius and Galatine, concerning her; nor the execrable narrations of Biel and his fellow; nor the verses of Turcelline and Bencius; nor Friar Francis his five wounds of Christ; but presumptuously takes upon him to justify them: which is that I said in the Dedication of my book, that the jesuits were bred in Chrysippus' school, 
a Laert. 〈◊〉 Chrysipp.  who used to make his boast, that many times he wanted opinions to set abroach, but if once he had the opinion, he never wanted argument to defend it. And by this the Reader may perceive, that the jesuite could not say, but I alleged the places truly: which if I had not, he would never have fallen to this vile and wretched shift, whereto now he betakes himself.  
2 First he says many times over, that though they use the same words to the Saints, they do to Christ, yet they do not really and formally give them the same worship: and so thinks, he hath excused his Church from idolatry: whereof let the Reader judge by that I have said, 
* Cham 13.  immediately before. Next he answers, that whatsoever titles and forms of speech they use in their service of the Saints, or Friar Francis, yet their meaning is not to attribute unto them the same holiness and merits that they ascribe to Christ, but an inferior, and such as depends upon his holiness and merits: thus, as all idolaters do, flying from the words to the meaning. Whereto I answer, that it becomes the true Church of Christ, not only to mean well, but to speak well; and such therein as will keep the Catholic faith, must also hold the Catholic form of words. The Apostle 
b 2. Tim. 1.13.  charging Timothy to keep the true pattern of wholesome words, which he had heard of him. Now let the Reply show any one pattern of these invocations and narrations in all the Scriptures. Saint Austin hath a golden speech to this purpose: 
c De civit. l. 10 c. 23.  Thus spoke Plotinus as he was able, or rather as he listed. For Philosophers speak with freedom of words, in the difficultest things that are to understand; never fearing the offence of religious ears: but it is lawful for us to speak but after a certain rule, lest the licentiousness of words bring any wicked opinions as touching the things that are signified thereby. Then I answer again, that this is but a shift to hide the odiousness of their blasphemy; for albeit it be granted, that by such words they mean not such merits and dignity as belongs to Christ, yet they mean more than of right appertains to any mortal creature. For there is no merit or dignity in any creature capable of these speeches, or of any other that are used in their Saint-inuocations: but the least that is meant, is more than belongs to any, but the Lord jesus. Thirdly the words alleged, and all other whereof any question is, if we allow them that immediate grammatical construction that belongs to all words, can import no less than the same service that is given to Christ, both really and formally. Let the jesuite take these for example, part whereof 
d Pref. of THE WAY. n. 14.  I alleged: 
e H●t secund. chor. August. de commem. B. Virgins.  Rejoice O mother celestial, magnify thy God that made thee singular: thou wouldst call thyself the handmaid of jesus Christ; but as God's law teaches, thou art his Lady, mistress; for right and reason will the mother be above her son; therefore pray him humbly, and command him from above that he lead us to his kingdom at the world's end—. Thou alone without example art she whom God hath chosen to be the Mediator of God and men, the repairer of the world, the end of our exile, the washing away of our sin, the ladder of heaven, the gate of Paradise. Such idolatry as this, were fit to be purged with an humble confession, then to be excufed with these vain distinctions.  
3 But M. White, he says, understands not wherein the formal reason of worship doth consist. But he tells him, the inward estimation of the mind is it. Words as prayers, and actions as adoring with the body, be signs whereby this worship is outwardly yielded, and therefore they follow the inward estimation of the mind, and import no more than he means that uses them: and therefore though we use the same words and actions to creatures, that we do to God, yet meaning them in one sense to the creature, and in another to God, this is no idolatry. This is the full sum of his barbarous and confused discourse: but I answer again, that thus all idolaters in the world may excuse themselves in the worship of their idols; for when the jew to his calf, and the Gentile to his image bended the knee, and called it God, they did not esteem it in that degree that they did God himself, but only gave it an inferior honour, such as they thought an image capable of; and when they were put to it, would answer as the Reply doth; 
f For they did not think their idols to be God, but resemblances of the true God. Athenag. Leg. pag. 20. Dio Chrysost. p. 145 Peres. de tradit pag. 225. Andr. orthod. expl. pag. 289. & 294 Act. 17.23.  though the word or action were one, yet the honour was far different: but as I would answer them, so I do the jesuite, that the inward estimation & opinion of the mind, determining the said words, prayers, and gestures, to such an inferior worship, as is mentioned, doth not remove the reason of idolatry thereby from the said words and prayers; because such as it is, it remains divine worship attributed to a creature. For all religious invocation of a creature, in what opinion soever, is divine adoration, and a part of God's proper worship. Besides, our meaning and intention, limiting our words, cannot dispense with the commandment, that forbids the using of 
g Abusus ille reprehensibilis est, si praedicara quae secundùm usum ecclesiae, s●li Deo Patri, & Mediatori, Christo, attribuuntur; ut, Omnipotens, salvator, etc. etiam Sanctis applicantur. Henr. de Hass. quem refert & sequitur Gabr. Lect. 32. lit. 2.  such words to a creature, with any meaning whatsoever. For Christ teaching us how to pray, bids us pray, Our Father which art in heaven, Forgive us our trespasses. Deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory. We must pray to such a one as is our Father, which is in heaven, etc. this is a commandment: and Rom. 10. How shall they call upon him, in whom they have not believed? This is the doctrine of Saint Paul: which commandment and doctrine are violated as well when we pray to a Saint with estimation that he is but an intercessor through Christ's merits, as when we call upon him with an opinion that he can help us without them. The reason is, because the commandment & doctrine of the Scripture, ties us to God alone; which being transgressed, there is the real and formal reason of superstition, whatsoever the opinion and intent of the mind be.  
4 But the jesuite replies, that like as we kneel to God, and call him our Father, so do we the same things to our earthly parents, and yet the honour we give them hereby, is far different from that we yield to God: therefore we may use the same invocations and words to the Saints, that we do to God, when the mind acknowledges not that excellency in them, that it doth in him; as children use the same kneeling and words to their fathers, they do to God. I answer two things: first, granting that words and outward gestures are qualified and conditioned by the meaning of him that uses them, as he that called the Prophet, 
h 2. Reg. 2.12. & 13.14.  my Father, my Father, meant not that high degree of Honour, that he did when he called God his Father: and therefore I will not deny, but Papists, using these invocations mentioned to the Saints, may mean them otherwise then they do to God, as for example calling the virgin Mary their Advocate, their Hope, their Saviour, they may mean she is so, not of herself, but under Christ, and not principally by her own merits, but subordinarily by the merits, and grace of her Son. This I will easily grant, may be the meaning of their words: but then I answer secondly, that it doth not follow, that therefore we may, with such reservation of our meaning, in the same words invocate, and worship the Saints departed: first because the said invocation is divine honour, from what mind soever it proceed; whether the Saint be called upon as the supreme and eternal beginning, or whether only as the friend of God, that by reason of his nearness to him, can sooner entreat him then myself. If he be invocated with the titles of Advocate, Saviour, Redeemer; though the intent be but only to use him as a friend to entreat, yet this is divine honour, belonging to jesus Christ. For all prayer is divine honour, and such titles as are given them in their worship, (Mediator, Hope, Advocate, Confidence, Saviour, Redeemer, Lady, Queen of heaven, etc.) exceed the measure of all civil reverence and adoration whatsoever, and therefore are not like the calling of our earthly parent father, or kneeling to him. Secondly the worshipping of a creature, is idolatry, though he that worship it acknowledge it to be but a creature, & subordinate to God a thousand times: because the commandment is, 
i Mat. 4.10.  Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only thou shalt serve. When the devil tempted our Saviour to fall down before him, he did not require him to persuade himself that he was jehovah, or that he had those things of himself; for he confessed unto him, 
k Luc. 4.6.  he had received them: but only that he would kneel unto him, and accept those things at his hands. And our Saviour refused it, not only because he was the devil, but also because the commandment forbids the giving divine honour to a creature, with any opinion, estimation, or judgement whatsoever. 
l Apoc. 19.10. & 22.8.  When S. john would have fallen down and worshipped the Angel, he was not so ignorant or stupid, as to think he was God, or to intend him that highest honour that belongs to God, but only by that office he would present his love to the Angel, and possible procure some favour at his hand: yet the Angel forbade him, by a reason that proceeds unanswerably against the invocation of all Saints: See thou do it not: for I am thy fellow servant, and one of thy brethren, which have the testimony of jesus. Worship God. For it is a general rule in the Scripture, that no creature may, with any estimation, be worshipped with divine honour.   
A.D. If M. White insist and urge, 
Pag. 43.  that outward words and actions are signs of inward meaning, therefore where words and outward actions are the same towards Christ, and towards his Saints, at least ignorant people have cause given them to think we have the same inward meaning, and so by our example are encouraged to commit formal idolatry: I answer, that inward meaning is indeed gathered by outward words and actions ordinarily, but not always, nor ordinarily by the bare outward show of the action, or by that precise sound of one or other word or sentence, but by the whole connexion and circumstance of the matter and person, about which the speech and action is, and by the presupposed and known conceit of the party which speaketh the said words, or doth the action. Now although in some of our prayers, one or other word or sentence may seem harsh, as it is considered precisely in the outward sound, especially to those that are not acquainted with the like (as also to those who never had seen men kneel to any but to God himself, nor to call any Father besides him, it would seem very harsh to see one kneel to his earthly parent, and to call him Father:) yet when we consider the whole connexion of the words of our prayers, having respect also to the different circumstances of the persons, and matters spoken of, and to the commonly known conceit of the speaker, the sense of our prayers are found neither to be idolatrous, nor superstitious, nor scandalous: none being ordinarily among us so simple, or ill instructed, but they know that there is a different inward conceit, and more estimation had, & reverence done, when the words are applied to our Saviour Christ being God and man, then when they are applied to Saints, who are known to be not Gods, but only men. 
5 That which the jesuite still assumes for his defence, is still false. He presumes that intending their prayers to the Saints, no otherwise then they do, they are lawful. And as long as God is confessed to be the first beginning of mercy and goodness, and Christ the Mediator of redemption, and the Saints no more but advocates and friends to present our prayers, all is well; and those Saints may be invocated, as they are: but the answer is, that even this kind of invocation, with no further opinion touching them, is unlawful, as I have showed. And let the Reader always remember, that it is 
m Mat 6.9. Luc 11.1. Nam quamlibet alia veil a dicamus— nihil aliud dicimus quam quod in ista Dominica oratione positum est, si rectè & congruenter oramus. Quisquis autem id dicit quod ad istam precempertinere non possit, etiamsi non illicitè orat, carnaliter orat, etc. Aug. open 121. c. 12. Neque ensm propria tantum orationis officia complexa cit, venerationem Dei, aut hominis petitionem; sed om nem pene sermonem Domini, omnem commemorationem disciplinae: ●t ●●●era in oratione, Breviarium totius evangelii comprehendatur. Tertul. de orat. c, 1.  no lawful prayer that is not according to Christ's rule. When ye pray, do it after this manner: Our Father which art in heaven, etc. Let your prayers be made to him that you may say is your Father that is in heaven: who forgives us our sins: and to whom belongs the kingdom, and power, and glory for ever.  
6 But that which he chief intends in this place, is to excuse the harshness and scandalousness of the words of their prayers: albeit if a man should view them well, he might marvel what excuse could be devised for them. Yet the Reply, not only excuses them, that they must not be measured by their sound, and outward show, but by the circumstance of the matter, the conceit of him that uses them, the doctrine of their church, and I know not what: but also denies them to be so much as scandalous to the ignorant people, that know none of these things. And he adds, that there is none ordinarily among them so simple, but they know the right meaning. This latter is a gross untruth. For if I should report what I have heard and seen, and what all the world knows, touching the opinion, that the vulgar sort of Papists have of the Saints; he would but fall a railing, and face me out of my own knowledge: though it be true, that of God, and the Church, and his office, they have no knowledge, but in all things talk of the Saints. Who is such a stranger in that country, that knows not the opinion that is of our Lady, S. Anthony, S. Loy, S. Peter? to whom they pray at all assays, that can say never a word of jesus Christ: or if they can, yet think he stands at their devotion, specially his mothers, no less than many of themselves stand at the devotion of the Priest. Espenceus 
n 2. Tim. Digr. 17. pag 128.  says, that now adays so well are they taught, old folk there be that trusts in Saints, and ascribe no less to them then to God himself; and think it an easier thing to entreat one of them, then him. And he wishes he might be found a liar, and that there were no such. So that we see the Reply excuses that which his Masters in Israel cannot deny. But what is it, that these men will not excuse? What hope is there, of any truth or modesty from them, that will excuse these things? We had sometime a merry jest, of a silly Priest, that used to say his prayers thus: Pater noster, ave Maria: that is for thee S. Peter. Pater noster, ave Maria: that is for thee S. Barbary. Pater noster, ave Maria: that is for thee S. Rook: and so forward, till he had told every Saint his prayer. This man's devotion is highly commended by 
o Enchirid. de orat. c. 18. n. 32. pag. 307.  Navarre: who being himself old enough to have had more wit; for he says, he was 85 years old when he used it, 
p Miscel. de orat. pag. 68  made this his order of prayer: 
* A strange kind of devotion: but permitted to none till he came to the years of dotage.  with his mind fixed upon the virgin Marie, to say ten Pater nosters, and an ave: and at the end of the first ten; the virgin Marie, and all Angels, Archangels, Principalities, and Thrones, Cherubins and Seraphins, bless me ten thousand times: at the end of the second ten; the glorious virgin Marie, Adam and Eve, Elias and Enoch, all patriarchs, Prophets and Innocents', bless me twenty thousand times. At the third ten: The glorious Virgin, Peter and Paul, and all the Apostles, john, and all the Evangelists, Stephen, and all our Lords Disciples, Sebastian, and all Martyrs, bless me thirty thousand times. At the fourth ten: All holy Confessors, Sylvester, Gregory, Ambrose, Austin, Hierome, Isodore, Martin, Nicolas, Bennet, Bernard, Dominicke, Francis, and all Bishops, Doctors, Monks, Heremits, Virgins, Widows, and Married, bless me forty thousand times. At the last ten, thus: The glorious Virgin, and Anne her mother, both the Maries her sisters, Magdalen, Martha, Marcelia, and all her friends and servants, Agnes, Cicelia, Agathie, Lucy, Catharine, and all other, bless me fifty thousand times. What man is he, that would not rejoice, and count it his chiefest happiness, that he is come out from among these men, where idolatry hath besotted them, not only to blasphemy and atheism, but to very dotage and ridiculousness, that with their prayers and devotions, they begin to resemble the common picture of the Apes untrussing the peddlers pack? and forgetting the sweet mediation of him, that 
q Heb. 2.17.  in all things became like us, for this very purpose that he might be merciful, and a faithful high Priest in all things concerning God, and that he might make reconciliation for the sins of the people; do thus renounce him, and fly to the thousands and ten thousands of those, who if they saw this idolatry toward them, would hate and detest it, and all that speak for it.   

Pag. 44.  A. D. If this answer will not stop M. Whites mouth, but that he will continue in his exclamation, that it is impossible to excuse this kind of praying from formal idolatry, wherein the same titles are given to the Saints, and the same things, by the same merits asked of them, that appertain to Christ alone: I ask him, how he will excuse Saint Augustine from formal idolatry, 
* Aug. serm. 18. de Sanctis.  who in his second Sermon of the Annunciation, hath these formal words: The Mother of our kind brought punishment into the world, the Mother of our Lord brought health or salvation into the world. Eve was auctrix of death: Marie is auctrix of merit. Eve did hurt by killing: Marry did help by quickening, etc. Afterward turning his speech to the blessed Virgin herself, he saith, O blessed Marie, who is able to render unto thee due thanks and praises, who by thy singular assent hast succoured the world that was lost. And again: Admit (saith he) our prayers into the sacrary of thy hearing, and bring back unto us the preservative of reconciliation. And yet more: Receive (saith he) that which we offer: grant that which we ask: excuse that which we fear, because thou art the 
* These words in outward sound seem harsh: yet we are not to doubt, but Saint Augustine had a pious meaning in them, (as that she was the only hope under Christ, or some such like) which pious meaning being admitted in S. Augustine's words, why may it not also be admitted in the words of our prayers, which to Protestants seem harsh?  only hope of sinners. By thee we hope for pardon of our sins, and in thee (O most blessed) is the expectation of our rewards. Holy Marie, secure the miserable, help the fainthearted, etc. If M. White can with a pious explication excuse these words of Saint Augustine from formal idolatry, superstition and scandal, than he must not marvel if our prayers also be in like manner excused. But if he will for these words condemn Saint Augustine, we must not marvel if he also condemn us: yet our comfort will be, that as his condemnation cannot discredit Saint Augustine; so neither shall it be able, in the judgement of discreet men, to discredit us. 
7 These are 
r See Kemnit. exam. council. pag. 646. edit. Frankf. 1609. The Papists themselves are uncertain who was the author of the Sermon wherein they are. Erasm. and the Divines of Lovan in their editions of Austin. Rhem, annot. in Act. 1.14. Baron. notat. in Martyrolog. Mart. 25. It is certain that neither Austin nor Fulgentius was author, because in their time the feast of the Annunciation was not holden, nor long after. See Concil. Mogunt. l. c. 36. apud Binn. tom. 3. pag. 466. an ordinary thing to father bastard writings on the ancient Doctors. Sixt. Senens. biblioth. pag. 320. and therefore our adversaries should not ground themselves on such writings, if they were desirous of nothing but the truth.  not the words of Saint Austin, but as it is supposed one Fulbert, a superstitious Frenchman, that lived 
s He died Ann. 1028.  above a thousand years after Christ; whose sermon containing this prayer, is clapped into Saint Augustine's works, by those that with his name would give authority to their own conceits. This man 
t Baron. an. ●028.  was our Lady's Chaplain, and as they say, was much devoted to her service, and writ a book in her commendations; and, if the Legend lie not, found the favour to suck her breast; and therefore had reason to speak her fair, and do her service: but yet in the mean time, the jesuite plays falsehood in fellowship, in offering his words under the name of Austin; yea, seven times over, to advance them with his name: when Saint Austin was far from that idolatry, and Saint Augustine's time; but spoke in another fashion. 
u Confess. l. 10. c. 42.  Whom might I find O God, to reconcile me to thee? should I have gone to the Angels? with what prayers? with what Sacrament? Many endeavouring to return unto thee, and as I hear, not able to do it of themselves, have fallen into the desire of curious visions, and made themselves worthy to be deluded: 
w cap. 43.  but the true Mediator, whom thy secret mercy hath made known to the humble, is jesus Christ, the Mediator of God and men. These words are far from that which is here alleged under his name: and possibly the Reply noting in the margin some harshness to be in them, that needs a pious meaning, alleged them against his conscience, and was contented to use any base cozenage, to set some antiquity and authority upon his idolatry: but let him set his heart at rest, neither the holy Virgin, nor any Saint or Angel, in those days were invocated, as now the Church of Rome uses. Some private men began to hammer such a thing, and the Fathers now and then were venturing at it (for 
x 2. Thess. 2.7.  the mystery of iniquity began to work in the Apostles time) with guesses, surmises, and Rhetoric; but nothing was done certainly, or taught resolutely this way. Nicephorus 
y Hist. eccl. l. 15 c. 28. sub fin.  writes, that one Peter Fuller (who was a schismatical Bishop of Antioch, almost five hundred years after Christ) invented the invocation of our Lady, that she should be named in all prayer; contrary to the doctrine of the Church, reported by 
z pag. 447. graec  Epiphanius: The body of Marie was holy, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  but it was not God: and she was a glorious virgin, but not given us to worship, but herself worshipped him that took flesh of her, etc. Which words of Epiphanius plainly show, that the Church of Rome commits the same idolatry with the blessed virgin, by worshipping and invocating her, that those heretics did against whom he writes; and therefore he that condemneth them for it, condemns not Saint Austin, but a wicked heresy, that hath forged and coined many things under many men's names, to win credit to itself.    

CHAP. XV.  
1. The jesuits insolency censured. 2. Note books. 3. A relation showing how the jesuits train up their Novices to dispute. 4. The doctrine of the jesuits touching formal lies, and equivocation. 5. The Repliers motion to Protestant Ministers answered.  
A. D. I might now (as if need be hereafter I shall) go forward in this my examination of M. Whites untruths: 
Pag. 45.  but I hope it shall not be needful at this time to dig any deeper into this unsavoury dunghill, sith by this which is already set down, I suppose the Reader hath had a sufficient taste of the man's talon in this kind of unsincere writing, which may worthily make him suspect every thing that he shall say against us, or rather may make him joath and abhor, for his sake, to read any English Protestant writers of controversies, especially when (as appears by M. Walsinghams' 
* The title of this book, is a Search made into matters of Religion by Francis Deacon of the Protestant Church, before his change to the Catholic. In which is showed (among other things worthy of note) the falsities of M. Caluin, M. jewel, M. Io Fox, M. Calfehil, M. Dove, M Mer. Hanmer, M. Wil Chark, M. Wil Perkins M. Morton, M. Math. Sutcliffe, M. Willet, M. Bel, M. Rogers, Sir Philip Mornay, and others.  book) so many other of their own principal writers (out of whose books, this and other petty Ministers do as it seemeth, take their Note-bookes, with which they furnish their discourses) are found guilty of many gross untruths, very ill beseeming such as take upon them to be Professors, and especially Ministers of the simple Truth. Verily myself have sometime marveled how it could come to pass, that Protestant writers should so often, and so grossly be taken tripping in this kind; and hereupon have sometime discoursed with myself what might be the cause, being willing in mine own thoughts to see if I could find out a just excusing cause. But having considered the case, although I was willing on the one side to imagine the best, to wit, that many of their errors might be excused in some sort by oversight of wit, pen, or print, or that some of the persons might be less blamed, having in simplicity received their errors from other their brethren's Note books, or printed books, not having perhaps heard how false and unsincere these their books and Note-bookes are commonly sound: yet on the other side, I could not excuse all, because I saw such store of palpable and unexcusable errors objected by our authors against Protestant writers, which were all so insufficiently defended by themselves against our authors, that I could not deem them to have proceeded from simplicity or oversight, in regard I thought it not likely that men of their wit, learning, and reading, should not see, or suspect at least, that these things which they writ were false, and consequently formal lies, proceeding from, either wilful malice, or gross negligence: which made me muse, with what conscience, men of their quality, could publish in print such palpable and pernicious untruths, tending to the seducing of souls, and matters of religion, and faith. 
1 IVstin Martyr 
a Ad Zen. & Seren. pag. 389.  says, It is time for a man to hold his peace, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  when his adversary gins to shout: and I confess, this bragging and impudency amazes me, that I know not whether I should more abhor him for it, or upbraid his followers, that content themselves with such Masters. For what one point of untruth or unsincerity hath he showed? what one thing hath he performed worthy of this bragging? that neither had the wit to answer the whole, nor the fortune to find so much as the least error in any part of that I writ? yet you see how he comes upon the stage 
b Iust. Mart. ib. pag. 392.  like Orestes, with terrible gesture, his body bombasted, upon high stilts, with a monstrous face, and roaring voice: not that he hopes hereby to fasten any imputation upon me, but because this is the art of these men, with words and boasting to outface their adversaries, and their policy to keep the vulgar sort of Papists in bondage to Romish drudgery. For the same justin 
c Ibid. pag 390  says, clamorous and wording companions 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  seem admirable to some, whose sloth and carelessness to look into things, makes them admire other men's loud boasting.  
2 For what he hath discovered in my writing, will appear of itself, without this facing and scurrility: and I wish with all my heart, that myself, by that which he hath objected against me; and other our writers, by that which Walsingham hath noted in them, might be censured: then should the Reader see, if he would take the pains to make the trial, as well by our answers, as their quarrels: this Walsingham to be the man that hath prostituted and set himself to sale, to lie, dissemble and calumniate; and the jesuite that thus mentions him, to be a poor Empiric, that hath more skill in shriving, then booking and disputing. And whereas he says twice over, that I and other petty Ministers, in simplicity furnish our discourses out of other men's Note-books; which is the cause why we are so often and grossly taken napping: let him spit, and speak out, who acquainted him with my reading, that he can tell so well whence I have that I writ? what one place hath he showed in all my writing, to be mistaken by borrowing it from others Note-bookes? What material quotation is there, but I have so marked it, that he may see I read it in the Author himself? Although I will not only not deny, but freely congratulate myself, that I have learned and increased the little knowledge I have, by reading and using the writings of those, whose books I am not worthy to bear. And if either I, or any other, had taken any thing out of Caluin, B. jewel, or M. Fox, yet might the jesuite ill upbraid us with it, who himself translated his whole Treatise that I answered, from Greg. of Valence his Analysis fidei. All his introduction, containing a fourth part of his Reply, out of the same man's tract, de obiecto fidei. His discourse of Predestination, containing ten pages together, verbatim, out of Becanus. His Appendix, containing another fourth part of his Reply, partly out of Gregory Valence, and partly out of Stapleton. The Catalogue being borrowed from Canisius. Besides his continual referring himself to Walsingham, Briarly, and Coccius. So that he, that so magisterially censures our reading, himself hath stolen the whole carcase of his very book, wherein he writes this. Besides, let him give a sufficient reason, why it should not be lawful for us to use and follow, the learned Divines of our Church, as well as it is for a Papist to follow his Thomas, his Robert, his Stapleton, his Gretser, his Coccius, his Aius Locutius. The which until he can do, he shall give us leave to think as well of them, as they do of these, though we sound not their praises so loud.  
3 And yet this conceit of using Note-bookes satisfies him not neither: for though other men's books might deceive us in some things, yet he sees, at least, some wit, learning and reading in us; which makes him fall a musing. But to put him out of his brown study, be it known unto him, and all of his mind, that we follow our cause & religion with knowledge, and peace, and a good conscience; and writ that we know, and are able to defend against all this barking, and shameless brags of their own learning: and our grounds are God's word contained in the Scripture; and the certain consent of the Church in all ages: and that which makes us the more resolute, is the loathsome carriage and behaviour of our adversaries, who notwithstanding, with all their endeavour, cannot remove our grounds in one question. But with forgery, partiality, tyranny, railing and bragging, deal against us; which being the weapons of darkness, and desperation, we detest and loath: daily praying to jesus Christ, that he will hasten his coming, and let it appear who they be that have the truth, when the malice of men, and the pride of Antichrist thus suppress it in darkness.   

Pag. 46.  A.D. Among us it is held against good conscience to tell any formal lie, in whatsoever matter, although without harm of any, although by the speaker intended for the glory of God, or the good of never so many. But it seemeth not so to be thought, by (at least) some of the Protestant writers: nay it seemeth rather, that they either have no conscience, or a very large conscience, and that they either seldom or never enter into consideration what may or may not stand with conscience, or that they frame in themselves such a gross conscience, as I have read of some Ministers of 
a In Apol. Eudaemon Johannis pro Henr. Garnet. c. 2 See also Bolseck in vita Calumi. c. 20.  Geneva, who held it lawful to lie for the glory of God, and for the advancement of the Gospel: conformably to which, is 
b D. B. in his answer to M. Abbot.  reported also, that one of our English Ministers, not many years since (being told that gross untruths were found in the book of a late Protestant writer) answered, He cannot lie too much in this cause. O wretched cause, which needeth to be maintained by such wicked means! If it were the truth, and especially (as some Protestants profess it to be) the evident truth, there should be no need to defend it with lies: neither indeed whatsoever it be, ought it in conscience or credit, be defended, especially with such gross lies, as sometimes it is. Wherefore if Protestant writers do think their cause true and good, and thereupon in zeal will needs maintain it, I would advise them for the time to come, to be more careful of truth in maintaining it, than hitherto divers of them have been, both for conscience and credit sake, and as they desire to avoid sin and shame. 
This passage of the jesuite, and the continual insolency that he useth through his Reply, makes me remember the relation of 
* Relat. of the state of relig.  a noble gentleman, concerning the education of the jesuits: which being fit for this place I will here set down. The jesuits plant in their Scholars with great exactness, and skill, the roots of their Religion, and nourish them with an extreme hatred, and detestation of the adverse party. And to make them for ever intractable to any contrary persuasion, they work into them by great cunning, and obstinacy of mind, and sturdy eagerness of spirit, to affect victory with all violence of wit in all their controversies— And (presuming perhaps of the truth before hand, and labouring no other thing, than the advancing of the party) they endeavour (as I said) by all means to imbreede that fierceness, and obstinacy in their Scholars, as to make them hot prosecuters of their own opinions, impatient, and intractable of any contrary considerations, as having their eyes fixed upon nothing, but only victory in arguing; for which cause (to strengthen in them those passions by exercise) I have seen them in their bare Grammatical disputations, inflame their Scholars with such earnestness, and fierceness, as to seem to be at the point of flying each into others face, to the amazement of those strangers, which had never seen the like before, but to their own great content and glory, as appeared. This being noted, now read the Reply again: and behold a jesuite whose profession, and practice is to equivocate, to forswear, to purge books, to raze, counterfeit, forge, bely all antiquity: to live, and breath by devising shifts, and tricks to uphold their state: now complaining of want of truth: That the Protestants defend their cause with lying against their conscience. Which might with more probability, & less grudging on our part, have been said, if himself had not been a Master Priest, or if in all his Reply he had discovered but one thing written either against conscience, or against the truth, or against all the learned in his own Church: but when he cannot present the Reader with one conclusion, one doctrine, one quotation, one line, or letter to make him really see, wherein I have failed; all this is but a small furniture of brags to small purpose, and I despise it.  
4 And whereas he says, among jesuits, and Papists it is held against good conscience to tell any formal lie in any matter, &c: he belies his own knowledge, save that when they are showed to be the archlyars of the world, by equivocating, and forging, they will answer, they are no formal lies. But if lying be 
c Mendacium est falsa significatio vocis cum voluntate fallendi. Gelas. 22. q. 2. Beatus. ille mentitur qui aliud habet in animo, & aliud verbis, vel quibuslibet significationibus, enuntiat. Augustin. de mendac. c. 3. tom. 4.  speaking contrary to the truth, with purpose to deceive, the doctrine of equivocation, so stiffly maintained, will prove them liars both formal, and real: wherein how far this generation hath waded, the affairs of our state, in our time, have made known to women, and children. But if the lie be free from evil intent, as an officious, or a merry lie (and Papists can define the foulest lies that are to be such, for a vantage) than 
d rosel. Armil. Angel Sa. v. Mendacium. vocabul. theolog. v. Mendac Tolet. de sept pecc. pag 930. Llam sum. pag. 615.  the schools allow it well enough, and think it, at most, but a venial. But Caietan 
e 22. though qu. 110. art. 2.  says, He that without purpose of hurt tells a pernicious lie, though he tell a formal lie, yet he doth not formally lie, perniciously: nor sin mortally: unless peradventure it be by accident: yet the jesuite you see says otherwise: that with us it is held (which know not the doctrine of the Thomists) against good conscience to tell a formal lie (not in a hurtful matter only) but in any whatsoever: and so lays it upon the Ministers of Geneva, and England: alleging Eudemons' Apology for Garnet, the father of lies: and Bolseck that debauched Apostata, to prove it against them of Geneva, and D. B. a Seminary Priest, to prove it against an English Minister: but for so much as these men are all Papists, & in such credit with the jesuite, let D. Bishop, who is one of them, make my answer: 
f D. Bish. repr. of D. Abb. def. pag. 120.  Any man not past all care of his reputation, would be ashamed to cite such late partial writers for sufficient witnesses in matters of controversy, wherein themselves were parties. And that he says, of Illyricus and Bale, two Protestants, when they were alleged against him, the same I return upon these three: 
g P. 183.  They are heretical, and lying companions, and therefore no sufficient witnesses: 
h P. 249.  No great regard is to be had, what such lying, lewd fellows relate: and so I think them worthy of no other answer: by D. B. own rule therefore these, being our adversaries, are no competent witnesses: and it was but the poor jesuits ill hap to light on them, when the first, and principal, is a Crect by birth, of that nation 
i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Tit. 1.12. Callimach. hymn. in lou.  that breeds liars; & writ his book alleged, in defence of him, that was the foulest liar, and formallest equivocator, that ever lived. 
k See Casaub. ep. ad Fronto. p. 116. & inde.  This man, whom Eudemon defends, (having with grievous protestations, and upon his Salvation denied many truths: and notoriously his conference with Hall, the Priest in the Tower:) when afterward he was demanded why he would do so; in a paper he wrote, & subscribed these words: This I acknowledge to be according to mine opinion, and the opinion of all the Schoolmen; and our reason is, for that in causes of lawful equivocation, the speech by equivocation being saved from a lie, the same speech may be without perjury confirmed by oath, or by any other way, though it were by receiving the Sacrament, if just necessity so require. HENRY GARNET. Thus to quit themselves from lying, and to lay the imputation upon others, the jesuite hath no other shift, but to quote a lying Crect in defence of an equivocating traitor: whose hateful names, he would not have suffered to have appeared in his margin, to such a purpose, had he well digested, what they were, and what they writ: and were he not one of those that loves Garnets' treason, and Eudemons' defence of it, better than we yet know of, he would have used other witnesses.   
A. D. But if they know in their conscience (as perhaps some of them do) their cause to be false, and bad, 
Pag. 47.  than I counsel them quite to abandon it, without delay, and no way, in word, or writing to maintain it, especially by offering untruths in defence of it; in regard such men ought to know, that to persist in a known bad cause, and to maintain it by such a known bad means, cannot but greatly increase both sin, and shame, and will without repentance, bring upon them certain, and double damnation. Lastly, if any of them have such seared consciences that they make no conscience, but think they may with a safe conscience persist in maintaining the Protestants cause, after they know it to be false, and bad, under pretence of advancing the Gospel, or the glory of God, especially if they think, that they may lawfully maintain it by writing apparent, and known untruths, the better to defend it: If I say, there be any Protestant writers, of such seared consciences, I would wish they would plainly tell us this their minds, that so those poor souls, who have been hitherto seduced, may the better see how unsound the Potestant Religion is, which cannot be maintained, but with apparent untruths, uttered by their writers, either without due care of conscience, or against their knowledge and conscience, or with having such bad consciences, as to think it lawful to lie in this their cause, pretended by them to be for the advancement of God's glory, and of the Gospel: or which is all one, or worse, to think one cannot lie too much in defence of this their Protestant cause, or Gospel. 
5 This is a poor motion, and proceeds from no great conceit, yet I will satisfy it, upon condition he will rest satisfied with my answer: Let this content you, and bear not yourselves in hand to the contrary: we know our cause to be Gods own truth: which you have corrupted with innumerable heresies patched thereunto; and we not only defend it, as we do, with a good conscience against you; but we would think it our greatest happiness, if the cause should so require, to shed our blood in defence of it: and it joys our hearts, to see the weapons wherewith you fight against us: lying, railing, pride, rage, treason, sedition, fire, and powder, which is a sign that you are not of God: & this our cause we will maintain with zeal, and sincerity: which shall be tried not by your calumnies, but by the thing itself. And I am so far from seducing any, that I would give my life, for the reclaiming of those, whom you have seduced, and bewitched, with mere cozenage, and impostures. And as I hate lying to defend God's truth, so can I not but upbraid them, that run headily into Papistry afore they know how things stand between us; when upon just trial, it will fall out, that in the main question, between the Church of Rome, and us, our adversaries uphold themselves with mere imposture.    

To the Reader.  
HItherto reaches that which my Adversary hath written against the Epistle, and Preface of my book: now in the next place, before he fall to replying upon the book itself, he inserts an Introduction, as he calls it, containing a Declaration of the word Faith: the which bebeginnes pag. 49. where his exceptions to the said Preface, and epistle end. And forasmuch as it is a new discourse, intended, 
* Since I see M. A Wotton to be either of so dull capacity of wit that he cannot conceive; or rather of so captious disposition of will, that he will needs doubt and make a question (what I meant by the word faith) I have thought good not only to declare what I meant by the word, but also by this action, to set down certain points of doctrine pertaining to the thing signified by the word. pag 49. of his Reply.  as it should seem, against M. Wotton: and is no Reply to me, but a superfluous, and impertinent collection rudely, and obscurely peeced together for the outfacing of that, which he was not able formally to answer: I would therefore cast away no time, in meddling with it, but only defend myself against such places thereof, as touch my Book, because I will not be in his debt for a word. Those places only I have here set down in order, as they lie in his Discourse, with my Answer to them.   

CHAP. XVI.  
Touching assurance of Grace, and Believing a man's own salvation. 1. Perfection of the Scripture, and necessity of the Church Ministry. 2. 3. How the justified conclude their salvation from the Scripture. 4. The justified have the assurance of faith. This is declared. Full assurance void of doubting taught by the most in the Church of Rome. 5. Touching Perseverance.  A. D. Now that it doth not at all appertain to that kind of verities, 
Pag. 57  which are to be believed by faith, I prove out of the Protestants own Principles, to wit, that 
* That this proof must be, by necessary consequence, without all authority of the Church, is insinuated— by White. pag. 46:  nothing is to be believed by faith, but what is expressly set down in Scripture, or so contained, that (without all Church authority) it may be (evidently, and by good consequence) proved out of Scripture. But the promise of God's special mercy, applied absolutely, and in particular to Luther, Caluine, etc. is neither expressed, nor in manner aforesaid contained in Scripture. Therefore it is not a verity, to be believed by faith by the Protestants own Principles. 
1 IN this Chapter where these words lie, he discourses of the object of faith, and inquires what the things are which belong to it, and must be believed; to no purpose intruding himself upon an impertinent question touching the belief of a man's own salvation: and in this period he affirms, that it is against the Protestants own Principles to believe it: Because by their Principles, nothing may be believed, but what is set down in Scripture; either expressly, or by good consequence; which the salvation, or remission of sins to Luther, Caluine, White, or any particular man, is not. And to show this to be our Principle, he says in the margin, that M. White in such a place, insinuats, that nothing may be received, as a point of faith, unless it can be proved by necessary consequence of Scripture without all authority of the Church: meaning, as I suppose, that I require no Church authority to assure a man any thing, but intent such things, only to be believed, as may be proved, at least by consequence of Scripture, without the authority of the Church. I answer 2. things. First, that in the place alleged, I deny no authority of the Church, that is d●e unto it, but only (against them that charge the Scripture with insufficiency, as if they wanted many things needful to be believed, which must be supplied by the Tradition, and Authority of the Church) I affirm that whatsoever is needful to be known, believed, or done, is contained in Scripture, and by the same ALONE may absolutely be determined. The meaning whereof is, that what Ministry, and power soever the Church hath to teach, and rule us in the use of the Scripture, and points of faith, (which authority no Protestant will deny to belong to the true Church, or to be needful) yet all things, whatsoever belong to faith, and the Church by any authority, may propose unto us, are contained in the Scripture, and may be proved thereby alone: the said Church authority being only a requisite condition, subordinate for the readier attaining to the sense, and use of the Scripture: but no rule, or principle, either above, or with the Scripture, whereinto any man's faith, in any point is resolved, so that it may be said, This I must, or I may, believe, upon the tradition and authority of the Church, though it be not any way revealed in the Scripture. The which assertion of ours, hath 2. parts: the one affirmative, that the Scripture alone, and absolutely considered in it own Latitude, and extent, containeth all things belonging to faith, without defect. This is proved 
a Digr. 3. & 1 2.  in the way. The other Negative; that the Church's authority is neither needful, nor able to supply any necessary, or new point of faith, that is not contained in the Scripture. I deny it not to be ordinarily, a necessary condition, for the knowing, and believing, that which the Scripture reveals; for 
b Ro. 10.14.  How shall they hear, that they may believe without a Preacher? 
c Act. 8.31.  How can we understand except we have a guide? 
d Mal 3.7.  for the Priests lips should preserve knowledge, and at his mouth they should seek the Law; for he is the Messenger of the Lord of hosts. I only deny it to be the rule, and foundation of faith: or so much as the last infallible, and clear ground, whereupon the believer, in any point that he believes, rests himself. The which (to hold proportion with the jesuit) in this place. I only prove by the Papists own principles, to wit, that the proposition of the Church is 
e Grego. Val. tom. 3. disp. 1. q. 1. punct. 1. pag. 32. §. sit nunc Sexta.  neither the last and clearest motive, whereupon our faith stays, but there are higher, and clearer, than it; which can be nothing, but the immediate supernatural light of the verities believed themselves, shining upon our hearts from the Scripture: whereunto the light of Church authority, when it hath revealed the doctrine contained in Scripture to us, gives place; as all lesser lights do, when a greater gins to shine.  
2 Secondly I answer, that from this Principle of ours: Nothing may be believed, but what is set down in Scripture expressly, or may be gathered from thence by good consequence: it doth not follow, that a particular man, as Luther, or White cannot believe the promises of Gods special mercy, touching his own salvation: because though Luther, or Whites name be not expressly set down in the promise, yet that which is set down is so offered to us, that being penitent believers, and justified, and standing in grace, (whereof there is an infallible assurance, 
f THE WAI● Digr. 43.  by our adversaries own confession) we may conclude our own particular Salvation from thence, and must endeavour to believe it. This part of my answer affirms 2. things. First, that a penitent sinner justified, and elevated into the state of grace, may infallibly prove, or gather the assurance of his Salvation, by good consequence from the Scripture. Secondly, that this assurance, thus to be gathered, appertains to those verities, which are believed by the habit of faith. I do not say any man can at all times, so firmly, and without fear of the contrary, believe his own reconciliation with God; as he can the first articles of faith, that are expressly, and immediately revealed: I only affirm, that he believes it by the habit of supernatural faith, and is bound to endeavour, and use the means, that he may believe it.  
3 The first point I have purposely showed 
g Digr. 40. n. 39 & 4●. n. 10.  in the THE WAY, and confirmed by the confession of divers of our Adversaries, whither I refer the jesuit, that he may see how, and in what manner this assurance is gathered. Only I will here admonish the reader, that if the penitent believer, could not, by necessary consequence of Scripture, and true application of the general promises of the Gospel to his own particular person, conclude his salvation, he were in no wise bound to believe it: but now when he hath received the Testimony of God's Spirit within him, crying Abba Father: the power of the same Spirit in his body and soul, renewing him, and producing the effects of saving grace: the Faith of Christ whereby he gives consent to the Gospel: the life of Christ whereby he lives, not himself, but Christ lives in him: the power of his death, whereby he dies to the world, and sin: when finally in truth, and conscience he performs all the conditions, that the Scripture requires, and feels within him those very signs, whereby the Gospel describes the elect: it may not be doubted, but by good consequence, both in matter, and form, he may conclude his own salvation It is no where written in the Bible, that Luther, or Caluine shall rise at the last day, yet the Reply will allow them to believe it, by consequence from that which is written: All men shall rise. It is no where written, that this jesuite, shall come into judgement, and give an account of this his faith, and the ways wherein he walks: yet I presume he believes it by faith, in that by consequence it necessarily follows of that Article, He shall come to judge, the quick, and the dead. In the same manner a penitent sinner, examining himself, concludes his own salvation from the Scripture, that says, 
h Marc. 16.16. Rom. 10.9.  Every one, that reputes, and believes shall be saved. Therefore, if there be any certainty of a man's own repentance, of his being in Grace, of the testimony of God's Spirit (and 
i Paret— Lombar●um nec v●lu●sse, nec do●●isse, ut do●erentur Christian de peccatorum remissione, & gratia Dei, & vita aeterna perpetuo dubitare aut diffidere; quemad modum re vera nec ullus Orthodoxus, & sani judicij Ecclesiastes, inter Pontificios, quod equidem sciam, unquam illud docuit. Mart. Eisengren. defence. Concil. Trid. de cert. great. p. 216.  fie upon that mouth, that will say there is none, when the Scripture 
k 2. Co. 13.5.  bids us, Try ourselves touching them) it must needs be yielded, that there is a certainty likewise of his salvation.  
4 The second point, that the remission of our sins, and eternal life is believed by Faith, is clear upon 4. points. 1. because in the Creed, those 2. Articles are made the object of Faith; therefore the penitent sinner applies them to himself by the same habit. 2. 
l Aliqui Catholici existimarunt, posse unumquemque credete fide divina, sine peculiari revelatione, dimissa sibi esse peccata. Vasqu. 12. disp. 200. n. 5.  Many learned Papists confess so much. Fisher of Rochester. 
m Roffenf. opusc. de fid. & miserecord. dei. axiom. 10.  If we will enter into heaven, we must not come with a double heart, or wavering Faith, but with that, which is ALTOGETHER VNDOUBTING, and MOST CERTAIN. For to doubting minds, there is no way open. Gropper, and the Divines of Collen, 
n Antididag. c. de iustif. §. proditum est. p. 29.  We are justified by Faith, whereby WITHOUT DOUBTING, we firmly believe, that our sins, who are truly penitent, are forgiven us, for Christ: whereof notwithstanding it behooves us, INWARDLY THROUGH FAITH, TO BE CERTIFIED, BY THE TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY GHOST. 
o Enchirid. Colon. c. de justificat. §. Non habeo. p. 139.  For we confess it to be the truth, that it is also required for a man's justification, that a man CERTAINLY BELIEVE, not only generally, that such as are truly penitent, have their sins forgiven by Christ, but also that they are forgiven, THE MAN HIMSELF, THAT BELIEVES for Christ, by Faith. And 
p Ibid. §. sed hic.  again: No man's sins are pardoned, unless he believe, that he hath obtained pardon, by Christ. Ruard the Dean of Lovan, is 
q Vasqu. 12. disp. 200. n. 35.  reported to hold that without revelation, a man may have that assurance of his justification which shall be without fear, or doubting: but he holds more, 
r Ruard explic. artic. Lovan. art. 9 p 119.  that if any simple man, being persuaded, BELIEVE, out of this will of God (towards us, for his Son, in whom he hath given us all things) that his sins are forgiven him by Christ, and this CERTAINLY, and as it were OUT OF THE WORD OF GOD; and thereupon is touched with true love to God, wholly submitting himself to him, who thus hath prevented him with his love, and repenting him of his sins: it is very likely, that he that is thus affected, doth truly obtain the pardon of his sins, and is made the son of God. The same special faith is taught us by 
s joh. Bacon. & Catharin. quos refert Perer. select. disp. tom. 2. in Roman. 8. d. 7. nu. 27. 30.  others: and it is the highest assurance that can be. For 
t Fidei cognitio sola visione beata inferior est claritate, aequalis certitudine: reliquis omnibus alijs scientijs long superior atque certior. Pined. in job 19.25. n. 1. p. 96.  the knowledge of faith is inferior to the blessed vision (which the Saints in heaven have) only in clearness; but it is equal in certainty, and far above, and more certain, than all other knowledges. 3. It is 
u Certa est ex fide conclusio illata ex una credita & altera evidenti— neque dubitare, si maxime cup●rem, valerem; quin mihi certum esset, ex side, me esse in gratia; si quidem hoc colligere possem, ex una credita, & altera mihi evidenti, & hoc ita esse sic suadeo. Primo, multae sunt propositiones de fide, quae non aliter possunt probari essè de fide, nisi quia sequuntur evidenter ex creditis, saltem cum aliqua propositione evidenti secundum lumen naturale. Andrae. Vega. pro Concil. l. 9 c. 39 p. 289. This is the doctrine of others also. Scot 3 d. 35. qu. unit. Cano. Loc. l. 12. c 2. pag. 258. Medina 12. q. 112. art. 5. Albertin. Coral. p. 261. nu. 11.  a principle, common among our Adversaries, that every conclusion issuing from one promise revealed expressly in the Scripture, and another clearly, and certainly known otherwise, and by evident, or good consequence added to it, belongs to faith, and is believed by no other habit then of faith. As for example, all the dead shall rise. Luther is dead: therefore Luther shall rise. Every one that begets, really differs from him that is begotten: the Father begets the Son: therefore the Father really differs from the Son. Here both the conclusions are such verities as belongs to faith. For Luther believed, he should rise; and all we believe the Father really differs from the Son: yet neither of them are expressly revealed, or written in the Scripture (as it is not, that Luther, or White shall be saved, or have their sins pardoned) but the Minor proposition in the first discourse, and the Mayor in the second, are known otherwise, and by good connexion added to that which is written; and therefore the conclusion is believed by faith. So it is in this discourse: every theological conclusion belongs to faith: but the assurance of the remission of a man's own sins, is a theological conclusion: therefore it belongs to faith. The first proposition is manifest. The second is proved thus. All that are penitent, and believe, have the remission of sins assured them: the which proposition is of faith: because it is immediately revealed, Esay the 1.16.17.18. Act. 3.19. Rom. 10.9. Ezek. 18.21. But I repent, and believe; this proposition is evident, and certain to him that doth so. For Repentance, and Faith are infallibly known to the justified that have them. Mark. 9.24. Es. 38.3. 1 joh. 3.21. The conclusion therefore, I have the remission of sin assured me, is a theological conclusion belonging to faith. Vega says, A conclusion inferred of one thing believed, and another that is evident, is certain by faith— I cannot doubt, if I would never so feign, but it should be certain unto me by faith, that I were in grace, if I could collect it from one thing believed, and another thing evident unto me, and that this is so, I thus persuade. For there are many propositions of faith, which cannot otherwise be proved to be of faith, but because they do evidently follow of those things that are believed, at least with some proposition evident according to natural light. And indeed how many propositions of faith are there, that cannot be showed so to be, 
* Alberti●. Coral. p. 226. n. 8. & Vega ubi supr.  but because they follow evidently of that, which is believed? Thus our adversaries hold the decrees of a Council, and the Pope's determinations, to be matters of faith, and yet suppose one proposition, whence they issue, to be but human. Thus they believe by divine faith, that Paul the 5 is right Pope, and that the Trent Council was a lawful Council: and yet that the election of Paul was Canonical, or the manner of the assembly of Trident lawful, they confess is had only by human faith, that may be deceived. They must therefore grant the Protestants, as much: that the remission of a man's own sins (which in all in different judgement, a penitent sinner, justified by Christ, may as well conclude from the Scripture, as our adversaries can the Canonical election of the Pope, or the lawful manner of assembling the Trent Council) is a truth 
* Haec mihi sententia firma insedit. Pontificem Romanum ab eis desectum, quibus ius est eligendi, & quem est Christiana complexa Ecclesia, verissimum Christi esse Vicarium: idque ea side, cui nullum potest subesse salsum, ab unoquoque credi oportere. Paul. Comitol. resp. moral. l. 1. q. 99 n. 2. p. 212.  to be believed by faith. Fourthly this must be granted upon two other points, that 
x Soto apolog. c. 2. Ruard. ar●. 9 p. 119. Cassal. de quadriparr. instit. l. 2 c. 8. Staplet. ●e iustific. l. 9 c 11. Peter. select. q. in joh. 14. disp. 18. Maturè tamen omnibus, hinc inde, pe●satis, probabilius profecto, esse crediderim, posse aliquos viros spirituales tantopere in exercitus spiritualibus, & in familiaritate divina, proficere, ut, absque ulla temeritate, possint, rectè & absque ulla haesitatione, credere se invenisse gratiam, & remissionem peccatorum, apud Deum: Andr. Vega. pro Concil. p. 313.  our adversaries (some few jesuits excepted, who are but one, and an upstart faction against the mayor part in the Roman Church) freely yield unto. First, that a justified man may have such certainty of the remission of his sins, as is void of all fear, and doubting, in the same manner as any man may certainly know, there is such a place as Rome, Constantinople, London. Do. Bannes 
y In Tho. 22. q. 18. art 4. concls. 3. The same says Tolet. in Rom. 5. v. 5. p. 225.  says, Our hope, (whereby we look for Salvation) is, and is called, simply such, as cannot deceive us, and firm, and safe, both in the Scripture, and in the doctrine of the Church: because through the divine promise, and power of God's mercy, whereupon it leans, it can no more deceive us, than faith, in whose testimony it is founded. Martin Isengren hath written a whole book of purpose to show this point: in it he hath these words. 
z Eisengren. pro conc Trid. de certit. great. p. 228.  I have many a time, and often visited the sick, and been with them that have died, and no man can report of me, but that as soon, as they had declared their repentance, I exhorted them with all diligence, to have an UNDOUBTED, AND CERTAIN CONFIDENCE, that our most merciful God would, for the merit of his Son, WITHOUT ALL DOUBT, forgive them their sins, and after this life give them his heavenly kingdom: yea he says: 
a Pag. 217.  All the chiefest Divines of the Church of Rome, whose writings for that purpose, he had read, and searched, though they did not allow a man to be altogether secure, and free from all care, and heedfulness, yet 
* universi, uno ore.  all of them, with one voice teach, that we must NOT TREMBLE, OR MISTRUST, BUT HAVE A FIRM HOPE, AND CERTAIN CONFIDENCE: 
b Omnes orthodoxi, receptique theologi, quotquot tam inde ab Apostolorum temporibus, ad hunc usque annum vixerint. p. 254.  and he adds that this is the doctrine of all the Schoolmen, and Fathers that have been since the Apostles, whose testimonies, and words he alleges at large 
c Dionys. Areo pagit. Cypr. Ambr. Augusti. Chrysost. Cyril. Basil. Theodor. Leo. Gregor. Roman Pius 5. Sixt. Senensis. Mich. Medina. Anselm. Bernard. Magist. Thom. Scot Altisiodor. Reyner. Alexand. Lyra. Bonauent Dionys. Carthus. Gabr. Pelbart. Biga. Gotshal. Thesaur. Hos. Ruard. Lovaniens. Caietan. Roffens. Ecch. Nausca. Cassal. Soto. Canis. Vega. Castro. Torrens. Theses Cathol. disput. adu. Wittenberg.  to the number of more than 40. Whereby the reader may judge of my adversaries learning, and religion: that having derided such testimonies, and signs of our being in God's favour, as Isengren avers to be infallible, 
d Reply. p. 58.  concludes that the persuasion, which any Protestant hath, that their sins are forgiven, is a fond presumptuous fiction, of their own heart: but Isengren 
e Vbi sup. p. 217.  answers, that such fantastical companions, not understanding the truth of things, babble of that, whereof they can give no sufficient reason. Secondly, when it is demanded whence this certainty, so free from doubting and fear, arises? they grant it arises from the light of the Scripture, that is to say, the promises of mercy, and forgiveness, revealed in the Scripture, beget, and produce it in the heart of man. Ruard 
f Ruard. at. 9 pag. 121.  says, Though it be inferior to the certainty of faith, yet it DEPENDS UPON THE SENTENCES OF THE SCRIPTURE, and therefore faith infused mediately, inclines unto it. Casalius says, 
g Cassal. quadrip. inst. p. 221. l. 2. c. 8.  This confidence arises, by having respect to the divine conditional promises, and to the conditions that they require. Vega, following the doctrine of Bacon the Carmelite, 
h Vega pro Concil. l. 9 c. 47. pag. 321. Is credit, cui aliquid sine ulla haesitatione, certum & persuasum est. Catech. Roman. pag. 17.  says, This assurance is not the assurance of faith, but an assurance following faith, yet, saith he, if that will serve the turn to call it the assurance of faith, I WILL NOT GREATLY STRIVE: but, that there may be peace, and we may all agree in one, I will grant that you require, and willingly yield myself. These men as learned, as ever lived in the Church of Rome, you see, deny not this certainty of faith, or knowledge following faith, howsoever the said faith be not so intent, and strong in apprehending that object, as it is in believing, that which is immediately revealed, and expressly written. For what habit, or faculty is there, in the soul, whereby to receive, and apply the promises of the Gospel, touching the benefits of Christ for our redemption, but only faith? For although the holy Ghost, not tying himself to terms, do 
a 1. joh. 4.13. & 3.14.  sometime call it knowledge, yet calling it 
b Rom 6.8. 1. joh. 4.16.  again believing alone, or believing and knowing, it is manifest that he intends such a knowledge as not only flows from the principles of faith but also is reduced to the same habit: and this only, which the holy Ghost teaches in terms so express and formal, might serve to stop the mouths of all our adversaries, if they had not set themselves to resist even Gods own Spirit, when it speaks against their corruptions. For with what other eyes can the soul behold the heavenly light of the Gospel? How shall that confidence, assurance, certainty which is created by the mixture of the light of the Scripture, with light of a good conscience renewed by the holy Ghost, belong to any human knowledge, when the Scripture says expressly, 
i Gal. 3.14.  The promise of the Spirit is received by faith; and wheresoever, in all the Bible, the Gospel is revealed, men are called upon to believe? I will not deny, but faith hath his degrees, and can believe some things more resolutely, than other, and one time is stronger, then at another; but this is it, I urge, that if there be granted a certainty of a man's own special standing in grace, which certainty arises by the Scriptures: it must needs also be granted, that it is a work, or effect of faith: & this is confirmed by the courage, and constancy of Martyrs, and by the admirable resolution, that we see in good men, when they die. Saint Ambrose 
k In Psal. 118. serm. 7. pag. 641.  says, we see innocent persons in this world, joyfully to run towards judgement, to hate delays, to hasten their trial, whereas the guilty fly from it: and he gives the reason: Because the just man knows eternal life, the fellowship of Angels, the crown of his good merits, is laid up for him. The 
l Heb. 11.36.  Scripture reports how many of the children of God were tried by mocking, and scourging, by bonds, and prisonment, they were stoned, hewn apieces, tempted, they wandered up and down, destitute, and afflicted: All which the Apostle says, they did by faith, and confidence of the Promises; and yet their assurance was no other, nor otherwise begotten, than the ordinary assurance of all God's children, which is concluded by joining the light of their conscience, kindled by the holy Ghost, to the immediate light of the conditions revealed in the Scriptures.  
5 That which our Adversaries assign to be the cause why a man cannot be sure of his salvation, because no man is sure of his Perseverance, is easily answered, by affirming likewise, that the grace of perseverance, with other gifts, is given all the elect in their justification. For S. Paul 
m Rom. 8.38.  says, he was certain of it; and what he, in that place, avouches of himself, belongs to others, as well as himself, by the confession of 
n Staplet. de justif l. 9 c. 13. Tolet. in Rom. 8. v. vlt.  our strongest adversaries; and he avouches not only that God's love to him, but more properly, that his love to God, shall never fail. 
o Perer. in Ro. 5. d 12. n. 59  The jesuit also confesses it to be the doctrine of 
p De Bono perseverant.  Saint Austin, that grace is given by Christ, whereby not only man may persevere, but ●●lso that he shall persevere. 
q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrysost. hom. 9 in Rom.  The favourits of Princes are advanced to honour, and riches, but their preseverance therein is uncertain. But it is not so with the grace of God bestowed in justification: and therefore we may believe, as well our Perseverance, as our Grace. And if the justified be certain of the grace of justification that he hath, then may he be certain, and well assured of his Perseverance, because it is a grace purchased us by Christ, and included in that Peace, which the justified by faith have with God, through him; or else let him show that can, where any firm and settled peace of mind is, where there is uncertainty, and doubtfulness touching Perseverance. 
r Concil. Trid. sess. 6. can. 22. Vega pro Concil. l. 12. cap. 23. Barth. Medi●. 12. qu. 109. art. 10. ad 3. Greg. de Valent. tom. 2. pag. 849. c.  And that it is in the power of a justified man, with God's help, to persevere in grace, to the end; is defined by the Trent Council, and holden to be the doctrine of all Catholics: which power 
a 1. Pet. 5.1.  Saint Peter also testifies to be reduced into act by the almighty power of God, keeping him 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  as with a garrison through faith to salvation: according to that of 
b jer. 32.40.  the Prophet, I will put my fear into their hearts that they shall not departed from me. Which overthrows all them, that make the uncertainty of Perseverance a reason against the certainty of salvation.   

CHAP. XVII.  
Concerning points Fundamental and not Fundamental. The distinction expounded and defended. 4. Who shall judge what is Fundamental, and what not. A jest at the election of Pope Leo the tenth.  A. D. 
* White p. 100  M. White, by the foundation, or points fundamental, 
Pag 66.  understandeth all truths, which are necessary for the salvation of all men; but this definition is not found in 
* Act. 4.12. 1. Cor. 3.11. Ephes. 2.19.  the texts of Scripture, cited by him in the margin. Neither doth it help the matter for the question may still be, how many, and which truths those be which be necessary. The which question if we leave to be determined by every man's private spirit, or particular judgement, we shall either have no point of faith, to be accounted a point fundamental, in regard the ignorance of some may be such, that they may think a man may be saved by moral good life, although through ignorance he believe nothing at all; or else we may have so many fundamental points of faith, as it shall please every brainsick fellow to hold to be necessary to salvation. The which how great confusion it will breed in the Church, every man of mean capacity may easily see. And therefore every man ought to see how necessary it is, that the determination of this necessary question be not left to the private spirit, or particular judgement of this, or that man; but to the judgement of the Catholic Church, accounting with S. Austin all those points which are diligently digested, and confirmed by full authority of the same Church▪ to be fundamental or to pertain to the foundation, and consequently to be such, as must necessarily be believed actually, or virtually by all men; and such, as may not doubtfully be disputed of, and much less, rashly, and obstinately be denied by any man. 
1 Our doctrine is, that in the things revealed in the Scripture, and belonging to the object of faith, there is a difference; whereby some are more necessary to be known, and without error to be understood, then othersome. For though it be lawful for no man either to misbeleeve, or obstinately not to believe any thing that is written, yet the simple ignorance, or error, in many things, hinders not salvation, nor the substance of Faith: but either a private man, or a whole particular Church thus ignorant, or erring (either invincibly, or not affectedly, and obstinately) in such things, and yet holding others aright, hath saving faith, and is in the state of grace. This difference of things arises from 3. respects. First, of the commandment enjoining, and urging the knowledge of one thing, more than the knowledge of another: as for example, the knowledge of Christ crucified, more than the knowledge of his Genealogy: for though both be revealed alike, yet not both under the like penalty. Secondly, of the nature, and condition of the things; when this doth more properly, and necessarily belong to salvation, then that: for without the knowledge of story of Gedeon, I may be saved: but without the knowledge of Christ's nature, and office I cannot. Thirdly, of their use. When one thing is the foundation, and ground, that gives light, and subsistence, to another; as the knowledge of Christ's office, & merits brings light to the understanding of the doctrine, touching our own unworthiness: etc. Out of these respects, and degrees of things, that are believed, as they stand in order one to another, and in use to us, we call some FUNDAMENTAL, and some NOT FUNDAMENTAL; not with relation to our faith so much as to our knowledge; in as much, as it is dangerous to misdoubt the truth of any thing, that is revealed to us, if it were but: 
a 2. Sam. 24.9. 1. Chro. 21.5.  Whether the number of the children of Israel, able to bear arms, when David numbered them, were 1500000, though no man will say an error, or ignorance in this matter were against saving faith. A Fundamental point therefore is that which belongs to the substance of faith, and is so revealed, and so necessary, that there can be no salvation without the knowledge, and explicit faith thereof: of which nature are the things contained in the articles of our faith: a point not Fundamental, is that which directly belongs not to the way of Salvation, neither doth error, or ignorance therein make void, or destoy, that which is Fundamental. Forsomuch as such a point is revealed, but for the manifestation of the other, and is believed but in order to the other: as, that Abraham had so many children, Paul had a cloak: The dead prey for the living, &c: wherein it may fall out, that we may err or be ignorant, and yet the faith not prejudiced.  
2 I know none of our Adversaries that deny this distinction, but use, and explicate it, as well, as we, though none such as this jesuite is, be grown so perverse, and malapert, that they will endure nothing, that we say, be it never so true. 
b 22. q. 2. art. 5. Dicendun quod fidei obiectum, per se est id per quod homo beatus efficitur. Per accidens auten, aut secundario, se habe●t ad obiectum virtutis omnia quae in sacra Scriptura continentur; sicut quod Abraham habuit duos filios, etc.  Thomas, having divided the object of faith into that, which is so by itself, and that, which is by accident, and secondarily; defines the first to be that whereby a man is made blessed, and saved: the latter that which is revealed, whatsoever it be, as that Abraham had two sons; and David was the son of jesse. 
c Dialog. 1. part. l. 2. c. 2. pag. 6.  Occam sets down three differences of verities to be believed: Some touching God, and Christ, whereon principally depends our Salvation, as that there is one God, and three persons: that Christ is God, and man: that he suffered, and died, and rose again, etc. Some whereon our Salvation depends not so principally, which though we believe, yet do they not 
* Non directè sed indirecte, quod ammodo, ad salutem humani generis pertinere noscuntur.  so directly belong to our Salvation; as many things written of Pharaoh, &c: Of the third sort, such as are not revealed, but either agree with that which is revealed, or follow manifestly of it. And 
d Vbi sup. c. 11. pag. 9 Sunt quidam Moderni dicentes quod multae assertiones sunt, quae in rei veritate adversantur divinae Scripturae, quae tamen ab Ecclesia minimè sunt damnandae, nec sint inter haereses numerandae.  he reports it to have been an opinion in the Church, in his time, that many assertions, which in truth of the matter were against the Scripture, yet were not condemned by the Church, nor counted heresy. Espencaeus 
e Espencae in 2 Tim digress. 17. p 119.  discoursing of things to be known, and believed, says, The enfolded faith of simple people, will serve well enough in such things as are the object of faith only BY ACCIDENT— and in subtle considerations that arise about the Scripture— but in those things, which OF THEMSELVES are the object of faith, whereby men are led to happiness, they need an unfolded faith: the Collier's faith will do no good. 
f Madge 3. d. 23. & ibi Scholast communiter, Tho. Bonau. Durand. Ricard. Dionys. Gabr. Occh. q. 8. ban. 22. q. 2. art 8 dub. 2. Ouand. 4. d. 13. prop. 12. Eyme●ic. director. part. 1. q. 2. ad. 8. & ibi Scoliast. Peasant. 22 p. 504. a. sylvest sum. v. fides. nu. 6. Simanch. cachol. instit. tit 28. nu. 20. Pic. Mirand. de fid. & ord.. theor. 12. p. 286.  All the Casenists, and Schoolmen that have written touching the nature of heresy, and the measure of Catholic faith, agree that there is a certain measure, and quantity of faith, without which none can be saved, but every thing revealed belongs not to this measure; and it is enough to believe somethings only by the Collier's faith. The which doctrine doth evidently allow our distinction, that some things are Fundamental, and some not: for no Protestant thinks any point to be so not Fundamental, but that every man is bound with humility, and reverence to accept it, whensoever the knowledge, and necessity thereof shall be offered him by the Church: which is all our adversaries require in their enfolded faith.  
3 This distinction, by 
g THE WAY pag. 110.  me only touched, and that by the way, briefly, upon another occasion, the jesuite in this chapter frowardly cavils at: and in this place wrangles with the definition that I gave of points Fundamental, because it is not found in the words of the Scripture, that I cited, for it, in the margin. Whereto I answer three things. First, 
h Act. 4.12. 1. Cor. 3.11. Eph. 2.19.  the Scriptures cited show the knowledge, & express faith of Christ's death, to be absolutely necessary for all men▪ and two of the places call the matter of this knowledge a foundation. Therefore such a point as is absolutely to be known, and rightly holden of all (which every point revealed is not) may be called a Foundation, or Fundamental point: Therefore again, such as, by the like confession of our adversaries, some men, and all men of some times, may err in, or be ignorant of, without prejudice of Salvation, may be called a point not Fundamental: whence it follows again, that my distinction is grounded well enough upon the places cited in the margin. Secondly, I answer, that how scornfully soever jesuits think of the Scripture, yet we Protestant's had as lief borrow our conclusions, distinctions, and words, wherein we express them, from it; as from the stinking puddles of rotten Schoolmen, or new found mint of upstart jesuits. Thirdly, my adversary himself, in this very chapter, acknowledges the distinction, if it be not applied to a wrong end, to be good. For first touching the terms thereof, Fundamental, not Fundamental: He finds them in S. Austin. True it is, S. Austin insinuates a distinction of some points Fundamental, and some not Fundamental. Therefore the words are according to Saint Austin, and that is well. Next in the matters themselves, also, he says, Catholic Divines make some distinction, and hold some to be more necessary to be actually, and expressly known of all sorts; then other: therefore he quarrels at that, which himself confesses to be the truth. There be some humours love to be doing, if it be but to keep their hand in ure. 
* Maiol dies Canic.  I have read of one that had so used himself to pilfering, that he would pick his own purse, and steal things out of his own closet. The jesuite seems to be of that kindred; that will quarrel, and keep a wrangling with the doctrine of his own Church, rather than he will cease from his contentious spirit.  
4 Yet the saddle, somewhere pinches him, and it may be the easing of him, may do him good. He complains this distinction, when it is granted, will not help the matter neither: for the question may still be, how many, and which truths those be that are necessary: the which question if we leave to be determinated by every private spirit, either we shall have no point to be counted Fundamental, in regard the ignorance of some may be such, that they may think a man may be saved by moral good life, although through ignorance he believe nothing at all; or else so many as shall please every brainsick fellow. The determination therefore of this necessary question, is to be left to the judgement of the Catholic Church, that all such points that are confirmed by full authority of the said Church he received for such as must necessarily be believed by all men. Wherein first I blame his discretion: for where I mentioned the distinction, I had no cause to inquire, whose the authority is to judge, what is Fundamental, and what otherwise; but assuming it, as a thing judged already, I only mentioned it; affirming some points to be Fundamental, and some otherwise. How it helps the matter therefore, I had nothing to do, in that my words were not used in this question. Next I pity his wretched state, that in no controversy running between us, no not so much as in this, a poor distinction can prevail, unless his own Church, and the Pope therein (for 
* showed plainly below, cap 35. & 36.  that he means by the authority of the Catholic Church) be made the judge. This is a very mean shift, when a question depends between us, and them, to put the Scripture, and the consent of the Ancient Church by; and require themselves to be judges. Thirdly this question, as all other matters belonging to faith, must be judged by no man's private spirit, but by the Catholic Church of Christ, as the judge, and by the Scripture only as the Rule: and if they be no competent judges, who through ignorance may think a man may be saved by moral good life, though he believe nothing at all; then away with the Church of Rome, and let it be acknowledged as erroneous, as any private spirit: 
i See cap. 22. n. 1.  wherein it is frequently holden, that the Gentiles were justified, and might be saved, only by their moral life, without beleeueing any thing at all. Fourthly supposing the Protest, left the determining of this question to private spirit, (which they do not, but to the true Church of God, following the Scripture) yet let my jesuite answer, if the practice of his own Church be not as bad, where the Pope hath power 
k See cap. 36. n. 3.  to make a new article of faith, and that to be a Fundamental point, belonging to faith at one time, which is not so at another; so that all men, shall then be bound to believe it, which before were free to believe it? 
l Scot 4. d. 11. q. 3 §. ad argu. Tonstall. de verit. corp. p 46.  as it hath already been practised in the point of transubstantiation, and may when the Pope will in the points of 
m Dico primò, veritatem hanc sc. virginem esse conceptam sine peccato originali, posse definiti ab Ecclesia, quando id expedire indicaverit. probatur. Nam imprimis Ecclesiam posse controversiam hanc, in alterutram partem decidere, apertè supponunt Sixtus 4. & Pius 5.— Suar. tom. 2. disp 3. sect. 6.  the conception of the B. Virgin, and 
n Paul. Benc. Eugub. l. de effic. auxil. c. 1.  the concourse of God's grace with man's will: and the 
o Staplet. Princip. doctr. l. 9 c. 4. Relect. contro. 5. q. 2. art. 4.  Canonizing of Hermes, or Clement into the sacred Scripture. In which case his Holiness might possible, if not be brainsick, which betides younger men (which Popes commonly are not, unless it be sometime, when the young Cardin●● are in an humour to elect a Bennet, or john, or 
* When Leo the tenth, a young man, was elected in the Conclave, Alphonsus Petrucius, a young Cardinal, proclaimed his election at the window: Pontificem habemus Leonem decimum; ac vivant vigeantque iuniores. Pap. Masso. in Leon. 10. he should have cried, by the order, Annuti● vobis gaudium magnum, Papam habemus, Marcell, sacr. cerem. pag. 19  Leo) yet do●e at least by virtue of his age; or for his recreation play the vice of a Play, as 
p Alex. ab Alexand. genial. dicr. l. 3. c. 21.  Amasis the King of Egypt would sometime do among his Courtiers; and as 
q Aelian. var. hist. l. 12. c. 15.  Agesilaus, ride upon a stick among his children, to make them sport: the which comparisons howsoever his creatures will take unkindly, yet all the world knows his Consistory hath been a stage whereon he hath many a time, and often played these parts ere now, as formally, as the privatest spirit, or braine-sickest companion alive can do: and so I leave him.   

CHAP. XVIII.  
1. Touching the perpetual virginity of Mary. 2. The celebration of Easter. 3. The Baptism of Infants: The jesuits halting. 4. And the Scriptures sufficiency.  A. D. I for brevity sake will omit to urge other points, 
Pag. 68  which Protestants believe with us, viz: the perpetual virginity of the blessed Virgin, against the error of helvidius; 
White pag. 12.  the celebration of Easter on the Sunday, against those heretics; that denied it; the Baptism of Infants, against Anabaptists, who will not allow it, etc. 
1 HEre my name is cited in the Margin, and the page of my Book; as if I had written, or some way insinuated, that these 3. points were matters of faith, and yet not contained in the Scripture. But I writ nothing that sounds that way, neither in the place cited, nor any where else; yet because I will miss no place, where he cities me, I answer: he affirms 3. things. First, that we hold the perpetual virginity of the blessed Virgin, the Celebration of Easter upon the Sunday: and the Baptism of Infants, to be 
a For that is the question expressed by himself a little before, pag. 67. of his Repl.  points of faith, necessary to be believed. ●●condly, that these 3. are not contained in Scripture, Thirdly that we believe all this with the Papists. Wherein there is never a true word. For to the first; the perpetual virginity of the Virgin Marie, after the birth of our Saviour, as well as before, we believe, as a probable, and likely truth; but not as a matter of faith; the which if my adversary mislike, I require him to forbear me, and answer Saint Basil, with whom we consent: 
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Basil pa. 233. graec. Froben. an. 1551.  That she denied not the works of marriage to her husband (after the birth of her Son) though it nothing hinder godly doctrine, yet what was done after without meddling with it, let us leave to the doctrine of this Mystery. But whatsoever my adversary will have to be thought of is, 
c August. de temp. serm. 6. Theodor. in Ezech. pag. 486. Anibr. in Luc. l. 2. c. 1. §. in men sc. & l. 10. c. 23. §. stabant au tem. & Epist. l. 1. ep. 5. & 7. Basil. ubi sup. Hiero. in Ezec. 44. §. & convertit. & adu. Heluid. Epiphan. l. 3 haer. 78. & sermo. de laud. S. Mar. in Bibl. S. Patrun tom. 7. pag. 26. edit. 1. Hesych. & Chrysip. ser. de Maria ibi p. 33 & inde. Andrae. jerosolym. serm. de salutat. Angel. ibid. pag. 241. Proclus Cyzecen. homil. in Concil. Ephes pag. 251. graec. Commel in. See Zuingl. tom. 3. pag. 233.  the ancient Fathers brought the Scripture to prove it; that if it were a matter of faith, it should, in their opinion, be believed, because it were contained in the Scripture.  
2 The celebration of Easter upon the Sunday likewise, is no point of faith, but only a seemly, and ancient ceremony of the Church, 
d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Socrat. l 5. c. 22. pag 249. Steph.  at the first not thought so necessary, as the jesuits now affirm it to be: specially the holding of it on that day: for 
e Euseb. hist. l. 5. c. 23.  the Churches of Asia held it on the 14. day of the month, whether it were Sunday, or not, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  by an old tradition. 
f See Euseb. ibid. & inde. & l. 7 c. vlt. Socr. ubi sup. Cassiod. l. 9 c. 38 Niceph. l 12 c. 33. 34. Beda aequinoct. vernal. tom. 2. Gab. Prateol. Elench. haer. & verb. quatuordecimani.  The which many Catholic Bishops, as Polycarp, Thraseas, Irenaeus, Sagaris, Melito, Polycrates, Anatolius, and divers others, many years together maintained: which they would not have done, being all godly Bishops of the Catholic Church, if the custom of the Western Church, to keep it on the Sunday, had been an article of faith. 
g Alphons. ●du. haer. v. Pascha.  Our adversaries also confess their custom were, at this day lawful, but for the determination of the Church. 
h Refert Beda rat. temp. c. 45. & ibi Ramesiens'. gloss. pag. 15. edit. Basil. per Heruag. an. 1563.  Theophilus Caesariensis, an ancient Father, tells how the French Church in those days, alway kept it on the 8. of the Calends of April, which is the 25. of March, what day of the week soever it fell: because Christ arose on that day. And with us 
i Bed hist. Angl. l. 2. c. 2 & 19 l. 3. c. 25 l. 5. c 22. The like disagreement among the Spaniards and French, and others testified by Sigeb. pag. 83. Cron. Caluis Cronolog. an. 546.  the old Britons, and Scots celebrated it not on that day, that is now used: whereby it is clear that the holding of Easter, on such a day, is not Catholic. And whereas the jesuit says the celebrating it on a Sunday, is not contained in the Scripture; he says truly: yet the Church of Rome maintaining that order, in old time, thought otherwise, as he may see in 
k To be seen in Bede de ve●n aequinoct. sub. fin. pag. 346.  a Council holden, about that matter, in Pope Victor's time, where the Scripture is roundly alleged for it, against the Asian B.B.  
3 The Baptism of Infants, which is his third example, we confess to be an article of faith; but we do not confess, that it is not contained in the Scripture: we say the contrary, as appears by our 
l Caluin. instit. l. 4. c. 16. & instruct. adu. Anabapt. art 1.  writings against the Anabaptists: yea, the Papists themselves ordinarily use to ground it on the scripture. This truth, 
m De bapt. c. 8.  says Bellar. is proved by three kinds of arguments. The first is taken from the Scripture. This is proved by the Scripture: 
n Tom. 4. pag. 597. b.  says Gregory of Valentia: the like is done by 
o Tho. 3. part. q. 68 art. 9 lansen. concord. c. 20. & 100 Suarez. tom. 3. disp. 25. sect. 1 Henriquez sum. moral. de bapt. c. 21. Vasquez in 3. part. Tho. disp. 149. nu. 6. Tolet. in joh. 3. ann. 10. Maldon in joh. 3. n. 20. & In Math. 19 v. 14. he hath these words. illud fortissimum & apertissimum testimonium, quo semper Ecclesia, ut Infantes baptizarit, adducta est: Nisi quis renatus est. etc.  many others: which is worth the reader's observation, because at other times, when they deal against us, they will cry out, it is a tradition unwritten. Let them go for egregious impostors, by my consent, that against the Anabaptists, can prove by Scripture, that which they make us believe is but by tradition. Beggars for halting at the towns end, and going upright, when they are in the Alehouse, are set in the stocks, and nailed to the Pillory: but jesuits, counterfeiting after the same fashion, in a higher matter: one while with Scripture: 3. arguments at once out of Scripture: a most powerful, and plain testimony of Scripture, for the baptizing of children: another while with their leg in a string, no cross, but tradition, and Church authority, are made the guides of many men's faith: 
p Nec pedibus ad insistendum idoneis Pet. M●ff vit. Loiol. l. 1. c. 2 ●●biae contractae brevitas rectè illum incedere prohibuit. Ribad. vit Ignat. l. 1. c. 1.  The halting of Ignatio, that created them, was a type of the halting religion of his creatures.  
4 That which Gretser 
q Defence. Bellarm. tom 1. l. 4. c. 4. sub sin. pag. 1598. Ingolst.  answers hereunto, will not clear them: he says these things may be proved by Scripture, but not sufficiently, not effectually by Scripture alone, without tradition, but only probably. This is against the authority, and nature of the Scripture, for it is the word of God: therefore whatsoever is proved truly thereby, is proved effectually, and sufficiently, and not only probably, and this in respect of us; which is confirmed: for 
r 1. joh. 5.9.  the witness of God is greater than the testimony of man: therefore if these things be to be proved at all, out of the Scripture, they are proved to us, and that effectually, because whatsoever God saith, he saith to us▪ and that not only probably, but necessarily, and evidently; which if we see not, than it is by reason of some indisposition in us: & allowing tradition or Church authority to take away this indisposition, and to expound, and declare these Scriptures to these purposes, yet is it not true that the jesuite says: for then the said tradition, and authority puts, and drives some further meaning and sense into them, than was in them before: or it only declares, and expounds it. The former 
s Occh, dial 1. part. l. 2 c. 14. Alphon●. adu. haer l. 1. c. 8. Dicimus enim quod, quantum ad ea quae ad fidem pertinent, Romanum Pontificem nec totam Ecclesiam Dei posse de assertione non vera facere veram, aut de non, non falsam. Turrec●em sum de Eccl. l 4. part 2. c. 3. ad, 6.  our adversaries deny: the latter is not sufficient to make the Scripture only probable, in that howsoever for want of Church authority, a man may not see such texts, to prove the virginity of Marie, or the Baptism of children, yet the proof is in them, within their own latitude; and if there be any such matter in them at all, then is it in them more than probably, because no divine testimony is probable, but necessary: but Gretser, and the Church of Rome use their traditions, as Alchemists do the Philosopher's stone; with the touch of it they turn any metal into gold: or as Painters do Alum, to give tincture to their colours.   

CHAP. XIX.  
1. 2. How the Church's authority proves the Scripture. 3. The jesuits plainly confess that the Scriptures alone proves itself to be God's word. 4. The Scriptures are Principles, indemonstrable in any superior science. 6. All other testimony resolved into the testimony of the Scripture. 7. Touching Evidence and the Compossibility thereof with faith.  A. D. I will insist in that example, which I propounded, 
Pag. 68  in the treatise, and thus I dispute: All sorts, both Catholics, and Protestants, do believe, and hold it a point necessary to be believed, that S. Mathewes, S. Marks Gospel, etc. are true divine Scripture, and that these particular books, which the Church useth, are the same true Scripture, at least in sense, and substance, which was set down by those holy writers. But these points are not expressed in Scripture: nor (secluding Church authority, and tradition) so contained, as that they can be proved evidently, and necessarily out of any sentence of Scripture. Ergo, all points necessary to be believed, are not so contained in Scripture, as Protestants say they are. M. Wotton, and M. White both struggle with this argument, as other Protestants have done before them, but when they have done & said all, one may easily see how they stick fast in the mire. To omit their impertinent speeches, there are only two things, which to the purpose, they do, or can directly say; viz. either they must deny these to be points of faith, necessary to be believed, or else they must show, how one may prove these points evidently out of some sentence of Scripture. For if they admit that these be points of faith, necessary to be believed, and that these cannot be proved out of Scripture; it followeth inevitably, that all points of faith necessary to be believed, cannot be proved by Scripture: and that their Principle is false, which saith, nothing is necessary to be believed, as a point of saith, which cannot be proved (evidently) by Scripture M. White saith, that like as in other sciences, 
White pag. 47.  there are some Principles indemonstrable, so in matters of faith, it is a Principle to be supposed, that Scripture is Divine; and so no marvel, if it cannot be proved, as other points of faith are. To this I reply, that Principles in sciences are either evident to us, and known by the only light of nature, and so need no proof, but only declaration of terms, or words in which they be uttered; or if they be not evident to us, they must be demonstrated, either in the same science, or in some superior science, by some other Principle, more evident to us. But that these books which are in the Bible, are divine Scripture, is 
* If it were evident, how is it only believed by faith? For S. Paul calls faith argumentum non apparentium. Heb. 11. v. 1.  not evident; therefore (if M. Whites similitude be good) it must be demonstrated by some other Principle, more evidently unto us, that these books, which are in the Bible, be divine Scripture. Secondly, I ask, whether this point of doctrine (that S. Mathewes Gospel, etc. is divine Scripture) be such a Principle of faith, as itself is also a point necessary to be believed, and that by the same infallible faith, by which we believe the blessed Trinity? Or that it is so a Principle, as itself is not to be believed at all by faith, or by the same faith, by which we believe the blessed Trinity? If the first be said; then either the opinion of Protestants, who say, nothing is to be necessarily believed as a point of faith, which cannot be proved out of the Scripture, is false, or else this is not a Principle indemonstrable, as M. White affirmeth. If the second be said, than it followeth, that Protestants do not believe by faith, S. Mathewes, S. Marks Gospel, etc. nor any other book in the Bible to be divine Scripture: and consequently not having assurance of divine faith, in this point, they cannot have any faith at all in any other points; since other points being not otherwise (in a Protestants judgement) points of faith, then as they are conclusions proved out of Scripture, cannot be more assuredly known, than Scripture itself, which is the only Premise, or Principle, whence Protestants deduce all other points of their faith. 
1 MY Adversary in 
a In THE WAY §. 9 but, in his printed book, cap. 7.  his treatise that I answered, to show that the Scripture is not the Rule, whereby to find, and judge of true faith; objected the insufficiency, and imperfection thereof: because there be divers questions, and points of faith, not contained, and determined therein. Which he endeavours to prove, by this argument here set down. Whereto I answered directly, and in form, as 
b THE WAY §. 9 n. 3. & inde.  the book will show. The which my answer in this place, he replies to, as you see, after his ordinary manner, with bragging, and saying nothing; and casting out a few insolent speeches; The Protestants struggle with this argument. One may easily see, how they stick in the mire. Only two things to the purpose. It seems M. White saw the weakness of his answer, &c: whereto I answer.  
2 First he says we struggle with this argument, and stick in the mire; which in some sense I may not deny: for when I undertook this jesuit, I struggled with a dunghill, and therefore 
* Hoc scio pro certo, quod si cum sterc●re, etc.  no marvel, if for my penance, I stick in the mire, both here, and in many other places of this reply: his bragging, and railing, and facing it out with nothing, when yet all this with many shall be accepted for sound divinity, being such as will bemire, and weary any man in the world, that desires nothing but the truth. Otherwise my answer, was direct, and plain: for the point he is to prove, is, that the Scripture alone contains not, nor determines the whole object of our faith: but divers points needful to be believed are wanting in it, and must be supplied by the authority, and tradition of the Church: his reason to prove this is the Syllogism here set down. Whereto I answered. First granting the mayor, and acknowledging it to be a point of faith, necessary to be believed, that the Canonical books, which the Church uses, are true divine Scripture: but I denied the second proposition, that they cannot be proved so to be, by themselves, secluding Church authority and tradition. And I distinguish: for the Authority, and direction of the Church, is God's outward ordinance to teach us, as a condition, how to see the Scripture to be divine; but not the thing whereby they are proved so to be, and whereon our faith leaneth: but this divinity, the Church as a bare Minister, out of the Scripture itself, proves to be in the Scripture, not by her own authority, that upon her word, and testimony, either only, or particularly it should be taken for Scripture, rather than the books of other men. In the same manner that a man shows a star giving light to itself, which yet another cannot see till the man point to it. Or as a dead man's will kept in the Register, of necessity must be sought there, and thence received: yet all the authority of that court, which is great, and ample (specially in preserving records) neither makes, nor proves the will to be legitimate, but is only a requisite condition to bring it forth, and us to the sight and knowledge of it, the will proving itself by the hand and seal of him that made it, affixed to it. So it is with the word of God, which we do not ordinarily see to be the word of God, until the Church teach, and train us up therein. But when it hath done, the arguments whereby it is proved so to be, and the authority whereupon I believe it, are contained in the word itself, which I expound, and confirm by this, that evermore, and perpetually the Church, by the Scripture itself, and by no other argument, proves it to be divine, to those she teaches, and upon that ground, at the first received them for such herself: and many times it falls out, as with some Atheists, and Pagans, that where no Church authority, ministry, or persuasion is used, by only reading of the Scripture itself, in respect of the outward means, a man comes to faith; which could not be if the Scripture itself had not convinced him: forsomuch as an Atheist, or unbeliever will not be persuaded by any thing, but that which he evidently sees to be Gods own word: and this persuasion arises in him, from the very book itself without Church authority.  
3 And this is yet confirmed by that which the jesuits teach against the Anabaptists & Swinkfieldians, holding the motions of their inward spirit to be God's word: for Bellarmine 
c De verb. Dei. l. 1. c. 1. & 2.  says, that to the faithful, acknowledging the Scripture to be God's word, it may be proved, out of the Scripture itself, that the Scripture is the word of God. Molhusine and Gretsers 
d Gretser. def. Bellar. l. 1. c. 2. pag. 34. D.  words are these. It is manifest that Bellarmine— only affirms that it may be proved, OUT OF THE SCRIPTURES THEMSELVES, and the Canonical books thereof, only TO THE FAITHFUL who receive and reverence them for such, that the word of God is, not the inward spirit whereof fantastical men boast, but the word of God is truly it which is contrived in those books which the faithful hold for Canonical. In which words they say three things. First, that the faithful, who acknowledge the Scripture to be God's word, are they persons of whom they speak: & not such as receive it not. Secondly, that to such it may be proved, that not the inward spirit of fantastical men, but the Canonical Scripture, is the word of God. Wherein they affirm two things may be proved: A Negative: that the inward spirit is not God's word: and an Affirmative: that God's word is truly it which is contained in the Canonical books of the Scripture. Thirdly, that both this Negative and this Affirmative may be proved out of the Scriptures themselves. Hence I reason thus: To the godly that receive and acknowledge the Scripture, this affirmative, that God's word is it which is contained in the Canonical Books of the Scripture, may be proved out of the Scriptures themselves: therefore the Scripture itself can prove itself to be the word of God. Therefore, that the Scripture it the very word of God, is contained in the Scripture because otherwise it could not be proved so to be out of the Scripture itself. Therefore all things needful are contained in this Scripture. No wrangling can avoid this. If, to such as receive them, it may be proved, out of themselves, that these Books are the word of God; then this point, that these books are divine Scripture, is contained in Scripture: and the cause why some see it not, is their own indisposition and unbelief, wherewith the Scripture must not be charged: but to such as receive these Books, the jesuits affirm it may be proved, out of themselves, that they are the word of God: that is, without all Church authority, which is external and not in the Scripture.  
4 secondly, this being admitted, that it is a a point of faith necessary to be believed, that the Canonical Books are divine; and then again, that they could not be showed so to be out of themselves; yet doth it not follow inevitably, that all points of faith are not contained in them: for the question is not whether the Scripture be God's word, or no, which is granted of all hands; but whether being confessed so to be, it contain all such verities, as a Christian man is bound to know: in such measure, that there is no point to be believed, that is not contained therein. The reason is, because the Scriptures are the principles of divine knowledge: and the faith thereof, 
* Not in nature, but in proportion.  like the credit we yeed to the rules of human sciences, which are known, and believed of themselves without any further demonstration. And as the king's laws contain all things, whatsoever the subject is bound to do, and yet the said laws, not proving themselves to be of authority; but supposing it to be known before, and otherwise; are not thereby proved to be unperfect, or defective, but being received, then there is nothing wanting in them, that is necessary for the commonwealth: and as in all arts, and sciences, that we learn, the rules, and precepts thereof need not prove themselves, (for that which is the general rule of other things is not ruled itself, in the same kind) and yet it were folly to say, they were therefore imperfect: So may it be said to be in the Scripture (supposing it had no more light, thereby to authorize itself, than Princes laws, and human principles have) that it contains all points of faith, though it were not expressed, that itself is the word of God. For the readier understanding whereof, let the Reader again cast his eye upon the occasion whereof all this question rises.  
5 Our adversaries holding many points of religion, which we refuse, we require them to show us the said points in the Scriptures, if they will either have us to believe them, or free themselves from heresy: their Tradition, their Purgatory, their Mass, their Latin service, their Transubstantiation, their Images, their seven Sacraments, their Invocation of Saints, and all the rest, wherein we differ. 
* This is showed c. 28. n. 3.  Their answer is, that many divine truths, and articles of faith are not contained in the Scriptures, but revealed by Tradition, and Church authority, which are to be received, and believed, as well as that which is written. 
* The original cause why the Papists set a foot the question touching the insufficiency of the Scripture.  This is the original reason why they stand thus, against the sufficiency of the written word, for their Church authority: and to prove this, they use the Argument here propounded by the Reply: and descant with it as you see. Which is an impertinent kind of proceeding; when this point, whether the Books contained in holy writ, be God's word, is no question between us, but agreed upon of all hands: but the question is touching other special articles, Images, adoration, half communion, and such like, a number more; whether, not being contained in the Scripture, men are bound to believe them. For touching these things it is properly that we say, Nothing is necessary to be believed, as a point of faith, which cannot be proved evidently by Scripture. And therefore this argument is impertinent. For where we affirm all points of faith to be comprised, within the body of the Scripture, we distinguish, first, of the things which we say are comprised: for albeit we firmly hold, the divine truth, and authority of these Books to be evident in themselves; yet the points, that we mean in this question are touching other matters: for neither they nor we deny the Scripture, but both they, and we deny many things to be contained in it. Secondly, than again of the manner how things are comprised: for all other things are comprised in Scripture, as the duty, & obedience of subjects is in the king's laws; and as true speaking is contained in Grammar, or the right form of resolving in Logic: but this one point is so contained as light is in the Sun, or sweet in honey, and according to the same notion, whereby the authority of the Law, and truth of Principles, is contained in themselves. This is it, which very briefly, I answered in 
* THE WAY § 9 3. & digr. 11. n. 17.  two several places of my Book: Now let us see, what the jesuite replies to it. To this, saith he, I reply, that principles insciences are either evident to us, and known by the only light of nature, and so need no proof, but only declaration of terms, or words, in which they be uttered; or if they be not evident to us, they must be demonstrated, either in the same science, or in some superior science, by some other principle, more evident to us. But that these Books, which are in the Bible are divine Scripture, is not evident; therefore (if M. Whites similitude be good) it must be demonstrated by some other principle more evident to us, that these Books which are in the Bible, be divine Scripture. The substance of his Reply is, that all principles are either evident of themselves: or not evident: such principles as are evident, he grants, need no proving, but the Scriptures are principles of religion, not evident of themselves, but such as need to be demonstrated, to be God's word, by some other principle in a higher science, more evident to us: both denying them to be evident, and also to be made so, by only declaring the words, wherein they are uttered. And to prove this, he says, in the margin, if it were evident (that these Books in the Bible are divine Scripture) how is it only believed by faith, for Saint Paul calls faith Argumentum non apparentium? Heb. 11.1. 1. My answer is, that the Scriptures are principles evident of themselves, to those that have the Spirit of God, and such as need not to be proved by Church authority, but only to be revealed, and expounded, according to that which is in themselves. This my answer to help the reader out of the jesuits perplexed discourse, I will lay down, and explicate in 3. propositions. First, the Scripture in divinity hath the same office, that principles have in sciences: that as the rules, and principles of Grammar teach all true speaking, and as the elements of Arithmetic teach all right numbering: so the doctrine contained in the Scriptures teaches all true faith. Secondly, as they are the principles of religion, and rule of faith, so they enjoy the same privilege, that principles do in foreign Professions; that is, to be received, and assented to, for themselves without discourse. For 
e Atist. Poster. c. 1.  no human science proves it own principles, or disputes against him, that denies them: and although the principles of an inferior science may be demonstrated in a superior, yet this befalls not that which is the highest, as the Metaphysics; which having no superior science, neither stands to demonstrate itself, nor to receive demonstration from another, but our understanding assents immediately to the principles thereof, and so goes forward by them, to discern of other things. In the same manner the Scripture, having no superior science, or rule above it, is, like these principles, received for itself, and is not occupied in proving itself, and the principles therein contained; but showing other things by them, itself must be assented to without discourse, by faith, before we can argue out of it. Thirdly, all demonstration, and proof of principles is only voluntary, not necessary, against him that denies them: as in Music, the physician demonstrates his precepts, not thereby to teach his art, but to convince him that denies it. Hence appears the insufficiency of my adversaries reply. First in that he says, principles are not evident, but need demonstration, that so the Scriptures being yielded to be the principles of religion, yet they should not be received, unless they prove themselves, until the authority of the Church come. There is no man acquainted with 
f Principia per seipsa nata sunt cognosci: reliqua verò per principia. Arist. prio. l. 2 c. 18. idem Procl. in Euclid. l. 2. c. 2.  human art will say so. His own Thomas 
g Tho. 1. part. q. 1. art. 8.  says, that like as other sciences do not argue to prove their own principles, but out of the principles argue to show other things: so the sacred doctrine doth not argue to prove the own principles, but from them proceeds to show something—. The same is said by 
h Capreol. prol in 1. part. q. 1. pag. 24. Greg. Valent. tom. 1. pag. 50. a.  others. Next it is false, that the Scripture is like those principles which need demonstration by some other principle in a higher art, more evident to us. Here are two untruths. For first there is no higher art than themselves. Thomas 
i Vbi supra.  says, The sacred Scripture hath no higher science. The setting up of the Pope, and his Church above it, to give it authority, as a higher science gives to a lower, is a blasphemous practice of Antichrist. Bozius 
k Boz. de sign. eccl. tom. 2. pag. 439.  writeth, that the Scripture is not to be reckoned among such principles, as before all things are to be credited; but it is proved and confirmed by the Church, as by a certain principle, which hath authority to reject and allow Scripture. Let the Reader, by these words of Bozius, a famous Papist, construe my adversaries meaning in this place: if he chance to say, he means not, as I charge him. Again it is false, that the Church is more evident to us then the Scripture, in that sense that belongs to this question: I see indeed the Church that teaches me, before I believe the Scripture to be divine (supposing I were a Pagan, that as yet had not received the Scripture) but I believe the Scripture to be divine, and am convinced in my conscience that it is the word of God, before I can believe the Church says true. For I cannot believe it says true, but upon the grounds of Scripture, which it offers me; and therefore consequently the truth of the Scripture is more evident than the truth of the Church. In which case it is, as when a man stands in the door with a torch in his hand, to give light to such as need; where he holds out the torch indeed, yet he puts no light into it, nor does any thing, but only hold it before them. The church-authority, in ministering to us, doth no more to the Scripture than this man doth to his torch. I will yet use a more familiar conparison, whereby the Reader shall see, how absurdly my adversary holds the Church to be more evident than the Scriptures, and to give them authority, which they have not of themselves, because it propounds, and persuades them unto us. Seius owes Caius money upon a bond; that upon trust, and for the better keeping thereof, is put into the hands of Titius. For the proof of this debt, it is necessary that Titius bring forth the bond; but when he hath done, I demand, whence hath the bond his credit? How is it proved to be Seius his true deed, rather than a counterfeit? Not by Titius his authority, because he brings it forth, but by itself; in that the hand and seal thereof manifest themselves to be Seius his: Titius that keeps it, is but a means to bring it forth. But what if Seius deny the debt, that Caius be enforced to sue him, and by law to cast him; who give, Caius the right, and makes Seius his debtor? and who makes the bond of force? doth the judge; before whom the cause is tried? The simplest man in the country will not say so: for the bond both proves itself, and gives Caius his right, and make, Seius a debtor; when the judge only gives it execution, and declares no more, but that which was in the bond before. Let the Scripture be compared to this bond; and let my adversary put me to prove that it is the word of God, as Caius is put to prove his bond; and it will manifestly appear, that though the Church have some ministry in propounding it, yet that ministry or authority, call it what you will, doth no more than the judge in this case doth. It is not a principle above the Scripture, or more evident, whereby the truth thereof is proved: as the judges authority proves not the bond.  
6 Our adversaries, when they have wrangled what they can, are enforced to confess thus much, in that they grant the last and highest resolution of our faith to be into the authority of the Scripture. And let the Reader diligently observe, how it comes about. In every controversy, and article of faith, they say, they are moved by the authority of the Church, they believe the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Scripture to be Gods true word, because God hath so revealed by the infallible authority of the Church. But how come they to know this authority to be infallible? by what motive doth the spirit of God induce them to believe it? 
l Can loc. p 48. Stapl princip doctr. pag. 318. & Tripl. adver. Whica pag. 184 188. Greg. Val. tom. 3. pag 31. Rode●. Delgad de auth Script. pag. 51. Peasant comm. in Tho. pag. 479.  They confess expressly, it is the revelation of the Scripture, giving testimony to the Church, which revelation is believed for itself, and for no other: therefore the highest and last reason, light, & authority, moving a man to believe the things of faith, the sense of the Scripture, the authority of the Church, and all, is contained in the Scripture itself. For thus I reason: The revelation of the Scripture is believed for itself, therefore the Scripture is a principle indemonstrable by any other, and evident in itself: therefore it is not believed by Tradition, upon the authority of the Church, but for itself: therefore this point, that the Scripture is God's word, is contained in the scripture: therefore the Scripture is all-sufficient, & wants nothing that is needful to be believed.  
7 Hitherto I have expounded the manner, how the Scriptures are said to be Principles, that are to be admitted immediately without discourse of other arguments: and how this their authority is not founded upon, nor demonstrated by the authority of the Church: and how church-authority is only a condition and ministry to offer them unto us. Now I come to answer his argument, whereby he would prove them not to be evident to us: the which is but a poor one. For S. Paul doth not say, Faith is the argument of things not evident, as the vulgar Latin, cited in the margin, translates; but of things that are not seen. Now things may be evident and appear manifestly to the understanding, though they be not seen, when they are evident otherwise, by any light, or discourse to the understanding. The which kind of evidence, and that also which is by sense, may stand with faith: for the declaration whereof, note first, that a thing is evident, 
m In assensis principiorum scientiae humanitus inventae, est coactio, propter evidentiam speculationis quia in eu intellectus evidenter conclusionem intuetur & speculatur. August Anconit. q. ●9. ar● 4. ad 1.  when it moves the understanding so sufficiently, that it cannot choose but assent unto it: note secondly, that a thing may be evident three ways; first when it is sensible, as that which we apprehend by our outward sense: secondly when by the light of nature it is manifest by itself; as two equal numbers put together, make an equal. Thus the first principles and notions of nature are evident. Thirdly, when it is manifestly gathered from that which of itself is manifest: as that a stone cannot move upward of itself naturally, because all heavy things naturally move downward. Hence it is plain, that 
* Albeit faith rest not upon that eu dence, but upon duine revelation. Fides non elicit actus suos, mediant discursu; sed sicut visus immediate fertur in obiectum, sub ratione lucid●●ta etiam fulei habitus in suum obiectum, sub ratione divinae revelationis. The contrary whereof is Manichisme. Putaru●t nihil amplius esse ●re dendum quàm quod possit evidenti ratione demonstrari. August. de util. credend. c. 1. tom. 6.  many objects of faith may also be evident, because that which is believed, may also in some respect be seen, as Peter that believed Christ, yet also saw him. Or otherwise be known by the light of nature, or gathered from that which is known: as that there is a God. And before I read this in my adversaries margin, I never knew but there was a compossibilitie of faith, and evidence, in divers respects: whereby they might both stand together in the same man, about the same object. Eymericus 
n Eymeric. Directo. part. 1. q. 2 n. 2.  says, We may know the unity of the Deity by natural reason: yet we believe one God. Delgado: 
o De Author. Script pag. 51.  Many divine things touching God, which are received by faith, may also be found out by natural reason. Caietan 
p Caiet. 22. qu. 175. art. 3.  says, though Paul were rapt into the third heavens, where he saw things which before he believed, yet the habit of faith touching those things, remained in him still, etc. Faith and knowledge, 
q Mayro. 3. d. 23. art. 6. pag. 13  says Francis Mayronis, are habits that may stand together. Faith by authority revealed; knowledge by evident demonstration. Thus it is no contradiction, that the same object be believed by authority, and evidently known by demonstration. Altisiodorensis: 
r Altisiod. sum. l. 3. pag. 273.  According to divers apprehensions, the same thing is known and believed, believed and doubted. 
s Mag. 3. d. 24. Alexand. 3. part qu. 79. m. 3. Tho. 22. qu. 2. art. 4. cont. Gent l. 1. c. 4 Occh. 3. q. 8. art. 4. c. Duran. prol. sent. pag. 4 c. Ricard. 3. d. 24. q. 5. pag. 85. Gabr. 3. d 24. qu. vnic. art. 2. concls. 2. Henric. Albert. Bonau. Tarantas. quos refert, & sequitur Dionys. 3. d. 24. Simanch. cath instit tit. 28 n. 18. Rectè porro Caiet. ex hoc loco Pauli, argumentatur esse nonnulla quae de Deo evidenter cognosci, & demonstrative probari queant. Perer. select. disp. in Roma. pag. 83.  The principallest Schoolmen that are, do all hold thus: which I would not have noted so curiously, but to beat the confidence of my adversary, thus peremptorily avouching against me, that he knows not. For albeit faith exceeds the dimension of reason, yet reason is subordinate to it, as sense is to understanding. And therefore as it is no inconvenience to say, we understand the same things we see; no more is it to say, we believe that which is evident, in divers respects. How many things are we commanded in the Scripture to believe, which yet we can demonstrate by reason? as that there is a God, and the immortality of the soul? For as one may reveal a thing to another two ways together: first by showing him a light to see it; and then by proposing some external sign or mark whereby to find it; or some image or description whereby to conceive it: so God hath showed us the Scripture to be divine, not only by the light that shines in it, whereby we believe it, but also by the outward contexture of it, containing the image of the divine wisdom and purity, as the principles of sciences show their own authority. The place cited out of the Hebrews, is answered by that I have said.   

CHAP. XX.  
1. A continuation of the same matter, touching the Church's authority in giving testimony to the Scriptures. 2. The Scripture proves itself to be God's word. 3. The light of the Scripture. 4. 5. How we are assured of the Scripture by the Spirit. 6. The reason why some see not the light of the Scripture. 7. The Papists retiring to the Spirit: 8. And casting off the Fathers. A Council is above the Pope. The Pope may err.  
A.D. It seemeth M. White saw the weakness of this his first answer, 
Pag. 70. White pag. 47.  and therefore not standing upon it, he secondly attempteth to prove Scripture to be divine, out of the Scripture. For, saith he, S Paul 
1 1. Tim. 3 v. 16  saith, All Scripture is given by inspiration of God: and S. Peter 
2 2. Pet. 1. v. 20.  saith, no prophesy in the Scripture is of private interpretation: but the holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the holy Ghost. Against this I reply, that my argument doth not inquire only how we prove in general, that there is any divine Scripture at all (which is all that these, or any such like sentences can prove) but chief I ask, how we prove these books in particular, which the Church now useth, bearing the titles of S. Matthews, S. Marks Gospel, etc. to be divine Scripture, & to be the same which was written by those writers, whose title they bear. For upon the certain belief hereof, dependeth the certainty of other points proved out of these books. Now it is certain, that this is not proved by those sentences of Scripture, since it may be true, that there is some divine Scripture, and that all true divine Scripture was inspired by God, and yet (if we seclude Tradition, and church-authority) the question may still be, whether S. Matthewes, S. Marks Gospel, etc. especially these in particular, which are now used, are part of that Scripture which these sentences speak of. Secondly I say, that before these sentences prove sufficiently that there is any divine Scripture at at all, these sentences themselves must be supposed to be divine: the which cannot sufficiently be proved, either by themselves, or any other like sentences, if we exclude Tradition, which doth show that they be divine. 
1 All this I answered in the words of my Book 
a Digress. 12.  immediately following these words that he hath cited; and that so briefly & directly, that nothing could be spoken plainer. To prove the imperfection of the Scripture, he had said, it was no where expressly set down and determined in Scripture that these books are the true word of God; this in particular of every Book holden for Scripture, we shall not find expressly written, in any part of the Scripture. Whereto I answered, that it was written expressly, that 
b 2. Tim. 3.16.  All Scripture is given by inspiration: and 
c 2. Pet. 1.20.  No Scripture is of private interpretation: but the holy men of God, spoke as they were moved by the holy Ghost: 
d Luc. 1 70.  God spoke by the mouth of his holy Prophets; therefore it is expressly written, that all the books of Scripture are God's word. Any man may see this answer to be full, his question being touching this Scripture that we use, and have in our hand, where therein it was written, that itself is God's word? For I answer, that it is written in these three places, whereof he hath here rehearsed two. Now he replies, that he doth not only inquire how we prove in general that there is any divine Scripture at all, but how we prove these books, which the Church now uses, to be the same that those men writ, whose titles they bear: which, he says, cannot be proved by the Scriptures alleged; because it may still be doubted, whether these books that we use, as the Gospel of Matthew and Mark for example, be part of that Scripture which the texts alleged affirm to be inspired of God: and it must likewise be proved, that these texts that affirm this, are themselves the word of God. Whereto I answer first, that granting these places to prove some divine Scripture to be, and to be inspired of God, it must be granted, that the Scripture may be proved so to be, by the Scripture itself. For these sentences, All Scripture is given by inspiration: Holy men spoke as they were moved by the holy Ghost, and such like places, could not prove so much as in general, that any books at all, whether it were these that we use, or no, are divine Scripture, if themselves were not divine. I say they could not prove it truly and effectually; they might say it, but they could not prove it, because that which shall prove it, must itself first be a divine testimony. Secondly, proving some divine Scripture to be, and to be inspired, they prove this that we use to be such: because they so mention the Scripture they speak of, that it appears to be this that we use; and it is agreed upon of all hands, that there is no scripture but this: and therefore speaking of some scripture, they speak of this. This is my argument, That Scripture, whereof the sentences alleged speak, is proved thereby to be divine: But the sentences alleged, speak of the same Scripture that we use: For the Church hath always understood it so. The sentences therefore alleged, prove this Scripture that we use, to be divine. And so my adversaries demand is satisfied: I inquire not only how it is proved by Scripture, that there is some divine Scripture which is inspired by God: but that these books in particular are that Scripture? For if it give any testimony at all, to any Scripture at all, it is to these books in particular, which are now used: in that it describes these books, neither are there, or have there been any other; nor dares the Church of Rome itself hitherto canonize any other, howsoever some therein think it may.  
2 To this my adversary replies, that before these sentences can sufficiently prove the Scripture to be divine, they must themselves be supposed to be divine: which cannot be proved by themselves, if Tradition be excluded. I answered this 
e Digr. 12.  in my Book, whereto he hath replied never a word, but stands dumb, and offers the Reader that which I answered, in stead of a Reply to my answer: nevertheless I answer again, that all places in the Scripture, which affirm the Scripture to be God's word, are proved to be God's word by themselves, and their own light; and not by Tradition, or church-authority, which is but the ministery whereby God reveals the proof to us, and itself is judged by the Scripture. For if the church-authority make them to be canonical, and divine 
* For that is it properly, that the Papists say, Bellar. Stapl. Grego.  to us, than it is either by adding truth, divinity, authority to them, which they had not before in themselves by divine inspiration; or only by declaring and revealing to us that truth, divinity and authority, which they have immediately from God, of themselves, before the Church approved them, that we might see and confess it. The former our adversaries will not say; or if they will, it is Atheism, worse than blasphemy: for so all our faith, and the highest reason moving us to believe, should not be divine revelation, but human authority; and the Scripture, which of itself had no truth or divine inspiration, should be canonised by men. If the latter, which our adversaries dare not deny, than who sees not, that they prove themselves, and in themselves have divine authority immediately from God; the church-authority in approving them, being nothing else but bare ministery (in respect of the Scripture, though in regard of us it be authority) in helping us to see that which is in themselves. When the King stamps coin, and signs it with his image and superscription, he puts that value and currentnesse into it, that was not there before. Thus a small piece of copper, of itself originally not worth a penny, may be made worth six pence. Thus the Church authorizes not the Scripture. Stapleton 
f Staplet. relect pag. 505. in explicat. art.  says, The Church approves not the Scripture the first way by making it sacred & divine, for this approbation it hath only from the holy Ghost the author thereof, of whom alone it hath to be sacred, and not human: nor the second way by making that through her judgement it should be accepted for true, and worthy credit— because that which is in the Scripture, is the divine truth BY ITSELF, AND IS NOT MADE TRUE BY THE APPROBATION OF THE CHURCH. But the third way, in that by the force of her approof and judgement, they are accepted of the faithful for sacred and divine, and infallible true. And thus we believe these Scriptures to be Canonical for the testimony of the Church. The King sends a commission under seal, by a messenger; this messenger gives no authority to the commission, but is the King's minister, authorized to propound it to the subjects. Thus the Church gives testimony to the Scriptures, that it is divine, and no otherwise; and itself fetches this testimony from the Scripture; and all the authority thereof is lastly resolved into the testimony of the Scripture.  
3 Next, these Scriptures are proved to be divine, by their own light shining, and by their own virtue showing itself in them: as sweetness is known by it own taste; and the Sun seen by it own light: and as the King's coin is known by his image upon it; and the father's voice is known to his children by the sound and fashion thereof: so are these Scriptures by the heavenly light, image and sound, inspired into them, known to be the word of God. The adversaries against whom I deal, have here with Turks and Infidels debarred me from alleging Scripture to prove itself, and therefore I will show it otherwise. Canus a Papist 
g Can. loc. l. 2. c. 8. pag. 13.  says, A mind well disposed discerns the doctrine of God, as the mouth being in taste, doth the difference of tastes. Saint Austin: 
h Aug. tract. 35. in joh.  In the night of this world, the Scriptures as a candle are lighted up unto us, that we should not remain in darkness. 
i Rob. Parsons in his Directory, sets down against the Atheist, how the certainty of these Scriptures is laid before us. 1. By the Antiquity thereof. pag. 63. 2. Their manner of writing, Authority and Preservation. p. 65. 3. Their sincerity, and the uprightness of the writers. pag. 67. 4. The Consent of the Writers, one with another. pag. 72. 5. The Scope whereto they tend. pag 73. 6. The Simplicity, Profoundness, and Majesty of the writers. pag. 76. 7. The Contents. pag. 80. 8. The Testimony given to them by heathens. pag 100 etc. Pars. Christ. Directory, printed ann. 1585.  This light and heavenly majesty, by all men with one consent, affirmed of the Scriptures, proves that they are the word of God. If the light, 
k Vbi priùs,  saith the same Saint Austin, be able to show those things that are not light, shall we say, it fails in itself? doth not that open itself, without which other things are not opened? and do you light a candle, to see a burning candle? Is not the Sun or a star, seen by his own light to them that have eyes? And if the ministery of the Church be required to propose, and offer, and expound them to us, as it were 
l Apoc. 1. vlt.  a candlestick 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Areth. ibi.  to hold up the candle; so that as the jesuits use to reply to this argument, this light should not shine, nor this divinity appear in the Scripture, unless the Church proposed them; 
m Possib●le est actu cr●dere omma credend● per solam fidem infusam, ABSQVE TE●TIM●N●O, D●CTRINA, ●T MAG●ST●RIO ECCLESIAE. Stapl. princip. l 8. c. 3. PER ILLAM SOLAM Sp sancti persuasionem quodlibet credendum credi queat, TACENTE P●ORSVS, VEL NON AUDITA ECCLESIA: fide privata, via extraordinaria, testimonio interno. Relect. in Adm. Whitak. §. jam quum.  doth this light and majesty therefore arise from the Church? doth the light of the candle arise from the socket that bears it? Doth the man that carries a torch before his master, give light to the torch? and not the light thereof rather from out of itself enlighten both his master and him? This light hath immediately converted Atheists, enlightened Infidels, reclaimed heretics, that never so much as received or knew this church-authority and tradition. Which property of the Scripture, thus to elevate itself above all church-authority, invincibly shows that they prove themselves to be the word of God. In all this that hath been said, I grant we believe the Scripture and the things of faith, by the ministery of the Church, but not for the authority of the Church.   


Pag. 111.  A. D Thirdly they hold that by this Spirit they are made infallibly sure of the divine authority of the Scriptures, insomuch that when they hear or read any book, they can by their spirit discern clearly and infallibly whether it be divine Scripture or not: holding the Scripture of itself to shine like a candle to them; and that they discern it from other writings, and the true sense of it from false, in matters necessary to salvation, as the sense of taste discerneth sweet from sour. Upon this bold presumption of having and being taught by the Spirit, proceedeth their audacious and impudent neglect of the authority of the ancient Fathers, general Counsels, or whatsoever else standeth against that which they imagine to be taught them by the Spirit; especially when they have seeming words of Scriptures to second that which is suggested by this their spirit.  

Pag. 114.  A. D. Again: M White saith pag. 126 that the public word of God speaketh in the Scripture openly, though the children of God only know and believe it.  
4 He says, it is our doctrine, that we are made infallibly sure of the divine authority of the Scriptures by this spirit: insomuch, that reading the Scripture, we can thereby discern whether it be Scripture or no, &c: and to show this, he alleges some words of mine, M. White saith, that the sheep of Christ, know his voice. To which purpose, my other words also are used, that he alleges, three pages after, M. White saith, that the public word of God, etc. There is little hope of reducing our adversary to any indifferency, when they will not so much as sincerely report, nor ingenuously acknowledge that we hold; for if they would, there were an end, and the world should see, we hold the truth. Yet I will make all things plain, and let the Reader judge: for in the ordinary course of attaining to faith, we do not, in the first place, refer men to their own spirit, but bind them to hear the Church, and stoop to her ministry: which having done, than we bid them examine themselves, and affirm, that such as are led by the Spirit of God, through the help and teaching of the Church going before, are by this Spirit made sure of the divine authority of the Scriptures, and can discern thereof, as of the light, etc. This Spirit therefore neither goes before the Church teaching ORDINARILY, nor is the private spirit of man, but the Spirit of God, 
* For God's Spirit testifies to our spirit all truths that are believed: giving that light that infused faith immediately rests upon. 1. joh. 2.20 27.  witnessing with our spirit. This being premised, the Reply says, we hold that by THIS spirit they are made infallibly sure of the divine authority of the Scriptures, insomuch that by THEIR spirit they can discern, etc. This is untrue. For the spirit, whereby the authority of the Scripture is assured unto us, is neither this spirit, nor their spirit, nor yet 
n For, in process of time, when the Church began to abound in temporals, forgetting in a manner, all conscience, many rulers therein, cloaking the Scriptures with sundry wiles, feared not to falsify the upright judgements of God therein. We see persons, having neither conscience nor science, governs the spouse of Christ says Fascie rerum antiq. an. 1414.  the unsavoury spirit of the Pope, and his clergy; but the Spirit of God testifying to our spirits that it is his word, after the Church hath begun to teach us. So that it gives not testimony to every one, immediately, without all ministry of the Church: but them, when the Church propounds and reveals the Scripture to such as know it not, the Spirit of God by that ministry descending into their hearts, and assuring them: and then, all the testimony and authority of the Church, in this her ministry, gives place again to this greater light of the Spirit of God in the believers heart, and is no part of that authority, whereon his faith of the Scripture resteth.  
5 Let our adversaries therefore leave this custom of forging and misreporting, and let them acknowledge the truth. No matter, to this point, whether Protestants or Papists be the elect that have this spirit: but say directly, and shrink not, is there not a Spirit, even the Spirit of God enlightening the conscience, whereby every one that believes is assured? without which, the authority and persuasion of the Church can do no good? Then if there be such a Spirit, why may it not be called the voice of Christ, the light that shines in the Scriptures themselves? and what defect is there, in saying that by this Spirit, true Scripture, and true doctrine too, is discerned, 
o The soul hath it taste, it feeling, it smelling: says Gers. serm. de Bern. tom. 2. pag 750. edit. Paris. 1606.  as the taste discerns sweet from sour? such as know not the Scripture, have not this Spirit? The word of God speaks in the Scripture openly, though none but God's children believe it? Here I challenge my adversary, and all his sect, let them deny this if they can. I would not have them with gesture to outstare it, but as Christian men ought to do, show some reason if it be false; which they cannot do. D. Stapleton that laboured in this matter beyond all others, yet 
p Triplicat. in admonit.  confesses, the internal persuasion of the Spirit to be so necessary and so effectual for the believing of every object of faith, that neither without it can any thing of any man be believed, though the church should bear witness a thousand times: and by it ALONE, any thing that should be, may be believed, THOUGH THE CHURCH ALTOGETHER BE SILENT OR BE NOT HEARD. 
q Princip. l. 8. c. 3.  Let our adversaries know, we do no way so extol the outward voice of the Church, that we should teach, 
* There can be no faith absolutely without it.  sine ea nullam fidei rationem posse absolutè consistere. Here we see D. Stapleton grants, that by the Spirit of God inwardly persuading, we may be, and are, and without it, are not assured of any thing to be believed: and that such as have this Spirit, do by IT discern which is the true Scripture, and the true sense thereof, and which is not; as our taste discerns sweet from sour, as our eyes light from darkness, doth evidently follow of his words. And to let the Reader see how this ignorant jesuite censures that he understands not; his own Canus 
r Loc. l. 2 c. 8. pag. 43. edit. Colon. an. 1605  says, that as the taste well affected, easily discerns the difference of tastes: so the good affection of the mind makes that a man can discern the doctrine of God from error. It is therefore true, that the believer in himself doth taste and see by it own majesty, the Scripture to be God's word, when the Church hath testified it a thousand times: and this taste and light of the Spirit in the heart, is a thing distinct from the Church's authority, and above it, though ordinarily this church-authority in ministering, lead us to the attaining it, and help to open our eyes that we might see it.  
6 And the reason why some do not thus discern the true Scripture, or any truth, is, not because the Scripture is not evident enough of itself, but because such as discern it not, want their taste; and such as see, or hear it not, want their senses: in the same manner that they do, which can neither taste the sweetness of honey, nor hear the sound of a bell, nor see the light of the Sun, because they are senseless: for the Sun hath light in itself, and honey sweetness in itself, which are discerned by the sense itself, but some have no such sense; and therefore Saint Austin 
s Prolo de doctr. Christia.  says, They which understand not the things I writ, must not reprehend me because they understand not: like as if I should show them with my finger the Moon or a star, which were not very bright, and they had not eyesight enough to see my finger wherewith I point; they ought not therefore to be incensed at me: So they, who understanding these precepts that I give, cannot yet perceive the obscure things which are in the sacred books— must not blame me, but pray that some light may be given to their eyes from God above. For though I can with my finger point at a thing, yet I can kindle light in no man's eyes to make them see that I point at. And again 
t Tract. 35. in joh.  in another place he says, that as our eyes, though whole and open, yet need the help of outward light to see: so our mind, which is the eye of the soul, unless by the light of truth, which illuminates other things, but itself is not illuminated, it be enlightened, can come neither to wisdom nor righteousness. In which words Saint Austin affirms all this that we say, that the Scripture, and every truth therein contained, shines as a light, and by proportion, tastes of itself, and speaks publicly to all; as the Sun shines openly to all; and the reason why men discern it not, is not any defect in themselves, which must be supplied by church-authority and tradition, but only the def ct of disposition in themselves, whereof the want of Church-ministery may be one cause. And a little more to show my adversaries presumption in denying this: let the words of 
u Ad Antolych. l 1 pag 285. & 289 edit. Basil. Henrico Petr. an. 1555.  Theophilus Antiochenus, that lived two hundred years afore Austin, be observed: If thou (who art a Gentile) say to me that am a Christian, show me thy God: I will bid thee again show me that thou art a man, and then I will show thee my God. Let me see the eyes of thy soul, and the ears of thy heart open. For as with carnal eyes we see the things belonging to this life: so 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.—  with the eyes and ears of the soul only, it is possible to behold God, who is not seen of all, but of such only, as can behold him, having the eyes of their soul opened. All have eyes, yet some are so dim sighted, that they see not the Sun: 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and yet the Sun hath nevertheless light, albeit the blind see it not: who must accuse themselves for their own blindness. In like manner, O man, are the eyes of thy soul possessed with blindness, etc. This therefore which our adversaries so scurrilously call bold presumption, of having and being taught by the Spirit, was believed in the Church from the beginning: and it was never called either audacious or impudent, till this Roman Church, and her creatures, most audaciously and impudently renounced the authority, majesty and evidence of God's blessed Spirit, to advance the tyranny, heresy, and pride of Antichrist. For the intended drift of all this vehemency, against the authority of the Scripture itself, is but under the name of church-authority, to make room for their Antichristian tyranny: and by outfacing us from that which we sensibly feel wrought in our conscience by the holy Ghost, to abandon ourselves over to the most heretical and damnable authority, of whatsoever the Pope and his creatures shall thrust upon us.  
7 But that which my adversary infers upon my speech, that hence (because we say the children of God and particular men, are assured of the Scriptures, and sense thereof by the Spirit of God; for I said no more, nor any way deny the just authority of the true Church) proceeds our audacious and impudent neglect of the authority of ancient Fathers, general Counsels, and whatsoever stands against us; I can scarce passed over, with any reasonable patience: for the Fathers and Counsels, in things that they held certainly and determinately with consent, 
a THE WAY, §. 44 p. 3. & ibi D gr 47.  I purposely showed we allow and follow, and in every question will stand to: but when our adversaries themselves cannot deny, that there is not only the divine truth but a heavenly light also, whereby to see i●, in the Scriptures themselves, that is not put into them by any testimony of the Church, whereby a simple man may be able to discern an error in any Father or Council: what fault is it in us by this light to judge of Fathers and Counsels? Occam 
b Dial. pag. 18●  says, Catholic men may learn many truths not known before, by the sacred Scriptures, although the Pope and Cardinals have not formerly attempted to declare them.— And whereas possible some may say that the simple people are to believe nothing but what the Pope and Cardinals deliver to be believed expressly: nor ought to search the mysteries of the Scriptures, but be content with common things, not presuming of their own understanding to believe any thing expressly, but what the Pope and Cardinals deliver: BUT HE THAT SHOULD SAY THUS, WERE AN INVENTOR OF NEW ERRORS: for though the simple people be not ordinarily bound to believe expressly any thing but that which by the Clergy is already declared to be believed expressly, yet these simple people BY READING THE SCRIPTURES, and THE SHARPNESS OF THEIR REASON, which simple people do not altogether want, may find something EVIDENTLY to follow of the divine Scriptures, which the Pope and Cardinals have not declared: in which case they may, and must expressly believe it, and are not bound to inquire of the Pope and Cardinals, because they are bound to prefer the Scripture before them.— And the reason of this is, for THE POPE AND CARDINALS ARE NOT THE RULE OF OUR FAITH. The Divines of Venice, in their late writing against the present Pope, lay down these conclusions: 
c Tract. de in terdict. prop. 8.  The law of God is the rule of the Pope's power. 
d Prop. 12.  Christian men may not obey the Pope's command, unless they first examine it: and he that inconsiderately obeys, before such examination, sins. 
e Prop. 13.  It excuses not a Christian man, though the Pope constantly affirm his commandment to be just, but it behoves him to examine it, and to direct himself according to the rule given above. Gerson 
f Part. 2. recom licent pag. 832.  says, The spirit of a just man, now and then gives warning of the truth, better than seven watchmen set in a high place to watch. Do not 
g Quis enim sant capitis diceret sententiam amplectendam solius Papae, quae potest errori subesse, & postponendam sententiam Ecclesiae? Anton. de rosel. monarch. pag 67. Dico quod postq●am Concilium est congregatum, & Papae authoritas in teruenit, authoritas Papae postea confundi tur cum Concilio, & remanet forma Concilij: & authoritas Papae congregantis finitur, facta congregatione. jacobat. de Conc. l. 10. art 6. pag. 614. D. Cum agitur de fide, Synodus est maior quàm Papa. Zabarell. de schism. pag. 701. A. The same is directly holden by Almain. de author. eccles. cap. 7. pag. 725. F. Occam. compend. erro. cap. vlt. sub fin. And the Divines of France at this day. Lib. de eccl. & polit. Pet. de Alliaco de eccles. author. part. 3 cap. 2. pag. 924. Mariana says, Multi viri prudentes, & graves erudition maxima, Pontifices Romanos Ecclesiae universae subiecerunt. de Reg. l. 1. cap. 8. pag. 74. Note the speech of Almain, Determinatis per summum Pontificem non est necessario credendum: quamuis non sit oppositum publicè dogmatisandum: nisi manifestum sit ea sacris literis, etc. Quest. in Vesperg. pag. 133.  the strongest champions the Church of Rome hath, limit the Pope's authority, making it subject to the Church; and allowing men to examine it afore they obey it? which shows unanswerably, that in the Scripture itself (for that also is granted at the last to be the the rule whereby to try him) is a light, which may be seen by a private person against the Pope's commandment? and unless they assume an unlimited authority, and such as is subject to no trial, to their Church and Pope, which the violentest adversary we have dare not do; they shall, though they be wrangled till doom's day, be enforced to grant the same authority and light in the Scripture, that we affirm.  
8 Again, before my adversary had charged us with audacious and impudent neglect of Fathers and Counsels, he should have answered the 47 Digression of my book, where I have related those practices of Papists in contemning, rejecting, eluding, purging, abusing both Fathers and Counsels; that if they had any spark of grace in them, they would be ashamed to charge others with that impudence, and audaciousness, which none are guilty of so much as themselves. I will rehearse nothing of that which there I writ: but add something to it, whereby the Reader shall judge who they be that most impudently, and audaciously neglect antiquity. D. Marta, in a book dedicated to the present Pope, 
h D. Marta de iurisdict. part. 4. pag. 273.  says, the common opinion of the Doctors is not to be regarded, when the other opinion contrary to them, favours the power of the Keys, or the Ecclesiastical jurisdiction— or a pious cause. This man speaks plain, that one may understand him; the Fathers, all of them, must crouch to the Keys, and pious cause of the Pope: which Keys, and cause, when they come to scanning, will prove as partial, as any private spirit in the world. And touching the interpretation of the Scripture, Baron. 
i An. 34. n. 213  says, the Bishops, all of them, who succeeded in the room of the Apostles, attained not the sense, and understanding of the Scriptures; for the Catholic Church (now turned Protestant and private) doth not always, and in all things, follow them. How then? I am no less delighted, 
k Pined. in job 19 v. 26. nu. 3.  says a jesuite, when I see, and hear, some wise man, of our age (as Fran. Suarez: a jesuite, for example) and upon occasion bring him into my Commentaries; then when I cast mine eyes upon many of the ancient Fathers. Here antiquity must give place to a jesuite; and yet if the Protestants do but one half of this, they are audacious, and impudent upon their bold presumption. This is that Erasmus 
l Annot in Hieron. Praef. in Dan. tom. 3. p. 28.  noted of them long ago. When it is for our purpose, the authority of Hierome, is worth any thing; when otherwise, it is not for our purpose, it is worth nothing: and afterward they condemn us, because we believe them not. The examples how they cast off Fathers, and Counsels, and all antiquity, are innumerable, they do it in every question that falls out between us, whensoever they join in the trial with us: and they confess that they may be refused, because they may err. Guido the Carmelite, 
m Guido de Perpin. de haeres. c. 7. pag. 8. edit. à Bad. Ascens. an. 1528.  says, Albeit the writings of the holy Doctors be to be handled, and read, and received with due reverence, yet is their authority, neither so firm, nor inviolable, but it may be lawful to contradict them, or doubt of them, where they are not proved, and confirmed evidently, and expressly by the holy Scripture, and where the Church hath not determined their firm, and undoubted soothfastnes. Whence it follows, that an opinion cannot precisely be convinced of heresy by the saying of the Doctors: for where where is not infallible truth, there is no certain faith: since certain faith leans upon infallible truth, yea there can be no infallible assent, that a man should firmly cleave to such things: for when there is no infallible truth, there can be no certain, and undoubted faith.— But in the saying of the Doctors, there is no infallible, certain, or undoubted truth, partly because, they sometime doubt themselves in their own sayings, whether they have erred therein, or no:— partly because, their disagreement is a testimony of falsity:— and what disagreement there is among the Doctors, no man doubts, that hath read their writings.— It is not necessary therefore, undoubtingly to believe them, but it is lawful to THINK AGAINST THEM, DISALLOW THEM, AND REJECT THEM without any danger of heresy. So he. And yet you see, how busily my adversary taxes Protestant's for neglecting the Fathers, like the crabfish, that chid her young one for creeping backward, and yet went backward herself: it were an honester course, and more relishing of piety, for our adversaries to spare our dissenting sometime from the Fathers, as they do their own: & only inquire whether we descent with reason, as themselves sometimes do: but this were labour, and expense: a jesuits pen can afford railing, and facing a great deal better cheap.    

CHAP. XXI.  
2. Which is the Militant Church. 3. And the Catholic. 4. The Church of the Elect invisible. 5. A rancid conceit of the jesuite.  
Pag. 113.  A. D. This (Church) which consisteth of Professors, M. White 
* White pag. ●9 100  calleth the Church Militant: that which consisteth only of the Elect, he calleth the Catholic Church; but to keep the Antithesis, he should rather call it the Church Triumphant; not Triumphant, as we Catholics take the name, for the happiest part of the Church, which is now glorious in heaven: but, as it being a Church invisible in earth, may triumph indeed, as having no need to fear any persecutions, in that none in time of persecutions can find them out, nor can know them, nor consequently can persecute, or hurt them, for being members of Christ's true Church. But as, in this respect, it may be called the Church Triumphant▪ so on the other side it may be called the Church Lamentant, as having so just cause to lament, in that the members of it being unknown, not only to the world, but to one another, can have no society one with another, requisite to the nature of a true Church; nor can perform those offices, which should be done, in, and only in the true Church: nor can tell, whom to repair to, for instruction in faith, or for counsel in direction of manners, or for the comfort of the holy Sacraments: nor can have any known Pastors to govern the Church, nor any known sheep to obey these Pastors: nor can have any Historiographer to write their acts, thereby to edify men, with the virtues exercised by them, or so much as to make it appear to posterity, that such a company hath been (according to Christ's promise) always extant in the world. In this respect, it may be called a Church Lamentant, or a Lamentable Church. 
1 MY Adversary being in a deep discourse about the persons, and societies of men, to whom alone God vouchsafes the assistance of his Spirit, for the understanding, and believing the things of faith: thinks himself interrupted by a speech of mine, in the place quoted, touching the Church Militant, and Triumphant: the which if he had misliked, he should have confuted in it own place, where I used it, to show the true state of the question concerning the visibleness of the Church; saying, the question is of the Militant Church; though we say also, that the Church mentioned in the Creed, every member whereof is saved, be in some sort invisible too, in that the Church Triumphant in heaven, which is one part of the Church mentioned in the Creed, is to us, that live here, invisible, and only believed. This speech my Adversary, according to his disordered, and cowardly Method, used in all his book, durst not confute in it own place, where it lay, but draws in, backwards by the tail into the den of his discourse, as 
* Apollodo. de orig. deorum.  they say Cacus did the oxen, he stole from Hercules, that he might the better descant upon it, when his Reader, by this his glancing at it, cannot know the purpose whereto I intended it, nor the ground whereupon I affirmed it.  
2 That which he says is four things: First, that I call that which consists of Professors, the Church Militant; the which you see he mentions, so that one would think he meant to condemn it; yet he dares not, but only craftily repeats it, to expose it to censure, with the rest that follows: for 
a Catech. Roman. pag. 112. edit. Colo. an. 1507. Bellar. Eccl. mil. c. 1.  his own side speaks in the same manner. D. Bannes 
b 22. pag 94. edit. Venet. apud D●mian. Z●nar. 1602.  says: The Church which UPON THE EARTH, LIVES IN WARFARE, is called Militant.— One way as it is a congregation of such as profess the faith of God— another way, as it is congregated not only by faith, but also by Baptism. In this therefore there is no fault; but all is well: for this part of the Church on earth that lives in the Camp, warfaring with the Devil, the world, and the flesh, in that respect, by the Papists own confession, is rightly called the Church Militant.  
3 Next he says, the Church, which consisteth only of the Elect, I call the Catholic Church. Which he dares not deny neither, when he bethinks himself a little better, how the Catholic Church mentioned in the Creed, 
c Catech. Rom. in symb. § Sanctorum communionem.  is no other, then that whereto belongs the Communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, the life everlasting: and though the reprobate, and unbelievers mingled among these, are called also by the name; 
d showed cap. 39 n 6.  yet are they no true, or univocal members thereof, in as much, as 
e Eph. 5.23.  Christ is the Saviour of his body: but the Church, wherein they live, as mice, and vermin live in a man's house, is called Catholic in respect of the Elect.  
4. The third thing he says, is, that this Church Militant, and Catholic, to keep the Antithesis, I should either have called the Church Triumphant, not as Catholics mean Triumphant; but because being visible, it may triumph indeed, in that no persecutors can find, know, or hurt them. But this foolish conceit avoids not that I said, but idly, and rudely flies from it: for the Church, which in that place, I affirmed to be invisible, is not the militant, but the Church of the Elect alone: which considered apart, by itself, and abstracting from all other respects; our adversaries themselves confess to be invisible, in that they hold 
f Possunt homines, aliquibus coniectutis opinari quinam sint qui ad hunc piorum hominum nun erum pertineant: certò autem scire minime possunt— Haec Ecclesiae pars est incognita. Cate. Rom. p 113.  no man can judge, who are elected, nor see the glorified triumphing in heaven: and so they lie open to the jesuits raw conceit, as much as we.  
5 Fourthly, he gives a reason, why I should rather have called the Church, Triumphant, then Militant, or Catholic; because being, as Protestants hold, invisible, it need fear no persecution, but may triumph indeed, when no man can hurt, or find them. And then spinning out the conceit, he says. It may also be called a Lamentant, or a lamentable Church, in that being invisible members thereof can have no fellowship one with another: nor perform those offices, which should be done, or tell where to seek for instruction, Sacraments or Pastors, nor finally have so much, as a Historiographer to write their acts, etc. In this respect, the Protestants invisible Church, may be called a Church Lamentant, or a Lamentable Church. This is the jesuits crudity: and yet a well digested answer, to that I said touching these matters, would have more prevailed with all that love the truth. For how, and in what manner, we hold the Church to be invisible; and how all this that is objected may be answered, I have showed at large 
g §. 17. ad 24.  in the WAY. And here I only admonish my adversary, that he had a Lamentable cause in hand, and as Lamentable a faculty to manage it, when with a phlegmatic jest, he mentions that, which yet in the place where he was put to it, thought it his best course to say nothing to it.   

CHAP. XXII.  
1. Reports made by Papists, that the Protestants are without religion. They hold the justification of the Gentiles without the Gospel or knowledge of Christ. 2 No salvation but in one true religion. 3 The Repliers tergiversation.  

Page. 131.  A. D. The conclusion of my first Chapter, to wit, that faith is necessary to salvation, was chief intended to be set down, against such, as think it sufficient to lead a moral honest life, without care of embracing either one, 
White p. 2.  or other faith. Both my adversaries grant this my conclusion: therefore I need not say much about this matter. 
1 The conclusion here mentioned, that faith is necessary to salvation, was not chief intended against such as think a moral honest life sufficient without care of embracing faith: but against the Protestants, whom 
a Wright. Art. 1. Posse●in. bibl. select. l 8 c. 1. ad 12.  they report to have no Faith, nor God, nor Religion; but to be mere Atheists. Hosius, and Prataeolus 
b Prateol. elench. l. 1. c 77. pag. 71.  writ that we worship the Devil; and as Catholics forsooth worship God 9 times aday, so we invocate, and worship the Devil 10. times aday. D. Stapleton says, 
c Qu. 3. quod. lib. p. 621.  There is no Religion at all in us, neither true, nor false; neither earnest, nor feigned: and what opinions they have raised of us in Italy and Spain, all men know, neither is it credible that he thinks the faith of Christ to be so necessary to salvation, as here he says: for many Divines of his Church allow salvation to the Gentiles, who have no faith, but only moral honesty of life. 
d Sleid. comment. an 52. p. 690.  This was preached at the Council of Trent: and published by 
e Andrad. orthod. explic. p. 291.  a principal man of the Council: the Divines also of Collen 
f Bale cent. 14. c. 59 pag. 220.  set forth books concerning the salvation of Aristotle, wherein they maintained that as john Baptist was the forerunner of Christ in the things of grace, so Aristotle was his forerunner in the things belonging to nature. Yea 
g Accost. de Indorum salut. l. 5. c. 3. Grego. de Val. ●om. 3. pag. 302.  a jesuite blabs it out, that certain School Doctors of this time, very grave men, confirm, that salvation may be had without any knowledge of Christ: the which is true, and these Doctors 
h That the Gentiles which know not the gospel, are justified and saved, by their moral life, and believing that there is a God rewarding such as come towards him, without the knowledge, or faith of Christ; is an opinion that hath great patrons in the Church of Rome. Gregory of Valenza says it is holden by Vega, Soto, and Victoria, to whom CASSALIUS (de quadripart. inst. part. 1. l. 1. c. 12.) adds Aquinas, Lyra, Abulensis, Bruno, Dionysius Carthus. Arboreus Laudunens'. Durand. Capreolus, Paludanus, Ludovicus vives: and himself thinks it may be holden safely. Nullum, in hac part, discrimen rimendum videtur, si quis, sibi concessa optione, sententiam hanc, vel illam, obnixè tucatur. pag. 51. ANDRADIUS,  quis cum Deo arctissimo charitatis iustitiaeque vinculo, prioribus illis seculis, constringeretur, nullam aliam fidem requirebat Paulus quam credere Deum esse, & inquirentium se munificentissimum remuneratorem esse. Hanc qui, accepta à rebus creatis disciplina, fuerint consecuti, quid est quod à justitiae sinibus excludantur? etc. pag. 290. orth. expl.. VEGA. Atque hinc persuaderi potest non solum justificari posse homines, sed & saluari●● sine fide Christi explicita— cum haberi possit ignorantia invincibilis evangelii, nullum, ex hac part, impedimentum erit, quo minus, qui alia praecepta naturalia seruaverint, & iustificentur, & saluentur. Pro Concil. pag 59 l. 6. c. 19 & 20. D. WESTON says of this opinion: susceperunt eam nonnulli sententiam, etiam orthodoxi, juxta ac doctissimi viri. de Tripl. hom. office l. 3. c. 22. pag. 324. Whereby a man may see what account they make of the repliers proposition. Note S. Augustine's censure of this opinion. An fort & istis qui exhibuerunt terrenae patriae Babilonicam dilectionem, & virtute civili, non vera, sed verisimili, daemonibus vel humanae gloriae, seruierunt; Fabricijs videlicet, & Regulis, & Fabijs, & Scipionibus, & Camillis, ceterisque talibus, sicut infantibus qui sine baptismate moriuntur, provisuri estis aliquem locum, inter damnationem regnumque coelorum, ubi non sint in miseria, sed in beatitudine sempiterna, qui Deo non placuerunt, cui sine fide placere impossibile est, quam nec in operibus, nec in cord, habuerunt? NON OPINOR PERDITIONEM VESTRAM VSQVAM AD ISTAM POSSE IMPUDENTIAM PROSILIRE— introducens genus hominum quod Deo placere possit, sine Christi fide, lege naturae: HOC EST unde VOS MAXIM CHRISTIANA DETESTATUR ECCLESIA. l. 4. cont. jul. cap. 3.  are the principal men, that have lived of late times in the Church of Rome: 
i Nec hactenus aliquid sit determinatum per sanctam matrem Ecclesiam. Cassal. pag. 51.  neither hath the Church determined to this day, any thing against them. The jesuits conclusion therefore, that faith is necessary to salvation, is not believed among his own, but he sets it down against us, partly to insinuate, that we think the contrary; and partly to lay a ground for his Roman heresies; which afterward he assumes to be this faith. Nevertheless my granting it to be true, hath pleased him, because, in his ignorance, he knew not the contrary to be so currant, as it is, and so he says no more to me about it.   
A. D. Concerning the second Chapter— The conclusion of this Chapter, to wit, that faith necessary to salvation is but one, 
Pag 133.  was meant against them, that think they may be saved in any religion, or with whatsoever faith, without care, whether it be this or that, Protestant, or Catholic, etc. This conclusion is granted by both the Ministers. 
2 This conclusion, as the former, was laid, as a ground to build the Papacy on, which afterward is made the thing, whereby this one faith is defined, and therefore it was intended against us; who yet abhor the opinion that allows salvation to any Religion, more than Papists do; and leave it to 
k Alcho. p. 10. & 40. Cantacuzen. in Maho. orat. 2. n. 10.  Turks, and 
l Philastr. Brixiens. de haeres. in Rheto. p. 28.  Heretics: requiring our adversaries not by such aequiuocating insinuations as this is, to traduce us, but to speak the truth of us; and in such points, as we truly differ, in modesty to confute us: which though it be difficult, yet the enterprising thereof is not so odious, as this base, and abject aequiuocating is: but whosoever the conclusion was bend against, I deny it not; and so he says no more to me about it.   

Pag. 135.  A. D. Concerning the Third Chapter— The conclusion of this Chapter, to wit, that Faith is infallible, was directed against such as think, this or that to be true faith, but do not rest infallibly assured thereof. This conclusion is granted as the former were, by both my adversaries: save that M. Wotton mislikes, etc. 
3 My granting of this conclusion, you see, contents him; that he leaves me, and turns upon M. Wotton, as he did in the two former chapters, and this he doth stilly, without any noise; as if there were no more work for him, in the rest that I said; and so he goes slily forward to another matter. But in the place cited, besides the granting of his conclusion, I noted, in the proof he brought for it, a Romish trick that makes God's word, whence faith hath infallibility, to be the Pope's decretals, and Traditions; and I so noted, and showed in a Digression that if my adversary would have dealt really, and have had his conclusion truly understood, he should in this place, have confessed whether the Traditions I mentioned were not part of that word, that makes faith certain, and infallible? The which he might not deny; and therefore he says nothing to it: because if he should discover the Pope's Traditions to be equal with the Scriptures in supporting faith; than what he said in his conclusion, he should unsay in the explication of it. For though faith must be certain; yet all men know, that if it be grounded on Traditions that are uncertain, it cannot be so: and therefore he goeth slily forward, and stirs not this point. And in this fashion he turns his back upon all my Book; and only at random picks out from the rest that goes with them, such parcels, as he thought himself best able to deal with.    

CHAP. XXIII.  
Touching the implicit faith that is taught in the Church of Rome. 3. How defined by them. 7. In what sense the Protestants mislike or allow it. 9 Arguments, made for it, answered. 11. The ancient Church allowed it not.  A.D. Concerning the fourth Chapter— 
* Pag. 137.  My principal conclusion in this chapter, to wit, that Faith must be entire, is against such, as think it sufficient to believe one, or two, or some few articles of Christian faith; thinking it not needful, under pain of damnation to believe all: but rather think they may doubt of, or deny other points, although known to be held, as points of faith, by the Catholic Church. Against whom I affirm, that Faith must be entire; and it must extend itself, universally to all points, either expressly, or implicitly: and that it is damnable to deny rashly, especially obstinately, any one point, which one either knoweth, or (in regard he hath it sufficiently propounded by the Church) ought to know, to be revealed by God. Against this my conclusion both my adversays, do oppose themselves— Again— 
* Pag. 139.  Secondly whereas I insinuate, a general or implicit belief of some points of faith, to suffice some persons, at least in some cases, M. Wotton admitteth it, which I gratefully accept: but cannot see how this will please his fellow M. White, who so hoatly disputeth against implicit belief (as it seemeth) of any point of faith; 
1 White pag. 7.  when he asketh, to what purpose should God propound all the points of our faith, one as well as another, if his will were not that we should learn all? This opinion of M. Whites (if he mean it so universally, as his words sound) is intolerable, and such as might drive, at least unlearned men, to despair of salvation, in regard it is impossible for them without miracle, to get express knowledge of all points, contained in Scripture; all which are points of faith, and consequently are points necessary to be believed, either expressly, and in particular, or implicitly, and in general, under pain of damnation. Indeed I do grant, and never did deny, but that there are some points necessary, to be particularly known of all sorts, necessitate medij, and some necessary to be known, necessitate praecepti. In which points, implicit belief doth not suffice, but express particular knowledge is required by Catholic Divines, to be joined to the assent of our faith. Whereby appeareth, that M. White doth utter two gross untruths, 
2 White p. 5. & 7.  when he says, that we utterly refuse knowledge, and that the Collier's faith is canonised for our Creed. In other points so far as we neither know, nor have sufficient means to know them, we may well commend the Collier's faith, in believing in general, as the Church believeth. For in this general act, is enfolded a virtual, or implicit belief, of all points; both in regard a general includeth all particulars contained in it, as also for that this particular act of believing the Church, eo ipso (in that we are moved unto it by the authority of divine revelation, as the primary, or formal cause, and by the authority of the Church itself, as a necessary condition, or the secondary cause) doth so dispose the mind of the believer, that he is ready to believe, every other point, revealed by God, and propounded by the Church.— Again. 
* Pag. 140.  Thirdly whereas M. White 
3 White p. 5.  requireth particular knowledge, to be joined with the assent of faith, as though he meant, that one could not believe any point of faith, which he did not first expressly, and in particular know; this his assertion is not only contrary to his fellow M. Wotton, 
Wotton p. 46.  who admitteth a general, or implicit belief of some points, which we do not in particular know; 
1. Cor. 13. v. 2.  but it is also against the Scriptures, Fathers, and natural reason itself. In the Scriptures we have, that not only Faith, and knowledge, 
Heb. 11. v. 1.  are 2. distinct things; but also that faith is of things not apparent, or not known, and that faith doth captivate the understanding for the service of Christ, 
2. Cor. 10 v. 5. Rom. 10. v. 16.  requiring an obedience in the believer: all which were not verified, if express, particular distinct knowledge, were presupposed before belief: or if belief, and such knowledge, were all one thing. The Fathers do not only distinguish faith, and knowledge, but do also affirm Faith to be without knowledge of things believed. 
Iren. l. 2. c. 45.  It is better (saith Irenaeus) that one that knoweth nothing, believe God, and persevere in his love, which doth quicken a man: then by subtleties of questions, and by much speech, to fall into impiety. Not to know (saith S. Hilary) that which thou must believe, 
Hilar. l. 5. de Trin. ante medium. Aug. Ep. 102. ad Euodium.  doth not so much require pardon, as reward: because it is the greatest stipend of faith, to hope for those things, which thou knowest not. If (saith Saint Augustine) Christ was borne only for those, that can discern these things with certain knowledge, in vain almost do we labour in the Church: which he saith, in regard the common sort cannot with all the preaching in the world discern with certain knowledge, the high, and hard Mysteries of the blessed Trinity, Incarnation, and other such mysteries of faith; and therefore not the vivacity or quickness of understanding (saith the same Saint Augustine) but the simplicity of believing, 
Aug. count Fund. c. 4. Tract. 40. in joan.  doth make the common sort of people most safe. And again (he saith of some) they did not believe, because they knew: but they believed, that they might know. And in the same place he asketh, what is faith, but to believe that thou seest not? Conformable to which also he saith. 
Serm. 120. de tempore.  After we have received Baptism we say, I am a faithful man: I believe that which I know not. Reason also, and experience itself teacheth, that belief and knowledge are distinct; and that belief doth not necessarily presuppose knowledge: but is rather sometimes an antecedent to it. Insomuch, that even in natural things, the Philosopher acknowledgeth that one that learneth must believe before he come to knowledge. M. White may ask, how one can assent to the verity, which he doth not first apprehend, or know? I answer, that some apprehension, at least confuse, rude, and general, I do not deny to be requisite, in the assent of faith: but express, particular, distinct, or clear apprehension, or knowledge is not necessary: otherwise not only the common sort, but the learnedest in the world might despair of salvations in regard they could not believe the mystery of the blessed Trinity, which no man in this life can distinctly, and clearly understand, and know: and yet all sorts of men are bound to believe it explicit: and much less could they believe both it, and all other mysteries, contained in the whole corpse of the holy Scripture; all which are necessary to be believed in one sort, or other, explicit, or implicit, as hath been proved: and yet no one learned man, hath particular distinct knowledge of every truth contained in the Scriptures: Quis enim est hic, & laudabimus eum? 
1 FOr the reducing of this wild discourse into some order, and the better discerning of the controversy, you are to note that the jesuite, in the beginning of his Treatise, laid down 4. propositions touching faith; out of the which he would spin his motives to Papistry: the first is, that Faith is necessary to salvation. The second, that this faith is but only one. The third, that it must be infallible. The fourth, that it must be entire, extending itself to all points universally. This conclusion I granted in one sense, and denied in another: That our belief must be entire, whole, and sound in all points by obtaining a particular distinct knowledge of the same in ourselves: that so our faith might include an apprehension, and knowledge of that we believe, as well as an assent in the will; I granted: but if his meaning were, that which then I suspected, and now he bewrays; that the implicit faith, taught by the jesuits and schoolmen, destitute of knowledge, and only believing, as the Church believes, were this entire faith so necessary, and infallible; then I denied it, and gave my reasons: and 
a Dig. 2.  in a special Digress. showed and confuted it. All which he passes by, and only mentions as you see, my bare assertion against his implicit faith: but what I said in describing it, confuting it, and showing the drift, and purpose of it; he touches not, though it concerned his cause, more than that, which he replies to. This is his method whereto he cleaves in all his book, to reply entirely, to nothing.  
2 That which he says, is two things. First, he repeats, and expounds his conclusion: Next he touches some small portion of that I said concerning it. In repeating his conclusion, first he says, he meant it against such, as think it sufficient to believe some few articles only, though they deny, or doubt of others, which yet the Church believes: yea rashly, and obstinately denies them: who these men are, he names not, but he means the Protestants. Because they deny such points, as the Church of Rome (which he means by his Catholic Church) untruly propounds unto them. For they must be the persons intended, that deny any thing, which the Roman Church holds for an article of faith: as the Pope's primacy, Purgatory, Images, and the rest: which in 
b Commonly printed with the Trent Council. inserted in the WAY praef. n. 15.  the new Creed of the Trent Council are made articles of faith. But the Protestants answer readily, that they confess no point at all may be denied, or doubted of either obstinately, or rashly, or at all, that is a point of faith revealed in the word of God; but the things holden and propounded by the Church of Rome against them, are the false doctrines, and heresies of Antichrist, ridiculously called the faith of the Catholic Church. Then expounding his conclusion, he shows in what manner faith must believe all things, that it may be entire: and he says either expressly, or implicitly: wherein he bewrays, that which I suspected, and signified in my answer for his conclusion, being, that faith must be entire and sound, steadfastly believing all things revealed: I 
c The WAY. pag. 5.  answered, that this might be granted in a true sense; But peradventure his mind ran upon a further matter, which his Church teaches about enfolded faith: meaning thereby, that howsoever he affirmed that we are bound to believe all points of faith, as well one, as other, yet that might be done sufficiently by believing as the Church believes, without knowledge of any thing, that is believed: the which my suspicion he grants, in this place, to be true; and so his conclusion, which at the first carried so good a semblance of binding men to the knowledge of particular verities, and made so honest a proffer against ignorance; is now resolved into this sense: that by an entire faith you are bound to believe all things; the which is done, by knowing nothing, but only believing implicitly, as the Church of Rome believes. Let a man never trouble himself with enquiring into the mysteries of Christian religion, or controversies of faith; but only say, 
d Rhem. annot. Luc. 12.11.  he will live, and die in that faith which the Catholic Church teaches; and this Church can give a reason of the things believed. This is the equivocating tongue of the Church of Rome, that can ambush itself in words, and under fair speeches conceal no small wickedness.  
3 His arguments in maintenance of this implicit faith, are five. First the authority of M. Wootton, who seems to speak against me; next because to get express knowledge of all points contained in Scripture, (which are points necessary to be believed) is impossible; at least for unlearned men. Thirdly faith, and knowledge are two distinct things; faith being of things not known, captivating the understanding: therefore this distinct knowledge is not presupposed before: Fourthly, reason, and experience teach, that belief and knowledge are distinct: belief not presupposing knowledge, but going before it. Fiftly the Fathers, Irenaeus, Hilary, & Austin, affirm faith to be sufficient without knowledge. Afore I answer his arguments, note five things. First, what our adversaries mean by implicit, or enfolded faith; and it is nothing else, but a blind assent of the mind to whatsoever the Church of Rome believes, without any knowledge at all of the things themselves. 
e Occh. dialog. part. 1. l. 3. c. 1. p. 18. Dur. 3. d. 25. q. 1. ●abr. ibi. Notab. 2. Do. ban. 22. pag. 349.  The Schoolmen deliver it in finer terms, that it is the assent of the mind to some general, or universal thing, wherein many particulars are included, with will to believe nothing, that is contrary thereunto: but the meaning is, that to the essence, and nature of this entire faith, the distinct knowledge, or apprehension of any particular truth, or article, is not required; but only resolution, and profession, to be of the Church's belief, whatsoever it be; in the same manner that I reported the Collier's faith. Thus any man by an implicit faith believes the articles of Religion, and particular mysteries of our faith, touching the Unity, and Trinity, of the Godhead, the Incarnation, and Office, of Christ, the nature of Faith, the practice of Repentance, the Resurrection, the Sacraments, Redemption of mankind, state of sin, and the last judgement: when he will believe, and hold touching these things, as the Church of Rome doth; and yet in the mean time his understanding, in no measure, penetrates into these articles, nor can distinctly explicate, or conceive them. Altisiodorensis, 
f Sum. l. 3. tract. 3. c. 1. qu. 5.  says, To believe implicitly, is to believe in this general, that whatsoever the Church believes is true. Dionysius. 
g 3. de 25. qu. vnic. p. 215.  This is enfolded faith, to believe in general, all that our Holy mother the Church believes. Summa Rosella, 
h V Fides, n. 1. quem refert. ban. ubi sup.  To believe all that which our mother the Church believes, and holds: as when a Christian man is asked, whether Christ were borne of the virgin Marie, or whether there be one God, and three Persons, and he answers that he cannot tell, but believes, touching these matters, as the Church holdeth. This is the definition of entire faith, which the jesuite says extends itself universally to all points, at least, implicitly. Note Secondly what the things are, and which be the points, that our adversaries teach to be sufficiently believed by this enfolded faith. The Reply seems to affirm, that it is allowed only in some points, which a man, for want of sufficient means, cannot know: I grant, saith he, and never did deny, but that there are some points necessary to be particularly known, of all sorts, Necessitate medij, and some necessary to be known Necessitate praecepti. In which points implicit belief doth not suffice, but express particular knowledge is required, by Catholic Divines, to be joined to the assent of our faith— in other points; so far as we neither know, nor have sufficient means to know them, we may well commend the Collier's faith, in believing in general, as the Church believeth. In which words my adversary seems to allow implicit faith only in some few cases; and charges me with two gross untruths, because I say, the Papists utterly refuse knowledge, and Canonize the Collier's implicit faith, for their Creed. But he should have observed that which was under his eyes, and affixed to my words alleged, whereby I proved what I said. I alleged jacobus Graffius, a Friar lately writing from Capua, 
i Decis. aurear. l. 2. c. 8. nu. 16.  that every Christian is not bound to know the articles of faith explicitly, but only Clergy men. I cited Antonine an Archbish. and a Saint in the Church of Rome, 
k Sum. mor. part 1. tit. 5. c, 2. §. 1.  who reporting the tale of the Collier, first says, that a great Doctor being demanded what he believed, answered as the Church, and being further demanded what the Church believed, answered that it believed the articles contained in the Creed. And then falls to commending that faith: which shows that he thought it was the entirest believing, even of the Creed, to do it by implicit faith. I alleged Pighius, and Hosius the Cardinal, who 
l Pigh. hier. l. 1. c. 5. Hos. count Brent l. 3 p. 146  in the places cited affirm, that it is the safest way to hold a man's self to the faith of the Church, though it should err in the faith. And that this Collier's faith is more safe than any meditation, or exercise in the Scripture. And whosoever shall view the places, Hosius especially, shall well perceive, that I speak the truth: which I will yet justify further, by showing Catholic Divines (as my adversaries styles a pack of heretics) to teach, that it is sufficient by this implicit faith to believe, even the principal articles of faith contained in the Creed. 
m Tract. de fid.  William the B. of Paris, 
n L. 3. tract. 3. c. 1. qu. 5.  Altisiodorensis, 
o V Fides. nu. 1.  Summa Rosella, and others, 
p refe●t. D. Ban. 22. qu. 2. art. 8. § Dubitatur secundo.  hold that it is not necessary to believe any article of faith expressly, but it is enough to believe, all that our mother the Church believes, and holds. So that if a man were demanded whether Christ were borne of the Virgin, and whether there were one God, and 3. Persons, he might sufficiently answer; I cannot tell; but I believe as the Church holds: and this faith would justify, and save him. The jesuits 
q Lorin. in Act. Apost p. 438. 1. b. Grego de Valent. tom. 3. disp. 1. qu. 2. punct. 4. pag. 311. A.  report, that it is the opinion of many Authors, in the Church of Rome, that the explicit faith of Christ (as he is true God, and man, and the Redeemer of mankind) even after the sufficient publishing of the Gospel is not necessary necessitate medij, either for justification, or salvation: and he cities Richardus Mediavillanus, Vega, and Soto. Which is true; for these are Vegaes' express words: 
r Pro. Concil. Trident. l. 6. c. 15. p. 92. edit. Colon. 1572.  It is to be affirmed, that men are so justified by the faith of the Mediator, that yet the unfolded faith neither of this article, nor of any other must be thought requisite unto justice: because the explicit faith of other articles belonging either to Speculation, or moral life, suffices thereunto:— and this is it, which our Divines commonly teach, when they say, the Faith of one mediator either unfolded, or enfolded, is enough for justification: neither can they hold otherwise that think, as 
s Reported before c. 22. n. 1.  many in the Roman Church do, the Gentiles without any knowledge of Christ: or supernatural faith at all, may be saved.  
5 I know well enough some of our adversaries speak otherwise and seem to require a more unfolded faith, whose doctrine I will not conceal. 
t Eymeric. part. 1. q. 7. n. 8  The Directory of the Inquisitors, out of 
u 22. qu. 2. art. 5.  Aquinas, says, A man is bound explicitly to believe the articles of faith, but other points of faith only implicitly. That which 
* D. ban. ubi sup. Alexand Peasant. 22. q. 2. art. 8. disp. 1. Greg. Val. tom. 3. disp. 1. qu. 2. punct. 3. 4. 5. Vasqu. 12. disp. 121.  others speak more at large. First, 
* These are the Propositions of Pezantius a jesuite Schoolman.  that in the state both afore, and after sin, it was necessary, for all of years of discretion, both by the command, and necessity of the means, to believe some supernatural thing by explicit faith. Secondly, The things thus to be believed are all points needful for the ordering of their life; as to believe there is a God, and his divine providence, and the immortality of the soul; that he is the Creator, Rewarder, and Governor of all. Thirdly, that now in the state of the Gospel, it is also necessary to believe in Christ, as the Redeemer of mankind, by faith explicit. Fourthly, by the Commandment, all are bound to believe, explicately the Mystery of the Incarnation, and the Trinity; the principal articles of faith, contained in the Creed, which by themselves pertain to the substance of faith; and some other things which tend to direct them in working aright: But, what those articles of the Creed are, which thus belong to the substance of faith, Peasant. says, the Doctors are not agreed: but he lays down his own judgement; that they are the articles touching the Unity, Essence and Trinity of the Persons in the Godhead: touching the Creation, the Remission of sins, Eternal life, the Nativity, Passion, Resurrection, and Second coming of Christ, the Sacraments of Baptism, Eucharist, and Confession; the precepts also of Faith, Hope, and Charity, the ten Commandments, and Prayers delivered in the Catechism: It is also probable, he says, that all good Catholics, should believe explicitly the virginity of Mary, that they may worship her: but it is certain, that the article touching the Church, that there is but one congregation thereof, which is of the faithful, 
* Were you there Sir?  that obey the Pope, Christ's Vicar, must be believed explicitly: and some say also certain traditions touching the sign of the Cross, and the adoration of Saints, and Images. This is the largest, and most particular explication, that I find in any of them, touching the things that all men, unlearned, as well as learned, are bound, either by Commandment, or absolute necessity to believe by faith explicit: Yea the Scholiast upon the Directory of the Inquisition 
x Pag. 60.  requires the articles of faith to be gotten perfectly without Book, which the jesuits 
y Grego. Val. p. 320. c Peasant. pag. 505. d.  deny. But how shall I know this is the doctrine of their Church? how will my adversary assure me that other Divines in his Church, as Catholic as these, are of the same mind; that I might truly say, I mistook them, when I said, they utterly refuse knowledge, and canonize the Collier? If they would hold them every where, and constantly to this, it were a good step to an end in this controversy, and our doctrine were justified, that particular knowledge is to be joined with the assent of faith, and we must not so believe the Church, but that we be able also, in some measure, to conceive, and penetrate the things themselves. If my adversary will urge me with this, and stand upon it, that it is the doctrine of his Church, I will not strive with him: only I will commend 2. things to his consideration. First, how he will plead the salvation of innumerable lay people, I will not say in Lancashire, but in France, Spain, and Italy, every where, that have no knowledge of these things, but only believe as the Church believes; whom the Church of Rome hath hitherto trained up in this implicit faith of the Collier? how will he excuse the Collier, whom Staphylus commends so, that knew not these things? and what if it should fall out, that the Gentleman his friend, whom he mentions 
z A person of good esteem and place, in that your country p. 39 Repl.  before in this Reply, being catechised by his ghostly father, should be able to say no more, than the Collier? Next, that even the jesuits, and these Divines, who make show to maintain this explicit faith, yet utter that beside, that unanswerably makes for the implicit, in all articles. Henriquex 
a De sin. hom. c. 17. n. 1. lit. x.  says, A man may be justified by the implicit faith of Christ, 
* Si planè contritus, cum plena satisfactione, vel cum martyrio, aut indulgentia plenaria, decedat.  and if he die, be saved also, with a pardon. 
b Relect. de Sacram. part. 2. q. 2. concl. 3.  Canus, and 
c In Tho. 22. q. 2. art. 8. dub. vlt. concl. 1.  Bannes affirm, that the explicit faith, or distinct knowledge of Christ is not necessary as a means to justify us. And Bannes 
d Concl. 4.  adds, that it were neither heresy, nor error, nor rashness, nor scandal, to avouch that a man may also, in the same manner, be saved, because justification being the last disposition to glory, it is very probable that he which is justified by an implicit faith, may also by the same faith without alteration be saved: Vasquez 
e In Tho. 12. q. 2. disp. 121. c. 2.  says, He doubts not, but many country people, without fault, are ignorant of some necessary mysteries. Vega 
f Pro council. pag. 92.  says, as I alleged before: It is to be affirmed, that men are so justified by the faith of the Mediator, that yet the unfolded faith neither of this article, nor of any other must be thought requisite unto justice, because the explicit faith of other articles belonging either to speculation, or moral life, suffices thereunto. I could allege many other such doctrines; but these are enough to show my adversary, that his Divines deal but doubly in our point of implicit faith, and such as make fair offer against it, yet are fast friends to the Collier.  
6 Note thirdly concerning the persons, who they be, that our adversaries allow to believe implicitly, & who are bound to express knowledge. Mediavillanus 
g 3. d. 25 p. 89. edit. Venet. per Laz. Soared. 1508.  says, that such as are superiors in the Church must have a fuller knowledge concerning faith, than inferiors. So that I believe such superiors are bound to believe all the articles of faith expressly, though every one of them be not bound to believe their number, or artificial distinction. Sylvester 
h Sum sylvest v. fides. n. 6.  says, Every one that hath cure of souls, as Prelates, Priests, Prophets, Doctors, and Preachers, are bound expressly to believe the whole distinction of the articles of faith, according to their substance: but others are not so bound. 
i Direct. Inquisit. part. 1. q. 4. n. 3.  Eymericus, out of 
k 22. q. 2. art. 6.  Thomas: Prelates, and Curates are bound to have the express faith, and knowledge of all the articles of faith: wherefore the explication of things to be believed, is not alike, in respect of all sorts of men, necessary to salvation; because Superiors, which have the charge of instructing others, are bound to believe expressly more things, than others are. 
l 22. q. 2. art. 8. disp. unic. sub sin.  Pezantius thinks thus of the matter, that Bishops are bound, 
* A hard task for the Boy— Bishops mentioned by Gerson and others (see Verse. sign. ruin. Eccl. sign. 3. & 8. Pic. Mirand. orat. ad Leo.) and for some men Bishops too, mentioned by Theod. Niem. nemor. Semita. & de scism. p. 66. & Catarrh. n. specul. haeret. p. 71. Clemang. de stat. Eccl. p. 15. & 30. & council. delect. card. & Alliac. reform. Eccl. consid. 3. and for some Popes also. See specul. Pontif. p. 110. and possible for our young jesuits and Seminaries, to say nothing of the old Master Priests in times past.  expressly to know the articles of Faith contained in the Creed, and Scripture, and in the definitions of the Church: so that they can both expound, teach, and persuade them: Simple Priests must know those things that belong to the making of the Sacrament, and other things contained in the Creed: Preachers such things as are necessary to teach the people how to believe, and live: parish Priests are not bound to be so perfect in the knowledge of the articles of faith that they can assoil hard questions; but it is sufficient, if they can instruct their charge in such things, as they are tied to believe, and do; and if they have sufficient knowledge of the Cases of Conscience. And so the implicit knowledge, and faith is admitted only in the unlearned Laity, and not in Clergy men of any sort, if our adversaries will hold them to their doctrine; but they double, and persevere not in it, as will appear by viewing the places of the Archbishop, and the Cardinal, whom 
m The WAY §. 2. n. 6.  I alleged in my book.  
7 Note four that the things which we mislike, and speak against in this matter of implicit faith, are these. First, that in teaching of it, the Church of Rome seems manifestly to seek her own sovereignty, even above the Scripture in the consciences of men, rather than the true knowledge of God, and his will. To what purpose they do this 
n 2. Th. 2.4. apoc 18.7. I sit a Queen.  we are not ignorant; but we see it tends to the stupefying of the word by blind, and brutish obedience, that there need be no travel in religion itself, but only a religious care, that the Church of Rome be not offended. Whereunto whosoever will cleave resolutely, to obey all her drudgery, and tyranny; that man, by some fine distinction or other, and that by the jesuits themselves, and such as talk most of explicit knowledge, shall be justified to be of an entire faith extending itself universally to all points, one as well as another, though he were as ignorant as a sheep; or as mad as 
o Suid. v. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Amphistides in Suidas, that could not tell five, nor whether his father or his mother bore him. Secondly, we mislike that ignorance so much condemned by the word of God, should thus be bolstered out, whereby true faith is quenched, the light, and zeal, and comfortable assurance thereof is taken away, and all sorts of people are emboldened to security, & negligence in seeking that quantity of knowledge whereto God hath enabled them to attain. So that hereby the people of God, in whom 
p Col. 3.16.  his word ought to dwell plentifully with all manner of knowledge; 
q Ro. 10.10.  that should be able both to believe with the heart, and confess with their mouth to salvation, 
r Heb. 5. vlt.  that through long custom, should have their wits exercised to discern both good, and evil: 
s 1 Pet. 3.15.  that should be always ready to give an answer, to every one that asketh a reason of the hope that is in them: are turned into senseless Idols, that can neither hear, nor see, nor understand: the which kind of ignorance the ancient Church never allowed. Thirdly, we condemn the defining of faith, yea entire, & Catholic faith, by this kind of believing: for albeit the faith, & knowledge of the best of God's children be entangled (as Caluin hath freely confessed) with the relics of much ignorance, when many things believed, & necessary to salvation, are not yet distinctly understood, yet there is a progress, & increase in knowledge, whereby the dullest, & ignorantest of God's children, are enlightened more, and more, until they reach that quantity of apprehension that the commandment of faith requires. In which sense we allow the faith of any man living, specially the unlearned, to be implicit: First, when he knows, and apprehends in general, the substantial articles belonging to faith, which are contained in the Scriptures, and rule of faith: Secondly, when the ignorance is only in the particulars, whereby the said general articles are demonstrated; as a lay man believing the Unity, and Trinity of Persons in God, yet is not able to express, or conceive the difference between the essence, and the Persons, nor the different manner of persons proceeding. 3. When withal he uses the means to increase in knowledge, by searching the Scriptures, and hearing the word preached: and in the mean time obediently submits himself to the ministry, and direction of the Church herein. The implicit faith of such persons, as have this threefold disposition concurring in them, we condemn not: but this is not it, which our adversaries plead for; who defend that it is enough to assent to the Church, though all this be wanting; that is to say, to profess himself a Roman Catholic, believing as the present Church holds, without any knowledge of the things in themselves.  
8 Note lastly that the distinct knowledge of things believed, which against this implicity of faith, we require, is the knowledge of that which God hath revealed, not of the essence, and reason, of the things. For the understanding whereof, we must consider, that the Scriptures, and Church, by their proposition, reveal the points of faith unto us; and bid us learn, & believe them: as that there is one God the maker of all things; and one mediator jesus Christ, that was conceived by the Holy Ghost, borne of the virgin Marie; and as follows in the Rule of Faith. Which things thus mentioned unto us, are profound mysteries, and have many abstruse, and secret notions belonging to them, as for example the deep reasons of the Trinity in the Godhead, and the Union of the two natures in Christ. Now when we require knowledge to be joined with the faith of these things, we mean the knowledge of the Revelation, not of the reason, and whole nature of the things revealed: for is any man so presumptuous, as to imagine that a supernatural object, believed by faith, revealed by God, can by discourse of reason, be reduced to natural understanding; the Apostle 
t 1. Cor. 2.14.  saying, The natural man perceives not the things of God, neither can he know them? Or do our adversaries imagine the knowledge we require to be such as is in human sciences, where conclusions are demonstrated by their principles, and things are comprehended in their causes, and properties? Have they that power over their people to make them believe, that we require, for example, men to be able to understand, and utter, the manner, and reasons how God is one? How 3. in Person? How the dead shall be raised again? How our nature subsists in the word? How the redemption of mankind could be wrought by the sufferings, and death of the Son of God? How the Sacraments confer Grace? How man could be predestinate, before the world was made? We do not require the world to know these things, 
u 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Theodor. de provid. l. 10 sub fin.  which are reserved to the beatifical vision in the life to come: but only in such sort, and measure, as is revealed; which is by conceiving that God is one: that the Persons are 3. that the dead shall be raised again, etc. and such things concerning them, as may, without error, be understood; 
* Deut. 29 29.  For secret things belong to the Lord our God: but things revealed belong to us, and to our children for ever. 
* The state of the question.  The true state of the question therefore, touching implicit faith is, whether the believer, besides his general assenting to the Church, and Scripture, be also bound to have in himself a distinct knowledge of things propounded him to believe; so that he can, according to any true notion of conceiving, apprehend, and conceive, that which is revealed to him? in which question the distinction of Necessary, as the means, and Necessary by the command, is frivolous: because whatsoever is omitted against God's commandment is sin; and consequently damnable without repentance, and therefore if knowledge be commanded, it is also the means of Salvation, so far forth, as the observation of the commandments is the means. But our adversaries apply this distinction (which in some question is of good use) in this place to lay their people a sleep on their pillow, when they shall hear knowledge to be commanded, but yet not as a Necessary means. Now there be twenty ways to escape from a commandment.  
9 These things thus premised, now I answer my adversaries arguments made for implicit faith against distinct knowledge. The first, that I dispute so hotly against that which M. Wootton admits: is false. For M. Wootton admits no more, than he insinuates in his conclusion, that a general belief of some points may suffice some persons, without danger of damnation: and this pleases me well enough: for I have showed this not to be the question; but let my adversary deal sincerely, and hold him to that which is taught in his Church: and it will please himself never a whit. When that doctrine allows ignorance in all points; and the other, which is somewhat honester, allows it in more points, and defines the ignorance otherwise, then M. Wootton will do. My adversary therefore hath not M. Wootton on his side; nor against me; but directly with me against himself. To the second, that my opinion for the knowledge of all points of faith, one as well as another, is intolerable, because it is impossible for unlearned men, to get express knowledge of all points contained in Scripture: I answer, that my words alleged do not affirm the necessity of knowing all things revealed (as that jacob had a lame leg, or Abraham two wives) but all points of our faith; expounding faith, not as he doth, for every thing that is revealed, but of the substantial articles of faith, which the unlearnedst that are may learn, and understand, if they will use the Ministry of the Church, and exercise their wits therein, as the word requires. 
x The story may be seen in● Acts and Monum. of the Ch.  The Church of Rome had experience of this at the sacking of Mirandula, & Chabriers; where not the elder sort alone, but the very children of lay men, whom unmercifully they assassinated, and butchered, were found in knowledge to parallel the Doctors, that examined them. And justine against Trypho, 
y Dial. cum Tryph.  says of his time, that such as could no letter on the book, understood all the mysteries of faith, And this is manifest by the places of Chrysostome, Theodorit, and Eusebius following. My adversary therefore must hold him to that object of faith, that I speak of, and then show it is impossible to be apprehended, which he cannot do. And whereas he says, He grants, and never did deny, but there are some points necessary to be particularly known of all sorts, wherein implicit belief doth not suffice, but express particular knowledge is required by Catholic Divines: I answer, that when I spoke against implicit faith, demanding, To what purpose should God propound all the points of our faith, one as well as another, unless his will were that we should learn them all? I knew not what my adversary would grant or deny, but having showed that the Collier's faith was canonised by no small fools, in his Church, and commended for sufficient in all points I used this reason against it, which I confirmed by a text of Scripture, and a speech of Saint Austin. And if my adversary convinced thereby, relinquish that rude opinion, requiring express particular knowledge, at least in some points, if not Necessitate medij, yet Necessitate praecepti, this, to requite his kindness to M. Wootton, I gratefully accept: and wish him, that when he writes again, he will ingenuously express what those his some points are; and how far forth the commandment of faith ties us to know them. For these things may be so expounded, that what in words is granted, in effect shall be denied: and then the Pope may commend his towardliness, 
z Nub.  as the woman doth her daughter in Aristophanes. 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  A goodly spark with a tongue that will strike on both sides.  
10 And whether he mean this, or that, yet my report, that the Church of Rome utterly refuses knowledge: and that the Collier's faith is canonised for the Papists Creed, should not have been called a gross untruth, until my reasons whereupon I grounded it, had been answered, or at least mentioned; but that it is a privilege, and special indulgence that my adversary hath obtained, to reply without making any answer. For is not the Collier's faith so reported, and commended by the Authors, whom I cited, that any may fee they allowed it in all points whatsoever, whether there were means to know them, or no means? doth not Staphylus 
a By this faith of the Collier every unlearned man may try the spirits of men, whether they be of God or no: By this faith he may resist the Devil, and judge the true interpretation from the false; & discern the Catholic from the heretical Minister; & the true doctrine from the forged. Fred. Staphyl. apol. pag. 53.  make it the best kind of faith, that is: and the rest whom I quoted in the margin, propose it as the best form of believing any thing whatsoever? and yet the jesuite replies, as if they allowed it only in some few points, so far as we neither know, nor have sufficient means to know them. But his own words immediately following, in defence of this faith, touching such things, that in this general action is enfolded a particular, or implicit belief of all points, in as much as a general includeth all particulars, and believing the Church disposes the mind, etc. bewrays that he holds the same thing that I objected. For this is the very reason, that the grossest maintainers of implicit faith use to defend it against them that require the knowledge questioned.  
11 To his third argument That faith and knowledge are 2. distinct things, therefore there may be true faith, without any distinct knowledge of the things believed: I answer, that the knowledge which I require is not of the essence, and reason of the things believed, but of their proposition, and that concerning them, which is revealed; as I have distinguished: and therefore I deny the consequence. For though such knowledge be not faith, but a habit distinct from it, yet it concurs to the habit of faith, in as much as no man can assent to that whereof he never heard: for 
b Ro. 10.14.  how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? The knowledge that hath no ingredience into faith, is the knowledge of that which is not revealed; for faith not only goes before such knowledge, but also utterly repels it, never admitting any penetration into God's secret mysteries: for 
c 1. Cor. 2.9.  the things which the eye hath not seen, nor the ear heard, nor can enter into the heart of man, hath God prepared for them that love him. And in this sense all the texts of Scripture, and places of the Fathers, quoted by my adversary against knowledge, are understood; and so I answer his last argument. For it was the constant, and uniform doctrine of the ancient Church, that how soever faith apprehends mysteries not to be inquired into; yet the proposition, and doctrine of all the articles of faith must distinctly be conceived, that a man be able to understand what they are, Saint Chrysostome 
d Hom. 16. in joh.  rebuking this ignorance, proceeds into this discourse, which plainly shows, that he was of this mind: We believe, saith he, In the Father, and the Son, and the holy Ghost: The resurrection of our bodies, and everlasting life. If a Gentile ask you; who is this Father? who is this Son? this holy Ghost? are there 3. Gods? what would you say to this? what answer would you make? how would you dissolve his objections? And when you should stand dumb to these things, suppose he should bring in another question touching the resurrection, whether you should rise again in this, or in another body? if he should demand, why Christ came in the flesh rather at this time, then in the former ages? what if he should pose us in such and the like things? how great punishment is laid up for us that (by being able to answer nothing, nor to dissolve these questions) should be the authors of error to them that walk in darkness— for if they so travel day, and night to be able to speak against our religion, how shall we escape, unless we have skill to beat back such assaults? Thus 
1 1. Pet. 3.  Peter commands, Be alway ready to satisfy every one that demands a reason of your faith, and hope: and 
2 Col. 3.  Paul, Let the word of Christ dwell plentifully in you. But what will these foolish drones answer? forsooth, that every simple soul is blessed, and 
3 Pro 10. This is one of the Papists reasons for the Collier's faith: note Chrysostom's answer.  he that walks simply, walks surely. But this is the cause of all evil, that not many know how to bring in the testimonies of the Scripture opportunely. For in that place alleged, simple is not to be understood for a fool, that knows nothing, but for one, that is not evil, or crafty, etc. These words of Chrysostome show against all exception, that God's words upon pain of punishment, requires a distinct knowledge of the points of our faith; in such measure, that if an ignorant man, or a caviller, should question with us about them, we might be able to expound, & manifest them; which by the Collier's, and my adversaries impicite faith we could not do. Theodorit hath a narration, which may fully satisfy any man what kind of knowledge the Christian Church then practised. Every where, 
e De curand. affect. l. 5. sub. fin.  saith he, you may see these points of our faith to be known not only by them, who are masters in the Church, and teachers of the people; but even of Cobblers, Smiths, and Weavers, and all kind of artificers; and of women also which get their living with their hands, yea maid servants, and waiting women: husbandmen also do very well know them, and Ditchers, and Neat-heards, and woodsetters. All these may ye find discoursing of the Trinity, and the Creation of things, and as skilful in the nature of man, as Plato, or Aristotle. 
f justin Martyr requires the same distinct knowledge in all. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Dial. cum Tryph. p. 249.  This Relation of Theodorit makes it clear, that in those days the doctrine of believing as the Church believes, by implicit faith was not received; but the Christians generally, even the most unlearned, obtained, and practised the same distinct knowledge, that here my adversary disputes against, and impugns with the names of the Fathers, that only speak against the curious, and arrogant enquiring into mysteries.   

CHAP. XXIIII.  
Touching the necessity and nature of the rule of faith. 2. And how it is revealed & communicated to all men, that none need to despair.  A. D. Concerning the fift Chapter, 
Pag. 143.  the conclusion of this Chapter (to wit, that God hath provided some ordinary rule, and means by which all sorts, as well unlearned, as learned, may be instructed sufficiently in that one infallible entire faith, which is necessary to salvation) serveth chiefly for those who either presume to attain this faith, without using any endeavour, in seeking, or following some ordinary rule and means; or else despair, in regard they know not, what in particular this rule, and means, is: nor perhaps in general, that there is at all, any ordinary rule, and means, (at least accommodated to their capacity) provided by God, by which they may be sufficiently instructed in faith. To take away therefore the foresaid presumption of some, and despair of others, in this Chapter I only intended to prove in general, that there is some certain ordinary rule, and means, ordained by God, which if one neglect to seek, find, and follow (according to the ordinary course of God's providence) he may not (be he never so learned, or wise) presume, or hope to attain true faith: and which whosoever doth diligently seek, happily find, and obediently follow (be he never so unlearned, or simple) he need not despair, or doubt, but may rest assured, that he shall attain unto it. My adversaries do not seem to deny this my conclusion, so far as it, doth properly belong to this Chapter: but fearing what may follow of it, they oppose against that sense which they imagine, I intended afterward to draw out of it. But this is unorderly to run before the hare. Let us now only speak to the purpose of the present Chapter. M. White expressly 
* White pag. 8. & 9  granteth, and M. Wootton doth not deny, that there is some certain rule, and means, appointed by God, and left in the world, to instruct men in faith. Secondly, M. White granteth, that by this rule and means we may be infallibly instructed, what is to be holden for true faith. Thirdly he yieldeth, that the only cause, why a man misseth of the truth, is either because he doth not find the rule, or having found it, he will not obey it. Fourthly he saith, that the rule is left indifferently to all, in this sense, that it is of such nature, that it is able to direct any man, be he never so simple, and that the most unlearned alive, may understand and conceive it sufficiently for his salvation. Thus far M. White granteth, and this is in a manner, as much as I need desire to be granted, concerning the principal conclusion of this Chapter. For hence followeth first, that no man may presume to attain faith, without finding, and following some certain, or ordinary rule, and means ordained by God. Secondly, that no man, for want of learning, or by reason of his simplicity, etc. need to despair, but that, by seeking, finding, & following some certain rule, & means appointed by God, be shall be sufficiently instructed in faith. Thirdly, that every one, careful of salvation may see; how much it importeth to seek, find, and follow this rule, and means; as expecting by it, & only by it (according to the ordinary course of God's Providence) to be sufficiently instructed, what is to be holden, for that one, infallible, entire, true faith, which is necessary to salvation. 
1 MY adversaries fift conclusion was, that as one entire faith is necessary to salvation, so God, who wills the salvation of all men, hath provided, and left an ordinary rule, and means, whereby they may be informed, which, and what this faith is. This conclusion he visits, in this place, to see how his adversaries have used it, and first he repeats it, than he tells his purpose in laying it down: next he reports what I said to it, though scarce truly. Fourthly he tells what follows of that, which he finds I have granted him; and so lastly leaves the only difficulty that I objected against it unassoiled, and leaps into a wild-goose chase, nothing to the point, about predestination, whither M. White means not to follow him. His purpose in propounding it, he says was, first to admonish such as presume to attain faith without using the means: Secondly to help such as despair, when they either know not that there is such a means, or understand not what in particular it is. To take away presumption, and desperation, he lays down this conclusion, touching the rule of faith: the which when he afterward defines to be his Roman Church, speaking by the mouth of the Pope, you may perceive what a ready way he takes to keep men from Presumption, and Desperation.  
2 But whatsoever his intent were, he says I grant him 4. things, which is in a manner, as much as he desires. First, that there is such a rule left. Secondly, that by this rule we may be infallibly instructed what is to be holden for true faith. Thirdly, that the cause why men miss the truth, is because they either find it not, or obey it not. Fourthly, this rule is of such nature that it is able to direct all men, yea the simplest, and unlearnedst alive. The which I granted him then, and by these presents do grant again, upon condition he will not be proud of that I give him, without any vantage to his purpose; as if he had obtained some great boon: but hold him to my grant mannerly, and encroach no further. For I gave him warning that if he meant such a rule, as all men at all times may have access unto, as being concealed from none, but visible, and revealed, or manifest to all places, ages, and persons: I would not grant it him, for the reasons there expressed: the which my exception in this place he calls unorderly running before the Hare: and in his next Section, answers by expounding himself, that he did not mean it should be actually manifest, but only such, as 
* Doth he mean I manuel, in his Potentia remota, whereof pag. 165. & below c. 26.  might be known: but I ran not before the Hare, for I hunted a Fox, that was closely stealing to the wood, in which game, good Fox-hunters say, it is not against the law to cross the way, and mark his headding. For his head is to the wood in every conclusion, aiming at nothing but to train by degrees, such as follow him, into his visible Church, and the Pope's authority ruling therein: and therefore I distinguished the divers senses of his words, being acquainted before with old Reinard, Gregory of Valence, in whose steps I saw the Reply to tread; and showed which was true, and which false, that there might be no ambiguity. And although he answer, that I mistake him, when I thought his meaning was, this rule should be manifest, and actually known to all: yet I am not satisfied; for though I give him leave to expound himself, and accept his exposition: yet what I suspected necessarily follows, still of that he says afterward, as I then observed: for 
g Treat. c. 10. in the WAY, §. 13.  he defines the teaching of the Church to be the rule: and this Church he maintains to be such, as not only is of it nature visible, and such as may be seen; but 
h Treat. c. 12. in the WAY, §. 18. & inde.  manifest, and actually known to all places, ages, and persons in the world. And it follows manifestly of that; if you say that sometime the Church could not be known, nor be a means whereby the true faith might be known: then men living at such time should want the means: and so it were not universally true, that God would have all men saved, and come to the knowledge of his truth: He that says the Church is the Rule, and such a rule, as all men universally may at all times know, means that the rule is manifest, and actually known to all: this meaning he disclaims, and I am satisfied with it, yet it follows violently upon his own words.  
3 Thirdly from the 4. things I grant, he gathers 3. things more. First, that No man must presume, or once hope to attain to true faith, without finding, and following the rule thereof ordained by God. Secondly, that No man need to despair, though he be never so unlearned or simple, but by seeking, finding, and follwing this rule, he may be sufficiently instructed in faith. Thirdly, that it concerns every one careful of his salvation, to seek, & follow this rule, for his instruction in the faith, which is necessary to salvation. These three, I likewise yield him, though they be not that, which he principally alms at, to encourage him: because it will be some little honesty for him, when his friends read his book, to show them what material points he hath extorted from M. White: but the gift is not great: my adversary will return the whole 7. back again in exchange for one single one that I can name him.   

CHAP. XXV.  
The text of 1. Tim. 2.4. God wills all men to be saved, etc. expounded. The divers expositions that are given of those words. God's antecedent will, as they call it, is not his will formally. The antecedent & consequent will of God expounded divers ways.  

A.D. §. 1. Concerning the meaning of the Apostles words, 
Pag. 145.  GOD WILL ALL MEN TO BE SAVED, etc. First it is certain that the meaning of the Apostles words is not that God hath an absolute effectual will and decree to save every man, or to bring every man, in particular, to the knowledge of the truth, or to the knowledge of that ●●●diate rule and means which he hath ordained to instruct men in faith▪ This is evident, because if there were any such absolute and effectual will and decree in God, then (since his will is always fulfilled) all should effectually be saved; or should actually come to the knowledge of the truth; or at least to the knowledge of that Rule and means, which God hath ordained to instruct men in faith: which evident experience telleth us not to be true. By which my assertion M. White may see how much he mistaketh, when he thinks me to mean that the Rule and Means, ordained by God, is not only (as I speak) visible, that is, such as may be assigned and known, 
White pag. 9  but also manifested (as M. White speaketh) that is, such as is actually known to all places, ages, and persons, in the world.  
Secondly, whereas there are divers expositions of these words of the Apostle given by good authors, the chief question betwixt me and my adversaries is about the exposition of S. Damascen, S. Thomas and many other learned Divines, who hold that the Apostle, saying that God will all men to be saved, meaneth that God hath an Antecedent will to save every man, although, considering the sins of men, he he hath a consequent will to condemn some. This exposition my adversaries mislike, either in their ignorance, because they do not understand it aright, or for that they adhere to some part of Caluines' error about predestination, with which it cannot stand. Wherefore to instruct their ignorance in this point, and to deliver them, or at least others, from the poison of that most pestilent opinion which Caluine holdeth concerning predestination, I will first declare the foresaid exposition, therewithal proving it to be good, Secondly I will relate Caluines' opinion about predestination, and will show it to be erroneous in itself, pernicious to men, and impious towards God. It seemeth that my adversaries, in their ignorance have a strange conceit of the Antecedent will, by which, according to this exposition, God will have all men saved. For M. White saith, that this Antecedent will is not Simply, 
White pag. 95.  Properly, 
Wootton. p. 59  and Formally, the will of God: and M. Wootton, although he do not expressly say, yet he seemeth to think the same, when he saith, this exposition of S. Damascen cannot be enforced out of the text; nor is so warrantable for truth as some other exposition is. How false this their saying is, will appear by the example of an earthly king; which I will use to declare and explain this point.  
1 IF the Reader will understand how, and upon what occasion, this text and the matter thereof, comes in question between us in this place, he must observe that my adversary, to show that God hath provided and left sufficient me● 〈◊〉 for the instructing of all men whatsoever in the true faith, 
a In THE WAY. §. 3.  alleged this text of 1. Tim. 2.4. God will all men to be saved, etc. concluding from it, that, seeing his will is a true will, it must needs follow that he hath left such a means: Then again, to prove not only that God hath promised such a means of salvation, which is the visible Church, but that he hath also made it manifest and visible to all men, whereby they might be directed to the faith, he alleges the same text 
b In THE WAY. §. 18.  again, God would have all men to be saved: as if this will of God, affirmed in the text, could not stand, unless the Church, which is the means, were always visible, because he cannot be said to will that which he allows no means to effect. It was not therefore brought in against me in any dispute about predestination, but as you see, upon the By, to prove the visibility of the Church, in all ages, for the revealing of the faith to the world. Nevertheless knowing how grossly the Papists use to expound it, and seeing how absurdly my adversary applies it, (to prove such a visibility of the Church as he imagined: affirming that if the Church were at any time not visible, in his sense, the world should want the necessary means of salvation, & so it should not be universally true, that God would have all men to be saved) therefore I briefly expounded it, 
c THE WAY §. 3. n. 2.  first, only in the words of Gregorius Ariminensis, a school Doctor of his own: but in 
d §. 18. n. 6.  the second place more at large; confirming the sense I gave, out of the Fathers, and diverse principal Papists: where I briefly touched an obscure distinction of God's antecedent and consequent will: invented, as 
e Damascenus hanc distinctionem introduxit. Capreol. 1. d. 45 q. 1. ar. 2. concls 4. Videtur primus hoc modo divinam voluntatem distinxisse. Valentia to. 1. pag 360. A.  they say, by Damascen; first noting, out of Durand a popish Schoolman, the distinction not to be real: and then showing, that if it were, yet the visibleness of the Church was not proved thereby; which I concluded in a Syllogism set in the margin, and so held me wholly to the point we had in hand. All which discourse, my adversary passeth over answerless; perceiving well enough the exposition I gave of the words, to be such as cannot be denied; and the application that himself made of them, to be false and unsound: and therefore, in this place pretending to inquire out the true sense of the words, he leaves that which we had directly in hand; inverts the purpose whereto the text was mentioned; forsakes his question, how the necessity of a visible rule is proved by it, and runs into an impertinent discourse about predestination● wherein if he would have dealt, he had fair opportunity offered him in 
f Digress. 41.  it own place. Nevertheless, so far as he meddles with that I said touching the meaning of the Apostles words, I will go with him, and examine what he says.  
2 First he grants it to be certain, that the meaning is not, God hath an absolute or effectual will to save all men. Which I say too. For whatsoever God wills and decrees absolutely, shall be effected; which the salvation of some never is.  
3 Next he says, that by this I may see how much I mistook him, when I thought him to mean, that the rule of faith is not only such as may be known, but such as actually is known, to all places, ages and persons. But he mistakes himself. For whatsoever his meaning be, it follows necessarily upon his words. For albeit he say, God have no absolute or effectual will to save all men; yet maintaining that he reprobates none, but for the foresight of their unbelief, he must consequently suppose the rule of faith to be actually manifested to all: because God cannot reprobate for unbelief foreseen, those to whom he never revealed the rule of faith, because it was never in the power of such to believe. Or if he say, they are reprobated because they find not the rule of faith, or because it is not manifested to them, than the visible Church cannot be the rule; for that, according to the doctrine of the Papist, is always and actually manifest in every age to all sorts of people, as himself defends in the twelfth Chapter of his Treatise. I might therefore mistake his meaning, but the consequence of his words I mistook not.  

THE DIVERS EXPOSITIONS OF THE PLACE OF 1. TIM. 2.4.  4 Secondly he grants, there are divers expositions of those words of the Apostle given by good authors: and this is likewise true: but yet himselelfe gave no exposition at all, but barely alleged the text; and therefore he might the better give me leave briefly to touch an exposition or two, used by the Fathers and the learned of his own side, and suspect the issue of his own discourse, wherein he knows he maintains that exposition which the Fathers, 
g See Sixt. Senens. biblioth. lib. 6 annot. 251. where having set down the words of Chrysostome, and certain other Fathers, affirming predestination to be for works foreseen, he s●ve●, Haec Patrum dicta, ex quibus colligi videtur praescientiam meritorum esse causam divina praedestinationis: quae quidem sententia in Pelagio damnata est  after the rising of Pelagius heresy especially, condemned: and the Papists, whom I quoted, that knew it well enough, thought not so probable or likely, as the exposition that I gave. 
h Tho. 1. p. qu. 19 art. 6. ad 1. Dionys. 1. d. 46. qu. 1. sub sin. Dom. ban. in 1. p. qu 19 pag. 544. Soto Maior. in 1. Tim. 2. 4 Magalia. op. Hierarch. ib. annot. 2. pag. 249.  Our adversaries are privy to eight several interpretations at the least, and yet, to this day, they do not consent in any one of them, but one follows this, and another that, as he perceives it will best serve his turn for the present occasion: the chiefest whereof are these. The first, that Christ, as he was man, and by his human will, would that all men should be saved. The second, that God would all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of his truth, in that he makes us to wish and desire this ourselves, by stirring us up to seek and pray for it, because the will that God works in us, is said to be Gods will. This exposition Saint Austin 
i De Civit. l. 22. c. 1. & 2. de corrept. & great. cap. penult.  seems, though something obscurely, to imply. Silvius a professor at Douai now living, 
k Fra. Sylu. explicat. part. 4. art. 1. ad 3.  holdeth him to it. And Dominicus Bannes 
l Dom. ban. ubi sup.  says, it is a most elegant exposition, and very literal. The third is, that such only are meant as are saved, by restraining the universal sign to the elect alone, and meaning that God wils all to be saved that are saved, by the virtue of which will they are saved: as a schoolmaster is said to teach all the children in the town, when he only teaches all that are taught. 
m Aug. ep 107. & Enchirid. c. 103. & de Praedest. c. 8.  Thus Saint Austin expounds it; wherein 
n Sedul. Beda. Haymo. Anselm. in 1. Tim. 2. Magist. d. 46.  others also follow him: and our adversaries 
o Arimin. 1. d. 40. art. 2. Camerac. 1. q. 14. art 1. Durand. 1. d. 46. q. 1 ad 2 Gabr. in Cano. lect 68  use it and allow it. The fourth is, that God by 
* Voluntate signi.  the signification of his will, revealed in his word, would all men to be saved, in as much as he offers to all men, either the doctrine of the Gospel, or some other sign whereby he invites them to salvation. And this exposition denies that there is any will of good pleasure in God, referred and determined to the salvation of all, but only to the means propounded, which of themselves are sufficient and able to lead to salvation, inasmuch as thereby he carries himself like one that hath a purpose to save them. Thus 
p Thom. lect. in 1. Tim. 2. Caietan. ibi. Alexand. bonavent. Marsil. Scot Maio. Dried. quos refert Vasqu. 1. q 19 disp. 83. n. 2.  divers Papists expound it. The fift is, that God would all men to be saved, by saving some in all states and degrees of men, in as much as there is no difference of men, rich or poor, or old, or young, or jews, or Greeks', or Barbarians, wherein God saves not some. Thus Saint Austin 
q August. Enchir. c. 103. & de corrept. & great. c. 14. Fulgent. de incarn c 31 Beda. Sedul. Anselm. ubi supr.  and other Fathers expound it, and divers of our 
r though 1. p. q. 19 art. 6. Gregor. Arim 1. d. 46. qu. 1. Alliac. 1. qu. 14. art. 1. Eman. Sà annot. 1. Tim 2.4.  adversaries. Magalian 
s Op. Hierarch. ubi sup.  says, The purpose of the text favours this sense. And Soto Mayor, 
t Comment. in 1 Tim 2. pag. 273.  Aquinas counted this the best of all the interpretations that are given. And himself affirms it to be true and solid. The sixth is this that we have in hand touching God's antecedent will, that by a true and formal will, it is antecedently his good pleasure, that all men should be saved, 
* Ergo necesse est quod in illo instanti velit indifferenter gloriam ita Juda sicut Petro. Auteol. 1. d. 41. pag. 940. c.  even judas as well as Peter: touching the which antecedent will, as he expounds it, the question is between my adversary and me in this place.  
5 And first he says, that albeit there be 
* And all of them good and true, say the Rhem. ann. 1. Tim. 2.4.  divers expositions of those words given by good Authors, yet this of Damascen and Thomas may also stand: which he faith, because I had 
u THE WAY, pag. 94. in the letter c.  written, that the School distinction of God's antecedent and consequent will, would not salve the matter intended by the text alleged: as if this were the only exposition, allowed and followed by his Thomas. Whereto I answer, that Thomas uses the distinction indeed, and expounds the place of Saint Paul by it; but Soto Maior 
w Vbi sup.  says, that he prefers the fift interpretation before it, or any other; namely, that the will of God here meant, is his good pleasure that is always fulfilled, and that in his elect only chosen out of all sorts and states of people. Which being so, my adversary must be chidden for calling that Thomas his exposition, which Thomas held to be inferior to that which I gave. For, if Soto say the truth, that is and must be deemed Thomas his proper exposition that I gave, because he best liked it. And whether it were Damascens or no, in that fence that my adversary expounds it, may be a problem: as I will show by and by.  
6 Next it must be noted how peremptorily he chargeth me with ignorance, for saying this antecedent will is not SIMPLY, PROPERLY and FORMALLY in God. But he should have considered that when I said so, I spoke in the words of 
x Dur. 1. d. 46. q. 1.  Durand, one of his own side, whom I alleged in the margin: that, if it were false I said, yet the ignorance should not be fathered on me, but on them that begot it. For I said the truth, and himself is ignorant of the doctrine of his own Church. For Thomas 
y 1. p. q. 19 ar. 6. ad 1.  handling this antecedent will, saith, We do not simply will what we will antecedently; and therefore this antecedent will may rather be called a 
* Magis dici potest velleitas quàm absoluta voluntas.  velleity then an absolute will. A velleity, that is to say, as Gregory of Valence expounds him, 
z Comment. in Tho. 1. disp. 1. q. 19 punct. 2.  a certain conditionated will; when that only can be said simply to be willed, that is willed consequently. Where we see that Thomas reduces this antecedent will to an imperfect kind of willing, which he calls a velleity; which is not a simple, proper, or formal will: and the most Schoolmen follow him, upon this ground, because there cannot be a formal will in God, which is not fulfilled, as the salvation of all men is not. Hence it is, 
a Tract. de praedest. lib. 4. c. 2. nu. 2.  saith Suarez, that some have inferred, that this of God whereby he would the salvation of all men, is NO PROPER and FORMAL act of willing in God: because he hath no imperfect act of willing, as they call velleity, but only 
* Voluntatem signi.  a signification of will, which only is METAPHORICAL and INTERPRETATIVE, in that he carries himself towards men, as if he had that act of willing. Thus think Caietan and Marsilius. Others say, the formal and proper will of God, reaches not to the salvation of all men, for that cause because it is not fulfilled, but only to the giving of sufficient means: which will, only to appoint sufficient means, is formal in God, and thereof God is said to will the salvation of all men: and of this mind are many School men. This will of God, 
b In 1. Tho. disp. 83. nu. 22.  saith Vasquez, whereby he would the salvation of all men, even of the reprobate, very many Schoolmen, especially the newer, think to be only a CONDITIONATED will, which they call a velleity: whose act is not absolute and perfect, but under condition. Now the probabler opinion, 
c 1. p. q. 19 ar. 6 concl. 2. comm.  saith Dominicus Bannes, is, that there is FORMALLY no will in God, which is signified by the name of velleity. Whence it follows, that since by the doctrine of Thomas, and many others, this Antecedent will is but a velleity, it cannot be formally in God. But to take down this raw student yet a little more, Soto Maior 
d Soto Maio. in Tim ubi sup. pag. 274.  saith: This word, God will the salvation of all men, by the good leave of so many ancient Authors, we will not only expound of will PROPERLY so called, which is God's good pleasure, but of his antecedent will; that is to say, an IMAGINARY and METAPHORICAL will: according to the which, it is no inconvenience to say, God will have all men to be saved: of which antecedent will, or will IMPROPERLY so called, Damascen speaks. And 
e Pag. 276.  again: Damascens antecedent will, is but a GENERAL, METAPHORICAL and IMPROPER will, which they call a velleity. Here you see that Damascen and Thomas his antecedent will, is but a velleity, and this velleity is no will simply or formally in God; and therefore I spoke not ignorantly, but after the mind of the best School men that writ, when I said, out of Durand, that this antecedent will is not simply, properly and formally the will of God; but knew well enough what I said: and such as hold the contrary, that this antecedent will, whereby God is said to will the salvation of all men, is simply, properly or formally the will of God, 
f Opus est fateri non omnem voluntatem Beneplaciti semper impleri. Magal. in Tim. pag. 252.  are driven to hold a paradox, that God's absolute will, which is defined to be the will of his good pleasure, may be defeated, and not accomplished: which is a desperate shift, and contrary to the doctrine of 
g Tho. 1. p. q. 19 art. 6. Magist. 1. d. 46. ibi Scot Occam. Dionys. Capreol. d. 45. q. vnic. art. 2. concls. 5. Caiet. in 1. Tim. 2.4. Dom. Ban. 1. p. q. 19 art. 6. concl. 2. in sum. text. Perer. select. disp. in joh 1. nu. 73.  the best ancient Divines in the Church of Rome; and directly against the Scripture, which saith, 
h Psal. 135.6.  Our God hath done whatsoever pleased him in heaven and earth: 
i Rom. 9.19.  Who hath resisted his will? 
k Eph. 1.11.  who worketh all things according to the counsel of his own will.  
7 Thirdly, he saith, that in our ignorance possible we understand not this distinction of God's antecedent and consequent will; and that is the cause why we mislike the exposition of Saint Paul's words thereby: which may be true; and himself also as ignorant therein as we. For, be it spoken in good time, Ludovicus vives, a man of his own side, hath 
l In August. de civit. lib. 22. c. 1.  observed, that the late Divines of the Church of Rome, either to solve, or cut asunder things objected against them, have found out so many wills, of Good pleasure, of Signification, Antecedent, Consequent, of simple Complacency or Displicencie; that it were to be wished they would better explain what they say, in words suited to common sense, and not with these absurd novelties of words seek for admiration. Nevertheless because my adversary is so peremptory in charging us with ignorance, that we understand it not; and so confident of his own exposition, that any judicious wit, by the very sound of words, must needs grant it to be a good and a true exposition: let the trial hereof proceed between us, and let it be observed, whether my confident jesuite, with his wit so judicious, hath hit the bird in the eye.  
8 The question therefore is, whether we understand the distinction of God's antecedent and consequent will, touching the salvation of all men, right; because we mislike the exposition of Saint Paul's text made thereby; or rather, whether himself have given the true exposition thereof? For the deciding whereof, note first, that 
m Capreol. 1. d. 45. qu. vnic. art. 2. concls. 4. Molin. concor. qu. 19 art. 6. disp. 1. Vasquez 1 p. disp. 83. c. 3. Rispol. de praedifin lib. 1. q. 1. dub. 2.  the Schoolmen, who are the principal Divines that have been in the Church of Rome, and labour most to fit it to the text, yet differ, and are contrary one to another in expounding it. Ariminensis 
n 1. d. 46. qu. vnic. ad 1.  says, This distinction is understood by some one way, and by some another. Gregory of Valence 
o Tom. 1. disp. 1 q. 19 punct. 2.  says, All Divines do not declare, after one manner, what is to be understood by the names of Antecedent and Consequent will, but they expound it diversly. It is therefore an obscure and perplexed distinction conceived in divers senses, that on our part, the matter were not great, whether we understood it or no: but on our adversaries part it is ridiculous to tell us we understand it not, when they understand it not themselves, and to expound the Scripture by it, when all Scripture should be expounded in words plain and manifest. Note secondly, that Damascen, 
p Can. loc. lib. 11. c. 2. Suar. 3. p. to. 2. Suar. 3. p. to. 2. disp. 43 sect. 3. Baron. because some make him elder by almost 400 years.  who lived 750 years after Christ, was the first that ever expounded Gods will to save all men, in these terms. Capreolus 
q Capreol. ubi sup.  says, he brought in this distinction. And 
r Valentian. ubi sup.  Gregory of Valence, He seems to be the first that thus distinguished the will of God. Damascens words be these: 
s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. de orthod. fid. l. 2. c. 29.  We must know that God ANTECEDENTLY will have all men to be saved, and obtain his kingdom: for he made us not to punish us, but to partake his goodness, as one that is good: but such as sin, he will punish as one that is just. The first therefore is called his ANTECEDENT will and GOOD PLEASURE; but the latter, his CONSEQVENT will and PERMISSION, arising because of us. And this Permission again is twofold: the one dispensatory and correctory to salvation; the other condemnatory to final judgement. Again: 
t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Dialog. de Manich. prope fin.  Albeit God will condemn, yet this he doth not according to his ANTECEDENT will, but his CONSEQVENT. That is an ANTECEDENT will, which a man's wills of himself; and that is a CONSEQVENT will, which arises from the cause of the things that are done. For God ANTECEDENTLY of himself, wils that all men should be saved, and come to the knowledge of his truth; but when we sin, he will punish us so much as he sees expedient. And thus God's ANTECEDENT will is of his goodness, and his CONSEQVENT will of his justice. These are the words of Damascen, expounding the manner how God will have all men to be saved, wherein he seems to affirm five things touching the antecedent and consequent will of God. First that his Antecedent will is that whereby he wils a thing simply of himself, of his own goodness and nature, not moved thereunto by any thing in the creature, out of himself. As when he wils the good and salvation of the elect. His consequent will is that, when he wils according to the disposition, and nature or circumstances of the creature, as it deserves for the manifestation of his justice: as when he wils the punishment of him that sins, because in justice sin deserves punishment. Secondly, that God's consequent will follows upon the condition of the creature, and upon some cause therein going before: in which regard it is called consequent; that is a will ensuing after: as when he wils the punishment of man, after that man hath sinned against him. Thirdly, that the antecedent will of God, is his good pleasure, whereby he takes delight in that he wils: but his consequent will, is his permission, suffering judgement to be inflicted on them that sin. Fourthly, that by this antecedent will, God would all men to be saved, and come to his kingdom; and by his consequent will, such to be punished as sin against him. Fiftly, that God by his antecedent will, decrees only good things, according to his goodness: and by his consequent will, only evil things, according to his justice, in that he made no man to punish him, but to participate his goodness. From this sense of Damascen thus explicated, I gather three things that ensue upon it. First, that by Damascens judgement, the first root of election should be foreseen merits; and the first root of reprobation should be the foresight of the reprobates sin: because none is either saved or refused, but by a consequent will; which will arises in God, from the cause in the creature. Secondly I gather, that what God wils not simply of himself, without the condition of the creature, he wils not antecedently but consequently, because all God's antecedent will, is simple and independent: whereupon it 
o Hence it manifestly appears that this Antecedent will in God, is no Formal will, because it works nothing.  follows, that albeit God by his antecedent will, would all men to be saved; yet no man is saved by it, forasmuch as all men are saved consequently upon the condition of their works. Thirdly I gather, that God willing to save all, by his antecedent will; and yet, de facto, saving none but by his consequent will, arising from that which he sees or foresees in the creature, it follows that the distinction of wills antecdent and consequent, is not real, because according to the one of them, God works nothing. And this touching Damascens own exposition.  
8 Others expound the antecedent will, to be upon the first consideration of a thing; and the consequent, upon the latter consideration, thus: as God considers man absolutely, abstracting from every thing that circumstantially belongs unto him, and representing him to himself only as a creature; he wils his good and salvation antecedently. But considering him again, not only according to his nature, but also as he is a sinner, or a just man, so he wils his salvation or damnation consequently, according to that he finds in him. 
u Tho. 1. p. q. 1● art. 6. ad 1.  Thus Aquinas expresses the distinction, out of the Metaphysics: 
w As Gregor. Arimin. shows at large. ●. 46. q. vnic. ad 3.  clean contrary to Damascens: yea 
x Pag. 306. e. in 1. part Tho.  says Gregory of Valence, There is a manifest difference between this exposition of Thomas, and the former of Damascen. And this appears sufficiently of itself: which must be noted against my adversary, because he joins Thomas and Damascen in a distinction, wherein they are so far from agreeing, that they are contrary: and when he hath done, talks of our ignorance, and not understanding.  
9 A third exposition, is that which I noted in the margin of my 
y THE WAY, p. 94. s.  book, that God's antecedent will, is when he supplies mankind with all such helps and means, whether of nature or grace, as are sufficient to bring him to salvation. But his consequent will, is when he makes these means, not only sufficient, but effectual also, and thereupon, according to the merit of our works, confers salvation: and so he wils the salvation of all, antecedently, by giving them the means; and by consequence, when he works effectually that which men deserve. This exposition, as it is the best, so is it the commonest, 
a Occh. 1. d. 46. q. 1. Camerac. q. 14. art. 1. Bonau. d. 47. q. 1. Dionys. d. 46. q. 1. Dur. d. 47. q. 1. Clicton. in Damasc. orth. fid. l. 2. c. 29.  and most used, and in Gregory's opinion the fittest: but it differs really from the two former, and falls in with the fourth interpretation of Saint Paul's words 
b Before, n. 4.  mentioned, whereby God is said to will the salvation of all men, only voluntate signi, and no further: and how my adversary will like it. I know not: but whether he do or no, he may blush to see himself and his doctors thus using Damascens words, and yet retaining so little of his meaning. The which trick if our adversaries would lay by, and as they use the same terms and words of the Doctors, so all of them, in the magnified unity, would retain the same sense and definition of the words, we should have shorter work with them, and the ignorant should not be so deluded with colourable show of antiquity, as they are.   

Pag. 146.  A. D. Let us therefore imagine, that there were an earthly Emperor, or King, who of his own nature were most mild and gracious; and who of his own gracious and good disposition towards his subjects, did desire with a true inward primary or antecedent will, that every subject he hath, might live in all happiness; and yet this notwithstanding, moved with the consideration of the offences of his subjects, should determine with a secondary and consequent will, to execute justice, by taking away life from some of them. In this case it might truly be said, that the King would have all his subjects live; the true and proper meaning of which saying, were, that the King of his own part had a will (to wit, an antecedent will) to save every subject from death, although by a consequent will, occasioned by the offences of his subjects, he decreed to put some to death. The which his antecedent will, were formally and properly the Kings will, as well as the consequent. And although in one sense, this antecedent were not simply his will, that is his final absolute resolution, as the consequent will is, yet in another sense, it were simply his will, that is, that will which simply and only proceedeth from the Kings own natural inclination: in which sense, the will consequent were not to be accounted simply the Kings will, in regard it proceedeth not only and simply out of his own natural inclination, but was in a manner contrary to his inclination, enforced or occasioned by the ill desert of his subjects. Now as all this is true in such an earthly prince as I have described, so in a proportionable manner it is as much or more true in God, who is not only most mild, gracious and good, but infinite goodness itself, whose natural good disposition, far more inclineth him to desire the salvation of all souls, than any earthly King can by his mild and gracious disposition desire the life and happiness of all his subjects; and consequently like as that gracious King, which I have described, hath a true inward primary or antecedent will, proceeding from his own only good disposition, by which he desireth that all his subjects should live, notwithstanding he have also a secondary or consequent will, occasioned by the offences of his subjects, by which he determineth to put some to death: even so God hath a true inward primary or antecedent will, proceeding from the natural inclination of his own divine goodness, by which he desireth that all should be saved, notwithstanding that he hath also, according to our manner of understanding, a secondary and consequent will to condemn some, whereunto he is moved by the just desert of men's sins. And as it may be truly said of that King, that he would have all his subjects live, the true and proper meaning of which words is, that he hath such a true inward primary or antecedent will, which is properly, formally, and in some sense simply the Kings will, so it may be and is truly said of God, that he would have all men be saved: the true and proper meaning of which words is, that God hath a true inward primary or antecedent will, whereby he desireth of his own part to save all men, which will is properly, formally, and in some sense, simply the will of God. 
10 Hitherto I have only stood to show how uncertain and variable our adversaries in the Church of Rome are in expounding the distinction of God's antecedent and consequent will; and that it is true I said, this antecedent will is not simply, properly and formally the will of God: which being so, the place of Saint Paul cannot be expounded by that distinction. My adversary therefore proceeds, by an example, to show both what this antecedent will in his opinion is, and how thereby God may be truly said to will all men to be saved, even by a formal and proper wil The sum is this, that like as a King, out of the graciousness and good disposition of his nature toward his subjects, desires to have them all, and every one of them live happily: and yet moved with their offences against his laws, determines to put some of them to death ● so God, of his natural goodness inclines to the salvation of all (much more than any King can desire the life of his subjects) notwithstanding he be determined to condemn some for the just desert of their sins. In which case, the King's will to save the life of his subjects, were a true antecedent will: and though it were not his final resolution, yet were it formally and properly the Kings will and his determination; notwithstanding, to put such to death as break his laws, were his consequent will, whereto he were not naturally inclined, but occasioned by the ill deserts of his subjects: so is it in God, whose desire that all men should be saved, arising from his own goodness, is his primary and antecedent will, which is properly, formally, and in some sense simply his will: but his purpose to condemn some, arising from his justice against such as deserve it by their sins, is his secondary and consequent will, not proceeding out of his own natural inclination, but the ill desert of the wicked. In which example, he makes the order of God's predestination, and willing men, some to be saved, some to be condemned, to be this: that God in the first instant of his counsel, propounded equally to himself jacob and Esau, the elect and the reprobate, and loved the one no more than the other, but had an equal will indifferently to save them both; this is his antecedent will. In the second instant, he wils and purposes to save him of the two, that shall in his life time well deserve it, and to damn him of the two that shall sin: this is his consequent will. In neither of these two instances doth he yet make any discretion between jacob and Esau, by either electing the one, or refusing the other: but only hath an intention and formal will to save him that shall deserve it. In the third instant, he decrees and wills to give them both, though not equal, yet sufficient means of salvation, and helps of grace, whereby Esau may as well come to salvation as jacob: and this not only in Adam, but also in themselves considered in the state of sin. In the fourth instant, he decrees to leave them both to the liberty and free choice of their own will, to use these means of salvation, or not to use them, jacob as well as Esau, the elect as well as the reprobate. In the fift instant, he foresees jacob will use the means, and live and die well, but Esau will not. Hereupon in the last instant, by his consequent will, arising from the foresight of their good and ill deserts, in his eternal counsel he pronounces the decree of election to jacob, and of reprobation to Esau. This, as near as I can understand, is and must consequently be the contents of his example; which he also sets down more fully 
* Pag. 163. & inde.  in the sixth section against Caluin. And I presume I have truly expressed his mind, because I find 
a Enchirid. pag 77.  his Becanus, whom he follows, and 
b Hack. disp. de praed n. 119 Lesle. de praed. sect. 6.  others that hold predestination to be ex praevisis, to deliver it in the same manner. Lessius a jesuite, among the rest, hath one 
c 5. assert. pag 367. n. 75.  assertion, that contains all this: All the justified are elected and predestinate to glory; but this election and predestination is not complete, but requires a condition on our behalf, that it may be complete: the which condition it is in our own power to accomplish or not to accomplish: and therefore it is also in our own power to make that our predestination may be complete. Aureolus 
d 1. d. 41. art. 1. pag. 490. edit. Rom.  says, that all School men (which hold predestination ex praevisis) expound that God wils all men to be saved antecedently before their working, but not consequently, by his will following the foresight of their works. Which words make the doctrine of God's antecedent and consequent will thus expounded, to set the first act of Gods loving jacob after the foresight of jacobs' good life; and to make the foresight of men's good or ill deserts, to be the cause of their election and reprobation. The question then, between the jesuite and me, touching predestination, 
The state of the question touching God's Antecedent will.  is this, not whether God from all eternity decreed to punish the reprobate eternally for their sins, so that their sins should be the immediate cause of their damnation: for this I deny not: but the true state is touching the CAUSE OF THE DECREE ITSELF; that is to say, what is the cause why God foreseeing that all men should equally in Adam be sinners, yet notwithstanding decreed to show his mercy in forgiving some, & electing them to life, and to show his justice and wrath in other some, by rejecting them from this election, & forsaking them in their sins, that they might eternally be condemned? I say, there can no other cause of this decree be assigned, then only the free will of God: whereas the jesuite in his doctrine of antecedent and consequent will, exemplified in this his comparison of an earthly King, makes the reason of this decree to be works foreseen: so that on the behalf of the elect, their foreseen grace should be the cause of their election; and on the behalf of the reprobate, their foreseen sin should be the cause of their rejection.  
11 The which doctrine of my adversary, how plain soever he think it to judicious wits, (whether predestination were in the corrupted mass of sin or before, and whether the foreseen works be understood to be of grace or of nature) is false upon five grounds. First it seems to be the very opinion of the Massilians, who of all hands are holden to have been semipelagians, or the relics of Pelagius. Prosper 
e Epist. ad August.  says, This is their profession, that every man sinned in Adam, and that no man is regenerate to salvation by his works, but by the grace of God: nevertheless the propitiation which is in the mystery of Christ's blood, is propounded to all men without exception, that whosoever will come to faith and baptism, may be saved: but who would believe, and who would persevere in that faith, which afterward should be helped by God's grace, those God foreknew before the world was made, and those he predestinate unto his kingdom, who he foresaw, being freely called would be worthy of election, and would departed this life well. And Faustus, that was a Bishop of that sect, 
f De great. & lib arb. l. 2. c. 2.  says, What God may foresee or foreordain touching us, concerning that which is to come, that consists in our well or ill doing. 
g Cap. 3. pag. 833.  It is one thing for God to foreknow, and another to predestinate: prescience foresees what is to be done, and then afterwards predestination appoints the rewards; that foresees the merits, this fore-ordaines the rewards: when that hath pronounced a cause, than this foretells the sentence; and so unless God's prescience discover something, his predestination decrees nothing. This is the self same that my adversary 
h Pag. 166.  writes, how God upon the foresight and respect of men's living and dying well, in the secret chamber of his divine knowledge and will, pronounces a particular sentence and decree of salvation to some, and of damnation to others. Which also is the doctrine whereinto this exposition of God's antecedent and consequent will is resolved. Again, if God predestinate no man to his end, but upon the foresight and respect of his works, than he hath no perfect or formal will to elect any, but after the foresight of his good life; nor to reprobate any, but after the foresight of his evil life: which being so, I demand whence it comes that the elect believe, and the reprobate believe not; and how it comes to pass, that God foresees grace in the one, and sin in the other? It must needs be answered, either that it is Gods will the elect shall have grace, and the reprobate no grace given them; or that they believe, or not believe, of their own free will, by the strength of nature, without any working of God. This latter is gross Pelagianisme, making nature the beginning of grace. But if the former be granted, that God foresees no grace but what himself predestinates to give; nor no sin but what upon the withholding of his grace, the reprobate will freely work; then, against all discourse, this makes that the cause of predestination, which is an effect ensuing on it: for therefore God will and doth give grace, because first he hath elected; and will give no grace, because he hath reprobated, as I will show by and by.  
12 Secondly, it is a ground both in Divinity and nature, that the will intends the end before the means: hence it follows, that God cannot have this consequent will, to save upon the foresight of grace. For I reason thus: 
* Quia volens ordinatè finem & ea quae sunt ad finem, prius vult finem quam aliquod entium ad finem; & propter talem finem alia vult. Ergo cum in toto process, quo creatura beat●ficabilis perducitur ad perfectum finem, cum finis ultimus sit beatitudo perfecta; Deus volens huic aliquid istius ordinis, PRIMO WLT HVIC CREATURAE BEATIFICABILI FINEM; ET QVASI POSTERIVS WLT SIBI ALIA QVAE SUNT IN ORDINE ILLORVM QVAE PERTINENT AD FINEM: scilicet Gratia, Fides, Meritum, & bonus usus liberi arbitrij. Omnia ista ad istum finem sunt ordinata, licet quaedam remotiùs & quaedam propinquiùs. Ergo PRIMO ISTI WLT DEVE BEATITUDINEM QVAM ALIQVID ISTORUM; ET PRIUS WLT ●I QVODCUNQVE ISTORUM, QVAM PRAEVIDEAT IPSUM HABITURUM quodcunque istorum. Jgitur PROPTER NULLUM ISTORVM PRAEVISUM WLT EI BEATITUDINEM. Scot 1. d. 4. qu vnic. §. Potest aliter. Media, ut media, non possunt appeti nisi propter finem, non igitur potuit Deus velle dare certi● hominibus media infallibilia ad salutem nisi prius dare vellet, ijsdem hominibus, ipsam, salutem. Bellarm. de great. & lib. arbi●. l 2. c. 15. pag. 472 D.  In the order of reason and causality, the will of the end goes before the will of the means that brings to the end, in that the means are not intended but for a certain end, and so the said end is entered the will, and propounded by it, before the means: But Gods will to elect men to glory, is his will of the end, because glory is the end of faith and a good life; and faith and a good life, are the means, because they bring to glory: 
o Deus nulli electorum ab aeterno ideo ordinavit dare finalem beatitudinem in patria, quia praeordinavit dare ei gratiam & justitiam in via; sed potiùs è converso, ideo praeordinavit ab aeterno dare ei graetiam pro via, quia gratis pure praedestinavit ei dare finalem beatitudinem pro patriae. Andrae. Castrens. 1. d. 40. concls. 5. Deus prius vult glorium Petro, deinde gratiam, etc. Fra. Mayro. 1. d. 41. qu. 4. §. Hoc autem declare.  Therefore Gods will to elect men to glory, goes before his will to give them faith and grace; therefore he elects not after or upon the foresight of faith and grace: therefore before he see faith or grace in jacob, which he will give him, he purposes to give him life eternal: therefore he purposes to give faith and grace after his will to give him eternal life: and therefore he elects no man consequently upon the foresight of his faith and good life; nor antecedently wills the salvation of the reprobate, from whom by his eternal purpose he decreed as the means, to withhold his grace.  
13 Thirdly, this antecedent and consequent will supposes, that God elects none to glory, but for the grace and perseverance he foresees in him; nor reprobates, or refuses any from glory, but for the sins he foresees in him. Thus my Adversary says: 
i Pag. 163.  We must hold for certain, God did not effectually ordain any to salvation or damnation without foresight of their good or ill desert. 
k Pag. 164.  God hath decreed in general that all and only those, shall be effectually saved, who, by using the means of salvation, and helps of grace shall departed this life in good state: and that those, and only those, shall be damned, who, by neglecting grace, depart this life in the state of sin. 
l Pag. 165.  Leaving it to the liberty and free choice of men, whether they will use, or not use those helps and means. And so upon this foresight and respect of men's living and dying well or ill, pronounces the sentence of salvation and damnation. Against this I reason thus. He that neither elects nor reprobates any, upon the foresight of their good or ill using of grace and means offered, by their own free-will; hath no such antecedent will to save all, nor consequent will, to reprobate any, only upon the foresight of their sin: This is plain: because this antecedent and consequent will is defined by willing and not willing, upon foresight of that which man, by his free-will, will do▪ and if the definition be not in God, than neither is the thing defined. But God neither elects nor reprobates any, upon the foresight of their good or ill using of grace and means offered, by their own free-will. Ergo God hath no such antecedent will to save all, nor consequent will to reprobate any upon the condition of their works; The second proposition I prove by reason and authority. By reason: for whatsoever he foresaw in any, that himself purposed to work. If he foresaw grace and the good use of free-will in jacob, he purposed to work it by infusing it: if he foresaw sin and the ill use of free-will in Esaw, he purposed 
m Rom. 9.18. Habemus ex doctrina Thomae, quod divina reprobatio est CAUSA de relictionis in peccato, & aeternae poenae. ban. 1. p. pag. 665. e.  to work it by withholding grace and hardening: and he not only purposed to work this which he foresaw, but to work and effect it as the means, and as a subordinate second cause, to bring man to the end appointed. For grace, free-will, perseverance, and the rest are but causes leading to the end, and therefore 
n Inter primam causam agentem & secundam, est ordo, quo una necessario pendet ab altera. Ergo secunda non agit nisi à prima, ad agendum, mota & applicata— ideo enim dici videtur causa secunda, quia movetur à prima: alioqui enim solùm esset causa eum prima. Azo instit. moral. tom. 1. l. 1. cap. 21 ad 8.  secondary and subordinate causes: and therefore decreed and intended after the end, and less principally than the end. The 
o Suar. latè de praedest. lib. 3. c. 2. & inde. Q●ic. quid est in homine ordinans ipsam in salutem, TOTUM comprehenditur sub effectu praedestinationis. Capreol. 1. d. 41. art. 1. Fra. Mayron. cue 4. D Thom●s, ut Catholicus & in doctrina Augustini & conciliorum valde versatus, considerate bonum usum liberi arbitrij, quo quis liberè uti ur auxilio Dei, tanquam effectum gratiae divinae & praedestinationis praeordinatum & praedefinitum à Deo. unde colligit necessario, quod ille bonus usus non potest esse ratio praedestinationis, cum ipsemet sit effectus praedestinationis & praedefinitionis. Dei. ban. 1. pag. 632. e.  jesuits confess, not only glory in the life to come, but the first grace, and justification, and all supernatural works, and the cooperation of free-will, and all the goodness and strength of nature, and perseverance in this life, to be the effects of predestination, intended and effectually given of God to the elect for the bringing of them to glory. This glory therefore could not be intended upon the foresight of them, but by the means of them: and therefore jacob could not be elected, nor Esaw reprobated upon the foresight of the good and ill use of grace and free-will, as any cause moving God thereunto: but the cause must be his own will moving itself in manner unknown to us: and jacobs' well using grace was the means intended by God to bring him to salvation; and Esawes wickedness, which God decreed to permit, was the means intended by him to bring him to the condemnation whereunto the mass of sin would lead. Secondly, that neither election nor reprobation, specially negative (which alone contains the whole reason of reprobation: 
q Odio habere non sonat solum privationem dilectionis, sed significat velle malum. Caieta. comm. in Rom. 9.13.  or his purpose not to save or elect Esaw (which is negative reprobation) puts him into the state that he must be damned) is upon the foresight of works, or upon the condition of man's will: is the constant judgement of the most of our adversaries. I will not ground this authority upon the Scripture, or 
r See his last chap. de praedest. & great. Ambrose Catharinus vehementer in eos invohitur, qui dicunt Deum, ex se aliquos reprobare & excludere à vita aeterna: non quidem propter eorum praevisa mala opera, sed quia ipse vult non dare illis vitam eternam. Et hanc opinionem vocat ipse durissimam & intolerabilem, & causam desperationis hominum, & impiam, eamque assignat ipse Luthero; CUMEA TAMEN SIT IPSISSIMA B. AUGUSTINI SENTENTIA. Peter. select. disp. in Rom. 9 n. 31. And that the judgement of S. Austin is, that neither election nor reprobation is for works foreseen, is affirmed by Grego. Arimin. d. 40. Dom. ban. 1. p. q. 23. art. 5. Sixt. Senens. biblioth. l. 6. annot 251. Tolet. in Rom. 11. annot. 4 Suar. opusc. de auxil. l. 3. c. 16. & 17. & tract. de divin. praedest. l. 1. c. 8. pag. 179. Zumel. var. disp. part. 3. pag. 358.  S. Austin, because I intent no solemn discourse about the question: and have to do with an adversary, whose arrogancy 
p Rom 9 11. & 11.33. Eph. 1 11.  and ignorance is fittest to be buffeted with the authority of his own side: but I will make it appear, that going about to confute Caluine, and expound his antecedent will, he is fallen into that gross opinion about predestination that scarce any of his own Doctors hold. That predestination therefore to eternal life was, according to the doctrine of Caluine, without and before the foresight of works, so that it was made without any respect of them, so freely and in that manner, that grace, and good works, rather are effects of it, is affirmed by divers of the principal School Doctors, in the Church of Rome. Gregorius Ariminensis, and after him the Cardinal of Cambray, lay down 
r Arim. 1. pag. 163. Camerac. 1. pag. 175.  their judgement in five propositions; the first: No man is predestinated for the good use of his free-will, which God knew he would have: howsoever the goodness thereof be considered. The second: No man is predestinated for that he was foreordained to persevere in habitual grace, without let to the end. The third: Whomsoever God predestinated, he predestinated only freely, and of mercy. The fourth: No man is reprobated for the evil use of his free-will, that God foresaw he would have. The fift: No man is reprobated because it was foreseen that he would finally hinder grace. Andrea's Castrensis 
s Andrae. Castrens. 1. d. 40. pag. 179. & inde  sets down five conclusions. The first: God from eternity never predestinated to give to any justifying grace that should make him worthy eternal life, because he foresaw any merit of theirs to come, whereby they should either of condignity or congruity merit that grace. The second: God from all eternity foreordained to give grace and charity to some in time, not therefore because he foresaw they would use that grace well. The third: God from all eternity predestinated to give every one of the elect, some grace and supernatural benefit, of his mere free goodness, and not because he foresaw any merit of that man, whereupon he should either condignily, or of congruity merit the gift. The fourth: God from all eternity predestinated none of the elect because he foresaw his good works or merits: nor for his good works to come, or merits foreseen. The fift: God from all eternity ordained to give eternal life to none of the elect, because HE FOREORDAINED TO GIVE HIM GRACE., CHARITY, AND JUSTICE IN THIS LIFE: BUT CONTRARY; therefore he foreordained from all eternity, to give him grace in this life, because he freely and purely predestinated to give him eternal life. Dominicus Bannes 
t Dom. ban. 1. p. q. 23. art. 5. ● Pag. 634. b.  lays down divers conclusions, but five to this matter. 1. There can none cause be assigned not only of the act of God's predestination, but neither any reason or motive on the behalf of the creature, 
2 Pag. 6 32. b.  or of God himself. 2. It cannot be said that merits preexisting in this life, are the reason or cause of the effect of predestination. 
3 Ibid. d.  3. It cannot be said that merits following the effect of predestination are the reason of predestination; the meaning is: that therefore God should be understood to give any man grace, or predestinate to give him grace, because he foresaw he would use that grace well, 
4 Pag. 650. b.  4. No cause of predestination is given on our behalf. 
5 Pag. 664. c. cum 665. a.  5. It is the opinion of Thomas, that, speaking simply, there is NO CAUSE OR REASON OF REPROBATION ASSIGNED ON THE PART OF THE REPROBATE, AS NO CAUSE OR REASON OF ELETION IS ASSIGNED ON THE PART OF THE ELECT: and the sense is, not speaking comparatively, why he should reprobate Esau rather than jacob, but absolutely considering the reprobate themselves, THERE CAN NO CAUSE BE ASSIGNED ON THEIR OWN PART OF THEIR REPROBATION. AND THIS IS THOMAS HIS MEANING, and this is proved, etc. Capreolus shows his own and Aquinas his judgement in 7. conclusions, 
u Capreol. 1. d. 41. q. vnic.  whereof the first is. Neither merits nor demerits are the cause of predestination on the part of the act of him that predestinateth. The fourth is. The merits, which follow the effect of predestination, are not the cause of the effect of predestination in that manner that some say, that God therefore gives a man grace, and predestinated to give it him because he foresaw he would use it well, as when the King gives a horse to him that he foreknows will use him well. The fift. Though some particular effect of predestination have cause on our behalf, yet the total effect of predestination in common, hath no cause on our behalf. The sixth. The goodness of God is the cause of the total effect of predestination. The seventh. The reason of the election of some, and reprobation of other some, is taken out of the goodness of God, whose divine will alone is the reason why he reprobates these and elects them. 
* A●t. 2. arg 2.  There is no cause in special why this man is reprobated and that man elected, but the simple will of God. These conclusions of Cameracensis, Andreas Castrensis, Bannes, and Capreolus, are extracted out of 
x 1 d. 41. qu. 1. & 1. p. q. 23. art. 2. 3 4. 5. & cont. Gent. l. 3. c. 1 61. & Lect. in Ro. 9  Aquine, & followed for substance 
y Magist. 1. d. 40. & 41. Altisiod. sum. l 1. c. 9 〈◊〉. 1. & 2. Scot 1. d. 41. q. 1. Mayron. ibi. qu. 4. art. 1 Maisil. art. 2. Concls 4. Duran qu. 2. Egid. qu. 1. art. 2. Dionys. qu. 2. Maior. d. 40. qu. 2. Ferrat. contr. Gent. l. 3. c 61. §. pro solutione Gerson. consol. Theol. l. 1. pros. 3. Soto in Rom. 9 tract. de Praedestinat. Caietan. 1 p. qu. 23. art. 3. & in Rom. 9 whereof all are clear for election and many also for reprobation.  by the best & ancient Schoolmen that I have looked into; so that if the matter were to be carried by number and voices, Caluines' doctrine, 
z Reported by the Reply pag. 151.  That God hath predestinated without any merit or demerit of their parts that are predestinated, only because it so pleased him, must be acknowledged the truth, and my adversaries doctrine transcribed and stolen out of Becanus a dozen leaves together, must be awarded to contain 
a The poison of the most pestilent opinion which Caluine holdeth. A.D. pag. 145.  the poison and the pestilence. The jesuits also and modern Divines of latter time in the Church of Rome, follow the same conclusions, and maintain them, though I do not deny that some, by virtue of the unity, always found in the Church of Rome, descent from them. Henriquez a jesuite touching election, 
b Sum. de fin. hom. cap. 11. n. 3.  says: The true and common opinion of the Divines, supposes no motive cause or condition, no man's behalf, foreseen of God why he should, by the immutable will of God, be loved and predestinated to eternal life, and to all the effectual means thereof, but all men that shall effectually be saved, are freely chosen out of the mass of corruption, and predestinate for the merit of Christ, before the prevision of the course of their life, and their use of reason, and so consequently before the prevision of their perseverance in grace, or any free work, worthy reward and love, and the whole reason is, the free will of God. Touching reprobation he holds otherwise. Bellarmine, 
c De Grat l. 2, c. 9  says: there can no reason of our part be given of God's predestination— I say there can no reason be assigned, to exclude not only merits properly so called, but also the good use of free-will, or grace foreseen.— 
d Cap. 15. ad 4.  God reprobates before the foresight of works, in as much as he will not deliver the party reprobated out of the mass of sin. 
e Cap. 16. prop. 9  Reprobation which S. Austin calls, Predestination to death, comprehends two acts: the one Negative (whereby God will not save them) whereof there is no cause on the part of men. The other positive (whereby he will damn them) the cause whereof is the prevision of sin— 
f Dried concord. part. 1. c 3. Sixt. Sen. l. 6. ann. 251. Pomponat. de praedest. pag. 955. Tolet. in Ro 9 ann. 19 & 26. etc. 11. ann. 4. Peter. select. disp. in Rom. 9 disp. 5 Suar. de praedest. l. 1. c 8. n. 32. & l. 2. c 23. nu. 14. 20. 27. Peasant. 1. p. qu. 23. art. 5. disp. 6. & p. 157. concls. 4. Zumel. disput. w. part. 3. pag. 343 345. 346. Rispol. lib. 1. qu. 1. concls 3.  the same is affirmed by oaths: & though the most of them hold (which I deny not) that predestination is in the mass of sin, and reprobation positive, which only is God's purpose to punish the reprobate, is to punish them for works foreseen, yet that helps not my adversaries opinion, who affirms predestination in what state soever it were, to be ex praevisis; and says that not only positive reprobation, which is no more but God's purpose to damn and to execute that which is called negative reprobation, but election itself is for the prevision of works done by our own free will; which the works even of the corrupt mass are not, but are done by Adam's will, which all these confute. Vasquez 
g Vasqu. 1 p. disp. 95. n 2. the same thing affirmed by Suar. de praedest l. 5. c. 3. n. 1.  says: There be not a few Thomists that affirm, God to have kept the same order in reprobation, that he did in election, that before any foresight of their sins, of his own will alone, he decreed to exclude some from the kingdom of heaven, though he did not ordain them to the punishment of sense; and than that such as he would exclude, he permitted to fall into sin, with that intent that he might exclude them from the kingdom of heaven, as he had decreed, in such sort, as he calls effectually after election to glory. And Cardinal Tolet, speaking of reprobation, seems 
h In Rom. 9 annot. 26. pag. 428.  to say the same thing, that our adversaries so much object to M. Caluine, that by the right of the dominion and power, which God hath over man and every creature, God may without any injustice do and exercise whatsoever it pleaseth him, be it good or evil: for if a man, that is lord but of a little wood or stone, may, of the said wood or stone, make what he list, either a vile and base, or an honourable work, or burn it; much more may God do the same thing, whose dominion is full and absolute: and hereupon he concludes, that if it were so, that no man can resist God's will, but he hardens whom he will, yet we might not plead with him, because all men are unto God as the clay to the potter, and so he may, by his good right, inflict his punishments, & show his wrath and power according to his own will. I have been something curious in alleging, or citing, these authors, because I would make it manifest, that never a one of my adversaries assertions, either that God elected to salvation upon foresight of grace and good works; or left it to man's own will, whether he would use the means offered well or ill; or that the reprobate are rejected from election and salvation, for their sin foreseen, or that the means of salvation are given alike to all, is the doctrine of the Church of Rome; but these assertions proceed from the ignorance and rashness of a few therein, that care not what they say, so they may be barking against Caluine. And albeit many of these Authors hold all predestination to be in the mass of sin, yet for so much as out of the mass, God first 
i Reprobat Deus ante praevisionem operum, quatenus non vult aliquen ex massa peccati liberare. Bellar. de great. & lib. arb. l. 2. c 15. quarta object. p. 474.  freely; and then determinately; and lastly, absolutely, elects whom he will; hence it will follow necessarily, that this foresight of the good and ill use of free-will, and this consequent will, to save and refuse, upon the prevision of after works, can have no place: because God once for all, in a corrupted mass, makes his decree absolute, upon the state of sin, wherein he finds Adam and his posterity, and not conditional, upon the condition and foresight of that which they themselves shall also do hereafter; their works good or evil, being subordinate means to bring them to their end, but not any cause or condition, whereupon God in his eternal counsel ordained them to the end.  
15 Fourthly this opinion of God's antecedent will, necessarily implies, that he also gives grace and means sufficient for salvation to all men, and supposes that there is no mortal man, old or young, or Christian or Pagan, from the beginning of the world to the end thereof, but God reveals to him the means of salvation, and at the least in some instant of his life, sets him in a state, that he may enjoy the means if he will, and be saved. The consequence is proved, because if God will only save such as use the means of salvation well, and damn such as use them ill, and that consequently because they use them well or ill; he must in justice, reveal and exhibit these means unto them, forasmuch as no man of himself can recover them; and he must reveal and exhibit them to man when he is in such state that he hath the use of his free-will; as my adversaries king that wils the salvation of his subjects, on condition they keep his laws, is bound to publish and make his laws known unto them, else if he execute any of them, it must be upon a new point, and not consequently, upon their not keeping his laws: so it is unpossible that God should only consequently reprobate them for the ill use of his grace, and contempt of the means of salvation, that never had these means, nor ever heard of this grace, or ever were in state that they could use them, as many millions of people in all ages have been and now are. The first sort whereof are infants that either die in the womb, or unbaptized, or reach not the years of discretion, and use of reason and free-will: of whom Gregorius Ariminensis 
k 1. d. 46. qu. vnic. ad argum. Occha.  says, It is false that God antecedently gives sufficient means of salvation to all, for it is manifest that unto children dying without baptism in their mother's womb, or after they are borne, he gives no such sufficient antecedent means whereby they may obtain salvation. The same must consequently be holden by all them 
l Tom. 1. d. 6. art. 1 qu. 1. ad. 1. Gabr. 4. d. 4. qu. 2. art. 3. dub. 2. sub. sin. Soto de Nat. & Gr. l 2. c. 10. p. 90.  that teach baptism to be the only means (out of the case of martyrdom) of salvation for infants, and yet many have not the means of baptism provided them. Vasquez 
m Vasqu. 1. p. qu. 96. n. 2. & 3.  says, The controversy is not whether Christ have instituted means sufficient of themselves for all infants; But whether he hath so provided and disposed them, that he hath left it in the free power of any to apply them: for if these means, which of themselves are sufficient, be so disposed that by no diligence of man they can be applied, we cannot say, the infant was provided of sufficient means, because it must be said that sufficient means are provided for him alone to whom they may be applied. And his judgement is that such infants have not this sufficient means, adding that 
* Omnes eodem modo sentiunt.  the School Doctors are all of the same mind, that unto some infant's God hath in no wise granted that by any human diligence, the sufficient means of salvation can be applied.  
16 The second sort are such as are borne naturals without the use of reason; of whom the same is to be said, that is of infants, that for want of reason and the use of their freewill, they cannot be said to have sufficient means: 
n  aliquis iudicetur habere gratiam sufficientem ad piam actionem supernaturalem, requiritur eum habere ea auxilia, quae ad eandem piam actionem exigunt●r tanquam supernaturales formae, & tanquam principi● sufficientia, quibus homo vocatus, excitatus, & praeventus, possit usu aliquo liberae facultatis suae, Deo adiwante, & auxiliante, adqui●ere reliqua omnia huiusmodi dona gratiae, sive auxilij. Zumel disp. var. 3. part. pag. 56. a.  for to the sufficiency of the means must concur not only the perfection of the help revealed, but also the ability of the subject to whom the said help is offered; for if God have left his word to lead and direct a man, and yet immediately withholds reason and faculty from him, that he cannot hear nor use it, it cannot be conceived how he may be said to have left sufficient means to that man.  
17 The third sort are Barbarians, and Pagans that never heard of God or Christ, and his Gospel; these also cannot be said to have sufficient means of salvation, because 
o joh. 17.3. art. 4.12. Rom 1.17. & 10.14. 1. Co 1.21. Fides, & sacramenta fidei, & opera bona, à principio, ad obtinendam salutem, homini propofita videntur. Hugo. quem refert Cassal. de quad. instit. pag. 49 b. Sine fide impossibile est, de potentia Dei ordinata, quenquam saluare. Ariminens. ubi sup. Non est adiutorium sufficiens sine fide; nec tamen omnibus à Deo datur Ruard. art. 7.  the revelation of Christ and his Gospel, is the means, and they never had it. 
p Ruard. ib.  The Dean of Lovan, debating this matter, says, The School Doctors are not agreed whether all men at some time in this life, have sufficient help whereby they may turn themselves too God. And setting down his own opinion, that they have not: he says: It is more agreeable to S. Austin and the ancient Counsels, that unto all men God hath not allowed such sufficient help, but as of his mere will he predestinates some to salvation, to whom of his only goodness he disposes to give his free gifts necessary to their salvation; so of his mere will, not for any cause foreseen in the reprobate, he rejects some from glory: he is not therefore ready, so much as is in him, to give them glory, or grace, or help to hold and recover that grace. There is no question but God in his providence, hath justly withholden the means of his grace from these men, either for the sins of their predecessors, or for their own original sin; but yet it cannot be denied, they have not sufficient means.  
18 My Adversary 
q Pag. 170.  says afterward, in his reply, that he speaks not of infants but men of ripe age, when he says, God gives sufficient help to all; but he must speak of infants, if he will speak consequently, and uphold his distinction; for predestination is of no other reason in infants then in old folk, but upon the same grounds and in the same manner, that he wils the salvation of the one, he wils the salvation of the other; and therefore willing the salvation of such as have the use of reason, antecedently, he must will the salvation of infants, in the same manner also, therefore he must give them sufficient means also, which not doing, it is plain he hath no such antecedent will at all.  
19 He replies secondly, that they have the means (yea all, aswell infants as others) 
r Pag. 165. 171.  at least in potentia remota, 
s Pag. 170. 171.  and mediately, whereby he might come to that which is sufficient. Which I take to be the same that some say, how God gives even these sufficient help in actu primo; which is some inspiration as a beginning, which if men would obey, they might successively and by degrees, rise up to faith and justification, as 
t THE WAY pag. 95. in the mark  I noted out of Paul Windeck. But this will hardly be maintained; for I demand first, touching these inspirations or motions that are said to be thus offered and stirred up, in the Gentiles, are they supernatural, or natural? If supernatural, by what means are they wrought? for the word of God to produce them, they have not, and God's Spirit doth never sufficiently inspire, when it doth not sufficiently reveal itself to be his spirit. Are they natural, arising only from natural knowledge? then I demand again whether being hearkened unto and pursued, they may be able to bring him that hath them to justifying grace? if they be not, they are insufficient; if they be, than this is 
u Concil. Diospol. nu. 10. 11.  Pelagianisme, that a man by natural strength, may elevate himself, and obtain the grace of God. Secondly I demand, what he means by his potentia remota & media? for if the meaning be, God gives means sufficient of themselves, but no means to use them, 
* ●es, in esse potentiali in causis secundis, antequam sit in proprio genere, est simpliciter non esse.  than he gives no sufficient means, as I noted out of Vasquez. If the meaning be that God prepares them for some, no otherwise then the Physician 
* In the Reply ubi sup.  mentioned, doth his physic, so as he never offers it them, nor discovers himself, or his art, to them, what is this but to mock the world with Sophistry? If the meaning be that God offers at the least such motions of nature, and of grace, that by degrees, he may arise, from knowledge to knowledge, till he come to sufficient knowledge: this is confuted before: for motions of nature are not sufficient; and motions of grace, cannot be proved to be given infants and Barbarians, as appears by the difficulty of converting the wisest and civilest Philosopher, or Barbarian, that ever was; or if they be, yet they are not of that elevation that they can fulfil the just measure of sufficiency.  
20 Thus, I have showed three sorts of people, to be perpetually destitute of sufficient help in regard of all outward and ordinary means, so far as we can perceive: yet it is certain that some of these are saved and some reprobated; their salvation therefore, and reprobation, neither begins in, nor arises from the foresight of their good or ill use of the means, but from some higher will and purpose in God, unknown to us, but just and holy in himself: else were there no such mystery in the doctrine of predestination, that the Apostle should need to cry, 
x Rom. 11.33.  O altitudo, O the depth, of the riches, wisdom and knowledge of God, how unsearchable are his judgements, and his ways past finding out? nor say, 
y Rom. 9.20.  what art thou that pleadest with God? 
z Rom. 9.18.  he will have mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth; 
a Rom. 9.11.  before the children were borne, and when they had done neither good nor evil, it was said, I have loved jacob and hated Esau. For my adversaries distinction of God's willing even the reprobate to be saved, by his antecedent will, and the rest of his doctrine of predestination, leave no room for these sayings. They say, 
b Aug. ep. 105.  saith S. Austin, that therefore God loved jacob, and hated Esau, being yet unborn, because he foresaw, their works to come; but who would not wonder that this sense so acute should be wanting to the Apostle? for he saw not so much, when the question being objected to him, he had not ready this so brief, so plain, so true, and absolute answer, as these men think this to be. For when he had propounded a profound matter, touching those that were not yet borne, and had done neither good nor evil, how it could rightly be said that God loved the one and hated the other, he objects to himself a question; What shall we say then, saith he, is their injustice with God? God forbidden. THIS THEREFORE WAS A PLACE, WHERE HE SHOULD SAY WHAT THESE MEN THINK, THAT GOD FORESAW THEIR FUTURE WORKS, when he said, The greater shall serve the lesser; but the Apostle says no such thing, but rather, lest any man should glory in the merit of his works, he would have that which he said to be of force, that the grace and glory of God might be commended: for having said, God forbidden that there should be iniquity with God, as if we should say, how show you this, (that there is no iniquity with God) when you avouch that, not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said, The elder shall serve the younger: He answereth, because Moses saith, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and will show compassion, on whom I will show compassion; therefore it is not in him that wills, nor in him that runs, but in God that shows mercy. WHERE NOW ARE MERITS? 
* He excludes, not only the works of nature, but of grace also.  WHERE ARE THESE WORKS, EITHER PAST, OR TO COME, PERFORMED OR TO BE PERFORMED, AS IT WERE BY THE STRENGTH OF free-will? Doth not the Apostle pronounce a plain sentence touching the commendation of free grace, that is to say, of true grace? Hath not God made the wisdom of Heretics foolish?  
21 Lastly, this exposition of God's antecedent and consequent will is destroyed by the doctrine of God's Predetermination, which teacheth that the will of God as the highest, and effectuallest cause, predefines and determines the will of man to that it wills, and applies it to the work: for whose will in all things, God predetermines unto one thing (though not by way of necessitation) by the influx of his will, their will is no condition or motive of God's will; for then Gods will were passive. But man's will in all things God predetermines to one thing, by the influx of his own will. Ergo, man's will is no condition, or motive of Gods will: Therefore God predestinates none upon the foresight of the good or ill use of their freewill: therefore there is no such antecedent and consequent will in God as my Adversary maintains. The second proposition is denied by 
c Martinez de Auxil. p. 134. & inde. Bellar. de Grat & lib. arb. l. 1 c. 12. §. Est igitur alia. Quicquid electuri sumus vidit Deus intuitu aeterno; cognitio necessitatem non affert; vidit, inquam, non lanxit; praedixit, non praedefinivit ut sicrent; praescit omnia, sed non omnia praefinit. Says Marian. tract. de mort. & immortal. p. 415.  some, and the jesuite cannot reconcile it with his principles. And 
d Fonseca, as saith Rispol. pag 3. or Molina, as saith Silvius explicat. p. 38.  other some, to avoid it, and for the reconciling of God's predestination with man's free-will, have invented the distinction of scientia media, or conditionata; 
e Fonsec. 6. metap. qu. 6. sect. 8. Molin. concord qu. 14. disp. 52. Suar. opusc. de Scient. Dei, l. 2 c. 3. n. 4.  which imports that God foreknows things to come, not by his simple intelligence, but upon the condition of the second causes, by foreseeing what they would freely and (merely) of themselves work: which is confuted by 
f Zumel. disp. w. part. 3. pag. 181. concls. 7. Rispol. de praedefinit. l. 1. q. 1. concls. 4. Sylu. explic. part. 2. art. 9  divers. But for the understanding of the proposition, that God by his will effectually predetermins to one thing the will of man, in all things, note: first, that God may be supposed to concur with our will, as with all other secondary causes, whether they be natural or free, two ways. First, by flowing and concurring only into the effect, and so producing it equally with the second cause. As when two men equally carry a block between them, the one holding it at the one end, and the other bearing at the other: where one of the men is not moved or stirred by the other, but both together make one cause equally producing the effect, which is, the moving of the wood. Thus God concurs not with our will. Secondly by moving our will itself and touching it, by his effectual power, whereby it is determined and applied to the effect, as in a clock we see one wheel to move another. Now my proposition is understood of Gods moving our will in this latter manner. Note secondly, that God again may be supposed, in this latter sort, to determine our will 2. ways. The first is by constraining, and violent enforcing it; as when a man throws a stone, or shoots an arrow; and thus he moves us not. The second is by stirring it up easily and delightfully, to will that which itself allows and approves withal, the judgement of reason going before; and of this kind of determination, my proposition is understood, viz. that God by his effectual will and providence, stirs up, applies, and bends the wills of all men to that they will, and is the cause of the election. This I prove by the Divines of the Church of Rome itself: for Aquinas, (
g Possevin. Biblioth. l. 1. c. 10.  whose doctrine is received of the jesuits, and almost in all their Universities. 
h So say the Bull before his works: & Sylu. explic. in Praef.  And who so keeps himself thereunto, is never found to swerver from the truth, but such as impugn him, are always suspected to be in an error) 
i Refert. Sylu. ib  holds that God is the first mover that moves all things, using all inferior causes as his instruments, and applies their operative virtues, to the operation, and touches the cause when he moves it: and so moves the will that without necessity he determines it to one thing, 
k Referunt Commbric. physic. l. 2. c. 7. q. 13. art. 1. the same is said by Andrae. Castrens. p. 105. col. 4.  so that all second causes, before their operation, receive from God a certain influence and motion, which is 
* Quaesi esse intentionale virtutis divinae.  as it were the intentional being of his Divine power, whereby they are excited to produce their actions, in the same manner as instruments of art are used, or as an Axe or Hatchet receives motion going before, from the workman, when they are applied to the work. And indeed this is 
l 1. p. qu. 105. art. 5. & 12. qu. 6. art 1. ad 3 & q. 109. art. 1. & qu. disp. qu. 3. de Potent. art. 7. & de Verit. qu. 6. art. 6. & count Gent. l. 2. c. 21. nu. 4.5. & exposit. in Rom. c. 9 v. 19  the perpetual doctrine of Thomas, wherein many 
m Andrae. Casstrens. ubi sup. see Zumel. ubi sup. p. 136. & inde.  others follow him. Scotus 
n 1. de. 41. §. sed contra.  says: God foresees not that a man will use his freewill well, but because he wils and preordaines that he shall use it well: because— the certain prevision of future contingence is from the determination of Gods will. Driedo: 
o Concord. lib. arb. c. 3.  It is true, that men justified by God's predestination, by their endeavour, and deliberation, determine themselves to the election of good works: but God makes them thus to determine themselves, and to do all these things with a free-will. 
p Philosoph. de commun. princip. nat. l. 8. c. 8.  Pererius: In that which Thomas says, our will is moved, applied, and determined by God to be willing, though divers Divines descent from him, yet I for my part very willingly, with hands and feet, go into that opinion. For this is the condition and connexion of causes subordinate, that the latter moves not, but as it is moved by the former. 
q Bassol. 1. d. 38.  Bassolis: It behoves us to say, that all things are determined in the knowledge of God, & yet we must not therefore deliberate: because the manner also of coming to the things (thus determined of God) by deliberation, (with them to whom they are not determined before they be done) is determined of God. Dominicus Bannes: 
r ban. 1. part. Tho. q. 14. art. 13. p. 450. c.  I affirm that the will of the creature will infallibly fail about any matter of virtue, unless it be effectually determined to well working, by the will of God. Wherefore God evidently knows that the will of the creature will sin, and fail, by this, that he knows his own will hath not determined the said will of the creature to well working. Therefore other future things contingent God knows in their Causes, according as they are determined by the first cause, but sin to come he knows in it cause, in as much as the said cause of sin is not by the first cause, determined to well working. 
s Qu. var. part. 3. p. 109.  Zumel: It is most certain that the will of the creature, that is, our understanding and free-will, not only as it is a certain nature, but as it is free: and not only as it is a faculty in man, but even in the use of it own liberty, depends of God. And, 
t Pag. 111. concl. 2.  The helps of Gods actual grace concurring, are not only moral, but also Physical causes of supernatural actions. 
u Pag. 112. concl. 3.  In supernatural acts God foremooves, or predetermines our will efficiently, properly.  
22 And this is confirmed by reason. First, for 
* Scot 1. d. 39 qu. vnic. joh. Bassol. 1. d. 38. Dom. ban. 1. part. ou. 14. art. 13. pag. 450.  God foresees all contingent effects to come, in his own determination of the causes thereof; and therefore foreseeing the contingent operation of our will, he determines it to the effect. Secondly, Else there should be two several beginnings of one and the same effect, in as much as man's will should begin to work as soon as God, and concur to the effect willed as principally as God. Thirdly, The will of man is but God's 
x Quid dubitamus fateri nos, miseras creaturas, esse instrumenta Dei, & cum Deo, & per Deum, operari: sicut instrumentum operatur cum artifice & per artificem: à quo movetur, excitatur, applicatur, ad agendum. Fra, Sylu. expl. p. 35.  instrument whereby God works his own pleasure: but every one that uses an instrument moves, applies, and determines it to his own will. Fourthly, And it is a secondary and subordinate cause under the first cause, which is God, and exceeds not the measure of second causes: but if it were not determined by the first cause, it should be all one with the first cause itself: for first and second causes differ in their elevation, the second being always moved to their effect by the first, and in their operation reduced to the motion of the universal cause, which is God. Fiftly, therefore the Scripture says, 
y jer. 10.23.  The way of man is not in himself, neither is it in man to direct his own steps; but ᶻ God gives a new heart, 
x jer. 31.33. & 32, 39 Ezech. 11.19. & 36.26.  and puts a new spirit into men, and takes away their stony heart, and gives them a heart of flesh, and puts his Spirit into them, and causes them to walk in his statutes, and to keep and do them. 
a 1. Cor. 12.16.  He works all things in all men. 
b Ph. 2.13.  He works in us both the will and the deed. 
c Pro. 21.1.  The King's heart is in the hands of God, and he turns it whither soever it pleaseth him. 
d Exod. 7 3. &. 9.12 1 6. Rom. 9.17.  He stirs up Pharaoh, & hardens his heart, for he hath mercy on whom he will; & whom he will he hardens. The meaning whereof 
e Can. loc. l. 2. c. 4. ad 7. Tolet in joh. 12 annot. 22. Perer. select. disp. in Exod. 11. disp 6. & 8.  our adversaries grant to be, that God hardens the wicked, partly by forsaking them, & withholding his grace, whereby they should be preserved from hardening; partly by working many things within them, and about them, whereupon they become hardened: and so consequently determines their will 
f Minimè periculosum judico si PERMISSIONI NON NIHIL ADDAMVS quod nec actio propriè Dei sit, nec sola permissio. Can loc. p. 24.  further than by bare permitting it: so that it may truly be said, that man's mind and will, 
g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hom. Odyss. Augustinus sententiam Homeri approbat. Zum. w. qq. 3. p pag. 120. A.  is such as it pleaseth God to give him. Whence I infer, and so will end: God is not moved consequently by any thing which himself, as a superior cause moves and determines to the effect. But God himself as a superior cause moves and determines the will of man to the effect, or that which it wils, whether good or ill. Therefore God is not consequently moved by the good or ill use of the will of man. Therefore the good use of man's will foreseen moved not God to elect him: and the evil use of man's will foreseen, was not the cause that God reprobated him: therefore, God had no such antecedent will to save the reprobate, if they would by their free-will, use and receive his grace aright. Therefore God's decree, touching the salvation and reprobation of men, is, lastly and finally resolved into his own pure will, as into the first and highest cause thereof.    

To the Reader.  
Whatsoever follows in the Reply, from this place, to that wherewith I begin the next Chapter, is but a continuance of the matter of Predestination, transcribed out of Becanus his Enchiridion: wherewith I have nothing to do. For albeit that which he quarrels in M. Caluine be no more than were easily defended, and then many Schoolmen have written long since; yet I have propounded to meddle with no more of the Book then directly touches what I writ: it being a task for him that knows not the price of time, to stand answering every thing that falls from a Seminary: especially when we plainly see them to be set a-work, only with barking (for I dare say, themselves conceit no substance in their books) to interrupt and detain men from better duties, then is the answering of their unsavoury writings, farced with rudeness and intemperance, and unworthy, for their immodesty, to bear the name of Christian Authors.   

CHAP. XXVI.  
1. The properties of the rule of faith described. 2. None follow private spirits more than our Adversaries. 3. How the rule must be unpartial and of Authority.  A. D. 
Pag. 173  Concerning the sixth Chapter— having showed in the former Chapter, that Almighty God, of his part, hath provided a means necessary, and sufficient to the salvation of all sorts, yea of all men, and consequently, that he hath provided some rule, and means sufficient to instruct men of all sorts, in that one, infallible, entire faith, which is necessary to salvation: In this Chapter I did set down certain conditions of this rule, and means by which men that seek, may be directed, towards the finding of it. My Adversaries do not deny, that the rule, and means must in some sense, have these three properties, which here I speak of. For the first, to wit, infallibility, M. White saith, 
White pag. 10.  that faith must be with full assurance and persuasion, the which (saith he) we cannot obtain, unless the rule give it us. Now it is certain, that the rule, and means, which here I speak of, cannot give infallible assurance, if itself were not infallible, and known, or such as may be known to be infallible. For nothing can give more, than itself hath: neither can it breed more certainty in our knowledge, than itself is, or may be, known to have. For the second, to wit, easiness to be known, or understood of all sorts, M. Wootton interpreteth, 
Wootton p. 74.  that it must be such, as may be known, although with pains. As for some pains, I shall not gainsay. For I did never dream that one might attain knowledge of matters of faith, by only dreaming, as M. Wootton seemeth to interpret my meaning. Only I would not have it so difficult, or hard, as that it should be morally impossible for any sort of men, having sought, found, and attended to the rule, and means (without miraculous illumination, or extraordinary, and excessive difficulty) to understand the determinate meaning of it: In which M. White seemeth to yield me, for he saith, that the rule must be easy, 
White pag. 10.  and plain to all sorts of men, learned, and unlearned, to wit, which use the means, and are diligent in attending to it; and be enlightened with the Spirit of God: to all such (saith he) it is plain be they never so unlearned, to the rest it is not. Neither is it (saith he) a necessary condition of the rule so to be: not because it is obscure at any time, but for that sometimes men have not eyes to see into it, etc. This which he hath said, of being enlightened with the spirit, had need to be declared. If he mean, that one must be first endued with faith, and in that sense lightened with the Spirit, before he can understand the determinate sense, and meaning of that, which is appointed by God to be the ordinary rule, and means, to instruct men in faith; than it is false, that to be enlightened with the Spirit, is required as a necessary condition; for so one must be supposed to have faith, before he can by the ordinary means be first instructed in faith: & so the ordinary means were needless, for the end to which it was appointed. For what need were there of an outward ordinary means, to instruct men first in faith, when they are already supposed to be, by the spirit, sufficiently enlightened with faith? If he mean only that the Spirit of God, must assist, and concur with man's understanding, in a special manner to enable the understanding to apprehend the instruction propounded by the means, and to make it yield assent of faith, so I shall not strive with him, as having in 
* Introd. q. 6.  the Introduction affirmed as much. Only I would have him note, FIRST, that it is not the Protestants spirit, whose illumination is required to true faith, as 
o Ibid.  there I have showed. SECONDLY, that the true Spirit of God, whose assistance is necessary, is ready (through the merits of our Saviour Christ) to assist all men sufficiently, to the attaining of the truth: and that no man (who hath received exciting grace to move him to seek, find, and attend unto the ordinary rule, and means appointed by God for men's instruction, in matters of faith) need fear want of necessary assistance of God's Spirit, to concur with him, but rather had need to fear, lest himself be wanting to the gracious assistance of God's Spirit, in being negligent to concur with it, so much as he may, and aught: and lest in steed of following God's Spirit, he suffers himself to be misled with the spirit of Satan, transfiguring himself into an Angel of light, whose property is to withdraw men from the secure ordinary means of the doctrine of the Church, to follow private instincts, so coloured with seeming sentences of Scripture, as though they were the very instincts of the holy Ghost. The third property, to wit, universality, is meant, that the rule, and means doth extend itself to all points of faith; so far as it is, or may be, necessary to salvation. In which sense I do not perceive my Adversaries to gainsay. Only the question is, WHETHER and HOW all points of faith be necessary to salvation? The which question, I have resolved in the Introduction, and in the fourth Chapter, where I do determine all points of faith to be necessary to be believed, explicitè, or implicitè, of all sorts: and that none is indifferent, or such as may be lawfully misbelieved (especially obstinately) at any time, by any persons; and that although all be not necessary to be known, at all times, expressly by all persons: yet they are, or may be necessary, so to be known, at least at sometimes, and by some persons, in the Church; and consequently there must be an universal, ordinary rule, and means, sufficient to instruct, and to resolve all sorts of men, in all points of faith, at such times, and in such sort, as need shall require, thereby to hinder men from misbelieving any: and which may tell them determinately (when controversies arise) whether this, or that point be necessary to be known, and believed expressly, by all, or only some of the Church, and by whom. Besides these three properties of the rule, and means. 
White pag. 10.  M. White would have other two. But either they are not necessary; or else they be sufficiently included in these, which I have set down. For if the rule be known to be infallible, it little skilleth to our present purpose, whether there be any higher rule, whereupon it doth depend, or no, or whether the case, which is to be ruled by it, concern the thing itself, which is assigned for the rule, or some other thing: for where infallibility is, partiality need not be feared: neither need one seek a higher rule, when he knoweth the rule, which he hath, to be infallible. 
1 MY adversaries last conclusion was, that the rule of faith must have three properties. 1 To be infallible, that shall not deceive us. 2 easy to be understood of all sorts of men, learned, and unlearned. 3 Universal, to show what is the truth in all points. Touching my answer hereto, he says four thing. FIRST, that I grant these three properties to be required in the Rule in some sense. The first, that it must be infallible; and the last that it must be universal, I grant simply without any limitation, and this is true. SECONDLY, touching the second condition, of being easy, he expounds himself, that he means so easy, that without miraculous illumination, or extraordinary, and excessive difficulty, any sort of men may understand the meaning of it, and says M. White seems also to yield him this. The which I did in these words: The rule is easy, and plain to all sorts of men, learned, and unlearned, that use the means, and are diligent in attending it, and be enlightened by the Spirit of God, to such it is plain, be they never so unlearned: to the rest it is not: neither is it a necessary condition of the rule so to be: not because itself is obscure at any time, but for that sometimes men have not eyes (for want of diligence, or God's illumination) to see into it; for all means, and rules are vain unless God give eyes to see. This exposition whereby I declared in what sense the rule must be understood to be easy, he distinguishes: and says, If I mean no more but that the Spirit of God must help our understanding, in a special manner, to enable it to apprehend, and yield to that, which the rule propounds: he will not contend with me. But if my meaning be, that a man must first have faith, and in that sense be enlightened, before he can understand the meaning of the rule; then he says my saying is false; and sets down a proposition against it; that to be endued with faith, is not required as a necessary condition to the easiness of the rule: which is a needless limitation. For first, I mentioned not faith, but the illumination of God's Spirit, whereof faith is an effect. 2. Himself in those words, the Spirit of God must assist, and concur with man's understanding, not only in general to preserve the faculty thereof, but in a special manner to enable it to apprehend, and yield: confesses as much, as I said, or could mean, taking my words in all their latitude. 3. If faith be taken in one particular sense, as sometimes it is for the receiving of divine illumination into the heart, as a dark room, when the window is opened, or a candle is brought in, receives light: than it is true, 
* ●rgo ante fidem & absque fide, intelligi Scripturas posse affirmas. Hoc si tibi absurdum non videtur, plus quam Pelagia nus es. D. Stapl. de author. script. c. 8. §. 16.  that the heart must be endued with faith before any man can understand the rule, and yield his assent to it, unless he will hold Pelagianisme: neither doth my adversaries argument conclude any thing against this; for the using of the rule, and this faith go together, as the opening of the eye, and light concur to seeing. Therefore as he that seeks a thing in a blind room, first opens the window, and lets in light, and then applies his eye, with the help of that means to the object: so though it be supposed, that faith cannot be had before the rule instruct us, yet this light of God's Spirit, which is the beginning of faith, as the medium whereby the rule is understood, goes in order before it. As in all our senses 
* Nihil agit in distans, nisi primo agate in medium. Allias. ●●●ct. de anim. c. 8. part. 3.  the way from the sense to the object is disposed by the medium: But if faith be taken in the whole extent for the knowledge, and assent of all that which is revealed; then I grant the rule must go before.  
2 Thirdly touching illumination of the Spirit, which we both agree is necessary for the using, and understanding of the Rule, he will have 2. things noted. First, that this is not the Protestants spirit. Whereunto I answer, it is neither the Protestant, nor Romish, nor any private spirit, much less the Pope's spirit; 
a showed Ch. 35.  whereby alone they breath, that thus charge others with private spirits; but the Spirit of God, that is 
b 1 Cor. 12.6.  given to every man to profit withal. Secondly that this Spirit of God is ready to assist all men, at least sufficiently to the attaining of the truth and that no man whom grace hath excited to use the rule, need fear any want thereof: but all men rather had need fear least themselves be wanting to concur with this Spirit; and least in stead of following the Spirit of God, they suffer themselves (as all they do, that follow the Church of Rome) to be misled by the spirit of Satan, transfiguring himself into an Angel of light, etc. The which I am also well pleased to note: and commend back again to himself, and all of his sect, who refusing the light of the Scripture, that so evidently detects their errors, have suffered themselves to be seduced by the spirit of Antichrist 
* Apoc. 13.13. , who hath transfigured himself into an Angel of light: and broaching his own private conceits, yet colours all with the style of S. Peter's successor, and seeming authority, and spirit of the Church: when the Primum mobile of all Papistry is now become the jesuited Pope's sole instinct.  
3 Fourthly he mislikes, that besides these 3. properties of the Rule, I would have other two: Vnpartiality, that it be addicted to no side: and Authority to convince, that there might be no appeal from it. But these conditions I added for the better explication of the rest, and to exclude the Church of Rome, which is so partial, that it begs to be it own judge; and so unable to support the cause, since that the clearest definitions thereof are still called in question by themselves: as 
c Digr. 36.  I made demonstration. The which being the true reasons of his mislike, he dissembles, and only replies that these conditions are either not necessary, or else included in the other 3. the former of which is not true: the latter, that they be included in the condition of infallibleness, I will not contend about: only I noted them for the more distinct, and particular explication of that which must belong to the Rule. And so in this point there shall be no variance.   

CHAP. XXVII.  
1. The Repliers terginersation. 2. 3. The state of the question touching the sufficiency of the Scripture alone, and the necessity of the Church Ministry. 3. The speeches of divers Papists against the perfection of the Scripture. 4. In what sense Scripture alone is not sufficient.  
Pag. 177.  A. D. Concerning the seventh Chapter— if my adversaries did not ignorantly or wilfully, pervert the state of the question, they could not have had colour, to make so long discourse, about this Chapter as they do both make. My question was not, whether Scripture be the rule of faith, but whether it alone, be the rule, and means ordained by God to breed in men, that one, infallible, entire Faith, which is necessary to salvation. This my question my adversaries pervert, FIRST in that they would gladly (as it seemeth) make men believe, that we exclude Scripture, from being in any sort, the rule of faith, and thereupon 
* Pag. 10 11.  M. Wootton maketh special opposition betwixt the Scripture, which they assign, and the doctrine of the Church, which we assign for the rule of faith: whereas we make no such opposition at all, but hold the Scripture (as propounded to us by the Church) to be part of that, which in the tenth Chapter I call the rule of faith. For by the doctrine of the Church, which there I call the rule of faith, I do not mean any human doctrine; as human is distinguished from Divine; but do account the same doctrine, whether written, or unwritten (which is called divine, because it was first immediately revealed by God to the Prophets, and Apostles) to be also Church doctrine; because it is propounded, interpreted, and applied in particular to us, by the Pastors of the Church. This my adversary might have understood even by the very title of this Chapter, in regard I said not, the Scripture is not the rule of faith, but Scripture ALONE is not the rule of faith SECONDLY they pervert the state of the question, in that they take the rule of faith otherwise, than I do, and otherwise then according to the drift of the precedent Chapters (whereupon this present Chapter doth depend) they ought to do. For whereas there may be distinguished in this matter: First, that which is a rule of faith, but not the ordinary sufficient means, ordained by God to breed faith in men: viz: the divine revealed verities, as they are in themselves: Secondly that which is so an infallible rule of faith, as it is also the ordinary sufficient means ordained by God to breed faith in men: My adversaries for their better advantage take the question in the first sense, whereas they ought to take it in the second sense, in regard I so take it in the fift Chapter, unto which this Chapter hath reference. For whereas in the four first Chapters, I had set down, for a certain ground, that one infallible, entire faith, was necessary to salvation; in the first Chapter I proved that God had ordained some rule, and means, that is, some such rule as was, also a means, sufficient to breed this one, infallible, entire faith in all sorts of men, yea, quantum ex se, in all men: In the sixth Chapter I set down certain conditions of this rule, and means: and consequently, when in this seventh Chapter, I deny Scripture alone to be the rule, I must needs mean that it is not the rule, which is also a sufficient ordinary means, of which all my speech went before. Now in this true sense my adversaries do not gainsay, but convicted by the evidence of truth, yield that Scripture alone is not the rule, taking the rule as it signifieth that, which is so a rule, as it is also the ordinary sufficient means to breed faith in men, as here I take it. The Scripture itself (saith M. Wootton) is a rule, 
Wootton p. 66.  or means made effectual to some by reading without any outward help of man, but this is not the ordinary course that God hath appointed for the instruction of the people, 
Pag. 89.  in the knowledge of his truth therefore if we say at any time Scripture alone is the rule of faith, by ALONE we sever it from the traditions, and authority of men, not from their Ministry, and ascribe sufficiently unto it in respect of the matter to be believed, not simply of the means to bring men to believe. And again: we require, beside only express words of Scripture, the Ministry and industry of man together, and conclude points of doctrine out of that, which is written in Scripture. 
White pag. 23.  M. White although he seem to make the doctrine itself of Scripture, to be the rule, & the letter of the original, or translation to be a means, which like a vessel presenteth unto us this rule, yet to the purpose of the question in my sense, he granteth, that the Ministry is the ordinary means, 
Pag. 116.  whereby we may learn the faith of Christ, and that no man can of himself attain the knowledge thereof, but as the Church teacheth him, excepting some extraordinary cases. Whereby I evidently conclude that both M. Wootton, and M. White yield to the principal conclusion of this Chapter, to wit, that Scripture alone, whether taken for the original, or translation, is not the rule of faith in such sense, as I here speak of the rule of faith. Idle therefore, and impertinent is most of their long, and tedious discourse upon this Chapter, which consequently I pretermit as unworthy of any reply, if any thing here brought by them, and pretermitted by me, seem contrary to my conclusion, it is such, as is answered ordinarily by Catholic Authors, or such as these my adversaries themselves, if they will not contradict this which is yielded to by themselves, aught to answer unto, as well as I. 
1 HEre I must repeat my old complaint that I am forced to renew in every question that falls out between us, that my adversary omits and dissembles the whole substance of my writing, and only descants upon some few remnants that he rends out, here and there; wisely foreseeing either that his cause would abide no trial, or himself was not the man that was able to make the trial For though he could, well enough, translate and transcribe, another man writing, and patch it together, when he had done, to make a pamphlet; yet the defence he must leave to his Author, being belike some student, 
* A.D. Student in divinity.  as he professes himself, that is proceeded no higher than translations; and yet will serve the turn to bear the name of a Catholic writer. This abject course, which, now adays, that side cleaves to as devoutly as to their faith, bewrays the misery of their side, to say no more: and so I follow him whither the wind and the tide carry me. For he that rides a jade must take his own pace or go afoot.  
2 First he says his Adversaries either ignorantly or wilfully pervert the state of the question, else they could have had no colour to make so long discourse. The which is no unprofitable way, when he cannot defend his question, to pick a quarrel to the state. And possible he hath learned it by po●ching in D. Stapletons' books, who, in his time made good use of this trick. But how was the question mistaken? He says, his question was not whether Scripture be the rule of faith, but, whether Scripture alone be the rule, and means, to breed faith. For the trial of this I must entreat the Reader to take knowledge how things stand between us, though I have once, or twice, already, upon like occasions, repeated it. The jesuite, in his Treatise that I answered, begins with certain propositions which he says are to be supposed and set down for certain and assured grounds: First, that no man can be saved without the true faith. Secondly, that this faith is but one, neither can men be saved in any other. Thirdly, that this faith must be infallible and certain, so that the believer be fully persuaded of the truth thereof. Fourthly, that it must be whole and entire, believing rightly all points, one as well as another. Fifthly, that God hath ordained a certain rule or mean, whereby all men, learned and unlearned, may be instructed in this faith, and infallibly taught, WHAT is to be holden for the true faith, and WHAT not. Sixtly, that this rule must have three conditions. First, infallibility, to be certain, without deceiving us. Secondly, easiness, that it may be plainly known of all sorts of men. Thirdly, latitude, that, by it, we may know absolutely all points needful to be learned. Then 
a In THE WAY §. 5. and in his printed treatise p. 17. concl. 1.  he proceeds to inquire what, in particular, is the thing which may be assigned to be this rule? whereto he answers in four conclusions, the first whereof is this, whereabout he now contends, The Scripture alone, especially as it is translated 
* In his printed copy it is: Specially as it is, by Protestants translated into the English tongue.  into the English tongue, cannot he this rule. This I denied in another conclusion opposite to it, using the words of the public articles of our Church: The Scripture, comprehended in the Canonical books of the old and new Testament, is the rule of faith, so far that whatsoever is not read therein, or cannot be proved thereby, is not to be accepted as any point of faith, or needful to be followed. And so, from that place to pag. 57, I disputed that the Scripture ALONE is the rule of faith: that is to say, That rule which my Adversary, in his fourth ground, had said, God had provided, whereby every man, learned and unlearned, may sufficiently be instructed WHAT is to be holden for the true faith. Now he complains that the State is perverted, the question not being whether Scripture be the rule of faith: but whether Scripture alone be the rule and mean, ordained of God to breed all faith. And he notes two points wherein it is perverted. First, in that I so affirm and defend the Scripture to be the rule, as if he, and his sectaries, excluded it from being the rule in any sort: which he says they do not. For they hold the Scripture, as propounded by the Church, to be part of it. I answer, that I knew well enough they confessed the Scripture to be part of the rule, and the Divine doctrine, which is the whole rule, to be, some of it, written. But I knew also that they denied it to be the whole rule: joining therewith unwritten traditions and the Pope's Decretals, which they call Church authority: I knew also they allowed it to be no part of the rule but as, and in such sense, as the Church of Rome should please to propound it: and I saw his conclusion, in terms, denying the Scripture alone to be the rule whereby men may sufficiently be instructed WHAT the faith is: therefore I disputed directly opposite to all this, that the Scripture alone, without traditions, is the whole rule to show us WHAT is to be holden for faith; and nothing but the Scripture, this is close to the question. For albeit he yields it to be the rule in a sort, because as his Church propounds it, it contains part of the rule; yet he denies it to be that whole and entire rule, that his conclusion inquires of: and so is to be disputed against as well as if he denied it to be any part of the rule at all. Again, he holds two things. First affirmatively; that the Scripture is one part of the rule: then negatively: that the Scripture alone is not all the rule. Both these are contradictory to my assertion: The Scripture alone is the rule. My assertion therefore affirming what he denies, and denying what he affirms, contains the true state of the question: and his inuoluing the matter with all this cavilling, tends only to the covering of his doctrine, the loathsome visage whereof he is ashamed should be seen.  
3 The second point wherein he says the question is perverted, is in that I take the rule of faith otherwise then he doth. For whereas he, by that word rule, means such a rule as not only is sufficient to REVEAL, all divine truths that are to be believed, but also to BREED, or produce in us, the faith whereby we believe them: I, he says, understand such a rule only as is sufficient to reveal the divine verities, though it be not sufficient to breed in us faith and assent thereunto. And it is true that I understand such a rule indeed; the Church, wherein I live, only believing the sufficiency of the Scripture to contain all the object of faith, but not to enable us to believe it, or understand it, ordinarily, without the ministry of the Church and other means. But this perverts not the question: 
* The state of the question touching Scripture ALON●.  for about the means there is no question; but the question is, whether Scripture alone, excluding all Church traditions, and authority, comprehend the whole object, or matter, of faith: that is to say, All that we are bound to know, believe, and do, for our salvation; though it be granted that, to breed, or produce, faith and knowledge, of that which is in the Scripture, the Ministry of the Church and the help of God's Spirit, and our own industry, must concur. For our Adversaries deny this: and hold their runagate traditions and Church authority to be necessary, not only for the expounding and confirming to us that which is in the Scripture, if any one chance to deny it, or not to see it: but for the supplying of infinite articles of faith, which are no ways at all comprised in the Scripture, but upon the said authority are to be received as well as that which is revealed in the Scripture. The jesuite speaks as if he thought his Church authority to consist more in breeding faith and leading men to believe what is written, then in adding any thing to the measure of the divine verities contained in the Scripture: and indeed sometime there be of his side that will plainly say so. He that writ the defence of the Censure 
a Def. of the Cens. pag. 141. NOTE THIS and inquire whether all Papists will stand to it.  says, it is to be noted that the question between us and the Protestants is of EXPRESS SCRIPTURE ONLY, and not of any far fet place, which by interpretation may be applied to a controversy. For this contention began between us upon this occasion, that when we alleged divers weighty places and reasons, out of the Scripture, for proof of invocation of Saints, prayer for the dead, Purgatory, and some other controversies: our adversaries rejected them, for that they did not plainly and expressly decide the matter. Whereupon came this question, whether all matters of belief are plainly and expressly in Scripture, or not; which they affirm, and we deny. And this, he says, is is the true state of the question. Gretser 
b Defence. Bellar tom. 1. l. 4. c. 4. p. 1598.  says: These things may be proved by Scripture, but not sufficiently, not effectually by Scripture alone without tradition, but only probably. The which if my adversary and his Church did hold constantly, and in good earnest, I would confess I had perverted the state of the question. But they do not: but hold many things belonging to faith to be wanting, and no way at all, neither openly, nor expressly, nor consequently, contained in the Scripture. Dominicus Bannes: 
c D. Dann. 22. Tho. p. 302.  All things which pertain to Catholic faith are not contained in the Canonical books, either manifestly, or obscurely; nor all those things which Christ, and his Apostles taught, and ordained for the instructing of his Church, and confirming of the faith, were committed to the holy Scriptures, and the contrary is open heresy. Melchior Canus 
d Can. loc. p. 151  There are many things, belonging to the doctrine, and faith of Christians, which are contained in the sacred Scriptures, neither manifestly, nor obscurely. Cardinal Hosius 
e Hos. confess. Polon. p. 383.  The greater part of the Gospel, by a great deal, is come to us by tradition, very little of it being written in the Scripture. Peresius 
f Peres. de tradit. p. 4.  Tradition is taken so, that it is distinguished against the doctrine, which is found in the Canonical books of the Scripture. Bellarmine 
g Bell. de verb. Dei, lib. 4. c. 1.  The name of tradition is applied by Divines to signify only unwritten doctrine. Alphonsus 
h Alphons. à Castr. adu. haer. lib 1. c. 5.  This is to be laid for a most sound foundation— that the traditions of the universal Church, and the determinations thereof, in things concerning faith, are of no less authority, than the sacred Scripture itself, though there be no Scripture to prove them. Hessels of Lovan 
i Hessel. expli. symb. c. 69. p. 38.  The Apostles never intended by their writing to commit to writing the whole doctrine of faith, but as necessity urged them, what in their absence they could not teach, that they committed to writing. Costerus the jesuite 
k Coster. enchirid. p. 43.  It was never the mind of Christ, either to commit his mysteries to parchment, or that his Church should depend on paper writings. Lindane 
l Lind. panopl. pag. 4.  We Catholics teach, that Christians are to believe many things, which are to be acknowledged for God's word, that are not contained in the Scripture, and many things finally to be received with the same authority, wherewith those doctrines of faith are received, which are contained in holy writ. Rodericus Delgado 
m Roderic. dosm. de author. Script. l. vlt. p. 63  Albeit these things are not found written in the Bible, yet they must, no less be observed by the godly, that they may fulfil the precepts, and firmly believe the mysteries of the heavenly faith. Doctor Stapleton: 
n Staplet. princip. doctr. l. 12. cap. 5.  There both were among the jews, and are among us, very many things religiously performed in the worship of God, and also necessary to salvation, and necessarily to be believed, which yet are not comprehended in the Scriptures, but are approved, or commended to us, ONLY by the authority of the Church. Gregory of Valentia, 
o Valent. tom. 3. p. 258. D.  All the controversy is, whether the Apostles, by word of mouth, WITHOUT WRITING, delivered, any such doctrines, as now afford an infallible argument for the determining of the controversies of faith in the Church. These words of our adversaries make it more than plain, that the Church of Rome holds the Scriptures unsufficient, not only in respect of breeding faith, or bringing men to know, and believe it ordinarily, which we grant, but also in respect of containing it in themselves, which we deny. And that my adversary holds the same thing, I will prone directly. For ha-laid down 4. grounds: First, that true faith is necessary: Secondly, that this faith is only one: Thirdly, that this faith must be certain: Fourthly, and entire in all points: he adds the fift, that it must not be doubted, but God hath provided, and left some certain rule, and means, whereby every man may, in all points, and questions, be sufficiently, and infallibly instructed, WHAT is to be holden for true faith: and then immediately, he puts the question, what in particular may be assigned to be this rule? whereto he answers, in his first conclusion: The Scripture alone, especially as translated into English, cannot be this rule. Which I denied. Therefore his question was touching the sufficiency of the Scripture, as the said sufficiency is opposed to unwritten tradition, & not as it is distinguished against the requisite condition of the means to be used for the understanding of the Scripture. And this I confirm: for my adversary says, they hold the Scripture to be part of the rule, because it is part of the doctrine of the Church immediately revealed by God: but yet there are many substantial points of faith not contained in them. Yea 
p Pag. 67. Reply.  his express words are, The question is betwixt us, and Protestants, whether God did reveal any thing, to the Prophets, and Apostles, necessary to be believed, which is not now expressed, or so contained in the Scripture, that by evident, and necessary consequence (excluding all tradition, and Church authority) it may be gathered out of some sentence, expressly set down in the Scripture. I did not therefore pervert the state of the question, but my Adversary having nothing else to say, thought good, by this shift, to rid himself from that, which he saw could not be answered.  
4 Nevertheless, pleasing himself with his own conceit, he concludes, that convicted with the evidence of truth, I have yielded to his conclusion, in that sense wherein he meant it, That Scripture alone is not the rule of faith. And therefore all my discourse is idle and impertinent. I answer two things, first, if his conclusion, The Scripture alone is not this rule, which almighty God hath provided whereby every man may sufficiently be instructed WHAT is to be holden for true faith; mean no more but only to add the Ministry of the Church, and men's own industry, to the Scripture, as the means, for the ordinary understanding and believing that which is written in it: in this sense, the Scripture alone is the rule whereby to judge whatsoever matter belongs to faith; but Scripture alone is not the ordinary rule and means, by itself, to kindle in us the true knowledge and faith of that which it contains, without the Ministry of the Church, and other things, be joined with it, for the learning of it: then I grant it: and require the jesuite again in am thereof, either to renounce his traditions, or else confess they have no other use but only to help to expound and teach that which is wholly contained in the Scripture, without any power to supply any defect of doctrine that may be supposed to be therein. And when he hath done, the next treatise of faith he writes, to distinguish a little better between the Rule, and the Means of applying it: and not say, that is no sufficient rule whereby to be instructed WHAT is faith and WHAT not, which only is not a sufficient means to bring men to faith without the subordinate condition of such means as is required in the application of any rule. Secondly I answer, that his conclusion means more: viz. That Scripture alone is unperfect and defective 2. ways. The first, in that, without other means, it doth not ordinarily breed, or draw forth, in us, assent to that it reveals, nor so much as make us see the revelation to be. And therefore there needs the Church, by her Pastor, to teach and persuade us: and there needs the Spirit of God, and industry, in ourselves. This way no Protestant ever denied. The second is, in that it alone contains not all God's word, or all such truth as he hath revealed necessarily to be believed; but only one small and obscure part thereof: the best part, or, at least, some part, being by Tradition only, unwritten. This way we deny with open mouth: and the jesuite holds it, and in the place now controverted, hugs it in his arms: and therefore I discoursed against him as I did, and in no other sense: and so consequently it is apparent I yielded not his conclusion, in the whole sense, but only in a part. For view my words: The ministery of the Church is the ordinary means whereby we may learn the faith of Christ. And, no man can of himself attain to the knowledge thereof, but as the Church teaches him, except it be in some extraordinary cases. How will my jesuite conclude from hence that therefore I yield his conclusion as it is understood the second way, which way I have showed immediately before both his Church and himself understand it? Doth he that says the king's justices are t●● ordinary means whereby to learn the matter of civil obedience; and that no subject can, ordinarily, attain to the knowledge of the law, unless some body publish it, yield therefore that the law alone is not the rule of the said obedience and subjection, prescribing the measure and quality thereof, but the justices also, and such as acquaint us with the law, are part of the rule? yea the greater, and more certain part? No man will say so: when all men see the Magistrate to be but the executioner, and minister of the law, to teach, publish, and execute that which is in the law itself: and the Book of the law to contain the whole and entire object of obedience; that no subject is bound to any obedience, or to the doing of any thing whatsoever the Magistrate might happen to impose upon him, but that only which is contained in the law; either expressly, or thence to be gathered by true consequence. And so my jesuits vaunt of our yielding and impertinent discourses relishes but of the Soldier that created him and his vaunting Order; though his putting us over to his other Catholic Authors be scarce soldier-like, but tastes more of the Cripple. He uses this often, and I confess it is a good short cut homewards, if a man be empty: but it sinks him that uses it into the lowest bottom of contempt; to give the onset with conclusions and principles, and then to maintain them with boasting and ignorance. If we were not well acquainted with this transparent cowardliness in our busiest Adversaries, it would leaven the most settled patience that is among us.   

CHAP. XXVIII.  
Touching our English translations of the Bible. Their sincerity and infallibleness. 2. How the unlearned know them to be sincere. The new Translation, lately set forth by the King's authority, defended. Momus in his humour. 4. The subordination of means.  
Pag. 179.  A. D. §. 1. That English translations of Scripture are not infallible— concerning my first reason, it is to be observed, that I do not deny the true Scriptures, either in the original, or in the translation, to be infallible: but only I prove the ordinary English translations (which ordinarily Protestant's call the Scriptures) not to be infallible; nor consequently to be, 
Wootton pag. 68  as some make them, the only sufficient rule, and means, to breed faith. M. Wootton asketh, what English Protestant ever affirmed, that they were infallible, or took them for the rule? To this I reply, first, that I could wish these his questions could not be answered, with affirming, that many thousand poor souls, that have, and can only read English Bibles, think the texts which they read in them to be God's word; and consequently the infallible truth, and so take them for a rule of their faith, that wbat they find written there, they most firmly believe; what they find not there, they will not believe. Secondly, if the English translation be not accounted infallible, nor the rule of faith, by some Protestants: I ask first, what M. White meaneth to say, 
White, pag. 25.  the Scripture translated into English, is infallibly true in respect of the matter? Secondly I ask, what infallible rule and means have at least unlearned Protestants, whereupon to build their faith? It cannot be said, that the truth of the revealed doctrine in itself is their rule. For this is the thing that should be believed, and is not the rule and means whereby men are to be directed to attain belief. The first Hebrew or Greek original text immediately written by the holy writers, cannot be their rule. For first, where is this to be found? or how shall they be sure, if they find it, that it is the very authentical or original, and not a transumpt? Or if a transumpt▪ may also serve, so that it be incorrupt, how shall they know infallibly (secluding church-authority) that that copy which they have, is incorrupt, when they never saw the first authentical: nor ever did, or are able to compare them together? Finally suppose they had a copy well agreeing with the original; what nearer were they attaining faith by it, since they cannot understand it? 
White, pag. 25.  M White is so far from disclaiming from English translations (as M. Wotton doth) that he will needs defend them to be infallible, in the matter contained in them: in so much, that with a bold brazen face, he saith, Martin cannot give one instance of the sense corrupted. 
Pag. 26.  And although he seem to leave himself a starting hole, by saying that he doth not defend tbis or that man's edition, but the Scriptures well and faithfully translated; accounting it sufficient that there be some translations faithful, and agreeing with the original in the Church: 
Ibid.  yet presently after he taketh upon him to defend the varieties of translations, saying, that this variety hath been in words and style, and not in any material point of the sense. Now how false this bold and blind answer is, the Reader may easily perceive if he will read not only M. Gregory Martin's discovery, but also M. Reynolds refutation of M. Whitaker, and the Grounds of the new Religion: which books, neither are, or can so be answered by M. Fulke, and his fellow Protestants to help him, but still it will be justified and made plain, that not only one, but many instances may be given of the sense corrupted. The which is not only proved by our Divines, but also confessed by Protestants themselves. One of which said, 
Broughtons' epistle to the Lords of the Council. Carlisle in his book, that Christ went not down into hell.  that the English Bible was full of errors. And what errors? Only in style, or words? Nay, M. Carlisle saith, that our English (Translators) in many places detort the Scriptures from the right sense; and that they have corrupted and depraved the sense, obscured the truth, deceived the ignorant. Which their confession, if it were not also acknowledged for truth by others, what need were there, after so many varieties of translations, that (with so much cost, care, and scandal to the Protestant cause) they must needs have order, by public authority to coin a new translation of the Bible, different from all English translations that have been before? the which also, when it cometh forth, will not be of infallible authority more than the former: neither can at least unlearned men be infallibly assured that it containeth no material error. For I would feign know, how they (who neither have the authentical original, or if they had, cannot read, and much less understand, and compare the translation with it; neither do admit infallible authority in the Church to assure them) can be infallibly assured that the translation doth not contain any substantial error? To this M. White answereth, 
White, pag. 25.  that we know this by the same infallible means whereby we know other articles of belief: namely by the light of the doctrine translated, the testimony of the Spirit, the ministry of the word, the rules of are, the knowledge of tongues, and such like. Here is a fair flourish of words: but answer me (good M. White) directly to the point. Are all of these jointly, or every one severally, or only some of these necessary, & sufficient to breed in us infallible assurance of an article of faith? All are not necessary. For else how shall poor unlearned men do, who want rules of art, knowledge of tongues, and such like? Every one severally is not sufficient. For neither knowledge of tongues, rules of art, nor the Protestant ministry, are of themselves infallible, and consequently cannot be of themselves sufficient to breed such infallible assurance in us, as is requisite in an article of faith. Well then it remaineth, that only some of these (to wit, the light of doctrine translated, and the testimony of the Spirit) are (even according to the ordinary course) the only necessary, and of themselves the sole sufficient means to breed this assurance: but this not. For than it would follow, that every one, learned and unlearned, that had the Spirit of God, by the only light of the doctrine itself, without any other help, should infallibly understand the Greek and Hebrew text, either read by themselves, or pronounced by a Minister; which is most false: and yet that it followeth well, is apparent, because true doctrine shineth, as well, yea better (if M. White say true) in the Original, 
White, pag. 26.  then in the English Translations. We (saith M. White) know the divine doctrine to be one and the same, 
Pag. 27.  immediately in the Original, more obscurely in the Translations: and, God (as the same M. White saith) directeth the children of light, by the holy Ghost, who openeth their hearts that they know his voice from all others: and that the light of his truth may shine unto them. Now if the light of the divine doctrine do shine, as well, and better in the Hebrew and Greek text, then in the English translations; and that all which be children of light, have the eyes of their heart so opened, as they can discern God's voice from all others: and that the light of his truth shineth unto them; what need is there then of any other, either private or public means, to open their eyes to see this light, when the holy Ghost doth sufficiently open them? Or if he say, the holy Ghost doth not open them sufficiently without other means: then the light of the doctrine and the testimony of the Spirit, are not the only necessary, and alone sufficient means, to assure us infallibly of any article of faith; & namely that this or that means must be assigned sufficient to breed in us infallible assurance, which itself cannot do, unless itself be, and be known, or at least may be known to be infallible in itself, and infallibly to open and direct our eyes to the seeing of the infallible truth: which fallible ministry of men, fallible rules of art, & fallible knowledge of tongs, or such like, infallibly do not. 
1 HIs reason why the Scriptures translated into English, cannot be the rule of faith is, because our translations are full of errors. Whereby, he says, his mind is not to deny the true Scripture in the original or in the translation, to be infallible, but only the ordinary English translations. My 
a THE WAY, §. 5. nu. 2 §. 6. nu. 2. 4. 8.  answer was the same that D. Stapleton 
b Relect. pag. 525.  makes for the vulgar Latin, that in respect of the words only there might be some error; but in respect of the sense there is none. For if the words of the translation be not so perfect as they might, yet that hinders not the truth of the matter, nor the integrity of the sense. For the vulgar Latin canonised by 
c Sess. 4.  the Trent Council, and 
d In those words: I do not deny the true Scripture, either in the Original, or in the Translation to be infallible.  granted by the jesuite himself to be infallible, is not free from error and corruption in words. Mariana 
e Tract. pro edit. vulg. Multa superius in Hebraicis & Graecis codicibus utti esse ostendimus; multae mendacia in rebus minutis: eorum pars aliquae non exigua, in nostra editione vulgata extat. c. 21. pag. 103.  says, There be many corruptions in the Hebrew and Greek books, which are the original, and many lies in small matters; no small part whereof is also in the vulgar. It may safely therefore be yielded, that our English translations, as all other translations in the world whatsoever, are not infallible, nor free from all errors in words: and yet the sense and matter of the Scripture translated, which is the rule, be still maintained to, be infallible. This my answer, yielding such a kind of erroniousnes in words, my adversary objects to M. Wotton; who, belike in his answer to this argument, demanding what English Protestant ever affirmed that our translations were infallible, or took them for the rule? He replies secondly, what means M. White then to say the Scripture translated into English, is infallibly true, in respect of the matter? M. White answers, that his meaning in so saying, was to accord with M. Wotton, by distinguishing between the words and the contents of the translations: M. Wotton denying the words to be the rule; and I affirming the matter contained in the words so to be. What contradiction is this; when he grants our translations, as all human means are, to be subject to error in one sense; and I deny them to be subject in another?  
2 This my assertion, that our English translations, as touching the matter contained in them, are infallible: howsoever there be variety among them in words & style, he entertains, after his accustomed manner, with some passion For expounding myself, that I would not maintain this or that man's edition, but the Scriptures well and faithfully translated, in such manner as our Church allows them: he calls this a starting hole: never remembering how himself will not defend this or that edition in his own Church, but will retire to those editions that are approved: as also the primitive Church permitted variety of translations, and yet followed the purest, as near as it could judge of them, for the time being. I will therefore say it again, that OUR ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS, AS TOUCHING THE MATTER CONTAINED THEREIN, ARE INFALLIBLE, AND THE DIVINE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD, THAT IS THE RULE OF FAITH. And my adversary is but a mean disputer, if he think to disprove this by objecting some verbal errors. For either they will prove no errors at all; or if they do, D. Stapleton shall tell him, they hinder nothing the truth of the matter, nor the integrity of the text: and I will give him a whole legion of his own writers, that shall impute as foul errors to his Trent vulgar, which yet he thinks infallible. Nevertheless his arguments in disproof of that I say, are three. First, the testimonies of Martin, Reynolds, and the Grounds of the new religion. Secondly, the testimony of M. Broughton and Carlisle. Thirdly the diversity of translations in our Church. Whereto I answer first in general, that I satisfied these reasons sufficiently in my book; and gave direct answer to them: whereto he hath replied nothing, but only repeats his objections. He was therefore too hasty, to call that bold, blind, and false, which he could not reply to; & me brazen faced that said no more but what himself gives experience of For I said Martin could not give one instance of any sense corrupted in our translations; & himself, in stead of producing somewhat out of Martin, breaks out into railing: which is folly. For cocks of the game are not allowed to crow till they have beaten their mate: for he that crows, and yet runs away, is a cravin, and shall have his neck wrung off, or be turned to the dunghill to crow among hens. Secondly I answer in particular: to the first, 
ad 1.  it is but a foolish brag, to be contemned. To the second, 
ad 2.  it is reported 
a Protest. apol. tract. 1. sect. 10. subdivis. 4.  on Briarlies credit, who is an adversary. But allowing they said as much as is alleged, the truth must be tried, not by the hasty speeches of a discontented man, but by the thing itself: and I showed in the 7. Digress. how divers Papists have said worse of the Latin vulgar, which yet is holden infallible by the jesuite. Mariana 
b Tract. de vulg edit. pag. 103.  says, divers learned men of France, Italy and Germany, in their writings accuse the corruption of the vulgar edition, and the negligence of the interpreter: and that it contains many lies in things of smaller moment. His third reason is, 
ad 3.  if our Translations were not erroneous, what need were there, after so many varieties of translations, to coin a new translation of the Bible, different from all that have been before? the which also when it comes, will be of infallible authority no more than the former, etc. 
c Praef. before the new translated Bible.  The Translators have answered this themselves, so religiously and learnedly, that it will content any godly mind: only our jesuits, of Momus race, will carp at any thing. 
d Lucian. Hermotim. pag. 113 Graec. Aldi. & de vera hist. l. 2. sub init. Natal. Com.  They writ of Momus, that none of the gods could do any thing, but he had a quarrel at it. When Neptune had made a bull, Vulcan a man, and Minerva a house; he quarreled at the bull, because the horns stood on his head; the man, because he had not a window in his breast; the house, because it stood not on wheels, to remove it when it stood not well. And 
e Philocran ep. ad uxor.  when Venus walked by, smiling at his conceit, he told her she was not well made neither: 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. pag. 384.  and her shoe made too much creaking as she went. My adversary hath a spice of Momus in him. His humour affirms four things: first, that the translation is coined. This we deny: for coining signifies translating otherwise then the original languages intent; which they have not done, for any thing the jesuite knows: for he had not seen it when he wrote this; and whensoever he sees it, he hath not so much learning as to compare it with Greek and Hebrew: and the Reader may judge the better of it by this, that it agrees, throughout, with the translations of the learned in the Church of Rome, Pagnine, Vatablus, Munster, Erasmus, Arias, better than the vulgar doth; of which translation, many Romish Catholic Doctors report, 
d Refert Azor. part. 1. sum. mor l. 8. c. 3. pag. 639 §. Quarto.  that there be some corruptions in it, and that things might have been translated more clearly, significantly, properly, truly, and better: and things naughtily translated, yea in a contrary sense, and nothing to the purpose. He that is bound to such a translation, with an ill grace, tells us of coining. Secondly, he affirms our new translation to be different from all that have been before: this is stolen, and I vouchsafe it only this answer: How can he tell that saw it not before he writ this, it not being then come forth? Thirdly he says, that with much cost, care and scandal to our cause, it is set forth. For the care and cost, he hath nothing to do: his Highness, and the State, and learned of our Church, he now gins to see, will spare neither care nor cost to advance God's truth, and impart the sacred Scripture to his people; which the Pope and his Clergy, with so much care and cost have laboured to destroy. The scandal concerns him nearer: but that he is a Pharisee, and so can receive no formal scandal from us. Or if he will assume to himself so tender a conscience, as to be afraid of scandal; let him speak out, and trifle not: what scandal is it now, when learning and means increase, to make a new translation; over it was in the primitive Church, when Lucian, jerom, and others made their new translations, the Church having many translations in it before? What scandal is it, more than was 
e See Cassand. praef. ord.  Gregory's altering of the Liturgies, when even with general contradiction, increasing to mutiny, he abolished the old, to make room for his new? or more than is the infinite variety of Liturgies, Breviaries, and Missals in the Church of Rome at this day? the variety whereof, is almost reached in the different editions of their translations: in so much that THE TRENT COUNCIL HAVING AUTHORISED AND PREFERRED THE LATIN-WLGAR, YET NO PAPIST LIVING CAN TELL WHICH IS CERTAINLY IT: whether the edition of the Goths, or Complute, or Lovane, or Clement, or Sixtus, or any other. For as there be these and divers other editions of the vulgar, set for●h and allowed in the Church of Rome by the Pope, so do they never a one of them agree with other: which fully returns the scandal into my adversaries own bosom, and for ever debars his sectaries from objecting to us the variety of our translations; wherein if there be any force, it will pinch them as much as us.  
3 Fourthly he affirms our new translation to be of infallible authority no more than the former were, that our Church used. This shall be granted him in respect of the matter and doctrine contained; which in all translations, that vary but in character of speech, is alike certain. But how shall the unlearned, which can neither understand the original, nor compare translations, nor so much as read, nor will admit infallible authority in the Church to assure them, be infallibly certain the translation contains no substantial error even in the matter? this he would feign know. My answer 
* My answer was not toving the unlearned alone, but of the unlearned and learned together, per commodam distributionem.  was, that we know this by the same means whereby we know other truths, and discern other articles of Christian faith, namely, by the light of the doctrine translated, the testimony of the Spirit, the ministery of the word, the rules of art, and such like. My adversary replies, this is but a flourish of words; and bids me answer directly to the point: and thus he reasons; If these be the means whereby we are assured our translations contain no substantial error, the light of the doctrine translated, the testimony of the Spirit, the ministery of the word, the rules of art, the knowledge of tongues, and such like; then they are so either jointly altogether, or every one severally by itself, or only some of them: But neither are all of them jointly, nor every one severally, nor only some of them: Ergo these be not the means: ergo some other means must be assigned, and that is the authority of the Church. I will answer directly to the point, granting the first proposition, and distinguishing the second, which hath three members: first, that all of them jointly together are not necessary; which he proves, because so the unlearned that want tongues and art, could not have this assurance: I answer, they are all of them jointly together necessary, by concurring all of them in the Church, some in the learned, some in the unlearned, to the working of this assurance in the learned and unlearned: for they are not jointly the means, so that they need all of them immediately touch every one that shall be assured; but it is sufficient, that art and tongues, joined with God's Spirit, be in the learned; and the ministery of the Spirit, and the Church, and the light of the doctrine translated, be in the unlearned, all concurring to produce 
* Viz. this clear assurance that the translation contains at lest nothing contrary to the analogy and rule of faith.  one effect in both, though not all alike existing in them both. The second member is, that every one of these severally is not sufficient: and this I grant: for no other means is sufficient, if God's Spirit be wanting to give effect to it. The third member is, that only some of these are not a sufficient means to breed this assurance: this is false: for the light of the doctrine translated, & the testimony of God's Spirit, are sufficient to assure the unlearned, that what is translated to them is true, at least touching the doctrine, in the same manner that God's Spirit and the light of the truth assure us, that the things taught by word of mouth in preaching, are the truth; which light, and testimony of the Spirit, never go with translations or preaching which contain false doctrine. His D. Stapleton 
* Triplic. in admonit.  says it over, that by the internal persuasion of the Spirit of God alone, any matter of faith may be believed though the Church say nothing at all: but the jesuits reason to the contrary, is, than it would follow, that an unlearned man having that Spirit of God, by the only light of the doctrine shining in it, without any other help, should understand Greek and Hebrew, because the Scriptures are written in them: but this follows never a whit: for though I grant the doctrine shines in the Scripture, and God by his Spirit gives a full assurance, yet he doth not this to the unlearned but by translations: which assurance I understand according to the state and condition of him that is to be assured; the learned seeing the heavenly doctrine in the learned tongues, and translated both; the unlearned vulgar people in the translation only, and not in the original, as a man sees light by the opening of a window, because that is the means to let it in. I do not say, the light of the doctrine and the testimony of God's Spirit give the unlearned assurance in the Scripture itself every way, but in the Scripture truly translated into the language they understand: neither doth the contrary follow of my words, We know the divine doctrine to be one and the same in all translations immediately in the original, and more obscurely in the translations; and God directeth the children of light by the holy Ghost, who openeth their hearts that they know his voice from all others, and that the light of his truth may shine unto them: for this light shineth, and this testimony of the holy Ghost worketh, first, not immediately, but by means: secondly, not by the same means in all, but diversly, whiles to such as have the light of the holy Ghost, being learned, it shines in the original tongues, but being unlearned, only in translations: as the words that are printed in a book, are plain and legible of themselves without any other means to him that hath light and a perfect eye; but if a man be dim sighted, then to him they are only legible through his spectacles: and as it is necessary, though the light be clear of itself, yet to open the window, in case a man be shut up in a house; so my saying, the doctrine is one and the same in all translations, and God directs the children of the light to discern it, and makes the light of it shine unto them, hinders not, but I may well say also, the window or translation must be opened to let in this light, when men are shut up in ignorance of the tongues; and so still some of the means I named alone, are sufficient, where all cannot concur.  
4 My adversary in the knitting up, replies against this, that if the holy Ghost doth not sufficiently assure us without other means, than the light of the doctrine, and the testimony of the Spirit, are not the only necessary, nor alone sufficient means to assure us, that the translation we use, is not corrupted. By which reason he may say also, that when the opening of a window is a necessary means to show the light, this light is not the only necessary, nor alone sufficient means to enlighten me: for there is sufficient in the Scripture to assure me, but still the help of Church-ministery and industry are necessary to work it in me, or else my adversary must prove that the subordination of the means where by causes are applied to their effects, take away the sufficiency and perfection of the said causes, that is to say, the Grammar contains not all things necessary and sufficient for the understanding of Latin, because it is not sufficient unless the learner go to school, and hear his master teach him. And though it be granted, that the ministry of men, and rules of art, and knowledge of tongues, be all subject to error, yet doth it not follow, that by them we cannot attain infallible assurance of our translations, as I have showed in 
* THE WAY, §. 6. n. 3.  my answer to this argument, where it was first propounded: whither I refer my adversary, that, if he would have dealt really, should not have here repeated his old argument, but have ingenuously replied what he had to say to it, but that had been labour.   

CHAP. XXIX.  
1. Touching the obscurity of the Scripture. 2. The necessity of means to be used for the understanding of the Scriptures, proves not their obscurity. 3. Traditions debarred. A Council is above the Pope. 4. 5. The Scripture, of itself, easy to all that use it as they should. 6. 7. The certain sense of the Scripture, and the assurance thereof, is not by Tradition.  
Pag. 183.  A. D. §. 2. That Scripture alone is obscure.— Concerning the second reason, about the obscurity of Scripture; it is to be understood, that I do not speak of the obscurity of Scripture, as though I meant, that it could not by any means be understood, 
Wotton, pag. 74.  (as M. Wotton seemeth willing to mis-understand me) neither do I charge the Scripture itself with any fault or imperfection, when I say it is obscure: but do acknowledge rather, that it is the perfection of Scripture, the highness and majesty of the matter, and the strangeness of the style, on the one side: and the weakness, and ignorance, and sometimes perverseness of men's wits on the other side, which maketh it obscure. But whence soever the cause of obscurity proceedeth (which is impertinent to my purpose) the only thing which I am to prove, is, that de facto, it is obscure: or at least not so easy, as the rule and means (that should ordinarily breed infallible faith in all sorts) ought to be. And this my second reason convinceth; it being most evident, that Scripture alone is not so easy, neither to unlearned nor learned men The which, 
White, pag. 25. 39 36.  M. White seemeth to grant, when he requireth so many other, even outward means and helps, besides the inward spirit, to the understanding of the Scripture. Among which outward means and helps, I inquire for one, which is on the one side infallible, and sufficient to breed infallible assurance: and on the other side, so easy to be determinately known, and understood of all sorts, as that all men may (grace supposed) ordinarily direct themselves in matters of faith, only by diligent attending, and yielding assent unto it. For such is that, which for the present I call the rule of faith; or the rule and means, by which all sorts may without other means (ne detur processus in infinitum) be sufficiently instructed in all matters of faith. If M. Wotton and M White, impertinently to this our purpose, will needs strive to have the Scripture called (in some other sense) the rule of faith; I will not strive with them, but do freely grant, it may be so called: as good written laws are or may be called the rule of manners, in a commonwealth. But as beside good written laws in a commonwealth, there are required ordinarily both good unwritten customs, and a good living Magistrate (having authority to propound and interpret both written laws and unwritten customs) without which the written laws alone were not a sufficient rule and means to preserve good manners in a commonwealth, in regard the laws cannot be so plain, but that (considering the weakness, ignorance, and perversity of men) they may and would be misunderstood, and wrested to a wrong sense; which inconvenience is remedied, partly by unwritten customs, which do best interpret the written laws, partly by the authority of the living magistrate, who may by authority declare which is the right sense, and may compel men to execute written laws, according to that sense: Even so in the Church, besides the divine infallible written Scriptures, there must be admitted some divine infallible unwritten traditions, and some always living magistrate (having infallible authority to propound and expound the Scriptures) without which the written Scriptures alone were not a sufficient rule and means to preserve infallible faith in the Church, because the Scriptures are not so plain, but that (considering the weakness, ignorance, and perverseness of men) they may be, and (as experience ordinarily teacheth) are misunderstood, and wrested to a wrong sense: which inconvenience without miracle, cannot be remedied, unless we admit unwritten traditions, which are the best ordinary interpreters of Scripture, and some living magistrate (having infallible authority) who may (when controversies arise) infallibly declare which is the right sense, and who by that authority, may compel men to take them in that sense. M. Wotton, and M. White, both grant the obscurity of Scriptures, in some places; but they both affirm, that in some other places, the Scripture is perspicuous and plain, 
Wotton, pa 70. White, pag. 33. 36.  in so much that M Wotton saith, Many places of Scripture are so evident, that a child cannot mistake the meaning of them. And M. White saith (citing S. Chrysost.) every man of himself by reading may understand. To this I reply, first, that although some places of Scripture be more plain than others, and are, and may be called absolutely plain; partly for that they be set down in proper, and not figurative speech: partly in that to them who have once learned the true interpretation of the Church, they seem so plain, as they need nothing but reading or hearing, to make them plain: partly for that some places are so plain, as they need nothing to make them plainly understood of a very child, but this general rule, told us by the Church, that the words in such places are to be plainly understood as they sound, yet this notwithstanding it doth not follow that the Scripture alone (even in those most plain places) is the rule and means which should instruct men in faith: because sith some places (seeming proper and plain) are not to be taken as the words sound, but are oftentimes to be understood by a figure: what man without some infallible means besides seeming plainness of the words, can be infallibly assured even in most plain places, that he understandeth the right sense? especially when the most plain places that are, may be, and ordinarily are (either by weakness, ignorance or perverseness of men) wrested to a wrong sense, as we see that most plain place, where our Saviour pronounceth, This is my body, to be (by Caluinists) wrested to a figurative sense. Besides therefore the bare letter of Scripture, though never so plain, to have infallible assurance of the sense, there is required some other infallible rule and means to assure us when and where the words seeming plain, are to be understood properly as they sound: and when they are to be taken in a figurative or improper sense. This, say I, is not to be learned sufficiently in the bare letter of Scripture alone, but is to be learned of the Church, according to that worthy saying of Vincentius Lyrinensis: 
Vincent. Lyr. cont. haeres. c. 2.  Because all men do not take the holy Scripture for the height of it, in one and the same sense; but divers men interpret the sayings of it diversly; in so much that almost so many different senses may seem possible to be drawn from it, as there are divers men, etc. Therefore it is very necessary, that the line of Prophetical and Apostolical interpretation, be directed according to the rule of Ecclesiastical and Catholic sense. True it is, that by other probable means, viz. rules of art, knowledge of tongues, observation of circumstances, conference of places, etc. one (but not every layman, woman, and child, even of M Wotton and M. Whites own parish) may probably find out, when the words are, and when they are not to be understood properly: but infallibly in such sort, as to build thereupon infallible assent of faith, one cannot, without infallible interpretation, had either immediately by revelation of the Spirit (which is not ordinarily to be expected) or by infallible authority of the Church. True it is also, that ordinarily Divines hold it for a certain rule, that words of Scripture are to be understood properly as they sound, unless to avoid some absurdity, we be compelled to interpret by a figure. But when such an absurdity occurreth, that aught to compel us to interpret plain words of Scripture by a figure, and when not; although reason itself may probably know (which probable knowledge may suffice for direction of manners) yet infallibly in such sort as is required to the assent of faith, reason alone not assisted by Church authority, cannot (at the least always) tell; sith many things may seem absurd to our private sense and reason, which in truth are not absurd; as in the mystery of the blessed Trinity may plainly appear: and contrariwise, many things may seem in reason not absurd, which in true Divinity are absurd and most false. 
1 HIs second reason against the Scriptures being the rule of faith, was their obscurity: because they fail in the second condition of the rule, being of themselves alone so obscure and unknown, both to the unlearned and learned, that no man can thereby alone be sufficiently directed. This reason was handled § 7, and 8. where I answered the argument whereby he prosecuted it: and every word also that he replies here, which makes me to wonder with what conscience he follows his cause, when, that he says here being answered, he shrinks from replying, and only repeats his old argument again, and yet entitles his book a Reply, when he replies nothing, but conceals all from his Reader that I answered: nevertheless, that he says, I will answer again.  
2 First he tells in what sense he holds the Scripture to be obscure, and how far forth. Not that it cannot by any means be understood; or that it is any imperfection in the Scripture to be obscure, but the perfection rather: the only thing he goes about to prove, being, that de facto it is obscure, or at the least not so easy as the ordinary rule of faith ought to be: which is denied, and confuted: not denying some parts to be obscure, as many prophecies and mysteries therein; nor affirming any of it to be so effectual to our understanding, that without the motion of God's Spirit, and use of the means, every man can effectually use it to his salvation: for I never denied the requisite condition of God's grace, and the Churches teaching, and our own endeavour, to open our understanding, even in the plainest Scripture that is, but I only affirm, all things concerning faith and good life, needful to be known, to be so plainly set down therein, that the unlearnedst man alive, using the means (which is not the church-authority intended by my adversary) and being enlightened with God's Spirit, may sufficiently understand them to his salvation; which is enough to make it a rule perfect, entire, and as easy as is possible for a rule to be, for the finding out and deciding whatsoever matter belongs to faith. For howsoever some things in the Scripture, the knowledge whereof is not simply necessary to salvation, be very obscure and doubtful; yet the whole rule of our faith, needful to all men, is set down so plainly, that it may be understood of all men, allowing them some elevation, and only supposing them to have the light of grace, and to take that pains in searching, that is ordinarily required in the use of any rule, and in the execution of any means whatsoever. It seems my adversary would conclude from hence, that therefore I grant Scripture alone not to be so easy as the rule of faith ought to be: because I require so many, even outward means and helps for the understanding thereof, beside the help of God's Spirit within us. But he is deceived, and deceives his Reader: for I expounded myself, that it is not necessary the rule be so easy and effectual, that no help shall be needful for the applying it to our conscience: but the perfection and easiness of it stands in this, that a man using diligence, and elevated by grace from his natural ignorance, shall find therein absolutely and plainly, all things whatsoever he is bound to know and believe, and needs not that the Church by her authority and traditions should add any thing to it, that is not contained in it. And that this condition of using means and outward helps, takes not away the reason of a rule, he must confess by his own principles: for let his Church-teaching and authority, his own Helena, be the rule; yet afore any man can determinately know it, or understand and yield to it, he must, I hope, have the grace of the Spirit, and seek it out, and diligently attend what it teaches him: which is as much as we require for the understanding of the Scriptures. This therefore is a vast partiality in my jesuite, that he will conclude a thing cannot be a sufficient rule or means, that requires the help of grace and a man's own industry in the applying it, when themselves holding their Church to be the rule, yet confess, that no man can hear the voice thereof, not understand nor yield assent to it, without the very same means that we require for the understanding of the Scriptures. What voice, what complaint, what querimonie shall we utter against this perverseness, against this spirit of contradiction? But my adversary says, that among these outward means and helps, which M. White requires to the understanding of the Scripture, besides the Spirit of God, there must be one (an outward means) which is 
* There is no such outward infallible means in this life. HOC NOBIS SIT SATIS INDUBIUM APUD LITERATOS HABERI, NULLUM ESSE IN TERRIS JUDICIUM QVOD ERRARE LABI, DECIPI, NON POSSET. Pic. Mirand. apolog. pro Savanarol. l. 1. c. 1.  infallible, and sufficient to breed infallible assurance, and so easy to be known and understood of all sorts, that all may ordinarily direct themselves thereby only by diligent attending and assenting to it, and this is the rule of faith that in this place he means: wherein if he mean good earnest, this question is at an end, and the Scripture is granted to be the rule: for he will allow that to be the rule, which by the help of grace supposed, is sufficient to direct all sorts, only by diligent attending and yielding assent to it: now such is the Scripture alone, that the grace of God supposed, only by diligent attendance and assent unto it, it is sufficient; and therefore also you see the necessity and requisite condition of using diligence, by my adversaries own words, hinders not the Scriptures from being the rule of faith, even in his own sense, & as himself understands the rule of faith: for such as is both infallible and sufficient to breed infallible assurance in us, and so easy to be known and understood, that all sorts of men may direct themselves in all points of faith, only by diligent attending and assenting to it: because only diligent attention and assenting being added on our behalf to the help of God's grace, it may thereby be determinately understood of all sorts, in all things needful to be known.  
3 But he says, that as in a common wealth, besides the written laws, there are unwritten customs, which interpret the written law, and living magistrates that have authority to interpret both written and unwritten laws, and to compel men to his sense, without which the written laws were not a sufficient rule and means to preserve good order in the state, because through the perverseness of men, they would be misunderstood; so in the Church, beside the written Scriptures, there must be admitted some unwritten traditions to interpret the Scriptures, and some living magistrate (the Pope) to propound and expound the Scriptures, and to compel men to take the sense that he gives, because the Scriptures are not so plain, but they may be misunderstood, etc. This comparison, and the conclusion of it, I deny: for albeit means must be joined with the Scripture, yet this church-authority, and these unwritten traditions, are none of the means, but only that which I have named: for there needs no means to supply any matter of faith that is wanting in the Scripture, but only to open our eyes that we may see what is therein; whereas these traditions, and this Church-magistracie, are supposed to be necessary for the adding of innumerable things to be believed, that are not contained in the Scripture, as I have 
* Ch. 27. n. 3.  showed. My adversary therefore plainly shows the difference that is between us, and discovers what he means, when he pretends the Church and her authority; for this rule of faith, he expounds transparently to be the Pope with his traditions, and to him gives that which is denied in the Scriptures, plenary power, partly out of the Scripture, partly out of his Decretals, to propound to all men the matter of their faith, and compel them to take his sense, be it true or false. This is the Antichristian bondage, whereinto the man of Rome will bring all the world; and the hellish pride, wherein he advanceth himself, to sit as God in the Church, exalting his own will & laws above the will and laws of the eternal God; and subjecting God's blessed word to his cursed will, which his base 
a Co●ceruau●runt sibi magistros ad desideria sua, non v● ab eu discerent quod facere deberent, sed ut eorum study & calliditate i●●●niret●r ratio qua licere● id quod liberes. Spoken of the Pope's clawback's by Concil. delect. Card. sub init.  Parasites for their backs and bellies, so much strive for; which we execrate as hell, and leave to the Devil, from whence it first appeared unto the world; civil states, and the commonwealths of this world, may have such unwritten customs, and allow this authority to magistrates; but God hath left no such traditions to his Church, nor set any such head over it, thus to expound the Scriptures, or to determinate the sense thereof, but all his whole will is written, and out of the Scripture itself, is to be revealed, & imparted to particular men, when any doubt arises, by the ministry of the Church, either in ordinary preaching, or in the Counsels of godly, & orthodoxal Bishops; 
b That a Council is the highest tribunal upon earth, and above the Pope affirmed by justinian in praetermiss. per Anto. Cont. p. 11. Phot. Nomocan. tit. 9 c 1 & 6. The Counsels of Pisa. Const. & Basil. and the University of Paris to this day. See to this purpose Card Florent. tract. de Scism. Anto. de rosel. monarch. tract. de council & Mich. Cezen. lit. ad imperat. part. 12. sub sin. joh. Fran. Pic. Mirand. apol. pro Savanaro. l. 1. c. 1.  to the which the Pope, and his rabble, if they will know the truth, and be saved, aught to subject themselves, as well as the poorest Christian that lives: and the written word is so absolute, and sufficient, to direct them herein, and his spirit so infallibly ready to guide them, if they will use the means, that there is no more to be required, for the full manifestation of any thing needful, for any man whatsoever: and 
c Certum est quod possit errare, etiam in ijs quae tangum fidem, haeresim per suam determinationem aut decretalem asserendo. Hadrian 4. de sacra. consit. p. 26. see below.  this authority of the Pope itself, when all is done, is feign to be rejected.  
4 Thirdly, whereas I said out of Chrysostome, that howsoever some part of the Scripture be obscure, yet some places are so plain, and easy to understand, that every man by reading may know the meaning, which speech I extend to so many places, as are sufficient to teach us all things needful to salvation, in this sense, that the whole rule of faith is set down, in plain places of Scripture, which any man of himself by reading, may understand, (requiring still the grace of God, and diligence in searching) he replies three things. The which afore I answer, the Reader must note that the words he opposes are Chrysostom's, and what I said, I proved by many arguments, the last whereof, was the testimony of the ancient Fathers, who say in express words, as much as I. The which arguments he answers not a word to, and therefore replying upon my conclusion, he opposes, through me, the plain Scripture, the ancient Church, and his own writers, by all which I confirmed that I said.  
5 First, he says that albeit some places are plain, yet it doth not follow, that the Scripture ALONE, (even in those plain places) is the rule, because no man without some other means, besides the plainness of the words, can be infallibly assured, that he understands them right: the which he proves, first, because some places seeming plain, are understood otherwise then they seem. Secondly, because the plainest places that are, may be wrested to a wrong sense, as that plain place, This is my body, is wrested by the Caluinists, to a figurative sense. I answer, his reason why Scripture alone could not be the rule of faith, was because it is not plain; the which obscurity I denied to be in that which is necessary to be known, affirming the Scripture, in such places, to be plain; now he replies, that though such places be plain, yet still it cannot be the rule. Thus first he denies the Scripture to be the rule, because it is not plain; and then allowing it again, to be plain, yet still he denies it to be the rule. What will this man stand to I marvel? But they be not plain enough, because without some other infallible means, besides the seeming plainness of the words, no man can be infallibly assured, that he understands aright, even those plain places This absurd cavil, I have answered twenty times: first, that the means whereby this is done, are the help of God's Spirit, our own diligence, the Church-teaching, the light of nature: and these means are infallible; And these means I admit, either coniunctim, or divisim, to be necessary, as a condition and medium for the full assurance of understanding these places: but this condition takes not away the true motion, and reasons of plainness from them; for, as I answered in my book to this argument, that is not obscure, which by ordinary, and easy means may be understood, but which, either hath no means at all to open it, or only such as are not ordinary: to his confirmation, 
d THE WAY p. 36. n. 2.  I answered likewise. But to his instances, of the Caluinists, wresting a plain place, This is my body, to a figurative sense, I reply, first it is plain, and evident, that it is a figure, by the circumstances of the place, when he that said the words, This is my body, that is given for you, at the same instant, held nothing but bread in his hand, and lived, and was neither yet glorified, nor crucified, and spoke of a sacrament, wherein it is ordinary to speak figuratively. Secondly, the Papists do the same in the next words, This cup is the new Testament, and yet they hold them to be plain words; if my adversary will be smattering, about the exposition of these words, let him give a real answer to the place of my book, 
e Digr. 49. n. 8.  where they are handled of purpose for him.  
6 Next he says, though the letter of the Scripture, be never so plain, yet to have infallible assurance of the sense, there is required some other rule, and means, the which rule is not in the bare letter of the Scripture, but is to be learned of the Church, as Vincentius saith. The which being the same he said before, without difference, or augmentation, let it briefly receive the same answer, That the requisite condition of using ordinary, & easy means, whereof the ministry of the Church, truly expounded, is one, I never denied, but this proves not the Scriptures to be obscure, nor removes infallible assurance from the Scripture to the Church, but only shows, that the Scripture infallibly, out of itself gives us this assurance by this means; and Vincentius his words affirm no more: for by the rule of Ecclesiastical, and Catholic sense, according to the which he requires the line of prophetical, and apostolical interpretation to be directed, he means no unwritten Church-tradition, or doctrine that is wanting in the Scripture, (for he holds the Scripture itself to be sufficient for every thing) but only that that which is in the Scripture be so understood, as agrees with the rule of faith, which the true Church hath always holden: now that which the Church hath always holden, is contained in the Scripture alone; that the Reader may see the jesuits treachery in alleging Vincentius against the sufficiency of the Scripture, who in that very place, (which belike he never saw with his own eyes) gins thus: Here possible one may demand, when the rule of the Scripture is perfect, and in itself more than enough sufficient unto all things; (Note here whether he thinks, as the jesuite doth, that many substantial points of doctrine, needful to salvation, are not contained in them, and that it is but a part of the rule) what need is there to join unto it, the authority of the Church's sense? and he answers as the jesuite hath alleged, that this is because all men do not take it in one sense, therefore it is necessary that the line of interpretation, be directed according to the rule of Ecclesiastical, and Catholic sense. In which manner he speaks also in 
f Diximus in superioribus, hanc suisse semper & esse hody Catholicorum consuetudinem, ut fidem veram duo●us his modis approbent: Primum divini canonis authoritate: Deinde ●cclesiae catholicae traditione. Non quia canon solus non sibi ad universa sufficiat, sed quia verba divina, pro suo plerique arburatis, interpetantur. cap. 41.  another place, not supposing any thing to be wanting in the Scripture, so much as to give infallible assurance of it own sense, much less any articles of faith needful to salvation, but only supposing that some heretics would not yield to that it gave, or possible through their own default, did not see it; and thereupon advises to oppose against them, the rule, and practise of the Church, as a man by witnesses would convince him, that denies the truth: the which practice, as it hinders not the Scriptures to contain the perfect rule of faith, so we will allow it, and require no sense, or exposition of the Scripture, nor no point of religion, to be received, unless it be thus directed.  
7 It is therefore untrue, that he concludes with; one cannot infallibly be assured, when the words of the Scripture are to be understood properly, and when not, without the authority of the Church, unless it be by revelation: I say this is false upon two points, first, because this assurance may be had, as from the external means, by the Scripture itself, though the Church say nothing; Next because this Church authority, he understands to be the external testimony of the Church revealing, if not making the said sense out of tradition, which is not written, and not out of the Scripture itself: so that the understanding which I have of the sense, and my persuasion, that it is the true sense, shall not be founded on the Scripture, but on the authority of the Church of Rome, that says it; which 
g THE WAY. §. 8. n. 7. & digr. 11.  I confuted, affirming that this assurance, and the assurance of all other things believed, is wrought and bred, in the heart, by the Spirit of God principally, and then by the alone words of the Scripture joined therewith, as by the formal beginning of that my assurance, and by the ministry of the Church only as God's ordinance appointed to help me, to attain, and recovet that sense, and assurance, that, by means of this help, arises in me, from the Scripture itself, though many times, and very ordinarily this is done without all motion of the Church whatsoever, by only reading, as I have often said, in case when men are either converted from Atheism, or confirmed in the truth, without hearing or knowing of the Church, by only reading.   

CHAP. XXX.  
Touching the all-sufficiency of the Scripture to the matter of faith. 2. It shows itself to be God's word. Luther's denying Saint james his Epistle. 3. How the Papists expound the light of the Scripture. 4. What they, and what we hold about the authority of the Church. 6. How express Scripture is required.  A. D. §. 3. 
Pag. 187.  The Scripture containeth not all points of faith— concerning my third reason, I wish the reader to observe, that I do not attribute any imperfection to the Scripture, when I prove, that it containeth not all points of faith. For want of perfection in a thing, is not to be accounted an imperfection: unless it can be showed: that the perfection which wanteth, doth necessarily pertain to the nature of the thing, or at least is due, and aught to be in it; as my adversaries will never be able to show, that to contain all points of faith, doth necessarily pertain to the nature of Scripture: or is due, or aught to be in it. This being noted, I need say little in confirmation of this argument, as having urged it sufficiently against M. Wootton, and M. White, in the introduction, in such sort as they will never be able, sufficiently to answer it. Only here I will ask one question of M. White, 
White p. 48.  who telleth us, that the Scripture manifesteth itself to be divine, in regard the virtue, and power that showeth itself, in every line, and leaf of the Bible, proclaimeth it to be the word of the eternal God: and the sheep of Christ discern the voice, and light thereof, as men discern light from darkness, etc. If this be so; how chanceth it, that his illuminated Luther (whom doubtless M. White will account one of the sheep of Christ) could not see, that S. james his Epistle was divine Scripture, by the virtue, and power, that showeth itself in every line, and leaf of it, no less then in other places of Scripture? shall he be accounted illuminated, or rather stark blind, that could not discern light from darkness? And shall not M. White also be accounted not so much blind, as brainsick, that fancieth to himself such a light to shine in every leaf, and line, of the Bible, that every one that is the sheep of Christ, discerneth it no otherwise, than he that hath corporal eyesight, discerneth outward light from darkness? True it is, there is the virtue, and power of God in the Scripture; there is purity, and perfection of matter, majesty of speech, power over the conscience, certainty of Prophecies, etc. but these do not shine like light to our understanding, till it be illuminated with the light of faith (as every one even of the elect, is not at all times endued with faith) nor then neither, unless those things be propounded duly, mediatè, or immediatè, by the authority of the Church; upon which (being like a candlestick) the light of the Scripture must be set, or else it will not (according to the ordinary course of God's providence) sufficiently shine, and appear unto us, in such sort, as to give infallible assurance, 
Wootton p. 89. White pag. 46.  that it is the word of God. It troubleth M. wootton, & M. White both, that I say there be divers substantial points, which are not expressly set noun, and determined in Scripture, which they, being convinced with evidence of the matter, cannot deny to be so; but say they, this is not the question. But by their leaves, this was first the question, when their Grandfather Luther was so hot to have express Scripture, 
See Gretz in defence. Bellar. tom. 1 in li. 4. de verbo Dei non scripto: cap. 3. See introduct. q. 2.  as that he would have all expressed, even in words. Afterwards indeed, when his fury cooled a little, he thought it sufficient, if all were expressed, though not in so many syllables, yet in sense. And now of late our new Ministers (seeing that this also cannot be defended) have made the question, whether all be contained in Scripture; that is either expressly, or so as (without Church authority, or Traditions) all necessary points of doctrine, may be necessarily, evidently, or by good consequence, deduced out of that, which is expressed in Scripture. In which sense also, they will be never able to show, that all points, and namely those which I mentioned in my third argument, 
Wootton p. 93.  are contained in only Scripture: but must be forced to run to tradition, and Church authority, if they will have sufficient assurance of them. 
1 THe third thing objected against the Scripture, was Imperfection; that it contains not the whole matter of faith, but many things else, are needful to be known, and believed, that are not written therein. For though he spoke somewhat reservedly, There be divers questions of faith, which are not EXPRESSLY set down: yet his meaning is, There be divers particular points to be believed, which are contained therein, neither expressly, nor anyway at all, but received upon sole Tradition, and Church authority, as I have 
a Ch. 27. n. 2.  showed; and his Introduction here mentioned, affirms: which being a gross, and blasphemous assertion, therefore: to cover the odiousness of it: here in the first place, he says, that by affirming the Scripture, not to contain all points of faith, he doth not attribute any imperfection to it. And how I marvel, will he persuade us this, when it is impossible it should be perfect, that leaves us unperfect in the faith, and reveals but a portion of that, which yet of necessity, must be known to salvation? his reason is: because his adversaries, will never be able to show that, to contain all points of faith, doth belong to the nature, and perfection of Scripture. But I answer, it pertains to the perfection of the Scripture, and is due to the nature thereof, to contain all things: because itself says so, and there can be no other infallible, or convenient revelation. And 
b Propounded in the WAY Digr. 3. &. 13.  many testimonies, and arguments evince it: which my adversary not being able to answer, hath well, and wisely passed by with silence. And therefore denying this, they attribute imperfection to it. For to deny that, which the Scripture is, is to make it imperfect. Athanasius 
c Orat. count Gent. sub. init.  says, The holy Scriptures are 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  sufficient by themselves to show the truth. Isiodore Pelusiota, 
d L. 2. Epist. 369.  The sacred volumes having the testimony of the divine Scriptures, are the stairs whereby we ascend to God. All therefore brought out of them in the Church of God receive, as proved gold, tried in the fire of the Spirit of God's truth: 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉:  and whatsoever things, without these volumes, are carried about, though they have show of probability, leave to those, that plot the fables of heresies. S. Basil: 
e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de fid. pag. 394. edit. Basil. an. 1551.  It is manifest presumption, and apostasy from the faith, either to abrogate any of the things, that are written, or bring in any thing that is not written. And Vincent. Lirin. 
f Monito. c. 2. &. 41.  The rule of the Scripture is perfect, and in itself sufficient, and more than sufficient unto all things. And 
g 3. d. 25. qu. vnic. a.  Gab. Biell, his own Schoolman, All things necessary to be believed are contained in the Canonical Scripture: it belongs therefore to the perfection of the Scripture to contain all things.  
2. Against this he objected, the stolen, and threadbare argument: it is not contained in the Scripture, that itself is the word of God. My answer was, that the virtue, and power that shows itself in every line, and leaf of the Bible, proclaims it to be the word of God, and the sheep of Christ discern the voice, and light of it, as men discern sweet from sour, light from darkness: Now he demands in this Reply, How then it chances, that our illuminated Luther could not see the Epistle of S. james to be divine Scripture? I answer readily to the point: if the Scripture be so easily, and infallibly known to be God's word by the authority of the Church: how chances it, that his illuminated Caietan 
h Catharin. count Nou. dog. Caiet. S xt. Senens. Biblio. l. 6. annot. 337.  denied the same Epistle of S. james to be divine Scripture? how chances 
i Noted afore  so many Papists deny, the Apocrypha to be Canonical, as well as we? how comes it about that Genebrard 
k Genebrard. chronol. p. 181. Possevin. appar. verb. Gilb. Genebrard.  affirms the third & fourth Books of Esdras to be Canonical Scripture, which the Church denies? Thus my jesuit is fallen unawares, into the same pit, he made for me. Secondly, my adversary 
l Verum est, doctorem quidem Lutherun, & quosdam alios, exemplum veteris Ecclesiae imitatos, de libris modo dictis non ita praeclare sensisse: sed tamen jiden, postea re diligentius perpensa, priorem sententiam mutare non dubitarunt. Eckhard. fascic pag. 21.  cannot prove that. M. Luther persevered to the end in the denial of this Epistle. The judgement of 
m Nonnul. i antiquitus de epistolae huius authoritate dubitarunt. Passevin. appar. v. jacob. Apost. see Euseb. hist. Eccle l. 3 c. 25. & jeron. & Doroth de viris illust v. jacobus.  so many in the Primitive Church, refusing it, dazzled Luther's eyes, and made him to doubt for a time: but that he never saw and believed it to be Scripture to the end, my adversary will scarce be able to show. Thirdly, Luther's not seeing this light, proves not that there is no such light, or voice in the Scripture; for all faith thereof is not in an instant, but successively, and by degrees: and all men, at all times, have not eyes, and disposition alike to see it: as the Apostles, at the first, saw not Christ to be that he was, though he were the light, that came into the world. Saint Austin 
n Tract. 35. joh.  says, The Scriptures are lighted up to be our Candle in this world, that we walk not in darkness. Therefore they are seen by their own light. For the same Saint Austin ⁿ says, will you light a Candle to see a burning Candle? for a burning Candle is able both to make manifest other things, that are hidden in darkness, and to show itself to thy eyes. The Scripture therefore by it own light shows itself, as I said, to be the word of God, and if any see not this light, the defect is in themselves, and is removed by no other light added, but by the same light, at such time, as pleases God to open the eyes. Theophilus Antiochenus 
o Orat. 1. ad Antolych.  says, we must not say there is no light because the blind see it not, but let them, that see it not accuse their own eyes. For as in all other matters of faith, it falls out among the children of God, that 
p 1. Cor. 13.9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrysost. ibi. hom. 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Scol. graec. ibi.  some see, and know more, and some understand, and believe less, then othersome: yet the matters of faith themselves are one, and the same; and the believers are enlightened with God's Spirit, though not all in the same measure: so may it fall out about this object: that some particular men may not at the first, or always perfectly see the light of every part of Scripture, or perfectly hear the voice of Christ founding therein: for here in this life we know, but in part, and prophesy but in part, though the light of the Scripture shine fully forth unto all.  
3 This light of the Scripture my adversary grants, but yet, to bring in his traditions, and Church-authority, mark how he replies. What light soever there be in the Scripture yet it shines not to our understanding till it be illuminated with faith, which the elect themselves, at all times, are not: the which I grant, and thereupon infer, that this light was nevertheless in the Scripture, though Luther saw it not, in one place thereof: and the reason why he saw it not, was, because every one of the elect is not at all times endued with all faith: but my jesuite adds, that this light, whereby the Scriptures show themselves to be the word of God, shines not to the understanding illuminated with faith, neither, unless it be propounded by the authority of the Church: upon which as upon a Candlestick the light of the Scripture must be set, or else it will not sufficiently shine unto us, to give us, of itself, infallible assurance that it is the word of God. 
q Concedimus igitur sacras liteteras, quae divinae doctrinae continent lumen, tanquam lucernam esse, per seipsam splendidissimam atque fulgentissimam: sed nobis tamen non in se lucidam— sed quatenus est divinitus in Ecclesiae Catholicae authoritate, tanquam in candelabro, positum, ut luceat omnibus qui in domo sunt— Errand igitur adversarij cum scripturam esse lucernam, ac illuminare nos, idem esse existimant, quod, eam non egere Ecclesiae infallibili authoritate, ut nos certos faciat. Grego. de Valent. tom 3. pag. 117. c. Verus Scripturae sensus inest Scripturae sicut signatum signo; sed media certa, explorata, infallibilia, quibus sensus iste eruitur, non est ipsa Scriptura; sed traditio Ecclesiastica, vox & definitio Ecclesiae, seu eius qui Ecclesiae, vice Christi, praesidet. Grets'. defence. Bellar. tom. 1. p. 1970. c.  This is the final evasion that the jesuits use against this argument in defence of their traditions, and Pope's authority, against the sufficiency of the Scripture: that the Scriptures have in them a shining light, and are, as the Protestants say, able to prove themselves to be the word of God, and contain their true sense in themselves: but this light we see not, and this true sense we know not; and this assurance, that they are God's word, or that this is the true sense, we cannot have in the Scripture itself: but by the means of Traditions, and the Pope's authority showing, and propounding these things to us. As a candle though having light in itself, yet shows light to none, when it is hid under a bushel, but when it is set upon a Candlestick. I answer 2. things. First, as I have often said, this authority, and teaching of the Church, is not always, nor simply, necessary to show all men the light of the Scripture, or so much as to point to it: for either by the immediate light of God's Spirit, or by the light of nature, it may be known to be God's word, as by the light of nature it is known that God is: whereupon it follows plainly, that the Scripture alone, as the Rule, hath this light in itself, and from itself shows it, else it could not, in this manner, without Church proposition, shine to any. Secondly I grant, that ordinarily, for the seeing, and discerning of the evidence, perfection, purity, power, sense, & all this light that is in the Scripture; the proposition of the Church is necessary, as a candlestick to hold it forth, but then this proposition may be expounded two ways: one way to signify such authority, as by, and from itself, induces me to believe afore I see any authority in the Scripture, and together with the authority of the Scripture: the twofold authority of the Church, and Scripture concurring to the moving of my understanding, as when two men concur, as one formal beginning; to the carrying, and moving of a block. This Church proposition thus expounded, I utterly deny to be either needful, or possible. Secondly it may be expounded for the Ministry of the Church, by her Pastors, and people, revealing the Scriptures to them that know them not, and teaching the nature, sense, and meaning thereof. But this ministry is but a bare condition adding no light, sense, authority, or matter to the Scripture, but only leading us to see it. Of which Ministry there is no question between us: for all Protestants grant, 
The authority, or ministry of the Church, supposes no want of light in the Scripture.  and use it: but the question is, whether all the articles, and whole nature of faith, be contained in Scripture alone, excluding unwritten traditions, though the Ministry of the Church be needful, as an instrument to show, teach, and expound the Scripture, as a candlestick is needful to show the candle? For the use of this Ministry, and requisite condition of all other means, that are to be used, supposes no want, or defect in the object, whereabout they are applied, but only produces it to his operation: as the setting of a candle upon the socket, adds no light to it that was wanting in itself, but only removes some impediments that hinder the standers by from seeing, and the opening of a window to let in light makes not the Sun imperfect, or but a partial light. And if our adversaries intended no more but this, there were an end of the controversy, for no Protestant ever denied the necessity of Church ministry in this sense, but freely confess it, although the authority 
* See it expounded Chap. 35. n. 1. & inde. and here immediately after, in nu. 4.  mentioned we renounce.  
4 For the better explication of this my answer, and that the Reader may see how impertinent it is, that my Adversary says: Note FIRST, that 
o The quest. between us & the Papists about the Church's authority.  the question is not whether some means be ordinarily required to the understanding of the Scripture, and the producing of faith in such, as read, and use it: nor whether the Scripture work infallible assurance immediately, in all men (for in some it doth) without the operation, and coming between of the Church ministry. For we hold it doth not. But the point is, whether this authority of the Church, supply any article of faith, or matter needful to salvation, that is wanting in the Scripture, so that it may be said, as my Adversary always speaketh, the Scripture alone, is but a part of the rule of faith, which God hath left to instruct men, what is to be holden for faith: and there be many substantial points, belonging to faith, which are contained in Scripture alone, neither expressly, nor thence to be deduced by consequence, but to be supplied by tradition, and Church authority: and so the question is not about the expediency, or condition of the means, but about the perfection, and sufficiency of the thing itself. Note SECONDLY, that my adversary from the necessity of the means, concludes the insufficiency of the thing, thus: The light of the Scripture, shines not to us: the true sense of the Scripture is not infallibly assured unto us without the means of the Church: The Scripture therefore is unsufficient, not containing all things needful: not instructing us, WHAT is to be holden for matter of faith: as if a man should say, the light of the candle appears not to us, but when it is set on a candlestick: therefore there is much light that is wanting in the candle, and is supplied by the candlestick. Note THIRDLY what the things properly are, which our adversaries attribute to the Church, in comparing it with the Scripture. They are there: first, to be a means to reveal and expound the Scripture to us; and to breed the faith thereof in our consciences. Secondly, to be the Foundation of our faith, in this sense; that we do believe this to be Scripture; and this to be the true sense of the Scripture, and this to be the matter of faith, only because the Church expounds the Scripture so. Thirdly, to supply unto us many articles of faith, absolutely needful to salvation, that are wanting in the Scripture, out of tradition, and by the said tradition to expound the Scripture. These two latter points they infer on of the first, which is the encroaching consequence that I except against, in that the authority, wherein God hath placed his Church, is not in respect of the Scripture, but in respect of us, being a bare Minister to the Scripture. D. Stapleton 
a Relect. p. 462.  says, The Church is the ground, and pillar of truth in a higher kind, than the Scripture, namely in the kind of the efficient cause. And 
b Pag. 494. in explicat. qu.  the authority of the Church may be understood to be greater than the authority of the Scripture, because it is not simply subject, or bound to it, but may by it authority teach, & decern, something which the Scripture hath neither determined, nor taught.— The things which the Church teaches do as much bind the faithful, as those things which the Scripture teacheth,— we Catholics affirm that the Church is to be heard more certainly than the Scriptures, because the doctrine thereof, is more manifest, and evident, than the doctrine of the Scriptures, or at the least, equally with the Scriptures, because the authority thereof is no less irrefragable, and infallible.— The Scripture is the book of the Church, the testimony of truth, which the Church testifies, the law of God, which the Church hath published, the rule of faith which the Church hath delivered. We had wont to marvel at the blasphemies 
c Illyric. clau. script. p. 541. Hos de express. verb. Dei.  of Cusanus, Verratus, Hosius: That the Church hath authority above the Scripture. The Scripture as it is produced by heretics, is the word of the Devil. A Council is the highest tribunal, and hath the same power to determine any thing, that the Council of the Apostles, and Disciples had.— The things written in the Gospel, have no soundness, but through the determination of the Church: etc. But now you see, the same renewed in that Church to this day, and the jesuits, in the midst of their learned subtleties, to be as gross, as the grossest Friars, preferring their Church authority far above the Scriptures, or any use that a Candlestick can have in showing the candle. Note FOURTHLY what it is that the Protestants say, touching the authority of the Scripture, and the Church, so much as belongs to the present occasion. First, that the Scriptures have in them a light, and an authority of their own, sufficient to prove themselves to be the word of God, and to give infallible assurance, to all men of the true sense: and this light, and authority is not added, increased, or multiplied, by the Ministry of the Church, or any thing that it doth about the Scripture. Secondly, this light, and authority of the Scripture, shines in us, and takes effect in us, then only, when the Spirit of God opens our hearts to see it. The defect of which heavenly illumination is the reason, why some never, and the elect themselves, at all times do not see it, but it argues no defect of light in the Scriptures. Thirdly, the means whereby God opens our eyes, and hearts to see this light, and authority in the Scripture, is the Ministry of the Church; I expound myself, it is the ordinary, and public means whereto he refers men. And this Ministry is by preaching, and expounding the Scripture, out of itself, and persuading, and convincing the consciences of men: yet privately, and extraordinarily, when, and wheresoever this Ministry fails, or ceasses; the light, and sense of the Scripture is obtained by the Scripture alone, without this Church Ministry: and the Scripture alone in this sort immediately, at sundry times, by it self, gives full assurance, and works all other effects in our consciences, that it doth when the Church propounds it. Fourthly, the Scripture is so sufficient of itself, both to reveal whatsoever is needful to be known, and to establish and assure our heart in the infallible faith of that it reveals, that the Church hath neither authority to add, so much as one article, more than is contained therein; nor power to give this assurance from any thing, but from the Scripture itself. So far forth, that THE WHOLE TEACHING, AND DOCTRINE, AND AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH IS TO BE ADMITTED, AND YIELDED TO, OR REFUSED, ACCORDING AS IT CONSENTS, OR DISAGREES WITH THE SCRIPTURE, the fountain of truth, the rule of faith. Note FIFTLY, what our adversaries mean by the Church, and the means, whereby the Church executes her authority; what the things are, which by her authority she may do: and what the proper effect is, that this authority works in us. First, by this Church 
d This is showed c. 35. nu. 1. etc. 36. nu. 1.  they understand the Church of Rome, for the present time being: and therein the Pope, in whom they say, the whole power, and virtue of the Church abideth. Secondly, the means, whereby it executeth her authority, is unwritten Tradition; out of the which it supplies all things pretended to be needful for the exposition of the Scripture, or the defining of matters, that must be believed. Thirdly, the things, that she may do, by her authority, are all things, that appertain to the questions of religion. 
1 Cus. epi. 2. 3. 7.  to expound the Scripture after her own judgement: 
2 Conc. Trid. sess. 24. can. 3.  to dispense against the Scripture: 
3 Stapl. princip. l. 9 c. 14. & relect. pag. 514.  to canonize new Scripture, that before was none: 
4 Stapl. ibi. & relect. p. 494. & inde.  to give authority to the Scripture. 
5 August. de Ancon. qu. 59 art. 1. &. 2.  to make new articles of faith. 
6 Gl. de transl. episc. Quanto. §. veri.  to make that to be the sense of the Scripture, that is not: Lastly, the effect of this power is the same, that the Scripture breeds, and more: 
7 Grets'. defence. Bel. tom. 1. pag. 1218. c.  obedience in all that will be saved, so that the world is bound, as much to the Pope's definitive sentence, as to the Scripture, or the voice of God himself. 
8 The speech of all the canonists.  for Christ, and the Pope make but one tribunal: 
9 Capistran. de author. Pap. pag 130. . He is above all, like him, that came down from heaven. 
10 Capist. ibi.  For with God, and the Pope his will is sufficient reason, and that which pleases him, hath the vigour of a law. 
11 Palaeot. de consist. part. 5. q 9  after his sentence pronounced no man must doubt or delay to yield: 
12 Petrisedes in Romano sol●o collocata, libertate plena, in suis agendis per omnia poteri debet, nec ulli subesse homini. Gl. ibid. ubi sup.  yea all the Counsels, and Doctors, and Churches in the world must stoop to his determination.  
5 These five things thus observed, it is easy to see, that our adversaries attribute more to the Church, then to be only a means for the communicating of that, which is in the Scripture to us; expounding the authority thereof, that it exceeds the latitude of a Candlestick, and is turned into the Candle itself. And so to return to my adversaries answer, and to conclude, I thus reason: The Ministry, and authority of the Church is required either only as a condition to instruct us, and lead us to the knowledge, and assurance of that which is contained in the Scripture itself; or else as a means to reveal unto us some thing, that is not conceived in the Scripture; But not of the latter: for all articles of faith are in the Scripture. Therefore the former; Therefore the Scripture alone is the rule of faith.  
6 My adversary says it troubles us, that he says, there be dives questions of faith, which are not expressly set down, nor determined in the Scripture. Whereto I answered, that this was not the question, for if by expressly he meant, written word for word, in so many syllables, than the rule is not bound to contain all things thus expressly; it being sufficient, if all things needful were contained therein in respect of the sense, so that it might be gathered from thence by consequence: the question not being, in what manner, but whether any way at all, the whole, and entire object of our faith be revealed in the Scripture, though some part thereof be gathered but by Consequence from that which is written expressly in so many syllables. To this my adversary replies, that it troubles us sore to be thus convinced with the evidence of the matter, that we cannot deny it: but are driven to confess divers substantial points not to be expressly set down. But he is deceived; it troubles us not a whit: would this hateful guise of bragging, and talking of Convincing, when nothing is granted, but that which belongs not to the question, troubled us no more. For no Protestant affirms all things to be written expressly, but only that All things belonging to faith are written: in such sort, that we have, in the Canonical books, either express words, as plain, as any man can speak, or infallible sense, which any man, by using the means may understand, for every article of faith whatsoever. Neither did D. M. Luther, or any of the learned Divines of our Church, whom my adversary in his canting language, calls his new Masters, ever hold otherwise. He says, by our leaves this was the question, first, when our Grandfather Luther was so hot to have express Scripture, that he would have all expressed, even in words, etc. And bids me see Gretser in his defence of Bellarmine. But by his leave, Gretser and he both, speak untruly, and he absurdly. For he so quotes Gretser, that a man would think Gretser had showed out of Luther's writings some places, wherein Luther required express Scripture, even in words: which he doth not, nor Bellarmine, whom he defends, could do: but be reports in English, what Gretser lied in Latin, and then bids see Gretser, when there is as little in Gretser to this purpose, as in himself. If M. Luther, and the Divines of our Church, confess many things not to be written verbatim in express syllables: as it is not thus written, that infants must be baptised: or that Christ is consubstantial with his Father: do they therefore confess, they are not written at all? or will himself conclude the Scripture wants that, which is not written in so many words? Is the true sense, and meaning of the words nothing? are they not as well conclusions of Scripture, which are deduced by true discourse, as which are expressed, verbatim? doth not Picus 
e Theorem 5. sub sin.  say, such are most properly conclusions of faith, which are drawn out of the old, and new Testament, or by good connexion depend on those, that are drawn? doth not the Cardinal of Cambrey 
f 1. q. 1. art 3. p. 50 h.  say, They are conclusions of divinity not only which formally are contained in Scripture, but also which necessarily follow of that, which is so contained? And before him 
g Prologue. sent. qu. 1. art. 2 pag. 10. f. Rom. edit.  Aureolus, another Cardinal: In the second manner of proceeding, when we go forward from one proposition believed, and another necessary: or from both believed to inquire of any one, that is doubtful: no other habit is obtained, but the habit of faith: the contrary whereof are heresies? in which words we see, he affirms a going forward from that, which is certainly believed (because it is expressly written) to that which is gathered by discourse, and makes this latter also to belong to faith. I know few of the schoolmen deny this: whereupon it followeth manifestly, that it is reputed to be within the contents of the Scripture, not only which is expressed in words, but also which is so in sense, and good consequence: In which manner, I have proved unanswerably, that all the whole object of faith is expressed.   

CHAP. XXXI.  
Wherein the place of 2. Tim. 3.15. alleged to prove the fullness and sufficiency of the Scripture alone, is expounded and urged against the jesuits cavils.  A. D. To my answer of the Protestant objection, whereas I say, 
Pag. 190.  the Apostle affirming the Scripture to be profitable, doth not avouch the alone sufficiency of it: Whereas also secondly I say, it is rather profitable, in that it commendeth the authority of the Church, which is sufficient: M. White replieth against the first part of this my answer; 
White. pag. 55.  that when the Apostle saith, the Scripture is profitable, etc. he meaneth, that it is so profitable, that a man by using it, may be made perfect to every work; and thereupon thus he reasoneth, We do not say Scripture is profitable, Ergo sufficient: but it is profitable to every thing, Ergo sufficient, I answer that this consequence is not good: Piety is by S. Paul said to be profitatable to every thing; doth it therefore follow, that it is sufficient in such sort, that there need no other help, or means to be joined with it, to attain whatsoever thing? M. Wootton, and M. White seem to reason more strongly, yet weakly enough to this effect. That is sufficient which is able to make a man wise to salvation, and which is profitable (taking the word profitable, as expounded by the word able) to make one absolute, and perfect, etc. But the Apostle affirmeth Scripture to be able, and profitable to the foresaid purposes. Ergo. To this I answer, that if they had put into the argument, the word alone (of which all the question is) it would more plainly appear, how it proveth nothing. Secondly I might say that the Apostle speaketh of the old Testament, 
Wootton. p. 97  as M. Wootton granteth, yea of every parcel thereof, as the word Omnis signifieth: yet I hope, that neither M. Wootton, nor M. White will say, that now the old Testament, without the new, and much less every parcel of the old, is, of itself alone, sufficient for all the foresaid purposes. For if so, what need were there of the new Testament, or of the other parts, besides any one parcel of the old? Thirdly I say, that the word profitable, is not to be expounded by the word able: and if it were, the word able doth not signify, that the Scripture is so able, as to work that effect, without any other means, or helps concurring with it; but at the most, doth import a great degree of profitableness. Or if it import sufficiency, it is not meant, that alone sufficiency, of which our question is, but at the most sufficiency, in suo genere, in a certain limited kind, to wit, of written Scripture. Against the second part of my answer, first M. White either had a corrupt copy of my treatise: or else himself, his writer, or printer, corrupteth even my words, and sense. For I do not say (as he maketh me) the Scripture is sufficient, because etc. But I say only, that it is profitable, the rather because it commendeth the authority of the Church. By which corruption, he maketh himself matter to work upon: but very idly, most of his objections being overthrown, only by reading my words aright, as I set them down. His chief objection is this. The Scriptures are able to make the man of God perfect; that is, the Pastors, the Pope, Council, and all: but it cannot send these to the Church; because these be the Church. I answer, that it sendeth even these also to the Church. First in that it sendeth them to the interpretation of Counsels, and Fathers of the ancient Church. Secondly it sendeth them, as they are private men, needing instruction, to themselves, as authorized Pastors, who by the assistance of God's Spirit, shall be enabled, as need shall require, for their own, and other men's instruction, to define rightly, which is the right doctrine of faith in any point, wherein Controversy shall arise. The answer of his other objections may without difficulty be gathered out of that, which here I have said already, and which I am after to say, when I do show how Church authority is proved out of Scripture. Whence followeth not, that other places of Scripture, either are superfluous, or not to be accounted part of the rule; or that Church doctrine is to be opposed to Scripture, or to be accounted human traditions, or doctrine of men. The sentences of Fathers, and others which M. White bringeth to prove alone sufficiency of Scripture, either prove nothing against me, to wit, being explicated, that the Scriptures, with other means provided by God, (namely the authority of the Church) are able to instruct us: or else they prove against him, and his fellow M. Wootton, as well as against me, if the Father's words be taken without limitation, that the Scriptures alone, without any means joined to them, are able to instruct us in all things. And it is marvel that these men have so little judgement, to allege such authorities, which make no more again Church-authority, required by me, then against Church-ministery, which is required by themselves, as the ordinary means to instruct men in faith. 
1 The Apostle 2. Tim. 3.15. hath these words. The holy Scriptures are ABLE to make thee wise TO SALVATION through THE FAITH, WHICH IS IN CHRIST JESUS. For the whole Scripture is inspired of God, and is profitable to TEACH, to IMPROVE, to CORRECT, to INSTRUCT IN ALL RIGHTEOUSNESS: That the man of God may be ABSOLUTE, and made PERFECT, UNTO ALL GOOD WORKS. This text we allege to prove the sufficiency of the Scripture, whereto my Adversary in his discourse 
a In the WAY. §. 11.  answered two things. First, that the Apostle doth not say in these words, that the Scripture is sufficient to instruct a man to perfection, but that it is profitable, but I showed that he affirms it to be SUFFICIENT by three reasons: the first, because the Apostle says, They are able to make us PERFECT, and that to EVERY good work: now that which doth this, is sufficient, inasmuch as God requires no more at any man's hand, but perfection to every good work. My Adversary in this his confused Reply (wherein he durst not deal openly, and distinctly, that I might perfectly discern, which part of my argument, his words properly concern) seems to deny the consequence, because S. Paul says also, that Piety is profitable to every thing; and yet it is not sufficient in such sort, that there needs no other help, or means to be joined with it, to attain whatsoever thing. Whereto I reply again. First, that even this Piety, being the total, and whole effect, that the study of the Scripture works in men, is sufficient, without the joining of any thing else to it, that is not Piety; for it follows in the next words; that this Piety hath the promises of this life, and of the life to come: that is to say, whatsoever is promised us in this world or in the next, is obtained by Piety. Therefore Piety is sufficient. Therefore any thing in this example notwithstanding, the Scriptures being affirmed to be profitable to every thing, are affirmed also to be sufficient. Secondly, we do not maintain the Scripture to be sufficient in that sense, that without all help, and means to learn them, they will suffice; for who ever denied the ministry of the Church, the illumination of God's Spirit, and a man's own sincere endeavour to be also requisite? But when we say they are sufficient, we do it against the assertion, that says, they contain not the substance of all things needful to be known; but besides the means to understand, and learn them, we need Church authority, and unwritten tradition, to supply divers articles of faith, that they reveal not. Thirdly, my Adversary may possibly find some forms of speech, where a thing is called profitable to all things; yet other things are as necessary as it; for the profitableness of one thing, excludes not the necessity of another thing. But wheresoever it is said, that any thing is profitable (not simply to this, or that purpose) but to make persect to every thing in the same kind, there the sufficiency thereof is absolutely concluded: and thus the Apostle speaks of the Scripture, that it is profitable to make PERFECT to EVERY good work. The said perfection being an effect of their profitableness: for that profitable thing is sufficient of itself, that makes, and produces the effect perfect.  
2 My second reason, whereby I showed the sufficiency of the Scripture was this: All that we need to salvation is either to be taught, or reproved, or instructed, or corrected: but the Scripture alone doth all this. Ergo they are sufficient: to this he answers nothing.  
3 Thirdly I reasoned thus, That is sufficient, and contains all things needful to be known, which is able to make a man wise to salvation; but the Scripture is able to do this: Ergo it is sufficient: this argument he hath tumultuously repeated, as he hath all the rest, and answered I know not how. First, he says, if the word alone had been put in, it would more plainly appear, how it proves nothing, let the world therefore be put in: That which alone is able to make a man wise to salvation is sufficient, but such is the Scripture, that alone it is able to make a man wise to salvation, Therefore it is sufficient. How doth it now appear so plainly that it proves nothing? the first proposition is manifest of it self, the second is as manifest; for all that the Apostle affirms, is of the Scripture alone, and of nothing else; for of Scripture alone, he says, it is able to make wise to salvation, it is profitable to teach, to reprove, to instruct, to correct, that the man of God may be perfect, the conclusion therefore must needs be true. Secondly he says, the Apostle speaks of the old Testament yea of every parcel of Scripture, yet M. White will not say, that, now specially, the old Testament, without the New, or every parcel of the old itself, is alone sufficient for all the said purposes, whereto M. White answers, that he neither speaks of the old Testament alone, nor of any one parcel, either of old, or new separated from the rest, but of the whole, in this sense all the whole Scripture taken together is able, etc. And if the jesuits, and D. Stapleton, whom this man traces, had not renounced all truth, they would not say it, when that which the Apostle avouches of the Scripture, cannot agree to every parcel alone, but to all together, for what one parcel performs all these effects, to make wise to salvation, to teach, to reprove to instruct, to correct, to make perfect? the Scripture is so understood, as that all these things may truly be affirmed of it, but these things cannot truly be affirmed of the parcels alone: Ergo.  
4 Thirdly he says the word PROFITABLE must not expound the word ABLE, or if it be, the word ABLE doth not signify, that the Scripture is so able, as to work that effect without any other means, or helps, concurring with it, but at the most it imports a great degree of profitableness. This is no answer to this argument. But to another that he hath not expressed. I said therefore thirdly, though very briefly, By the word able, the other word profitable must be expounded. Which I thus put into form: that which is PROFITABLE, by being ABLE, is sufficient: the Scripture is so PROFITABLE, that it is ABLE to make us wise to salvation: Ergo it is sufficient. He first denies the Minor, and says, the word profitable, is not to be expounded by the word Able: but he seems to be dazzled. For: that which is able to make wise to salvation, must needs be able to make absolute, and perfect, because perfection consists in being wife to salvation: but the Scripture alone is able to make wise to salvation: Ergo. Next he says, that supposing the word PROFITABLE be expounded by the word ABLE: thus, Scripture is able to make one absolute, and perfect: yet the meaning is not that it is able without other helps, and means concurring with it, but at the most, that it is very profitable: and if it be sufficient, yet this sufficiency is not that whereof our question is, but in a certain limited kind, to wit, of written Scripture. That is to say: if by able to make us wise to salvation, be meant that the Scriptures are sufficient, yet it is not meant, that, alone they are sufficient, as the Protestants hold; but with a limitation, so far as Scripture can be sufficient. In which his answer he plainly discovers himself to be foundered, and spent. For our question is not, whether the Scripture alone, without using the Ministry of the Church, or our own industry, or such means, as God hath appointed for the finding our, and understanding of that which is contained in it, be sufficient: for Bread, and Drink, and all manner of food, is not sufficient to sustain man's life, if he take no pains to get it, or if he be not able to swallow, and digest it: and my adversaries own Church, and traditions, with all their royalties, are not sufficient, unless men take pains to find them, and be so mad as to believe them, and so blind as to let them down: but the question is of their latitude, and extent, viz. whether the written Scripture contain, in express words, or sense, the whole, and entire doctrine of faith, and good life, so that the Church by her authority, and traditions, may add no point of faith, that is wanting in the Scripture. This appears to be the question by my adversaries own words: and the words of the Divines in his Church. Now the Apostle saying, the Scripture is able to make one wise to salvation, affirms the sufficiency of it alone, without any other help, or means, to supply any doctrine or matter of faith, not contained therein, because there is no more needful but to be wise to salvation, and that wisdom the Scripture is able to instruct us in. Which ability is not limited to certain points, but extended to all the whole object of faith, by the word. For thus I reason: He speaks of the Scripture alone, and nothing else, therefore the Scripture alone is able to make wise to salvation: therefore it is so profitable, and in such sort, to make absolute, and perfect to every good work that it can do it. For it is able. Therefore it alone is sufficient. Therefore this sufficiency is so limited to written Scripture, that it is perfectly, and wholly contained in it.  
5 The second part of my adversaries answer, in his discourse, to the text alleged, was, that the Scripture is said to be profitable, because it commends to us the authority of the Church. This his answer I opposed with 7. arguments. But when I repeated it, I put in the word sufficient, thus: He says they be profitable, and SUFFICIENT because they commend unto us the Church's authority, the addition of which word, you see, he distastes, and makes a vantage of, thereby to put off the answer to six of my arguments. That the Proverb might be true, it's an ill wind, but blows some men profit: for under that pretence, he takes occasion to cavil, and put off that he could not answer. For first, the word might well be put in without any prejudice to his sense. For if their profitableness lie in commending to us the Church authority, than their sufficiency lies there too: and so I might well make him say, they be profitable, and sufficient, because they commend unto us the Church's authority. Secondly, it is idle that he says my objections are overthrown, Only by reading his words aright, leaving out the word sufficient. For let him look upon them again, and he shall find, they ourthrow his exposition of profitable, as well as if he had expounded, sufficient, in the same manner. But my adversary will take a small occasion to shun an argument.  
6 Only to the sixth he replies: for whereas I said the meaning cannot be, that they are profitable, because they commend unto us the Church's authority, because the Apostle says, they are able to make the man of God perfect, that is, the Pastor himself, the Pope, the Council, and all: and it were absurd to say, that the Scriptures make the Church perfect by commending it to itself; for them the Apostles should speak thus by my adversaries exposition, the Scriptures are profitable to make the Church perfect, by commending to it the authority of the Church: and yet he defends it. First, because it sends them, Pastors, Pope, Council, and all, to the interpretations of Counsels, and Fathers, of the ancient Church. But then I demand, how did they make perfect the ancient Church itself, the first Counsels, and Fathers, of whom the Apostle speaks, as well as of the latter? for they had none to retire to, but the Scripture only. Secondly because the Pastors of the Church sustain two persons, one as public Pastors authorized to teach: another as private men, needing instruction themselves, and so the Apostle says, the Scripture sends them, as private men to themselves, considered as public men, enabled as need shall require to define the truth in any point; the which is an irksome answer, to any that shall consider it; for although a Pastor be considered these 2. ways, yet it is false that is assumed, that he which as a private man errs, and is ignorant, yet as a public person, is able to direct himself, and others, and define the truth, this I say is a trick to mock an ape with, though it be all the shift they have to defend the Pope, from being a formal heretic; and yet admitting it to be true, that the Pastors of the Church, considered as private men, are sent to themselves considered as public men, yet it cannot be true, that the Scripture makes them perfect this way by sending and commending them to themselves, because the perfection avouched is the effect of that teaching, that reproving, that correcting, that instructing which is contained in the Scripture itself, and not in the authority of man, whither the Scripture is imagined to send us. For all that the Apostle, in this text, affirms, is of the Scripture alone, as appears,  
7 Besides my argument, I alleged some testimonies of Chrysostome, and certain Papists, to justify my exposition, wherein they affirm as much out of the text, as I do; whereto he replies, that the said testimonies must either be explicated to mean that the Scriptures are able to instruct us with the means of Church authority, or else be taken without limitation; if they be thus explicated, they prove nothing against him, if they be taken without limitation, they prove as much against us, as against him. I answer to the first, the testimonies are to be seen, and the words thereof are so full, that they cannot be thus explicated: as for example, Chrysostome in his words, expounds S. Paul to distinguish the Scripture against his own ministry. Thou hast the Scripture to teach thee in steed of me, if thou desire to know anything, there thou mayest learn it, that which can teach us in steed of the Church Pastors, can teach us without their authority, & if God as Antonin says, hath spoken but once, & that in the Scriptures, & that so fully, that he speaks no more, how can the meaning be, that other authority should be joined with them? for so God should speak twice: once in the Scriptures, another time in the Church, and in the Scripture so far from fully, that he needs speak again in the Church. The like may be said to the other testimonies, but I refer the judgement to the conscience of the Reader. To the second, if these words be taken without limitation, that alone without any means joined to them they are able to instruct us, they prove as much against me, as against him, that its marvel, I should have so little judgement, I demand, and why so I pray? because than they will make as much against our Church ministry, as against his Church authority: which had been spoken to the point, if we by Church ministry, had meant either the same, or as much, as he doth by Church authority; but when his Church authority intends a supply of that which is wanting, in the Scripture by traditions, & our Church ministry no more but a simple condition of using the means, to make us see, that which is contained in them: which ministry also we do not hold to be always, & unto all persons, necessary, he may let our judgements alone, and take a new reckoning of his own, that is so simple, as to make alike things that are so far unlike, his Church authority, and our Church ministry.   

CHAP. XXXII.  
Touching private spirits that expound against the Church. 1. Such private expositions refused by the Protestants. 2. And yet the Papists have no other. All teaching is to be examined, even by private men. 5. Certain propositions showing how the Church teaching may be, or may not be, examined and refused.  

Pag. 196. Wootton p. 110 White pag. 62.  A.D. Concerning the ninth Chapter— M. Wootton, and M. White both seem to disclaim from immediate teaching of private spirits, and consequently seem to grant the substance of the conclusion of this Chapter in such sense, as it was principally intended by me; yet wheresoever they be urged to tell, how they infallibly know, that there is any Scripture at all, and that these, and no other books, be Canonical Scripture, and that this, or that, is the true interpretation, and sense of this, or that text of holy Scripture, (upon which questions well resolved the whole frame of their faith doth depend,) after alleging other reasons, drawn from rules of art, and knowledge of tongues, etc. which they know to be infallible, they must be forced finally to fly, for infallible assurance, either to the immediate teaching of their private spirit, or else to run the round betwixt Scripture, and private spirit, in such sort as I have showed in the Introduction: 
Introd. q. 6.  and hence it seemeth to proceed that they both thought fit to make answer to my reasons, which they needed not to have done, if the conclusion of this Chapter had no ways been contrary to their doctrine. 
White. pag. 59 60.  M. White before he begin to answer my reasons, distinguisheth a double meaning of the word private which I put in my conclusion, and saith, that if I meant it, as it is opposed (o strange opposition!) to divine, and spiritual, I said well: but using it as we Catholics do, as it is opposed to common, he saith that a private man may so be assisted with the Holy Ghost, that he may interpret Scripture truly, and infallibly, against a company, as big as the Roman Church. 
1 HIs third conclusion, touching the rule of faith, was, that no private man who persuadeth himself, to be specially instructed by the spirit, can be this rule of faith: specially so far forth, as he teaches, or believes, contrary to the received doctrine of the Catholic Church: the which I granted to be true, but admonished the Reader withal, that he had a further reach therein, then yet he made show of. For his intent was to condemn all particular men, and Churches that should either refuse, or examine the public faith of the Church of Rome, which he means by the Catholic Church, as Wickliff, Hus, Luther, and the Churches of England, Scotland, and Germany have done: the which his intent, the rather because the Divines of his Church, are so 
a Proh nefandum hominem: calvinus, poeta & Cynadus stigmaticus, errare non potest; Ecclesia tamen, Christi sponsa, errori est obnoxia. una Geneva, evibrato è sole radio, coruscat: Ecclesia autem in tenebris squalet & conticescit. West. de tripl. office l. 3. pag. 337.  violent therein, I confuted by answering all his arguments, which marching against private spirits, I easily perceived to be meant, against the Protestant Churches, casting off the papacy. Now let us see what heresies, first he says, that I seem to disclaim from immediate teaching of private spirits, and to grant the substance of his conclusion, in that sense wherein it was principally intended. He affirms two things of me. First, that I seem to disclaim the immediate teaching of private spirits. This I grant: and wish that himself, and his sectaries, by our example, would likewise disclaim the private spirit of the Pope, 
b Sicut coelum generat & corrumpit ista inferiora; alterat & variat ipsa; nihil tamen istorum inferiorum insurgit contra coelum, vel appellat contra ipsum, sed patienter tolerat quicquid coelum operatur in e●s, sive per generationem, sive corruptionem, sive alterationem: sic potest as Papalis, tanquam celestis, ita potest omnes inferiores potestates, tam Clericorum quam Laicorum, generare, cerrumpere, & alterare; quia nulli licet insurgere vel appellare contra ipsum. August. Triumph. sum. de eccl. pot. q 6. ●●t 5. Sententia Papae est praeferenda sententiae omnium aliorum. joh de Turrecrem. sum. de eccles. l. 3. c. 64. concls. 1. Sententiae Papae standum est quando contradicit sententiae totius Concilii. joh. Andrae. quem refert sylvest sum. v. Concil. n. 3. Papa, absque Concilio, revocat gesta in Concilio— Si Papa & Concilium diversas constitutiones edant, praefertur constitutio Papae tanquam maioris authoritatis. joh. Capistran de author. Pap. pag. 105. In pontifice totam esse Monarchiam spiritualem, & ipsius potestatem ab omni regula, quae coarctet, absolutam esse. Hie●on Alban, de potest. Pap. pag. 125. n. 122. Summus pontifex, tanquam agens universal, ecclesiasticas omnes potestates, veluti agentia particularia, sua authoritate continet.— Palaeot. de consist. pag. 61. Probatione non indiget, Cardinalium, aut aliorum, consensum in rebus consistorialibus definiendis nullatenus necessarium esse. pag. 25. Ad ostendendum Papae primatum & super omnia potestatem, dicitur corporalis in orb Deus. Dominic. jacobat. de council. p. 653. edit. Rom. per Anto. Blade. 1538.  who determines above, beside, and against the public spirit of the whole Church. Next, that consequently I seem to grant the substance of his conclusion, as it was principally intended by him: this is false: for though I allow the conclusion, yet not his principal intent, which 
c In the WAY. § 58. & inde.  afterward he discovers to be against our Divines, & Church, that resisted the Papacy: 
d §. 60, ,& 57  alleging this reason against them: that they were but private men, and a few of them lately sprung up, against the universal Church. Which was the cause why I distinguished 2 senses of the conclusion, the one seeming in the words, the other lurking in the intent; and this latter I confuted.  
2 Secondly he says, notwithstanding we seem to disclaim private spirits, yet we are finally forced to fly to them again. No marvel; when he says it: but say on, how are we enforced, and by what necessity? Because whensoever they be urged, How they know there be any Scripture? How they know these books to be Scripture: How they know this, or that to be the sense of the Scripture: they are forced finally to fly, for infallibly assurance, to the immediate teaching of their private spirit: or else to run the round betwixt Scripture, & private spirit. This is untrue. For we ground not our faith of these things, or any thing, upon our own spirit, but upon the Spirit of God, bearing witness with our spirit, and speaking unto us out of the Scripture itself, in the midst of the Catholic Church: in this manner, that every one which is enlightened of God (& no other can have assurance any way, but remains in unbelief, as Gentiles, Atheists, and Heretics do) feels the holy Ghost testifying these things to his heart, and infallibly assuring him by the Scripture itself: which light of the Spirit of God, shining to our spirit, is the formal reason of believing: the which spirit if my Adversary will deny, or call a man's own private spirit, or measure whether it be God's Spirit or Noah, by the agreement thereof with the Church of Rome, and the Pope's will: when themselves are part of that, that must be tried by the Spirit of God, let him go for an Atheist, and one that renounces the habit of infused faith, which is not resolved into any thing, 
e Actus sidei infusae est credere Divinae veritati propter se. Aquar in Capreol. p. 43. e.  but the authority of this spirit; or if he distaste that, let him look upon two principles holden by his own Divines. 
f Staplet. princi. doctr. fid. pag. 274. Triplicat. pag. 183.  The first, that the internal persuasion of the Holy Ghost, or the alone habit of faith infused, is so effectual, that thereby ALONE, WITHOUT THE TESTIMONY, AND TEACHING OF THE CHURCH a man may believe (that is to say, be infallibly assured) of any thing that must be believed. The second that 
g Greg. de Valent. tom 3. p. 32. Alexand. Peasant. in Thom. p. 479.  the proposition of the Church is believed to be infallible, for the revelation of Scripture giving testimony to the Church, which revelation of the Scripture, is believed FOR ITSELF. These principles affirming, that without any authority of the Church, by the Spirit of God alone, a private man may be infallibly assured: and that the Scripture, proving to us the infallible authority of the Church, is lastly believed for itself; let him show, if he can, so that we may understand him, that it must needs be a private spirit of a man's own, whensoever by the Scripture alone, without, and beyond the authority of the Church, we rest contented, and assured of that we believe. For before the Church authority, and after it, and without it, men may be infallibly assured by God's Spirit in their hearts, by means of the Scriptures believed, (therefore known, and understood) in themselves. Again they hold the Pope to be the supreme Pastor, yet think, 
h Occh. open 90. dierum. cap. 1.  that in case of heresy, one may appeal from him to a superior judge, and 
i Gi. d. 19 Avast. §. in concilio.  in a difficult cause, whether of faith, or right, he must call a Council, where if the Council & he cannot agree in deciding but are contrary, 
k Anton de ●●o. ●e●●. Mon ●●h. ●●ct de concil. p 47. ●urt●●ē. d. 19 S●cundum E c●. n. 6.  than they of the two must be followed, which have the best reason. 
l ●ur●ecrem d. 40. Si ●●pa. n. 4. Sima●ch. Cathol. instit. tit. 12 n. 13.  when the faith lies in danger, the Cardinals, or a Council may resist the Pope: in all which cases, how shall a private man, or a whole nation, be infallibly assured of truth? the Pope may err: he may err definitively against a Council: he may be an heretic: he may be resisted: the Council also may err, the faith may be endangered: therefore men must try their reasons: all this is confessed. Where now is this judge, that my adversary talks of? neither the Pope, nor a Council is it; for men must follow them of the two, that had the best reasons: who shall judge of their reasons? the Christian people whom the cause concerns? And by what can they judge, but by some thing distinct from both Council, and Pope, and above them both? which is the 
m So Occam. Gerson. Panorm. The Divines now of Venice and Paris, in their tractates of this matter.  Scripture, or nothing. And for so much as no man can understand the Scripture without God's Spirit: therefore in the case propounded, our adversaries must allow, both Pope, and Council to be tried by private spirits, as much as we do the teaching of the Church. Let the most zealous, and learned Papist that lives, consider this, and he shall perceive that what we mean, when we say, The Scripture is the supreme rule, and the true sense thereof is assured unto us lastly, and authoratively by the Spirit of God, themselves are driven to hold, as well as we. Therefore whatsoever my adversary hath rabbled together in his Introduct, it is no more a circle in us, to prove our spirit by the Scripture; and again to be assured of the Scripture by the Spirit, than it is, in discourse, to go too, and fro between causes, and effects. But 
* See D. R. Field 2. part. Append. p. 12. § 5. & 6. where this point is showed effectually.  it is himself, and his own Divines, that run the round.  
3 Thirdly he says, that I needed not have answered the reasons of his conclusion: if the conclusion had not been against our doctrine; but this is idle: for I answered the reasons, because of that which the conclusion intended. Good words (especially with equivocators) may have a bad purpose: in which case the sense must be distinguished, and that which is false, confuted.  
4 Fourthly he says 2. things about my distinguishing of the word private. For the understanding whereof, note, that his conclusion being, No private man persuading himself to be instructed by the Spirit, can be the Rule of faith: I answered, that if he meant private (when he says so often in the process of his argument private spirits) as it is opposed to divine, and spiritual, he said well; but using it in another sense, as it is opposed to common, and usual, his conclusion was untrue. To this he replies, first, o strange opposition! but this he doth only by the way, because he would not lose a Parenthesis. His head being so full of mental reservations, that it makes his book break out all over into Parentheses, as if it were full of the Measles: for when particular men, and private spirits do not err by reason of their small number, but by holding against that, which is divine, and spiritual; what such strange opposition is it, to oppose the private spirit, against the divine Spirit of God: and a private man, against him that is spiritual? In this sense, No private man's spirit can be the rule, if by private he mean not that which is not so common, but that which is not divine, and spiritual. But this is not worth the standing on: his second exception is against the matter of the distinction. For I said, a private man may be so assisted by the holy Ghost, that he may interpret Scripture truly, and infallibly, against a company as big, as the Roman Church. To this he replies: denying my supposition, that it is not to be thought the holy Ghost assists any, that expounds the Scripture contrary to the universal Catholic Church, the which I think too: and therefore this is not the point in question; when we both agree: but the point is, whether these private men, and spirits, being expounded to be Luther, & such as he was, with the Churches that cast off the Papacy: & this Catholic, and universal Christian Church, being expounded (as it is by our adversary) to be the Papacy, or Roman Church: them whether the private company may not have God's Spirit, and the great company want it: and so consequently, the said private company be able to have the truth against that, which A. D. calls the Catholic, universal Church? for we affirm it. Not by saying that Luther, or any of our side, had God's Spirit, or saw any truth, which the true Church did not see: but that they had, and saw the the truth in the midst of the Church against the Papacy, which now ridiculously is styled the Catholic universal Church. And therefore my adversay, and all of his side, do but trifle away time, in opposing the universal Church, against M. Luther, until they have proved the Papacy to be it, and Luther with such as followed him, no part of it. For he resisted not the Catholic Church, but the Papacy in the Catholic Church.   
A. D. I do not deny, but that a private man, 
Pag. 196.  supposing he were indeed assisted by the holy Ghost, might interpret Scripture truly, and infallibly, against a company, as big as the Roman Church, supposing this company were not so assisted. But herein consisteth the chief point of the question, whether it be to be thought, that the holy Ghost doth indeed, or not, assist one, or some few private men, who presuming that they are so assisted, do interpret the holy Scripture, in such sense, as is contrary to the sense of the holy Catholic, or universal Christian Church (whether it be Roman, or not, I do not now dispute, this we shall see hereafter) which (as I shall prove) is undoubtedly known, by the promises of Christ to have the assistance of the holy Ghost. This being the point in question, my conclusion in this Chapter is, that no private man, pretending never so much to be spiritual, or specially inspired, is to be thought indeed inspired by the holy Ghost, when he interpreteth Scripture, (as Luther, and his like did) in a sense contrary to the unanime interpretation of the precedent, and then living Pastors of the Catholic Church; and consequently it is not to be thought that the private spirit of such a man, is to be followed in interpretation of Scripture, or otherwise, as the rule of faith, or as a sufficient infallible means, to lead men, and to direct them in the knowledge of matters, which are to be believed by faith. Now this being the sense of my conclusion, let us hear how my adversaries will answer my proofs. 
5 First he grants, that a private man, assisted by the holy Ghost, may interpret Scripture truly, and infallibly, against a company as big as the Roman Church, supposing the said company were not so assisted: but it is not to be thought that the holy Ghost forsakes the Catholic Church to assist any who interpret contrary to it. Which I think too, and therefore never denied his conclusion, nor gainsaid the arguments, whereby he confirmed it, in this general sense. But when these private men, were expounded to be the reformed Churches, and their Pastors: and this holy, Catholic, universal, Christian Church understood to be the Papacy, and the Romish faction, than I affirmed that private men might have the Spirit of God, and his truth, and the Church want it. But that I be not mistaken, and that the Reader may understand wherein I and my adversaries differ: Note that the name of the Church may be taken 3. ways. First, for the whole company of such, as profess Christ, and his Gospel, collectively in all ages, and places: which is most properly, and really the Catholic universal Church. So expressly 
o Princip. doctr. pag. 99 & 101. edit. Ascens. an. 1532.  Waldensis: This is the Catholic, Apostolic Church of Christ, meant in the Creed, the mother of believers, whose faith cannot fail— not any special Church. Not the African, as Donatus said: not the particular Roman Church, but the universal Church: not assembled in a general Council, which we know, hath sometime erred, but the Catholic Church of Christ dispersed through the whole world since the Baptism of Christ, by the Apostles and their successors to these times, is it which contains the true faith, and holds the certain truth, in the midst of all errors. Secondly for any part of this Catholic Church in this, or that time, or country; as the particular Churches of Greece, Rome, Corinth: or any assembly of Bishops, congregated in a Council, either general, or particular. Thirdly for the Papacy or Romish Church peculiarly, containing that faction which embraces the Romish religion, and lives under the Pope's subjection. In which sense my adversary, and all Papists, always use the name of the Church, 
p Est coetus hominum, eiusdem Christianae fidei professione, & corundem Sacramentorum communione, colligatus, sub reginunt legitimorum Pastorum, ac precipuè unius Christi in terris Vicarij Romani Pontificis— excluduntur schismatici qui habent fidem in sacramenta, sed non subsunt legitimo Pastori. Bell. de eccl. milit. c. 2. Est visibilis hominum c●etus,— sub Christo apite, & ●●us in terris Vicario pastore, ac summo Pontifice, agens Simanch. Cath. instit. t●t. 24. n. 1.  defining it by this Romish faith with subjection to the Pope, and excluding from it all that refuse the Papacy. The which distinction being thus laid, I propound my answer, and that we say touching the point in the fourth proposition. First, No man, or company of men, believing, and expounding the Scripture contrary to that which the universal Church, in the first sense, hath always believed and expounded, can be assured they have the assistance of God's Spirit; but the contrary, they may assure themselves they are led by the spirit of error. The reason is; for no truth can be revealed to any, but that which is in this Church; for if it be not in it, so that the Church never knew or believed it, than it cannot be the truth. For 
q 1. Tim. 3.15.  the Church is the pillar and ground of truth: and so a private man holding it, must needs hold an error. Secondly, A private man, and private companies of men, may be, and many times are so assisted by the holy Ghost, that they may believe, and expound the Scripture truly, against a particular Church or Council of Bishops, either general or particular. The reason is: for God hath left his truth with his Church, therein to remain for ever; but not infallibly every parcel of his truth, with every part, or assembly of the Church. But his providence, and promises to his Church, are sufficiently upholden, if he so support the true faith, that it always remain in some of the Church. Therefore a particular Church or council of Bishops, may at some time, and in some points err: and then it cannot be denied, but others may see the truth against them: this proposition our adversaries dare not deny, nor do not. Thirdly, a private man, and private companies of men believing and expounding the Scripture, only against the Papacy, may be infallibly assured they are assisted by the holy Ghost. The reason is, because this Papacy is no part of God's truth, but the late inventions of men added unto it. Fourthly, Private men, and private companies of men, believing and expounding contrary to the Papacy, resist not the true Church of Christ, nor any part of it. The reason is: for the Papacy being nothing else but a disease or excrement breeding in the Church, must not be expounded to be the Church itself: as a wen or leprosy growing on the body, is not the body itself; and he that cuts off the wen, or purges away the leprosy, cannot be said to resist or wrong the body.  
6 These four propositions thus laid down, it is manifest my adversary doth but cavil in this place. For if his conclusion intended no more, but that private men must not be thought to know the truth, and the true Catholic Church to be in error, no man would speak against him. But the sense of his conclusion is against the three last of my propositions: That no man can be thought inspired of God, or to have the truth, when he expounds Scripture (as Luther and his did) contrary to the church of Rome: in which sense only I dispute against him, and in no other. Not affirming that private men may see the truth, and the Catholic universal Church not see it; but only that private men believing contrary to that which my adversary means by the Catholic universal Church, may have the truth on their side, and be infallibly sure thereof, without holding any thing contrary to the unamine interpretation of the precedent or living Pastors of the sound part of the Catholic Church.    

CHAP. XXXIII.  
1. How a private man is assured he understands and believes aright touching the last and highest resolution of faith. 2. Luther's rejecting the Fathers. 3. Occhams' opinion, that no man is tied to the Pope or his Counsels. 4. The Beraeans examined the doctrine that they were taught. 5. The faith of the believer rests upon divine infused light. 6. M. Luther sought reformation with all humility. 7. Scripture is the ground of true assurance. 8. Who the Pastors were of whom Luther learned his faith. 9 His conference with the Devil. 10. By the Church, the Papists mean only the Pope.  
A.D. To the reason alleged by me, and namely to that point of it, wherein I say, 
Pag. 200.  that a private man, who presuming to be inspired by the spirit, doth oppose himself against the Church, neither can know himself, or can assure others, that his spirit is infallible: M. White answereth, denying this to be true. For, saith he, the Scripture is a light, and known by the sons of light, and by it they may be assured. Now they that be thus assured, are infallibly sure they be taught by the holy Ghost: for all Scripture is inspired of God, and containeth the teaching of the holy Ghost. To this I reply, ask how in particular, Luther (for example) could by Scripture assure himself or others, that he was taught by the Spirit of God? It seemeth by M. Whites answer, that this assurance came by this or the like Syllogism: Whatsoever is taught by Scripture, is infallibly taught by the Spirit of God. But I Luther am taught by Scripture this and that point, viz. that I am justified by only Faith, etc. Ergo, I (Luther) am infallibly assured, and may assure others, that in these points of doctrine, although contrary to the doctrine of the universal visible Church, I am taught by the Spirit of God. But who seethe not the weakness of this proof, when all the certainty thereof is finally resolved into Luther's own private and particular judgement, in his own case? which cannot be proved to be infallible, by saying, he was assisted in his judgement by the Spirit of God; but by begging the question, and supposing that which is the point, that needeth most proof, to wit, that he is in those points taught by the Scripture, or that he is assisted by the Spirit, to interpret aright. He judged so: it is true: but his judgement is fallible, and is so much the more to be suspected to be false, by how much he did prize and overween his own judgement in his own cause, when with intolerable pride he preferred it so contemptuously before the judgement of a thousand Augustine's and Cyprians, and of other most worthy and learned Doctors of the Catholic Church. 
1 HE that opposes himself against the true Catholic Church, holding contrary to the universal doctrine thereof, can give no assurance, either to himself or others, that his Spirit is infallible: this is true; but when Luther and the rest opposed themselves against the Church of Rome, which is the Papacy; this was no presumption, but the work of God's Spirit in them, whereof they might infallibly be assured themselves, and give infallible assurance to others. My reason was this: The Scripture is a light, and known by the sons of light, and by it they may be assured: now they that be thus assured, are infallibly sure they are taught by the holy Ghost. For all Scripture is inspired of God, and containeth the teaching of the holy Ghost. To this he replies, that then the assurance which they have, arises by such a Syllogism as he hath set down. Whereto I answer, granting that it doth, save that in the conclusion there is more (although contrary to the doctrine of the universal visible Church) than he was able with all his skill to contrive into the premises. But he replies, that Luther could have no certainty of the second proposition, that he was in those points taught by the Scripture, when he taught against the universal Church. The which reply grants, that a private man may have infallible assurance he is taught by the Scripture, and assisted by God's Spirit, so long as the thing he holds, is not against the universal Church. But holding this or that point against the Church, he can have no such assurance. I answer first, that Luther and the private men whom he means, taught nothing contrary to the universal Church: much less did they frame to themselves in their mind, the conclusion of this Syllogism, that their conscience should check them, as if they had taught contrary to the universal Church, or felt themselves so taught by the Scripture, that withal they felt the true Church to be against them. They felt no such thing, but categorically they concluded, I am infallibly sure, that in this point of justification, for example, I am taught by the Scripture. Secondly I answer, that Luther and every private Protestant believing justification by only Faith, and all the rest that our Church holdeth against the Papacy, have infallible assurance, they are taught by the Scripture: the which assurance is bred by the plain and evident places of Scripture, and the universal teaching of the true Church confirming the same; whereto the Spirit of God gives witness inwardly in their conscience. But this he says is the question that should be proved: that Luther had these things on his side: I answer, there is in this life no further or after proof above these things: 
a For albeit the proposition and ministery of the Church concur as a condition, yet the authority of God himself, speaking in the Scripture, induces us to believe: in as much as all the authority which the Church hath with a believer, is because the said believer sees and understands by the Scripture, that it is the true Church, etc. Jassisse Deum ut Ecclesiae credamus, non ex Ecclesiae authoritate suspendimus, veluti propria, aut sola (ne quidem in genere causae externae) huius fidei nostrae causa▪ sed partim ex Scripturis manifestissimis, (quibus ad Ecclesiae magisterium remittimur) partim ex ipso fide● symbolo. Stapl. Triplicat. pag. 279.  the final and formal resolution of faith being into the authority and light of the Scripture, and God's Spirit speaking therein: so far forth that our 
b For the jesuits say, the proposition of the Church is believed upon the testimony of the Scripture, & the Scripture is believed for itself. Si quis rogatur, quare credat— si sermo sit de ratione formali assentiendi— Dicat se id credere, quia Deus revelavit. Si rursus interrogetur, unde cognoscat Deum revelasse? Respondeat se id clare non nosse, credere tamen fide infallibili— ob infall●bilem tamen prop●sitionem Ecclesiae tanquam conditionem ad id●redendum requisitam Quaeres, unde cognoscatur propositionem Ecclesiae esse infallibilem? similiter respondeat se id credere, fide infallibili, ob authoritatem Scripturae testimonium perhibentis Ecclesiae, cu● authoritati & revelationi, ob seipsam, credit Alex. Peasant in Tho. 22. p 479. B. & Greg. de Val. ton. 3. p. 31. They that hold the authority of the Church to be the highest re●son inducing us to believe, fall into two gross absurdities: 1. because so our faith shall not be divine, being grounded on the authority of men: 2. because this authority of the Church is one thing itself that is believed, & the fore to be grounded on some superior authority. Can loc l. ●. §. 8. D Weston lays the resolution of faith thus: Our faith of any mystery is resolved into a former act whereby the Scripture, containing this mystery is believed to be the word of God: and this also is resolved into a former act as the cause thereof that the Church cannot err— Which we believe for the signs and notes which show it to be a true Church— Thus resolving all divine faith into human motives. de Tripl. office c. 3. pag. 143.  adversaries themselves, as I have often showed, after all authority of Fathers, Church, Counsels, Pope and all, do rest and resolve their faith upon the second proposition of this Syllogism: I am taught this by Scripture: our adversaries deny not, but Fathers, Counsels, Popes may err: or if they cannot, yet the authority of these things is not the reason of our faith, (for then faith should be human) but the inward authority of the Scripture, and the Spirit of God. If it be demanded, how the Protestants can give infallible assurance to others, that they understand the Scripture aright? I answer, that the same question is to be made to the Papists: and both they and we must answer, that unless God illuminate their hearts, we can give no assurance, neither they by the Church, nor we by the Scripture: but such as have this illumination, do see manifestly the truth of the things they have believed. But Luther, he says, held against the universal Catholic Church. I answer, and let all Papists well consider of it, that they must prove this, which I call the Papacy, to be the universal Catholic Church; afore they can say, Luther was deceived. That, they cannot prove, but by the Scripture, in which trial Luther shall retire to the Scripture, no faster than themselves; and then they may be deceived as well as Luther, in as much (unless they will run in a round) as all their other authority, proofs, and motives, must be tried by the Scriptures; OVERDO WHICH GOD HATH SET NO VISIBLE JUDGE IN THIS WORLD, THAT CAN INFALLIBLY CONVINCE AND PERSUADE ALL MEN. I will make this plain, by laying down the manner how Luther, and how a Papist assures himself. Luther, and the Protestants for their part, believe, for example, that a man is justified by faith only, because the Scripture in plain places excluding works, and proposing Gods free grace in Christ, and maintaining the sole merits of Christ, applied by faith, debars every thing from justifying, that is in ourselves; and so teaches expressly, that we are justified only by faith in Christ. The Papists hold the contrary, alleging the Church and the Pope, whose doctrine, they say, it is, that we are justified by our works. But being demanded, how we know infallibly, that the Church or the Pope hath not erred in holding so, they grant they may err, and answer, that yet they are known not to err in this point, by the Scriptures; which Scripture, and the true sense thereof, is known and believed for itself. Here they are fallen into the same issue that the Protestants are, I am taught this by the Scripture. Now if they reply, that we are infallibly assured the Scripture is meant as we say, because the Church expounds it so; who sees not that they make a circle, thus to believe the Church first, because of the Scripture; and then again to believe the Scripture, because of the Church? Their main resolution therefore is the evidence and authority of the Scripture persuading them, both that the doctrine is true, and that the Church which teaches it, is the true Church. And so they lie open to the same cavils that are made against the Protestant's. Luther in understanding the Scripture, may be deceived: so may they. It is Luther's own cause: so is this the Papists. Luther's judgement is to be suspected, when he preferred himself before the judgement of the Church. The same say we to them, They prefer their judgement before the Church, and all the Fathers: in as much as we can show the Church and Fathers to be against them: and themselves profess, that the Pope's authority is above both Church and Fathers.  
2 Indeed if M. Luther had had a thousand Augustine's and Cyprians, and other Fathers of the Church, with one consent, and plainly against him, he had been so much the more to be suspected, (for this is one main thing, that makes us abhor the present Roman Church, because it prefers itself and the Pope's determination before all the Doctors in the world) but he never thought so, nor said so. His words are these, in 
c Tom. 2. Wittemb. pag 344.  a book that he writ against King Henry the 8. Lastly he produces the sayings of the Fathers for the establishing of the sacrifice of the Mass, and sees my foolishness, who alone will be wiser than all other. This is is it I say, that by this, my opinion is confirmed. For this I said, that these 
* His uncivil speeches to the King, himself afterward retracted. Sleid. They are but a weak argument to discredit his reformation. Lucifer Caralitanus his books against the Emperor Constantius, are as bitter and violent. If Luther offended against K. Harry: the jesuits and their supplies repay it to K. james: and long since have returned it with the interest, to good Q. Elizabeth.  Thomisticall asses, have nothing to produce but a multitude of men, and antic use; and then to him that brings the Scriptures, to say, Thou art the foolishest of all men that live, Art thou only wise? and than it must needs be so. But to me, who am the foolishest of all men, it is sufficient, that the most wise Henry can bring no Scripture against me, nor answer that which is brought against him; beside he is constrained to grant, his Fathers have often erred, and his antic use makes no article of faith: in which it is lawful, but for the multitude of that Church, to trust, whereof he himself, with his pardons, is defender. But against the saying of Fathers, men, Angels, and devils, I oppose not ancient custom, nor a multitude of men, 
o This is that which the Fathers themselves advise unto: when heresies have long continued & prevailed in the Church, to fly to the Scriptures; because the writings of the Fathers, after the long continuance of heresy, are in danger of corruption. See Chrysost. op. imperf. hom. 49. sub init. §. Tuno cum videritis abominationem. Vincen. Lyrin. commonit. c. 39  but the word, the Gospel, of one eternal majesty, which themselves are constrained to allow, wherein the Mass is evidently taught to be the sign and testament of God, wherein he promises, and by a sign certifies to us his grace. For this work and word of God, is not in our power; here I set my foot, here I sit, here I abide, here I glory, here I triumph, here I insult over Papists, Thomists, Sophisters, and all the gates of hell, not only over the sayings of men, though holy men, or deceitful custom: God's word is over all. The divine Majesty is of my side, that I care not if a thousand Augustine's, a thousand Cyprians, a thousand King Harry-churches stood against me. God can neither deceive, nor be deceived: Austin and Cyprian, as all the elect, may err, and have erred. In all these words there is nothing spoken simply against the Fathers, but comparatively, if a thousand Fathers were against the Scriptures, he would rather stand to the Scripture: wherein he speaks most godly and honestly, that 
d Gal. 1.  if an Apostle, or an Angel from heaven (far greater than a thousand Augustine's and Cyprians) should preach otherwise, let him be accursed. Neither Saint Paul, nor Luther granted the Angels or Doctors of the Church, to preach otherwise then they did; but if any man would pretend, and oppose their names and preaching against the Scripture, let them be accursed: the word of God is above all, that I care not if a thousand Augustine's, and a thousand Cyprians stood against me; which is the truth; and our adversaries say as much themselves. Baronius: 
e An. 31. n. 213.  Though the Fathers, whom for their high learning, we worthily call the Doctors of the Church, were endued with the grace of the holy Ghost above others, yet in expounding the Scripture, the Catholic Church doth not always, and in all things follow them. D. Marta, 
f De iurisdict. part. 1. pag. 273.  The common opinion of the Doctors is not to be regarded, when the contrary opinion favours the power of the (Popes) keys, or a pious cause. And I have showed 
g THE WAY, digr. 47.  elsewhere, that this is the common practice of our adversaries. They speak not always so zealously and plainly, as Luther doth; but for substance, they say the same that he doth: 
h Yesterday Ecchius brought against me Gregory, Ambrose, & Chrysostome: to whom I then answered nothing. I will therefore now say what I then forgot: opposing the rule of divine Augustine, that the save of all writers must be judged by the sacred Scripture, whose authority is greater than the authority of all men Not that I condemn the judgement of the most illustrious Fathers; but I imitate those that come nearest to the Scriptures; and if the Scripture be plain, I embrace it before them all Tom. 1. disput. Lips. cum Ecch. pag 263. Wittemb. I mention the opinion of Austin, not to defame or detract from that holy man, but because it is good & necessary that these holy Fathers be sometime found, like ourselves, men: that the glory of God may stand firm, etc. J● Genesc 21 pag. 255. tom. 6. Wittemb.  who thought also as reverently of the Fathers, as any man is bound to do.  
3 But it was not Luther's going against the Fathers, that discontented our adversaries; it was his resisting the Pope's Canons, and the faith of the Church of Rome; which they shrouded under the name of the Fathers: wherein, by their own divinity, he might be guiltless. Peradventure, 
i Dialog. tract. 2. part. 2. c. vult. pag. 180. col. 3. edit. Lugdun. per joh. ●rech. an. 1494.  saith Occam, one might say, that simple men ought to believe nothing but what the Pope and Cardinals deliver to be believed explicately, and should be content with things common, not presuming upon their own understanding, to believe any thing explicitly, but what the Pope and Cardinals deliver unto them: but HE THAT SHOULD AFFIRM THESE THINGS, WERE AN INVENTOR OF NEW ERRORS. For though simple men be not ordinarily tied to believe explicitly, but only those things which are by the Clergy declared to be so believed; yet SIMPLE MEN READING THE DIVINE SCRIPTURE, BY THE SHARPNESS OF REASON MAY SEE SOME THING THAT THE POPE AND CARDINALS HAVE NOT DECLARED, EVIDENTLY TO FOLLOW OF THE SCRIPTURE: in which case they can, and must explicitly believe; and ARE NOT BOND TO CONSULT WITH THE POPE AND CARDINALS, FORASMUCH AS THEY ARE BOND TO PREFER THE HOLY SCRIPTURE BEFORE THEM ALL. If all the Papists in the world can show Luther did any more than Occam here allows every simple man to do, I am much deceived. And if he did no more, then by their own judgements he might do; then away with these frivolous and empty exclamations against Luther, and let us hear no more of them.   
A. D. But, saith M. White, Scripture promiseth, 
Pag 201.  that every doctrine is of God, which consenteth to it: and this consent, a man may know infallibly, or else in vain had the Bereans searched, etc. I answer, that I do not deny, but a man may know doctrine to consent to Scripture: but I ask, how he may know this by only Scripture interpreted by ones own judgement, or private spirit? I hope I have showed the contrary: neither will M. White be ever able to prove that the 
1 Act. 17.11.  Beraeans had infallible certainty only by the Scripture interpreted by their own private judgement: or that 
2 Es 8.20.  the Prophet sent any for infallible certainty to the law and testimony expounded only by private judgement: or that 
3 Luc 1, 4.  Saint Luke, or 
f Col. 2.2.  Saint Paul whom he allegeth, meant that men should have infallible assurance by only Scripture interpreted by private judgement or spirit. 
4 I never intended, that any man could have infallible assurance of that he believes, only by Scripture interpreted by his own private judgement: all that I affirm, is, that private men may examine any doctrine that is publicly taught by whosoever; and by Scripture alone, as by a certain rule, they may be assured of the truth. This is plainly evinced by the texts alleged. For the Beraeans hearing the Apostles preach, yet searched the Scripture daily whether those things were so, and therefore believed. In which example, the matter examined is the things that the Apostles preached. The rule whereby this was examined, is the Scripture alone, which, in the text, is distinguished from the Apostles preaching, and ministry, and authority, and opposed against them: for by it the Beraeans examined them. The persons that did this, were a private people, subject to the Pastors of the Church, as much as any can be. The end why they did thus examine the doctrine, was to see if it consented with the Scripture. The event and issue of their examining, was, Therefore many of them believed. Whereby it is clear, that a private man, by the Scripture alone, may be able to judge of any thing that is publicly taught; and by the Scripture alone be infallibly assured, if he hold the truth. Not the Scripture alone, excluding the condition of the means, whereby God makes the sense thereof known; but the Scripture alone, as the rule of faith, excluding all authority of the Church and Pastors. Nor the Scripture interpreted by a man's own judgement, and private spirit: but by itself truly, according to the manifest rule of faith contained and revealed in Scripture itself.  
5 The difficulty is, when I, upon the authority of the Scripture, as I verily persuade myself, believe contrary to the Church of Rome, or any other presumed to be the true Church: how it shall appear to myself and others, that I expound and understand the Scriptures aright, and not according to my own private spirit? For answer whereto: note first, that this demand lies as well against the Beraeans, and the rest of God's people mentioned by Luke and Paul in the texts alleged, as against the Protestants. For they rejecting something that they were persuaded was not in the Scripture, or receiving that which they saw agreeable to the Scripture, might be demanded, how they were infallibly assured they had the true sense of the Scripture? And a false Apostle, when they should by the Scripture examine and reject his doctrine, might cavil, as A.D. here doth, and say, they expounded it after their own private spirit. In which case, the godly believers could refer themselves to no other rule, but only leave the truth still to be judged by the Scripture, by all such as would examine it. Note secondly, that the same difficulty presses our adversaries. For when they have showed and urged the authority of the Church, and their chief Pastor therein, what they can; yet this authority they cannot maintain to be such as they hold, but by the Scripture. 
k Vbi sup. li● b.  Pezantius and 
k Vbi sup. li●. b.  Greg. of Valence, You will ask how the proposition of the Church is known to be infallible. Let him that is thus demanded, answer, He believes it by an infallible faith, for the authority of the Scripture, giving witness to the Church: which authority and revelation, he believes for itself, albeit the proposition of the Church, as a requisite condition, be needful thereunto. I know not many of our adversaries (some 
l Durand. 3 d 24. qu. 1. & d. 25 q. 3. & ibi Scot Alm. Gabr.  few Schoolmen excepted) that hold the authority of the Church to be the formal reason of faith, or the first and last cause of believing: but the authority of God himself revealing these things; which authority being something distinguished from the Church, and above it, can be no where manifested, but in the Scripture. Now when they allege Scripture, we may tell them again, they allege it after their own spirit which objection may be multiplied, as often as they multiply their discourses out of Scripture. Thirdly therefore for satisfaction of the difficulty, I believe, and am assured of that I hold, by infused faith, God, by a supernatural light revealing and infusing the certainty of that I believe, partly by showing to my understanding, out of the Scripture; partly by stirring up, and inclining my will to assent unto it, and en brace it. The which knowledge and assurance of mind, when any man challenges, as if it were but a private conceit, subject to error; I can say no more, but that which every man says for his faith: that so all true faith may be destroyed, in that 
m For the believer assents not by discourse, to the matters of faith revealed, as by the formal reason of believing; but by simple cleaning & adhering to them: faith never drawing forth her act, by means of discourse; but if discourse be used, it is rather a condition helping to apply faith to it object. Mat. 16.17. 2. Cor. 10.5. Heb. 11.1. Fides secundùm se considerata, quod attinet ad causam efficientem, revocanda est in motionem divinaen, lumenque divinum, sive in habitum fidei—. Christiana fides, etiam ut est in nobis, revocatur in Deum moventem, divinunque lumen. Lud. Carb. sum. tom. 3. c. 3. l. 1. pag. 6.  no man's faith ascends above this infused illumination, or can be demonstrated to be certain by evident reasons, 
n Tho. 1. part. q 1. art. 8 Duran prolog. sent. qu. 1. pag 4. h.  that shall convince all gainsayers, but only there be forcible motives to induce unto it: though when his reasons, that thus believes, shall be examined, and his grounds of Scripture duly weighed by true Christians in a Council, or otherwise, all that gainsay him, may easily be confuted. And this is the thing that we say for Luther, and Scripture, against the Papacy.   
A. D. Yet (saith M. White) the Papists cannot deny but there is a heavenly light, etc. It is true, 
Pag. 201.  that Catholics grant inward testimony of the Spirit to give infallible assurance. But what spirit is that, which they think giveth this infallible assurance? Not private spirit; but the Spirit which is common to the Church, the Spirit which inclineth men to humility, order and unity, as in 
* Queen 6.  the Introduction I have showed. To whom also do they think infallible assurance to be given by the Spirit? Not to every one, that presuming himself to be elect, and to have the Spirit, shall rush without reverence into the sacred text, expounding it as he listeth or as it shall be suggested by private spirit: but to such as with order, humility, and respect of unity, read and interpret Scripture, as they learn it to be interpreted by the infallible authority of the Pastors of God's Church. Those that do otherwise, though they may seem to themselves to be infallibly sure, yet indeed they are not, as not having any substantial ground to assure them, which may not in like manner, and with as probable colour, be alleged by others, whom (although persuading themselves to be infallibly sure) M. White himself will grant to be deceived in this their persuasion. M. White 
* White. pag. 62. & 63.  saith, that his private men be assured by Scripture. So say they, M. White saith, his men have the witness of the holy Ghost. So say they, M. White saith, his men were taught by the Pastors of the true Church. This he saith indeed, and so (if they would be impudent) they might say. But whereas M White saith, that his private men (let Luther and Caluin be examples) were taught by the Pastors: if he mean they were taught by the Pastors, those special points wherein they descent from us, it is marvel that even his own black face blusheth not to utter such a shameless untruth. Let M. White, name, if he can, what Pastors those were, that taught Luther and Caluin these new doctrines, unless he will allow the Devil to be a Pastor, whom Luther 
* Luth. de miss. angul.  confesseth to have taught him his doctrine against the Mass. 
6 If there be, as the Replier grants, a heavenly light in the things themselves that are believed, and an inward testimony of the Spirit, that can give infallible assurance to the believer; this is as much as we require: for then this light and testimony, wheresoever and in whomsoever it be, is sufficient, as I said, to assure the conscience of the truth of the things believed, whosoever gainsay them: and the Papists must show, by some certain and pregnant proof, that Luther and we that refuse the Papacy, have not this light and testimony: which is not done by saying it is a private spirit, not common to the Church. For all this is denied. The Spirit that gives us this assurance, is the Spirit of God, the same which is common to the true Church. The Spirit which inclines to humility, order, and unity. And the persons that lay claim to this Spirit, did neither presume nor rush into the text, 
The reformation that Luther began, was sought with peace, and order, and even with tears.  nor expound it as they listed; but what they held, they learned of the Church: not of the Romish faction, and contagion, that overspread the Church, but of the true Church of God, that remained in the midst of the Papacy, and in former ages followed the Scripture. And of this I forewarn all Papists, that when they please to leave these empty clamours, and go roundly to the point, inquiring what order and humility Luther used when he first dealt against the Papacy, and what Church he followed, it will be justified against him, that the pride, and perverseness and disorder that was, was on their own side, and themselves were departed from the true Church. These private men, whom the Replier means, with all humility and good order, by supplication, disputation, mediation, both to the Pope and Christian Princes, sought the redress of abuses: their complaints were laid open before all the Courts in Germany, France, Spain, England, Italy, Denmark, and the Christian world: all countries laid down their grievances against the Church of Rome, and openly complained of the Papacy, 
o The Pope in his business with the States of the Empire about the reformation of the Church, could not deny this. We know, saith Pope Adrian, that in this holy Sea of Rome, there have been of late years, many abominable things many abuses in spiritual things, and excesses, and all things perversely turned upside down. And no marvel if the disease be gone down from the head to the members, and from the Popes to inferior Prelates. All we, the Prelates of the church have turned aside, every one to his own ways; & of a long time therehath not been one that did good, no not one.— We took upon us the yoke of this great dignity (to be Pope) only that we might reform the deformed Catholic Church. Adrian. 6. instr. pro Fra. Cheregat pag 173. Fascic. rer. exp. & fug. edit. Colon. 1535. The abuses, errors, tyranny and oppression prevailing in this Church of Rome, noted & complained of by many in all ages as they grew. Bernard. Agobard. Occam. Marsil de Rosate. Clemangis, Aluarus, Gerson, Alliaco. Aventine, etc. See this point handled by D. Field, l. 3. c. 7. and in his Append. added to that chapter.  as departed from the doctrine and canons of the ancient Church. But particularly, what order, humility, and respect of unity, was in Luther, when he opposed himself, shall best appear by 
p Tom. 7. Wittemb. 22. pag ●.  his own words. All this time, wherein the cause of Religion hath been heard before the Emperor, and in many great assemblies, (touching that which belongs to the Pope and his Bishops, upon desire of public peace and safety, as much as could stand with God's truth) we have carried ourselves lowly enough, that they might if they would, have understood long ago, that we did not aim at the weakening of their power, to change the present state of things, or the Ecclesiastical policy of the Church. WE PLAINLY AND EXPRESSLY PROFESSED, AS OUR BOOKS BEAR WITNESS, THAT IF THEY WOULD NOT CONSTRAIN US TO ARTICLES OPENLY IMPIOUS AND BLASPHEMOUS, WE WOULD DEFEND THEM IN OTHER THINGS—. But when reverently and suppliantly, PROSTRATE at their feet, we only demanded MOST JUST THINGS IN THE GREATEST MATTERS, and for the public good, we were not counted worthy to obtain any thing: but wisdom is driven away from among them, and THINGS ARE CARRIED WITH STRONG HAND. They will constrain us from the manifest truth, against our wills, to receive their abominations. WITH WHAT RIGHR OR WRONG THEY DEAL WITH US, THEY CARE NOT; BUT THE UPSHOT IS THIS, THEY WOULD HAVE THE TRUTH AND US, BY ANY MEANS SUPPRESSED: THIS THOU LORD JESUS CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD, WILT JUDGE. For when as like Pharaoh, they be hardened against THE TEARS of suppliants, peradventure their end presses upon them, etc. Thus the Pope with his Clergy, proudly contemning all things, and deluding the world with promises of reformation; and persecuting with fire and sword, such as complained: the first reformers by this tyranny, and dissembling, were driven to leave the Papacy, as the seat of Antichrist, and the nest of all heresy and abominations. The which is so true, that our adversaries have purged and forbidden the books containing these complaints, and rail upon us when we produce or mention them, (as this Replier doth upon me throughout his book) and most impudently deny them; and use other the most dishonest shifts that ever were: which makes it plain, that they dare not enter this trial, but with noise and scurrility, outface all things that lead that way. I have said it often in my writings, and here I say it again: 
* Nec moveor clamoribus Epicureorum, aut hypocritarum, qui aut rident, aut damnan● manifestam veritatem: sed verè statuo consensum perpetuum esse Catholicae Ecclesiae Dei hane ipsam doctrina vocem qua s●na● in Ecclesiis nostris. Philip. Melancth. praef. in 2 tom. Luth.  THE ABUSES AND CORRUPTIONS OF THE covert AND CHURCH OF ROME, WERE SEEN, MISLIKED AND COMPLAINED OF BY THE BEST MEN, AND WISEST STATES THAT WERE, BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER LUTHER OPPOSED HIMSELF: AND THE ARTICLES OF RELIGION, WHEREIN THE REFORMED CHURCHES STAND AGAINST THE JESVITES, ARE THE MANIFEST DOCTRINE OF THE SCRIPTURES AND ANCIENT FATHERS, AND WERE HELD BY DIVERS OF THE BEST LEARNED IN THE CHURCH OF ROME, EVEN IN THESE LAST 700 YEARS: THE DOCTRINE LATELY DETERMINED BY THE TRENT COUNCIL, AND NOW SO VIOLENTLY DEFENDED BY THE JESVITES, BEING NEVER GENERALLY OR uniformly RECEIVED IN THE CHURCH OF ROME, BUT BROACHED AND PUT FORWARD BY THE FACTION OF SOME THEREIN AGAINST THE REST.  
7 And whereas the Replier says, we have no ground to assure us, which may not in like manner, and with as good colour, be alleged by others, whom ourselves confess to be deceived: I answer, that we do not only allege the Scripture, the Spirit of God, the Church, the Pastors therein, which any heretic may do; but we allege them truly, 
q Varim quidem & diversus, ex uno tamen fonto haeretic● prauttatis error emersit, cardo pessimus & origo malorum, quae ex se cunctarum imp●etatum occasionem peperit, haec est● dum celestium dictorum virtus vitio male intelligentium temerata non secundùm sui qualitatem sensus perpenditur, sed in alias res, pro arbitrio legentis, sic us quam veri ratio postulat, derivatur. Vigil. l. 2. pag. 553. contr. ●utych. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Clem. Alexan. Strom. l. 7. pag. 322. edit. Commelin. ann. 1592.  which no heretic may do. The Papists allege the Church. So do the Greeks' theirs; the Armenians and Ethiopians theirs. The Papists allege the successions of their Popes: so do the Greeks the succession of their patriarchs. Chrysostome says: 
r Op. imper● hom. 49. pag 1101.  All those things that belong to Christ in truth, heresies may have in schism, and in show: Churches, Scriptures, Bishops, the orders of Clergy men, Baptism, the Eucharist, and all things else. The devil also alleged Scripture; but did he therefore give over the Scripture? No. But as Jerome 
s Comment. in Math. 4.  says: The false darts of the devil, which he took out of the Scripture, our Saviour breaks with the true shield of the Scripture. A Scripture ill cited, 
t Concord. c. 14  saith jansenius, he beateth back with another Scripture truly alleged, as it were one nail with another. The Replier must therefore prove that they which allege the Scripture, or the Church, or the Spirit of God against us, do it in like manner with as probable colour, as we allege it for ourselves. But this cavil, I answered in the WAY, on the same page that my adversary quotes; whereto he replies, only by repeating that I answered, and so comes to railing.  
8 For having objected, that it is not God's manner to teach men immediately by himself, but by the means of his Church, and the Pastors therein: I answered, that these whom he calls private men, had their knowledge by means of the Scripture truly taught in the Church, but the Papacy was not this Church: nor the Priests thereof those Pastors whom God had put into his Church. To this he replies, as you see, that I am impudent; and, it is marvel his own black face blushes not to utter such a shameless untruth. Let him name if he can, what Pastors those were, that taught Luther and Caluin; unless he will allow the Devil to be a Pastor, whom Luther confesses to have taught him his doctrine against the Mass. I answer, that the Pastors which taught Luther and Caluin their doctrine, were of four sorts: First the blessed Apostles, whose ministery extends itself to all ages. Next, the Doctors and Pastors of the Primitive Church, and long after, whose doctrine also in all substantial points, and namely in that wherein they forsook the Papacy, they steadfastly embraced, when the Papacy had cast it off. Thirdly, the learned men whom God in many ages afterward raised up to preach against the Papacy, as it grew. Such as were Bernard, Wickliff, Husse, the Waldenses, and divers others. Fourthly many ordinary Pastors of the Church of Rome itself, who being defiled with much of the Romish corruption, yet in many things were sound, and taught sound the truth: which truth, such as Luther was, might learn even among Heretics, as S. Austin did a good exposition of Tyconius the Heretic, & by the Scripture might be able to judge between that they taught truly, and that they taught otherwise. 
u Refert Gabr. lect. in can. 57 h  There were in the Church of Rome that taught pardons to be of no force to help souls in Purgatory, 
* Durand. 4. d. 20. qu 3. Caiet. tract. de indulge. c. 1. p 211. b.  & that their use is by no authority of the Scripture, or Fathers: divers taught 
x Occh. Lyr. Hug. Dionys. Turrecrem. Picus. Caietan. whom see before.  the Apocrypha not to be Canonical. Gerson 
y Declarat. compend. defect. eccl. n. 67.  complained of the abuse of images. The same 
z Serm. de Natiu. Mar. consid. 2.  Gerson, & 
a 3. part. q. 68 art. 1. 2. 11.  Caietan, taught that Infants unbaptised might be saved. 
b Sacramental. pag. 30.  Waldensis against the merit of works. 
c 2. d. 26. per tot.  Ariminensis against the power of nature, and free-will. 
d Lect. 4. in rome 3. lect. 4. in Gal. 3.  Aquinas for justification by faith only. 
e De vit. spiritual. anim. concls. unic. & Coroll. 1. in 3. part. operum Gers. Paris. 1606.  Gerson, that all sin is against the law of God, and none is venial of it nature. 
f Almain. Occh. Gers. Maior. & others to this day famously known.  The Sorbonistes of Paris taught against the Pope's Monarchy: the Greek Church also, held many things against the Papacy, touching Priests marriage, Purgatory, etc. There is no article of Luther's, or Caluins' doctrine, but it was taught in the Church of Rome before them. 
g Praef. in tom. 2. operum Luther.  Melancthon says, that he often heard Luther make report, how an old man among the Austin Friars at Erford confirmed him in that opinion, which is so much objected to him, touching special faith: and he adds, that before he stirred, there were many in the Church of Rome, which did invocate God aright, and held the doctrine of the Gospel, some more, some less, such as was that old man, who showed Luther the doctrine of faith.  
9 That Luther confesses the Devil to have taught him the doctrine against the Mass, is untrue. He only reports, how the Devil in a spiritual 
h That it was no more, will appear to him that reads the whole discourse especially toward the latter end.  temptation, to bring him to despair, accused him for saying Mass, and the more to terrify him, laid many true reasons against the Mass before him, whereby to let him see the foulness thereof, that so he might drive him to desperation; as to bring any man to despair of God's mercy, he uses ordinarily, by true, and effectual reasons, to accuse the sin whereof he is guilty. Not to persuade him to hate, or leave the sin, but to bring him to say with Cain, My sin is greater than can be forgiven. 
i An easy thing it were to object as much to the jesuits, touching their fellows, and Ignatius himself their founder: but let God be judge of these things. Hasenmuller, who spent much time among the jesuits, and was of their religion, makes this report. Turrian, the Jesuit, hath often told me that Ignatius Loiola, both at meat, and Mass, and in his recreations, used to be vexed with the Devil, that he should sweat as cold as one that were ready to die. Bobadilla told him that he would oftentimes complain that he could never be quiet, for the Devil molesting him. Turrian said the Devil was his daily companion, even to the altar where he used to say Mass, etc. Hasenmull. hist jesuit. c. 11 pag. 427. We can give them a bead-role of Popes that have had familiarity with the Devil, more than this com to.  I know how scurrilously our adversaries object this of Luther, but their malice armed with all the wit, and skill they have, can never evince it, to be otherwise, than I have said.   
A. D. Whereas I object that sectaries and the Devil himself, doth allege words of Scripture, 
Pag. 202. White pag. 64.  M. White granteth it, but (saith he) either they allege not true Scripture, or not truly applied: as also they allege the authority of the Church; but either not the true Church, or the true Church, not truly. Testimonium hoc verum est: This which M. White granteth is the very truth, and wanteth nothing, but that he apply it to his private men Luther, and Caluin, and to his own self. Partiality will not suffer him to apply it thus, but there is no reason, that he should be judge, it is more fit that the judgement of this matter be left to the Catholic Church which he confesseth to be taught of God. 
White pag. 63.  
10 If my answer be true, that when sectaries, or the Devil allege Scripture, or the Church, they do it not truly, let the Repliar give over bragging, and show really, that the Protestants have not alleged these things truly. And if it be no reason we be judges ourselves, no more is it, that the Pope and Papacy, (which 
k Nomine Ecclesiae intelligimus eius caput, id est, Romanum Pontificem, Grego. de Valent pag. 24. tom. 3. Quod autem haec regula animata▪ rationalis, sit summus Pontifex, non est hic locus proprius probandi. Fra. Albertin. Coral. p. 251. c. No marvel, now, though the Catholic Church were so fast talked of.  he means by the Catholic Church) be judge: but were it at that, that we might have a free Council assembled, and holden, as Counsels were of ancient time, where the Pope, and his faith might be tried as well as we, it would soon appear, the Protestants have not been partial in their cause, when the late Trent Council itself had come nearer us than it did, if it had not been managed by Machiavellisme, more than religion, and the greatest tyranny, and cozenage, and villainy, used in it, that ever stirred in any public business.    

CHAP. XXXIIII.  
1 The Papists pretending the Church, have a further meaning than the vulgar know. 2 The Pope's will is made the Church's act. 3 Base traditions expounded to be divine truth.  A. D. Concerning the tenth Chapter— both my Adversaries make main opposition, against the conclusion of this Chapter, 
Pag. 202.  one reason whereof is, that they do not, or will not rightly understand what I meant, when here I say the doctrine of the Church is the rule of faith: note therefore first whereas the name Church, may be taken several ways, 
Intro. q. 3.  according to that which I noted in the Introduction, whereas also in every one of these senses it may be taken, either as it is generally in all ages, or as it is particularly in this, or that determinate age, my Adversaries, omitting all other senses, principally understand me to mean, by the name Church, the Pope, or Pastors of this present age, whereas in this Chapter, I do not, at lest ex professo, or primarily intent to speak of the Church in this sense: but rather do speak of the Church in a more general, indefinite, and indeterminate sense, as it signifieth one, or other company of men living, either in all ages, or in one, or other, age, who in one or other sense may be called the Church; the doctrine whereof, say I, is the rule, and means ordained by God to instruct all sorts of men in all matters of faith. Note secondly that by the doctrine of the Church, I do not understand, any Friars dreams, 
White pag. 3  as M. White dreameth, nor human traditions, especially opposite to Scripture, but divine doctrine: including therein both the written divine Scripture, and the unwritten divine traditions, and the true divine interpretation of them both, as by word, writing, signs, or otherwise it is, or may be propounded, and delivered to us, by the authority of the Church: all which (although it may worthily be called divine doctrine, as being first revealed by God) here I call Church-doctrine, because as it was first revealed, and committed to the keeping of Prophets, and Apostles, who in their time, were chief, and principal members of the militant Church, so by God's ordinance, it was to be propounded, and delivered to other men, by the same Prophets, Apostles, and others their successors, as they are Doctors, and Pastors of the same Church. Note thirdly, that by the rule of faith, I mean such a rule, as is also a sufficient outward means, ordained, and set apart by God, to instruct all sorts of men, in all points of faith; which consequently must have those three conditions, or properties of the rule, set down, and declared in the sixth Chapter, viz that it must be infallible, easy to be understood of all sorts, and universal, or such as may sufficiently resolve one in all points of faith. Note four, that when I say, the doctrine of the Church is the rule of faith, I do not understand, that the doctrine, as severed from the Church, or the Church, as divided from the doctrine, is the rule of saith, but that the doctrine as delivered by the Church, or the Church as delivering doctrine is that rule, and means which God hath ordained to instruct men in faith; Note fifthly, that to prove the doctrine of the Church to be the rule of faith, in such sort as now I have said, it might suffice for this Chapter, that it be showed, that at lest once, or in one age, there were one, or other company of living men, in one or other sense, called the Church, who were ordained by God, and set apart to instruct all sorts of men in all points of faith, being for that purpose in their doctrine, and teaching, furnished with these three conditions, which are requisite in the rule of faith; for this being showed in this Chapter, I shall easily show in the next, that the same is to be said of some, or other company, continuing in all ages. In this Chapter therefore I chief undertake to prove, that once, or in one age, there was a company of living men, who in one sense may be called the Church, whom God specially appointed, as a means sufficient (quantum ex se) to instruct all men, in all matters of faith, being for that purpose, furnished with the three conditions, or properties of the rule of faith. 
1 THe conclusion of this Chapter was, that the infallible rule, which we ought obediently to follow in all points of faith, is the doctrine, and teaching faith, and belief of the true Church: his meaning wherein, he says, I would not, or did not rightly understand. Let us therefore see, how I understood it. My answer was, that we would freely grant this conclusion, if the meaning were no more, but that the doctrine and faith of the universal Church, is the rule of faith, but there is a higher matter meant. First that the Church's word, and authority, without grounding the same on the Scripture, is the rule. Next that the Church of Rome, is this universal Church. Thirdly that all the authority, and efficacy of the Church, is in the Pope alone. And this to be the meaning, I showed in the 16. Digression, whereto the Repiar hath wisely holden his tongue. For it is the truth I said, though he deny it, for the odiousness, and abomination thereof. For the question being, What is the rule, whereby all men, at all times, may be resolved in matters of faith; he answers that the Church is it: ask him again, what and which Church; and he will answer, The Roman Church in all ages past, present, and to come. For 
a The WAY pag. 68  I showed out of the Rhemists, Bristo, Possevin, and Baron. that they admit no Catholic Church, but the Roman only: then ask him finally, how a man may know, which is the doctrine, and teaching, faith, and belief of the Church, and he will say again (as I showed fully) that WHAT THE POPE JUDICIALLY DETERMINES, AND PROPOUNDS TO THE CHURCH, is it. Did I therefore mistake, when he said, that by the Church, he meant only the Pope: or was not himself rather unable to defend the matter; and therefore would avoid the very point of the question? Did I not allege 9 Papists, that all say, the whole power, and faculty of the Church, is in the Pope? Are not Gregory of Valenzaes' 
b Pag. 24. tom. 3. edit. Venet. per Zal er. an. 1598.  words plain? In this question, by the Church, we meant the Roman Bishops. In whom resides the full authority of the Church, when he pleases to determine matters of faith, whether he do it with a Council, ere without. 
c Albertine, a jesuite says it expressly, and in Terminis term●nantibus. I say that, besides the first verity, there is an infallible rule, living, and endued with reason, such as is the Church: and this rule, living, and endued with reason, is the chief Bishop of Rome; this is no place to prove, but you may see Valence, Bell. & Medina— I say thirdly all the articles of our faith are lastly resolved into this rule, tanquamin formalem rationem, qua, in proponendo. Coral. p. 251. edit. Lugdun. an. 1610. apud Horat. Cardon. Desiniendo arctat. nos ad credendum, prout ipse definiverit. Coquae. exam. p. 305. edit. Friburg. 1610.  I say therefore again, that the Repliars Conclusion hath no other meaning then this: The infallible rule, which we ought obediently to follow, is the doctrine, and faith of THE POPE ALONE. So himself writ in his 
d In the WAY §. 36.  Treatise: All Catholic men must necessarily submit their judgements, and opinions, either in expounding the Scripture, or otherwise, to the censure of the Apostolic seat: and God hath bound his Church, to hear the chief Pastors in all things. And all the places of Scripture, that are used for the authority of the Church, they apply, and expound of the Pope: To thee I will give the keys; on this rock I will build, Feed my sheep, etc. Let us see therefore, in his next Reply, how he will relieve himself. That is meant by the Church, whereto the chief promises made to the Church, belong: wherein the whole power of the Church resides; whereby the Church itself is directed; where the Church determinations begin: But the Pope is he, whereto the chief, etc. Ergo the Pope is meant by the Church.  
2 Nevertheless, not answering these things, when I objected them, he notes five things for the understanding of his conclusion. Which I answer in order. To the first I grant our adversaries distinguish the name of the Church, into divers senses, (by that distinguishing to gull the world) but, in this question, when they say the teaching of the Church is the Rule; they always mean it of the Pope. And the Repliar speaks untruly, that in his conclusion, be means not the Pope, but a company of men. For either the company must first be taught by the Pope: or else the Pope must be the mouth of that company. Besides 
e Pag. 75.  in his Introduction, whither he refers himself, having said, that the name Church may be taken 4 ways: either for the whole company of Christian professors, consisting of sheep, and Pastors; or for the more principal part, to wit, the whole company of Pastors, either gathered together in a Council, or dispersed through the world: or for Christ's Vicar, the Pope, as he hath most ample authority, either alone, or with a Council, to propound the doctrine of faith: or for every particular Pastor, as he is authorized under the Pope, to feed the flock committed to him: he concludes, that when he says, Church proposition is necessary, it is not needful for him to distinguish, which of these ways, he takes it, because we the Protestants, deny any such infallible authority to be in the Church at all, in which sense soever he take it: whereby it is plain, that he was ashamed to name in which sense, he takes the Church. For albeit we deny that which he calls the infallible authority of his Church (all supreme, and unerring authority, being in the Scripture alone) yet the constant, and certain doctrine of the Church taken in the two first senses, we allow to be the rule of faith, because it is only the contents of the Scripture, as 
f The WAY § 13. n. 1.  I answered to his conclusion: but that he means the Church in the third sense alone appears by this also, that it is a principle among the jesuits, that the Church, in the first, second, and fourth sense may err, and if at any time, it do not, it is through the guiding of the Pope, who is the Church in the third sense. Gregory of Valenza 
g In Tho. 22. tom 3. p. 247. d  says: we must not distinguish between the Roman Church, and the Roman Bishop so, as if the judgement of the Roman Church, were infallible, but not the judgement of the Roman Bishop, but rather these two are one, and the same. For THEREFORE THE APOSTOLIC, OR ROMAN CHURCH IS SAID TO BE INFALLIBLE, because HE IS OVERDO IT, WHO BY HIMSELF, HATH INFALLIBLE AUTHORITY. Canus says, 
h Loc l. 6. c. 8. sub. init.  when we come to the Apostolic Sea, to inquire the oracles of faith, we do not inquire of all the faithful in the Roman Church, nor yet of the same Church assembled in a Council, (see here the Church rejected, in the first, second, and fourth senses) but the Pope's judgement, and sentence is it we expect. This is that I said, that by the Church they mean, THE POPE: then he adds a reason (which according to their former principles convinces this) that the firmness, and certainty of truth must be avouched in Peter, and his successors, and then after in the Church, whose head, and foundation Peter is— and therefore the more do I reprehend those, which (as the Repliar here) by distinguishing the Apostolic seat from the Pope, think to end the controversy. My adversary therefore maintaining the doctrine of the Church to be the rule of faith; 
* Suarez the jesuit shames not to tell the king of England, in his late writing against him, that The authority of the Trent Council (which all the world knows was moved by the Pope in the same manner that Puppet motions are moved by such as show them) is the authority of the universal Catholic Church. Defence. fid. Cathol. adu. Angl. sect. lib. 1. c. 9 nu. 7.  means nothing by the Church but THE POPE HIMSELF: and they that yield themselves to be led by the Roman Church, must depend solely upon his will and word.  
3 To the second▪ this divine doctrine of the Church, which the Repliar says is the rule of our faith, is, by himself expounded to include, not only the written Scripture, but unwritten traditions also, and such decrees, and interpretations, both of Scripture, and tradition, as the Pope shall reveal, and propound: hence it follows, that any Friar's dream, may be thrust upon us, as an article of faith necessary to salvation: because these traditions and interpretations, and this authority of the Pope, contain many such dreams; that is to say, the Pope, and his Church, under pretence, that they are divine traditions, and all power to propose matters of faith, belongs to him, may, and doth require us to believe lies, and errors: and albeit the jesuite affirm these traditions, and interpretations of his Church to be revealed by God, to the Apostles, and their successors, the Doctors, and Pastors of the Church, as part of that divine, and Church doctrine, which he would have received, 
o Pari pietatis affectu, ac reverentia, suscipit & veneratur. Conc. Trid. sess. 4.  with the same obedience, and affection, wherewith we receive the Scripture: yet this is false. For the whole object of our faith is contained in the Scripture alone, as I showed in the third Digression; and because he denies, that any such dreams can be contained in the doctrine of his Church, thus I reason: For, whatsoever the Pope, shall definitively propound to be believed, that is the doctrine of the Church: But he may definitively propound the very dreams of a Friar; this I prove. The books of 
i Baro. an. 159. n 4. ind. expurg▪ Hispa. p. 149. d. 15. Sanct. Romana.  Hermes, and 
k Phot. Biblioth. p. 156. edit. Graec. Haschel Bal●am. respon. p. 363 in jure Graeco Rom. tom. 1. Z●onar. in Apost. can. vlt. Perer. joh. 13. disp. 30.  Clemens Constitutions, are Apocryphal, counterfeit, and unsound writings: but D. Stapleton 
l Hos, & similes libros, in canonem sacrae Scripturae, si praesens Ecclesia referret, nulla ratio obstat quin eos, pro Canonicis admittere debeamus, Relect. pag. 514.  says, he may put these books into the Canon of the Bible, and so bind men to believe them by divine faith: therefore he may define, and make to be matter of faith, that which is unsound, and no better, than a dream. Again Canus, and Caietan 
m Refert Fra. Suar. tom. 2. p. 30. a.  affirm the opinion of the virgin Maries conception without sin, to be godly, and probable in show; but false, and uncertain indeed. Yet 
n Suar. ibi. Vas. qu. in 3. part. Tho. to. 2. p. 45.  the jesuits say, the Pope may define it, when he will. Thirdly 
o Grego. Val. analies. fid. pag. 325.  they hold the authority of the Church in defining, to be in the Pope, who may determine the things of faith, whether he use care, and diligence therein, or not: but he that defines without any care taking, or diligence used, may chance, specially if he be a Friar, 
p To the number of 52. Azor institut. moral. tom. 2. l. 5. c 44.  as many Popes are, to thrust his Friars dreams upon the Church. Fourthly, the Canon law 
q Gl & Marg. c quanto de translatione.  says: He may make something of nothing, and make that a sentence, which is none. Lastly 
r Suar ubi sup.  the jesuits hold, that a supernatural truth may be so implicitly contained in tradition, or Scripture, that 
* Canisius reports that in Paris, & in the Universities of Spain, and elsewhere, no man is admitted to any degree in divinity, unless he swear that he will hold the Immaculate conception of the virgin. Marial. lib. 1. c. 7. Such tricks as this will make this consent swell and increase as fast as the mountain.  the common consent of the Church increasing, whereby oftentimes the Holy Ghost expounds traditions, and Scriptures, the Church may at last, bring in her definition, which shall have the force of a revelation. The two doors of sleep, 
s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hom. Odiss. τ.  mentioned so much in the Poets, let not in more dreams, than this doctrine doth lies, & heresies into the world; for whensoever the Church of Rome, will bring in a new doctrine, the implicit traditions, and the increase of the Church's consent, may be pretended.  
4 
* Ad. 3.  To the third: he notes no more. But what he said in his treatise, and I granted in such sense, as I laid down in my answer. And this noting it again is needles, and impertinent to the matter in hand: which is not touching the quality, but the quiddity of the rule.  
5 
* Ad. 4.  To the fourth: we know well enough, that the Church, and the doctrine go together: but it is false, that the Church, as delivering doctrine, is the rule. For the doctrine is the rule, and the Church, that which teaches both us, and itself, according to it, as the judge, expounding, and executing the law, is not the rule together with the law, but the law is the rule itself, and the judge is the king's officer to apply it, but having no authority over, or beside it. And yet allowing the contrary, and all that the Repliar says, still in his conceit the Pope with his definitions, shall be this Church, and this doctrine, which he thus conjoines to be the rule.  
6 To the fift to prove the doctrine of the Church to be the rule of saith, in such sort, as the Repliar hath said, 
Ad. 5.  it is not sufficient to show that at lest once, or in some one age, there hath been a company of men, called the Church, in one sense, or other, ordained by God, and furnished with conditions, to teach men the faith: for the Repliar hath said, that the doctrine of the Church is the rule of faith, in such sort, as it includes, not only the written Scriptures, but unwritten traditions, and the interpretation of them both by Church authority. Where two things are affirmed, first, that unwritten traditions, are part of the doctrine, that is the rule. Secondly, that our faith is built 
t Non quid dicatur, sed quis dicat, attendendum. Staplet. Princ. pag. 364. Relect. p. 429.  on the authority of the Church. Neither of these is proved by showing that which is here mentioned. For though there be a Church, in any sense that a true Church can be meant, ordained to teach us, yet it follows not, that it hath any such authority, or any authority at all to propound unwritten traditions: and there may be a Church, and yet the judgement thereof not be the authority, whereon our faith is grounded; and the same Church may be ordained to teach us, & yet not allowed to teach these unwritten verities. For God hath propounded all doctrine of faith in the Scriptures, and appointed his Church to reveal, and expound it to his people: the which doctrine, thus expounded, enlightens the mind, begets faith, and is the rule of all men's judgement, through the work of the Holy Ghost, that confirms it in the mind. Granting therefore, that which the Repliar so much desires, that all his meaning is, that once, or in one age, there was a company of men, who in one sense, or other, may be called the Church, whom God hath appointed, and furnished, to teach all men the things of faith: yet it helps not his conclusion, nor makes it true, in that sense wherein he means it.   

CHAP. XXXV.  
1 The Papists, pretending the Church, mean only the Pope. 2. How, and in what sense they understand the doctrine of the Apostles to be the rule of faith. 3 They hold that the Pope may make new articles of faith. 4 And that the Scripture receives authority and credit from him. 6Vnlearned men may see the truth when the Pope and his crew sees it not. 7. And they may judge of that they teach. 8 The jesuits dare not answer directly.  

Pag. 204. White. pag. 67.  A. D. This being proved, my Adversaries may see, how much they mistake, when they think me to mean in this Chapter, by the name Church, only the Pope, or only the present Pastors of the Church; when as rather I meant to include these only secondarily, meaning here by the name Church principally the Apostles themselves, who for the time they lived on earth, were principal Doctors, and Pastors of th● Church, being by me therefore termed the Church, which I said, is the rule of faith; not taking the verb (is) so strictly, as only limited to this present time, but ●●ther indefinitely, abstracting from all time: or per ampliationem, as it may extend itself to the bypassed, as well as to the present time. This to be my meaning, my Adversaries might have perceived, by the texts of Scripture, which I bring, for the proof of my conclusion. For those texts, are by me here applied, as they were by our Saviour spoken, and meant, to wit, principally to the Apostles, being the primitive Pastors, and principal members of the Church: and are only secondarily, or by consequence applied to other Pastors, succeeding in their places. Now taking my conclusion in this chief intended sense, it cannot be denied to be true, neither can the reason, by which I prove it, with any reason be denied to be good. 
1 IT is easy to see that he knows not, in what sense he should take his conclusion, that it might be defended. For if by the Church he meant no more, but the Apostles, and primitive Pastors; and by the doctrine of the Church, no more but that which is the doctrine indeed, contained in the Scripture, no man would deny the doctrine, and teaching, faith, and belief of the Apostles, contained in the written word, to be the rule of faith: but he meant, and still means, otherwise: that this Church, which all men ought to follow, is the B. of Rome alone, for the time being, wherein 
a See Chap. 34. nu. 1.  I mistook him not. For he means that which, in all ages, for the time being, is the supreme judge, and hath subiectively, in it, all the Church authority. But such is the Pope alone; according to the principles of Papists. Therefore he means the Pope alone: again, he means that Church, whereof he expounds the texts of Scripture alleged in that Chapter, to prove the doctrine of the Church to be the rule, but all those texts he expounds of the Pope alone, for the time being: Ergo. Thirdly, I suppose the Repliar to be a Papist, and in this place, a maintainer of the Popish doctrine touching the rule of faith: but that doctrine means the Church, as I expound. For the order which God hath left in his Church, for the judging, and deciding of matters of faith, according to the jesuits doctrine, 
b Staplet. Princ. doctrine. fid. l. 6. praef. 1 Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 1. 2 Staplet. Princ. doctr. l. 5. c. 1. 3 c. 2. 4 c. 5. 5 l. 6. c. 1.  is this. 1. That not the Scripture, but the Church is this supreme iudg● of all controversies, and things of faith. 2 Yet this Church, as it is taken for the whole body, judges not. 3. Nor lay private men therein. 4. But the power of judging belongs to the Bishops, and Priests alone. 5. And, among them, the B. of Rome alone, as the successor of S. Peter, is so the head of the whole Church— and the primary, and highest subject of this Church judgement— that he hath power, alone, above all others, whether Pastors, or sheep, to pronounce, 
6 Grets. def. Bellar. tom. 1 p. 1218. c.  and determine, touching the matters of faith. 6. So that besides the Doctors, and Pastors, there must be in the Church some other supreme judge— and he is the B. of Rome, either alone, or with a Council. Here it is plain, that howsoever the name of the Church be pretended, yet the whole power is limited, and restrained to the Pope alone. For they hold the government, and power of the Church, not to be Aristocratical, placed in Counsels, or Bishops: but Monarchical, where all the government, power, and infallibleness is in the Pope alone: Counsels, Bishops, Priests, and all other parts of the Church, are but cyphers: the power is eminently, and infallibly, and authoratively, in the Pope alone, either with them, or without them: Bellar. 
c De Rom. Pont l. 1. c. 9 §. sed nec.  says plainly, Neither the Scripture, nor secular princes, nor private men, are judges of controversies, but Ecclesiastical Prelates— and Counsels may judge of the controversies of religion, but that judgement is not firm, or ratified, till the Pope have confirmed it, and therefore the last judgement belongs to him— for either there must be no judge among men at all, or else he must be the judge, that is above the rest. I have alleged the words of Gregory of Valence divers times. 
d Tom. 3. in 22. pag. 24.  When we say the Proposition of the Church is a condition necessary to the assent of faith: by the name of Church, we mean the head thereof, that is to say, the B. of Rome, either alone by himself, or with a Council. Sylvester Prierias, 
e In Luth. tom. 1. pag. 159. fundam. 1.  The universal Church essentially is the convocation of all that believe in Christ, but virtually it is the Church of Rome, and the Pope; the Church of Rome, representatively is the College of Cardinals, but virtually the Pope, who is the head of the Church. Pelaeottus, 
f De consist. part. 1. qu. 3. pag. 19  The Pope alone may do not only that, which is granted to all, and singular Prelates in the Church, but also more than they all.— 
g Respons. moral. p. 44. n 4.  Comitol, The power of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, is not in the universality of the Church, as in the true subject, but in the Prelates thereof, and in the Bishops of Rome, as in the fountain, whence it flows, unto all other Ministers of the new Testament. Albertine 
h Coral. pag. 251.  says, The Bishop of Rome is the rule of faith, into which Rule all the articles of our faith are lastly resolved, as into the formal reason whereby they are propounded to us. Gretser 
i Defence. Bell. to. 1. p. 1450. B.  says, when we affirm the Church to be the judge of all controversies of faith, by the Church we understand the Bishop of Rome, who for the time being, governs the ship of the militant Church, and by lively voice doth clearly and expressly expound his judgement to them that seek to him. Zumel 
k Disput. var. tom. 3. p. 49 D.  says: I believe that the chief Priest and Bishop of the Church, the Pope, who is the master of our faith, cannot but attain the truth of faith, nor can be deceived or err, if as chief Bishop and master of the faith, he set down his determination— so that, unless a man be afraid of the truth, there is no cause why he should fear the Pope's determination. It is idle therefore, and sordid, that the Repliar says, by the Church he meant the Pope but secondarily; as it is ridiculous to say the Church is the rule indefinitely, and abstracting from all time, or per ampliationem; which are terms devised only to besot the ignorant, that they should not smell his heresy: for if his Church be the rule, he must needs mean such a Church, as he thinks in all ages and times successively, to have been invested with that authority, and that Church is the Pope alone, that miserable judge, of whom their own men say, 
h Do. ban. to. 3. p. 106. b.  It is no Catholic faith, but an opinion very probable, that he is S. Peter's successor; and the most judicious confess 
i Alph. l. 1. c. 4. Hadrian. pag. 26. ad 2.  he may err, 
* August. Anconit. sum. qu. 5. art. 1 jacobat de conc. l. 4. art. 1. Occh Dialog. 1. part. l. 6. 2. part. c. 69. & inde. Cusan. de concord. cath. l. 2. c. 17. Panorm. de elect. C. signif. not. 7. Zabarell. tract. de schismat. Gerson. de auferibil. Pap. consid. 10. & inde.  and be deposed for heresy.   
A.D. §. 1. 
Pag. 205.  That the doctrine of the Apostles was for their life time the rule, and means— First I say that my conclusion being understood as in this Chapter I principally meant, cannot be denied to be true, for it cannot be denied, but that the doctrine, as delivered by the Apostles themselves, being for the time they lived, the Church in such sense, as here I take the name Church, was such a rule, and means, as here we seek for. For first it is known to be infallible— Secondly it was easy to be understood, etc.— Thirdly, it was universal, etc.— Since therefore these 3. conditions, requisite in the rule of faith, are found in the doctrine, and teaching of the Apostles, it cannot be denied, but that the divine doctrine, as delivered by them, in their life time, either by word or writing, was the rule, and means which God ordained to instruct men in faith— Taking therefore my conclusion in the chiefly intended sense, I suppose, that my adversaries, will neither deny it to be true, nor the reason by which I prove it, to be good. 
2 This discourse needed not: for no Protestant denies, the doctrine of the Apostles to be the rule, either for their time, or the time succeeding to the world end: I grant therefore the Repliar his assertion: and infer thereupon, that his Pope's determinations, and the doctrine of his Romish Church is not the rule of faith, because they agree not with that, which he here confesses was the rule in the Apostles time: unless he will maintain, when he replies again, that the rule is not one, and the same at all times: as 
k Cusan. ep. 2.7.  his Cardinal writes, that the Scripture is fitted to the time, and variably understood: so that at one time it is expounded according to the fashion of the Church, and when that fashion is changed, the sense of the Scripture is also changed. Again Magalian, a jesuite, I think yet living, 
l Magal. op. Hierarch. in tit. p. 61. n. 6.  says, Though it were granted, that the words of Paul (Tit. 1.6.) contain a precept to marry, yet seeing Paul gave it by his own authority, it were no divine, but an Ecclesiastical precept, which the Church may change, yea abrogate, and much more dispense with. Mark what tricks heretics have, to change the Apostles doctrine: when it fits not their Church, than the Apostles gave it by their own authority; which I note, that the Reader may perceive, there is no sincerity in the Repliars words. For albeit he grants here, the Apostles doctrine be the rule, yet he means it to be the rule but for their own time: because the Pope may, under colourable pretences, expound it; that is in plain English, change it, when he will, as his Cardinal, and jesuite here affirm.   
A D. §. 2. That the doctrine of the succeeding Pastors of the Church, 
Pag. 207.  is the rule, and means— The chief controversy is about my conclusion, as, in a secondary sense, it may be meant, of the succeeding Pastors of the Church. In which sense I affirm, that like as the divine doctrine (not as contained in only Scripture, or as gathered thence by natural wit, or private spirit, but as delivered by the Apostles, or the Apostles, as delivering this doctrine) was the rule, and means ordained by God to instruct all men living in their days, in all matters of faith: So the same doctrine (not as contained in only Scripture, nor as gathered thence by natural wit, or private spirit, but as delivered by Pastors of the succeeding Church, or those Pastors, as delivering this doctrine) is the rule, and means ordained by God, to instruct all men living in succeeding ages, in all points of faith. 
3 This assertion I will grant, as I did the former; namely that the doctrine of the Pastors of the true Church, such as succeed the Apostles, is the rule, and means of faith: but the reader shall note two tricks, that the jesuite puts upon him in the Proposition hereof. First, that affirming the doctrine of the succeeding Pastors of the Church to be the rule, he says not whether this doctrine, of these succeeding Pastors, shall need to be the same, that the doctrine of the Apostles was: but only affirms, that as the Apostles doctrine for the time they lived, was the rule: so the doctrine of the succeeding Pastors is the rule: leaving room enough for this doctrine, of these succeeding Pastors, to vary from the doctrine of the Apostles; that when we show the present abuses in the Church of Rome, and decrees of their latter Popes, for these last 800. years, to have swerved from the Apostles doctrine, and practise; they may plead the authority, of their succeeding Pastors. And indeed it is true, that the Church of Rome holds, that it is not necessary the doctrine, and teaching of the present, and succeeding Pastors be the same in all things, that it was in the Apostolic, and Primitive Church: but the Pope hath power to make a NEW CREED, and NEW ARTICLES of faith: For jacobatius 
m De Concil. p. 310. A.  says, The Pope alone may make new articles of faith according to one acceptation of the word Article, that is, for such as must be believed, which before needed not be believed; and Zenzelin, a Popish doctor, 
n Gl. extr. joh. 22. cum inter. § doclaramus.  says, The Vicar of Christ, may make an Article of faith; taking an article not properly, but in a large sense, for that which must be believed, when before by the precept of the Church, it was not necessary to be believed. Augustinus Triumphus writes, 
o August. Anconit. sum. de eccle. potest. q. ●9. art. 1.  that it belongs to the Pope alone, to make a new Creed. For in a Creed those things are put, that universally belong to Christian faith: he therefore hath authority, to make such a Creed, who is the head of Christian faith, and in whom, as in the head, all the members of the Church are united, and by whose authority all things, pertaining to faith, are confirmed and strengthened. And 
p Art. 2.  again. That the Pope may dispense in adding articles, may be understood 3. ways First, in respect of the multiplication of the articles themselves. Secondly, in respect of expounding the things contained in the articles: Thirdly, in respect of the augmentation of such things, as may be reduced to the articles. ALL THESE WAYS, the Pope may dispense, in adding articles; because as he may make a new Creed, so he may MULTIPY NEW ARTICLES OVERDO AND ABOVE THE OTHER. Secondly he may by more articles, explicate the articles already placed in the Creed. Thirdly, because peradventure all things believed in the Creed, may be reduced after the aforesaid articles, and by such reduction, may be increased; so that under each article MORE THINGS NECESSARY TO BE BELIEVED MAY BE PUT, THAN ARE YET PUT. The which being done, mark what they say touching their authority: 
q Roder. Dosm. de auth. script. l. 3. c. 12.  The Pope's assertions ascend to the height of divine testimony, as the assertions of the Apostles did, and of such, as made the holy Scripture; and there be who contend that they belong to the sacred Scripture itself, which is contained in the books of the Bible. This doctrine, whereof all our adversaries books are full, shows plainly, that they intent not that this their Church teaching, so much magnified to be the rule, should always be one, and the same, but such as shall follow the Pope's lust, and be altered with the time, that so this Antichrist of Rome, might abolish the whole Testament of Christ: this is the first thing to be noted, that the reader may see what he means by his Church doctrine, that is the rule.  
4 The next thing is his distinction about this doctrine of the Church: that it was the rule in the Apostles days, and is the rule in succeeding ages, but not as contained in only Scripture, but as delivered by these Pastors. Which speech contains 2. things: a Negative, and an affirmative: the negative is, that the doctrine of the Church, is not the rule, as it is contained in only Scripture. Meaning as 
* Ch. 27. n. 3.  I have showed, that all divine doctrine, belonging to the rule, is not contained in the Scripture: but much, or the most of it, in tradition unwritten: and that which is contained is not the rule by virtue of writing, but by virtue of the Church, that makes it authentical. Panormitan 
r Panorm. tom. 2. de praesumptione. c. Sicut noxius.  says, The words of the text of Scripture, are not the Pope's words, but the words of Solomon in the Proverbs, but because this text is made Canonical, it is to be believed, and induceth necessity so to do, as if the Pope had set it forth himself; Because we make all those things to be ours, whereto we might impart our authority,— But whether without Canonization, the sayings of Solomon be approved in the Church, seeing they are in the body of the Bible? say, as the gloss saith, and jerom holdeth— who seems to conclude, that they are Apocrypha, which is to be noted, and that because of this, as also because Solomon had no power to make Canons. This also must be observed, that the Reader may know the meaning of his conclusion; and what it is, that we deny therein. For NO DOCTRINE, EITHER OF THE apostles IN THEIR TIME, OR OF THE SVCCEEDING PASTORS OF THE CHURCH, IN ANY TIME; IS THE RULE OF FAITH, BUT ONLY THAT, WHICH IS CONTAINED IN THE SCRIPTURE: As I have 
s In the WAY digr. 3.  showed. His affirmative is, that the doctrine of the Church is the rule, as it is delivered by the Pastors; or the Pastors delivering this doctrine, are the rule: which is the same that he said a little before; the doctrine as delivered by the Church: or the Church, as delivering doctrine, is the rule. 
t Pars obiecti formalis (fidei) est vox Ecclesiae. D. Stapler. relect. p. 484. Saltem aequalis est Ecclesiae & Scripturae authoritas. ibi. pag. 494.  His meaning is, that the Church's testimony, and authority mingles itself with the authority of the doctrine, and is jointly with it, or above it, the rule of faith: as when divers simples have their ingredience into one compound: and two men equally carry between them, one burden. Their doctrine this way is known well enough, how the Scriptures in regard of us, have all their authority from the Church; the sense of the Scripture is to be fetched from the Church: whatsoever the Church of Rome shall teach, is the word of God, etc. The which things being couched in the jesuits conclusion, as he understands it, we detest, and spit upon, when he shall thus debar the Scripture from being the rule, to set upon the bench his Papal Antichristian authority. If the shame either of God, or men, or any respect of truth were with them; they durst not thus presumptuously, and basely steal the authority to themselves, whereby both themselves, and we, and all the world should be judged.   

Pag 210.  A. D. Thus therefore we see, that those texts, which I allege, do not only pertain to the Apostles, and men living in that age, as my Adversaries ignorantly, 
White. pag. 72. 73 74.  and absurdly make answer to some of the texts: but that they pertain also to men, living in other ages; and consequently, as my reason, drawn out of them, proveth infallibility and other conditions requisite in the rule and means to be in the Apostles doctrine: so it proveth also infallibility, and the said other conditions, in the doctrine of succeeding Pastors. 
5 The texts alleged were these; Math. 28 20. joh. 14.16. and the 16.13. Math. 28.19 Luc. 10.16. The thing he would prove by them, was, that the doctrine of the Church is infallible: which conclusion in a good sense, 
u §. 13. n. 1. & §. 14 n. 2. in the WAY.  by me set down, I granted. But when he meant it otherwise, (
* Ecclesia docere potest aliquid extra & praeter verbum scriptum D. Staplet relect. p. 431 Eius doctrina quoque est infallibilis. pag. 463.  according to the doctrine of Rome) that the Church can err in nothing it teaches, albeit it teach that which is not in the Scripture, I answered the texts he brought out of the Scripture: and to these four I said, that they belonged, either only, or properly to the Apostles. I answered them sufficiently otherwise (all which the Repliar here conceals) if they were applied to the whole Church: but that also was one part of my answer. Therefore here he replies, that ignorantly, and absurdly I make answer: because they belong to the Church Pastors in all ages, as he hath showed. Yet 
x The same word▪ may be applied in the Apostles, and to the succeeding Pastors, so far forth as to prove the substance of the thing signified to agree to both, although in circumstance of measure, manner, or degree, there be great difference. A. D. Reply, p. 208. & 217.  his own confession is, that this is only secondarily, or by consequence; but primarily and principally they pertain to the Apostles, which is as much, as I said. For I do not so restrain them to the Apostles, but that I allow part of the sense therein contained to concern the Church, and therefore I answered them also otherwise; whereto the Repliar replies never a word. And if they had proved the infallibility of his Church so pregnantly, let him give over his confidence, and tell us, how then comes it to pass, that so many in his own Church hold, some that 
y Occh. dial. part. 1. l 5. c. 25. Turtecrem. sum. de eccl. l. 3. c. 58. concls. 2. Caiet. apol. part 2. c. 21.  Counsels, some that 
z Mic. Cezen. lit. ad Imperat. c. vlt. Hadrian. 4. p. 26. Alphons. l. 1 c. 4 Onus eccl. c. 15. n. 34.  the Pope himself may err? and let him not talk of erring definitively, and è Cathedra: for that distinction is in none of the texts alleged. The privilege of not erring is by no words thereof, tied to the chair, but that which is promised is tied to the persons. So that the persons of these Pastors not being made infallible by these texts, it follows that no such infallibility at all, as the Repliar dreams of, is given them therein.   
A. D. As by the promise of Christ, we be assured, that the Apostles, 
Pag. 214.  and consequently in some sense the Pastors of the Church are taught all truth by the Holy Ghost: so by the commission, warrant, commandment, and threat jointly considered (as here I consider them) we are assured that the same Holy Ghost doth so assist them, as not to permit either the Apostles, or the Pastors, universally to teach authoratively, false doctrine, or their own devices; in regard otherwise men should be bound sometimes to believe false doctrine, which inconvenience cannot be avoided, by saying, as M. White saith, 
White pag. 75.  that the band hath a limitation, that we hear them, so far as they teach agreeable to Scripture, and no further, and by those Scriptures, we may relieve ourselves, if they chance to teach falsely. Because first that conditional limitation is no where expressed, nor in M. Whites sense, to be necessarily gathered out of any place of Scripture: Secondly, I ask, how those should relieve themselves, who cannot read, much less understand Scripture? 
6 The limitation whereof I spoke, that we hear the Pastors of the Church NO FURTHER THAN THEY TEACH AGREEABLE TO THE SCRIPTURE, is expressed, and necessarily gathered out of Scripture, even in M. Whites sense. For the Scripture bids 
a 1. Th. 5.21.  try all things, and hold that which is good. And 
b 1 joh. 4.1.  believe not every spirit, but try the spirits, whether they be of God. And that we may know the Scripture alone is the rule, whereby this trial must be made; it says again, 
c 2. Pet. 1.19.  We have a more sure word of the Prophets, whereto we do well to take heed, as to a light, that shines in the dark: till the day dawn, and the day star rise in our hearts. 
d joh. 5.39.  And search the Scriptures, for in them we think to have eternal life, and they be they that testify of Christ. And the men of Beraea 
e Act. 17.11.  searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things, which the Apostles preached, were so. There were nothing more harsh than these speeches of the Holy Ghost, if the Scripture were not allowed, and appointed, as a sufficient, and the last outward means, to preserve the faithful from false teaching. And, as I have often heretofore affirmed, the Papists themselves cannot avoid this limitation. For the Pope, and Counsels, and particular Pastors may all err, and teach false. Adrian, that himself was a Pope, and therefore best knew what belongs to Popes, 
f Vbi sup.  says; It is certain the Pope may err, even in such things, as touch the faith, avouching heresy by his determination, or decree. Touching Counsels not confirmed by the Pope, Azorius the jesuite, 
g Azo. instit. moral. tom. 2. l. 5. c. 12.  says: All Catholics are agreed that they may err; touching particular Pastors, and Bishops, Waldensis 
h Doctrinal. fid. l. 2. c. 19  says, we know that all these, (both Clergy, and Prelates of the Church) have often erred: If all these may err, than it follows, that their teaching must be examined, & accepted with this limitation, if it consent with the Scripture. Gerson 
i De exam. doctr. part. 1. confid. 5. tom. 1.  says, Every man, sufficiently learned in the Scriptures, is an examiner of doctrines— put case there be a simple man not authorised, excellently seen in holy writ, then in the point of doctrine, his assertion is more to be believed, than the Pope's declaration. For it is plain, the Gospel is more to be believed then the Pope, if therefore such a learned man teach any verity to be contained in the Gospel, where the Pope is ignorant, or errs: it is manifest whose judgement is to be preferred, and in this case such a learned man, if he were present at a general Council, should oppose himself against it, if he perceived the mayor part through malice, or ignorance, to go against the Gospel. Occam 
k Occh. Dial. p 180.  affirms, that THE POPE, AND CARDINALS ARE NOT THE RULE OF OUR FAITH: because though a Catholic Pope, and Catholic Cardinals, aught to be the teachers of faith, so that the faithful should firmly believe, whatsoever they teach, and define according to the rule of faith; yet if they presume to teach, or define any thing contrary to the rule of faith, which the holy Scripture teaches; then Catholics, are not to follow but reprove them. These men affirm all things that I say. First, that the Scripture is the rule of faith. Secondly, that the Pope, with his Counsels, and Cardinals, may err. Thirdly, that they may err in faith, and teach erroneously. Fourthly, that their teaching may be examined. Fifthly, that even by private men. Sixthly, the Scripture being the rule whereby. Seventhly, upon which examination their teaching may be refused. This is the limitation that I mentioned. Let the Repliar, and all of his mind, open their eyes, and confess we hold nothing, but that which the learnedst in his own Church allow, and teach. His second exception, How shall they relieve themselves, who cannot read, nor understand the Scripture, 
l §. 7. pag. 30.  I answered in the WAY: whereto my adversary having nothing to reply, according to his Method, only repeats his cavil again, but it doth him no good. For such as cannot read, yet may hear them read, or preached, and propounded by others; it being sufficient that they have the knowledge of the Scriptures any way: which are so plain, and easy, in all things belonging to the substance of faith, that as I have showed, 
m Gregory the B. of Rome speaking of an unlearned man, says Nequaquam literas noverat, sed Scripturae sacrae sibi met codices emerat, & religioso; quosque in hospitalitatem suscipiens, hos, coram se, studiose legere faciebat Factum est ut, juxta modum suum, plene sacram Scripturum disceret; cum si●ut dixi, literas funditus ignoraret. Dial. l. 4. c. 14. ibi Graec. Zachar. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉—  the simplest that are, having the assistance of God's Spirit to enlighten them (which assistance is not tied to the presence of the Church, as my adversary cavilles) may understand them. And to omit the words of the Scripture itself, which the Repliar, and his complices despise, and revile, let him say directly whether the Ancient Church taught not thus. S. Austin, 
n Epist. 3.  The Scripture like a familiar friend, speaks those plain things which it contains, to the heart of learned, and unlearned. Chrysostome, 
o Hom. 1 in Matth.  The Scriptures are easy to understand and exposed to the capacity of every servant, Ploughman, widow, boy, and him that is most unwise. Cyrill. Alexand. 
p Contr. julian. pag. 160.  The Scripture, that it might be known to all men, as well small, as great, are profitably commended to us in a familiar speech, so that they exceed the capacity of no man.— Isidore Pelusiota. 
q l 2. ep. 5.  Forasmuch as God gave laws to weak men, and such as need plain words, therefore he tempered his heavenly doctrine 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  with rude words fit for the simple. That every woman, and child, and the unlearnedst among mortal men, by THE VERY HEARING ITSELF, might get some good.— 
r Sixt. Senens. Biblioth l 6. annot. 152. §. quod autem. Grego. Valent. 22. pag. 118. §. iam quae.  divers of the learnedst of our adversaries grant this to be true, in that part of the Scripture, which contains the principles of faith, and the things that all men generally are bound to believe, which is sufficient to uphold that I say, for I will easily allow great obscurity to be in much of the rest: according to that, which 
s Act. 8.31. 2. Pet. 3.16.  the Scripture, and 
t Basil. de fid. p. 394. Iren. l. 2. c. 47. August. ep. 3.  the Fathers oftentimes observe, but the rule of faith, contained in evident places, will preserve the unlearned from erring therein perniciously.   
A.D. By which explication is answered that which M. White saith is unanswerable; 
Pag. 220. White p 76.  to wit, If we must not accept every doctrine taught by Pastors, than there must be another rule, by which we must be directed in hearing. For it is not necessary to admit another rule, distinct from the doctrine of Pastors, but it sufficeth that we can distinguish in this rule, two distinct manners of teaching, the one private, and without authority, which we are not bound to accept; the other public, and with authority, which we may not reject in any point. 
7 To the text of Matthew 23.2. The Scribes, and Pharisees sit in Moses chair, etc. I answered, 
u The WAY pag. 75.  that our Saviour binds us not to hear the Pastors of the Church, further than they teach according to the truth. This exposition I confirmed by the testimonies of 
* Fer. in Matth. l. 3 c. 23. Can. Loc. l. 5. c. 4 jansen. concord. c. 120. Em. Sa. notat. Mat. 23.  4. Papists: to whom here I add a fift: Pope Adrian: 
x Hadria. quodl. 6. art. 2. p. 38.  we are tied to obey them in such things, as they teach according to Moses chair. Hence I said, it follows unanswerably that there is another rule, whereby I may be directed in hearing. For else how should a man be able to distinguish those points, wherein he must follow his teachers, from those wherein he must not? And indeed this reason is unanswerable. For if our Saviour hath bound me to hear them, that sit in Moses chair, no further than they teach true doctrine, according to the chair, it must necessarily be said, that there is some rule, distinct from their teaching, whereby I may infallibly discern, if they teach falsely against the chair. But the Reply says this needs not; it being sufficient, that we can distinguish two manners of teaching: the one Private, and without authority, which we are not bound to accept: the other public, and with authority, which we may not reject in any point. But for the making of this distinction, it needs that there be a rule: for though it be sufficient thus to distinguish, that is to say, by discerning, and judging, between that which is taught by public, and that which is taught by private authority, a man may sufficiently guide himself in following his Pastors: yet how shall I distinguish this? which way shall I know the public teaching from the private without A RULE? Say plainly what is the RULE to discern that doctrine, which is taught without authority, from that which is taught with authority? and if there be such a rule, say again, whether it be not something distinct from the teaching, and authority, of the teachers? for so much as that whereby the teaching, and authority is discerned, and tried, cannot be confounded with the teaching: and if there be such a distinct rule, what can it be, but the Scripture, which only is the thing, that all Church teaching must agree with? Thus therefore I reason ad hominem. In the doctrine taught by the Pastors of the Church it sufficeth, that I can distinguish the private from the public; that which is taught with authority, from that, which is without authority. Therefore I MAY, yea must thus distinguish. I may DISTINGUISH, therefore I may EXAMINE: for by examining things, we distinguish them. We may examine, therefore we must have a RULE, whereby we do it: we must have a rule, therefore it must either be the Scripture: or the teaching itself of the Church, that is examined: for a third cannot be given. But it cannot be the teaching of the Church: for that is the thing itself examined. It must of necessity therefore be the SCRIPTURE ALONE. And for so much as it belongs to every private man thus to distinguish, therefore it is true also that I said, Every private man enlightened with God's grace (which must always be supposed, and our adversaries necessarily require it) may be able to guide himself; and to discern of the Church teaching by the SCRIPTURE.   

Pag. 223. 1 Tim. 3. v 15. Wootton pag. 154. White p. 80.  A. D. Wherefore it is not without cause, that S. Paul called the Church, the pillar, and ground of truth, not only as my adversaries expound, that truth is found in it, or fastened to it, as a paper is fastened to Pasquin in Rome (which is M. Whites gross similitude) but also in that itself is free from all error in faith, and Religion, and is to us a sure, although a secondary, foundation of faith; in that it doth truly, yea infallibly propound to us, what is, and what is not to be believed by faith; it being therefore unto us a pillar, and stay, to lean unto in all doubts of doctrine; and an assured ground, or establishment of verity, whereupon we may securely stand, against all heresies, and errors. It is not also without cause, that S. Augustine said, whosoever is afraid to be deceived with the obscurity of this question, let him require the judgement of the Church: signifying, that to require the judgement of the Church, is a good means to preserve one from being deceived, not only (as M. Wootton expoundeth) in that particular question, which there S. Augustine mentioneth, and such like of lesser moment: and much less doth he mean (as M. White minceth the matter, to wit) in that particular question at this time, but also, (and that à fortiori) in other questions of greatest weight, and most concerning salvation, and at other times, etc. 
8 I find 2. faults in this place with the Repliar: 1. that he doth not report the whole expositions that I gave to these places, but only part of them, and yet tells me of mincing. Next, that having confirmed my exposition of the words of the Apostle by four reasons: and my exposition of Saint Austin by as many, and having confuted his sense that here he repeats by manifest arguments, he stands dumb to all and only repeats the places again, no otherwise, then when I answered them. I need not therefore trouble myself with confuting him here, but refer 
* THE WAY §. 15.  me to that I writ, much accusing myself for meddling with so base a trifler, that hath neither heart, nor strength to go forward in the argument, nor wit nor grace to hold his tongue: this one passage is the lively image, not only of all this his Reply, but of all his fellows writings, now in request, to bring in authority of Scripture, and Fathers, as a Bride is led into the Church, with state, and ceremony, and some gravity, and furniture of words; but when they should reply to that we answer, and maintain their expositions, then to tergiverfate, and only repeat that which is confuted.    

CHAP. XXXVI.  
An entrance into the question touching the visibility of the Protestant Church in the former ages. Wherein it is briefly showed where and in whom it was.  
A. D. Concerning the eleventh Chapter— Having proved in the precedent Chapter, that the doctrine of the Church is the rule, 
Pag. 227.  and means to instruct all men in faith; in this Chapter, I undertake to show, that the Church, whose doctrine is the rule and means, 
White pag. 86. Wootton p. 104 White pag. 86.  continueth in all ages. Both my adversaries grant, that the Church continueth in all ages: M. White saith, We confess the Church never coased to be, but continueth always, without interruption, to the world's end. M. Wootton saith, the truth of your assertion needeth no proof, and findeth great fault with me, for making such a question, as though Protestants did deny the Church to continue. As concerning this their granting the continuance of the Church, I gratefully accept it; especially with M. Whites addition, who yieldeth, that if we can prove, that the very faith, which Protestants now confess, hath not 
* If Protestants faith so far as they differ from us continued always, I ask whether in the air, or in some faithful men? if in men, who be those men?  successively continued in all ages since Christ, or that it was interrupted, so much as one year, month, or day, it is sufficient to prove them no part of God's Church, For which he citeth in the Margin, Dan. 7. ver. 27. Psal. 102. v. 26. Mat. 16.18. Luk. 1, v. 33. 
1 AS no Protestant denies the doctrine of the Church to be the rule, taking the Church for 
a So Waldens. doctrinal. tom. 1. l. 2. c. 19 Haec est Ecclesia Symbolica, Ecclesia Christi Catholica & Apostolica, matter credentium per totum mundum dispersae, à Baptismo Christi per Apostolos & ceteros successores eorum ad haec tempora devoluta: quae utique veram fidem continent, etc. pag. 99  the whole company of believers, which have been from Christ to this day; so neither do they deny, this Church to continue in all ages: the which because I granted the Repliar in my answer to his book, you see how he joys in himself, as if he had won the cause touching his visibleness of the Church. But, as I noted to him, the question is not, whether the Church continue in all ages to the world's end, for that we grant, but whether the outward state thereof free from all corruption, be always so visible as the Papists say? I showed the Negative, and in the 17. Digression made it plain, that our Adversaries themselves cannot deny it: the Repliar therefore in this place, was to quit his own D. D. whom I alleged, and not to stand gratefully accepting, that which no man denies. The marginal question is answered, Digression 48. yet here I answer again, that the Protestant faith so far as it differeth from that which the Church of Rome holds against us, continued always, not in the air, but in men, and those men were such as lived in the Church of Rome itself constantly holding the foundation of Christian Religion, though the same men were corrupted also, some more, some less, with those errors that we refuse. The rest of this Chapter meddles with nothing I writ, but is spent in proving that the Church, whose doctrine is the rule, continues in all ages unto the world's end: not only the true Church abides for ever unto the end, but that Church doth so, whose doctrine is the rule to teach us; as if there were a true Church of Christ, whose doctrine were not the rule, in such sense as I have expounded the doctrine of the Church to be the rule? This is partly to be saying somewhat, when he could not reply to that I said, and partly to persuade his people that we hold the contrary: I detest his rudeness, and lament their bondage, and slavery.   
A. D. M. White granteth, 
Pag. 233. White p. 63.  that those Scriptures which I allege in the treatise, prove well Christ's abiding always with the Church; whereupon is inferred the continuance of the Church in all ages: therefore he will not, or ought not deny, but that they prove also, that there is teaching of true doctrine of faith, in the Church, not only for the Apostles time, or for six, or eight hundred years after, but absolutely for all ages. 
I grant all this, and if he beg hard, I will give him more, that the doctrine of the Church thus taught, in all ages, is the rule of faith, that all men ought to follow. But he is so far bankrupt, and behind hand, that no reasonable thing will help him. For still this Church supposes not his Pope, nor his Papacy: and this doctrine means not his traditions, nor any thing taught in the Church besides the Scripture, nor doth this being the rule, intent any such authority, or sovereignty of the Church above the Scripture, as he pleads for; but only the Ministry of the Church, under Christ, and his Scriptures, in propounding the faith to particular believers, and confirming the same to their hearts, and consciences by the sole authority of the Scriptures themselves, as I have often touched.    

CHAP. XXXVII.  
Not the Church, but the Scripture, is the rule. 2. The question touching the visibleness of the Church proceeds of the Militant Church. 3. 4. 5. In what sense we say the Militant Church is sometime invisible. 5. The Papists think the Church shall be invisible in the time of Antichrist. Their contradictions touching Antichrist briefly noted.  
A. D. Concerning the twelfth Chapter— By that which hath been said in the two precedent Chapters, it is apparent enough, 
Pag. 234.  that there is in all ages, a certain company called the Church, whose doctrine is the ordinary rule, and means ordained by God to instruct all men, in all matters of faith: and that by the said doctrine, and teaching of the true Church, every one is to learn, what is, and what is not to be holden for the true faith, not doubting, but that the doctrine of faith, which is commended, and caught us by the said true Catholic Church, is the right faith. The which being so, every one may see, how necessary it is to seek, find, and follow the judgement of the true Church, as being a most necessary means, without which none can expect to attain that one, infallible, entire faith, which is necessary to salvation. This seemeth in a sort to be granted by M. White. For although, he plead hard to have Scripture alone to be the 
(a) White p. 13. 14. 15.  rule, holding the letter itself to be the 
(b) Pag. 12.  vessel which presenteth thou rule, which he 
(c) Pag. 31.  compareth to the Carpenters square, to the precepts of art, to the law of the Land; yet as he cannot deny, that a child cannot do any thing with the Carpenters square, nor an unlearned man with a book, wherein is contained precepts of art, or with a lawbooke; but the square must be applied by a cunning Carpenter, the precepts of art must be expounded by a learned master, the law must be declared by a skilful Lawyer, or propounded by an authorised judge: Even so he must grant, that the Scripture itself, although it be a good rule, yet if it were (as he would have it) the only rule, must be applied, expounded, declared, and propounded, not by every man, woman, and child, but by the authority (as we say) or by the Ministry (as my Adversaries say) of the Church: 
White p. 110. Pag. 93.  and that so necessarily, that even as M. White affirmeth, except in some extraordinary cases, no man can of himself, attain to the knowledge of faith, but as the Church teacheth him, in regard (as otherwhere he confesseth) the Church is a subordinate means, for the bringing of men to salvation; in that God teacheth his elect, by the ministry thereof. Neither (saith he) can any man be the child of God, except first he be conceived in the womb of the Church. So we see even in M. Whites opinion, how necessary it is for every one to seek, find, and follow the teaching of the true Church. 
1 THat which he says I granted in a sort, I grant again; and yet will still plead and prove the Scripture alone to be the rule, and nothing else. For though a child can do nothing with a square, nor an unlettered man with a book; yet still the square, and contents of the book are the rule, and not the Carpenter, and the judge: they are only Ministers to apply the rule, and subordinate conditions requisite for the due use of the rule; and to be ruled by it themselves, if at any time (as sometime they may) they err in working. So is it in few words, with the Church, and Scriptures. And albeit I affirmed, as he saith, and it be my opinion, that it is necessary to find, and follow the teaching of the Church: yet is it not my opinion, that the universal Church teaches any doctrine, that is not written in Scripture; or God by the Church teaches those unwritten traditions, or that the Church exceeds the condition of a bare Minister under the Scriptures. Which Ministry being acknowledged, M. White will allow it any authority, and power to teach, inform, persuade, correct, repress particular men, that my Adversaries will demand: but they require Church authority above the Scripture, and make unwritten traditions, and the Pope's Decretals equal with the Scripture, and place all the power, and faculty of the Church in the Pope; and when they have done, allow no particular man, or Church, to call any of these things in question. This is it the Repliars teeth water at, and which by M. Whites concessions he would recover, but he shall never get it, nor all the Papists in the world ever prove it: yet without it th●●rott above ground, 
a 2. Sa. 13.  as Amnon would die, if he lay not with his sister Thamar.   
A. D. That we may therefore be encouraged to seek in such sort, 
Pag. 235.  as we may find, that finding we may duly follow the teaching of the true Church; in this Chapter I inquire in general, whether the Church, whose teaching we ought to follow, in all matters of faith, be always visible, that is, such as may be seen, or by seeking found: or sometimes invisible, that is, such as cannot be seen, nor by seeking found. Before I proceed to relate my adversaries answer, I must clear the state of the question. M. Wootton first would make the question to be, whether the Church spoken of in the Creed be visible, or invisible? M. White says, that this is not the question in this place: but (saith he) the question of the Church militant, which containeth, as part of it, even evil men, and hypocrites. The truth is, that to speak precisely, I make not the question either of these ways. For although it be true that the same Church, which I speak of, be the Church, or part of the Church spoken of in the Creed: although also it be the Church militant, or part of the Church militant, containing as part of it, all professors, good, and bad: in regard I hold (as all good Christians should) that there is but one Church: yet that I may cut off occasions of cavil, I will not now dispute, what is meant by the word Church, as it is in the Creed, or whether the Church militant be that Church, which I say is visible: I only ask, whether the Church of which I spoke in the two precedent Chapters, whose doctrine is there proved, by divers places of Scriptures, to be in all ages the Rule, and means, ordained by God to instruct all men, in all matters of faith: whether (I say) this Church be in all ages visible, or sometimes invisible? Now taking the Church in this sense, yet my adversary M. White, 
White p. 86. Pag. 9  perverteth the state of my question: for he will needs have me mean by a visible Church, a company always so illustrious, as it (not only may be, but) actually is known to all men, living at all times. But so I did not here make my question: for I know well enough, that the Church hath not always, especially in time of persecutions, such outward worldly prosperous estate. I know also that sometimes the Church is obscured (as S. Augustine saith) with multitude of scandals: and therefore it is not always alike famous, and illustrious: especially so, as to shine actually through the whole world. My question therefore only is, whether the true Church, WHOSE DOCTRINE IS THE RULE, and means ordained by God, to instruct men of all ages in faith, be sometimes quite invisible, in such sort that no member thereof, can be seen, nor assigned: or that it is always visible, that is to say, such as containeth in it always (even in the times of greatest obscurity) at least some eminent professors, who either are actually known, or may in particular be assigned to all such, as 〈◊〉 to know them, that they may learn of them the true doctrine of faith, as (grace sufficient being presupposed) all men in potentia proxima, vel remota, may, and aught to learn. 
2 For the better understanding of that which ensues, from this place forward to the end, touching the visibleness of the Church, the Reader must note, that my adversary having in his Treatise concluded, that not the Scripture, but the teaching of the Church is the rule of faith: now proceeded to inquire which this Church is, and where it is to be found? And first he answered categorically, that it is visible, and may be found: then afterward he showed where, and how, and by what marks, it may be found. In the 17. §. he began to entreat of the visibleness of the Church, affirming that it must needs always be from Christ's time to the end of the world, and being, it must needs be always visible, urging such reasons, as he had to prove it: and among the rest this was his last. 
a §. 22. in the WAY.  The only reason, and ground by which heretics hold the Church to be invisible, is because they imagine the Church to consist only of the elect; or at least of the good: but this is a false ground, for it is evident, that the Church militant consisteth of good and bad, etc. Whereto 
b Ibi.  I answered, that this was not our reason, nor indeed could be, for that in this question we speak not of the universal Church, comprehending none but the elect of all times, and ages, but of the Church for the time being wherein the true faith is remaining, which Church contains hypocrites also, and evil men, as well as good. Wherein I spoke effectually: for his own words are, that the question is of the militant Church. And when our doctrine is, that the militant Church consists of wicked reprobates, as well as elect, how can we make it a ground to prove it invisible sometime, because it consists only of the elect? Nevertheless in this place, you see he complains of my perverting the state of the question, and denies that he meant it, as I took it: Let us therefore see, what he requires, and if his meaning be mistaken, good reason he explain himself, and the difference between us be agreed upon.  
3 First he says, that he inquires, in general, not whether the Church mentioned in the Creed, or whether the militant Church be visible, but whether that Church whose teaching we ought to follow, be always visible: that is, such, as may be seen, or by seeking found? And I also said, 
* In what sense the militant Church is by the Protestant Divines, said to be sometime invisible.  the question is only of the outward state of the Church, whether it be always visible to the world, or not; that in every age those congregations may evidently be discerned, and pointed too, which are the true Church. Not affirming the true outward militant Church at any time hitherto to have been invisible: for the visible Churches of Greece, Ethiope, Armenia, and Rome, with the nations contained therein, have in them the true Church of God, wherein men may be saved: but only intending that there is not always, in this Church a visible company, and state of people, divided from the rest that profess the true faith, and exercise Church government, in all things free from the corruptions, and abuses of such, as have defiled the Church. And thus I never denied the Church of Rome to be the visible Church of God, wherein our Ancestors possessed the true faith, and were saved: but I constantly deny the PAPACY to be it: or the ARTICLES wherein we refuse the Church of Rome, to be the faith thereof: and affirm the same to be a Leprosy breeding in the Church so universally that there was no visible company of people appearing to the world free from it: and whether any company at all, known, or unknown were free from it wholly, or not, I neither determine, nor greatly care. All that I hold touching the invisible Church, being, that the true Church being overgrown with heresy, and corruption, there hath not at all times been therein a distinct company, to be seen, which in all points were free from the corruption: though there may be showed a company that held all the substantial points, simply necessary to salvation. Had the jesuite understood my words in this sense, which I often declared, all over my Book, he would never have trifled away time in proving the Church, whose doctrine is the rule, to be visible, which I deny not; but he would have gone roundly to work, in showing the visible Church to be never so corrupted, but there is some one or more special companies therein, visibly to be seen by all, and separated from the rest, that is not defiled with the corruption. For the Church is visible to be seen at all time, more, or less, whose teaching, in the sound part thereof, is to be followed to the world's end. Nevertheless first he excepts, that I say, the question is of the Church militant, containing as part of it, evil men, and hypocrites: whereas to speak precisely, he makes not the Question, that way; but to cut off occasions of cavil, he says he desputes, whether the Church, whereof he spoke in the precedent Chapters, whose doctrine in all ages is the rule of faith; whether, I say, this Church be in all ages visible, or sometimes invisible? as if the Church whose doctrine is the rule in all ages, were any other than the militant? His conclusions, whereby he taught his friend, how to resolve himself in religion, were these: That there is a rule left by God, whereby all men may be instructed. This rule is not the Scripture, but the doctrine of the true Church, which Church is always visible: that all men, at all times, may see it; wherein, he affirms, as I do, the militant Church to be visible, because that only is it, that mortal men can hear, and have access to, and this I show distinctly to be the question. For first, his own express words are: 
c In THE WAY pag 99  It is evident, that the Church militant consists of good and bad; but this Church consisting of good and bad, is the same that before in his conclusion he affirmed to be visible, confuting our (supposed) ground whereupon we held it invisible. Secondly, in this very passage he says, it is true, that the same Church he speaks of, is the Church militant, or part of it. Thirdly, he expounds himself to mean that Church, whose doctrine is the rule to teach us. But the doctrine of no Church teaches us, but that of the Militant living here upon earth, where they that live are taught. Fourthly, he means that Church whereto every one may have access, and repair for instruction; whereto also they may join themselves, and wherein they may admonish their brethren: and therefore precisely he speaks of the Militant church upon earth: and his words, that to speak precisely, he makes not the question this way, but only asks whether the Church, whose doctrine is the rule, be visible, are so precise, that a man would think his headpiece were not well seasoned; when either he must grant this his visible Church to be militant, or confess it to be none of God's Church: for so much as all the Church of God, whose doctrine is the rule of faith, is, for the time being, militant here on earth, and part of that which is mentioned in the Creed, where we say, credo Ecclesiam. Therefore the question between us is, whether the company of those that profess and teach the true faith of Christ, without mixture of corruption, among whom possible many hypocrites and wicked men live, which company is called the Militant-church, be at all times visible? The Reply says it is, and must no more deny his assertion to be meant even precisely of this company.  
4 His second exception is about the words visible and invisible, where he says five things. First, that by a visible Church, I make him to mean a company always so illustrious, that it may be known to all men, living at all times. Secondly, that I make him to mean this company also to be so illustrious, that actually it is thus known. Thirdly, that he means not the word visible in this second sense. Fouthly, that he knows the Church is sometime obscured, and shines not actually through the whole world. Fiftly, that the Church is always visible in this sense, that always, even in the greatest obscurity, it hath some eminent professors, which either are actually known, or may in particular be assigned. The first is true, for he says it expressly in the last. And I suppose he will not deny it, when so many of his own Divines hold it. Dom. Bannes 
d Tom. 3. pag. 103.  says, the Church is so visible, that it is palpable. Bellarmine: 
e De Eccl. l. 3. c. 13.  God hath at all times a Church, consisting not of a few people, but of a great multitude, as conspicuous as any earthly kingdom. Greg. of Valence: 
f Tom. 3 p. 143.  Our assertion is, that in all ages there may evidently be seen and discerned, and as it were pointed out with the finger, a company of men, whereof every one may believe, that it is the true Church. The second is false. For though it follow manifestly upon his words, and that which the Divines of his church teach of the vis●●●lenesse of their church; yet I charged him not so far: but contented myself with confuting that which is contained in his first and last assertion. Nevertheless it is true, that he and all Papists must by their own principles, hold the Church to be even actually visible to all men. For he says, 
g Repl. p. 170.  God hath given sufficient means to all men for their salvation: 
h In THE WAY §. 13.  and the teaching of this his church, is the means. But no means is sufficient, that is not actually revealed: as 
i Ch. 25. n. 15.16.  I have showed heretofore out of the Repliers own authors. Therefore if sufficient means be only that which is actually revealed, and the Church be the means, it follows, the Church must be actually visible: or else let us see how the Replier will quit himself. The third is also false, as I have said: but yet allowing it to be true, I have not perverted the question; because I affirm, and dispute against the visibleness of the Church in that s●nce which he holds in the first and last assertion. The fourth I accept as the truth, and have showed in 
k Digr. 17.  THE WAY, that as his own Divines expound it, it utterly destroys his first and last assertions, and yields as much as we say, that the Church free from gross and foul corruptions, is not always to be seen where or in whom it is. Whereto if you add that which 
l Epist. de pacif. Venet. ad Reg. Franc. 1607. April. 5.  Cardinal Perone lately writ to the French King, that it is uncertain whether God will suffer the Catholic religion to be oppressed in Italy and driven out of all Europe, into another Hemisphere, the case will be clearer. For if the Pope and his drudgery may be expulsed Italy, and twenty Genevahs' planted there, as the Cardinal speaks: believe me, that would bring the Roman faith to as low a size as ever the Protestants was; and our adversaries would be as invisible as their fellows. The last, is enough to show, that I pervert not the question. For I deny, and showed in my answers to all his arguments, that howsoever the Church consists of men that may be seen, and these men know one another where they live; yet there is no such eminency in any of them, that the world can tell who or where they be that in the Church hold the true faith without corruption; but they may be so hidden by persecutions & heresies increasing in the church, that no man shall discern them, and that they can have no open or uncorrupted exercise of religion: wherein I have showed, our adversaries themselves, driven by the necessity of the truth, to come home to us. Digress. 17.   
A. D. Now taking the question in this sense, 
Pag. 236.  my conclusion of this chapter was, that the Church is never quite invisible, but always visible. This I proved by divers reasons, which stand still in force against my adversaries, supposing the state of the question be rightly understood, as first I meant it, and as now I have declared it. The truth of which my conclusion, I further confirm by the authority of Saint Augustine, who 
* Ep. 48.  having said as even now I cited, that the Church is sometimes obscured with multitude of scandals: he addeth, but even then she is eminent in her most firm members. Secondly I confirm the same by experience of ancient and present times; because even in times of greatest persecution under the heathen Emperors, even when the Church hath seemed to be overwhelmed with heresies: even when it was said, that the world did marvel to see itself become Arian: even when it seemed to be rend in pieces with schisms: even when it hath been most blemished with ill lives of the true professors themselves: even in the most obscure and ignorant ages, wherein there was least number of teachers and writers: there was always a company of true professing Christians, so visible, as that at least some in all ages (whom God stirred up to be eminent men, opposing themselves by word or example, or both, as a wall for the house of God) were actually apparent, even to the world: or at least being known to Christians themselves (as my adversaries seem to grant that the true Professors always are) they or some of them might and may be assigned by Christians, to such as desire to know them, as after I shall show: which sufficeth to prove the Church visible, in such sense as I here make the question. 

In what sense the Church militant is said to be sometime invisible.  5 The question is not of the visibleness of the church, taking the word Church, for the Militant church of God, wherein the true faith is preserved, and whose sound doctrine is the rule of all faith: for we deny it not: but only as it signifies such therein as are free from the general apostasy and corruptions, which now and then prevail in, and all over the church. For in the first sense we say the Church is visible, because the companies of those which profess and hold the substance of faith (howsoever many errors beside may be added thereto) are always manifest: but in the second sense, we say it may be invisible, inasmuch as at some times, yea for a long time together, no part thereof, nor any company therein, can be discerned to be free from the corruption prevailing: but a time may come, when things are so reform, and the doctrine of the Church so reduced to the first Apostolic verity, by putting away the apostasy and innovations, that for some ages before, there hath not been known in all the Church, any company enjoying or practising the said doctrine thus purged and reform. This being all that I hold touching the invisibleness of the Church, his reason concludes nothing against me, as will appear by viewing 
a In THE WAY, §. 18. & inde.  my answers. To the place of Saint Austin, I answer, that it makes for me, in the first words expressly, The Church is sometimes obscured with multitudes of scandals; and in the latter words, the firm members wherein the Church is eminent, are not such as are totally free from all abuses and corruptions belonging to apostasy; but such as in the midst of corruption still retain the principal points of Christian faith; and among many errors, yet eminently hold the substance of saving doctrine: and such we grant always were in the midst of the Papacy, which is OUR VISIBLE CHURCH, THAT WAS BEFORE LUTHER'S TIME. To his other reason of experience of ancient and present times, I have answered also in my book; and here answer again, that it is false; meaning by those true professing Christians stirred up of God, and eminent men opposing themselves, such as opposed themselves against all error. For there never wanted, in any persecution, schism, or heresy, those which professed the true faith, even visibly, in that which substantially belonged to the faith, and was sufficient to salvation: but there have not always been visibly to be seen, those that eminently opposed or refused every corruption, or were preserved from such error, as was afterward lawfully reform and done away. For the church of Rome being made the seat of Antichrist, 
b 2. Thess. 2 6. Apoc. 17. Valde verisimile est. Irenae. l. 5. c 30.  as the holy Ghost foretold, it was impossible there should be any visible company so eminent or perfect, that the general contagion should not (though not mortally) in some measure touch them, as 
c Act. 1.6.  the judaisme of the times wherein Christ lived, generally corrupted all the Apostles; who yet for all that, remained eminent members of the Church. And if my adversary think his Pope not to be Antichrist, or the persecution of Antichrist, whosoever he be, not able thus far to prevail against the Church: let him descend when he will into that question, and he will find himself as weak there as here: the rather because I know no learned man of his side, but confesses the same invisibleness of the Church in antichrist's time, that I maintain. Telesphorus the Hermit 
d Lib. de magn. tribul pag. 32. edit. Venet. per Soared an 1516.  says, The sacrifice and oblation shall fail, the Ecclesiastical Orders shall be destroyed, that there shall not be any in all the multitude of the people, that dares freely invocate God. Vbertine 
e Vbertin. de Casal. lib. de 7. Stat. de eccl c. 8 edit. Venet. per Soared an. 1516. & refert Oaus Eccl. pag 31. nu. 19  says, That, concerning the binding of the Devil for a thousand years, is to be understood, from the time of the first state of the Church to the time that the Roman Empire was translated to the Almains, when Gregory the fift made a new decree concerning the choosing of the Emperor, whose successor Sylvester the second by simony and necromancy got the Popedom; for then the little Church which believed in Christ, began to fall into scandals. This touching the Pope's being Antichrist, 
f R. jaco. praef. monit. pag. 56. & inde. D. Whit ●k. add demonst Saunder. & controu de Pont. Rom. q. 5. c. 3. Sohn. tract de Antichrist. D. Abb. demonstrat. D. Down. of Antichr. D. Fulk in 2. Th. 2. & Apoc. 13. etc.  our writings have sufficiently demonstrated: and all stories make it plain, that the most violent persecutions, and the greatest heresies, schisms and scandals, that ever were, have been under the Pope, and by his working, since he came to his greatness, which makes him relish so strong of Antichrist, that the jesuite, with all his fellows to help him, cannot sweeten him. And I can tell him a thing in his ear, that will discourage him for ever undertaking that matter. For as learned men as ever were in the Church of Rome, have 
g De Antichristo dicit idem Joachim, quod tam natus est in civitate Romana, & in sede Apostolica sublimabitur. Rog. Houed. annal pag. 681. Sedes Bestiae id est, Ecclesiae perversae, est in Curia Romana. Onus Eccl. c 19 n. 6. See the oration of Euerardus Abusin. in Auent pag. 546. And Chaucer's plough man's tale.  mistrusted it: and 
h The Turk holden to be the great Antichrist by Clicton. comen. in Damasc. de sid. orth. l. 4. pag. 391. Prateol. Elench. v. Mahom. pag 302. Henten. indic. de Apoc. pag. 182. Genebr chronol. an. 590. pag. 477. Fevardent. in Irenae. l. 5. c. 30. n. 10. who says, other most learned men are of the same opinion.  they that will not confess it, have yet, to turn it off him, made him Antichrist, that cannot so be by 
i The common opinion holden by the jesuits, is, that Antichrist shall be one singular person, a jew, of the tribe of Dan, etc. See Accost. de temp. noviss. l. 2. c. 5. Bellar. de Pont. Rom. l. 3. c. 2.10. & inde. Suar. tom. 2. disp. 54. Henriq. de fin. hom. c. 23.  the doctrine now maintained among the jesuits.    

CHAP. XXXVIII.  
1. The Papists cannot prove the Church to be always visible, in that sense wherein we deny it. 2. The divers considerations of the Church distinguished. 3. His quarrels made to our doctrine touching the Churches several states, answered. 6. The faithful only are the true members of the Church. 7. Upon what occasion the question touching the visibleness of the Church, first began.  
A.D. This my conclusion thus declared and proved, 
Pag. 237.  doth sore pinch my adversaries, and putteth them to pitiful straits, as after we shall see. For on the one side, to deny the Church, in such sense as here I have declared, to be at all times visible, without impudency they cannot, my proofs (at least some of them) are so apparent and plain: on the other side to grant it to be in this sense always visible, they will not, for fear that people do thereby plainly see, that Protestants (who cannot assign a continual visible Church, or a company of professors of their faith, nor so much as one professing Protestant in every several age since Christ) cannot be the true Church, of which only, as of the ordinary rule and means, all men must learn, what is, and what is not to be holden for the true saving faith. My adversaries therefore not daring (as it may seem) to make direct answer, 
White, p. 100 Wotton, p. 210.  and yet being willing at least to make show of an answer, do distinguish two several Churches, that when they are hunted out of one, they may run into the other, and that being pursued thither, they may for refuge fly into the former: they call one Church the true Catholic Church, spoken of in the Creed, which they affirm to contain only the elect; to whom (as they say) belong the promises of the Spirit, which in Scripture were made to the Church. This Church, both my adversaries do account simply invisible. And truly since no man can tell who be Gods elect, if they could as well prove, as they boldly affirm, that the Church (spoken of in the Creed, or in those places of Scripture, where the promises of the Spirit are made to the Church) doth contain none but the elect; it could not be denied, that it were invisible. But this they will never be able sufficiently to prove. The other Church which they distinguish from the Catholic Church, M. White calleth the Church militant, 
White, p. 100 Wotton. p. 210.  containing as part of it, all professors of the true faith, whether good or bad, believers or hypocrites, elect or reprobate. The necessity which driveth them to admit such a Church, is (as I guess) because if no company of men did in any sort pertain to the Church, but only the elect, whom none can know; it would follow, that since (as hath been proved) no man can ordinarily attain true faith, but by instruction received from the true Church; every man ordinarily might despair of attaining true faith, and consequently of attaining salvation, which is not had without true faith, in regard he could never know the company or Church to whom he must repair for instruction in faith. Besides therefore the company of the elect, my adversaries hold, that there is another Church, 
White, pag. 87.  the which (as M. White saith) is always upon the earth, holding the whole faith without change, and containing a certain number that constantly profess it. This Church which other Protestants commonly call the visible Church, M. White will needs defend to be sometimes invisible. 
1 FIrst he says, his conclusion pinches us; but he is deceived: we feel no pain, nor utter any voice that tastes of pain. Because whatsoever he says and declares, yet he proves nothing; and nothing pinches that is not proved: nay he is so far from pinching, that he and his fellows make us smile, and yield us good pastime, to talk thus of the visibleness of the Church; and yet when things come to scanning, to doubt of it themselves as much as we. I alleged the confessions of divers Papists, in the 17. Digr. why hath he not answered thereto, and showed what or how they say less than we? Next he shows what the strait is, we are put to. For on the one side, he says, it is impudency to deny his conclusion, so apparently proved: on the other side, we dare not grant it for fear of the people. Here is never a true word. First his conclusion is not proved. For the arguments which he propounded to demonstrate it, he hath not followed, nor upholden; but leaving them in the field behind him, he runs away, without so much as looking behind him, and in all his Reply rescues not one of them. Secondly, his conclusion is justly denied, and without impudency: for it is no impudency to deny that which cannot be proved; but it is impudency to require men to believe that which hath no proof. He speaks of his proofs, as he doth of his Church, all is eminent, illustrious, apparent, plain, visible to all, when yet no man sees them. Thirdly, the reason why we grant not the Church to be in his sense visible, is not for fear of the people, nor because we cannot give the Professors of our faith in every age; but because it is the truth, which with all his boasting he cannot remove: for albeit the Church never fails, but abides perpetually visible in some degree to the end; yet is there not always therein a visible company, by profession and government, distinct from the rest, that is free from the general corruption that prevails in the Church of which company only the question is. He maintaining that the Church cannot err, nor be subject to any such corruption, but hath always in it eminent professors, and special congregations, that are never infected with any part of the corruption, nor need reformation: which persons and congregations appear as visibly and distinctly to all men, as worldly kingdoms are distinctly seen and known: and we holding the Church to be perpetual, only because there are always in the world which hold the true worship of God; and to be visible in regard it may at all times be seen, though heresy may so prevail, and persecution so arise, that a visible company shall not appear, which is not in some measure touched with the common errors; or needs not repentance and reformation. All which is so true, that I challenge the Replier, and provoke the zealousest of my adversaries to say ingenuously, if the learned Papists alleged Digress. 17. say not, in effect, as much themselves.  
2 Our answer therefore is direct and plain, both to the conclusion and the reasons; and so direct, that the jesuite hath no stomach to reply: but exceeding grossly & falsely, expounds & affixes a meaning to us, that we never meant. First he says, we distinguish two several Churches, whereof we call the one the Catholic Church mentioned in the Creed, containing only the elect: the other the Militant Church, containing as part of the Catholic, the professors of the true faith, whether good or bad, believers or hypocrites, elect or reprobate. Next he says, the reason why we thus distinguish two several Churches, is, that when we are hunted out of the one, we may run into the other. This he expounds something more plainly: That which, as I guess (for he hath no certainty of what he says) drives them to admit such a Church militant, distinguished from the Catholic, is, lest if none should be said to pertain to the Church, but only the elect, it would follow, that men might despair of attaining true faith, (which is not had but by the teaching of the Church) for as much as they could never know who are elected. Thirdly he says, this Militant Church, which other Protestants commonly call the visible Church, M. White will needs defend to be sometimes invisible. That these things may the better be understood, and answered: note FIRST, that by the word Church taken in his full latitude, 
The Church.  we mean the whole company of all those whom God calls to the knowledge and profession of his truth, and so to salvation. Of which calling and separation from the rest of the world, living in Atheism and idolatry, without the knowledge or acceptation of those supernatural verities that lead to God, it hath the denomination, and is called the Church; as if you should say, a company called or gathered forth of the rest of the world. 
But one church  Note SECONDLY, that the Church absolutely and simply considered in this latitude, is but One, as the state and company of the kingdom of Great Britain is but one; in as much as all and every one called to this grace, of how different state, qualities, or condition soever, belong, one way or other, to this company: for the faith being but one, and the manner of calling by revealing the same but one: the companies that receive and profess it, how many soever respectively, yet absolutely, and abstracting from particular conditions of times and persons, can be but one. Note THIRDLY, that in the Church, being absolutely but one, there are sundry differences and respects; that is to say, the persons called to the faith of Christ, are of divers sorts: as the kingdom of Great Britain, being but one, yet is divers ways considered. For some part of the Church being reduced from the state of this mortal life, reigns with God in heaven, and is glorified with that glory, whereto it was called when it was here on earth. 
The triumphant Church.  This we call the Triumphant Church, because as triumphers they enjoy the reward due to conquerors. The other part of the Church, is that which successively in all ages, lives here in this world, professing that it desires to follow the Triumphant, 
The militant Church.  and enjoy eternal life: this we call the Church Militant, because it lies as it were in the camp, fight against the world, the devil, and the flesh, under the banner of Christ, waiting for the victory. But among these again there are two sorts of people: the first, all such as are called effectually: 
The Church of the elect.  these are the elect only, whom God not only calls, but inspires also effectually to obey his calling, and to live holy and unblamable, in such sort, that they shall infallibly be saved in the life to come. 
The invisible Church.  This company we call the invisible Church, because God only sees who are his; we can see the men, and by their fruits hope they are Gods elect; but to speak precisely, no mortal eye can discern them to be Gods elect, but God alone: by reason hypocrites and the reprobate, do many times resemble them in show and profession. The second sort of the Militant Church, are hypocrites and unsound members, that are not called effectually, but disobey the truth, whereof they make profession, such are heretics, schismatics, and all the wicked that will not obey the truth, whom we call the false and malignant church. 
The malignant Church.  Note FOURTHLY, that howsoever the elect living here upon earth, and effectually called, be invisible in the sense delivered; yet when we say the Church militant is sometimes invisible, we mean it of the Church Militant that lives in the world, and outwardly professes the faith of Christ, whether they therein that do it, be the elect or others: for we only speak of the place and company, where the truth is professed, and may be found, which may well be, where the wicked and the elect are mingled together. Note FIFTHLY, that the Church is called Catholic or universal in two senses: first, the Church taken in his full latitude, 
Catholic Church.  for the whole company of all that are called both in heaven and in earth, visible and invisible, elect and hypocrites, is called the Catholic Church, in as much as it comprehends all that have been called to the profession of the Catholic faith: then again, for so much as any part may synecdochically be termed after the name of the whole, it sometimes falls out, that the Militant Church, or any part of it, i● called the Catholic, as well as the Militant and Triumphant together. But when the elect alone most perfectly have the Catholic faith, and not only use the faith, ministery, and Sacraments revealed, but also enjoy the effects and benefits thereof, which the false Church never doth; hence it comes, that they principally, and as the universal members thereof, are called the Catholic Church mentioned in the Creed: 
a Alias omnes homines, etiam infideles, & etiam damnati. dicerentur pertinere ad corpus Ecclesiae tanquam eius membra: quod est absurdum. Turrecrem sum. l. 4. part. 2. c. 20. ad 6. idem l. 1. c. 57  the rest, in very deed and truth, not being of the Church at all: for Bellarmine 
b De Eccl. l. 3. c. 10. pag. 13●. d  says, The Church chief, and in her intention, gathers together only the faithful: but when dissemblers and such as believe not truly, are mingled, that falls out besides the intention of the Church: for if she could know them, she would never admit them; or being admitted, she would presently exclude them. Again: 
c Ibi. pag 141. a  Heretics feigning themselves to be Catholics, are not of the Church indeed, but only in reputation, and outward appearance.  
3 This being the manner how we distinguish and hold touching the Church, and the manner thereof: now I answer that which the Rplier hath reported. 
* Ad. 1.  To the first, it is false and malicious, that we make two Churches: for the Catholic Church mentioned in the Creed, and the Militant, make but one Church, which in one sense is called Catholic, and Militant in another. For the multiplication of divers states, degrees and relations belonging to a thing, multiplies not the essence of the things: as he that divides the world into parts, or distinguishes the climates, or shows the diversity of the inhabitants, doth not distinguish several worlds, but affirms divers states and conditions in one and the same world. I am ashamed when I read 
d See Staplet. relect. pag. 36.  our adversaries, that (should have learning and shamefacedness, or at least ordinary wit) thus wrangling with us, as if we made two Churches. 
* Ad 2.  To the second, it is likewise false, and fit for a parasite, that sets himself only to boast and reproach, then for a divine. For our answer is plain and direct, that the Church considered in such state as it is ordained, and fit to teach men the true faith, and as mortal men can have access to it, (which belongs only to the Militant state) is sometimes so overwhelmed with persecutions ●nd heresies, that a true Church, entirely teaching the faith of Christ, without errors, and freely using the word, Sacraments, and Ecclesiastical discipline, apart from the rest of the Church, cannot be seen in all the world. And our adversaries arguments being applied to this, neither hunt nor pursue us so, but we can answer them without flying into the Church of the elect: for we do not say, that the elect alone are thus obscured, but even all, whether elect or reprobate, that openly hold the state mentioned, in this sense, that not only the elect are invisible, not to be discerned with mortal eye; (for they are always so in this world) but the whole Church Militant, containing both elect and others, is at some times so defaced and obscured, that the world cannot see where the substance of faith is holden without errors mingled. And so it is merely untrue, that the Replier says, touching our flying to the Church of the elect. For, as I answered in 
e Pag. 100  THE WAY, though we hold the Catholic Church mentioned in the Creed, every member whereof is saved, to be invisible, because God alone sees who are elected, yet the Church thus considered, is not it that we speak of in this question, but the Militant; whereof we say, it IS ALWAYS manifest to the world, but a company therein, that needs not reformation, is NOT ALWAYS manifest. And whereas he says, we will never be able sufficiently to prove, the Church spoken of in the Creed and in the Scripture, where the promises of the Spirit are made to the Church, to contain none but the elect, he is deceived. For though this be not material to the point in hand, and (without any disadvantage to our cause) might be granted, yet the best learned of his own side, say as we do, that none are simply, absolutely, and univocally of the Church, but the elect alone, as I have showed immediately before. For 
f Eph. 5.23. Col. 1.18.  the Church being nothing else but the body of Christ, and Christ being the Saviour of his body; how shall hypocrites and other evil men, whom he never saves, be truly said to be his Church? And when 
g Jtaque neque pro illu (qui non saluantur) obtulis suam passionem, qui nunquam participaverunt ipsius merita: neque pro eis qui justificati non sunt Patrem oravit (Christus.) Non pro mundo, inquit, rogo, sed pro eis quos dedisti mihi. Dicitur autem, mortuus esse pro omnibus, quia mors illius sufficiens fuit ad satisfaciendum pro omnibus Omnium delictis, & pro innumerabilibus alijs, si essent; & ad perducendum omnes homines, ad, Dei gratiam. And. Vega. pro council. l. 4 c. 10. pag 49.  the effects and power of God's calling, and the benefits of his grace, and the redemption of Christ reach no further then to the elect alone, never touching the wicked that l we among them; how can the wicked either perfectly or properly be long to the Church? But, as I said, this is not material to the point in hand, and therefore I will not divert into it, our assertion being, that not the elect alone are always invisible, but sometimes also all the congregations of the world wherein they live and profess Christ, are so corrupted or oppressed, that albeit the substance of saving faith, contained in the Creed and rule of faith, be retained in them, yet there is no congregation visible, that hath not divers corruptions needing reformation, hanging on them. And albeit we thus distinguish the Militant from the Catholic invisible Church of the elect, part whereof is always in the Militant church; and one cause among many, be the same that the Replier hath assigned, lest if none should pertain to the Church but the elect, men should despair of attaining the truth, (forasmuch as it is not found but in the Church) because they should not be able to tell who are elect; yet that we say, is a direct answer to them, that bid us assign a continual visible Church professing the Protestant religion: for we assign and name, not the invisible Church of the elect, as the Replier absurdly reports, but the Militant Church of Rome, that all men have seen many ages together. But when they reply, that the Church of Rome differs from the Protestants in many points, then comes in that we say of the invisible state of the Church, that the true Church of God, wherein salvation is to be found, may yet for some space and distance of time, be so overwhelmed with heresy and persecution, that no company can be seen to believe and profess in all things aright, according to the Apostles teaching, by reason of errors, either greater or lesser, added to their Apostolic faith; the which errors, when God gives liberty to remove, that the rule of faith may be holden without them, than it may truly and directly be said, the reformed Church that hath removed these corruptions, for some space in former times was invisible. What untruth now, or what flying out of one Church into another is here? or what straight is this? Let the jesuite say resolutely and directly, without cavilling.  

Ad 3.  4 To the third: that this Church which other Protestants commonly call the visible Church, M. White will needs defend to be sometime invisible: I answer, other Protestants, and M. White with them, call the Militant Church visible, and hold it to be always so: because it is such as may be seen, and at all times is to be seen; and yet again M. White, and all other Protestants with him, will deny it to be always visible in that sense which the jesuits use to deliver: this is no contradiction, when the Church is called visible in one state, and yet invisible in another. As the Sun is affirmed to be visible when it is in our Horizon; and then affirmed again to be invisible, when it is gone down, or obscured by eclipse.   
A. D. To overthrow this absurd answer of my adversaries, 
Pag. 238.  I will in this place show, first that this distinction of two Churches, is false. Secondly, that if it were true, at least in this place, it is frivolous. Thirdly, that the Church Militant, containing all professors of the faith, cannot be, as M. White would have it, invisible. 
5 The first of these is needless. For no man holds two Churches: but only two or more respects of one Church, as I noted: the which respects, 
h Catech. Rom pag. 112.  our adversaries all of them distinguish as well as we. The next is (with his own word) frivolous. For to what end should he stand proving that frivolous, which his adversary says not? How absurd therefore soever he think my answer, yet this is no good way to infringe it, by reporting that to be my answer which is not: and disputing against that I say not, never meaning to deal with that which is my true answer indeed. The third tends well enough to the proving his conclusion, being understood of such an invisibleness as I have declared: yet when all he will say, was propounded in his first book, and directly answered, and much more than his Reply contains; why did he not reply upon that, but multiply new reasons, before he hath defended the old? Nevertheless, omitting his two first points, (wherein he touches not my book) I will answer that which he says concerning me, in the third.   
A. D. §. 3. Concerning the third point, 
Pag. 241. Wotton, p. 107. White, p. 87. & 100  that the company of Professors cannot be invisible. M. White and M. Wotton both seem to defend, that not only the true Church, consisting in their opinion only of the elect, is altogether invisible: but the other Church, which they grant to consist of all Professors of the faith, may sometimes be invisible: this assertion they maintain, as it seemeth of purpose, that when after I shall urge them, to assign a continual professing Protestant company, as we can show a continual company of professors of the Roman faith, they may by this starting hole, of the invisibility or secretness of the Church, escape away, without answering my demand, which can never be directly and sufficiently answered. To defend this paradox of invisible professors of the faith: first they pervert the state of the question, as in the beginning I noted. Secondly, M. White noteth two things: 
White, pag. 87.  the first is, that the Church militant may consist of a small number, as it did in the beginning, to wit, at the time of the passion of Christ, and as it shall do in the end of the reign of Antichrist: the second is, that although it always profess the faith, yet this may be secretly, that the world shall not perceive. By which two blind shifts, he would gladly blear the eyes, and bewitch the understanding of his Reader, so far as to persuade, that in all ages there was at least some few professing Protestants, although for many hundred years before Luther, they were so secret and invisible, that the world (nor God I ween) could not, but the faithful Protestants themselves (forsooth) could see and know them. 
6 First it is true that M. White affirms, the true Church of God to consist only of the elect; the rest being neither perfectly, nor truly, nor properly members of the Church, but only improperly and aequivocally, or as Canus 
i Membra videlicet, aliquando, non ex vita, quam sua sponte & natura vendicant; sed ex situ quem sortita in corpore sunt, per Metaphoram transferri solent.— Propriè ac verè membrum corporis Ecclesiae non sunt. Can. loc. pag 321. Ad unionem corporis mystici, sive Ecclisiae, nunquam pertinent existentes in peccato mortali. Alexand. quem refert joh. Turrecrem. sum. de eccl l 1. c. 57  speaks, metaphorically, by reason of the place they occupy in the church: and I alone say not this, but as learned Papists as any are, say it with me, howsoever 
k Solent haretici dicere esse Sanctos & Electos esse propriè membra Ecclesiae; alios impropriè: sed falluntur. Staplet. relect. pag. 8. Yet the learnedst of his own side say it as well as we: as appears.  he, whom my adversary follows, relate this opinion, as if none but Protestants held it. Next I affirm again, and the Replier yields it, that 
l No man can tell who be Gods elect. A. D. Repl. pag. 238. None can know who are elect. or where in particular, the elect be. pag. 240.  the Church thus considered, is altogether invisible: but the question is not touching this Church; and therefore against his conclusion, I have also affirmed thirdly, that the Church, consisting of professors, sometime is invisible: that is to say, the whole number of true believers, and professors living in the world, which we call the Church Militant, sometime lose the outward conspicuousnes of Apostolic doctrine, and government free from abuses, which the Papists say they always hold. Touching this assertion he notes two things:  
7 First the reason why we maintain it? That when he, forsooth, shall afterwards urge us to assign a continual professing Protestant company, as he can show a continual company of Professors, of the Roman faith: we may by this starting hole, escape without answer. This is but wind, and ostentation; he can show no continual company successively, or visibly, professing the Roman faith, with all the articles thereof, as now it is holden: he may set down a catalogue of Bishops, Doctors, Counsels, and Professors, that in all ages have been in the world, but that they believed as himself, and the jesuits, and his Romish Church now do, otherwise then in the substantial articles of faith, wherein we agree with them: or that there were none among them that misliking the corruptions of the Papacy, as they grew, held in the substance of the Protestants religion, he can never show, as will appear. The true cause, why we maintain the Church to be sometime invisible is this, that I shall lay down. 
* The manner how the question touching the visibility of the Church first began: and in what sense  For when Luther, and the first Reformers, some hundred years ago, withdrew themselves from the subjection of the Pope, and put away these innumerable errors out of their Churches, which our Adversaries now maintain against us: as the doctrine of image worship, Invocation of Saints, Purgatory, the Mass, Transubstantiation, and the rest wherein our Adversaries, and we descent: altering nothing of that, which belongs to the substance of true faith, or which the Church of Rome had received from the Apostles, and Primitive Church; but only contrary to the customs of some ages before, professing the same, without the mixture of the aforesaid errors: the Pope, with his crew, cried out they were Heretics, persecuting them with fire, and sword, and charging them to have forsaken the Church of Christ, wherein they should be saved: and among other arguments, his Champions required them to show, the succession of their doctrine, and Pastors, boasting that unless they could do it, and show their Church to have visibly been in all ages, they would conclude they had forsaken the Church, and were the first authors of the Protestant Religion. The Reformers to this answered, that THE CHURCH OF ROME ITSELF, was their visible Church, wherein they were bred, and whence they proceeded: but therein was two kinds of Articles of Religion. The one, which was Apostolic, and had been from the beginning: the other that, which at several times, by the faction, and conveyance of Heretics had been brought in, and mingled with the truth: this latter they had renounced, but not the former; making it more than manifest, that in the substance of the truth, and rule of faith, taught by the Apostles, and certainly holden by the ancient Church, they had altered nothing, but only separated themselves from intolerable corruptions, and from the Pope's tyranny, that maintained, and urged them: who by his tyranny, and perverting all things, had declared himself to be Antichrist sitting in the Church of God. And when the Papists still cried, SHOW US A VISIBLE CHURCH IN ALL THE WORLD, PROFSSING IN ALL THINGS, AS YOU DO; they replied it was not necessary so to do. THE CHURCH OF ROME ITSELF, was the visible Church, professing as they did in all things substantial. But if they required such a Church as had put away those errors, and held the substance without corruptions, and heresies mingled among the Professors; then such a Church, was sometime invisible: that is to say, it may sometime fall out, that in all the world, no part of the Church shall be outwardly seen to hold the succession of all the true faith without corruption, and the purest Professors may be oppressed, that their memory shall be taken away; and that which is the worst part of the Church shall be strongest, and generally reputed most Catholic. This is the true, and original reason of this question: whereby it is easy to see, that we never imagined the Church to be simply invisible at any time, but this invisibility hath been affirmed only of the outward state thereof, at some times, when reformation hath not been so pure, as now it is. No otherwise than I would say the body was invisible, when a Leprosy had overgrown it; or the kingdom of France were invisible, when tyranny, and new customs should mingle themselves therewith, and the ancient laws be expounded by a faction of Rebels.  
8 By this his second exception, that to defend a paradox, I have perverted the state of the question, is answered. For it is clear hereby, that the question is of the militant Church, and so D. Stapleton 
m Relect. p. 2.  says expressly, In this controversy the appellation of the Church, principally belongs to the militant company. And the two things mentioned touching it: that it may consist of a small number, and that it professes sometime in secret, being taken in the sense delivered, are so far from being blind shifts, that they cannot be disproved, by bragging: and if there be any metal, or truth in my Adversary, here I spur him, and let him answer freely: That which I noted, is the clear confession of many 
n In THE WAY Digr. 17. n. 3.  learned Papists themselves. Alexand. Durand: Turrecremata, Parnormitan, Pererius, Ouandus, Acosta, the Rhemists. Dom: Scoto, Gregory Valence: But these being principal men in the Church of Rome must not be said to teach blind shifts, but the truth: that therefore which I noted is the truth. If it be the truth that the Church militant, in respect of the best part thereof, may sometime consist of a small number: and may secretly, that the world cannot see it, profess the faith: how can the truth blear the Readers eye, or bewitch his understanding? when that which befalls the Church at one time, may befall it again, though not at any, yet at some time: and whether the years were more, or less, wherein we say it was obscured, yet they were the years of the persecution of Antichrist, and in antichrist's time, 
o joh. Parisiens'. tract. de Antich. p. 45. edit. Venet apud Laz. Soarol. an. 1516.  When the Church is turned into Armageddon the mount of thieves, no Papist will deny, but it may be invisible in the sense that we hold, as I showed in the 17. Digression, and himself confesses in that which immediately follows.    

CHAP. XXXIX.  
1 The Papists are enforced to yield the same that we say touching the invisibleness of the Church. 2 Their doctrine touching the time of antichrist's reign. 3 And the state of the Militant Church at some times. 4 Arguments for the perpetual visibleness of the Church answered 5 In whom the true Church consisted before Luther's times.  

Pag. 242.  A. D. For declaration of the truth: Note first, that although the Church of Christ, at the beginning, and infancy of it, were little, like a mustard seed: 
Matthew 13. vers. 31. Apoc. 20.1.4. Apoc. 20.1.4. August. l. de civit. cap. 11.  and about the very end, for the short reign of Antichrist, shall be much decayed, both in the number of professors, and the visibleness of the outward state of it; as all things commonly are little in their beginning, and do decay towards their end: yet for all ages betwixt these two times, as it did at first grow, and increase, and spread itself over the world, notwithstanding the wonderful opposition made against it, by persecutions, heresies, schisms, and sinful lives of Christians; so it is described in Scripture, to be still a great multitude spread over the world: 
August. de unit. eccl.  as S. Augustine proveth at large against the Donatists, the which proofs of S. Augustine, were nought worth, if it might be answered, as the Donatists were forced to answer, that the Church after a time did perish out of all nations: 
White p. 87.  or as M. White seemeth ready to answer, that it came to be in all nations a small number. For which imaginary smallness of the number, betwixt the first beginning, and the latter ending, (especially for so long time, as Protestants are forced to plead invisibility of their Church) M. White will never be able to show any prophesy of Scripture, sufficient to oppose against S. Austin's proofs, more than the Donatists could, for the Church her perishing out of all nations. 
1 HE grants the Church, at the beginning, and toward the end thereof, may be like a little mustard seed, and much decayed both in the number of Professors, and in the visibleness of the outward state of it. Hence it follows, that it is true we say: the Church sometimes is obscured, and not always so frequent, and illustrious: for when the external state thereof, consisting in the public administration of the word, Sacraments, and Ecclesiastical discipline, and in the profession of the faith, gins to be corrupted, in any high degree, and the most, and the greatest, become the corruptest; than it must also be said, that it is obscured, and hidden from the world. Hence it follows secondly, that these assertions of our adversaries: the visible Church never fails: and this: God hath at all times a Church consisting not of a few people, but a great multitude, as conspicuous, as any earthly kingdom; and this, the Church is visible, and such as may be clearly seen, and cannot be hidden: are all false, if they be meant of the purest part of the Church. For to be decayed in such sense as the Repliar 
* If he will confess that which is granted by Saplet. relect. p. 41. §. Ecclesia quoad bene esse. & Grego. Valent. tom. 3. p. 145. §. Animaduerti debet non sic accipiendum, quod dicimus.  must confess (howsoever here to conceal the truth he speak reservedly) and to consist of a great multitude, as conspicuous as any earthly kingdom, cannot stand together, forsomuch as the one is the corruption of the other. Whence it follows thirdly, that the true teaching, and ministry of the Church is not alway so open, and easy to be discerned, as the Repliar says all over his Book: for this teaching follows the state of the Church, which being conspicuous, the teaching also is conspicuous, but the state of the Church being poisoned, and overwhelmed with heresy, the teaching must needs be hard to discern, and less conspicuous than the Scriptures.  
2 Secondly he notes that howsoever the Church may at the beginning be little, and toward the end, for 
p That the reign of Antichrist is so short: he hath no assurance among his own writers: divers whereof say the contrary.  the short reign of Antichrist, be much decayed, both in the number of Professors, and visibleness of the outward state: yet for all ages, betwixt the beginning, and the end, it shall be a great multitude: as S. Austin proves. Whereto I answer, granting that many times, the Church is, and hath been as large, and visible, as S. Austin says; and that we do not imagine it to be so small, and obscured, at all times, between the beginning, and the end, but only at some times: as for example in the 13. and 14. hundred years: neither is there a word in all S. Austin, whereby it may appear his judgement is against us. That which the jesuit thought good to allege, I 
q §. 23. n 3.  answered in THE WAY, whereto it seems he hath nothing to reply. And granting that it may be as obscure, as we say, in the time of Antichrist, he were as good yield up his cause: for, if his own D.D. be not deceived, the time of Antichrist is not so short as he dreams: our jesuits, though very waveringly, indeed allow him but 3. years, and a half. But what says 
r Indic. de Apocal. & Antichr. sub fin. being a Preface before his translation of Arethas upon the Apocal. in Oecumen. O hers also allow Antichrist a longer time than 3. years and a half Quantum vero temporis, in augenda stabiliendaque Monarchia, ponere debeat, non mihi constat: quia neque ex praedictis locis satis colligitur; neque videtur admodum verisimile, brevi tempore trium annorum cum dimidio, haec omnia esse perfecturum. Fra. Suar. tom. 2. p. 641. & defence. fid Cathol. l. 5. c 9 Quam diu simpliciter regnaturus sit Antichristus, à nullo, quod ego sciam, traditur: & nulli opinor mortalium fuisse compertum. Perer. in Dan. l. 15. in c. 12. p 730. and so others who think the height of his reign shall contain only 3. years and a half, but the rest of his time much more.  Hentenius? Others otherwise expound A TIME, AND TIMES, AND HALF A TIME. For it is not possible, that in so small a time, he should possess so many kingdoms, and provinces. If therefore M. White affirm the Church, in regard of the sincerest faith, at sometimes, comes to be but a small number, he affirms nothing, but what the jesuite himself is enforced to yield, at least, in the times of Antichrist. Here then is an issue between us. The Church may be invisible, as the Protestants hold, in the time of the reign of Antichrist. But the time of the Pope's being, for example, in the 13. and 14. age, was a part of the time of the reign of Antichrist. The Church therefore might be invisible for the time of the Pope's being in the 13. and 14. age. If my adversary mislike the conclusion, he must deny the minor: (for the mayor is his own doctrine, and the doctrine of all the Divines on his side) and then he is debarred from denying the Church to be invisible, till he have preserved the Pope from being Antichrist; which he can never do; and if he fall out to be Antichrist, than I hope he will confess the sayings of Saint Augustine concerning the Church against the Donatists, prove no perpetual, and continual visibility of the state thereof.   

Pag. 243. Stapleton in relect. contr. 4. q. 3. art. 1. Greg. de Val. tom. 3. dis. 1. q. 1  A. D. Note Secondly, that although it be true, which my adversaries impertinently object, that the Church is not actually seen at all times by all men; yet it is visible, that is to say, such as at least in potentia remota, may be seen, or known by all, if the impediments be not on our parts, who should see it. Although also it be not alike visible, and perspicuous (as our Divines well declare) at all times, yet it is always so visible, and perspicuous, that with prudent, and diligent inquiry, it may be found, and discerned: in regard, even in times of greatest obscurities, there were always some eminent, and known members of it, by reason of which, even men of the world may discern, and distinguish it from other men, which were not of the true Church. Moreover although it have not always an outward illustrious, and worldly estate, especially in times, and places, where persecution rageth: nor cannot always practise publicly the rites, and ceremonies of divine worship, but is forced sometimes to do this in private (as Christians did in the first ten persecutions, under the heathen Emperors: and as Catholics in England are forced to do now adays) yet the Church never did, doth, or shall want an inward estate, subordination, and government of Pastors, this being a thing appointed by God himself, 
Acts the 20. v. 28. Ehpes. 4. v. 12.  to be always in the Church: nor ever did, doth, or shall, want altogether the practice of rites, pertaining to Sacraments, and other duties necessary pertaining to divine worship, and profession of the Christian faith: neither was, or shall this inward estate, or practise of the Church universally, in any age, be so secret, but that some notice, at least in general was, and may be had of it, even by infidels, and enemies: in so much, that for the time to come, S. Augustine affirmeth, 
Aug. l. 20. De civit. c. 8.  that even in antichrist's time the Church shall be conspicuous, in some sort: and for times past, there are records, at this day extant in Histories, written, either by friends, enemies, or both, by which it is to us, and will be to posterity, apparent enough, that there were such a company of Christian professors, using such practice in all ages And although the names of all professors nor all particular points pertaining to to their profession be not set down: yet divers both men, and matters are so set down in stories, as it is no great difficulty, to assign a catalogue of some true Christian professors continually in all ages The which records of Histories was doubtless first made, and afterward preserved by divine providence, as a necessary means to certify us of the fulfilling of the divine Prophecies, and promises made in Scripture, about the continuance of the Church. For if it be true which M. White says, to wit, 
White pag. 338.  that things past cannot be showed by no other means, then by histories: if we had not Histories to show, and assure us, that Christians had been in all ages, we could not know, whether the divine Prophecies, and promises made in Scripture, about the continuance of the Church, had been fulfilled, or no; and so we could not take that  comfort and confirmation of our faith and hope, by these Prophecies, and promises, for which they were ordained. 
3 He affirms five things. FIRST, that howsoever the Church be not actually seen, at all times by all men, yet it is such, as may be seen, and known by all, if the impediment be not on their part, that should see it: this is true. But it is not true that his adversaries object this to him impertinently. For 
a The WAY §. 17. n. 3.  I objected it to let him see how, and in what sense, we hold the invisibility of the Church, not simply, but respectively, in regard of those that see not the corruptions hiding, and defacing it. Now I never knew before, that it was impertinent to expound the sense of the question in controversy. NEXT he grants, it is not alike visible, and perspicuous at all times, as his Divines well declare. The which possible, he would never have been known of, if 
b Digr. 17.  I had not put him in mind. But being granted, 
c Bel. de eccl. l. 3. c. 13.  the Cardinal, and all that speak as he doth, must bate an ace of his assertion: God hath at all times a Church, consisting not of a few people, but a great multitude, as conspicuous, as an earthly kingdom. For if it be not always alike perspicuous, but sometime, 
d Staplet & Grego. Valent. ubi sup.  as Stapleton, and Gregory declare, in the places quoted (if they had been quoted truly) it may be so tossed with errors, and schisms, and persecutions, that to such as are unskilful, and do not discreetly weigh things, and times, it shall be very hard to be discerned: than it falls a great deal short of a great multitude as conspicuous, as any earthly kingdom. THIRDLY he says, that although it be not alike visible, at all times, yet it is alway so visible, that with prudent, and diligent inquiry, it may be discerned. Which we deny not: but the reason hereof is not, in regard there are always some eminent members of it, wholly free from all the corruption prevailing, because, those eminent members the jesuite understands to be the Pope, and some part, at least of his hierarchy, the visibility of the Church 
e Simanch institut. Cathol. tit. 24. n. 1. Azor. instit. tom. 2 l. 5. c. 21. quinto.  being defined by the perpetual subjection thereof to a visible Pope: but because even then, when it is most invisible, and kept down with persecution, and heresy, the substance, and rule of faith is preserved, and such as are enlightened by the Spirit of God, by diligent inquiry, may perceive the soundest part of the Church to be, not in the multitude, as the world thinketh, which hath innovated the ancient faith; but among those few, mean oppressed ones, that this glorious and conspicuous multitude condemns, and persecutes; not the eminency of Sat, but the eminency of truth and doctrine being the sign whereby to know them. FOURTHLY he confesses the Church cannot always practise publicly the rites of God's worship, but is forced sometimes to do it in private: this is also true: for albeit the public worship shall never fail to be openly exercised, yet sometime this open exercise may be more corrupt, and defiled with the inventions of men, than the private retained by those, that cannot, or dare not reform the abuses. But then why doth he censure me, all over his book, for holding this, and scoff at that I said, the faithful may sometime profess only in secret among themselves? And but that he will not let his stomach come down, he should have added, 
f According to the doctrine of his Divines. Telelpho. de Casent. l. de magn. Tribul. pag. 32. Ouand. 4. d. 18. prop. 3. Viega in Apoc. p 763. n. 12. Bozi de. sig. eccl. l. 24. c. 10. Aquipontan. de Antich cont. Sohn. p. 23.  that the Sacrifice of the Mass also shall be abolished in the time of Antichrist, and then his Church will be as invisible, as ours. When it shall not only be said in secret, as Seminaries in England now adays do it (but by their leave THEY DO NOT THAT ALONE IN SECRET) but it shall not be said at all (which these Catholics would repine at now adays in England.) FIFTHLY, he says that howsoever the Church be not always illustrious, nor cannot always practise the rites of God's worship publicly: yet it shall never want Pastors to govern; nor altogether the use of the Sacrament, and other duties pertaining to divine worship, and the profession of faith: at least in an INWARD estate. The which is true, and the Protestants say it, as well, as he; expounding those Pastors to have been many of the ordinary Pastors living in the communion of the Church of Rome, for certain ages past: and those Sacraments, and rites pertaining to divine worship, to have been part of that, which was exercised; and this profession of Christian faith to have been the testimony that many in the said ages, have given against the corruptions of the Papacy: partly by holding the substance of truth with their errors, and partly by suffering persecution for misliking the Papacy. And we confess also, that which he adds; that this inward state and practice of the Church, shall never be universally so secret, but that some notice shall be had of it, ever by enemies: and (omitting his conceit of Antichrist to come, which S. Austin in the place quoted, affirms not) we show for the time past, sufficient records thereof: both friends, and foes testifying, in their writings, the resistance, that in all ages, was made against the Papacy, as it grew on; and the succession of our faith, and religion in the midst of the Roman Church itself, appearing in the books of the Schoolmen, and Friars themselves: which records (and what would the Repliar have more) by divine providence are preserved in the writings of all that lived in those ages, even such as embraced the Papacy, (though now 
g By a practice of purging books: mentioned afore.  the Church of Rome do what it can to abolish them) and certify us that the Protestant Religion hath continued in the Church in all ages since Christ. Which Records, if we wanted, then might we, as the Repliar speaks, justly misdoubt our case, whether the divine promises made to God's Church have been fulfilled in us. And though it be true that M. White said, Things past cannot be showed but by stories, and many things belonging to the Church, and religion, no doubt, for want of histories be forgotten, the said histories being either suppressed, or adulterated: yet he adds, that there is NO ARTICLE OF THE PROTESTANT RELIGION, BUT WE CAN SHOW IT EMBRACED; AND NO ARTICLE OF THE PAPACY, BUT WE CAN SHOW IT RESISTED, EVEN IN THE WRITINGS, AND RECORDS OF THE CHURCH OF ROME ITSELF: and by these records we can show, that whatsoever we mislike in our Adversaries, was not at the beginning, but crept in, and mingled itself with the truth, through the faction, and conveyance, of private persons in the Church; & so the fulfilling of God's promises touching the perpetual continuance of the Church, is known sufficiently, and our hope confirmed, as the jesuite requires. Though the Romish practice in razing, and forging histories, and antiquity, be discovered to be such, that were there no records in the world, the testimony of the Scripture alone, whereto our faith agrees, should suffice for our comfort, and to confirm our faith, and hope, and persuade us, that the divine promises have been fulfilled.   
A. D. Note thirdly that not only the Church, de facto, 
Pag. 244.  hath not been hitherto so visible, as I have said, but also (which chief is to be pondered) the nature of the Church, consisting of Professors of Christian faith, is such, that according to the ordinary course of God's providence, it cannot be altogether secret from the world, at least for a long time, especially for so long a time, as Protestants, are forced to plead for an invisible Church. The reason of which is because the Church is bound to an outward actual profession of faith: 
White p. 96. Wootton pag. 190. 29. 1.  first as my Adversaries admit among the faithful themselves, in practising the rites, and ceremonies of Service, and Sacraments: which may indeed be done, in secret, although hardly so secret, (as at least in continuance of time) some kind of general notice is not given of it to others by one chance, or other, as experience hath of this present, and former ages teacheth. Secondly, the Church is bound to another kind of actual profession, to wit, before men of the world, according to that of our Saviour, Let your light so shine before men, 
Matth. 5. v. 16.  that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven, and according to the example of the primitive Christians, who did not only shine among themselves, but were 
(a) Mat. 5. v. 14.  the lights of the world. 
(b) 1 Cor. 4. v. 9  being made a spectacle to the world 
(c) Philip. 2. v. 15 D. Thom. 2. 2. q. 3. art. 2.  as lights in the world. And although all the members in the Church are not bound, at all times actually to shine in this manner, yet so often, as the notable glory of God, and the good of souls necessarily requireth, every one is bound thus, by words, or works to make profession of his faith in the sight of the world. Now although God's glory and the good of souls, do not necessarily require, that this, or that private man should profess his faith at all times, yet that some, or other should profess, is always necessary, both for the glory of God, & the good of souls: for if, for any notable time, 
Isay 54. v. 1. 2. Malac. 1. v 11. Aug. orat. adverse. judaeos de unitate Ecclesiae. cap. 7. ep. 48.  there were no professing true Christians eminently known, at least in general in the world; first it were a notable dishonour to God, in that it should show, that all his servants loved, or feared the world, more than him, and that they had less regard to publish his honour in the world, than the devils instruments ordinarily have, to publish the profession of other religions which tend to God's dishonour. And that whereas it was prophesied of the Church, that it should be more ample, and glorious than the Synagogue of the jews was, in the most flourishing estate, it should be so far from being more ample, and glorious, that it were sometime more narrow, or less conspicuous, than the Synagogue of the jews ever was, or now is in her ruinated estate. Morever it were a notable hindrance to the good of innumerable 
* Because the knowledge of the Church is necessary for all those, which will be saved: therefore our Saviour said, that she could not be hidden. Aug. ep. 170.  souls, which by teaching, and conversation of the faithful, might most easily be converted to the faith, who otherwise for want of hearing or possibility to hear that there were any such religion, should through ignorance perish: Thirdly, the Church is bound by the negative precept, of profession of faith, never to deny Christ, or the truth of his religion, nor to profess outwardly the rites, and ceremonies of any contrary religion: by which abstaining from Service, and ceremonies of other Religions, the Church could not especially for any long time live so secret, but it should be noted, and known, as we see Catholics to be at this day, detected by their refusal to come to Protestant service, and sermons, and as Protestants in Queen Mary's days were notified by abstaining from Catholic service and Sacraments. 
4 This which he notes thirdly, contains three arguments to show the nature of the Church to be such, that it cannot be secret from the world, at least so long a time, as the Protestants plead for an invisible Church. First, because it is bound to actual, and outward profession. Next, it should be less conspicuous than the Synagogue of the jews, which were against the Prophecies. Thirdly, innumerable souls should perish for want of Church teaching, when they could not see the Church. 
Ad. 3.  The last of these reasons I answered in the WAY, 
Ad. 2.  whereto because he replies nothing, I refer both him, and his Reader. To the second I answer, that the glory, and praeminence of the Church above the Synagogue, prophesied, stands not in the perpetual visibleness thereof, as our adversaries define visibleness, 
1. Esa. 60. 11. Act 10.11.  but in four other things: First, the compass, and limits: which was no longer to be confined within judaea, 
2. joh. 4.23.  but enlarged to all nations. Secondly, the manner of worship, which should not be any longer carnal, and typical, 
3. Heb. 8.6.  but spiritual. Thirdly, the dignity of the Gospel, and the promises annexed thereunto, above the law, and the promises thereof, wherein the jews were trained up. Fourthly, 
4. Heb. 12.28. cum 27.  in the continuance thereof, which was to be, not till a certain time, as the Synagogue was, but for ever to the world's end. Thus it was promised, that the Church should exceed the Synagogue, which promise may well stand with that which we say: for the apostasy that prevailed 
a 2. Th. 2.3. Apoc. 9.2. &. 12.6. & 13.14. & 17.2.  was also prophesied: which being at the highest, yet the Church lost not these prerogatives, but her faith continued still to be Catholic, in those that upheld the substantial articles thereof all over the world, howsoever the apostasy brought in many, and dangerous heresies, that were holden beside in the Church: as the Synagogue also sometimes was overwhelmed with the like corruptions.  
5 His first reason is, 
Ad. 1.  because the Church is bound by a negative precept, never to deny Christ, or his religion, or to abstain from the service and ceremonies thereof: but outwardly to profess the faith. To this I answered in 
b §. 19  my Book, that the Church neither fails to profess outwardly the faith, which in heart it believes, nor yet is made visible, and known to all, by this profession. The reason is, because the members of the Church professing the substance of faith (as 
c 1. Reg. 19.18.  the 7000. in Israel did, that bowed not the knee to Baal, whom Elias saw not) when persecution, and prevailing error will not suffer them to do it in the purest manner in all points; yet this is outward profession, and satisfies the commandment, which requires no more but 2. things, first, that we profess openly to the world, as long as the same will suffer us; and be ready to seal the faith, thus professed, with our blood, when by necessary circumstances of time, and place, we shall be called thereunto: secondly, that when persecution, or invincible ignorance, or any other impediment hinders that this cannot be done, yet we profess one to another, and maintain the faith wheresoever, or how few soever, so far as we have means to understand. To this my adversary replies, that indeed the rites, and ceremonies of service, and sacraments, (whereby he means the profession mentioned, in as much, as by the exercise of these things Christ is professed) may, though hardly, be done in secret: but the Church is bound to another kind of actual profession, before the world. I answer 2. things. First, himself knew this absolutely taken, to be false: and therefore he recalls himself, and yields again, that all the members of the Church are not bound at all times, actually to shine in this manner, but then, when God's glory, and the good of souls, requires. This he borrowed of his Thomas, whose words shall be this part of my answer. For the Church and the several members thereof, are never so hidden, or overwhelmed with error, but in time, and place necessarily requiring the same, they profess the substance even outwardly, and suffer sometime for the same: and thus did many profess the Protestants faith in all ages: and therefore the jesuite trifles away the time, when he stands to prove it necessary, that even always some or other should profess outwardly: for we grant it, and that there are some eminent Christians (if not in state, yet in faith, and truth) at all times: and these love God, fear not the world, but regard his honour, and desire to publish his truth: and what ye will: and yet still these men may be oppressed with some corruptions, and hindered by persecution, that few can mark, or discern them, and so contemptible in the world, that the most will not believe them; by reason the external greatness, and opinion of their persecutors, whereto, by all subtlety, and tyranny, they have aspired, shall dazzle the eyes of men that they cannot discern the truth. 
* Where the Protestants Church was before Luther's days.  Secondly, I answer, that even the members of the Church of Rome itself, as the Bishops of France, and England with their congregations, for example, professed thus outwardly to all the world the Christian faith: for albeit they were, some of them more, and some less, corrupted with the Apostasy universally spread over the Church: and had entertained the abuses, that Luther, and the Reformers put away: yet the foundation remained, and the Scripture was preserved: and the whole rule of faith: and in the agonies, and conflicts of their conscience, they defended the truth of these things, and by repentance cast away their damnable errors: and all such, even in the midst of the Papacy, were outward professors, and members of our Church: yea God stirred up among the persecutors themselves, and such as lived it communion with them, many that gave witness to the truth by teaching, and delivering the several articles thereof, some one, and some another, among their heresies, and corruptions. And thus we say our religion also every parcel of it, stood in the midst of the Papacy, and when the Church was most defaced. For first, some persons still persevered in holding, and professing it entirely, in regard of the substance: for though every one of them, be proved to have holden some error withal, as possible Wickliff, or the Waldenses did, that is no prejudice to the Church. 2. Many ordinary Doctors, and learned men, in the Church of Rome, at all times saw the abuses, and errors that crept in, and speaking against them, noted, and branded them. 3. Few learned men, that lived in the communion of the Church of Rome, but they held one point, or other of the substance of truth: yea many things belonging to the foundation: whereupon it is that I say so often, THERE IS NOTHING WHEREIN WE DISSENT FROM THE PAPISTS, BUT WE CAN SHOW IT TAUGHT, AND DELIVERED, IN THE BOOKS OF ANCIENT PAPISTS THEMSELVES: which proves unanswerably, that the things now broached by the Trent Council, and the jesuits, were not the certain doctrine of those times, but were successively advanced by the policy of Satan, the faction of his instruments always innovating, and adulterating the truth in some part, or other, thereof.    

CHAP XL.  
Again touching the visibleness of the Church, and in what sense we say it was invisible. Many things innovated in the Church of Rome. The complaints of Vbertine and Jerome of Ferrara. 2. 3. All the Protestants faith was preserved in the midst of the Church of Rome. 6. A jest of the Terynthians. 7. What religion hath bred desperation.  
A.D. Note four, 
Pag. 246. Math. 5. v. 15. Ibid. v. 14.  that since God hath ordained his Church to be of such nature, that (like light not hid under a bushel, but put upon a candlestick) it cannot but shine before men, in manner aforesaid: and that (like a city built on a mountain) it cannot be hid; and this partly for his own honour, and for the good of souls, not only of those, which are already faithful, but (of his part) for the general good of the whole world; hence appeareth, that not only the Church in every several age, could not but be visible to men living in some age: but also partly by God's providence, partly by human diligence, some records of Histories, could not (morally speaking) but be set out, either by friends, or by enemies, as they have been hitherto in like, and less matters: and being set out, they could not but be still extant, in such sort as not only it may appear to posterity, that the Church hath been always: but also that at least, some eminent members of it may be assigned in all precedent ages. One chief use of which Historiesis, that for the confirmation of our faith, and hope, we may plainly see those Prophecies, and promises of Scripture, which concern the continuance of the Church, to have been hitherto fulfilled: and that when question at any time shall be made, which company of visible professors of the Christian faith, are the true Church: by ●●lpe of these Histories, the question may be more easily decided, in that (a continual line all descent being showed of one company from Christ's time hitherto, the like whereof cannot be showed of others) one that hath learned by the Scriptures, that the true Church of Christ, was to continue always and that visible, in such sort, as I have showed, might straightways conclude, that, that only company, which by Histories is showed thus to have continued, is the true Church: and that the other which could not by Histories show such a visible continuance, is not the true Church. 

In what sense the Protestants say the Church was sometimes invisible.  1 Still the jesuit reasons, as if we held the Church for many ages together to have been simply invisible, that no man could tell where it was; whereas we only hold, that, comparatively, it is not visible at one time in such sort, and with such purity and liberty from corruption, as it is at another. That is to say, it doth not visibly profess the whole truth without mixture of corruption, nor retain the outward state in such purity, and liberty of profession, and Ecclesiastical government, as needs no reformation; but is at sometimes oppressed with persecution, and entangled with heresy breeding among the members; that albeit the substance of truth remain, and many retain it with effect, yet a particular company professing, and exercising the same faith, and goernement, entirely without corruption, in such manner as at other sometimes it doth, cannot be found: the small persecuted, and oppressed company may also be the soundest members of the Church; and the articles of religion most opposed, may be the truth; and the chief Pastors, and greatest multitude that are most followed, & believed, may be the followers, and army of Antichrist. The state of all the Church finally throughout the world, may be so corrupted, that a pure Church, such as the primitive Church was, or such as the Church should be, cannot be seen. This is that we mean when we hold the Church's invisibleness, whereby it is easy to see that what the jesuite notes, is of no force against us. For it shall be granted, that Almighty God, partly for his own glory, and partly for the good of souls, hath ordained his Church to be a light, that cannot but shine: and a city that cannot be hid: and therefore it must needs be visible in every age; and such as by history may be made apparent, and some eminent members thereof in every age may be assigned: But hence it doth not follow, that it shall always be visible in one, and the same state; or the members thereof eminently, and apparently shall profess the faith in the same degree of perfection, and liberty: but only that all the faith of Christ shall be visibly professed therein; for the Church is compared to a light, not because it is perpetually visible in one state (for lights have their Eclipses, and blind men see them nor, when they shine) but because at some time it is exceeding visible, in the best state and at all times, it hath in it, in some degrees, or other, the light of all truth, and glory, whereby the elect are guided to God. I love not to repeat that I have said already, till I see it answered, and therefore if the Reader desire further satisfaction, he may repairs to that I writ. And whereas the jesuite notes, that the true Church being a light, and visible, it cannot be, but God's providence, and human diligence would provide some record of histories to find it: this is true, and shall be yielded him; and let our reformed Churches of the protestants never be counted part of the Catholic Church, if all Ecclesiastical records in the world, beginning with the new Testament, and so descending by the writings of the ancient Fathers, till you come to the very times of Luther, do not show the articles of their faith to have been professed in the Church of Rome, as I have often said, its self: and that which we have cast off, and wherein the jesuits, and we differ this day, to be no part of the ancient faith, but late innovations brought in by faction; that it was lawful for us to put them away, and reduce things to the first antiquity. And this I say, not to ground our faith on human reports: but to testify that I grant such providence of God for the confirming our faith: though if such Histories were wanting (as they are not) it should not move us, so long as we have the Scriptures to justify our doctrine: wherewith whatsoever consents, is the truth, whether Histories (which are but a human testimony, and unable to authorize or support faith) mention the succession thereof, or not. But when my adversary will needs have it, that one chief use of History is, to show the continuance of the Church, that seeing, thereby, this continuance, we might know it to be the Church of God, and not finding it, we might know thereby, that it is not the Church: I will not strive with him: but acknowledge the providence of God, and industry of man, who hath left the records of History to confirm our faith; and freely grant our religion to be false, if the continual descent thereof, from Christ, cannot, by such record, be showed. Wherein we are so resolute, that next the evidence of the sacred Scripture, this is our greatest motive against the Trentisme, and jesuitisme of the now Church of Rome, that by all histories, and writings of record, we find it to be an innovation against the ancient religion, and a rabble of heresies from time to time added, and brought in to that, which in the beginning was professed in the Church of God: and if any man be so enamoured of Rome, as to imagine that part of the religion thereof, which we have forsaken, as the Supremacy, Transubstantiation, Traditions, Latin service, and the rest, to be come in a continual lineal descent from Christ down, through all ages, to these times, he will find himself deceived, when he makes the trial: or if he be so unlearned, that he cannot make this trial, or so besotted with the conceit of Papistry, that he will not, or so oppressed with the craft of such, as this Repliar is, that he cares not; yet it satisfies me, and gives my soul contentment against the day of my death, that reading all manner of ancient records, Counsels, Fathers, Church Histories, Greek, and Latin, though I have not read all, I find Papistry to be none of the ancient religion uniformly embraced in the Church, but an heresy brought in by the packing, and ambitious policy of some: growing as a Leprosy successively, one piece after another, to it. And reading the later Divines, and Schoolmen, that writ since the 11 age, I find, as in the former, the whole substance of the Protestants saith delivered: but touching the rest, wherein the Church of Rome, and we descent, and which we have put away: as the Mass, Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Images, free-will, Merits, Supremacy, &c: I find no unity, or certainty among them, but all things involved with contradictions, and uncertainty, that it is easy to discern the said points to be no parcel of the ancient Catholic, & Apostolic faith. It is an ancient complaint of 
a Vbertin de Casal. tract. de 7. stat. eccl. c. 3. p. 65. The same thing, touching the Schoolmen and Divines of the Church of Rome, is reported, and complained of, by Savanarola, a Friar living sometime in Florence. Multi hodiernis temporibus, qui volunt videri legis Doctores, ac defensores, conversi sunt in vaniloqutum, & obsenratum est insipiens cor eorum. Dicentes enim se esse sapientes stulti facti sunt; quia, relicta sacrarum literarum simplicitate, ad Gentilitatem se penitus converterunt, & adulterantes verbum Dei, impleverunt chartas superbissimis obscuritatibus, vanissimisque verborum ornatibus, ac stulta, apud Deum, sapientia, pompaque rhethoricorum verborum Deo odiosa, nec non infinitis quaestionibus, inexplicabilibus ac inutilibus, quae mergunt homines in interitum, audientesque subvertunt, & in vestimentis ovium volentes videri fidei defensores, factè sunt populo Dei lupi rapaces. Dicunt enim se philosophiae operam dare ut melius sacras scripturas, quas nunquam legere volunt, intelligant, meliusque veritatem Dei fidemque defendant; Sed revera quaerunt quae sua sunt, non quae Jesu Christi; semper addiscentes (ut dicit Apostolus) & nunquam ad veritatis scientiam p●ruenientes. Qui dixerunt (ait Propheta) linguam nostram magnificabimus: labia nostra à nobis sunt. Quis noster dominus est? Et tantum hic morbus increvit, ut Ecclesiae Praelatos, Presbyteros, clericos, Religiosos, ac Seculares totumque populum Christianum tabefecerit. Adeo autem inveteratus est, ut non solùm glorientur Christiani, & tumenti animo de Gentilium literisextollant semtipsos; sed, quod peius est, Paganorum scientias, qui in vanitate sensus sui ambulantes, nihil putabant verum nisi esset inflaium verborum compositione ornatorum, non verentur praepovere scientiae Dei, à quo est omnium scientia, & quilinguas mutorum aperit, facitque disertas, Et multi hodiè in tantam v●s●●iam blasphemiamque prorumpunt, ut sacras Scripturas, rugato naso, subsannantes, ita despiciant & irrideant, ut èarum sectatores putent pro nihilo habendos. Adeo enim Princeps huius seculi excaecavit eos ut, tanquam mente capti, nihil seiant, se omnium rerum sapientiam apprehendisse arbitrentur. Taceo de muliis qui cultum Dei, fidemque, abnegarunt. Hicron. Savanarol. de ord. l. 3. subsiti. pag. 13 edit. Venet. apud. Aurel, Pincium. an. 1534.  Vbertin, a Carthusian, touching the Friars, and Schoolmen: that by mingling Paganish errors with the principles of faith, they had blown away the truth of the Gospel: and he says, The falling star, that had the key given him to open the bottomless pit: was certain, eminent, learned, and later religious men falling into earthly desires, and the curious sciences of Pagans, and into divers sects. They had great wits to open, and extol the doctrine of Aristotle, and averroes, and studying in a manner nothing else, they devised deep and gulfelicke opinions that obscured the evangelical light: yea by this practice of mingling Aristotle with their treatises of Divinity, they had corrupted, and rejected all the articles of faith, beside the unity of the Deity. And touching their vehemency, and industry, in following their opinions, he says, that which is worth the noting: The voice of their wings, that is to say, of their opinions, which they presume to be high, and lofty; in wonderful contentions, outcries, and raging, is like the voice of wheels, or a tumultuous army running in war; this was a Friars report long ago, and my own knowledge of these things gives me assurance, and resolution, whatsoever any man says to the contrary; whose ignorance, and perverseness, I will never suffer, to prejudice my certain, and familiar knowledge.   

Pag. 247.  A. D. By this which now I have noted, appeareth that the true militant Church, or company of the true professors of the Gospel, which (as M. White, 
White p. 87. 337. 338. Wootton pag. 164.  and M Wootton grant) must continue always, cannot at any time be altogether invisible, especially in such sort, and for so long a time, as they would have the Protestant professors (which were only two called Nullus, and Nemo, that is to say in truth not one at all) before Martin Luther to have (invisibly) continued, professing the whole faith, without change in all Countries, or at least in one, or other corner, they cannot (for want of Histories forsooth) tell where the truth is, no where in the world. And consequently by this appeareth, that this idle conceit of an invisible company of professing Protestants, continuing in all ages, is a plain Platonical Idea, or poetical chimera, in plain English a mere imaginary fiction, invented by Protestants, to serve as a shift to blear the eye of the simple and to make a show of saying something to the argument, grounded upon the authority of a continual visible Church, which presseth them so much, when indeed they can say nothing to it: Durum telum necessitas, ignoscite. Need hath no law, you must pardon them. 
2 By that which he hath noted, he says, it appears that the Militant Church, or company of true Professors, cannot at any time, be altogether invisible: specially in such sort, or so long a time, as they say the Protestant Professors were. The things he noted may be reduced to eight propositions in all. First, that the Church in the infancy, or beginning thereof was very small, like a grain of Mustardseed: and toward the end also, in Antichrists, time, shall be much decayed, both in the number of professors, and in the visibleness of the outward state. Secondly, that this notwithstanding, yet in all ages, betwixt the beginning, and the end, it is a great multitude spread over the world. Thirdly, that the Church is not actually seen, at all times, by all men. Fourthly, that yet it is visible, that is, such as may be seen, and known by all, if the impediments be not on their part, that should see it: and by prudent, and diligent inquiry may be discerned at all times. And in the greatest obscurity, the world may see, and distinguish some eminent members therein. Fifthly, that it cannot alway practise the rites of divine worship, publicly; but is forced sometime to do it in private. Sixthly, that yet it never wants ordinary Pastors, nor the practice of rites appertaining to the Sacraments, and divine worship. Seventhly, which practice, and inward state of the Church shall never be so secret, but notice shall be had of it, even by Infidels, and enemies: and the records thereof shall remain in Histories. Eightly, that it is the nature of the Church to be, in this manner, visible, for divers considerations. These propositions contain the substance of that he noted; whereupon he infers 2. things. First that the militant Church cannot, at any time, be altogether invisible. Next, that it cannot be invisible in such sort, or so long a time, as M. White says, the professors of the Protestant religion were. The first I grant him to be true, and he need not so often have inferred it, when it is not our assertion, that the Church at any time, is simply, absolutely, or altogether, invisible, but only secundum quid, and respectively in comparison of the reformed state thereof. The second is false, that it cannot be invisible in such sort, or so long as we say: for we say it was invisible in this sort, that at some times, there was no congregation of people in the world visibly professing the faith, and visibly administering the Sacraments, and Church discipline without much superstition, and corruption, or heresy practised therewith; I say visibly, in my adversaries sense; that is, so as this congregation was a great multitude spread over the world, whose faith, and administration, thus incorrupted, infidels, and enemies, had knowledge of, and Histories recorded, and wherein some eminent men, might be discerned even by the world: for the contrary is true, that all public assemblies thus entirely without superstition, professing, or holding the faith and Ecclesiastical government, may be oppressed, and extinguished. And thus I grant the true Churches (whose sound, and necessary faith we hold) failed throughout the world: nor do I here intent, or affirm, that there were no particular eminent persons that held, or professed the faith entirely for substance (all errors not being mortal) or no singular professions of men that were of our religion, and refused the Papacy: for there were many such in all ages, though Nullus, and Nemo be left out; but our assertion proceeds of such congregations, as we call particular Churches: and this is enough to excuse the quality, and condition of our Church in former times, and to refel the vain brags of our adversaries, touching the external succession of the Church of Rome. For if this proposition be true (which it must be, until the Repliar, can refel it) The Church militant here on earth, may be so oppressed with persecution, and infected with heresy, that at sometimes there can no particular congregation thereof be seen in all the world, either publicly, or privately, professing the true faith entirely without heresy, and exercising the preaching of the Gospel, and administration of the Sacraments, and discipline without corruption: hence it will follow that the Protestants granting this of their Churches; disadvantage not their religion: and our adversaries boasting of their multitude and glorious succession, may be the Ministers of Antichrist.  
3 But the jesuite saying that we conceit an invisible company of professing Protestants, is mistaken. For I noted to him, that we do not hold a definite number of persons distinct from the members of the Church of Rome, and living apart in another society by themselves, in secret, as it were 
* Of whom joh. Paris. tract. de Antich. p. 46.  the 7. sleepers lying hid in a mountain: but we affirm this company lived in the midst of the Church of Rome itself, and were the visible professors thereof. First, some that kept themselves from the damnable doctrines thereof, albeit they were corrupted with some lesser errors whereof they repent at their death. Secondly, some openly refused those damnable doctrines, and suffered for the same. Thirdly, some resisted the Papacy, as it grew on, and noted the abuses thereof, and never ceased to complain, and call for reformation. Fourthly, many that were ordinary Pastors, and Bishops in the Church of Rome, though poisoned with damnable heresies, yet still professed the substance of faith, and repent them in divers things, and maintained the Scripture to be the word of God. The which things do sufficiently uphold the succession of our doctrine: though Lombard, and Thomas, and Gerson, and Occam, and such as they were, be said to be some of the persons, in whom it succeeded: by reason the rest, which they held against us, appears by the Scriptures, and writings of the Apostolic Church, to have been their own inventions. This plainly shows who were the Nullus, and Nemoes', that held the Protestants religion; when they did all this, some in a higher, and some in a lower degree, according to the measure of their knowledge, and means that they had, whom the Pope, and his Clergy persecuted, and condemned for heretics, though they were the best, and soundest part of the Church: in regard of which persecution, restraining them that the truth might not be suffered openly in the congregations (which were all surprised by Antichrist) we call them the invisible Church that was not seen to enjoy religion, and discipline in the liberty, purity, and perspicuity, that we now do, and whom the wicked unbelievers of the world could not discern, or observe; by reason their eyes were blinded, that they should not behold the truth. I admonish the Replyar hereafter to take notice of this, and not to reply upon an opinion of his own making, least forging that which no man holds, and then, so Paedant like, squirting at it, his own head prove a hive for Plato's Ideas, and the cave where chimera nestles himself.   

Pag. 247.  A. D. If they could make  answer to this argument, they would never seek for such shifts, but being not able sound to answer it, nor yet willing to acknowledge themselves to be convinced by it, desperate obstinacy, and obstinate desperation hath driven them to this bad, miserable, ridiculous, and desperate shift, the which if it were not a bad shift, 
Aug. contra G●udentium l. 3. c. 1.  S. Augustine could not well have urged the Donatists, as he did, saying, If yours be the Catholic Church show it to stretch out the boughs of it, which abundance of plentiful increase, over the whole earth. For by this shift they might easily have answered, that it did not follow, that their Church, was not the true Church, because they could not show it to extend itself over the earth: because it might be invisible. If this were not a miserable shift, the same S. Augustine could not well have assigned it, as a note proper to heretics, as he did, saying, A clear, and manifest authority of the Church being appointed over the whole orb of the earth (Christ our Saviour) doth consequently admonish his Disciples, and all the faithful, who will believe in him, that they believe not schismatics, or heretics, for every schism, and heresy, either hath his particular place, holding some place, and corner of the earth, or else deceiveth the curiosity of men in obscure, and secret conventicles, if any say unto you, behold here is Christ, and there, which signifieth some parts of the earth, or provinces thereof, or in secret places, or in the desert, which signifieth the obscure, and secret (invisible) conventicles of heretics, etc. If it were not also a ridiculous shift, men of our time would not have been moved at the hearing of it, to say, as one did, Spectatum admissi risum teneatis amici, and much less would S. Augustine (only imagining that some should say, 
Siquis dixerit fortè sunt aliquae oves Dei, nescio ubi, quas curat Deus, & illas non novi, absurdus est nimis humano sensui, qui talia cogitat. Aug. l. de ovibus cap. 16.  conformably to it, God hath perhaps other sheep of whom himself taketh care, but I know not where they be, nor who they be) have said of it, as he did, he (to wit) that saith or shall say thus, is too too absurd to human sense. Lastly, if it were not also a desperate shift, the consideration of the falsehood, and folly of it, could never have driven, as it seemeth it hath done, divers learned Protestants, obstinately bend against the Catholic profession, either to doubt, or deny, or utterly to cast off, the truth of Christian profession, neither could it be so apt, to drive all other obstinate Protestants to the like desperate resolution, as doubtless it is, when on the one side, they open their eyes to consider the plain Prophecies of Scripture, foretelling the amplitude, splendour, glory, and continuance of true Christian professors; and, on the other side, may plainly see such predictions, not to have been fulfilled in their invisible, imaginary congregation of Protestant professions. For whilst these 2. considerations are joined with the obstinate hatred, of the Catholic Roman profession, which will not let them consider, that in it, and only in it these prophecies have been fulfilled, it is most easy for them, through desperation, either with Castalion to fall into doubts in faith, or with David George flatly to deny the truth of Christian faith, or with Bernardine Ochine to fall into the foul heresy of denying the Divinity of our Saviour Christ, which is one of the most principal articles of our faith, or with Neuserus to turn Turk, or with Alemanus to become jews, or with many in our own miserable country to be made absolute Atheists, neither caring for God, Christ, nor any other thing which we believe by true Christian faith. 
4 In good time, now I see land, and my penance draws towards an end: I have but this one blast more to endure. He says, If the Protestants could make  answer to this argument, they would never seek for such shifts: but being not able sound to answer it; nor yet willing to acknowledge themselves to be convinced by it, desperate obstinacy, and obstinate desperation have driven them to this bad, miserable, ridiculous, and desperate shift. This goes reasonable roundly: for the spirit of boasting, and vein of insulting, must now, and then sally, or our Adversaries should forfeit their Charter. But what is the question, and what is the argument? and what is the answer so desperate? The question is about the visibility of the Militant Church, the Repliar defending, that it is always visible in one state of purity, as he hath expounded. The argument he uses to prove it, is, because the Church must be a light set upon a Candlestick: and the means which God hath appointed for the revealing of his truth, and a City built upon a mount, whereto God hath made his promises. Our answer is, we deny not our Church to be visible, but think it to have been the same, that in all ages communicated with the Church of Rome in the truth, and substance of the ancient faith: and we call it sometime invisible, only in that sense, which I have so often declared: against which that which is here propounded concludeth nothing.  
5 For S. Austin says no more in the first place, but that the Catholic Church stretches the boughs and increases abundantly over the whole earth: which we confess it doth two ways. First, in that howsoever the growth thereof be sometime hindered, yet it cannot at all time be so oppressed, but that it hath some time and many a long time, liberty enough to dilate itself, all over the world: as winter corn, that in hard weather is not seen to flourish, yet hath season enough beside to grow all over the field. Secondly, in as much, as it grows also, and increases when it is most obscure, as the Sun retains and exercises his light, when it is most eclipsed. The jesuits continual error is, that to be obscure, and to be utterly taken away, is all one; and that the suppressing of the outward liberty, state, and perfection, supposes the extinguishing of the essence, and being of the Church. That which S. Austin says, in the second place alleged, I also grant, answering that it may well stand with our assertion. A clear, and manifest authority of the Church it appointed over the whole world; and yet this authority may be resisted, and called in question, and abused, and usurped by Heretics, and persecutors; and than though it be clear, and manifest, in itself, that the Church hath this authority, yet the exercise thereof may be corrupted in such sort that sometime it shall need reformation. schismatics, and Heretics are not to be believed: but let the Repliar prove all these in whom our Church was, to be such. Schism and Heresy have their particular places, and obscure, and secret corners, but not always: for in the Church of Israel, when 
a 1. Reg. 19.14.  the children of Israel forsook the covenant of God, Threw down his altars, slew his Prophets, and none but Elias alone was left: and when 
b 2. Cro. 15.3.  for along season, Israel was without the true God, and without a teaching Priest, and without the law: and 
c 2. Cro. 28.24.  when Ahaz the king of judah, did cut in pieces the vessels, and shut up the doors of the house of God, and made him altars in every corner of jerusalem; and high places in every several city of judah; to burn incense to other Gods: It was not so: Nor at such time as jerom 
d Comment in Psal. 33. §. Qui statis. tom. 8.  said, The Church is where the faith is: for 20 years since Heretics possessed all these Churches: nor when Hilary 
e Pag. 316. d.  writ: One thing I forewarn ye of, beware of Antichrist: ill doth the love of walls affect you: ill do ye reverence the Church of God, in houses, and buildings: is there any doubt but Antichrist sits in them? to me the mountains, and the woods, and lakes of water, and prisons, and bogs, are safer. And if for the most part they have, doth it follow thereupon, that all religion practised particular places, and secret corners, is Heresy? what then shall become of God's truth in such times, as these are? But it is absurd to say God hath possible other sheep, I know not where, nor who they be, that himself looks to: and so say I: for he speaks of such as hold, there may be some of the faithful out of the Church: or at the least so hidden in the Church, that none can see them. Neither of which is our doctrine; but only that sometimes they may be so oppressed, that no man can see any congregation of them openly professing, and exercising the worship of God purely, and without corruption: but the right faith, and government, shall be every where persecuted, and kept under: though many of these sheep thus corrupted, belong to the sheepfold of Christ, by reason of the foundation of faith, which they hold, and their repentance of their errors. S. Austin therefore proves not our assertion to be a shift. Go we forward, and let us see the rest.  
6 If it were not a ridiculous shift, men of our time would not have been moved, at the hearing of it, to say, as one did, Spectatum admissi. That 
* Camp. rat. 3.  one belike, was one of Penelopees 
f— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. odyss. ●.  wooers, or of 
g Valer. Maxim. l. 9 c. 12.  philemon's kind that was choked with laughing at his own foolish conceit, with a jest of his own making, and therefore I will quit them with a story in 
h Eustath. in Hom. odyss. p. 659. 22.  Eustathius, that they may laugh better. The Terynthians were a nation generally flouted of their neighbours, for their fleering, and light countenance: they could do, nor see, nor hear any thing, but they would laugh at it. Therefore they inquired of Apollo, how they might be delivered from that Passion? who answered, IF THEY COULD SACRIFICE A BULL TO NEPTUNE, AND THROW HIM INTO THE SEA WITHOUT LAUGHING: whereupon, in a special consultation, they agreed to go forward with the sacrifice, but no boys should be among them, lest they should laugh at any thing they did; but it fortuned, that, as they were sacrificing, a little Boy, came in among them, and seeing, contrary to the custom, every man's countenance so gravely set, he also counterfeited an austere looks, and carved a face suitable to them, which affectation, they perceiving, burst all out into laughter, and lost their labour, and so remained a laughing nation for ever after. Their error was to laugh at that in the child, which themselves did: and with laughing to lose their Bull. It seems my Repliar, and the men that cannot refrain laughter, and the man he mentions, are of their posterity, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Eustath.  jovial companions, that will laugh at that in others, that they do themselves, and will exchange their sacrifice for a jest: let them go to the sea again with the Bull, and try if they can have, any better luck than the Terinthians. 
i Barbaricum faciem Romanam sumere vultuni miror. Ennod.  Pity Roman heads, should have so grave tongues, and so light countenances.  
7 In the last place he objects, that our doctrine, touching the invisible Church, hath made divers learned Protestants, obstinately bend, against Papistry, desperate: for when they have seen the Prophecies of the Scripture, foretelling the amplitude, splendour, glory, and continuance of true Christian Professors, never to have been fulfiled in their invisible congregation of Protestant Professors: they have either doubted, ordenied, or utterly cast off the truth of all Christian Profession: the reason is, their obstinacy not suffering them to consider, that in the Roman Profession only these Prophecies have been fulfilled. And have the Prophecies of Scripture, touching the amplitude, glory, and continuance of the true faith, been accomplished in the Roman profession only: that I mean, which we have rejected? whose amplitude, to this day, never extended itself beyong these neighbour parts of the West, 
k See Magin. geograph. 166.  the most spacious Churches of Greece, Armenia, Aethiopia, & divers other nations, never since the Apostasy acknowledging the same, but abhorring it, as much ever any Protestant did? whose continuance, in some articles, is not yet a 100 years? whose religion by piece-meal, crept in successively, now one piece, now another, the Christian world complaining of it? Is not this the most desperate impudence, that ever was, to affirm, Purgatory, Image-worship, the sacrifice of the Mass, half Communion, Latin Service, and the Lateran, and Trent doctrine, touching the Pope's primacy, Counsels, Transubstantiation, the single life of votaries, free-will, Merits, justification, good works, the Scriptures, (wherein the best part of the Roman profession stands;) to have continued in all ages in that glory, splendour, and amplitude, that is mentioned in the Prophecies? when not only the ancient Church, knew them not, but the Divines themselves in the Church of Rome, within these 400. years, have had no unity, or certain assurance of them? Away ye 
* josh. 9  Gibeonites, with your counterfeit antiquity: be packing with your old shoes, and mouldy bread, and musty bottles, out of the Lords camp.  
8 And have so may learned Protestants turned Atheists, and doubted, and cast off religion, because they have not seen the amplitude, and glory, and continuance mentioned, in our Church? It seems this conceit is thoroughly grafted in our Roman Catholics: harken therefore, and refrain a while: the Protestants have seen the continuance of true religion in all ages, in the Churches of Greece, and Rome its self, and other Churches: and albeit the amplitude, and glory, thereof have been oppressed by the tyranny or Antichrist, and his damnable heresies, continually multiplying themselves, in the Church of Rome, yet this experience, and the consideration of this oppression, which religion sustained in the ages past, at the hands of those Roman professors, in whom only, the Reply says, the Prophecies of the Scripture have been fulfilled; is so far from making Protestants doubt of truth of Christian faith, that nothing confirms them in it more: by reason the Prophecies of Scripture, which promise such amplitude, glory, and continuance, to the true Church, foretell a-againe the decay of the outward state thereof, under Antichrist, for certain seasons; and the glory which that false Church of his shall rise to, through the delusions of Satan. By which oppression, we know it to be the true Church of Christ; and by the continuance of the true faith therein, men then, when it was most oppressed, we know it to be the same that the Prophecies mentioned in the Scripture point to, and against which, the gates of hell shall never prevail: and by this very glory, amplitude, splendour, and pomp, that the Replyar boasts, is to be seen in his Roman profession alone, we know assuredly, it is the Church of Antichrist, the seat of the Beast, that palace of the whore of Babylon, 
l Apo. 13.4.8.12. & 18.3.9. Telesphorus & Vbertin Friars, & joachim Abbas, in their writings of Antichrist, note many things very remarkable, touching the seducing of the world by apostatical Popes & Clergy men; whom they affirm to have been the instruments of Antichrist. Telesphorus also sets these things down in pictures. It is certainly reported, that when the Abbey of S. Edm. Bury, in Suffolk, was standing, before the overthrow thereof, there was, of ancient time, in a certain glas-window of the Abbey, the story of Antichrist, pictured like the Pope, attended by Monks, Friars, Priests, and Cardinals: stopping their cares against the Preaching of Enoch and Elias, and persecuting th●m that hearkened to their preaching: and divers other things resembling Antichrist and his crew in the habit of the Pope and his Clergy. I have seen the transsumpt of this picture in a Table, drawn by the thing itself, at Sir john Croftes his house at Saxham, near to Bury.  whom the kings, and merchants, and multitudes of the earth must follow. This is the effect that the consideration of the Prophecies works in us. And if the apostasy, or relapse of some particular persons, falling into despair, atheism, or heresy, be received as a sufficient argument against us, what Church shall be free? or how shall the Church of God be justified? and what will the Papists answer for their own religion, wherein so many have miscarried? The true Church of Christ, hath in it hypocrites, and reprobates, who stumbling sometime at the doctrine, sometime at the state, in the day of temptation fall away. Thus many of Christ's own Disciples went back, 
m joh. 6.66.  and walked no more with him. Thus 
n 2. Tim. 4.10.  Demas forsook Paul, and S. john 
o 1. joh 2.19.  complains of divers that, in his time, went back from the true Church. Tertullian 
p Baro. an 201. n 13.  seduced by a woman, or 
q Pamel vit. Tertul. an. 211. Baro. an. 201. n. 9  vexed with discontent, fell into Montanisme. 
r Prateol. Elench. haeret. v Novatiani.  Novatus into such horrible errors that he was called the prince of heresy. Lucifer Calaritanus 
s Lucif. Caralit. l. de non conveniend. cum haeret.  tells of the desperate revolt of many famous Bishops to Arianisme. 
t Ambros. de obit. satire. Theodor. hist. l. 3. c. 5. Ruff. hist. l. 1. c. 30.  Who himself also, being one of the most zealous Catholics in the world, afterward fell into a most pestilent schism, and separating himself from the rest of the Church, became the author of Luciferian heretics. Our adversaries themselves also have found in their own Church the same things, wherewith the jesuite upbraids us. The case of Fra. Spira is well known: 
u See the story in Sleid. an. 1548.  he was a lawyer near to Padua, and renouncing the Protestants religion which he had most zealously embraced and professed, and falling to Papistry through the persuasion of the Pope's Legate: fell into the most desperate desperation, that we have lightly heard of; and refusing all comfort, so miserably ended his days. 
* Anto. Panorm. de dict. & fact. Alphons. l. 2. n. 9 edir. Basil. per Heruag. an. 1538.  Anthony Picent, a famous Hermit; who having filled all Italy, Spain, and Sicily with the opinion of his sanctity, reported to fast 40. days and 40. nights together, and, when he eat, to be fed by Angels, and generally reputed for the rarest man alive; yet at his death cast forth horrible reproaches and blasphemies against our blessed Saviour and his blessed mother the virgin Marie. It is as easy to say, that desperate obstinacy, and obstinate desperation, bred in these men by their cleaving to the Romish religion, brought them to this miserable end, as it is to affirm that the hatred of the Romish faith brought Castalion, or Nenser, or Aleman, to that which they did. The like is reported by 
x Hasenmull. hist. jesuit c. 11.  Hasenmuller, one that lived among the jesuits, and 
* Historian hanc, quam bona fide recitanis, sicuti eam & audivi & vidi, dum rebus jesuitarum interfui.  saw the things that he reports, of divers jesuits falling into the like terrible desperation: among whom one despairing, like Spira, because he had renounced the truth to become a Papist, complained that he was damned for the same, calling upon them them that stood by to kill him, because he felt nothing in himself but hell & the torture of devils tormenting him for putting confidence in Masses, images, crosses, beads, suffrages, the merits of Saints; and such like. The dotage of Postellus, who sometime was so famous among our adversaries, and his impiety about the Messiah, is inferior to none of these. But because Acosta the jesuite hath written a memorable example of one living in Peru, I will translate the History, and so let the Repliar himself say if his own religion breed not judaisme, turcism, doubtings, and desperation, as gross as ever Ochin or any other fell into.    

CHAP XLI.  
A Narration of a Popish Doctor and professor of divinity in the Church of Rome; translated out of Acosta de Temp. noviss. l. 2. c. 11. & Maiol. dies canicul. tom. 2. pag. 89. and inserted for answer to that wherewith the jesuite reproaches our Church in the last words of his precedent Reply.  
THere was in the kingdom of Peru a man, at that time, greatly esteemed: a learned Divine and a professor of divinity, who, a long time together was accounted Catholic and godly, and almost the oracle of all this part of the world. This man was so linked in familiarity with a certain woman who boasted of herself that she was taught great mysteries by an Angel; and like another Philumena or Maximilla whom Montanus followed, was rapt out of herself, or at least seemed so to be: that he often used to consult with her about the greatest questions in divinity. In all things he esteemed her as an Oracle, reporting her to be full of great revelations and to be dearly beloved of God; who otherwise was but a base creature, and of small sense, unless it were to devise lies. Whether therefore she were possessed by the Devil, which is most likely: or whether she counterfeited the matter when she fell into her ecstasy, as many wise men thought: this Divine hearing great and strange things, that in her exstasies she would speak of him, and conceiving that far greater would afterward be spoken, addicted himself thereupon to be her disciple, whose ghostly father indeed himself was. The man at length was so transported that he would assay to work miracles, and persuaded himself that he did work them, when no sign of any miracle appeared: for which cause, as also for receiving from this woman certain propositions contrary to the sense of the Catholic Church, he was apprehended by the judges of the most holy Inquisition: where by the space of five years he was heard and examined, and at last detected to be the proudest and maddest man that lived. He would avouch that he had an Angel sent from God, of whom he learned whatsoever he pleased: and that he had immediate conference and familiarity with God: and fell into those toys that no man in his right wits would utter: yet all this while his understanding as concerning his brains was so sound, that my own is no sounder. He would therefore say he should be a King, and, in very good earnest tell how he should be Pope, and that the Apostolic Sea should be translated into these kingdoms: that God had given him holiness above the Angels, and beyond all the Apostles: yea offered him the Hypostatical union, but he would not receive it. That he was given to be the redeemer of the world, in regard of the efficacy, whereas Christ was the redeemer but in regard of sufficiency. That all Ecclesiastical states should be abrogated; and he would give new laws that should be plain and easy, whereby the single life of the Clergy should be taken away, and many wives allowed; and the necessity of shrift be abrogated. These and many such like things he affirmed, with such confidence and earnestness, that we were amazed to see a man imagining these things, yet not to be out of his wits. At the last, when we had a long time considered his doings, and condemned above 120 propositions of his that were heretical, and dissonant from the doctrine of the Church; we were commanded to dispute with him, to see if we could bring him back to a right mind and the true faith. To which purpose the judges and the Bishop of Quita, with others of us, met together; where the man being brought in before us, he maintained his cause with that liberty and eloquence of tongue, that I myself to this day am astonished to think that ever a man's mind should be filled with that pride. He professed his doctrine to be such, that it could not be demonstrated but by the Scriptures and miracles; being far beyond all human reason: & that, by the testimonies of the Scripture, he had proved his matter far more manifestly & effectually, then S. Paul had proved Christ to be the true Messiah: and that he had wrought such and so many miracles, that the resurrection of Christ was no greater miracle: for he said, that he had been dead, and was risen again, and by evident testimony had showed the same. And whereas he had no book, but had his very breviary taken from him, yet he would rehearse the Scriptures without book, such and so long places, out of the Prophets, the Revelation, the Psalms, and other parts, that his memory was admirable: but then he so applied or allegorized them to his conceit, that it would have made any, either to have laughed or wept. Finally, if we would handle the matter by miracles, he would presently, he said, show them. These things he spoke so, as if he had taken us for mad men, or had been mad himself. He told us that it was revealed unto him, how Don john of Ostrich was overcome in a fight at sea, by the Turk: and that K. Philip had almost lost his kingdom of Spain:. and that they were in hand at Rome, with a Council for the deposing of the present Pope, and the creating of a new. Which things, he said he would tell us; that we knowing them by certain intelligence, might perceive they came to him by divine revelation. The which things being most false, yet he avouched them as matters that we had certainly known. At the last, when in two days conference with him, we could do no good, according to the manner of Spain, we brought him with others to the public spectacle of the people: where, looking up to heaven, and expecting fire that from thence should fall on the Inquisitors, as the devil had promised him; we felt no fire touch us; but himself was soon burnt and consumed to ashes.   

TO THE READER.  
HItherto my adversary hath prosecuted the defence of the twelve first Chapters of his Treatise, where he gives over, and proceeds no further. Now follows the SECOND PART of his Book, 
Pag. 251.  which he entitles AN APPENDIX TO THIS FIRST PART OF REPLY, wherein an issue or trial is made, whereby may be seen whether Catholics or Protestants be the true VISIBLE CHURCH: wherein he first sets down, as he entitles it, A catalogue OF THE NAMES OF SOME CATHOLIC PROFESSORS, to show that the Roman Church hath been (as the true Church must be) continually visible in all ages since Christ. And then, after the Catalogue, A CHALLENGE TO PROTESTANTS, 
Pag. 265.  requiring them to make a like Catalogue of the Professors of their faith in all ages since Christ; as he hath it down a catalogue of his Church. His Catalogue is nothing else but a chronological Table, containing and representing the names of all the POPES, and the most DOCTORS and ancient Fathers, and some GENERAL COUNSELS, and many PROFESSORS, as he calls them, of the Roman faith, which in every age have been in the Church to this day; distinguishing the ages by centuries of years, and under every century placing the Popes, Fathers, Counsels and Professors that lived & were therein. In the first century he names our blessed Saviour Christ, with his Apostles and Evangelists; and the Churches of Rome, Corinth, Galatia, with the rest of the Apostolic Churches. In the second, and so forward, be sets down the ancient Fathers of the Primitive Church, with the Martyrs, Counsels, holy men and nations converted, that were in every age successively till he come to the year 1600. The folly and error of this his Table, stands in five things: first, that he assumes these persons, Counsels and nations, to himself, as professing his Popish faith; who were indeed eminent members of the Church in their times, but never either professed or saw that part of his Roman faith which we have cast off. For how ridiculous is it to say, that our Saviour and his Apostles, and the rest that follow for a thousand years, believed and professed as the jesuits now do, or as the Trent Council hath decreed in the Canons and new Creed thereof? The second is, that the persons named in the first ages, till 800 or a 1000 years after Christ, not only professed not the Papacy, but believed & professed that which directly destroys it. They held that which the Church of Rome holds according to the Scriptures, and wherein the Papists and we consent; but the things in time, and by piece-meal added to the truth, wherein we differ from them; they held not, but the contrary. Let the jesuite therefore show a catalogue of such as in those times professed and believed, not only what the Church of Rome believes aright, but what it holds against us, in the several articles of our difference. The third is that divers Counsels, especially latterward, which resisted the Papacy coming on, are omitted; as those of Constantinople, Frankford, Pisa, Constance, Basil, etc. and many famous & eminent Doctors omitted, that professed directly against divers articles of the now Church of Rome. The fourth is, that many false and fabulous Saints are named, and things. set down out of Legends, that can never be proved: as the tale of the jews of Berytum converted by a bleeding Crucifix, and such like. The last is, that diverse Popes, for many years together (namely in the ninth age) succeeded not, but entered violently and disorderly: and very many, especially in the latter ages, are excepted against, upon divers points, purposely let down in 
* Digr. 53.  my former writing. His Catalogue therefore is to no purpose, as shall fully appear in that which follower: for even we ourselves lay claim to so much of it as is true: and if he will give us leave to add the names of some others that lived after the 800 years; we will exhibit this very Catalogue ourselves, and no other; save that the Legend Saints, and the Friars and apostatical Popes and jesuits, with such traitors as Allen was, we need not. Next after the Catalogue, ensues the CHALLENGE TO PROTESTANTS, that they show the like Catalogue. But this is idle. For we show the same, if he will permit us to supply some wants in the latter ages: professing the Church of Rome itself, in all ages to have been the visible Church of God; as I have showed in 
* From ch. 36. forward.  that which goes before, though the Papacy therein were not the Church.  
After his challenge, containing only one leaf, (the whole matter whereof is the same that I have answered in the six last chapters) he propounds certain objections, which he thought might be made against his Catalogue; thereby to give colour to the succession of his Popery. The which objections, with his answers to them, I will set down and handle, as I have done the rest of his Reply; and so proceed.   

CHAP. XLII.  
An objection against the Repliers Catalogue. divers Articles condemned by the Fathers, mentioned in the Catalogue, that the Church of Rome now uses. What consent there is between Antiquity and Papistry.  
A. D. My adversaries will object, 
Pag. 267.  that all there which I set down in my Catalogue, especially those of the Primitive age, were not professors of our religion, in regard as they will say, there be divers points held by us now adays, whereof no mention is made in the writings of the Fathers of that age. To this I answer, first retorting more strongly the argument against Protestants, who falsely and absurdly challenge (as M. jewel did) the Fathers of the first six hundred years: or as M. White doth) the whole Christian Church of the first eight hundred years, to be Protestants. And I say, that Protestants do hold divers points now adays, whereof either no mention is made in the writings of the Fathers of those ages; or if any mention be made, it is expressly contrary to Protestants, and for us, and this sometimes with unanime consent: whereas Protestants are never able to show for themselves, and against us, in any point, such an unanime consent of those Fathers. 
BEfore he retort the objection, or be too busy with B. jewels 600 years, and M. Whites 800, I would have him to be better advised what they object. For touching the Fathers of those times, three things will be granted him. First, that divers main articles of the now Romish faith, which we reject, are mentioned most amply and frequently in their writings. For example, the Pope's PRIMACY, and being universal Bishop above all other Bishops, is mentioned by Gregory himself a Pope in the first age, and 
a Per elationem pompatici sermonis Christ● sibi studet membra subiugare. lib. 4. ep. 36. Quis, rogo, in hoc tam perverso vocabulo, nisi ille ad imitandum proponitur qui, despectis Angelorum legionibus secum socialiter constitutis, ut solus omnibus praeesse videretur. Ep. 38. Ego fidenter dico, quia quisquis so universalem Sacerdotem vocat vel vocare desiderat, in ela●ione sua Antichristum praecurrit. l. 6. ep. 30.  called a proud, pompatical, profane, sacrilegious, Antichristian and devilish title; and the man that should assume it, a follower of the devil, and the forerunner of Antichrist. 
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. l. 5. c. 17. spoken of Montanus.  FASTING by distinction of meats and days: 
c Sectae Simonis ●uisse videtur so●ta quaedam M●rcellina quae colebat imagines jesus & Pauli, & Homeri, adorado incensumque ponendo. August de haer Irenae. l. 1. c 24. Epiph. haer. 27. Theodor. haer. fab. l. 1. Jnueni ibi vel●m habe●s imaginem quasi Christ's, vel Sancti cuiusdam— contra authoritatem Scripti●rarum. Epiph. ep. ●d joh. Hicrosol.  Images: 
d Cathari. propter munditiem, gl riantes de suis meritis. Isido. Orig. l. 8. c. 5.  Perfection of our works without sin, and ability to keep the law: 
e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Clem. Rom. constit. pag 57  women's baptizing: 
f Conc. Laod. can. 35 Oecum pag 697. Veron graec.  the worship of Angels: 
g Cruces nec colimus, nec optamus Ar●ob.  the worshipping of the Cross: 
h V●rgo erat, sed non ad adorationem nobis data. Epiph. pag. 344.  the worshipping of the virgin Marie: 
i Nec exhorrescunt beatae Trinitatis imaginem facere. Euthym. Panopl. pag. 690.  the Images of the Trinity: 
k Haeretic●, cum ex Scripturis arguuntur, in accusationem ipsarum convertuntur, quasi non rectè habeant, nec sint ex authoritate, & quia vartè sunt dicta, & qu●a non possit, ex his inveniri veritas abhis qui nesciunt Traditionem Irenae l. 3. c 2.  the obscurity and insufficiency of the Scripture: 
l Auditores, apud eos (Manichaeos') si v●luerint, uxores habent; quorum nihil faciunt qui vocantur electi. August. ep. 74.  the necessity of single life in the Clergy: and many other points defended by our adversaries, are mentioned and named in the Fathers: but it is to show that they were holden by heretics, and to confute them. This first grant, I return my adversary for a favour, because he hath replied without railing in this Chapter: and I do it in the name of all Protestants, that hereafter he may not say, but they are tractable, and will yield much of his Romish religion to be, if not defended, yet mentioned in the writings of the Fathers. Secondly, that some ceremonies and doctrines also holden at this day by the Church of Rome, which we refuse, were held by some particular ancient Fathers, and practised in the Church of those times, though 
* It is the rule of Vincentius Lirinensis, ●hat what the Fathers thus hold, is not the Catholic faith, but what they hold resolutely, and with general consent Monitor. c. 39  doubtfully, uncertainly, and without universality and uniformity, and (which is chief to be observed by him that will see the truth) otherwise and to other intents, than the Church of Rome now holds them; the reason whereof is manifest. For the Apostle 
m 2. Thess 2.7.  says, the mystery of iniquity began to work in his time. And 
n Niceph. l. 4. c 7. Euseb. hist. l 3 c. 32.  Hegesippus, that lived immediately after the Apostles, The Church continued a virgin undefiled as long as the Apostles lived, but when that generation was passed, the conspiracy of wicked heresy, through the seducement of those which taught otherwise, took beginning. And 
o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Isid. Pelus. l. 3 ep. 408. pag 668.  Isidorus Pelusiota, that lived in the fourth age: The Church is like a woman fallen from her ancient state, and having nothing but the signs of it; bereaved of her goods through their naughtiness that held the administration. Thus some particular ceremonies and doctrines began to be used, and got increase with using: as Prayer for the dead, Purgatory, Necessity of Baptism for the salvation of infants; and not many more doctrines agreeing with the Church of Rome; which yet were used and holden, as I said, uncertainly, and to other purposes then now they are: for it cannot be showed, that they were the resolved doctrine of the Church universally embraced. The most that our adversaries can show in the writings of antiquity, being some part of their ceremonies, as Tapers, Crosses, Vigils, Oil, Spittle, Commemorations of the dead, and such like: wherein also they have altered, or forsaken many things as well as we: as they have with us abandoned some points of their doctrine also, which yet 
p It is confessed that all the Fathers held the B. Virgin to have been conceived in original sin, by Turrecrem. de consecr. d. 4. Firmissime. nu. 11. & Dom. Ban. part. 1 q 1 art. 8. dub. 5. And most of the Fathers, that the souls of the just see not God till the day of judgement. sixth Senens. bibl. l. 6 an. 345. Barthol. Medin in 12. pag 56. and others, whom see below, c. 57 n. 3. In which two points, the now Church of Rome hath forsaken them:  by their own confession, they held as well as they did, that which the Church of Rome still retains: which proves unanswerably, that it is no disadvantage to our side, if some few particular doctrines, thus unsufficiently held, be found in the Fathers, which we refuse. Thirdly we grant that we hold many negatives against our adversaries in the Church of Rome, which are not expressly controlled or condemned by the Fathers, in that manner that we condemn them, that is to say, directly, purposely, and namely, but only by discourse and consequence from those truths which they maintain, and those errors which they condemn in the heretics of their times. The reason is, because in the Father's days, such errors, now denied and refused by us, were not broached, but came up since: and the Fathers could not deny or speak against that, which was not then in rerum natura. This is the true reason why we deny sundry things, that the Fathers in their time denied not.  
2 These three things being granted; that which we object against the Repliers Catalogue, is, that the ancient Fathers in their writings, neither defend nor acknowledge the substantial articles of Papistry, wherein we really differ. There is 
q You m●y see it in the Pref. before B. jewels works of the last impression. And in the Pref. of THE WAY, n. 15. And in the Council of Trent, at the end.  a new Creed made by the Council of Trent, and imposed upon all men to believe: the articles whereof, are particularly expounded in the decrees and catechism of the said Council, and in the writings of the modern Schoolmen and jesuits; LET THEM SHOW IF THEY CAN, THAT THE DOCTRINE CONTAINED IN THAT CREED, AND IN THE WRITINGS OF THESE MEN, (TOUCHING THE SCRIPTURES, SACRAMENTS, CHURCH, POPE, COUNSELS, TRANSUBSTANTIATION, IMAGES, INVOCATION OF SAINTS, JUSTIFICATION, GOOD WORKS, etc.) WAS THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH, AND PROFESSED BY THE BISHOPS OF ROME, FATHERS AND COUNSELS, EXPRESSED IN THE FIRST 800 YEARS OF THIS catalogue: this is our objection: whereto the Replier answers, that he can retort it more strongly against the Protestants, etc. But this is but wind, and so let it pass: and come we forward to the substance of his answer.    

CHAP. XLIII.  
1. Whatsoever the Fathers of the Primitive Church believed, is expressed in their books. 2. The Replier is driven to say, they held much of his religion only implicitly. What implicit faith is, according to the Papists. The death of Zeuxis. The Fathers writ that which cannot stand with Papistry.  
Pag. ●67.  A. D. Secondly I answer, that to say there be divers points held by us, whereof no mention is made in those ancient Fathers, is no good argument to prove that which we hold, was not holden by them. For this is Argumentum ab authoritate negativa: which argument is of no force to prove this point, unless it be first proved that those Fathers held nothing explicitè or implicitè, which is not expressly to be found in their writings. But this my adversaries will never be able to prove. Now on the contrary side, we can show good reasons, or at least probable presumptions, sufficient to prove, first, that they held more than is expressed in their writings. Secondly that they held explicitè or implicitè the same in all points of doctrine, which we hold. First I say, we have reason to think that they held more than is expressed in their writings: because (since ordinarily the writings of these Fathers were not by them set out of purpose, to express in particular every thing that they held implicitè or explicitè concerning all matters of faith, but rather were written upon some special occasion) it is to be thought, that their writings contain only some parts of the doctrine, to wit, so much of it as was that requisite to be written upon that special occasion. The which is confirmed even by experience of these our times, in which although learned men do ordinarily set down more expressly in Catechisms, books of controversies, etc. what the Catholic faith is in divers points then formerly it hath been set down as they have more occasion, by reason of more heresies daily arising, then learned men of former ages when those heresies were not, have had. Yet no learned man now adays writeth every thing which explicitè or implicitè he believeth to be the Catholic faith. For every Catholic man believeth explicitè or implicitè all that is contained in Scriptures and traditions in that he believeth whatsoever was revealed by God to the Apostles, & delivered by them in word or writing to the Catholic Church: and which the Church in Scriptures and unwritten traditions propoundeth and delivereth to us; divers particulars whereof are not necessary to be expressly known to, or written by any particular learned man of any age. but are always preserved at least in the implicit or enfolded faith of the Church: the which enfolded faith of the Church, may and shall be unfolded (the holy Ghost still assisting and suggesting all the aforesaid revealed truth) as necessity shall require, that the truth should be in any point expressly declared, which necessity chief is when some new heresy ariseth, oppugning particularly the truth of that point. 
1 HEre he says, the Fathers, named in his Catalogue, might hold what the church of Rome holds, though there be no mention thereof in their writings, because they might hold that which is not expressly in their writings. We had thought, until now, that this had been a plain demonstration: The ancient Fathers in all their writings, make no mention of divers points of the Popish religion: Ergo they held them not. Or thus: What religion the Fathers held, that they mention in their writings: But the Popish religion they mention not in their writings: Ergo they held not the Popish religion. But he having good experience, that the second proposition is true, denies the first; and will show, either by good reasons, or probable presumptions, that they held more than they mention and express in their books. Wherein at once he hath destroyed his Catalogue, and laid his religion open to the scorn of women and children. For if the Fathers in all their writings handled nothing but the cause of religion, teaching, expounding and defending it, against jews, Gentiles, heretics, schismatics, whereby they could not but mention what they held; and yet never mentioned divers points of Popery; it is plain they never held them. But the jesuite says, this is Argumentum ab authoritate negativa: which is not good; they might hold either explicitè or implicitè that which they have not expressed. Wherein you must mark his tergiversation. For to show a visible Church in all ages, professing openly his Roman faith, that all men may see it, he tenders this catalogue. But when we bid him prove that the Fathers of the first 600 or 800 years believed and professed that part of his Roman faith which the Church of England rejects, that it may appear so to us, and we may see it; he says, he can show good reasons and presumptions, that they believed more than is expressed in their writings: whereas he should show, by their WRITINGS, that they held and believed as the Romish Church now doth, because it is impossible to show what they held, but by their writings: and himself says in another place, We cannot have any certainty of things past, but by the writings of those times. And if he will have his Church to be so visible in the Father's time, and those Fathers, to be so eminent members thereof; good reason men see it: yet see it they cannot by presumptions, but by their writings.  
2 But he says, We have reason to think that they held more than expressed in their writings, forsomuch as no man writes every thing which explicitè or implicitè he believes: I answer, though it be granted, that both they and we in all our writings may omit some things not belonging to faith or religion, yet many articles of faith (such as our adversaries say, theirs are, the denial whereof they call schism and damnable herersie, and persecute with fire, sword, and gunpowder) cannot but be expressed: for so much as such articles are simply needful unto salvation, and are the grounds and conclusions of all theological writing and discourse. Secondly, it is impertinent to the objection; which denies the Fathers of the first 600 years to have done that which the Catalogue says they did: professed VISIBLY as the Roman Church now doth: which objection is not satisfied by saying they might explicitè or implicitè profess that they never writ, because no man writes all he believes; but by showing in their writings this VISIBLE profession of the Romish faith; for so much as nothing is VISIBLE that cannot be showed in their writings. Thirdly, this answer debars our adversaries for ever from alleging the Fathers for their Romish faith: which I show thus. First, the jesuits promise is, that he will assign a continual visible Church professing his now Roman faith; for that is the thing undertaken, to name in all ages the names of such as successively professed the religion now maintained by the Church of Rome. Secondly, to effect this, he sets down his catalogue containing the Bishops, Doctors, and Counsels that were in the first 600 years. Thirdly, we ob●ect that these Bishops, Doctors and Counsels, in divers things (that is to say, in all the substantial points wherein the Church of Rome and we descent) believed not as the now Church of Rome doth, because such points are not mentioned in their writings. To this he answers, that they held more, either explicitè or implicitè then is expressly to be found in their writings. This answer supposeth one of these three things: either that they both held and writ expressly those divers things which we deny: or that they writ them not, but held them explicitè: or that they writ them not, nor held them explicitè, but held them only implicitè. The first he grants they did not, but answers, that they believed divers things they writ not. Neither is the second: for what they held explicitè, they writ. But the third, that they held divers points of Papistry only implicitè, is the answer. Now this is it that lays all those points of Papistry on God's cold earth, and shows them not to have been known to the Fathers. For 
a Rosel. v. Fides n. 2 Altisiod. l 3 tract. 3. c. 1. q. 5, Dionys. 3. d. 25. qu. vnic.  to believe implicitè, is to believe as the Church believes; as when a man is demanded, whether Christ be borne of the virgin Marie, or whether there be one God and three persons: he answers, that he cannot tell, but believes touching these things as the Church holdeth. And as the Repliar himself here expounds it, To believe whatsoever was revealed by God in word or writing to the Church; divers particulars whereof are not necessary to be known or written expressly at all times: but this unfolded faith shall be unfolded, as necessity shall require, that is, when some heresy arises oppugning the truth of the point, which is thus implicitly believed. Hence it follows that he confesses these Fathers, Doctors, and Bishops, mentioned in the first 600 years of this catalogue, knew not, professed not, defended not, taught not, divers points of the now Roman faith: because in their times they were not points of faith, but made so since; and therefore by his own confession, they held them only in this sense, that they believed and taught whatsoever the Church should, after their time, unfold: by which device they may also be said to have believed, and visibly professed that the Moon is made of a green cheese, or any thing that the Church of Rome shall hereafter devise whatsoever it be: for they implicitly believed all the faith of the Church, and this coining of new doctrines shall be but unfolding some part of the Church's faith that was enfolded before: and so the Fathers shall be justified to have believed any thing, and the Roman Church to have been visibly succeeding in them that never understood her doctrine. Is this then the meaning of the catalogue that so gloriously he displays? and are all those brags; show us a visible Church in all ages as we do you; our faith is no other but what the ancient Doctors held: what they held, I hold; what they taught, I teach; what they believed, I believe: resolved into this poor shift, They believed as we do, at least implicitly? Is this the antiquity of our Romish Church? and can her age be painted no better than thus? Were so many diverse points of her faith believed, by the ancient Church only infoldly and upon condition, If this Roman Church, after 600 or 1000 years, should unfold them? where then is the visibility of these things in the Church of the Fathers? and the light thereof, that shined so clearly in their days? Zeuxis the painter, 
b Zuing Theat pag. 1201.  they say, choked himself with laughing at the picture of an old woman that he had drawn in a table. His own conceit, with beholding the wrinkles, and shadows, and looks, he had set upon her face, so affected him, that he which had but a little before drawn the beauty and youth of Helena to the admiration of others, with a foolish counterfeit of old age, killed himself. And I am persuaded that our adversaries, (this Replier and his fellows) when they behold the picture of this good old wife their mother the Papacy, how ridiculously they have drawn it, making her to look elder than she is, by so many hundred years, and hanging it forth for the counterfeit of antiquity, cannot at the least but smile at their own device, to think how they mock both others and themselves, if they make not others burst with laughter. But to quit this device of the Father's holding implicitly that which is not expressed in their writings; let my replier consider that they not only make no mention of the things which we deny, but they writ that which by all consequence and discourse overthrows them. Though therefore we allow them a little of the implicit faith, which God wots they never dreamt of, (it being a device of the latter Schoolmen to serve another purpose) yet they could not implicitè believe any thing which would be opposite to that they mention and hold expressly: as those things are opposite which the Replier confesses to be the divers things they believed implicitè, and their Church hath now unfolded against new heresies that are arisen. Thus I reason: the Fathers held contrary to that which the Church of Rome now holds: ergo they believed it not implicitly. For implicit faith holds nothing that is contrary to that which is explicit. Again, if they only held implicitly what the Church of Rome now holds, and not explicitly; hence it follows that the Roman faith in such points cannot be visibly showed in the Fathers; for to be visible, and to be only implicitè, are contrary, in as much as no man can see or discern that which is implicit: & so the Romish faith may be showed in a catalogue of Turks as well as in a catalogue of the Fathers, by the jesuits distinction.   

CHAP. XLIIII.  
1. The whole Christian faith delivered to the Church, hath succeeded in all ages: yet many corruptions have sometime been added. How, and in what sense the Church may err. 2. A Catalogue assigned of those in whom the Protestants faith always remained. 3. What is required to the reason of succession.  

Pag. 268.  A. D. Secondly I said, that the ancient Fathers of the Primitive Church did hold explicitè or implicitè all points of faith that we hold. This will appear by these ensuing considerations. First it is certain, that the Apostles taught the whole corpse of Christian doctrine, partly by word, partly by writing, which as a sacred depositum was commended by S. Paul to S. Timothy, and other succeeding Bishops and Pastors of the Church, to be maintained always in the Church, against all profane innovation of heresies, in these words: O Timothy keep the depositum, avoiding the profane novelties of voices & oppositions of falsely called knowledge, which divers promising, have erred about the faith. The which words, 
* Adverse. haer. c. 17.  Vincentius Lyrinensis expoundeth thus: Who (saith he) at this day hath the place of Timothy, but either the whole Church, or especially the whole body of Prelates, who ought themselves to have the whole knowledge of divine religion, and also to instruct others? And a little after: What is meant by this Depositum? it is (saith he) that which is committed to thee, not that which is invented by thee: that which thou hast received, not that which thou hast devised: a thing, not of wit, but of learning: not of private usurpation, but of public tradition: a thing brought to thee, not a thing brought forth of thee: wherein thou must not be an author, but a keeper: not an institutor but a secretor: not a leader but a follower Keep the Depositum, preserve the talon of the Catholic faith pure and sincere: that which is committed to thee, let that remain with thee, and that deliver unto the people. To the same purpose S. Irenaeus saith: 
* l. 3. c. 14.  We must not seek the truth among others, which is easy to receive from the Church, when the Apostles have most fully laid up all the truth in it, as in a rich treasure house. Also the same Irenaeus saith: 
* l. 4. c. 43.  We must hear and obey those Priests who have succession from the Apostles, who with succession of their Episcopal function, have received the Charisma of truth. Now supposing that this sacred depositum of the whole corpse of the revealed truth is preserved in one or other succession of Pastors, of one or other company of Christians, called the Church; either it must be granted that it was preserved in that succession of Pastors, which my catalogue showeth: or else I must require my adversaries to set forth another catalogue of Pastors, unto whom this sacred depositum was committed, and from whom we may receive it as need shall require. For to say that the divine truth committed to the custody of the Pastors (whom God hath appointed to be always in the Church of purpose to preserve men from wavering in faith, 
Eph. 4 v. 13.14.  and from being carried about with every wind of false doctrine) did at any time wholly or in part, by contrary error, fail in them universally, in such sort that there should not in all ages be sound one or other company of Pastors and Priests whom we could know still to keep the Depositum inviolate and entire, and whom consequently (according to Irenaeus his saying) we ought to obey, as being men, 
l. 4. ●. 4.  who with succession of their Episcopal function, received also the Charisma of truth: if, I say, this were so, that God's truth all or in part had explicitè and implicitè perished from the mouth of all known Priests and Pastors, God's ordinance itself, who for the general good of the Church appointed these Pastors, had been deficient, or had failed of the intended effect. 
Eph. 4. v. 13.14.  For how should men be preserved from wavering in faith or from being carried about with every wind of false doctrine, by Pastors appointed to be for that purpose unto the world's end, if in some ages no such Pastors were, or were not to be known, or being known to be the Pastors, yet did universally fail to preserve the entire formerly received truth, by believing and teaching, and so making the people believe contrary errors? If this were so, the holy Ghost had failed to teach the Church all truth, and consequently Christ's promise had not been performed, which said, that the Spirit of truth shall teach all truth. 
joh. 16. v. 13.  Some Pastors therefore always are in the Church, who without spot or wrinkle of any error in faith, shall preserve the entire truth, and by the assistance of Christ and his holy Spirit, shall be able, as need shall require, to unfold and deliver to the people the same truth, thereby to preserve them from falling into error, and from wavering in faith. 
1 THat the Apostles taught the whole body of Christian doctrine, and commended the same to the succeeding Pastors of the Church, to be always maintained without innovation; and that as Vincentius and Irenaeus speak, the faithful people of the Church were to be taught the truth by these Pastors, shall be granted: for what the Apostles revealed and delivered from jesus Christ, the same they intended should be continued for ever in the Church. But this proves not that the ancient Fathers of the Primitive Church held all things that the Church of Rome now holds, unless my adversary can show that every thing holden in the Church of Rome, is part of the Body of that Christian doctrine which the Apostles commended to their successors. For over & beside the truth revealed by the Apostles, the church of Rome successively & by degrees, in these last 800 years especially, hath brought in divers pernicious and damnable errors and corruptions touching Traditions, Transubstantiation, Images, justification, the Mass, the Pope's primacy, the worship of Saints, & innumerable other points wherein we have forsaken it: the which corruptions not belonging to the body of Christian doctrine which the Apostles taught, but being a disease that bred in the body of the Church, must not be said to have been the faith of the Fathers, who received nothing from the Apostles but that doctrine which is contained in the canon of the Bible: besides which doctrine, if either the Fathers or Pastors of the Church succeeding, taught any thing, it must be rejected as no part of the Depositum mentioned. Thus my answer is plain, that the Apostles delivered to their successors, to be preserved against all innovation the whole Christian doctrine: but the several articles of the now Romish faith which we have cast off, are no part of that Christian doctrine. Secondly my adversary replies, that it was the mind of the Apostles and the ordinance of God, not only that the whole body of the truth should be preserved in some succession or other, but also that it should be preserved so inviolate and entire, that no contrary error should be taught with it: which being supposed, he says it must be granted that it hath been so preserved in that succession of Pastors which his Catalogue showeth; because the Protestant's are able to show no other Pastors. His whole discourse affirms two things: the first, that the body of Christian doctrine committed to the Pastors of the church, doth not at any time fail either in whole or part, but is preserved inviolate and entire from all errors growing thereto. The second, that the Protestants can show no other succession of Pastors, whereto this doctrine was committed then is contained in his catalogue. Hence he concludes, that his now church of Rome holds nothing but what the ancient Fathers held. I answer to the second, touching the Catalogue, that for the first 600 years, we approve it, confessing the Pastors and Christians mentioned therein, to have been the true Church. And for the rest of the ages to this day, we will allow the Catalogue with three limitations: first, that the Pastors and people therein named, be confessed to have kept the faith less purely than they of the former ages; so that the lower they succeeded, the more they were corrupted. Secondly, that from the 800. year specially, such Pastors and people be added, every one in their place, as misliked and resisted the corruptions of the Church of Rome growing on, and upheld the purer doctrine in such manner as I briefly touched in THE WAY, Digress. 52, Thirdly, that the legend Saints, Antichristian Pope● lying stories, and the Pope's creatures, whose succession we need not, be wiped out, and the ordinary Pastors living in communion with the Church of Rome, Greece, Armenia, and such like (though we allow not every singular and special man) be supplied. Let the Catalogue be reform and undertaken in this manner, and the Pastors and the people contained therein shall be yielded to be the same that Christ and his Apostles committed the truth to: and in the mean time the Repliar doth but trouble himself, and seduce his Reader, when he bears him in hand that we desire to show other Pastors or people besides these; all Protestants freely affirming their faith to have succeeded even in the Church of Rome itself: though the errors thereof were no part of their faith but the inventions of men added thereunto.  
2 But the first thing affirmed, that the Christian doctrine committed to the Pastors of the Church cannot fail in any degree or part thereof, but is always preserved inviolate and entire from all error, is false. For albeit it be the commandment of God, and were the desire of the blessed Apostles, that it should be so: 
How the Church cannot err.  yet (as I have showed) the event teaches that sometime it falls out otherwise: in the same manner that it is God's ordinance that no man should sin, and yet all men do sin. So that all that can be said of the Church and the Pastors thereof by virtue of the promise, is, that neither it, nor they, shall universally all of them at any time fail in the belief & profession of those truths which are absolutely and simply necessary to salvation: though many Pastors and people reputed for the best part of the Church may err, and sometime also persist in joining mortal errors with the truth many ages together, what time no Pastors or people at all shall appear to hold the faith so entire, but some corruptions, not hindering salvation, shall be holden therewith: the which assertion as it overthrows all the jesuits discourse in this place; so is it true that our adversaries grant, neither the whole nor any part of the Church to be free from error, but so far forth as it follows the Pope: who himself by their like confession may err, and be deposed for heresy. Beside, if God's ordinance, or the Apostles intendiment, did warrant the Pastors of the Church, that they should not err at least universally, how comes it to pass that even every Doctor in his Catalogue from Dyonisius and Ignatius to Stapleton and Bellarmine have had their errors, all his Counsels have had theirs, and the most of his Popes have decreed one against another, and there is not one Divine in all his Catalogue (not his dearest Thomas of Aquin) but he will confess him to have erred? yet err he should not, if the providence of God were to preserve the Doctors of his Church from all error in the degree that the Reply says. The truth therefore succeeds continually in the Church without ceasing, but first: Not always in all, nor in the highest Pastors. Secondly: Nor always without corruption. Thirdly, Nor at all times, entire and inviolate from all error: but sometime a universal apostasy may so overflow the Church that nothing shall remain free from error, but only the necessary and fundamental points of faith: the which points do not therefore lose their succession, because many corruptions are received & taught with them: much less do those corruptions succeed with the truth from the Apostles; but the Pastors & people thus corrupted show themselves not to have kept his covenant; who will save them that have persevered in the foundation, and be merciful to them that have erred of invincible ignorance, and forgive them that have repent of their errors; and dam them, whether Pastors or people, that with tyranny and contumacy have maintained the corruptions.  
3 The jesuits reasons to prove that the Pastors of the Church cannot err, and that the true faith cannot be corrupted, are answered already, in THE WAY §. 14.   
A.D. Wherefore if my Adversaries will deny the catalogue of Pastors, 
Pag. 270.  which I have set down, to be of such as have always preserved the foresaid sacred Depositum of the truth entire and inviolate, I require first that they will assign another Catalogue of such as did continually preserve it whole and without change. Also I require that they assign the first Pastor of my Catalogue which failed in preserving the truth, setting down ●hall the point of doctrine wherein he erred, and naming other Past●●●s, who resisted, and continued to resist. Lastly I require that they assign not (as their manner is, 
White digr. 51. & 52.  and as M. White doth) such particulars as they may see ordinarily answered and refuted by Catholic Authors, but some plain instances which never were yet, nor cannot be answered or refuted. Which my demands if they cannot satisfy (as I am sure they cannot) every discreet man careful of his soul will see that it is not safe to forsake this reverend rank, and orderly succession of known Pastors to follow such a fantastical Platonical Idea of an invisible company of professing Protestants, 
White p. 338.  which M. White imagineth to have always been (as every other Heretic might imagine the professors of his sect to have been) or to run after such a rabble of ragged heretics as the same M. White assigneth for eminent members of the Protestant Church: 
White ib. pag. 394.  the which neither have interrupted succession or continuance in time or place, nor uniformity in doctrine with the ancient Church, or one with another, or with the Protestants of his age. This foresaid consideration may suffice to let any indifferent man see that the same doctrine of faith, which the ancient Fathers held, is holden at this day by Pastors of our Church, or at least may stay him from thinking that the same faith is not holden. 
If all that view his foresaid considerations prove indifferent either to the cause, or of indifferent judgement, that which is holden this day by the Pastors of the Repliars Church, will not be deemed the same doctrine, which the ancient Fathers held. I say, upon his foresaid considerations it cannoy be deemed so: he may have new considerations or something else in store to stay men (and, if I meet it, it shall be answered) but this foresaid is too absurd: for first I deny not the Catalogue of Pastors (for the first 600 years, whereof the question in this place is) to be of such as preserved the truth inviolate, but affirm those very persons to have been the true Pastors of the true Church, & would myself give them up for a catalogue of such, & assign no other; but I require the Repliar to make it manifest against the objection, that they held as their judgement, and professed as their faith, those special points of Popery that we renounce. And let him not reply that they held and professed them, at least implicitè, but say ingenuously whether they be to be found in their books? for example, Transubstantiation, the sacrifice of the Mass, the worship of images, the Pope's primacy and Monarchy over the world. The which point not being showed in his foresaid considerations, but directly avoided by a conceit of their believing at least implicitè, how may an indifferent man see, or by staying never so long, hope to see the Papacy in the Fathers?  
4 Again, he says if his adversaries will deny the Catalogue of Pastors which he hath set down, to be of such as have preserved the truth: he must require them to assign another of their own. And Secondly, to note the first Pastor in his Catalogue that failed in preserving the truth: And Thirdly, in assigning our Catalogue, not to assign such as are ordinarily answered by Catholic authors, but some plain instances: which his demand if it cannot be answered, as he is sure it cannot, than the Repliar concludes, every discreet man may, if he will, drive out his own wit to make room for Ad 1 his. To the first, all the Papists alive cannot by good discourse drive us to assign a Catalogue: it being sufficient to say that no doctrine wants lineal succession that accords with the Scripture; nevertheless for the first 600 years we assign the Church wherein the Fathers lived; and for the rest to this day we will assign no other Catalogue than the Church of Rome itself, wherein many of those whom the Repliar hath couched in his Catalogue, professed the foundation of the truth that we Add 2 maintain. To the second I answered in THE WAY so fully, Ad 3 that the jesuite had no list to reply. To the third, those particular men, whom we name, and this blatant beast calls a rabble of ragged heretics, were Gods dear children, and better professors of the truth then the reverend rank of his Popes and Friars, who were, and yet are, nothing else but the great Antichrist that was prophesied should fit in the Church of God: among whom these men and many ordinary Pastors and people of the Church of Rome living and holding the foundation of faith, and in the agony of their conscience, renouncing the damnable heresies of the Papacy: it cannot be denied but the Church of Rome itself affords us a Catalogue sufficient. For the Repliar is too simple and deceives himself, if he think we place the Church only in Berengarius, Wickliff, Husse, Jerome, the Waldenses, and the rest of that sort: But we name them as some particular eminent members in the Church of Rome (for so we term all these western parts by reason of the patriarchy) less corrupted than were many others; and unto them we add all others in the said Church that held the articles of faith either in solid or in part, though it were Occam, Gerson, Armachanus, Cesenas, Ardeus, Potho, Savanarola, or any such: for albeit they held many errors, yet the truth among their errors was, preserved; and I affirm that it is sufficient for the succession of the Church, and being of the faith, if the parts thereof, and all the several particulars belonging to salvation, can be showed to have been held in any Church, albeit no one man in the same, or in the world, can be showed to have holden them all entirely himself. That 
* Prot. Apolog. tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 3.4.5.6 7.  our adversaries may see they do but trifle away the time, when they labour so contentiously to show that Wicklife, or hus, or the Albingenses differed in some things from us, no member of the Church in the world being at all times free from every spot and wrinkle of error.    

CHAP. XLV.  
1. The Fathers are not against the Protestants, but with them. 2. Touching the Centuries rejecting of the Fathers. The cause of some errors in the Fathers. 3. Gregory's Faith, & converting England. 4. The Papists have been formal innovators. 5. How they excuse the matter.  A. D. In which point if he desire to be more fully satisfied, 
Pag. 271.  let him read jodocus Coccius his Book, entitled Catholicus thesaurus controversiarum, in which he shall see particularly set down, point by point, the ancient Fathers, with unanime consent, testifying for us against Protestants. The which to be so in many points, the Magdeburgians, being themselves famous Protestants, do likewise testify, who having taken great pains in seeking ancient histories and monuments of the Father's writings (to see if they could find any testimony of authority to countenance their cause) are forced at last to acknowledge the ancient Fathers to testify in many things against them and for us; all which their testimonies they think to wipe away with saying, that these were the errors, or blemishes of these Fathers; which is as good a jest, as if a guilty person, being desirous to clear himself, at the bar, by the witness of honest men, and having diligently sought and finding that all honest men will bear witness against him, yet to make a show will needs bring in a number of honest & substantial men bidding them to give their verdict, of purpose that when they all have delivered the truth, 
See the Protestants Apology, where these points are handled largely. Tract. 1 sect. 1. & deinceps.  he may forsooth, say they all lie or are deceived. This also to be so, is showed in the Protestants Apology, where particularly is proved, out of diverse learned Protestant writers: first, that the faith we profess is the same that Saint Gregory professed; and, by Saint Austin the Monk, taught us English men, at our first conversion. Secondly, that the same faith was universally professed for sundry ages before, and namely that it agreed in substance with the first faith to which the Britain's were converted in the Apostles days. Thirdly, that diverse particular points of our doctrine are acknowledged by learned Protestants to have been taught by the ancient Fathers, namely Vows, Real presence, etc. For all which the said Protestant Apology citeth the names, and books, and oftentimes the very words of the learned Protestants, as may be seen, and I wish the Reader for his more satisfaction to see. Lastly, that our Church holdeth the very same and no other faith in substance, then that which was held by the ancient Church, may appear by the very nature, as I may say, of our Church; whose property and condition is not to invent of new, or to alter any doctrine, in any matter of faith; but to receive humbly and obediently, at the hands of our present Pastors, what they in like manner learned of their predecessors; and still to hate, and resist all innovation in any matter of faith no less than a deadly poison, as knowing that the least infection of any new invented heresy or alteration in matter of faith doth corrupt and adulterate the whole faith, and taketh away infallible authority and credit from the Church. Wherefore our Pastors have been, like men appointed to watch, very vigilant in noting, reprehending, resisting and condemning all innovation in faith and sometimes casting incorrigible members out of the Church, even for a word or two profanely innovated contrary to the custom and faith of the Church. The which course being duly observed (as chiefly by God's providence and partly by human diligence it hath been and shall be still observed) it is not possible that there should be such alteration in religion, or difference betwixt the faith and doctrine of the ancient and present Pastors of the Church, as our adversaries ignorantly or maliciously object. For as Vincencius Lyrinensis saith, 

Vincent. Lyr. l. adversus haereses  
Vincentius Lyr. contra haereses c. 32.   the Church of Christ is a careful keeper of religion committed to her charge; she never changeth or altereth in any thing, she diminisheth nothing, nothing she addeth, to wit, as a doctrine of faith True it is that, by reason of heresies arising, the Pastors and doctors of the Church in latter ages have had occasion to write more largely and expressly about diverse points, than was done in former times when no such heresies were, and that for confutation of those heresies, and more explication of the formerly received faith these Pastors and Doctors have used some kind of more significant words then formerly were used: in which sort, the term of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was brought in against those who denied Christ our Saviour to be true God, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, against those who denied our blessed Lady to be the mother of God: and transubstantiation against those who denied the conversion of the substance of bread into the substance of the body of our Lord. The which terms (although they may seem to smell of novelty) yet indeed are not of that profane sort of novelty of voices, or words, which the Apostle wisheth to be avoided: because the sense of these words is not different from the faith; and phrase used formerly by the Church, but do only explicate more plainly or signify more fully and clearly that which was formerly believed and taught by the Church: which kind of explication of the ancient faith to be lawful and allowable, 
Vincent. Lyrin. count haer. c. 2.  we may learn out of Vincentius Lyrinensis, who, although a most true lover of antiquity, alloweth such new explication of the faith as we may see in his golden Treatise, where having declared excellently by that saying of the Apostle, 
Cap. 28.29 30.  O Timothy keep the Depositum, etc. that nothing is to be innovated in faith, he showeth how this notwithstanding, 
Cap. 32.  the ancient faith may in process of time be more explained, and that, for more easy understanding of it, to an old article of faith we may give a new name. 
1 HEre are four reasons to prove that the ancient Fathers held the same doctrine of faith that is now professed in the Church of Rome: and one objection answered that he thinks will be made against him. His first reason is the testimony of Coccius 
a Cum ab ineunte aetate incidisset in praeceptores Lutheranos, & adhuc invenis in eiusmodi haereticorum Academijs versatus. etc. Possevin. ap. v. jod. Cocc.  an apostata, who in his Thesaurus sets down the Father's point by point with unanime consent testifying against the Protestants. Wherein he much forgets himself: for if Coccius set down the Father's point by point, what needed the Repliar have granted 
b Ch. 44.  a little before, that there be divers points held by his side now adays whereof there is no mention in the writings of the Fathers, yet they held them because either explicitly or implicitly, they held many points that they have not expressly mentioned: let these two be reconciled; They held some things only implicitly, by an enfolded faith, not mentioning them expressly: and yet Coccius sets them down point by point testifying against the Protestants. For those points, which they held only infoldedly, Coccius cannot set down in their own words point by point. I answer therefore, that Coccius with his 
* Spatio 24. annorum. Posseu.  twenty four years study hath not done this that my Repliar reports: he hath collected together the words of the Fathers, and such places as his side uses, for the confirmation of their heretical opinions, but the unanime and certain consent in the now current Roman faith he hath not shown; and the Reader shall know it by this, that in the controversies between us they many times deny the authority of the Fathers, and 
c Ind. expurg. Belg pag. 12.  profess so to do: yea to excuse and extenuate their errors by devising shifts, and to fainesome fit sense (for their own purpose) unto them, when they are opposed against them by us in our disputations. And why have they thus purged and corrupted their writings, and why do they allow nothing to be the sense of their words but what the Pope and his Clergy allows to be the sense? Is it not palpable hypocrisy to do all this; and yet to brag of their unanime consent against us? Coccius therefore out of the Fathers, whom they have CORRUPTED, PURGED, COUNTERFEITED, and COINED, may bring places, which, being fraudulently expounded and shuffled, may give colour to Papistry; but by the true writings of the true Fathers, truly expounded, as themselves meant, the present faith of Rome in the articles which they hold against us, and as they expound them, cannot be confirmed, no not in one point: and let no man hope the contrary, as may appear by these examples following. Of the sufficiency of the Scripture without traditions Saint Basil 
d De Fid. p. 394. graec. Basil.  says, It is a manifest falling from the faith, and an argument of arrogancy, either to abrogate any of those things that are written in the Scriptures, or to bring in any thing that is not written. Of images Epiphanius 
e Ep. ad joh. jerosol.  says, It is against the authority of the Scripture that the image of a man should hang in the Church. And 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the making of statues resembling the images of the dead, he calls an idolatrous and a devilish practice. And speaking of worshipping the image of the blessed Virgin (which now is so commonly seen painted, and attired 
f Pingitur cincinnis exculta, vestibus ornatissimis, & pompa adeo inani structa, ut illi etiam uniones ab auribus pendeant: quod nemo possit sine stomacho aspicere. Paleot. de imag. pag. 253.  in the fashion like a Lady, yea 
g Vestientes dominam nostram, & Magdalenam, & alias sanctas, ornamentis profanis & vanis, ac meretricijs; quibus etiam pudicae matronae sese vestire vererentur. Navarre manual. c. 11. n. 23.  like a Courtesan, and keeps such a court at Lauretto, in the same place where 
h Leand. Albert descript. Ital. in Picen. pag. 428.  sometime juno kept hers) he adds that thereby men are drawn a whoring from God, the body of Mary being holy but not God; and she an honourable Virgin but not given to be adored, but herself adoring him that she bore in her womb. Of the Supremacy, which now the Pope uses over all other Bishops, Gregory (who in his third argument the Repliar sayeth professed his religion) 
i Lib 6. ep. 30.  says, he will confidently avouch him to be the forerunner of Antichrist whosoever he be that desires to be called universal Bishop, proudly preferring himself before others. Of images of the Trinity Gregory the second 
k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epist. ad Leo. Isaur. Imp.  says they may not be made. Of Purgatory it is clear that the Greek Church never believed it. So saith Nilus: 
l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Nil. de purgat. p. 118. l. 1.  Our Fathers never taught us Purgatory: neither did the Eastern Church ever believe it. Roffensis. 
m Artic. 18.  No man now doubts of Purgatory, and yet among the ancient there is little or no mention made of it; yea the Greeks' to this day believe it not: and the Latins have not with one consent conceived the truth of this thing. For the belief of Purgatory was not so needful for the Primitive Church as now it is. Of the number of Sacraments which 
n Trid. conc. sess. 7. can. 1.  our Adversaries will needs have to be seven, Cassander 
o Consult. art. 13. §. de numero sacram.  says, we do not read the other Sacraments (confirmation, matrimony, orders, penance, unction) by those ancient writers, to be comprehended, in any certain number, nor shall you hastily find any before Peter Lombard that determined any certain or definite number of them. Of the people's receiving the cup in the Sacrament, 
p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Clen. const. p 145. Venet.  the constitutions of Clemens say, Let the whole Laity in order with fear and reverence receive the cup. By which few examples the Reader may discern how untrue it is that Coccius hath particularly set down, point by point, the ancient Fathers, with unanime consent, against the Protestants: who hath brought nothing out of them to that purpose which is not clearly and sufficiently answered, by 
* In the most weighty controversies, he is answered by M. Perkins, in his Problema.  our Divines in every controversy.  
2 His second argument is the testimony of those that writ the Centuries: Who being themselves famous Protestants, testify this to be so, in many points. This argument was objected in 
q THE WAY §. 44 & Digr. 47.  his Treatise, and fully answered, and therefore should not have been repeated again before my answer had been avoided. Yet a little I will satisfy him. First if the Magdeburgenses acknowledge the Fathers in many points to be for the Papists: which they no where do: yet that is not all the Fathers, with unanime consent, point by point, in all points. Some particular Fathers, the Repliar knows well enough, speak that which hath no unanime consent of the rest: and their private opinions may give colour to many things, and yet will not reach from point to point. Next, it is false that is here reported of the Centuries. They testify no more but what they thought that Fathers held corruptly, and themselves judged to be errors and blemishes in their writings. There is no Romish writer at this day but he doth the same. Baronius in his Annals, purposely intended against the Centuries, hath not left one Father, or one ancient history, uncensured: but still charges it with some error and blemish or other. But my Adversary says, the things which the Centuries say were blemishes in the Fathers, are such points as the Church of Rome now holds: whereby it should seem that in many things, they testify with the Church of Rome against the Protestants. I answer, first that in some points (as the diligentest that are may sometime oversee) and now and then, they mistake, and call that the opinion, or the error, of a Father, that is not. This kind of oversight we perceive and pardon in our Adversaries themselves. Secondly divers things noted by them for errors in the Fathers, are not holden by the Church of Rome, but are censured also by our Adversaries themselves, as well as by the Centuries. Thirdly, divers points, in particular Fathers, are taxed, which belong to that which is now holden in the Church of Rome; but this justifies not the Papists: first because in such points there is no unanime consent of all the Fathers, or all the Church, but only the unsettled, and ambulatory opinions of some private Doctors. Next, what these Doctors delivered touching such points, is holden otherwise, and to other intents and purposes, now in the Church of Rome; as their praying for the dead, which the Centuries justly note for a blemish, was not with opinion of Purgatory, as now it is in Rome. Thirdly, the mystery of iniquity began to work in the primitive Church: whereby the fathers themselves (though Bishops of the Church and most holy men, yet but men) sometime were deceived, and brought into error in some things; thus it is written of Papias, 
r Baron. an. 118 n. 2. & 6.  a Bishop of great authority in the Church, and famous for the holiness of his life, that, by misunderstanding 
s Apoc. 20.4.  a Text in the revelation, 
t Prateol. elench. haeret. l. 3. n. 17. Hiero. de scripto. c. 18.  he gave occasion of the millenary heresy, afterward condemned in the Church; yet his credit, and estimation was such, that many great men followed him: Nepos, Irenaeus, Victorinus, Tertullian, Lactantius, Apollinarius, Coration, and divers others. For being a man, as 
u 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. hist. eccle. l. 3. c. vlt.  Eusebius says of him, of no deep judgement, but given to believe reports, (for he was not so careful to attend what was written by the Apostles as to gather together the reports and traditions of such as had been conversant with the Apostles and Apostolical men) he was deceived thereby himself, and deceived many that followed him. That it is no marvel if some among the Fathers, taking that course, vented, in their books that which is not so sound; and unawares writ some things which the Church of Rome, declining into heresy, and following Antichrist, afterward would lay hold on to maintain their errors. Thus Origen, Tertullian, Lucifer, Lactantius, Hilary, Cyprian, and all the Fathers, till it come to good S. Austin, the most orthodoxal of all the Fathers, Greek or Latin, partly seduced by reports and tradition, as was Papias, partly transported by the subtlety and learning of Philosophers and heretics that lived every where among them, and partly 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Basil. pag. 314.  overcharged with zeal, or passion in contending against them; delivered divers things that were not the uniform doctrine of the Church, whereof some perhaps may belong to the now errors of the Church of Rome: but that is not much, and what can be showed concerns but the smaller points of Popery, wherein there is no great moment; and even in such advantages they are unhappy that have nothing in the Fathers to pleasure them but the parings of their nails and excrements of their writings. And if our adversaries be impatient hereat, the field is open, let the resolutest among them choose any point determined against us in the new creed of the Trent Council, and show out of his Coccius, or whence he will, this unanime consent of the Fathers for it, and he shall be answered in such sort that it shall evidently appear there in no such matter.  
3 His third argument is the testimony of his Protestant apology, such another author as Coccius was, a Seminary Priest yet living, and of the same stamp the Repliar himself is. Which brings to my mind a jest, that I read in Cyrill, of the Emperor julian: 
a M● certe sanavit saepe Aesculapius aegrotantem, subministrans remedia; horum testis est jupiter. count julia. l. 7. p. 1●2.  Aesculapius verily hath often cured me when I have been sick, and I call jupiter to witness. He brings his testimony to prove the deity of Aesculapius, who himself was no less an idol than Aesculapius; as my Repliar alleges Coccius, and Briarly, whose writings are mistrusted no less than his own Reply. That which he hath said is answered by 
b Protest. App. p. 1. & inde.  the D. of Winch. to whose book I refer the Repliar, as he refers me to Briarly. That the first conversion of English men was not By Austin, I 
c §. 49.  showed in THE WAY: and whether Gregory professed the faith now holden in Rome, the Reader may see in the D. of Winch. book. His holding of some things superstitiously, which the Church of Rome hath entertained, proves not that he professed the same faith the Church of Rome now doth: because the faith of the said Church comprehends much more than he held: and what he held, is now otherwise expounded and applied then by him it was. For example, in the matter of images he was superstitious 
d Lib, 7 ep. 54. Secundino sub sin.  and would have them used to put us in mind, and to be lay men's books: but 
e L. 9 ep. 9  in no wise to be worshipped. It is reported to me that, being inflamed with inconsiderate zeal, you have broken in pieces the images of Saints, with this excuse, that they ought not to be worshipped. And verily we do altogether commend you in that you forbade them TO BE WORSHIPPED, but we reprove you for breaking them— for it is one thing to ADORE a picture, and another thing by the history of a picture, TO LEARN what is to be adored. For what writing performs to them that can read, the same doth a picture to idiots beholding it.— now that which was placed in Churches, NOT TO BE ADORED, but ONLY to instruct the ignorant, should not have been broken. Now 
f Tho. 3. part. q. 25. art. 3 Capre ol. 3. d. 9 q. vnic. ad 1. concl. 2. imagines porto Christi, Deiparae virgins, & aliorum sanctorum, in templis retinendas, eisque debitum honorem & venerationem impertiendam— per imagines quas oscul ●mur, & coram quibus caput a perimus, & procumbimus, Christum adoramus: & sanctos, quorum illae similitudinem gerunt, veneramur. conc. Trid. sess. vlt. ubi verbum Adoramus Latriam; verbum autem Veneramur, duli●m significare videtur. Suar. tom. 1. d. 54. ●. 4. imagines Christi & sanctorum venerandae sunt, non solum per accidents vel impropriè, ita ut ipsae terminent v●nerationem, ut in se considerantu●, & non sulum ut vicem gerunt exemplaris. Bell. de imag. c. 21.  the faith professed by our adversaries is, that they are to be worshipped and adored with divine honour, and properly, which Gregory condemned. So likewise 
g Moral. l. 4. c. 42. l. 18. c. 24. l. 25. c. 1.  his words are alleged for the merit of works, yet the condignity thereof, now maintained, and wherein merit properly consisteth, he never dreamt of, but says plainly 
h Explan. in Psal. poemt. p. 7. v. Auditam fac mihi.  the contrary. If that happiness of the Saints (in heaven) be God's mercy, and not obtained by merits, where shall that be which is written: And thou shalt reward every man according to his works? If it be given according to works, how shall mercy be esteemed? This is the objection, now mark his answer. But it is one thing for God to render according to works, and another thing to render for the works themselves. For in that which is said, According to works, the quality itself, of the works, is understood; that the glorious reward shall be his whose good works shall appear; because unto that blessed life, wherein with God, and of God, we live, no labour can be equalized, no works compared: specially when the Apostle says, The sufferings of this life time are not condignly worthy of future glory which shall be revealed in us.— it is certain therefore that to whom he mercifully gives to work well in this life, to them he more mercifully gives that; to them, in eternal blessedness, an hundredfold fruit shall be rewarded. This profession of Gregory is far from that which 
a Before §. where M. Baius his doctrine is laid down.  I have showed the Church of Rome now professes touching the merit of our works. Secondly, whereas, our of Briarly, he says, the Faith professed by Gregory, and taught the English men by Austin, at our first conversion, agreed, for substance, with the first faith whereto the Britain's were converted in the Apostles days, and was the same which universally was professed: We must distinguish: for Gregory, and Austin no doubt taught many points that were true, and wherein we consent with them, yea the substance of saving faith: but some things they innovated, (wherein the Church of Rome now follows them) adding to the words of wholesome doctrine their own corrupt opinions: the first, we grant was professed before, and was the faith of the Britain's at their first conversion: but not the latter. And herein appears the cunning and fraud of our adversaries, that by the testimonies of such as affirm Gregoryes faith, in things of the first kind, to be Apostolic, go about to prove it to be such also in things of the latter kind. The Repliar therefore hath to prove, that (not the truths which they taught, but) the additions which they brought in (wherein the Protestants refuse them) were the substance of their faith, and that whereto our nation was converted in the Apostles time. Which they can never do. Thirdly, that divers particular points, of the Papists doctrine, are acknowledged, by learned Protestants, to have been taught by the ancient Fathers: as Vows, Real presence, etc. is answered before, in the second objection, touching the Centuries. And by the D. of Winchester in his book against Briarly, 
b Prot. App. l. 2. c. 1. & inde.  where the particular instances are examined. And if the Repliar and his Author will make good their assertion, they must prove that the Fathers, with one consent taught these things: and withal so meant and expounded them as they are now meant and expounded in the Papacy. Let this be done, in those points that we refuse, and good reason the game be theirs. But if these learned Protestants do no more but note the particular corruptions that crept into particular writings and Churches, whereby our adversaries have taken occasion to increase them; they must not be said to acknowledge either that these things were the Catholic doctrine of the whole Church, or that they were intended and believed as the Roman Church now believes them,  
4 His fourth and last argument is, because (forsooth) it is not the condition of the Roman Church, to invent, or alter, any doctrine; but humbly and obediently to maintain what they have received from their predecessors; to hate innovation; to note, reprehend, resist all innovation in faith: that it cannot be possible there should be any difference between the faith of the Fathers, and the doctrine of the Church of Rome: as the Protestants ignorantly and maliciously object. And indeed if that part of the Church of Rome which we have refused (I mean the Papacy) were the true universal Church, he said well; for it is against the property of that Church to dissent from any part of the ancient faith: as he hath well observed out of his Gregory, and Vincentius: but how will he prove that side, and faction in the Church of Rome, which is charged with innovating and dissenting, to be the true Church? how shall the reader be assured that these herds of Popes, Cardinals, Prelates, Monks, Friars, jesuits, are those faithful Pastors whose nature is not to innovate, when all the world hath discovered them and their doctrine to be nothing else but weeds and excrements arising in the Church? Is there not an assertion, 
a Greg. Val. p. 96. tom. 3.  in the Spaniard quoted, that says, By the unfolded act of faith, the same things have not always been believed: but divers points, in the progress of time, have been manifest and believed? Doth not Austin of Ancona 
b Sum. de eccl. pot. q. 59 art. 3.  say, the Pope may make a new Creed, multiply the articles of faith, and put more points under each article than were before? This is enough to show the untruth of that the Replyar says: for under the pretence of the Pope and his Church power to unfold that which the Fathers and ancient Church believed infoldedly, and to make new articles, they have altered and innovated all things: and their pestilent and palpable heresies are made a part of the old Churches enfolded faith; and these men being the formallest innovators that ever were, yet must be said to dissent from the Fathers in nothing, because whatsoever they daily invent and innovate, the Fathers held at least implicitly. Unhappy Rome 
c See Ph. Camerar. tom. 2. c. 10.  whose certain name was never publicly known, and whose certain doctrine to the world's end can never be determined, but still it may multiply and diminish. 
d Solin. Poly. hist. c. 1.  The Gentile Romans were persuaded, the eternity of Rome should consist in the concealing of the true name thereof: and therefore Valerius Soranus was executed because he told the name: and our Catholic Romans have placed all their hope of enduring, in concealing their faith under the veil of enfolded faith. Hold ye fast to this conceit ye brave Romanists, and you may boldly reproach them all with ignorance that deny the consent of your doctrine with the Fathers.  
5 This objection the Repliar saw coming (for his conscience told him the present Church of Rome had increased that which the Fathers taught) and therefore he answers, that true it is, the Doctors of his Church have written more largely, about divers points, than was done in former times. But this was for the confutation of heresies rising; and for the more explication of the formerly received faith: and they have used more significant words then formerly were used; but yet the sense of such words differs not from the faith and phrases formerly used, but only explicate more plainly that which was formerly believed by the Church: which kind of explication Vincentius allows in his golden Treatise. But all this is untrue, and is briefly answered: the Church of Rome, and the D D. therein, since the Father's time, have done more than either the explicating of the ancient faith, or giving new names to old articles. They have innovated, diminished, corrupted the substance of the articles themselves; as I showed particularly 
a Dig. 19 & 51  in the WAY, even in this very point of transubstantiation. And this pretence of using more significant words, by reason of heresies rising, is but a cloak for the treachery: the greatest heretics that arose being themselves, and the words devised being the engines to advance their heresies: the sense whereof hath no agreement with the faith of the Fathers, which being too scant for him that would sit, as God, in the Church of God, must be enlarged, by dispensations, explications, determinations, new articles, fullness of power, and what not? The contents of the Scripture were not enough; to hold themselves to that which is expressed therein, 
b Alphons. haer. v. eccl. 3. n●.  were to play the fool: and to destroy all Christian religion. The Pope is like Typhaeus the giant in Nannus: 
c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Dionys l. 2. pag. 36.  that must have a higher roofed firmament to walk under, and bigger stars to give him light; or else he would put down all with his hands and fight with jupiter: with his new terms, and larger explications he conjures the old faith out of the Church. His golden Vincentius hath another point to this purpose that the Repliar oversees. 
d Monitor. c. 30  It is lawful that those ancient articles of heavenly doctrine be dressed and filled and polished: but villainy to change them, villainy to maim and curtal them. Let them receive, if you will, evidence, light, distinction: but withal let them hold their fullness, integrity and propriety. This rule the Church of Rome hath not observed: but contrary thereunto it hath not only expounded the articles of the ancient faith corruptly, but also added many new articles which in the ancient Church were never known.   

CHAP. XLVI.  
1 The errors broached by the later Divines of the Church of Rome. 2 Their errors maintained by that Church. And their writings to good purpose alleged by the Protestants. 3 How that which they speak for the Protestants is shifted off. 5 One reason why we allege their sayings. 6 That which is said in excuse of their disagreement, answered.  A. D. The second objection— My Adversaries may secondly object, that all this notwithstanding, it cannot be denied, 
Pag. 274.  but that in particular men's writings set out in these latter ages, there have been & are found divers errors, contrary to the former faith of the Fathers. To justify the truth of this objection, it seemeth that M. White hath with great pains raked together all the riffraff and odd opinions he could find in any particular Catholic Authors, as thinking be like this way to discredit the Catholic cause. But he is very shallow witted if he think by this means to overthrow or shake the universal faith of the Catholic Church. 
Introduct. quest. 3.  For (as I noted in the Introduction) the Catholic Church doth not bind her faith upon any private Doctor's opinion: nor indeed do those private Doctors deliver their said opinions, as any points of their own, or other men's faith, even then when, in these their private opinions, they hold this or that matter to pertain to faith, which other men think not to pertain to faith, but rather submit all their opinions (as heretical Doctors, which have no faith but private opinions, will not) to the faith, judgement and censure of the Catholic Church, being also ready to renounce any of their opinions, whensoever by lawful definitive sentence of the present Pastors, or otherwise they may perceive them to be contrary to the ancient faith of the Church. Hence M. White may see, how vainly he hath spent his time in seeking the sinks, and sweeping together so many odd sentences of some Catholic Authors, as here and there he noteth in his writings, the which have no more force against the sincere unity of doctrine of faith maintained by the authority of our Church, than that heap of filth and ordure of ill life of some particular men, which he hath scraped together, doth prove against the sanctity of the profession of the Catholic Church. And it is marvel that the man hath so little wit, as to labour so much either in showing the contrariety of opinions among Catholics, which altogether is impertinent to the unity of their faith: or in discovering the faults of some lewd persons, which is altogether impertinent to the sanctity of the profession of the Church, especially when if he did but look into the bosom of his own Protestant congregation, and particularly into the life and doctrine of the very primitive parents thereof, he may find it no less, but (all circumstances considered, namely of the smallness of the number of men, and the little space of time since it came into the world, etc.) far more faulty in either kind. And so he ought to have been afraid lest when he had said all against Catholics, that his blind zeal or malice could devise; that the shame would be returned so much the more against his evangelical brethren, some of which (as Luther confesseth) have been for their ill lives far worse than even themselves were when they were Papists: and (as I may boldly say) for odd errors, absurd and impious opinions, far worse than any Papists. Which their absurd and impious opinions who list to read, he may find set down in Caluino-Turcismo and other Authors: 
See Caluino-Turcismus.  and may oppose them to these which M. White relateth, with this advantage, that whereas if by ignorance or passion, some Catholic writers hold any unfit opinions; yet actually or virtually they submit them to the faith and censure of the Church: and so are not to be thought obstinately to err in faith but in private opinion, about some matter not sufficiently known to them to be contrary to the faith of the Catholic Church. But Protestant Doctors (who have no other faith but their own firmly settled opinion, gathered, as it seemeth to them, out of Scripture, who also will not, neither actually nor virtually submit these their opinions to the faith and censure of any Church, ours, or their own) may (by their erroneous opinions obstinately maintained against the Church) be convinced of so many absurd and impious obstinate errors in faith, as they have absurd and impious opinions grounded, as it seemeth to them, upon Scriptures. 
White p. 349.  But it seemeth M. White regardeth not what may be objected against his brethren, so that he may say something against us: and therefore in one place he doth (in effect) urge this argument against us: If the ancient Catholic truth did continue among us in all points, than there could not be among our Doctor's variety of opinions in any point, no more than there is in the doctrine of the blessed Trinity or Incarnation. I answer, first, that this may better be urged against the Protestants, who, as appeareth in Caluino-Turcismo, have not only uncertainty and variety of opinions in other points, but even about the doctrine of the blessed Trinity, and Incarnation; neither have they any such sufficient means (as we have) to take away this variety of opinions. Secondly, I answer that the variety of opinions which is among our Doctors, either is not in matters pertaining to faith: or, if the matter pertain to faith, the variety is not in the substance of the point, but in some circumstance which may be held this or other ways without prejudice to faith: or if in some rare case any private Doctors hold opinion against the substance, or circumstance, so far as pertaineth to faith, this is in ignorance, and with readiness to put away this opinion so soon as they understand the contrary to pertain to faith by some evident proof of Scripture, or tradition, or by declaration of the present Church: which is an argument, that although they err in opinion, yet they err not in implicit belief even of the very point, wherein through ignorance they do err in opinion. Now the reason why this ignorance, and consequently variety of opinion may be in some points, which formerly were held as points of faith, rather than in the doctrine of the blessed Trinity and Incarnation, is, because these mysteries are more necessary to be expressly known of all sorts, than some other points of faith are, and consequently men are (as they are bound) more careful to get express knowledge of them, according to the known sense & exposition of the Church, which Church also hath more expressly determined what is to be holden in these points then in some others, which (although necessary to be believed explicitè or implicitè) are not so necessary to be expressly known of all sorts. 
1 IF it cannot be denied (as the Repliar denies it not) but that in the writings of particular men, living in these latter ages in the Church of Rome, and following the Papacy, there be found divers errors contrary to the faith of the ancient Fathers: it must be granted that all such must be wiped out of the catalogue: because 
a So the Reply in the former Chapter. n. 1. which is p. 269. of his Reply.  by promise none are to stand there, but only such as kept the doctrine of the Fathers without innovation. Which being done, the last 600 years at the least will be blank, and the Repliar must seek new names to furnish them: for there is not a particular person named from an. 1000, to an. 1600, in the catalogue, which had not divers errors contrary to the former faith of the Fathers: which the Reader, without more ado, shall know by this, that there is not a book extant that they writ, but our adversaries at this day, have either purged, or forbidden it, or else censured & rejected divers things written in it. Which needed not if they had been those succeeding Pastors which always maintained the corpse of Christian doctrine, so gravely talked of, a little before. And that which the Repliar answers, satisfies not the objection. For it is true, The Catholic Church builds not her faith upon private Doctors opinions: but the Roman Church, which the Repliar contends for, and whose succession he demonstrates in his catalogue, consists in no other but such Doctors, that held such private opinions, and such people as followed them therein: or else let him name, if he can, any one of his Doctors that held not such private opinions; or any other Church of his, that consisted not in these? A man may easily see he can never wind himself out of this strait. And let it be granted also that they were ready to renounce these opinions, thus holden against the former faith, and to submit themselves to the Church: yet the former difficulty returns again; for whether they were thus ready, or no, yet they swerved from the faith of the Fathers: no matter with what mind, when the Repliar, so confidently bills them in his catalogue for such as preserved the whole corpse of the revealed truth without innovation. Thereby undertaking to name such as, in all things, trod in the steps of the Fathers, without any error that should need submission. Again where, and in whom was this Church whereto they were so ready to submit themselves? who should reform them when themselves were the Church? for example when Gregory the 7. that was Pope in the 10 age: Eugenius the 3. and Boniface the 8. in the 12. Vrbanus 6. and john 22. in the 13. Gregory 12. john 23. Eugenius 4. in the 14. age; by schism, error, and heresy, innovated the faith, where was their submission to the Church? how could it be, when themselves were heads of the Church? and how was it done, when contrariwise they made opposition against all such as admonished them? But the third thing he answers, that those private D D. deliver not their said opinions as points of faith, is false; because they are in such points as are now controverted between us and the Church of Rome; which the Repliar, I presume, will allow to be no other but points of faith.  
2 This I had to say touching the objection, as the Repliar hath set it down, fraudulently and maimedly: whereas if he had proposed it effectually as we objected, all his answer were impertinent. For we say, that not only in particular men's writings are found many things contrary to the former faith of the Fathers: but in the doctrine of the Church itself, as it is practised and expounded by such as are deputed thereunto. The which I demonstrated throughout my Book, in every controversy, by alleging the words of the chiefest and most eminent writers in the Church of Rome, expounding the doctrine holden in the said Church. There being, indeed, very little of their religion, but some or other among them so expound it, and so teach the Church-meaning therein, that it is easy to see the ancient faith to be innovated thereby. And I care not though my adversary begin his answer with a little confidence: It seems M. White hath, with great pains, raked together all the riff-raff and odd opinions: and spent his time in seeking the sinks, and sweeping together odd sentences of some Catholic authors, etc. For his lean and lank cause had need of bombast; but whosoever shall inquire what M. White alleged, shall well perceive the Popish D D. whom he hath raked together, to be the eminentest men that were in the Church of Rome, and their doctrine and opinions cited, so far as I have refused it, to be riff-raff indeed and such as lies in sinks and sweep; but yet such riff-raff, as the Romish Church itself (now turned into a sink of all filthy heresy, & pestered with the sweep of all the false doctrine and errors of old heretics) maintains, and offers to the world, for sound religion, as I have showed in the beginning of this book: where the speech of Mic. Bayus (the only instance that the Repliar thought good to make of my charging his Church with private Doctor's opinions) which he will not deny to be part of the riff-raff, and sweep here mentioned, is proved to contain no other matter than is generally holden by others; and to be the doctrine of the Church of Rome as certainly as any other that himself can assign to be the doctrine.  
3 This therefore is it I say, that the errors objected to the Doctors and Schoolmen, of the Church of Rome, and the manifold absurdities which I have observed in them, alleging their words in my Book: are a sufficient argument to prove the Church of Rome, wherein they lived, and whose Pastors they were, to hold contrary to the Fathers, and to be departed from the Apostolic faith. And all this furniture of words to the contrary, is but a desperate shift to avoid the inconvenience that follows upon it. For first: the universal faith of the Catholic Church is not discredited by the private opinions of particular Authors. This I grant, and will yield myself to be both vain and shallow witted, if the things I have alleged out of Popish Authors be not the faith of the Romish Church: (at least, for any thing that can be showed) as much as that which my adversary will defend to be the faith. And for confirmation hereof there is very little either defined by the Pope and his Counsels, or so defined that there remains no ambiguity in the conclusion: but some say this is the faith, and some that, expounding all things after their own judgement: so that he which alleges the opinion, or assertion, of a Popish authorized Doctor, (and I allege no other) alleges the Church opinion for any thing that can be showed to the contrary. Which if the Repliar will deny, let him give me a certain rule, whereby I may, without error, discern which is the Church doctrine, and which a private opinion. For if he say, that only is the Church doctrine that is defined by the Pope: I will produce his Doctors that expound the definition in that sense that I say, clean against the doctrine of the ancient Fathers. If he deny, or refuse the party, whom I allege, or bring other writers that expound otherwise; let him deal sincerely, and demonstrate why he, and his author, should be thought to report the true definition, rather than I and my author, being in all points equal to the chiefest in the Church of Rome? As when I allege Thomas, for 
a THE WAY pag. 152. g.  worshipping images with divine honour. 
b Pref. n. 1. g.  Bayus for meriting without any elevation. ᶜ Bozius for the Pope's Monarchy. 
d Pag. 317 k.  Mariana for killing kings. 
e Pag. 250. h.  Caietan for satisfaction: let a certain rule be given whereby it may be known that their sayings are their own private opinions, and not the doctrine of their Church: especially when these, and all the rest whom I allege, are commended to the skies for the white children of the Catholic Church, whose condition it is not to adulterate their mother's faith?  
4 Next he says, the things wherein the Doctors of his Church teach otherwise, appertain not to faith, but to some circumstance thereof, which may be held this, or that way, without prejudice. This I answered 
f §. 35. n. 19  in THE WAY, which my adversary dissembles; and it is false. For it is a matter of faith and belongs to the unity thereof to believe, for example, that God's honour may not be given to another. For it is a conclusion revealed in 
g Exod. 20 5.  Scripture, and taught by 
h Idololatrae dicuntur qui simulacris eam servitutem exhibent, quae debetur Deo. Aug. trin. l. 1. c. 6 Si honos idem tribuitur alijs, ipse omnino non colitur. Lact. de fals. relig. l. 1. c. 19  the Fathers: yet the Romish authors alleged hold that the cross of Christ, and the Crucifix, may be worshipped with divine honour. The ministration of the Communion to the laity, in both kinds, 
i Conc. Const. sess. 13.  practised by the ancient Church, is no circumstance, yet our Popish DD. hold the contrary. Finally their errors, and discords from the ancient Church are in the same things wherein they descent from us, that if we descent from them in substance, and not in circumstance only, it will easily appear that they descent in the same manner from the ancient Church. And whereas he says, that whether their opinion be in the substance, or in the circumstance, they submit it to the censure of the Church: and so all is well again: this is impertinent; for this submission is only in points which they hold with the Protestants, against the Papacy; wherein they plainly show the Protestant religion, to have been maintained in the Church of Rome: and in those opinions also I have showed they submit not themselves so humbly as is pretended, but stand out against the Pope's own definitions, 
k THE WAY digr 26.  and determinations of his Counsels. And I admonish the reader that 
l Miratus sum vehementer, post damnationem eius, ab Anastasio Papa, pontificia authoritate in flictam, post eiusdem reprobationem in sexta Synodo pronuntiatam: post tot antiquorum Patrum in id ipsum conspirantes sententias, adhuc recentiores quosdam ausos esse pro eodem novas edere Apologias, & authoritate totius Catholicae Ecclesiae iudicatas saepius controversias denuo te mere excitare: quod visus est fecisse haud pridem Sixtus Senensis. Baro. an. 256 nu. 40. Speaking of such in the Church of Rome as defended Origen. This point of our adersaries refusing the Pope, and their own Churches determinations, is showed in the WAY, Digr. 26.  no sort of professors in the world do more obstinately and cunningly contemn the decrees of their superiors then our adversaries. But in such things as I have showed they held against us, and where they expound and teach Popery most grossly, I hope the Repliar will not say they needed any submission: or if they did, let him tell us when, and to whom they submitted themselves; and how and when the point wherein they submitted themselves was reform. Which when he hath done, I will grant them to be flexibler than those Protestant DD. which he reports most untruly, will submit their opinions neither actually nor virtually to the censure of any Church. But if he cannot, let him go like an hypocrite, thus with a tale of actually or virtually submitting themselves to the Church, to blanche the formallest obstinacy and hypocrisy that ever was.  
5 If therefore it were true, that the sentence of such Popish Authors as I have swept together, were but the dust, and not current doctrine practised in their Church, I would easily grant him that it were of no more force against his unity then the heap of filth, and ordure of ill life objected in the Digr. 31. is against his holiness. And not so much, for those heaps and ordures (though Papists themselves were the Scavingers that raked them together, and not M. White) do substantially show that the streets of Rome are not so clean as is pretended, that the fair pavements thereof should so proudly be made a note of the Church; when the muck heaps stand so thick therein that a man cannot walk for treading over shoes. Yet, how little, or how much wit, soever be in it, I had not discovered those faults, if my Repliars great wit and deep conceit had not urged me to it: not for fear it would be returned again, nor any whit dreading what our adversaries, out of Luther (whose words 
a §. 38. n. ●.  I answered sincerely) or Caluino-Turcismus, or any other, can boldly say: but because I take no pleasure in such discourse. But when my Adversary so insolently dogged me, 
b 2. Sam. 2.19.  as Azahel did Abner, what could I do less than strike him? his speeches, that drew me to it, were intolerable, and there was no way to make him see the unholsomenesse of his house, but by showing him 
c Concert. eccl. cath. in Angl. p. 146. in apolog.  the back side. 
d In THE WAY §. 38.  He said the Protestants were evidently more wicked then in old time. 
e §. 40.  And their doctrine such as could not but lead to all looseness and liberty: all true holiness was in Rome, which was a sign it was the true Church. Against this insolency I opposed the digression, that seems so much to offend his stomach: against which whatsoever he oppose, it will be small advantage to him: so long as whatsoever he shall say either against our evangelical brethren or our primitive parents, will prove but the reports of a Gifford, or a Bolse●ke, or a Cochlaeus: that is to say, a Knight of the Post, one of their one side, and our vowed enemy: whereas whatsoever we produce shall be out of his own writers, and as famous and credible men as any they have in their Church. And the things reported shall touch their crown, and the Top-gallant of their Church.  
6 M. White therefore grants that he regards not what can be objected against his brethren, upon this ground, because he knows no more can be objected, then is objected already: and hath so much insight into matters, that without either blind zeal or malice, or devising, he can vie turns, and object again to better purpose: his knowledge in the history of Popish times, and experience of Romish sanctity being such, that he will not exchange it hastily for twice as much as is written in the Repliars Caluino-Turcismus & Briarly against the Protestants. And so, to come in again with the Repliar, the conclusion shall be the same that is said, 
a THE WAY pag. 347.  in my book quoted in his margin, It had not been possible the Popish D D. should have spoken so waveringly, and uncertainly, if that they say in the points of their faith, had been always universal in the Church: when in things always believed, as the Trinity and Incarnation, they speak resolutely enough. And my adversaries discourse to the contrary is nothing to the purpose. For first, what variety of opinions soever be among us, and whatsoever he can urge; and how little means soever we have to take away this variety: that answers not my argument: as 
b THE WAY §. 33. & 34.  I answered this recrimination to the full in my first writing, whither I refer him. The second, that this variety of opinions among his D D. is not in matters of faith; is denied, and answered a little before, 
c N. 1. & 4,  twice over; and this is but a trick put upon the ignorant that they should not stumble at these innovations, and to hide the same from being espied. The third, that the things, wherein their D D. dissent, and are not so certain, as they are in the articles of the Trinity and the Incarnation, are not so necessary to be expressly known, nor so expressly determined by the Church, whereupon men have not been so careful to get this knowledge of them; which is the cause why they vary rather in them then in the matter of the Trinity or Incarnation: confesses three things: first, that the articles of Papistry, as Transubstantiation for example, is not so necessary to be known, as the mystery of the Trinity or of the Incarnation. Secondly that the Church hath not so expressly determined them. Thirdly, men are not bound to be so careful in getting the express knowledge of them. This is the same that I said: They were not therefore so universally received in the Church. And confirms my assertion in this place, that they are not to be visibly seen and read in the writings of the Doctors of the primitive Church. For being neither necessary to be known, nor expressly determined, nor such as men thought themselves bound to learn; how should they write them? And if they writ them not, it will be but labour lost for the Repliar to go about to prove they believed them; his implicit believing is too short: and then if they believed them not, down comes the catalogue, and the Church of Rome (which I believe expressly) will prove the seat of Antichrist, and mother of heresies, thus to maintain that which the ancient Church neither writ, nor read, nor yet believed.   

CHAP. XLVII.  
1 councils have erred and may err. 2 What manner of councils they be that the Papists say cannot err. 3 It is confessed that both Counsels and Pope may err.  A.D. The third objection— Thirdly my Adversaries may object errors, to have been not only in private Doctors, 
Pag. 277.  but also in the decrees of councils. This stolen objection is answered, I know not how often, by Catholic authors. The sum of the answer is, that either the Counsels, which may be objected by my Adversaries, were not general Counsels, lawfully called, continued, and confirmed: or that which is by my Adversaries, accounted an error, either was no error; or was not definitively concluded, the error rather being in my Adversaries, or other whom they have followed, who may, either ignorantly account that an error which is none, or corruptly cite the words, or misinterpret the mind of the Counsels, alleging that to have been defined by this, or that Council, which is not. So that it pertaineth to my adversaries, if they will obtain any thing by this objection, not only to say this Council, and the other Council have erred: but they must prove the Council, whose error they shall object, to have been a general Council, lawfully called, continued, and confirmed. And that the error is an error in faith, and that this error was concluded by the definitive sentence of the Council, truly cited without corruption, and truly interpreted, according to the mind of the Council. 
1 THat Counsels of Bishops may err is a truth, as I noted in 
a §. 15. n. 6. & 44 n. 6.  the WAY, & the Reply denies not; for Panormitan 
b Panorm. de elect. c. Signif.  says, In things concerning faith a Council is above the Pope: and yet a Council may err, and sometime hath erred. Waldensis 
c Doctr. sid. tom 1. l. 2. c. 19  says, A particular Church, though it were the particular Roman Church, is not that Church that cannot err in faith, but the universal Church; not as it is assembled in a general Council, which we have perceived sometimes to err, but the Catholic Church of Christ, dispersed over all the world, from the baptism of Christ, by the Apostles and their successors, to these days, is it. Dominicus jacobatius 
d jacobat. de council. l. 10 art. 7. ad. ●. p. 731.  says, A particular Church, yea a Council representing the universal Church, may err. But that which we object in this place, is properly and most especially against the latter Counsels holden since the time that the Papacy prevailed in the Church of Rome these last 800 years; though the same also be true of many holden before. For such Counsels have erred and judged erroneously, whose doctrine our Adversaries ought to give us leave to examine, whether it agree with the faith of the Apostolic Church, and not oppress us with the name of their Counsels. And when we show, not only particular Doctors in the Church of Rome to have erred, but their chiefest Counsels also, such as were those of Niece, Lateran, Florence, Constance, and Trent, they are bound to quit them, or not to deny our objection.  
2 Therefore he grants that some kind of Council may err, and have erred, but he denies that Counsels which have been general, and lawfully called, and confirmed by the Pope can err. For this is the new distinction now in fashion. Yet the meaning is not that a Council either general, or called, or lawfully called by the Pope himself, or holden by his Legate, is free from error, unless the Pope ratify it: upon which ratification he thinks, all the authority of Counsels must depend. 
1. Can. Loc l. 5. c. 4 concls. 1. Staple. relect. controu. 6. q. 3. art. 4 2 Can. concls. 2. Stapl. ubi. sup.  The conclusions of his Doctors are these. 1. A general Council not assembled nor confirmed by the Pope's authority, may err in the faith. 2. A general Council assembled by the Pope's authority, may err in the faith. 3. A general Council, 
3 Can. c. 5. Azor. institut. to. 2. l. 5. c 12. Dom. ban. p. 135. concl. 2. 4 Can c. 4. concls. 3. Bellar. de Concil. l. 2. c. 2.  duly called and celebrated by the authority of the Pope's Legates, but yet not confirmed by the Pope's authority may err. 4. A general Council confirmed by the Pope's authority cannot err. My adversary answers by the last of these conclusions, and bids me prove the Council whose error is objected, to have been lawfully called, continued and confirmed. But this shall not need at this time, because the Counsels, whose errors we most object, he will confess are such as the Pope hath confirmed. And though I believe neither the calling, continuance, nor confirmation of Counsels, depends on the Pope, yet will I be so far from denying these Counsels, whose errors I object, to be confirmed by him, that I avouch their errors chiefly to have sprung from his intermeddling, and usurped authority over the Bishops therein; who had less erred, and more maintained the truth, if he had less meddled. The Counsels therefore charged with innovating the ancient faith, are such as our adversaries can take no exception to: but whether they were general, or national, called, or not called, continued, or not continued by the Pope: the Pope allows them, they being the soundest Counsels that he lest allows.  
3 All the question will be, whether the things objected be errors; for he thinks it can be no error that the Pope confirms. But he deceives himself if he think the Pope's authority can free Counsels from erring: 
e Papa, in casu haeresis, est ipso iute priuatu● Papatu. Dom. jacobat. de Concil. l. 10. art. 7. p. 727 d.  who himself may err and be an heretic: the contrary whereof was never taught in the Church of Rome, till of late time certain parasites to gratify the Pope, and make their faction strong, began to teach it. For Waldensis 
f Wald. ubi sup  says, None of these (neither a Synod of Bishops, nor a common decree in the Church of Rome, nor peradventure a general Council of the Fathers of the world) is the Catholic symbolical Church, (mentioned in the Creed) nor challengeth faith to be given unto it. Alphonsus 
g Adu. Haer. l. 1. c. 4.  calls them impudent flatterers that ascribe to the Pope the gift of not erring. The University of Paris always hath maintained this against the Court of Rome: whereof, it seems, the proverb grew 
* Dici solet, articulos Parisienses non transire montes, Alph. à. Ca●t. l. 1. c. 8.  that the articles of Paris go not beyond the Alps. The Cardinal of Florence 
h Zabar. de schism. p. 703. edit. Basil. 1566  says, the Fullness of power is in the Pope; but yet so that he errs not: for if he err, than a Council hath to do to convert him, wherein the fullness of power is as in the foundation. Neither can the Pope by his constitution or by any other way make resistance in this point, because so the Church should be subverted; And whatsoever our adversaries hold, or will grant, the thing itself is clear, that he and his Counsels have erred, and of a Pastor is turned into an heretic, the greatest that ever was: and this we prove by the Scripture and doctrine of the Primitive Church, in all the controversies depending between us. Next whether the things objected be errors or no, must be tried by the word of God, and judged by the Catholic Church, and not by the peremptory censure of such as my Replyar is: our assertion therefore is, that the worship of images (for example) decreed by the Council of Niece, the communion in one kind, decreed by the Council of Constance, and the several points which we reject in the Counsels of Lateran, Vienna, Constance, Trent, Florence, Colen, Milan, and the rest of that kind, are errors and damnable heresies, contrary to the faith of the ancient Church. Which assertion we prove by showing the same points to be against the Scripture first, and then repugnant to that which the ancient Fathers with unanime consent, taught and defended in their time. Which the Repliar must not think to outface with saying, we ignorantly account that an error which is none, or corruptly cite the words, or misinterpret the mind of the Council: for we both allege the words and mind of the Counsels truly, and challenge nothing in them to be erroneous, but what is contrary to the word of God: and many learned in the Church of Rome confess to be so as well as we: as shall appear in that which ensues touching the second Nicen Council, approved by Pope Adrian, and yet accused and refused as erroneous, in that which Adrian approved, by all the Churches of these Western parts, in another Council under Charles the Great holden at Frankford.   

CHAP. XLVIII.  
Touching the Counsels, of Niece the Second, and Frankfurt. 2. How the Nicene decreed images to be adored. 3. What kind of Council it was. 4. And what manner of one that of Frankfurt was. Frankfurt condemned the Second Nicen. 5. Touching the Book of Charles the Great, and of what credit it is.  A.D.M. White maketh his fair flourish about the Second Nicen Council condemned (as he endeavoureth to prove) by the Council of Frankfurt, 
Pag. 278. Wh. in his Praef to the reader.  for defining that the same adoration and service ought to be given to images of Saints, which is given to the divine Trinity. But first, the Nicene Council, which indeed was a general Council, did not define that images were to be worshipped with honour only due to God; which supposeth that men must account images Gods. This gross conceit, could never have entered into any Christian man's mind, who knoweth the first rudiments of Christian Religion, that there is but one only God: and therefore it may not be thought that so many reverend and learned Bishops, as were at that Council (whom this Minister malepertly calleth unlearned, and simple persons) could ever have conceived, and much less that they would have definitively concluded so gross an error and published it to the world. Nay the Nicene Council was so far from defining, that images were to be worshipped with latria, or divine honour, as expressly it denieth divine honour to be done to them: as appeareth by these words of that Council. We define images to be honoured, etc. that by looking upon the painted images, all that do behold them may come to the remembrance, and desire of the things represented by them, and may exhibit to them an honourable salutation, and worship, not, according to our faith, true latria, which is due only to the divine honour. Now as touching the Frankfurt Council: first, it was not General, neither ever did the Pope's Legates (if they were present) assent to condemn the Nicene Council: neither did the Pope ever confirm any such condemnation. Besides, no such condemnation is to be found in the Council of Frankford: all that is found being in a forged book, ascribed falsely to Charles the Great: in which also that feigned canon, which is cited as the canon of the Council of Frankfurt, nameth not the Nicene, but the Constantinopolitan Council. By which may appear, that the Author of the book, neither knew what the Nicene, Constantinopolitan, or Frankfurt Council did truly hold or decree, but set down that canon either by hearsay, or at, adventure, by the imagination of his own head. 
1 THat which I said touching the Counsels of Niece, and Frankfurt, was not to show the errors that have been in Counsels, or to prove that general Counsels may err in things of faith: though it fully and unavoideably do it; but to let the reader see in that example, how unable our adversaries are (for all their confident boasting) when things come to the trial, to quit themselves. And indeed in this one example, among many, any man may perceive they are the most shifting and prevaricating companions that ever dealt: not having any where to abide or rest their foot, or any truth to stand upon when things are put to the issue: which appears now the more by the Repliars intermeddling, who saying what he can to that I objected, and having had time to search what he could, is yet fallen into those shifts and absurdities, that no man looking with the face of a Christian, would be taken in: denying apparent truths, testified by all Antiquity, and confessed by many of his own side, and with a desperate conscience uttering every word falser than other. And I desire the reader to mark attentively, if it be not true that I said, that WHATSOEVER OPINION THEIR FAVOURITES HAVE OF THEM, yet when things are brought home to their trial, these magnified jesuits are the emptiest and idlest disputers that ever, with so great ostentation, set pen to paper. First he says, I endeavour to prove, that the Council of Niece was condemned by the Council of Frankfurt, for defining that the same adoration and service, aught to be given to the images of Saints, which is given to the divine Trinity: This is untrue; for in my discourse I said no such thing, but only that, the second Nicene Council having brought in the worship of images (not affirming what kind of worship, whether such as is given the Trinity, or of a lower degree) the Emperor Charles assembled another at Frankfurt, and condemned it again, rejecting the Nicene. Indeed the emperors book charges the Council with decreeing that kind of worship. It was written in the book of the Synod, that they should be cursed which did not give the same service and adoration to the images of Saints, which is given to the divine Trinity. But these are not my words; neither are they alleged to that end, but to confute certain Papists that affirmed the Council of Frankford condemned not the worship of images at all. The same book 
a Constantinus, Constantiae Cypri Episcopus, dixit: Suscipio & amplector honorabiliter sanctas & venerabiles imagines secundùm ser ntium adorationis quod consubstantial Trinitat● emitto: & qui sic non sentiunt, anathemati submitto— Constantius caeteris consentientibus. Lib. Caroli, pag. 382. ann. 1549. in 16.  reports, that in that Council, Constantius the Bishop of Cyprus, and the rest of the Bishops consenting with him, said, he would give to images the same service and adoration that he gave to the consubstantial Trinity. And 
b Pa●o. an. 794. nu. 36.  our adversaries confess, the Council of Frankford thought that of Nice to be of this mind: but whether it were or no, I affirmed not, but only that it decreed they should be worshipped. This is his first untruth.  
2 Next he says, The Nicene Council did not define that images were to be worshipped with honour only due to God: because such a gross conceit could never have entered into any Christian man's mind,— etc. This reason affirms another untruth: for Azorius a jesuite 
c I●stit. moral. l 9 c. 6. And the same is said by Pes●nt. in Tho: pag. 837. a.  affirms it to be the constant opinion of the Divines in the Church of Rome, that images must be adored with the same adoration that belongs to their sampler: and he adds, that the Council of Nice insinuated so much. Both the Council of Nice therefore, and the Divines of the Church of Rome, hold, the Images of God, and our Saviour, and the Cross, must be adored with divine adoration: because God and Christ is adored with divine adoration: and thus 
d Tho. 3. p. qu. 25. r● 3. & 4. Alexand. 3. p q. 30. m. 3. art 3. Ricar 3. d. 9 art 2. qu. 2. & 3. Capreol. art. 1. concls. 2. Ferrar. contr. gent. l. 3. c. 120. ad 2. Turrecrem. 3. p. de consecr c. crucis. n 2 etc. venerab n. 2. Silvest. v. Latria. n 2. Waldens'. de sacramental. c. 119. Caiet. in 3. p. Tho. q. 25 art. 3. & 4. Peasant. ●isp 2. concls. 3. Valentia. tom. 3. disp. 6. qu. 11. punct 6. Bellar. imag. l. 2. c. 23. Turrian. pro Canonic. ep. l. 1 c. 25. Andrad. orthod explic. l. 9 jacob de Graff. decis. p. 1. l. 2. c. 3. n. 1. & 4. Thyrrae. de apparit. pag. 81. n 2. Posse●●n. bibl. select. l. 8. c. 17. n. 23. ●and. de imag. c. 17. pag. 184.  teach the most Schoolmen and Divines that handle this matter, as will appear by viewing their books. Which being so gross a conceit, as it is indeed, let the Repliers censure fall upon it hardly, and let the Divines of his Church go for such as are no Christians, being ignorant of the rudiments of Christ's religion, and that there is but one God. And let the world beware of such pestilent heretics as give the divine honour of the immortal God to a dumb creature, whose image soever it be. And if Azorius 
e Azo. ubi sup.  say true, that this doctrine of Thomas, and his Divines, was insinuated by the Council of Nice, than my Replier is guilty of a third untruth, because he denies it, presuming upon the words contained in the seventh act of the Council, which yet these jesuits expound to contain nothing against their opinion; which exposition and report of the jesuits, if you add to that I cited out of the emperors book, and join withal the words of Baronius, who reporteth that the Bishops of France conceived the mind of the Nicene Council to be, that images should be adored with latria: The Replier will have something to do before he can quit his Nicene Council from that which he says, I impute unto it. But if his Council of Trent also be of the same mind, (as 
f Suar. tom. 1. disp. 54. sect. 4. Vasq. a dorat. disp. 8. c. 14. Azor. inst. mor. tom. 1. l. 9 c. 6.  the jesuits resolutely affirm it is) than this gross conceit went far, and their case is but indifferent, that hitherto have built their faith touching this and other points of religion, upon such as by the Repliers own verdict were no Christians, nor knew the first rudiments of religion.  
3 Thirdly, he upbraids me with malapertness, for calling the Bishops of the Nicene Council simple and unlearned; but it is his destiny still to cross and infatuate himself with his forwardness; for his own words calls them gross conceited, and ignorant of the first rudiments of religion, that hold, the serving and adoring of images, with the same adoration and service that is given to the Trinity. And that they thus held and defined, the emperors book, and the jesuits themselves testify: that I might well say, they were both simple and unlearned, and something worse. Thus therefore I excuse myself: it is no malapertness to call them simple or unlearned, who teach the giving of divine honour to an image, because the Replier confesseth this to be a gross conceit of such as know not the first rudiments of religion, nor that there is a God. But the second Nicene Council taught this. For Azorius says, it insinuated the worshipping of images, with the same worship that is given to the samplars, which is divine worship in the images of God and Christ. They insinuated therefore, that images should be worshipped with divine honour, the same that is given to God and Christ: Therefore they were a pack of simple and unlearned heretics. But because he is so zealous for his friends, I will, if I can, a little cool him, till he know better what and who they were. Claudius' Espencaeus, a Doctor in his own Church, 
g Com. in 2. Tim. pag. 151. Paris.  hath written of them: that the Greeks' in their contention about Images, on both sides handled the matter out of fabulous and uncertain writings. They which opposed them, with writings falsely inscribed by heretics,— and 
* Qui propugnabant daemonian etiam spectris & muliebribus somnijs parùm verecundè abutentes.  they which defended them, did it also with delusions of devils, and with little modesty, thereto abused women's dreams: as may be read in the Nicene Council. This is more than I said. For I spoke as temperately as it was possible of so fond Idolaters: but Espencaeus gives it them with open mouth: It may be read in the second Nicene Council, how images were defended with women's dreams, and delusions of devils; which speech, whosoever mislikes, must consider it comes from a learned Papist, and not from me: and the acts and process of the Council, will show it to be true. The forgeries and fables, and trifling discourses therein contained, being such as are able to provoke any that reads them: and our adversaries themselves are not a little entangled in them.  
4 Having thus affirmed (how truly it skilleth not to the point in question) that the Nicene Council defined not the worship of Images with divine honour, he passeth to the Council of Frankford, wherein I said, the Nicene was condemned, and the acts thereof concerning images abrogated. Whereto he answers not one true word. First he says, the Council of Frankford was not general. But I had witnesses in the margin, that it was. 
h Ouand. 4 d. 2. prop. 8.  Ouandus: There were present three hundred Bishops, with the Pope's Legates: so that the Fathers who were present, called it a full Synod: and in truth it cannot be cast off as a Provincial Council, or as without a head. If it were not Provincial, and had the Pope for head, it must not be denied to be general. Baronius 
i An. 794. n. 1.  says, It is found to be called a plenary Council, for the multitude of the Bishops, and presence of the Legates of the Apostolic sea. The Bishops of Italy, France and Germany, were there. Hincmarus says, it was a general Council; whose words see 
* In the letter oh  below. Secondly, he shuffles with a parenthesis, as if the Pope's Legates were not there. But you see what Baronius and Ouandus say. 
k Chr. l. 2. n. 794  Rhegino and 
l Chro. an. 793.  the Abbot of Vrsperge testify the same. Thirdly he says, if they were there, they confirmed not any such condemnation. The which is impertinent. For I only intent to show, that in the judgement of the Christian world, the bringing in of image-worship was condemned. Whether the want of the Legates assent, make the condemnation void or no, I care not: but the reader may see Pope Adrians' packing with the Greeks' to set up images, was noted, and resisted by all the Provinces of the Western Empire. Let our adversaries prove, the want of the Legates assent makes this a nullity. Fourthly he says, no such condemnation is to be found in the Council of Frankford, but only in a book ascribed to Charles: and I answer, the Council of Frankford, as it is set forth in the tomes of the Counsels, he knows well enough is imperfect, and contains not all that was done therein. But mark what Bellarmine 
m De imag. l. 2. c. 1●. §. Primò qu●●.  says: That book of Charles contains the acts of the Council of Frankford, and it may not be doubted, but the Council therein condemned, is indeed the second Nicene. 
n An. 794 n. 31.  Baronius says, that Hincmarus (the Archbishop of Rheims) a writer of those times, affirms the book to contain the acts of the Council of Frankford, that we are not to doubt thereof:— it contains many chapters against the Nicene Council. The words of this Hincmarus are these, that my adversary may a little blush at his rashness: 
o Hincmar. lib. count landun. c. 20.  But the seventh Synod, untruly so called, which the Greeks' call universal, not long before my time was holden at Nice, and sent to Rome, which the Pope again directed into France: whereupon, in the time of the Emperor Charles the great, and by the appointment of the Apostolic sea, a general Council called by the Emperor, was celebrated (at Francford) in France, which ACCORDING TO THE TRACT OF THE SCRIPTURE, AND TRADITION OF OUR ELDERS, DESTROYED AND UTTERLY ABDICATED THAT FALSE SYNOD OF THE GREEKS': whereof a large book, which in my youth I read, in the palace, by the said Emperor, was sent to Rome by certain Bishops. Nothing can be plainer than this testimony, against all the Replier hath said. The like is written in 
p Ado chron: an. 792. Rog. Houed. contin. Bed. an 792. Auent. aun. Boio p g 253. Ai●noin. pa 450. Visperg. pa. 187 Rhegin. pag 30  many histories beside. And after the death of Charles, his son Lodowicke held a Council at Paris (which is extant) about the same matter of Images, wherein the decrees of Nice, and the book written by Adrian in defence thereof, against the Council of Frankford, are again condemned; which shows, that the Council of Frankford had done the same before. Hincmarus 
q Vbi sup.  says: By the authority of this Council of Frankford, the worship of Images was not a little suppressed: but yet Adrian and other Bishops persevering in their opinion, and 
r Suarum pupparum cultum vehementius promoverunt.  promoting more vehemently the worship of their puppets, after the death of Charles, his son Lewis in a certain book inveighed far more sharply against the worship of Images, than Charles had done. The Council of Paris itself 
s Council Paris. pag. 19 Francfurt. an. 1596. in 8.  says, The Epistle of our Lord Adrian the Pope, which he directed to Constantine and Irene, for the setting up of Images, we made to be read before us; and as far as we could perceive, as he justly reprehends those which have presumed to break and abolish the images of Saints, so himself is known to have done indiscreetly in commanding them superstitiously to be worshipped. For which cause also he assembled a Council, and by his authority decreed, and that under an oath, that they should be set up and worshipped, when it is lawful indeed to erect them, but utterly unlawful to worship them. The same Council of Paris 
t Pag. 130.  affirms, that it would have hurt neither faith, hope, nor charity, if no image at all had been painted or made throughout the world. It is certain therefore, that the Council of Nice was condemned by the Counsels of Frankford and Paris both.  
5 But the Replier says, All that is found touching this condemnation, is but in a forged book ascribed falsely to Charles. This is untrue twice over; First, because, as I have now showed, many others say it as well as the Book of Charles. Next I proved directly against Cope and the jesuits, that the book is not forged: and Bellarmine and Baronius, confessing it to contain the Acts of Frankfurt, and the Council condemned therein to be the second Nicene without all doubt: testifieth so much. It seems that the penman was Albinus, our countryman, 
u Trithem. de script in Alb. Sixt. Senen. l. 4. Hittorp. praef. ad Lect. de divin. office Rom.  who was very great with Charles, and his instructor in all kind of learning, and one of the famousest men in those times. For thus writ 
w Annal. par. 1. pag. 405.  Roger Hoveden, and 
x Flor. hist. pag. 215.  Matthew Westminster. Charles the king of France sent into England, a book of the Council which was directed to him from Constantinople. In which book (alas for grief) many things are found inconvenient and contrary to the faith. But especially that it was decreed by the consent of almost all the Eastern Doctors, no less than three hundred, or above, (this was the second Nicene Council) that images should be adored, which the Church of God altogether abhorreth; against which thing, Albinus wrote an Epistle, marvelously confirmed with the authority of the Scripture, and in the name of the Bishops and Nobles, brought the same with the book to the King of France. Albinus therefore, it seems penned it, the Bishops and State approved it, and the Emperor ratified and published it. This makes it of more authority then if the Emperor alone had done it. But who penned it, it is impertinent, when Bellarmine and Baronius grant, it contains the acts of the Council of Francford, and no man may doubt but the Council therein condemned is the second Nicene. For this is enough to prove the Nicene Council to be condemned by the Council of Frankford, whosoever were the author of Charles his book. That which the Replier objects touching the Constantinopolitan Council named in stead of the Nicene, helps him not. Bellarmine 
y De imag. l. 21 c. 14. §. Neque obstat.  answers, Constantinople is set down in stead of Nice through unskilfulness or want of memory. And 
z An. 794. n. 33.  Baronius: though he hold the council of Constantinople, that decreed images should be broken, is meant there; yet he grants the council of Nice is meant and condemned also. And it must needs be as Bellarmine says: for though Constantinople be named, yet it is added, that there it was decreed that images should be worshipped; which was not done in the Constantinopolitan, but in the Nicene council. All which being put together, the testimonies I mean whereby the book is proved to be Charles his, and the Council meant, to be the second Nicene, it appears plainly that the book is authentical, and the author thereof both knew well enough what the Constantinopolitan and Frankford decreed; and set down the Canon, neither by hearsay, nor at adventure, nor yet by the imagination of his own head, but with good advice, and upon certain knowledge. It being the vainest point of a thousand, to imagine that Albine and the whole Clergy of England, France, Germany, and Italy, with the Nobility and States, should condemn a thing which they understood not: and now, after eight hundred years, the true knowledge of all things should come (by some revelation belike) to a few arrogant jesuits, who yet can agree in nothing about the same. I admonish the Repliar, by this example, wherein he hath sped so unluckily, not to think to deface the truth with boldness and bragging, but to give way to the truth; and in seeking it, to tie himself to no man's device, till he have better assurance of it. For there is scarce one example of antiquity that we produce against them, but his jesuits are divided in their answers, and speak so contrary one to another, that it is easy to see, they intent nothing but to be obstinate and resolute. And so the example of the second Nicene council shows, that the Pope's counsels, how general or approved soever, have erred in defining, by the judgement of the whole Christian world: and their errors had been controlled in former ages, as well as the Protestants now control them: so that the things wherein we refuse the church of Rome, are nothing else but the corruptions and abuses that came in by the faction of some, and were opposed by the sounder part of the Church as they grew and came in.   

CHAP. XLIX.  
1.2. The ancient Church held the blessed Virgin to have been conceived in sin. 3. The now Church of Rome holds the contrary.  
Pag. 279.  A. D. The fourth objection.— Fourthly, my adversary M. White objecteth eight points, wherein, as he saith the Church holdeth contrary to that which it hath formerly held, to wit, the conception of the virgin Marie, Latin Service, reading Scriptures, Priests marriages, Images, Supremacy, Communion in one kind, Transubstantiation. To this I answer here only briefly and in general, referring the Reader, for more particulars, to other Catholic authors, who ex professo writ of these points. First, concerning the conception of the blessed virgin Marie, it never was universally held by the ancient Church as a point of faith, that she was conceived in sin. For if it had been so held, Saint Augustine would never have pronounced so absolutely as he doth, that when question is concerning sin, he would have no mention of the blessed Virgin. Neither is it now held by us as a point of faith, that she was not conceived in sin; this being one of those points, in which according to Saint Augustine, an erring disputer is to be borne withal, in regard the question is not diligently digested, nor confirmed by full authority of the Church 
1 THe Replier in his Treatise that I answered, to prove his Roman church Catholic, 
a In THE WAY §. 46. & 47.  used this reason: because it had still professed without change the same faith, which hath been continually since the Apostles, without denying any point of doctrine, which in former times was universally received: and bade us prove the contrary if we could. To this I answered first generally, and then in the 49 Digression particularly, I objected the eight points here mentioned, showing that the church of Rome holds therein contrary to that which formerly was holden. Now he replies, that his answer shall be but brief and in general, referring the Reader to other Catholic authors, that purposely have writ of these points. But when he made his challenge, I supposed he would have tried them with me himself, not by referring me to his Catholic authors, whose writings the reader hath no means to survey; but by bringing what he thought good out of them, and letting the reader see what the issue would be between us. But seeing he durst not put his cause to that kind of trial, my answer shall be like his argument: That I also refer the Reader to other learned men, who ex professo have answered whatsoever his authors have written of these points. And what himself hath said, I will answer; that the reader shall well perceive my instances were sufficient to show, that the church of Rome now holds contrary to that which formerly was holden and believed.  
2 First, touching the conception of the blessed Virgin, he says, it was never universally held by the ancient Church, as a point of faith, that she was conceived in sin: nor is it now held in the Church of Rome, as a point of faith, that she was not conceived in sin. Let us make short work. Both these are false. First it was held, as a point of faith, that is to say, as a part of the religion and profession of those times, that she was conceived and borne in sin, as all others are. This I prove by his own authors. Paulus Cortesius in his writing upon the Sentences directed to Pope julius, 
b 3. d. 4. pag. 65  says, that one Vincentius produces 260 witnesses, affirming her to be conceived in sin. Cardinal Turrecremata 
c De consecr. d. 4 Firmissimè. ●. 11.  affirms, that all the Doctors in a manner hold it: and that himself had gathered together the testimonies of three hundred to that effect, noting the places and words wherein they affirm it. Dominicus Bannes 
d 1 part. qu. 1. dub. 5. §. Arguitur secundo. pag. 89. Venet.  says, It is the general consent of the holy Doctors, that she was conceived in sin: and yet the contrary opinion is holden in the Church, to be not only probable, but very godly. This is plain dealing. He says, that which is contrary to the unanime consent of all the Fathers, is now holden by the Church as the more profitable and godly opinion. The like is confessed by 
e Bonan. 3. d. 3. art. 1. qu. 2. Arimin. 2. d. 30. qu. 2. art. 1. Capreol. 3. d. 3. art. 1. Caietan. opusc. de concept. Canon loc. l. 7. c. 1.  others as fully. To 
f De nat. & great. c 36.  the place alleged out of Austin: Gregorius Ariminensis 
g Art. 3. ad 1.  answers, that he means it only of actual sin. In which doctrine, Saint Austin is not constant neither: for he says 
h De perfect. justit. count Celestina. sub sin.  elsewhere, Whosoever he be that thinks there have been or are, any man, or any men, excepting only the Mediator of God and men, to whom the remission of their sin was not necessary, he goes against the Scripture, and the Apostles, Romans 5. And the Fathers, mentioning the text of john 2.4. Woman, what have I to do with thee? affirm in effect that she was a sinner. Saint Austin 
i Tulit admonitionem filii— expavescat filii inventutem. de Symb. l. 2. c. 5.  says, Christ admonished her, and bids her fear her Son. Athanasius 
k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. orat. 4. adver. Arian. pag. 281.  says, he checked her. Euthymius, 
l Corripuit eam. in joh 2. pag. 320.  he rebuked her. Chrysostome, 
m Asperiora hac verba— & indignatio. hom. 20. in joh.  that he was angry at her. Irenaeus, 
n Repelleni eius intempestinam festinationem. l. 3. c. 18.  that he repelled her unseasonable hastiness. Theophylact, 
o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. in joh. 2.  that he child her not without cause. Few of the ancient Fathers (this is the confession 
p Comm. in joh. 2. nu. 11.  of Maldonat a jesuite) but either openly say, or obscurely signify, that there was some fault or error in her. They thought therefore she was a sinner actually: which could not have been, if original sin, which is the fountain of actual, had not been in her.  
3 Next, the Church of Rome now holds the contrary: whether as a point of faith or no, the reader shall judge presently. 
1 Below in the letters.  First it is holden expressly contrary to that which the Fathers held, that she had no original sin. 
2 Can. & B●n. ubi sup.  Next I presume no Papist will deny it to be defended in the Church as a godly opinion. 
3 Suar. tom. 2. d. 3 s 6. pro. 1. Vasq. 3 d. 1●7. n. 148.  Thirdly, the Church may define it when she will. 
4 Vasq. ubi sup  Fourthly, the Feast of the Conception, which imports she was without sin, is celebrated. 
5 Vasq. ubi sup  In which regard, says Vasquez, it would seem very strange to me, if the Church should ever define she was conceived in sin, when by her authority she hath already commanded the Feast of the Conception, in token she was not conceived in sin: and the common consent of Catholics, both vulgar and Divines, contending for the immaculate conception without sin. Suarez 
q Vbi sup. prop. 4.  says, Sixtus Quartus did much favour it, whose decree the Council of Trent approves, and the whole Church doth vehemently lean to it; that now the contrary can have, either none at all, or no firm, or evident foundation. But the truth is, it is fully defined in the Council of Basill: Hitherto, 
r Sess. 36.  says the Council, a difficult question hath been made, touching the Conception of the glorious Virgin. We having diligently seen and examined the reasons, define and declare, that the doctrine which teaches her never to have been actually subject to sin, but always free from it, and from all actual sin, to be consonant to the religion OF THE CHURCH AND CATHOLIC DOCTRINE, and that it shall be lawful for no man hereafter to teach the contrary: moreover we renew the ordinance made for the celebrating of this holy conception, on the 6. of the Ideses of December. Whereby we see how false it is, that it is not held as a point of faith. For building themselves upon this decree, and upon 
s Cum Praeexcelsa & Grave nimis. in extrau comm.  another of Sixtus Quartus, whereto the 
t Sess. 5. §. Declarat tamen.  Council of Trent manifestly gives way, by confirming the conceit; 
u Almain. Clictovae. Titlem. reported by Vasq. & Suar. ubi sup.  the forwarder sort of our adversaries affirm it resolutely to be a point of faith defined by the Church. But whether it be true or no, that the faith of their Church is nothing but what this froward generation will confess to be defined by the Pope: by this it is plain, that touching this point, the Pastors and Doctors, and people of the Roman church differ from antiquity. Vasquez 
w Communis consensus Catholicorum, non solùm imperiti vulgi, sed etiam Doctorum & Theol●gorum pro immaculata conceptione pugnat. Vasq. ubi sup.  says expressly, Not only that unskilful vulgar, but the Doctors and Divines, and all Catholics with one consent, fight for the immaculate conception. What immodesty is it now to deny that to be the Church's faith, which is thus holden? and to say, it is not diligently digested that is thus concocted in the conceits, not only of the vulgar, but of the Doctors and Divines, and all Catholics with one consent in the Church of Rome?   

CHAP. L.  
1. Touching Service and Prayer in an unknown language. 2. The Text of 1. Cor. 14. expounded and defended against Bellarmine. 7. The ancient Church used prayer in a known language.  A. D. Secondly touching Latin Service, although M. White say (as it is easy to say) that all antiquity is against us in this point: 
Pag. 279. White, p. 343.  yet he will never be able to prove solidely, that the ancient Church did condemn this our practice. The words of the Apostle which he allegeth, prove nothing to the purpose, as is showed by Bellarmine: and as for other authors which he citeth, they do not disallow this this our practice, 
Bellar. l. 2. de verb. Del. c 16.  or account it unlawful: whereas, both by reason and authority, our authors show it to be both lawful and laudable. See Bellarmine lib. 2. de verbo Dei, cap. 15. 
1 THe use of the Church of Rome, to have the public Service and Prayers, and ministration of Sacraments, in an unknown tongue, is well enough known. This I affirmed to be against antiquity, and a point wherein they have altered the faith of the ancient Church. And first I alleged the words of Saint Paul; then the testimony and confession of other Ecclesiastical writers: to all which he answers nothing, but refers me to Bellarmine. In which absurd course if I would imitate him, I might also refer him to such as have answered Bellarmine: and the reader that expected to see the thing tried between us, should be deluded. Nevertheless I will do my best to bring this brood of darkness to the light; and every thing that I have said to the trial, that the truth may appear, and the shame be theirs that turn their backs.  
2 First he says, I will never be able sound to prove, that the ancient Church condemned this their practice. I answer, the Apostle condemns it in the words 
a 1. Cor. 14.7.  alleged: If an instrument of music make no distinction in the sound, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? So likewise you, unless by the language you utter words that have signification, how shall it be understood what is spoken? for you shall speak in the air. I will pray and sing with the spirit; and I will pray and sing with the understanding also. Else when thou blessest with the Spirit, how shall he that occupies the room of the unlearned, say Amen, at thy giving of thanks, seeing he knows not what thou sayest? I had rather in the Church to speak five words with my understanding, that I might also instruct others, than a thousand words in a strange tongue. No enemy that the Church of Rome hath, can more fully condemn Service in an unknown language, nor in more effectual terms speak against it. For be requires all that which is done in the Church, be it Exhortation, Prophecy, Singing, Expounding, or Praying, to be done in a language that the people present understands, and rebukes the contrary. All that the Replier says hereto, is, that Bellarmine hath showed these words prove nothing. Which is his policy to avoid the scanning of them: for he knows, all the learned of his side be so divided in their answer to these words, that whatsoever he should say, would fall out to be contrary to that which others affirm. For the avoiding of which inconvenience, he refers us to Bellarmine; as if in him we should find a just answer and full satisfaction. But he abuses the Reader, as shall plainly appear, by propounding the sum and substance of all that Bellarmine says to the place. First he sayeth, It is certain the Apostle, in a great part of this chapter, speaks not of the reading of the Scripture, nor concerning the Service of the Church, but of certain spiritual exhortations and conferences then used. Touching this point, how true or false soever it be, I will not greatly stand with him: but than it is as certain, that in a great part of this Chapter he speaks of church-service, and prayers, and of reading the Scripture, as well as of spiritual conferences and collations. So his patron Gretser, that hath lately undertaken to defend all his writings, confesses, 
c Grets'. defence. Bellar. de verb. Dei. l. 2. c. 16. pag. 850. c. & pag 918. A.  If you speak of the whole Chapter, Bellarmine acknowledges the Apostle to speak, not only of spiritual songs, and preaching, and exhortations, but of the reading the Scripture likewise, and public Service. Hence it follows, that the Apostle condemns the reading of the Scripture, or prayer, and church-service in a language not understood, as well as he doth preaching, collations and hymns: for vers. 26. he requires all things that he speaks of, be done to edifying: and vers. 6. he says, If I come unto you, speaking with tongues, (that is, in a language you understand not) what shall I profit you? And vers. 9 Except ye utter words that can be understood, you shall speak in the air. And vers. 11. If I know not the meaning of the voice, he that speaks shall be a Barbarian unto me. And vers. 14. For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my understanding is unfruitful. And vers. 16. How shall he that occupies the room of the unlearned, say AMEN at thy giving of thanks, when he understands not what thou sayest? Thou givest thanks well, but the other is not edified. Hence I thus reason: The Apostle condemns every thing in the Church, whatsoever it be, that edifies not: But prayer, reading the Scripture, and Service in the Church, as well as preaching and spiritual songs in a language that the people present understand not, edify not: Ergo he condemns prayer, reading the Scripture, and Service in the Church, in a language that the people present understand not, as well as preaching and spiritual songs. The first proposition is in vers. 12.19.26: the second in vers. 6.14.16.17: the conclusion therefore is the Apostles. And indeed if our adversaries could have showed, that the prayers mentioned ver. 15, had been such spiritual songs, or preaching only, as they expound: and then that the Apostle in all his discourse had only spoke of such songs and preaching, and not of prayer, reading the Scripture, or Service in the Church also, they had had some colour for themselves (though not enough to avoid our argument;) but when he speaks of these things also, by their own confession, and the whole intent of his doctrine is that ALL THE THINGS HE SPEAKS OF, be done with edification; it is desperate perverseness to say, the text proves nothing against them.  
3 In the second place therefore, when Bellarmine cannot avoid it, but it is manifest the Apostle, at least in some part of his discourse, speaks of singing, and prayers, and reading of the Scripture, which belong to church-service; he falls to answering, and lays down four answers, whereof he casts off three, and betakes himself to the fourth. The first is, that by singing and praying, mentioned verse 19 (where the Apostle says, I will pray and sing with the spirit: and I will pray and sing with understanding also: else how shall he that occupies the room of the unlearned say AMEN, when he understands not what thou sayest?) is meant preaching and exhorting, not praying: a hard exposition, when the common notion of the words is against it, and the Apostle manifestly distinguishes the one from the other, and men use not to say Amen to preaching: yet, most untruly and dishonestly, he father's it on Basil, Theodoret, and Sedulius: 
a For Basil. reg. contract. q 278. & Theodor. 1. Cor. 14. v. Quid ergo est? expound the place of prayer as well as of exhortation. Sedulius only expounds it of exhortation alone, being deceived through ignorance of the Greek word.  who neither all of them expound it so, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Basil qu. cont. q. 178.  nor allow prayer in an unknown tongue. His second exposition is, that the Apostle requires not all the people to understand what is prayed and sung, but only that he understand, who supplies the room of the people in answering, meaning the Parish clerk. 
b Quidam ex Catholicis ita hunc locum intellexerunt. Grets'. p 971. B. But Se●ulius says, Jdiotae id est, nuper baptizati, & qui nullam praeter propriam intelligit linguam. p. 237. Theodoret says Qui in laicorum ordine constitutus est.  This answer is made by some Papists, and went for good, till necessity drove the jesuits to find a better. For it was too gross to bring the pedigree of a Parish clerk up to the Church of Corinth in S. Paul's days. His third is, that by him that occupies the room of the unlearned, is meant he that answers for the people; belike some that understands the tongue, (but not a Parish clerk by office) and takes upon him to answer for the rest that understand it not. These three answers he casts off, and devices a fourth, whereto the Replier in this place refers me.  
4 Fourthly therefore 
c §. Vera igitur  he says, The Apostle in this place speaks neither of divine Service, nor of the public reading of the Scriptures in the Church, but of certain spiritual songs, which the Christians composed, for the praising of God, and giving him thanks, and for their own, and others, comfort and edification. This answer allows the Apostle to condemn the use of such hymns and canticles in an unknown tongue, and the like use of preaching and collations; but it denies the use of prayer, and Service, and the rest of the public Liturgy, in an unknown tongue, to be condemned: because the Apostle, in these words of the 15 and 16 verses, speaks nothing concerning them. 
d Antid. Apostolic. in 1. Cor. 24. v. 16.17.  D. Stapleton, and 
e On 1. Cor 14. §. It is as certain  the Rhemists also affirm it to be certain, that he means not, nor writes any word in this place, of the Churches public Service, Prayers, or ministration of the holy Sacrament, but only of a certain exercise of mutual conference, wherein one did open to another, and to the assembly, miraculous gifts and graces of the holy Ghost: and such Canticles, Psalms, secret mysteries, sorts of languages, and other revelations, as it pleased God to give to certain, both men and women. This answer contains two parts, an affirmative, and a negative. The affirmative is, that he means such spiritual songs and exercises of conference. I will not stick with the jesuite for the use of such exercises, in the Church at that time; it being agreed of all hands that there was such a custom: and the Apostles own words report it in the 26 v. When you come together, every one of you hath a Psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. But that he so means such hymns, and such extraordinary exercises alone, that he means not prayer also, I utterly deny. For that which he brings out of Eusebius, Dionysius, and Tertullian, will serve to prove that the custom of those times was to sing in the congregation; but it proves not that S. Paul here speaks of those songs; nor determines what kind of songs they were: whether such as they uttered by miracle, or ordinary Psalms, ordinarily used in all assemblies without miracle: much less doth it prove that the custom was so to sing, that there was no prayer used beside: whereas the Text is plain, I will sing and I will pray: distinguishing two several actions, singing and praying. And because Gretser answers, that singing is praying, therefore the saying Amen is mentioned, which was not so properly used when they sang, but when they prayed without singing. For who used to say AMEN at a Psalm? Besides, he wills them to understand what they do, that understanding they may be able to say AMEN: now that which he would have understood, is not the songs only, but the prayers also. First, because the reason why songs should be understood, holds in prayers also: Secondly, because Bellarmine confesses that in some part of this Chapter the Apostle speaks of prayer and Church Service. But whatsoever he speaks of, he requires to be understood: for the reason why he speaks of all that he mentions, is because the Corinthians used them when the people understood not: which abuse he reproves, admonishing them to join understanding with their gifts. Their songs therefore, their reading Scripture, their collations, their prayers and all, must be understood. Therefore in this place, of the v. 15.16. not spiritual songs alone are meant but the Church prayers and Service also; because in other places it is meant. If Bellarmine reply, that S. Paul speaks in other parts of the Chapter, of prayer and Church Service, but no where, in the Chapter, that they should be understood: who sees not the falsehood, when the reason that drew him on to speak of them, was the abuse, that they were not understood, which abuse he corrects by willing them to use them that they may be understood? 
a Antidote. apost. in 1. Co p. 723. & 727. & inde.  D. Stapleton therefore answers, that the Apostle, in this place, speaks of prayer: but not such prayer as we ordinarily use in our Church, but such as they used by miracle, and the gift of tongues: and admits that he rebukes this, but not that. This is folly: for give a reason why he rebukes this? It was because the people understood them not. The same reason holds in that: For the people understand not. If the Apostle would take this reason to condemn the use of a miraculous gift, when understanding went not with it; of necessity he must also condemn ordinary prayers when they offend against the same reason. 
b P. 724.  D. Stapleton answers, that praying by gift was ordained for the profit of others, therefore it was meet it should be understood: but the Church Service, he saith, is not to teach the people, but to invocate God for the people, which may sufficiently be done when they understand it not. I reply, that the prayers, in the Church Service, are not only to invocate God for the people, but for the people to invocate God for themselves: as appears, first, because God hath appointed not only the Priest to pray for them, but with them; and themselves to join with him in the prayers, and, with one mind and heart, to utter with him that which he pronounces; which cannot be when they understand not what he says. Again, the Church prayers are conceived and pronounced, not only, in the name of the Priest for the people, but also in the name of the people for themselves: Hear thy people that calls upon thee: o Lord open our lips, and our mouth shall set forth thy praise: and such like: therefore there is the same reason why the people should understand them, that there is why the Priest should do it. Thirdly, its false that the Church prayers are not to teach the people. For their end is not only to entreat God, 
a Ro. 8.26.  but to teach how to do it, with what affection, with what contrition, with what faith, with what understanding, and to form in the mind the signs of the things framed, that their being may shine in the understanding. Which is not done when the prayer is conceived in a language they know not. They may say AMEN with a kind of brutish devotion, 
* Carent tamen eo fructu, quem perciperent, si orationes eas, quas ore proferunt, etiam intelligerent: nam & speciatim intenderent animum & mentem in Deum, & ab eo impetrarent, speciatim, ea quae ore petunt: & magis aedificarentur ex sensu suo earum orationum quas ore proferunt. Carent ergo hoc fructu. Contaren. Christ. Instruct. inter. vlt.  but these sighs and groanings, which ought to accompany all prayer, they feel not: the mind meditates not the sense of the words that are uttered, nor contemplates, nor penetrates, the things that are necessary in all prayer: by reason of which defect Card. Caietan 
b In 1. Cor. 14. §. Sed alter non aedificatur. p. 158.  says, that by the doctrine of Paul, It is much better for the edification of the Church, that the public prayers, in the hearing of the people, be said in a common language, then in Latin.  
5 Gretser the jesuite to this point 
c Def. Bell. de verb. Dei. l. 2. c. 16.  says, that the Church prayers, in Latin, profit two ways: First, in that the Priest prays for the people. Secondly, in that they stir up devotion and affection in the people, though they understand them not: and he seems to affirm that other profit then this is not needful to be sought in prayer. But this is false: for neither do they stir up the devotion mentioned, which being an act of the will, cannot be formally exercised without knowledge in the understanding going before: nor is such devotion as the profit that God hath ordained prayer for: taking this profit in the true latitude thereof. For the end and use of prayer is, not only to kindle some kind of devotion, but to bewail, and utter our wants to him we pray, to unfold our sins with particular feeling: to breed in our heart's remorse, compunction, repentance by opening our miserable state. To inform our understanding by frequent meditations. To increase our faith, etc. in which regard we are required to be attentive and diligent in the time of prayer. The Emperor justinian's law was, 
d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which is the same that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Varin) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Novel. Justin. pag. 181.  that all B B. and Priests should celebrate the Service, and prayers used in Baptism, not with a low, but a loud voice, which the people might hear: whereby their minds might the better be stirred up to utter the praises of God. Therefore diligent attention, and elevation of the mind being to be brought by all that come to Church, it is manifestly intended that they shall understand what is said. The Repliar, I presume, 
e Cum enim aliquis venit audire sacrum, & poste●, raptus alijs cogitationibus, parum aut nihil advertit, dicitur quidem praeceptum missam audiendi implere: nec tenetur audire aliam, dummodo non sit affectata divagatio. Tol. sum. l. c. 6. c. 6. vide Navarr. man. c. 21. n. 8. & de orat. p. 431. concl. 16. n. 2.  if he hold him to the doctrine of his own side, will require no such attention; but that must not greatly move us: when 
f Quae autem segnitia est alienari & capi ineptis cogitationibus & profanis, cum dominum deprecaris: quasi aliud sit quod magis debeas cogitare quam quod cum Deo loqueris● Cypr. de orat. Dom. sub. fi●.  it were the most barbarous thing in the world for the people, in time of God's Service, not to join heart, and tongue, and countenance, and all with the Minister. Secondly, that the Priests praying for the people, is that profit which is sufficient for the people in public prayers, or any profit at all when it is in an unknown language, is likewise false: as I have said. And there can no reason be assigned, why then S. Paul should condemn the prayers, used in the Church of Corinth in a strange tongue, when they also were conceived for the people, as well as ours.  
6 The negative part of Bellarmine's answer is, that the Apostle speaks not of Divine Service, nor the public reading of the Scripture. I grant he speaks not of such Divine Service as is now used: because, I suppose, there was either no set form of Service at all, the Church being yet ungrowne and in persecution; or no such form as now is used. But of that form that was then used he speaks: that is to say, whatsoever form of Service, and manner of prayers, was used in the congregation, he commands, even in those words, be done in a known language. The which if the Repliar deny I must put him in mind of that I have said before out of Gretser: that in this Chapter he speaks of reading the Scripture and the public Service. But it is certain that wheresoever he speaks of it, he requires they be done to edification, and expounds the edification by understanding the language wherein they are done; in the same manner that here he speaks of singing and praying. For therefore he mentions them, wheresoever it be, because they were abused, and that abuse was the using them in an unknown tongue: and this abuse he condemns, wishing them to speak with edification, which is all one whether he speak of them in this place or in another. But let us hear how Bellarmine proves the Apostle not to speak of divine service, or public reading the Scripture, in this place: it is proved, saith he, by this that the Scriptures were read and the service done, in Greek, because it was a Greek Church. But the Apostle speaks of something that was done, not in the Greek, but in some other unknown tongue. This avoids not our argument, for he cannot prove they had any set form of liturgy at all. 
g Mos Apostolorum fuit ut ad ipsam solummodo orationem (dominicam) oblationis hostiam consecratent. Greg. l. 7. ep. 64. see Amulat. Fortun. l. 3. Pref. Cusan. ep. 7.  All writers consenting that in those days they used to consecrate the Sacrament by saying the Lords prayer: it is as likely they would have had a set form for the Sacrament, as for any other part of the service. But whether they had a set form, or no, we grant they had a form of service, at least prayer, and reading, and Sacraments form at the choice and liberty of the Pastors. But how doth the jesuite prove that, de facto it was done in the Greek that all understood? we grant, de iure it aught; but this is that we say: that when these men, endued with the gifts of tongues, came into the congregation, they would do it in strange tongues, and not in Greek; which is part of the abuse that the Apostle speaks against, requiring that if such would omit the ordinary common language, and do the Church service, such as it was, in a strange language (as the spiritual songs mentioned were done) then let him speak, and another interpret. Besides, the singing mentioned cannot be showed to have been other than a part of the Church service. For whatsoever show Bellarmine make with the names of Eusebius, Dionysius, and Tertullian, yet as I have said, 
h Yea Tertull. in the place cited (apol c. 39) mentions nothing else but the Hymns which Christians sang altogether in their assemblies, instituted by the Apostles, whereof we read so much in antiquity, that the Christians, in their meetings used to sing Psalms together. Ephes. 5.19. Col. 316 (Epiph. l 3, sub fin. Plin l. 10. ep. 2. Nicep. l 3 c. 17. Euseb. hist. l. 3, c. 33. Tert apol. c. 2. Aug. conf. l. 9 c. 6. & 7. Jgnat. Ep ad Rom. sub init. Basil. ep. 63. & Dionys (de divin. nom. c. 3. & 4. pag. 281.) mentions nothing but singing of all together. and in another place (eccl. Hier. c. 3.) reports the custom of singing Psalms by all the clergy men together, at the Altar. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: p. 132. the which to have been such spiritual songs as the jesuite here conceits, that were no part of the Church service, he can never prove: but the place looked into will show the contrary, that they were part of such Church service as they used.  they do not distinguish the singing they speak of, from that which belongs to the liturgy, or was of the same order: and albeit it were granted, that such as the Apostle mentions, sang by miracle, as they prayed and prophesied by miracle, yet why might not this singing, praying, and reading be part of the Church service that, at such times, was used? Thirdly, let it be granted that he speaks not of the service, but only of that which was done extraordinarily, by miracle, then have our adversaries to show how the Apostles argument, against preaching and singing in a strange tongue, holds not likewise against Church service in a strange tongue. Bellarmine, and Gretser say, the principal end of those spiritual and miraculous songs was the instruction and consolation of the people: and therefore it was meet they should understand them: but the principal end of Church service being to worship God, and the Priest having in charge to teach the people what they understand not: it is not needful the said service should be in a known tongue. But this latter (that the Priest had in charge to teach the people what they understood not) is untrue: for the Apostle will have both Priest and people joined together: Thou verily givest thanks well, but thy brother is not edified. Neither would I require any better argument for my assertion then this. For if the end of Church service be God's worship, therefore the people must understand it, that they may worship God. For this worship stands not in rehearsing Latin words, but when the people by those words learn to know Gods will and their own duty: and offer him up the requisite motions of their hearts: which in an unknown tongue they cannot do. And if, secondly, the Priest be to expound the meaning of that which is done in the Liturgy, than they are bound to use it in a known language: both because they cannot give the meaning without interpreting the language; and that interpreting, when it comes to execution and practice, will prove far more difficult and obnoxious to danger and inconvenience, than the simple reading in a known language.  
7 Hitherto I have stood to clear the Apostles text that I alleged, from the answers that Bellarmine hath made thereto. But beside that text, I showed by a place in Origen, 
a Cont. Cells. l. 8  bidding every man make his prayer to God in a known language, that it was the custom of the ancient Church to do service and pray in a known language. And I produced the testimonies of Lyra, Thomas of Aquine, Caietan, Erasmus, and Cassander, all of them great persons in the Church of Rome, to the same effect; and confessing also that it were better, for the Church's edification to have it so still. What could I do more, or what can an adversary require more, then by so sufficient witnesses to proceed in my assertion? If I had said it upon my own word only by way of assertion, he would have bidden me prove it: now I prove it by pregnant and full testimony, he replies, my authors disallow not our practice, but he hath authors that show it to be both lawful and laudable, and refers me again to Bellarmine. He had as good have renounced his cause: for these Authors first show the custom in the Primitive Church to have been to have service in the common vulgar language that was best known, whence it follows secondly that they affirm the Church of Rome to be swerved from it, in this point as I said: which is all I alleged them for. Nevertheless, because the Repliar thinks to save himself by saying they account not our practice unlawful, let him consider well with himself, why they should mention this alteration from the Primitive Church, if they had not, in their judgement disallowed it? How can they say as they do, 
b Lyr. Tho. Caiet. Cassand. Erasm. cited in TEH WAY.  In the Primitive Church it was otherwise? By Saint Paul's doctrine it were better for the Church's edification if the public service of the Church were in a known language; and not disallow the present practice, if they durst have spoken all they thought, or could have told how to help it? I will add two more testimonies and so end the point, leaving the censure of my proceeding to the reader. Isidore: 
c De Eccl. office l. 1. c. 10 pag. 3.  The hearers are not a little edified by reading. Therefore it behooves that when the singing is, all sing; 
* Oratio ipsa sit pingui●r, dum mens RECENTI LECTIONE SAGINATA. PER DIVINARUM RERUM, QVAS NUPER AUDIVIT, IMAGINES CURRIT.  and when prayer is, all pray; and when the lesson is read, it be indifferently heard of all— and think not that it is a small profit that comes by hearing the reading: for thy prayer is made fatter, when thy mind lately fed with reading, runs through the images, or forms, of those divine things which it hath lately heard. Where are these images of the things that he hath heard read, who understands not the language? Secondly, I have lying by me divers ancient Liturgies entitled to Saint Peter, Saint Basil, Saint Mark, Saint james, Saint Chrysostome, Clemens, Gregory and others: in all which it is set down that the people shall answer the Priest at many periods: which imports they understood the language; or else they could not answer. Balsamon the Patriarch of Antioch, 
a Ius Graecorun l. 5. Respons. 1. p. 365. interrog. 5.  to this question, Whether the orthodox Syrians and Armenians, and other faithful men of other countries, may, without danger celebrate in their own language; or must be constrained to do service in the Greek tongue, which they understand not: answers: The Apostle says; Is God only the God of the jews? is he not also the God of the Gentiles? He is verily. Let them therefore, which hold the true faith in all things, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉;  
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  if they be ignorant of the Greek tongue, do their divine service in their own language. By this it appears it was the custom of the Greek Church to have service in the vulgar language, as by Isidore it is manifest the same custom was in the Latin Church, till tyranny, and heresy removed it. Our 
b Bell. c. 16. l. 2.  foul mouthed adversaries may call them schismatics and heretics; but when they have done, their testimonies will remain for sufficient records what was done in Gods true Church for 800. years after Christ.   

CHAP. LI.  
1.2. The Church of Rome, against all antiquity, forbids the lay people the use of the Scripture in the vulgar language. 3. The shifts used by the Papists against reading. Spiteful speeches against it. 4. Testimonies of antiquity for it. 5. The Repliars' reason against it answered.  
Pag. 280.  A. D. Thirdly touching forbidding the laity to read Scriptures, and to have them in the mother tongue, there is no such general prohibition among us. 
1 1. Pet. 3. v. 16.  All that we say is, that the holy Scriptures should not promiscuously be permitted to all men, at least in dangerous times, when men may, by rash misinterpreting, fall easily into error and heresy, running thereby into their own perdition, but that care should be had that the party's disposition be such as is like to take benefit and not harm by them. The which our practice is not condemned by our Saviour Christ, or by the ancient Church, but is most conformable to our saviours saying, 
2 Mat. 7. v. 6.  Give not the holy things to DOGS: nor cast not pearls before HOGS. Now care being had that the party's disposition be such as may take benefit by reading, or hearing, and no harm by rash misinterpreting, we do not prohibit, but with due order permit, and wish the Scriptures, even in the mother tongue, to be read and heard, both by lay men and women. That sentence of our Saviour, 
3 joh. 5. v. 39  Search the Scriptures, which is so often urged by Protestants, doth not prove a necessity for all men immediately to read the Scriptures. For first, these words were not spoken to all in general, but to pharisees and Princes of the people. Besides they either contain no precept, as S. Cyril expoundeth, or no absolute, but conditional, precept, or rather licence: that since they would not believe our Saviour himself, they should, or might, search the Scriptures which themselves did admit. Lastly, if it were an absolute precept obliging all sorts of men; yet since it is affirmative, it is not to be thought absolutely to oblige all in particular, especially at all times and with whatsoever inconvenience of circumstances: but rather to be limited to such particular persons, times, and circumstances, as may make the observation of it necessary, or at least convenient, as happeneth in other particular affirmative precepts. Which limitation if my Adversaries will not admit; I ask, how they will have those to fulfil this precept who cannot read at all? Or who by only reading can no more understand the Scriptures in English, then if they were in Hebrew? How chance also that they do not oblige every man to read all the Scripture, yea at all hours, and to do nothing else but read and search into the whole Scripture? For 
4 White. p. 344.  if because the words seem absolute they will admit no limitation; then these my questions must be satisfied, which proceed upon supposal that the precept be absolute and general without all limitation. 
1 THe third instance 
c Digr. 49. n. 3.  that I gave, was the forbidding of the Laity to read, or have the Scripture, in their mother tongue. For when the ancient Church, propounded in the first parts of his catalogue, not only permitted the reading of the Scripture indifferently to all; but, by providing translations, took order that all sorts of people should freely have them in their mother tongue: what a manifest alteration is it, in the Church of Rome, now to prohibit this, and practise the the contrary? The Reply says, there is no such GENERAL prohibition among us. He grants then there is a prohibition (which he cannot show to have been in the first 600 years) but it is not GENERAL. This will we see presently. First the law is express against it. Whereas experience shows that if the Bible be every where, without difference, permitted in the vulgar tongue, more hurt then good will arise thereby: in this point let the judgement of the Bishop, or Inquisitor, be followed: that, with the advise of the parish Priest, or confessor, they may permit the reading of the Bible, translated by Catholic authors, in the vulgar language, to such as they shall understand can take no hurt, by such reading, but increase in piety. The which licence (of the Bishop) let them have in writing. And if any presume without such a licence either to read or have it, unless he come in first, and give up his Bible to his ordinary, let him not have the pardon of his sins. And the bookesellers, without such licence, selling, or any way affording, Bibles in the vulgar Language, shall forfeit the price of the books, and be liable to such other punishments as the Bishop thinks meet. 
a Index lib. prohib. Pij 4. regul. 4.  This order was set down by the Pope & the Council of Trent: wherein there is show of liberty to read and have the Scripture, in their mother tongue, for such as are licensed (which is the reason why the Reply says, there is no general prohibition) but mark the issue. 
b Ib. obseru. circa. 4.  Pope Clement 8, in his observation upon this rule, tells us: It is to be observed, concerning this rule of Pius 4, that (by this impression and edition) no new power is granted to Bishops or inquisitors, or superiors, to licence the buying, reading, or keeping the Bible in the vulgar tongue: Seeing hitherto, by the commandment and practice of the holy Roman and universal Inquisition, the power of granting such licences, to read or keep Bibles in the vulgar Language, or any parts of the Scripture, as well of the new as of the old Testament, or any sums or historical abridgements of the same, in any vulgar Language: hath been taken from them. There is therefore a general prohibition, the same that we object: and the Reply puts but one of his ordinary tricks upon me. For first, none may read but that is licensed: Secondly, none may be licensed; but obstinate and froward Papists, such as are sure for starting: for they only are meant by 
* Eyes concedere possint, quos intellexerint, ex huiusmodi lectione, non damnum; sed fidei atque pietatis augmentum cape●e posse. reg. 4.  those that will take no hurt nor bring any detriment, but increase to the faith, by reading. Thirdly, which is the point to be noted, the power of granting such licences, also, is taken away; that whatsoever to blind the eyes of the world, the Pope and his crew made show of, yet indeed nothing at all is permitted.  
2 Secondly, the practice of the Church of Rome, for many years past, hath been to restrain, with fire and sword, all such use of the Scripture. Neither did it ever, till this other day that the Rhemists translated (how and for what ends I will not now stand to say) provide, or set forth any English translation, but forbidding heretical translations, made by Protestants, consequently forbade all that were. And the doctrine of all Papists, handling this matter, confirms that I say. Peresius 
c De tradit. p. 45. b.  says: Shall no bounds be set to popular, rude, and carnal men? Shall old men, before they have put off the filth of their mind, and young men, that yet speak like children, be admitted, to read the Scripture? I suppose verily (and my opinion fails me not) this ordinance, under the pretence of piety, was invented by the Devil. Azorius the jesuite. 
d Instit. tom 1. l. 8 c. 26. §. Tertio quaeritur. & inde.  It is demanded whether the sacred Scriptures may be translated into the mother tongue of every nation, that every one may the better read and understand them? I answer, that Lutherans and Caluinists are in that heresy, that they affirm the sacred Scripture ought to be translated into the vulgar Languages of all nations: against whom the Council of Trent, in the fourth rule, thus hath: And so repeats the constitution as I have set it down. That constitution therefore forbids the translation, and use of the Scripture in the vulgar tongue, as I have said. Then he goes forward. The Gospels and Epistles, which are read in the Church throughout the year, may not be printed alone, but with the expositions of the Catholic authors upon them— and all prayer books, containing Psalms and canticles of the Scripture, in the vulgar tongue, are likewise forbidden— But, is it expedient and decent to have the sacred volumes translated into the mother tongues? I answer, No. Because thereby the unity of believers would sustain detriment: then much ignorance and folly would ensue in the Church, beside, divers causes of errors and heresies would arise. Moreover the uncertainty and multitude of translations (yet there is not more variety and uncertainty in any translations then among their own Latin ones) would cause innumerable contentions, quarrels, and other discommodities and evils, almost infinite. Thus, most immodestly and heretically they make those exceptions against the Scripture, that in their conscience they know the primitive Church never made: and raking into all the abuses of the Scripture that they can find, men's depraving, misexpounding, misapplying them; using them over boldly, malapertly, not with the respect they should; hence most dishonestly they conclude the utter suppressing of them: not that they care how they are used (for never any used them so vilely as themselves either 
* PRURITANUS.  in applying, reviling; or corrupting them) but because they are mad at that which discovers their heresy.  
3 The Reply, to salve the matter, says, that if the party's disposition be such that he may take benefit, and no harm, by reading, than they permit the Scripture in the mother tongue both to lay men and women. This is not true: for how do they permit it to such, where (as in Spain) there is permitted no translation at all? how it is permitted when the Pope says, none may read but such as are licensed by the Bishops: and this power of licensing, is taken from him by the Inquisition? Again, even by making this restraint, they are gone from the primitive Church which gave rules, & had discipline to restrain such as abused the Scripture: but the liberty of the book itself they never restrained, nor ever bound the rudest that was, to go to the Bishop for a licence; but by how much the more he was ignorant, or transported with pride, or endangered with heresy; by so much the more they required him to read the Scripture to reform himself: and if he did not, they only preached against his abuse, and punished the man, but the translation they suppressed not. And all the Papists in Europe, in all the writings of the first 600 years, cannot show one period beyond this. There are in the Fathers, specially Nazianzen and Jerome, sharp speeches against abusers of the Scripture, & such as toss & turn them to their own lusts (as Papists do,) but not a word against the translating and permitting them, to all indifferently, in the vulgar tongue to be read. They never reproached God's people, that desired his law, with the name of dogs and swine, as these 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Eustat.  Centauris do, nor ever imagined the permission of the sacred Scripture to be casting of pearls before them. It is easy enough to see, that if the laity were dogs and hogs never so much, it were impossible they should trample God's blessed word worse than this Grillus, drenched with Cyrces' cup at Rome, hath, by this his application trampled it. And whereas it may be some will believe him, that the restraint made is only in dangerous times, and where there is peril of falling into error: as he seems to speak; let it be remembered, that at all times, and in all places, this restraint is made, even when and where there is no danger of error or heresy; but only of that which they will style heresy, when men, by the Scripture see the horrible errors of the Church of Rome. It being the doctrine of that side, that the Scriptures should not be translated at all. Let the words of Rainolds and Gifford in their 
a L. 4. c. 7. pag. 824. & inde.  Caluino— Turcismus be a little pondered. I conclude therefore that it is much more honour to the Scripture and safr for religion, and wholesome for the people, that this power (of the people to read the Scripture in the mother tongue) were altogether taken away: without which they might both believe piously, and live holily: and by so doing, much more safely and easily attain eternal life. 
2 P. 825.  It seems to me this profane revealing of the divine mysteries (by translating the Scripture) is odiously contrary to the will of God, and to the nature of the mysteries themselves. 
3 P. 830.  The Pastors of the Church are not tied (true for they have broke the bonds) to translate the Scripture into vulgar tongues; there being no Apostolic precept or council, or so much as any light signification of their will to have it so. 
4 P. 831.  The manifold and great mischiefs which, by the translations of the Scripture, have risen against the majesty of God, against the holiness of the Scripture its self, against the tranquillity of states, against the faith and good conversation of men, 
* Satis magnam vim habere de buit, ad istas translationes penitus supprimendas, etiamsi divina, vel Apostolica authoritate niterentur. Thus God's ordinance, Christ's Testament, and the Apostles doctrine must give place to the Pope's lust.  should have force enough utterly to suppress these translations; yea ALBEIT THEY WERE SUPPORTED BY DIVINE OR APOSTOLICAL AUTHORITY. Let the reader judge, by this, if the Church of Rome do only, as the Reply blaunches it, not promiscuously permit vulgar translations, when they may be occasions of error by misinterpreting; and not utterly hate and condemn them, as the causes of their discontent, and desire the suppressing of them from all? It's easy to discern how preciously they affect that, which by reason only of some abuse (which also they multiply by their art: many times a mote being in their eye when there is none in the sky) they would have utterly taken away, though by DIVINE AND APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY IT WERE SUPPORTED.  
4 To the testimonies alleged out of 
1 Deut. 6.7.  Moses, 
2 2. Tim. 3.15.  S. Paul, 
3 Hom. 3. in Laz & ho. 2. in Matthae.  S. Chrysostome, 
4 Epitaph. Paul.  S. jerom, and 
5 Cornel. Agrip. de vanit. c. 100  the Council of Niece, whereby I showed the doctrine of the Primitive Church to be, that lay people should read the Scripture, he answers nothing; but contents himself (having better helps for it) with replying to the 5. of john, Search the Scriptures; wherein I commend his discretion, that falling so foul on this, would let the rest alone. First he says, the words were not spoken to all in general; but to the Pharisees, and princes of the people: because if they were spoken to the people, he did wisely foresee that our Saviour, therein, no longer counts them dogs and hogs, but admonisheth them as God's people bought with a price, to the reading of the Scripture. But how shall I be sure he speaks to none but the Pharisees and Priests, when 
a V 15.— 18.—  the text says, he spoke to the jews that sought to kill him, whom the man, healed at the pool of Bethesda, had told of his healing? which Jews cannot be showed to be the Priests and Doctors alone, but some of the laity withal, who were as eager in persecuting our Saviour as the Priests, and frequented the Temple, and provoked him in all places where he was, as well as the Pharisees. Or if it were granted he spoke only to the Priests, yet how doth that avoid the argument when the jews had the Scriptures in their own language, neither Priests nor people using them in any other? For it were too gross to say, the people might not read that which they had in their own language, 
b Act 15 21.  which they daily heard read in their Synagogues, and 
c Deut. 6.7.  which they must rehearse continually to their families, 
d 2. Tim. 3.15.  and wherein they brought up their children from their infancy. Secondly he says, either they contain no precept, or but a conditional precept, or licence: that when they would not believe Christ himself, they might search the Scripture. Feign he would say absolutely, it is no precept, because it would serve his turn better. But belike he read in his Cyrill, 
e In joh. l. 3 c. 4  that the common and received expopositionis, that with a certain COMMAND, our Saviour stirs them up, to search the Scripture. Athanasius 
f Tom 2 p. 248. Commelin. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  says, He COMMANDED them to search the Scripture. 
g Aschet. p. 599. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Basil, when a COMMANDMENT is given us, let us obey our Lord, saying, Search the Scripture. 
h Ho 40. & 39 in joh.  Chrysostome, he COMMANDS to dig deep into the Scripture, he sends them away to the Scripture. 
i Pag. 343. in joh.  Euthymius, He COMMANDS them to search. 
k jansen. concord. c. 36. Peter. sele●●. disp. to. 4. in joh. 5. d. 20.  Our adversaries confess this to be the commonest exposition; and some of them the best. 
l In joh. 5.  Maldonat the jesuite. Cyrill thinks the word SEARCH not to be the imperative, but the indicative mood— but Chrysostom, Theophylact. Austin, &, I think ALL GRAVE AUTHORS, except Cyrill, do BETTER think it to be the imperative. And this is confirmed by manifest reason. For in case of error, the jews, and all men, are bound by precept, to have recourse to such means as can reform them. But the Repliar is content it be a precept, so he may have the hammering of it. First, therefore he says, It's but a conditional precept, or rather a licence, that seeing they would not believe our Saviour himself, they might search the Scripture which they did believe. This is transparently against the Fathers, yet it will serve my turn, and utterly destroy his cause. For such a licence the Pope and the Inquisitors will never grant, as Clement 8. hath professed. And if our Saviour, when the jews believed not him, permitte● them to search the Scripture, then, by this text, when the People believe not the Pope, but misdoubt his doctrine, he must give licence to them to read the Scripture, which he will never do. Gretser (to help the Repliar a little) 
m Tom. 1. pag. 893. c.  answers, There is not the same reason of Christians, that there was of the jews: and why so? the jews believed not in Christ, but opposed both his doctrine and person: whereas he that is a true Christian believes Christ and honours him. This is true, that is said both of the jews, and Christians: but this difference is no reason why a believing Christian may not search the Scripture as well as an unbelieving Iew. For the Christian, though he believe in Christ, yet is ignorant of much of his will, or weak in faith, or assailed with heresies increasing in the world, or desirous to confirm himself and others in the truth: in which cases let the jesuite show, why Christ for the curing of the jew should allow him to read the Scripture; and yet debar the Christian, whose state needs the support of the Scripture one way, as much as the state of the jew doth another? Nay this is a good argument against himself and my Repliar. For if the reason why the laity may not read the Scripture be because our Saviour hath commanded us not to give holy things to dogs, nor to cast pearls before hogs: and the jews not believing Christ but opposing his doctrine and person, be more dogs and hogs than Christians; hence it will follow roundly, that the Scripture is to be permitted to Christians much more than to the jews, because the jews were permitted to read the Scriptures, though they were dogs and hogs.  
5 Secondly he says, that allowing it to contain an absolute precept (which he doth as a child kisses the rod (for he must do it, if he will follow the consent of the Doctors) yet being an affirmative precept, it obliges not all men, nor at all times, but may be limited to particular times (as to the time of the Primitive Church) & to particular persons (as now only the Clergy) and other circumstances, which the Church of Rome shall think meet. I answer, affirmative precepts first bind all persons to whom they are given. Secondly, they bind at all such times as the matter therein contained agrees unto. Thirdly, they receive limitation or restraint, from none but from the lawgiver himself; in all which properties they agree with negative commandments: & therefore, omitting all intricate discourse touching this matter, the precept of searching the Scripture binding in this manner, it is sufficient, for the allowance thereof to the people. For first, they that cannot read may fulfil it by hearing it read. Searching being restrained no more to the one, then to the other. Secondly, there is none, but by searching, that is to say by diligent labour, may understand them in their mother tongue, better than in Hebrew. Because I have showed many times over, that the articles of faith, and rules of good life, are set down so plainly, that the simplest may understand them; unless he will make lay people so senseless that they have not the common light of nature. Thirdly, we bind not every man, to read all the Scriptures, and at all hours, doing nothing else: because there is no such thing in the precept. Then I have satisfied his questions, and admit a limitation, in things wherein the precept limits itself: but how follows this? Affirmative precepts have their limitations, therefore the Pope may limit them. Or this? Circumstances limit precepts: therefore the Church of Rome, upon her Antichristian circumstances may restrain the precept of Christ. Or this? Some lawful and legitimate circumstances may stay the execution of an affirmative precept: therefore the malicious and desperate imputations laid upon the people, or some misdemeanours committed by them indeed, may lawfully debar the people from having the Scripture any more. Away with these circumstances, and give us substance.   

CHAP. LII.  
1 The marriage of Priests and Bishops lawful, and allowed by Antiquity. 2 Some examples hereof in the ancient Church. The restraint hereof is a late corruption. Priests were married, even in these Western parts a thousand years after Christ  
Pag. 281.  A. D. Fourthly, touching the marriage of Priests, M. White citeth 
* See Bellar. de cleric. c. 19 Prot Apol. tract. 1. sect. 3. n. 1. & sect. 7. & tract. 2. c. 1. sect. 3.  a mistaken sentence out of the Apostle, and boldly affirmeth, after his fashion, that marriage of Priests was ordinarily in the Primitive Church. But he neither proveth our practice unlawful, neither indeed can he prove that the contrary practice, either of marrying a wife, or using the company of a wife, was ever lawful after holy orders: but rather may find it generally condemned for unlawful. M. Whites examples to the contrary, either are not authentical, or they speak of those that were married before holy orders; who never companied with their wives after. 
1 THe fourth example was the forbidding marriage to the Clergy. Which by divers pregnant authorities I showed to be contrary to the practice of the Primitive Church. First, I alleged the words of the Apostle allowing it. Then the examples of the Priests, in the old law, & divers Bishops in the Primitive Church using it then the confession of the most learned among our adversaries testifying the present practice of the Church of Rome, to be but A HUMAN CONSTITUTION, AND NOT THE DIVINE LAW OF GOD. Whereunto he replies nothing, but as you see, in general terms, only denies the authorities, as if there were not a God that abhorred lying and imposture, and these odious practices of shuffling and concealments: and will one day severely punish them. First, to the text of S. Paul, 
a 1. Tim. 3.2. Tit. 1.6.  where he says, a Bishop must be the husband of one wife, having faithful children: his children in subjection with all gravity (which precept supposes it lawful for him to have a wife and children) he replies, M. White cities a mistaken sentence out of the Apostle: But what mistaking can there be in words so plain? and when wife and children are mentioned, what mistaking is it to conclude marriage? 
b Chrysost. ho. 2 in Tit. Oecum, & Theophyl. in Tit. 1  Chrysostome, Theophylact, and the Greek scholiast, upon this text, writ thus: He will stop the mouths of heretics, calumniating marriage, and shows the thing not only to be blameless, but so honourable, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  that therein (a Bishop) may ascend up to his sacred throne. These affirm that a man in the state of marriage, without putting away his wife, or vowing single life, may be a Bishop. And Soto mayor, a great Doctor at this day, in the Church of Rome, 
c Comm. in Tit. 1. §. unius vx●ris.  handling this place confesses it proves BB. and Priests to have been married at that time. M. White alone therefore mistakes not the Apostle, but others also with him.  
2 Secondly, he says I boldly affirm, after my fashion, that marriage of Priests was ordinary in the Primitive Church. But I affirmed nothing but what I gave examples of: my fashion and course holden throughout my writing, being to justify what I affirm, by authority. He is the bolder of the two that dares charge his adversary with boldness, whose reasons and authorities he durst not look in the face, nevertheless let that he says be considered. First be says, he proves not our practice unlawful. This is folly. For whatsoever restrains and forbids that which the Apostles, and their Churches permitted, and commended, is unlawful. But M. White cannot prove it was ever lawful, either to marry a wife, or use the company of a wife, after holy orders: but he shall rather find it condemned as unlawful. All this I proved, as will appear by reading what I writ, but yet you shall see what M. White can prove more, though if he prove never so much all is one with my Repliar. For his answer at the last will be the same that Aeneas, who afterward was Pope Pius 2, made the Bohemians, 
* Epist. 130. post med.  We are not bound to all things which the Fathers did in the Primitive Church, they had wives, we have none, we therefore merit the more. First, 
d L. 6. c. 17.  the Constitutions of Clemens expressly allows Ministers, Cantors, Readers, & doorkeepers, 
e Id asserunt omnes veteres Scholast. Duran. do excepto. Et ex recentioribus gravissimi quique— idque videtur sensisse conc. Florent— & Trident. Bellarm. de ordin. c. 8.  who are within holy orders that is properly a sacrament in the Church of Rome, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 99  to marry after they are entered into orders; and if it were lawful for Bishops and Priests also after their entrance into orders, to keep and company with their wives, which they had married before, what reason can be given, why they might not aswell marry after their entrance into orders? Now that it was lawful to keep, and live, and company with their wives after their entrance into orders, I showed by the testimonies of 
f Monad.  Nazianzen, 
g Epist. ad Euopt.  Synesius, 
h Epist. ad Dracont. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 739. Commelin.  Athanasius, 
i L. 4. c. 23.  Eusebius, 
k L. 5. c. 22.  Socrates, and 
l L. 12. c. 34.  Nicephorus. Which I will not here repeat. And this was so far from being condemned as unlawful, that it was justified, and practised, against those that began to mislike it. Nazianzen 
m Orat. in sanct Bapt. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 656.  rebukes them that said, none should baptise them but an unmarried Priest. Sidonius, a B. in France, about the year 480. being entreated to commend a Metropolitan to the province of Aquitaine, in France, commends one Simplicius: reporting him to be married, and to have children, and having in many other things praised him, as fit for the place, 
n L. 7. conc p. 445.  he proceeds thus: His wife also is descended of the stock of the Palladij, who, to the commendations of their order, have holden the seats of learn, or of the altars: and verily, in as much as the person of the matron requires a modest and succint mention of her, I will constantly avouch 
* Respondere illam foeminam, sacerdotij utriusque familiae, vel ubi educta crevit, vel ubi electa migravit.  that woman to answer the Priesthoods of both the families, either whence she was brought forth, or whither she came when she was chosen. Both of them, well and wisely, instruct their children. This example doth so plainly show that Bishops and Priests companied with their wives after orders; that it cannot be well eluded. For therein not only a married man is preferred to be a Metropolitan almost 500 years after Christ, but thought to be the fit because of the quality of his wife; being, first descended of Priests, and then a modest woman, and such a one as 
* Filios AMBO instituunt.  together with her husband, instructed their children: which neither needed, nor could be said, if he lived not with her. Isidorus Pelusiota, in 
o L. 2. ep. 53. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 198.  a certain Epistle to a Priest, reporting a narration touching a woman, bids him tell it his wife. That Priest was married therefore. But the Repliar, sure, will allow no example to be authentical, unless it show they lay together: the which I confess is much, when people living in marriage, yet have not their secret cohabitation much reported: but whether they companied together or no; the examples show, they were married, they dwelled together in one house, they had children: and brought them up together: which liberty the Church of Rome now denies. The Council of Constantinople, 
p Est au●em etiam universalis Balls. p. 194.  which was universal, 
q See Simanch institut. tit. 4. n. 38.  and the canons thereof legitimate, 
r Can 13.  allows both the marriage and cohabitation: and says, it is the ancient Apostolical constitution: 
s Socr. l 1. c. 11. gr. Zozom l. 1. c. 23. gr.  the like did Paphnutius in the first Council of Niece. 
t The WAY 2. edit. p. 344.  I alleged a place in Zonaras, upon the canons, which here I will put into English. The Apostles (in the canon) say, that if a Priest, under the pretence of religion, put his wife, he shall be excluded (excommunicate) till he receives her again; but if he persevere, and will not receive her again, he shall be degraded, because it seems to be done in reproach of marriage, as if the mixture of man and wife were uncleanness. Whereas the Scripture says, marriage is honourable, and the bed undefiled. The cannon also mentions Bishops having wives, because AT THAT TIME THE LAWFUL COHABITATION OF BISHOPS WITH THEIR WIVES, WAS NOT FORBIDDEN. Our adversaries answer, that this custom was but in the Greek Church, and not in the West. But what? was not the Greek Church (especially in those times) the Church of God? and have not they altered the ancient faith that have altered that which was universal in the most famous Churches of the world? and hath not the Pope in the West, hereby showed himself to be an Antichristian heretic, that condemns the universal doctrine of so famous a Church? But the West Church also allowed the same liberty, till the tyranny of the Pope (as 
u The WAY digr. 51. n. 10.  I showed) exstinguist it. 
* Scot 4. d. 47. Ios. Angl. Flo. ril. in 4 p. 386. Antidid Colon. p. 128. Coster. Enchir. p. 517. Greg. Val tom. 4. d. 9 q 5. punct. 5.  All Papists, I think, will grant that married Ministers were ordained in the Apostles 
* Mariana pro edit. vulg p. 47.  times and after, yea such as had been twice married. So to mayor 
y Comment. in Tit. c. 1. §. unius uxotis.  says, it must be confessed and granted, that of old, in the Primitive Church, reason of the small number of Ministers married, Bishops and Priests were used by indulgence. That indulgence is Sotoes' conceit, and not the truth, as I have showed; for it is true that the faction against Priest's marriage began betimes, as appears by the story of Paphnutius and the Nicene Council, but it was resisted by the godly BB. Dionysius, for example, the famous Bishop of Corinth, 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb p. 41. b.  called it a heavy burden, not to be imposed on the brethren. And therefore 
b Non horruit illa Tempestate Deus thalamos, cunabula, taedas. Mant Fast 1. and the example of Simplicius before alleged.  still they married, even in the West under the Roman Patriarchate. Marius, a Papist, 
c De schism & Council part. 3. c. vlt.  says, he knows right well that in the time of Pope Formosus (which was 800. years after Christ) it was permitted and lawful for Priests to marry wives: and when the restraint came in he cannot tell, though he have most diligently inquired. 
d Cromer. de Orig. & gest. Polon. l. 7. p. 517  In Poland they had their wives, till almost 1200. years after Christ. 
e Henr. Hunting. p 378. prohibuit ante non prohibitas.  In England as long. 
f Auentin. l. 5. see the WAY. pag 377.  In Germany, France, and Italy as long. Which I presume, the Christian world would not so stiffly have maintained, if it had been against the sounder practice of the 
g See 26. q. 2. sors. Clictou. de contin. c. 4.  Church. But when they saw it was not forbidden by any law of God, but only opposed first by faction, and then by tyranny, they stood as long as they could, till they were oppressed by tyranny. Aureolus 
h 4. d. 37. p 185.  says, the common way, of holding, is that Orders have the vow of continency annexed by the institution of the Church. This is somewhat to show that God by no divine law made it so: but if he had added that the Church which made this institution had been a faction, first of superstitious persons, and then of Antichristian heretics conducted by the Pope, he had said the truth and opened the whole pedigree of it: but if he had added further, that which 
i Istud onus, quod adhuc quamplurima monstra fecit, ab audaci sertur pieta●e repertum. Mant. Fast. l. 1. see Joh Mar. ubi sup.  not a few of his fellows supply for him, that by leading from God's ordinance, it hath filled their Clergy with all manner of uncleanness and villainy, he had said no more than all the world knows to be true, and will subscribe to.   

CHAP. LIII.  
Wherein is handled the doctrine of the Church of Rome touching the worship of images, and the distinctions whereby the same is maintained are examined: and our adversaries finally convicted of giving God's honour to their images. The Ancient Church was against image worship.  A. D. Fiftly, touching images whereas M. White 
* White pag. 344, of the first edit. & 345. in the second edition. Where for shame he addeth a limitation saying (some of them) having in the first edition absolutely said, without limitation, The Church of Rome worshippeth▪ etc.  saith, 
Pag. 281.  that the Church of Rome worshippeth, and commandeth men to worship them, with the very same divine honour which is due to God himself: first, no man holdeth that the images of Saints are to beworshipped with the very same divine honour which is due to God, because the Saints themselves, being more honoured of us then their images, are not honoured with divine honour. Secondly, although some say, that the image of Christ is to be worshipped with the same honour that the Prototypon is; yet these be but some, and that which is said by these some, is not so to be understood as M. White seemeth willing to make his Reader believe; as though they meant, that the very honour, due to our Saviour, should be given to the image itself, which cannot be, unless we should be so foolish as to conceive and judge that the image itself were indeed Christ the Son of God, which none that hath learned the first rudiments of Christianity can conceive and judge. Those therefore that use that manner of speech, do only mean that the image is worshipped with the same worship only improperly and per accident or at the most Analogicè. All which manners are far from giving any divine honour even to the image of Christ himself, as will appear by only declaring what it is to give worship to an image improperly, and what per accidens, and what to give it Analogicè: the which I think good to declare in this place because I imagine if Protestants did but rightly understand our doctrine, in this and other such points, they would not be so much averted from it as, through the slanderous misreports of our adversaries, now they are: Note therefore first, that we are said to worship an image improperly when as we take it obiective and make it the vicegerent of the thing considered as absent or distant, by it representing to our mind the thing itself, no otherwise then in a Comedy, or Play, the person of the king may be represented by another person: to whom, in this case, all due respect of speech may be made as if he were the king himself. In which case notwithstanding all the honour is properly done only to the king, and is only improperly done to the person, which representeth him. In this manner it is that Preachers, sometimes fixing their eyes on the image of the crucifix, direct their speech to Christ himself, not that they think, or would have the people to think, that the crucifix is Christ, more than those that make such a Comedy, or Play as I speak of, do think, or would have others to think, that the person which representeth the king is the very king himself, or that the honour is done to him as to one conceived really to be the king himself. In this manner also it is that on good-fryday in Catholic countries they adore, and creep to the Cross. For all this adoration and creeping is exhibited (properly speaking) only to Christ himself: and none of this honour properly is given to the cross itself: the which unproper manner of honouring the cross or crucifix is no more iniutious or prejudicial to the honour of God than the kneeling, which might be made in such a Comedy to him that representeth the king's person, or which men use to make before the Chair of Estate, is injurious or prejudicial to the honour of the king. Neither are Christian people more likely, by these customs of the Church, to fall into idolatry, by conceiving images to be the very thing which is adored as God, or as a Saint: having both their Pastor's instruction, and their own reason and faith to tell them the contrary; then kings subjects are in danger, by the foresaid Plays, or the custom of kneeling to the Chair of Estate, to commit treason in conceiving the Player, or Chair, to be the king and giving that respect of sovereign duty to the Player or to the Chair, as to the very king: in regard their own reason, and but ordinary instruction, will teach them that the Player, or Chair, is not the king, himself, and that the respect given to them is not given to them as to the very king. Note secondly, that we are said to worship an image per accidens, when as we do not thus take the image obiective, as vicegerent of the thing considered, as absent, or distant, but when as we consider the thing itself presented, and as it were vested, with the image, or shining to us in the image: as it happeneth to unlearned men, who sometimes cannot frame a conceit of Christ crucified but by means of the outward image: and as it happeneth to all men, who in this life (at least ordinarily) cannot understand any thing but by means of the inward images of their imagination and fantasy, according to that of Aristotle: Oportet intelligentem phantasmata speculari. In this case the adoration which we make at the sight of the image is, per se loquendo: only exhibited to the thing, yet it may be said to be given per accidens to the image: no otherwise then when we bow down to the king clothed in his Princely robes, our bowing, per se loquendo, is only to the king's person, yet it may be said to be done per accidens to his robes. Note thirdly, that we may be said to give the same honour to the image which is given to the thing Analogice, to wit, the same in name not in nature, the same in similitude of proportion not in substance or equality of perfection: which I explicate thus: To an image, being a thing without life, or understanding, properly speaking, there is not due, either latria, hyperdulia, or dulias, or any other, so much as civil worship, of the same nature, substance, or equality, which is due to the thing which it may represent, but a far inferior manner of worship, proportionably more, or less, as the thing which it representeth is more or less worthy: the which, although thus it be far inferior to the worship due to the thing itself: yet in regard it is given, only for the resemblance, or relation it hath to the thing, it may after a sort, partake the name of the worship, due to the very thing: and may in a secondary manner, be reduced to it: thereby being distinguished from the worship due to other images, and receiving more, or less, moral dignity, then is in the worship due to other images. This to be so, is proved, because that what proportion there is betwixt the image, and the thing whereof it is the image, the same is betwixt the worship due to the image, and the worship due to the thing. But first, the image is not the same with the thing, in nature, substance, or equality of perfection, but far inferior. Ergo the worship due to the thing, and due to the image, is not the same in nature, substance, and equality of perfection, but far inferior. Secondly, the image may have the name of the thing, and may be reduced, in a secondary manner to the kind of the thing; thereby being distinguished from other images, and to receive proportionably more, or less moral dignity, than other images have. Ergo, the worship due to the image may, in a sort, have the name, and may, in a secondary manner, be reduced to the worship of the thing, thereby being distinguished from the worship due to other images, receiving also more, or less moral dignity, then is in the worship due to other images. This explication may seem perhaps too subtle for every ones capacity; as indeed it is, being intended by me for the satisfaction of more pregnant, and judicious wits. For the simple sort, it may suffice to understand, first, that in truth, and speaking properly, none of us hold, that the same, but an inferior kind of honour is due to the image, then is due to the thing, whose image it is. Secondly, that to give such an inferior kind of worship to images, proportionably more, or less, as we esteem, more or less, the thing whereof it is an image, is no way to be misliked. For we see that every one beareth some kind of civil respect to the very picture of his friend, proportionably more or less, as, in a civil amity, he loveth his friend more or less, setting it in a decent place etc. The which respect to his friend's picture is no way any hindrance, but rather a great help to show, and increase his respect to his friend, in his own person; and cannot be accounted injurious but grateful to his friend: Even so the inferior kind of religious reverence, and respect, which we give to the image of Christ, and his Saints, more or less, this reverence and respect (I say) done to the images relics, etc. is so far from being a hindrance to the reverence, and respect due to Christ himself, or to his Saints: as rather it much helpeth us to show, and so to practise, and so to increase our reverence, and respect to Christ himself, and to his Saints: and therefore cannot be thought injurious, 
* See Bellar. l. de imag. c. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19  but very grateful unto them. Now understanding our doctrine, and practise about worshipping of images in this manner, M. White doth not, nor ever will be able sufficiently to prove, or show, it to be unlawful, or contrary either to Scriptures, or to the doctrine of the ancient Church. The proofs which he bringeth are either impertinent, or of small moment, or are answered already by Catholic Authors. 
1 THe first example, wherein the Digression showed the Church of Rome to hold contrary to the Primitive Church, was in the point of IMAGES: briefly producing divers plain testimonies out of the Scripture, and other Ecclesiastical writers, whereby it appears that the use and worship of images, now so solemn in the Roman Church, was not permitted in those days. My Adversary replies: The proofs which I bring, are either impertinent, or of small moment, or are answered already by Catholic authors. His author is Bellarmine, quoted in his margin; but therefore M. White, made choice of this point, to see who, of all his Adversaries, would step forth and first propound Bellarmine's answers, and then maintain them against that which would be replied. This had been a director course than thus, every where, to refer me to his books, whereby the Reader can take no benefit. For I also can as easily refer him to the books of those that have answered all that Bellarmine says. His reason rendered why the authorities and proofs produced should be impertinent, and of small moment, is, because we do not rightly understand the doctrine and practice of the Church of Rome about worshipping of images, but slanderously misreport it: therefore he will declare it, that it may appear to be neither unlawful, nor contrary to the Scripture, or doctrine of the ancient Church. That which he says touching our not rightly understanding the doctrine, may be true. For the idolatry is so gross, that the distinctions and tricks, invented to defend it, are such as themselves understand not: and the three things, here noted by himself, are the very nice distinctions whereof 
a De imag. c. 22.  Bellarmine and 
b De Trad. p. 226.  Peresius confess, that neither the people nor themselves understand or conceive them, or if they do, yet they 
* Nec possunt nisi errando intelligere.  err in doing it. That it is no marvel if we understand not that which they understand not themselves. But that the proofs alleged in the Digression are impertinent, and of small moment, is easily said, but not so easily showed. For three things I am sure the Replier will grant me: yea he grants them expressly in his discourse. First, that in his Church they have and use images. Secondly, that they worship them, at least with some kind of worship, either civil, or divine. Thirdly, that some kind of images, they worship with divine honour, at least with a distinction: either properly, or improperly: or respectively, or accidently, or univocally, or equivocally, or analogically. Now the authorities alleged show that none of all this was done and allowed in the Primitive Church: neither the setting up of images in the Church: nor the worshipping them with civil worship: nor the worshipping of any of them with divine worship, with any distinction whatsoever. And therefore the Reply, by running into this irksome and wild explication of their doctrine, doth but put a trick on the Reader. For the Digression produced the authorities, not only against worshipping of the images of Christ, and God, with divine honour, properly and for themselves, but against worshipping them with divine honour, in such manner, as he confesses it is given; improperly, accidently, analogically; and secondly, against worshipping any images at all, either with latria, or dulias, or hyperdulia. And thirdly, against the very setting them up in the Church, for any end whatsoever. Now he, by running into his distinctions, makes show as if nothing were required for answering me, but only to show that they worship images with divine honour; only; improperly, and accidentally, or at the most analogically. The which if he could show never so substantially (which he cannot) yet when he had done, he had also to show the other three points: That neither the setting up, nor adoring civilly, nor adoring with God's honour improperly, accidentally, and analogically, were against the practice and doctrine of the Primitive Church, showed in those authorities.  
2 Omitting therefore that which most properly concerned him, he only meddles with that I said touching the worshipping images with divine honour, the very same that is due to God. And first he says, no man holds that the images of Saints are so to be worshipped, because the Saints themselves are not worshipped with divine honour: and in his margin, he shows, how in the first impression of my Book, I said absolutely without limitation, the Church of Rome worships images with the same honour that belongs to God: but in the second edition I added a limitation: the Church of Rome worships images (some of them) with the same honour: the which, he says, I added for shame. I answer, the addition was not for shame, as if there were any images in their Church which are not worshipped with divine honour, but for the more perspicuity, to point at those images which I would most challenge. And if he will not allow me thus much without controlment, let the shame follow the chiefest writers in his own Church. Stapleton, Suarez, Valentian, and his Briarly, who all in their latter editions have added many things, to explain the former: and, with a witness, let him reach it Bellarmine for his recognitions. I am so far from being ashamed of that I said, They worship images, (yea images of Saints) with divine honour, that I am contented the three words, added in the second impression, be razed out again. For doth he think we are so blind, that because in words they renounce it, therefore we cannot discern of their deeds? is it enough to discharge them when they say they worship them only with an inferior honour, called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and yet give both Saints, and their images, that which belongs to God alone? do they not invocate Saints in their prayers? and make vows to them? and do they not kneel, and creep, and adore, and 
a Pontifex imaginem Mariae. thurificat. pontiff. Rom. part. 2. p. 165.  burn incense to their images, all which being done in religion, 
b Exo. 20.5. Rom. 14.11. ●est 3.2. cum 13 14 Eph. 3 14. Es. 45.23. Dan 6.10. Es. 19.21.  is only due to the God of heaven? doth the Replier once hope that he can distinguish the honour, given the Virgin Mary, and the service done to her shrine at Laureto, from divine? he is deceived. Agobardus, the B. of Lions in France, above 800 years after Christ, 
c L●●e imag. p. 213  says, The works of men's hands may not be adored and worshipped, no not in honour of them whose images they be— 
* Pag. 237.  and, If they who have left the service of the Devil (the Gentiles) should be commanded to worship the images of Saints, I suppose they would think they had not so much left, as changed, their Idols.  
3 Secondly, he says, though some say, the image of Christ is to be worshipped with the same honour, the prototypon, Christ himself, is: yet these be but some. Here are two faults. For first he mentions only the image of Christ: as if what his some say, were only touching that: whereas the doctrine is, that every image is to be adored with the same honour the sampler is: therefore not the image of Christ alone, but the cross, and the images 
* A ddendum est has imagines coli posse illo duplici modo, in alijs imaginibus explica●o. Suar. 1 d. 54. s. 6. §. Secundo addendum. Idem Vasqu. de ador adorat. l. 2. nu. 167. comparat. cum titul. disp. 6. nu. 156.  of the Trinity must be adored with divine honour. Then secondly, the some that hold every image is to be adored with the same honour wherewith the sampler is adored, and therefore the images of Christ and his cross must be adored with divine honour, if they be reckoned, will amount to such a sum, that they will be very near all the Divines the Church of Rome hath. For 
a 3. part. q. 25. art. 3.  this Thomas his conclusion; Seeing Christ is to be adored with the adoration of Latria, divine worship, his image also is to be adored with the same adoration. Now 
b This sum of S. Tho. Aquinas comprehendeth all, lightly, that the Catholics.— Walsingh. p. 126.  that which Thomas teaches is holden, at least by the mayor part, if not by all. Yea, Azorius 
c Tom. 1. l. 9 c. 6  says, it is the constant judgement of their Divines. And 
d Suar. to. 1. d. 54. s. 4. Azor. ubi sup. Vasqu. ador d. 8. c. 14.  the jesuits affirm it to be decreed in the Trent Council. And if the reader list to see what some they be that hold it, let him turn back to the place 
e Ch. 48. nu. 2.  where I disputed touching the Counsels of Niece and Frankfurt.  
4 It is certain therefore, that it is the doctrine of the present Church of Rome, that images are worshipped with divine honour, such as God himself is worshipped with. Now let us go forward. The Reply answers, that the meaning is, that the honour is the same, only improperly, by accident, or at the most analogically: and therefore it is not divine honour. And so falls to declaring what it is to worship an image improperly, by accident, and analogically. But afore we come to this declaration, let the reader have his eye upon the point, and remember he hath two things to show. First, that this improper accidentary and analogical honour, is not divine honour, such as is due to God only. Secondly, that the ancient Primitive Church condemned it not, but allowed it, as the Church of Rome now doth. The which two things being always kept in mind, go we forward to his 
* This his declaration is Bellarmine's, de imag. c. 20.  declaration. First, he says: they worship the images of Christ, not per se, by themselves, but by accident: not properly, but improperly: or at the most analogically. Next he expounds this. The image is worshipped improperly when it is taken obiectiuè, and made the vicegerent of the thing, whereof it is an image, to represent the same to our mind: as Tarleton, in a play, represented the person of a king: and not properly in respect of itself. Secondly, it is worshipped by accident, when it is not the suppositum wherein the reason of the worship is, but is joined to it, and is the thing whereby it is worshipped, and wherewith it is vested, and wherein it shines to us. As the Prince's robes are bowed to, because the person of the Prince is clothed in them. Thirdly, it is worshipped analogically, in that the same honour is given it that is given to Christ; not in nature, but in name; not in substance, or equality of perfection; but in similitude of proportion: when for the resemblance and relation it hath to Christ it partakes the name of his own worship, and is reduced to it; and so receives more moral dignity, and is of a higher proportion, then is the worship due to other images. This explication denies images, or the cross, to be adored properly, for themselves, or with God's worship the same in nature, substance, or equality: and affirms them to be adored only as the vicegerents of Christ, which represent him, and by relation are joined with him; and that with the same worship only in name, similitude, and proportion. I answer three things. First, these distinctions are but the late inventions of our Adversaries, to hide their idolatry, neither can they either understand them themselves, or make others understand them; or if they can, yet can they not hereby free themselves from error. Bellarmine 
a De imag. c. 22 §. quarto.  confesses, that it is not void of great danger to tell the people the image of Christ, or the cross, are to be worshipped, with the worship of latria; for they which defend it are enforced to use most nice distinctions, which scarce themselves, much less the people understand. And Peresius, 
b Pag 226.  they are a scandal to the weak, who are altogether ignorant of them, and cannot understand them but by erring: and the Reply itself acknowledges they are too subtle for every ones capacity. Secondly, it implies a contradiction, to be divine worship, and yet only such in name, similitude, proportion. For all divine worship is divine in nature and definition. Thirdly, the Church of Rome teaches the giving of divine honour to these images, properly, and in nature, and not improperly, and in name or likeness only. This I prove.  
5 First, ens & verum convertuntur. That which is so, is truly so. They teach to worship an image with divine honour; therefore with true divine honour: Therefore with that which is univocal divine honour: therefore with more than the same in name, likeness, or proportion. Secondly, the words of the Popish DD. import more. Coster the jesuite 
c Pag. 370. Ench  says, All the honour which is due to the sampler, may also be given to the image: if All, then more than the name, and proportion: seeing, as himself, 
d Pag. 368.  a little before said, All kind of honour is given to Christ. For if all contained within the definition of divine honour, be given to Christ: and all that is given Christ, be due to his image, it follows that all contained within the definition of divine honour is given to his image. Suarez 
e To. 1. d. 54. s. 4. §. Secundo infero.  says, By this adoration (
* In his conclu. §. dicendum.  whereby the sampler in the image, and the image for the sampler, is worshipped) the image also is adored, not only with the external act (as of kneeling, or creeping, or capping) which is not sufficient for adoration; but with the internal motion and intention also, of him that adores: and that not abusively only, but TRULY & PROPERLY. 
f §. Alij vero.  And having reported the opinion of Biel, Cordubensis, and others, who distinguish, as the Reply doth, that the worship is but analogical: he confutes them, and says, they neither speak to the purpose, nor according to Thomas his mind, but clean beside it. It is false therefore that the Reply says, they worship Christ's image improperly, and at the most but analogically. D. Saunders 
g Treat. of imag. c. 17. p. 185. b,  saith, the adoration of the image so passeth, immediately, to the first sampler and pattern, that it becometh not first one in the image, and then afterward another in Christ, but it passeth altogether (remaining still one and the same) from the image, to Christ himself. He adds (* because he was not of the Thomists and jesuits opinion) Being then, in the image doulia, it is doulia in Christ: but by his leave, if this be so, being divine honour in nature, properly, and definition, in Christ, it must needs be the same in his image. But Thomas his conclusion, and the ground thereof is so plain, that it will not admit these distinctions. 
h Vbi sup q. 25. art. 3. see Caiet. upon the place.  His conclusion is, seeing Christ is to be adored with divine worship, his image also must be adored with the same worship. His ground is, Because the motion of the mind is one and the same to the image and the sampler. And expounds how: when the mind conceives the image, only as a mere thing, than the motion is twofold: one to the image, and another to the thing: but when it conceives it as an image of another thing, than the motion is one and the self same, both to the image, and to the thing signified by it. Hence I thus reason. So as Thomas intended the motion of the mind to be one and the same, both to the image and the sampler; so, and in the same manner, did he intend the adoration to both, to be the same: But its clear he intended the motion of the mind to be one and the same to both; not improperly or accidentarily, or analogically; but the same to both, in nature and definition. Therefore it is clear he intended the adoration to both, to be one and the same not improperly, accidentarily, or analogically, but in nature and definition. You will possible demand what it is then that Thomas, and his sectaries truly hold touching this matter? I answer, they hold 4. things. First, that images are to be adored with the same honour that is due to the sampler. Secondly, that therefore the images of Christ, and his cross must be adored with divine honour, the same that belongs to Christ himself. Thirdly, that this divine honour is not divine only in name, and analogy, but indeed and univocally. For that being the exposition of 
i 3. d. 9 qu. vnic. concl. 6.  Gabriel, is rejected of all hands. Fourthly, that this honour is given the image respctively for Christ, thereby to honour him, & to convey their service to him: & not for the images own sake. He that reads Thomas, and the jesuits, shall find this to be true: wherein they have only the last point to help themselves, and wherewith to excuse their idolatry. But it doth them no good; forsomuch as the jews worshipping the calf, and the Gentiles adoring their idols, did it not for the images own sake, but respectively and intentionally to God, using the image but as an instrument to convey their service to him; yet notwithstanding for so much as in this manner, they imparted divine adoration to the image, by creeping, bowing capping, kneeling, informed also by religious motions of the heart; 
k Psal. ●06. 19, 20, Rom. 1.23.  God, without respecting their intention, upbraids them with idolatry.  
6 Nevertheless, to show that images may be adored with the divine honour of Christ, improperly, accidentally and analogically, as he hath distinguished, he reasons thus: the worshipping of a crucifix or image in this manner, and the creeping to the cross, as in Catholic countries it is used on Good-fridayes: is no more than kneeling to the chair of estate, or to one that in a Play represents the King's person. But to kneel to the chair of estate, or to one that in a play represents the King's person, is no treason, or prejudicial to the honour of the King. Therefore the worshipping of Christ's image, in this manner, is no idolatry, nor prejudicial to the honour of Christ. I answer, denying the proposition: there is not the like reason in worshipping the image of Christ, that there is in kneeling to the chair of estate, or to him that represents the King's person: they are not equal. The comparison doth well show and explicate, how it is possible to worship Christ in the crucifix, and the crucifix for Christ: but it doth not prove this to be lawful. For it is true that the chair of estate is in a sort united to the person of the King, and the person of the King is by a certain habitude united to him that represents him. But how will the Replier prove, that so also Christ is united to the image. I know the idolater in his conceit unites them; but who hath taught him so to do? what law, what word, what promise of God hath repealed any such union, or allowed him to conceive it? Secondly it is true, the chair of estate, or he that represents the King, and the King himself, may be conceived both together with one thought, and they may be reverenced both together with one worship; the one properly, the other improperly: but thus to conceive, and thus to worship Christ and his image together, is the thing that I say is forbidden, and was condemned in the Primitive Church. Thirdly, it is also true, that the chair of estate or the ambassador are not worshipped properly, because they are not worshipped at all, but the King only in them: but the worship given to the image, is bounded in the image itself, as it is an image: and if it were not, but Christ only were worshipped before the image, as God was before the Ark, yet that practice hath no warrant. Albeit therefore there be, as the Reply speaks, no danger in kneeling to the ambassador or chair of the King, but it may be done without treason, or prejudice to his honour; yet is it not so in the worship of images: first because the one is civil, the other religious worship; and that may be done without treason in the one, that cannot be done without idolatry in the other. Secondly God's word permits the one, but no where the other. Thirdly, the chair and ambassador are signs of the King's presence; but the image is no sign (ordained or allowed so to be) of Christ's presence, neither is Christ any way united to it by his own ordinance, but only by the worshippers idolatrous intention. And it is so true, that nothing may be adored with God, that is not really united to him; 
a Alexan. 3. par. q. 30. m. 2. Tho. 3. q. 25. ar. 1. & 2. Scot 3. d. 9 q. vnic. & ibi communit. Scholast Suar. to. 1. d. 53. sect. 2.  that if the humanity of Christ were separated from his person, and did not subsist in the word, it might not be adored with divine honour, for no cause but because then it should not be one with him.  
7 This I have answered, allowing the Papists to do no more to their images, than courtiers do to the chair of Estate, or then is done in a play, to him that represents the person of a King. But they do more: and to take the repliers own example, they do not only on Good-fridays exhibit their crosse-creeping to Christ, but they pray grossly to the Cross itself: 
b Primer of our Lady. tit. the Hymns. p. 10.  O thou right fair and comely tree, Whose worthy chosen stock was such, As kingly purple did adorn, And did so holy members touch: Blessed be the tree, upon whose bows, This world's value did depend: His body made the price so just, To free from hell it did intend. All hail o Cross, our only hope, Now at this present passion time, Uprightness in the good increase, And quit the guilty of their crime. In which prayer, many things are, that can be said of nothing but the wood itself; as 
c Pontifex imponit thu● in th● ribulum, deinde aspergit crucem aquae benedicta, & mox eam incensat—. Tum Pontifex flexis ante crucem genibus, ips●m devote adorat, & osculatur. Jdem faciunt qu●cunque alij volverint. Pont. Ro. p. 164  the bowing of the knee, kissing, & incensing it, are too soul to be washed off with this distinction. And all the instruction that popish Pastors use to give: who themselves speaking thus, not with their eyes fixed on the crucifix, but to the crucifix itself, (even in their pulpits all over Italy and Spain) and teaching withal that it must be adored, at least improperly or analogically, as well as Christ himself, even with divine honour; may not for shame be said to keep the people from falling into idolatry, when by this means they teach them, and embolden them in it.  
8 His second reason is this: The thing wherewith Christ is vested, and wherein he shines as a Prince clothed in his rob, and without which he cannot so easily be conceived, may and must necessarily be worshipped with him: But such is the image of Christ, that he is vested with it, etc. Ergo. This argument lies couched in his second note: or if it do not, than all he says there, is to no purpose: for to what end should he show, by the vesture and robes wherewith a Prince is vested, and by the phantasms mentioned, whereby things are conceived, how the image may accidentally be conceived and adored with Christ; if by the same things he intent not to prove the lawfulness of that adoration? I answer therefore, first as I did before, that these examples will serve to show, how it is possible to worship an image only accidentally, but not how it is lawful. Secondly, the doctrine of the Church of Rome, is, that all images are worshipped more than accidentally or improperly: 
a Bel. c. 21.2. sent  They are worshipped of themselves properly, so that themselves are the object of the worship, as they are considered in themselves, and not only as they are vicegerents of the sampler. He means not they are thus worshipped with divine honour, but with some honour of another kind: yet he shows the Replier to say false, that they are worshipped only accidentally. Nay by this conclusion it must be holden, that they are worshipped for themselves (as images) and properly, with divine honour: because all the worship given them, is to worship Christ withal: and no man may worship Christ, but with divine honour. Now if the Church of Rome honour the crucifix in a higher degree than the King's rob is honoured; what faculty is there in the rob to prove the honour of the crucifix? Thirdly it is utterly false, that an image is the vesture of Christ, or that his majesty shines to us in it: it is rather the vesture of Satan, wherein he shows himself to all that worship it, whose image soever it be. Fourthly, allowing that by phantasms I come to the conceiving of things, and see not the King but vested in his rob, and in my understanding, the image is not conceived without Christ, but the motion of my mind is one to both, as to the phantasms and the things, to the rob and the King: yet I do not conceive them as one, but as distinct things; conceiving the rob to be a rob, the king to be a king, the image to be an image, and Christ to be God: whereupon it follows, that the adoration following the conception, I need not nor must adore any more than I conceive to be capable of adoration, which the rob and the image is not. Durand, whom Gerson 
b To. 1. p. 559. e.  thinks to be one of them that have written most purely and substantially, 
c 3. d. 9 q. 2.  says, Though the motion of the mind be one and the same to the image and the thing whereof it is an image, yet the mind never says the image is the thing, but always distinguishes between them: and therefore the worship given to the thing, is never given to the image. The Repliers argument therefore may well proceed in that opinion that holds Christ to be worshipped only before an image, though so also it justifies it not; but it cannot conclude that worship, either divine or any at all, must in any sense be given to the image; because the mind conceiving both at once, yet understands the image to be a block, and Christ to be God. To the same effect writes Peresius a professor of Divinity among our adversaries: 
a Tradit. p. 224.  Though we may be carried with one and the same knowledge to the image and the sampler, yet is it not hence concluded that the same may be done in worshipping and adoring them: for there is great dissimilitude between this and that. For it is not repugnant to an image, as it is an image, to be conceived with the same knowledge wherewith the thing represented is known: but it seems to be against the nature of an image, as it is an image, that it should be reverenced with the same reverence wherewith the sampler is, seeing it exceeds not the limits of an insensible creature: and of this comparison of a King's rob, he says, There is no likeness between an image and the robes of an Emperor.  
9 In his third note, the Reply having explicated his analogical adoration, which he says is the most they give to images: he says thereupon, the worship given to images in the Church of Rome, is not the same in nature, substance or equality of perfection to that is given to God, but far inferior: demonstrating it by two reasons. Thus he distinguishes, because the Digression had said, The Church of Rome worshippeth images with divine honour, the same that is due to God. But I have sufficiently adswered, that even this analogical honour, thus given, as he distinguishes and proves, is condemned by the Scripture and authorities alleged in the Digression, for two causes: first, because it is some kind of worship; and all kinds of worship are condemned: secondly, it is divine worship, though not of the highest degree, yet divine in analogy; and in some sort also of the nature and substance of divine worship, because, as I have said before, it can be reduced to any other kind then that which by the image is given to God. Secondly I answer, and have showed before, that the Church of Rome worshippeth images in a higher degree then with analogical worship. For it was 
c Omnia coniuncta adorandu, sive ut partes praesentes vel praeteritae sive ut alias specialem ordinem ad ipsae habe●tia, propter se ●●o adorabiliat adoranda sunt eadem specie adorat●onis analogice. 3 d. 9 q. vnic. concl. 6. id. lect. 49.  Biels' opinion, they ought indeed to be worshipped no otherwise: but the jesuits, as I have showed confute him. For there are three opinions, whereof this of the analogical worship, is one: but the jesuits and others in the Church of Rome, hold it not, but go further.  
10 Now follows that which is worth the noting. For the Replier having distinguished the manner how divine honour is given to images, says, Perhaps it is too subtle for every ones capacity, being intended only for the satisfaction of more pregnant and judicious wits. But this latter clause, he should have left out. For Bellarmine 
d De imag. c. 22  says, It is not to be said at all, that the worship of Latria (which is divine adoration) is due to images. First, because the Counsels do not affirm it, but simply deny it: then, it is not without great danger to say so. For they who defend images are to be adored with divine honour, are enforced to use most subtle distinctions, which THEMSELVES hardly understand, much less the rude people, etc. This is a notable dogtrick, thus to teach the adoration of images; and when they have done, to confess it is not fit to utter it. What shall the doctrine be then, that men shall hold them to? It may suffice for the simple sort to understand, that IN TRUTH and SPEAKING PROPERLY, not the same, but a far inferior kind of honour is due to the image, then is due to the thing whose image it is. If this be the truth, then 
e Azor. tom. 1. l. 9 c. 6.  that which is the constant judgement of the Romish Divines, is a lie, and comes from the father of lies, and shall be punished accordingly by him that hates all lies; pestilent hypocrites thus to maintain that, in whole volumes, which themselves know not to be the truth. But now the doctrine of Thomas and the jesuits, and so many great Schoolmen, and the constant judgement of all Divines, is cast off, and this inferior kind of worship is supplied; how shall it appear this also is not to be misliked? he answers, that as a man bearing respect to the picture of his friend, yet is not counted injurious to him though he respect not the picture so much as his friend, but rather so much the more grateful: so this inferior religious reverence given to images, is so far from hindering the respect we own to Christ, that it shows and practices it the more, and increases it, and so cannot be thought injurious but grateful to Christ and his Saints. So he. But let him take heed, that while he labours to please Christ and his Saints, he displease not Thomas and his disciples: for he knows they cannot abide this inferior worship; but seeing the motion of the mind is one and the same to Christ and his image, they will have the worship to both, be one and the same. And howsoever they take the matter, let the Replier go roundly to the point, and show how this gratifying Christ with his inferior worship, was gatefull to the ancient Church? And let him make demonstration, where Christ hath commanded it? For a man may make and use the picture of his friend, as he pleases, (though 
f Paleot. imag. l. 2. c. 20.  a great Cardinal be somewhat straitlaced in the matter, and allows not all that liberty that we see used.) But where is any allowance to gratify Christ by worshipping his picture? and where is the word of God permitting to make the pictures of the Trinity? let this be showed, and there is an end in the controversy: for that is the point which the Digression affirms the ancient Church to have holden against the now-church of Rome; whose words against such things, he should have answered, and not with an unlike comparison of a human picture have imposed upon the vulgar. But his own picture, for this trick, shall never be made, because he flies out of the field, and leaves the matter behind him. For no man will make the picture of a coward, that flies and dares not abide it, 
g In 3. Ps.  says S. Chrysostome.  
11 For the testimonies both of the Scriptures and Fathers, though briefly pointed to, yet very clearly show, that images in religion might no ways be used under any pretence; but all worship of them they condemn so far, that they will not admit it with any distinction: be it religious worship, divine or civil, proper, improper, accidental, analogical, inferior, the same that is given to God, or not the same; if it be worship, service, adoration, kneeling, kissing, crouching, capping, vowing, they condemn it all: and the second Nicene Council, 800 years after Christ, was the first that confirmed it; to the great discontent of the godly in the Church, as I have 
* Ch. 48. n. 4.  elsewhere showed in the narration of the Counsels of Frankford and Paris. Walafridus Strabo 
h In his colendi superstitionem & hebetudinem. pag. 3 37. b. Novimus non adorandas nec colendas iconas. ib. d.  called it superstition and blockishness to worship them. jonas the B. of Orleans living the same time: 
i Pag. 609. Bibl SS. Patrum, edit 1. tom. 5. pag. 609. c.  That which you said the worshippers of images answered in defence of their error: We do not think any divinity to be in the image, but we worship it only in honour of him whose image it is; we reprove and detest as well as you; because WHEN THEY KNOW THERE IS NO DIVINITY IN IMAGES, THEY ARE THE MORE TO BE INVEYED AGAINST, FOR GIVING TO AN INFIRM AND BEGGARLY IMAGE, THE HONOUR THAT IS DUE TO THE DIVINITY. How much the maintainers and followers of this error go astray from religion, I need not particularly declare—. God grant they in the East (he means such as held and followed the second Nicene Council) who have enthralled themselves to this most wicked error, may be delivered from it. The like is testified by Agobardus the B. of Lions at the same time, who wrote a book to prove images should not be worshipped: 
k De pict. & imag. pag. 237.  wherein he says; They which answer, they think no divinity to be in the image they worship, but only they worship it in honour of him whose image it is, are easily answered again: because if the image he worships, be not God, NEITHER IS IT TO BE WORSHIPPED IN HONOUR OF THE SAINTS, who use not to arrogate to themselves divine honour. And he adds, that the images of the Apostles, and our Lord himself, were expressed by the ancient, after the custom of the Gentiles, RATHER FOR LOVE AND MEMORY, THAN FOR ANY RELIGIOUS HONOUR OR WORSHIP. And concluding his book, 
l Agobard. pag. 251.  he says: THIS IS THE SINCERE RELIGION, THIS IS THE CATHOLIC CUSTOM, THIS THE ANCIENT TRADITION OF THE FATHERS: LET THIS HIGHWAY THEREFORE BE HOLDEN; THIS IS THE DOCTRINE TAUGHT BY THE APOSTLES, THE MASTERS OF THE CHURCH, THE rams OF THE FLOCK. And that this image-worshippe thus set afoot by the Nicene Council, yet was not uniformly entertained of a long time after, appears by the manifest opposition that even within these 400 years, 
m See Polyd. invent. l. 6. c. 13. Gers. declat. compend. defect. eccl. n. 67. Henric. quodl. 10. q. 6. Dur. 3. d. 9 q. 2. ad. 4. Dur. rational. l. 1. c. 3 n. 4. Pic. Mirand. apol q 3. Holt. in Sap. lect. 157. B. Catharin. l. de cult. imag. Biel: lect. 49. Cassand. consult tit. de imag.  as learned men as any lived in the Church of Rome, made against it, misliking and condemning it.   

CHAP. liv.  
1. The Pope's supremacy was not in the ancient Church: neither is it acknowledged at this day by many Papists. Nun Brigets speech touching the Pope. And Cyrils' riddle.  A. D. Sixtly concerning the Supremacy, 
Pag. 285. 1 Bell. l. 2. de Rom. Pont. c. 2.13.14.15.16. etc. 21. & deinceps & lib. 5. c. 7.8. jodoc. Cocc. & others  there are so sufficient testimonies both of Scriptures and Fathers alleged by our Authors for it, that it is marvel that M. White durst adventure to reckon it for a point wherein we disagree from antiquity, especially upon so slight grounds and insufficient authorities, which are so ordinarily answered by our Authors, as I think it not worth spending ink and paper about them. True it is, that the practice of this authority might as occasion urged, be more at one time then at another: but the fullness of all Pastoral power over all Christ's sheep, was equally in all Popes from the very beginning, when it was given by our Saviour peculiarly to S. Peter, and in him to his Successors. 
But 
a THE WAY, §. 36. n. 11. & inde. & Digr. 30.  I showed, this fullness of power was given neither to Peter nor his Successors; and made it so plain to the Reader, that the Repliar and his consorts have nothing to say in defence of it. Their guise is to give the onset with much breath; but when they are a little taken down, they think it not worth ink and paper to proceed any further: they marvel we dare adventure upon so slight grounds: their grave onsets, that promised all sincerity and undeniable proofs, are resolved into Thrasonical brags. For the testimonies alleged in the Digression, did not only show the practice of the Pope's authority to have been less in the Primitive Church then now it is; but they make it evident, that what he now practices, and then began to claim or usurp, more than the other three patriarchs had, was unlawful. I showed his title of universal Bishop; his intermeddling with Appeals; his going beyond the Church canons, and outstripping the other patriarchs; his malapertness with Kings and their states, was all condemned in those days, by the doctrine and practice of the Church. This was directly to the point, when he bade me show what point of doctrine the Romish Church now holds or denies, contrary to the universal Church. He says, the authorities alleged, are ordinarily answered by his Authors, Coccius and Bellarmine. This is his ordinary answer. But had he told the Reader what his Authors say, it would not have endured daylight. And, as it pleases God, all the world now sees the uttermost that can be said for the Supremacy, is vented; and Bellarmine himself is not only confuted by others of his own side, but is at that fault, with his directè and indirectè, that we justly begin to think he dotes. 
* The B. of Ely  As good a man, and as learned as himself every day in the year, hath so uncased him, that the titles of his learning, and reputation of his greatness, shall deceive us no more. And this I admonish the Replier, that if the Pope spend the revenues of his triple crown upon ink and paper, he cannot justify his present usurpations: which not we alone abhor, but his own Church 
b See controu. memorab inter Paul. 5. & Ven.  at Venice and at 
c De eccl. & polit. potest. Paris. 1612.  Paris this day hath cast off: and 
d Occh. rosel. Rosat. Marsil. Maior Alliac. Zabarel Cusan. Dantes, Walran. Lupold. and divers others, whose books are well known and extant.  many of his own Doctors, within the compass of the last 400 years, have condemned; and the late Counsels of Constance and Basil, laboured to restrain. And the Replier is too immodest to say, he marvels I durst adventure to reckon this of all points; when the disagreement from antiquity is more sensible in no point. That now we may say of the Pope, as 
e Brig revel. l 6 c. 96.  Nun Brigit sometime writ: He that should cry, Come, and you shall find rest to your souls; now cries, Come and see me in pomp and ambition beyond Solomon: come to my Court, and OUT WITH YOUR PURSES, AND YOU SHALL FIND DAMNATION TO YOUR SOULS. And 
f SIMULTUM STABIT SUPER ●OS DIADE RUTILANTE: VT TIBI E●FVNDANT ELECTRUM. EA PROPPED ere RUDES MIGINA MANDENT VIRODERE: ET BLACE BLICIAE ALLVDE B●NT: TUNC CELIBES ET BLASCONES LUGERE CV● ROBOAM: B● BLENONES MIXTOS DORTONIBUS RIDERE CUM JEROBOAM. pag. 11.  the riddle of Cyril the Monk, reported by 
g Telesph. de Cusent. l. de magnis tribul. Venet. 1516.  Telesphorus in his book of prophecies, may be expounded: The devil shall make a Pope with a worm in his head, & a sort of hungry parasites laughing at his heels.   

CHAP. LV.  
1. The Communion in ancient time was ministered to the people in both kinds. 2. An innovation in this point, in the Church of Rome. 3. The pretences used against the Cup.  A. D. Seventhly concerning the Communion in one kind. I answer, 
Pag. 286.  that the practice of the ancient Church itself, did use sometimes receiving in one kind, as is showed by 
1 See Greg. de Valent. tom. 4. disp. 6. q. 8. p. 5. §. 8. 9  Catholic authors: and although it used also receiving in both kinds; yet this proveth not, that to receive in one kind is contrary to the law of God, but rather that it was by the law of God left indifferent. Now in matters left indifferent by the law of God, the practice of the Church may be different, in different times or places, according to the difference of occurring motives and reasons, and all good. Which answer may be applied, in case M. White show other differences in the ancient and present Church practise: which to show, is altogether impertinent to this our question: where we are to see only whether there be any practice or point of doctrine maintained by the present Church, contrary to the law of God, or contrary to the doctrine of faith held universally by the ancient Church. 
1 THe communion in one kind, I showed to be contrary to the practice and doctrine of the ancient Church. For 
a Mat. 26.27.  Christ ordained it in both kinds, and 
b 1. Cor. 11.28.  commanded the use of it in both kinds. Chrysostome 
c Hom. 18. in 2. Cor.  says, There is wherein the Priest differs not from the people; as in the participation of the sacred mysteries, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Idem jeron. in Soph. l. sub init.  where one Body and one Cup is exposed to all alike. And innumerable places might be brought out of antiquity, and be added to that which I but briefly touched in the Digress. but it shall not need: for I presume no man will deny 
d Defence. lib. de office pij viri. under the name of Veran. Modest. Pacimont. p. 138.  Cassander's words to be true: This use of our Lord's blood, together with his body, in the ministration, hath the institution of Christ, and the custom of the whole Church above a thousand years, and of all the East to this day. The consideration whereof, moves the minds of many men, religious, and truly Catholic, vehemently to wish and labour, that by some general constitution, this so ancient and long continued custom of ministering the Sacraments wholly, might be revolved. The Reply answers, it was left indifferent by the law of God, and therefore the Primitive Church used it also, sometimes, in one kind, as Greg. Valence hath showed. This I deny. Gregory hath raked together all the places he could hear of, in antiquity, to give some colour to ministration in one kind; and hath most lewdly bestowed his wit to avoid the authorities that show the contrary: but it cannot be proved, either that the thing is indifferent, or that the Church solemnly in the congregations used but one kind, as the Church of Rome now doth; or that the practice of such particular persons as he pretends, was according to the doctrine of the Church: which are the things whereupon the true judgement of this question depends.  
2 But this it is: the B. of Rome and his Church, are now grown to that height of presumption, that whatsoever Christ instituted and practised himself, and commended to his Church; and the Church accordingly practised and taught many generations after him: yet by virtue of the chair, and under pretence that he hath power to dispense and vary in divers things; any thing may be altered, without changing the ancient faith. But say, good student, say directly, what reason can be assigned why the use of the cup should be less commanded by Christ, than the use of the bread? and why Christ should be thought to have left the cup indifferent more than the bread? The words in the institution, sound alike for both: the company to whom he ministered, received both, and were bidden to use both. If the cup be not necessary, because no lay people were among them; then by the same argument, neither is the bread necessary. I will only use the testimony of Cyprian, to prove that our Lord left not this matter mutable or indifferent: he 
a Ep. 68 edit. Morel.  says, Know ye that we are admonished, in offering the cup, to keep the Lords tradition: that nothing be done by us, but that which the Lord did for us: that the cup which is offered, be offered mingled with wine. Here Gregory 
* Pag. 1002. A.  answers, that Cyprian affirms no more but that when the cup is given, it must be given in the same matter that Christ did, not affirming the cup should be given to all. This (that the reader may have a taste of his doings, because the Reply refers me to him (is but a trick: for he affirms both: not only that we must offer it in such matter, but that we must offer it. For if that which Christ did, were the reason why it should be offered in such a matter, then is it also a reason why it must be offered. And that this was Cyprians mind, appears by 
b Ep. 54. & 63.  another text, where he and divers more, to the number of forty Bishops, appointed the Communion to be given in both kinds to the Christians in persecution, give this reason: For how do we teach or provoke them in the confession of his name to shed their blood, if we deny them the blood of Christ, when they are ready to fight? or how shall we make them fit for the cup of martyrdom, if we do not first admit them in the Church to drink the cup of our Lord, by the right of communion? They thought the cup necessary for such as should shed their blood for Christ, but such are all men, and at all times: the cup therefore they thought necessary for all. Again, all have right to it; it is not therefore indifferent.  
3 The reasons why the Church of Rome restrains the cup, are needful to be known. I will take only them that Tolet 
c In 1. joh. 6. ann. 27. confirmed by Suarez. Quia vix posset moraliter id fieri, sine magnus incommodis & periculis contra reverentiam huit sacramento debitam, quae vel propter multitudinem comunicantium, vel propter eorum varietatem, tam in conditionibus & affectibus corporu, quàm in animi prudentia & circumspectione, vel denique propter ministrantium incuriam nullatenus possent juxta humanam conditionem euitar● Suar. defence. fid cathol. l. 2. c. 5. n. 20.  gives. First for the reverence and decency of the Sacrament, that the cup be not spilt, and the wine shed, in so great and confused a company. Next for uniformity, that all people every where might receive alike: which should not be, if the cup were ministered: for some people love no wine. Thirdly to avoid their error that hold it may not be ministered in one kind. Fourthly for the preservation of the Sacrament; and that it might be carried to the sick: which in wine it could not for souring and spilling. Lastly for the instruction of the ignorant, that they may know Christ (by Thomas his concomitancy) is perfectly under either kind. It were no hard matter thoroughly to show the vanity of these reasons, and merrily to whip them: but the Cardinal had forgot, that all these reasons (in his own opinion) held in the primitive Church, and yet then they moved not the Church to take away the cup. I have read of words uttered in a great frost, which freezed in the venting as they were spoken, and were not hard till a thaw came a long time after: so belike our adversaries will answer; These reasons might be uttered in the ancient Church, but they could not be conceived till 
d Praeterea nosse debueras quod fecit. Deus duo magna luminaria, etc. de maiorit. & obed. Solitae. in decr. l. 1. tit. 33.  the great light in the firmament of the Church, had showed them with his beams now of late within these three hundred years.   

CHAP. LVI.  
Touching Transubstantiation. 1. It was made an article of faith by the Lateran Council 1200 years after Christ. 2. How it came in by degrees. 3. The Fathers never believed nor knew it.  
Pag. 286.  A. D. Lastly concerning Transubstantiation, 
1 White, pag. 343. 350.  M. White setteth down some conjectures, whereby he endeavoureth to persuade his Reader, that the belief of Transubstantiation came into the Church of late, to wit, at the Lateran Council. But 
2 See the Prot. Apol. tract. 1. §. 3 n. 2. where it is showed, that even Protestant's (far better learned then M. White will be in haste) do grant the Transubstantiation was believed long before the Lateran Council. See Bellar. l. 3. de sacram. euchar. c. 19.20 21. Gre. de Val. tom. 4. disp. 6. q. 3. p. 2. §. 2. 3.  this is false. For although the name Transubstantiation was not perhaps used before the Council of Lateran: yet the thing signified by this name, to wit, the real presence of Christ's body succeeding in the place of the substance of bread, was held and believed from the beginning, as appeareth by plain and sound authorities of Scriptures and Fathers, set down by Bellarmine and others. And although the Church had no necessary occasion to make express determination what was to be held in that point before contrary heresies arose, which might be one cause that some men did not, or were not bound to know it so expressly, as after the matter was explained and determined by full authority from the Church, yet at least implicitè all did & were bound from the beginning to believe it. And although some in their ignorance did, before this declaration of the Church, doubt or hold opinion to the contrary, yet this hindereth not that they might believe this by implicit faith, in regard private doubts and opinions, so long as they are in ignorance without obstinacy, especially with resolution and readiness to yield to the Church, do not take away implicit faith enfolded in the general assent, which every Catholic giveth to that article, I believe the Catholic Church. 
1 TO show the doctrine of Transubstantiation to be contrary to the faith of the Primitive Church, and to be brought in afterward, and never to have been an article of faith before the Lateran Council, I set not down conjectures, but direct & full testimonies: first 
* Another like heretical and most dangerous assertion of theirs (the jesuits) is, that the ancient Fathers, Rem transubstantiationis ne attigerunt. Quodl. p. 31.  of the Father's expounding the words of Christ touching the Sacrament, and avouching the substance of bread and wine to remain, as we do: then, of divers great Papists, Schoolmen and others, who confess the same I say, either in express words or in effect; that not only the NAME of Transubstantiation, but the DOCTRINE and thing itself was made a matter of faith by the Lateran Council, no man being bound to believe it before. Their words are reported in the Digression, and will give testimony to themselves without my contending about them. The Reply says, though the name Transubstantiation were not perhaps used before the Council of Lateran, yet the thing, to wit, the real presence of Christ's body succeeding in the place of the substance of bread, was held from the beginning: as Bellarmine and others have showed: and even Protestants far better learned then M. White will be in haste, do grant. But the authorities alleged in the Digress. show the contrary: not only the name, but the thing itself to be new; as will appear by viewing them. And though Bellarmine take upon him to prove Transubstantiation by the Scripture and Fathers; yet he confesses it is not improbable that Scotus said: There is not extant any place of Scripture so express, that without the Church declaration, can evidently constrain us to admit it. For though the Scripture which I have brought, seem to us so clear, that it may constrain a man not froward; yet whether it be so or not, IT MAY WORTHILY BE DOUBTED, when men MOST LEARNED AND ACUTE do think the contrary. Let this be noted: he bring 
a De Euch. l. 3. c. 23. §. Non dissimili.  Scripture to prove that which may worthily be doubted whether it be so or no: and such Scripture, as cannot convince without his Church's declaration: 
b Decernit (Synodus) ut nemo sacram Scripturam contra eum sensum quem tenuit & tenet sancta matter Ecclesia, cuius est judicare de vero sensi●, interpretari audeat. Con. Trid. sess. 4.  that is to say, unless it be expounded so as shall agree with the doctrine of the Church of Rome. The Reply therefore must not call them sound authorities of Scripture, which, without this wresting, prove nothing; and with all this wresting prove not so much but a man may still worthily doubt, and most learned and acute men do doubt: and the reader may see, in what case he is that shall follow Bellarmine and the Reply in this opinion of Transubstantiation upon their authorities of Scripture, proving it no otherwise then thus.  
2 The same is to be said of his Fathers, who will prove as little, unless as the Scripture is allowed the Church declaration, so they also be allowed their 
c Ind. Exp. Belg c. ut liber Bertrami.  pious and commodious, and devised expositions: so that, for all the Replies confidence, the ground that Transubstantiation hath, either in the Scripture or antiquity, shall be this in the end. There is for it sound authority, both of Scripture and Fathers, if you will allow the church of Rome, who is a party, to declare the sense of the Scripture, and her Divines the jesuits, a faculty to give the Fathers a sense, if not true, yet fit and pious, and to devise tricks which they never meant: thus it may be proved sound, though when all is done, it may still be doubted whether it be so or no: as the learnedst and acutest in the Church itself still do doubt it. Which being the case, than the conjectures will no longer be M. Whites, but his adversaries, and the best ground he can yield for his doctrine. And whereas he adds in his margin, that Briarly hath showed in his Prot. Apolog. that even Protestants (far better learned then M. White will be in haste) grant Transubstantiation was believed long before the Lateran Council; M. White answers, that the parenthesis, touching his learning, is true; neither can he refuse the comparison: but he renders to God his most humble thanks that he, so far inferior to so many, yet hath done that which is sufficient for the maintenance of the truth against Romish heresies: and the Replier finds himself so galled with it, that it may be he will say to his fellows, as 
b jud. 9.54.  Abimelec, wounded by a woman, did to his page, Draw thy sword and slay me, that it be not said, a woman slew Abimelec. But yet the rest is false: as 
c Prot. ap. p. 94. n. 3. & inde, ad 22.  the Dean of Winchester hath fully showed in his answer: and the uttermost that either the Centuries or the other Protestants alleged, say, is not that Transubstantiation was believed long before the Lateran Council, but that before that time, in the writings of some particular Doctors, there are some forms of speech, which possible they like not so well; as seeming to give courage a●●● boldness to them who afterward (abusing every thing to their own errors) would use them to confirm their Transubstantiation: but that they grant the doctrine now taught in the Church of Rome touching Transubstantiation was believed, is a base untruth, no way to be gathered from their words. For Transubstantiation had his growth by degrees. First the Fathers, without so much as dreaming of it, only to increase the reverence, and to suppress the profanation thereof, used vehement and hyperbolical speeches of the Sacrament. Secondly, in time a kind of real presence began to be conceited. Thirdly then, what these men could find in antiquity that sounded that way, they wrested to their opinion. Fourthly, till at the last in the Council of Lateran it was confirmed as an article that must be received, and had a name given it in token it was new borne.  
3 The reason assigned in the Reply, for that which Lateran did, contains matter worth the marking. First, before contrary heresies rose, the Church had no occasion to make express determination. This fully overthrows himself. For if no determination were made, then was it no article necessary to be believed: if no article, nor necessary, how could there be any heresy against it; when 
a Dico hactenus nihil esse, in hac controversia, ab Ecclesia definitum, ideoque sententiam non esse de fide. Suar. 2. to. p. 30 e.  nothing is an article that is not defined: nor 
b Postquam autem (propositio aliqua) patefacta est per determinationem Ecclesiae, esse contratia fidei, secundum se, & quoad nos;— haeretica denominatur. Caict. 22. q. 11. art. 1. See Silu. v. haec. 1. n. 4 can. loc. l. 12. c. 12.  nothing heresy but what is against a definition? Secondly, men were not bound to know it so expressly, as they were after the determination. Therefore it was not determined till the Lateran Council: therefore it was no article of the ancient Church faith: therefore it is not expressly or manifestly conceived in the Scripture or Fathers. Therefore they do but trifle that allege them for it. These consequences proceed in the thing as well as the name, & cannot be avoided. But all did, and all were bound even from the beginning to believe it, at least implicit. But this is a beggarly shift: for if it was believed but in the virtue of that article, I believe the Catholic Church; then the Church was but with child of it for 1200 years: till the Pope, her midwife, brought her a-bed of it, and so the Fathers had neither faith nor knowledge of it then; but believed whatsoever the Church should hereafter define: this they never believed, but held constantly the Church of Rome, and a general Council, might define an error: and if they believed no more, what treachery is it to prove by their writing what they never knew and what they could not mention; but lay hidden in the bosom of the Church, to be revealed at the Council of Lateran? But what will not this man say, that avouches such as held contrary to Transubstantiation (as indeed the ancient Church did) yet did also believe it by implicit faith? How doth a man believe that which he believes not? he answers: by resolution and readiness to yield to the church, they might believe that which in their ignorance they erred in. Let us make an end then: the Reply hath got the victory: The Fathers, and the Church herself, might for 1200 years be ignorant of Transubstantiation, yea hold contrary to it, or not express it in their writings: and yet believe it too; and their writings be full of testimonies for it, in every age: because they were not obstinate, but had implicit faith, enfolded in the general assent that every Catholic gives to that article, I believe the Catholic Church. By which faith they believed contrary to that they writ. This, Reader, is our adversaries case; and the last end of their antiquity, not in this point of Transubstantiation alone, but in all the rest: they boast of succession, and Doctors, and Counsels, and Antiquity, and Catalogues; and yet these D D. and Counsels in the Catalogue held these things but implicit, and that must be enough to stop the Protestants mouth. Sure this is one of the wittiest and acutest distinctions that ever I read. For thereby I can prove all the ancient D D. to have taught and believed flat contrary to all they writ. For first, I will make the present Church of Rome the Catholic Church. Then I will say they believed that article, I believe the Catholic Church. Now the Church of Rome may define contrary to that they all writ, as the B. Virgin not to be conceived in sin: and so they shall believe just that they believed not, and the direct contrary.   

CHAP. LVII.  
1 Touching the first coming in of errors into the Church, with the persons, Time, and Place. 2 Purgatory and pardons not known in the ancient Church, nor in the Greek Church to this day. 3 The true reason why the ancient prayed for the dead.  
Pag. 287.  A. D. To conclude, it is not enough for M. White to name these eight, or any other points of our doctrine, and to say that we hold, or practise, contrary to the doctrine of the ancient Church; but I must require him to set down the time, place, persons, and other circumstances of this supposed innovation; which circumstances are commonly noted in Histories, when any such innovation against the universal doctrine of the Church, did arise. This my demand, 
1 White Digr. 5. pag. 374.  M. White (who will, it seemeth, stick at nothing) taketh upon him to satisfy, by naming seven points of our religion, offering to show the time, when, and manner how they got into the Church. And thereupon first he nameth pardons, and purgatory, the use whereof (he sayeth) came lately into the Church. To this I answer first, that he nameth not the particular Time, Place not Persons that first brought in the use of pardons, and purgatory: and so he saith nothing to the purpose. Secondly, I answer that our questions is not so much about the use of pardons, and purgatory, as whether the doctrine which holdeth purgatory to be, and pardons duly used to be lawful, came in of late, contrary to the former doctrine of the Church. Now M. White will never be able to show, that that Church did at any time universally believe that 
2 Concerning prayer for the dead, (which supposeth the belief of Purgatory) learned Protestants grant it to have been general in the Church, long before S. Augustine's time, as may be seen in the Protest. Apol. tract. 1. sect. 2. nu. 4.  purgatory was not, or that pardons duly used were unlawful, or that the doctrine, concerning the substance of these points was first brought in of late; naming the first time, place or persons which brought it in contrary to the former faith, and showing who resisted it as an heresy, and who continued to resist it. 
1 Having no power to answer the examples I gave of the Church of Rome's now holding contrary to the ancient Church, he concludes, that it is not enough to name the points: or to say they hold contrary to the doctrine of the ancient Church, unless I set down the Time, Places, Persons, and other circumstances of the innovations; as Histories use to note them, when any such innovations arises: and therefore he must require me to set them down. I answer, it is sufficient that I have showed the points not to have been holden by the ancient Church. For if the ancient Church held them not, what skills it when or by whom they were brought in, when they were brought in since the times of the ancient Church? for that which was not at the first is not Catholic, but by some, at some time, was brought in contrary to that which is Catholic. And 
a THE WAY §. 50. n. 5 & 6.  I have showed that there be many confessed changes wherein these circumstances cannot be showed. Nevertheless, for example 
b THE WAY Digr. 51.  I named him seven points, and the circumstances of Time, Place, and Persons, of their getting in: whereof the use of PARDONS was the first. He replies, that I have not named the particular time, place, nor persons, that brought them in, and therefore say nothing to the purpose. Here let the Reader judge, whether having showed, out of the confession of his own writers that they, are not from the Apostles times: not expressed in the Scripture or Fathers: nor brought to our knowledge by their authority; but lately come into the Church: this be not enough? for what is not from the Apostles times, came in since: there is the Time when. What came in lately, was not used in the Primitive Church. There is the Time again: what is not mentioned by the Scripture, Fathers, and ancient Church: was devised by innovators, there is the Persons. What the Scriptures and Pastors of the Church reveals not, that grows up as cockle and weed in the Church, there is the place. Let me add to the rest whom I alleged in the Digression, the words of B. Fisher, 
c Art. 28 p. 86. b.  Pardons therefore began AFTER men had a while trembled at the torments of Purgatory. I have therefore brought evidence sufficient to prove pardons to be an innovation, because it proves they were not used in the ancient Church, nor revealed by the Apostles.  
2 He replies that the question is not so much about the USE of pardons and purgatory, as whether the DOCTRINE that holds them, came in of late, CONTRARY to the doctrine of the Church. And I answer again affirmatively, that it did. For the use is founded on the doctrine, and the doctrine cannot be without use. There was no use, ergo there was no doctrine. But M. White will never be able to show that the Church believed there was no Purgatory, or that pardons were not lawful. This is folly, for how should M. White show the Church condemned that which was not yet in rerum natura? no man being able to speak of that which is not in being. If pardons therefore were not, M. White must be pardoned if he cannot show how the Church condemned them. And touching Purgatory, though it be much ancienter, yet neither did the Catholic Church believe it. There were some in the Church that conceited such a thing; and the Fathers began, in Saint Austin's time, (but 
a Non redarguo, quia forsitan verum est, etc. Aug civit. l. 21. c. 26. see Enchirid. c. 69. and the Apol. of the Gre. p. 132.  waveringly and without any resolute certainty) to mention it, but it was not believed in their days as a matter of faith, that he which denied it should be an heretic, as it is now believed in the Church of Rome. Besides, the East Church believed it not to this day, therefore the universal Church believed it not. Hear their own words in an Apology written touching this matter. 
b Apol. Graec. p. 119. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  We have not received from our Doctors that there is any such Purgatory, or temporary punishment by fire; and we know the East Church never thought so. Hear also what the B. of Rochester 
c Art. 18. p. 86. b.  says: No true believer NOW doubts of Purgatory, whereof notwithstanding, among the ancient, there is very little, or no mention at all. The Greeks' also, to this day do not believe there is a Purgatory. Let whose will read the commentaries of the ancient Greeks', and, so far as I see, he shall find very rare speech of Purgatory, or none at all: and the Latins (in the West Church) did not all of them together receive the truth of this matmatter, but by little and little: neither, indeed, was the faith, either of Purgatory, or pardons, so needful in the Primitive Church, as now it is. We need no more than this confession of our adversaries, and testimony of the Greek Church to show the novelty of this doctrine.  
3 And that which the Reply hath added in his margin: Prayer for the dead (which supposes the belief of Purgatory) learned Protestants grant to have been general in the Church long before Saint Austin's time, is most weak: for whatsoever learned Protestants say, touching the antiquity of prayer for the dead: (which is impertinent now to be debated) it is not true that the use thereof supposes Purgatory, which I will show most evidently: that the Reply may bewail his cause when he sees no medicine applied to it, can recover or do it good. For the Greeks' prayed for the dead; and yet, as you have heard, they believed not Purgatory. And 
d See the Liturgies of james. Basil Chrysost. and the rest.  in the prayers mentioned, they prayed for 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lit. jacob,  the martyrs, the B Virgin, john Baptist, and for all the righteous from Abel to that day: yet neither they nor the Church of Rome ever thought them to be in Purgatory. Not the Martyrs: for 
e Bell. Purg. l. 2. c. 1.  they are exempted by privilege. Not 
f Rhem. on act. 1.  the B. Virgin: for she had no sin to purge; but was carried immediately to heaven. Not the just from Abel to Christ, for 
g Tho. Argenti. 3. d. 22. art. 4 p. 35. Gabr. ib. dub. 3.  Christ at his descent emptied Purgatory. It remains therefore, that their praying for the dead was not because they thought any to be in Purgatory, but by way of commemoration only. So says Cabasilas 
h Nicol. Cabasil. exposic. Liturg. c 33. p. 503. in Bibl. S Pat. edit. 1.  in his exposition: The Priest gives God thanks and offers supplication, laying down the causes of the thanksgiving, and the matter of the supplication. The causes of thanksgiving are the Saints. The matter of the supplication are they who are not yet consummate but have need of prayer. For which Saints he offers this reasonable service, as A THANKS GIVING to God, and, above all the rest, for the B. Mother of God, who exceeds all sanctity. 
* Nihil pro eis orat.  Therefore the Priest PRAYS FOR NOTHING for them, but rather prays to them that he may be helped by their prayers— 
* Haec quidem verba habent supplicationem, ostendunt autem etiam gratiarum actionem & Deum praedicant.  These words contain supplication, but show thanksgiving, and praise God the benefactor of mankind, by remembering the persons whom he hath sanctified, and almost consummated, saying, Give us the grace which already thou hast given the Saints, to sanctify us as thou hast sanctified them before, who are of the same kind with us. It was not therefore with an opinion of purgatory, that the ancient prayed for the dead, but in expectation of the resurrection, and in remembrance of God's goodness toward them; who had begun to glorify them, the consummation whereof they desired. For it was a general opinion of the Church of those times, that the souls of the Saints departed saw not God, nor should see him, by beatifical vision, till the day of judgement; in which regard they prayed for the dead that their glory might be consummate, as all faithful people pray for that good which they believe is to come, the certain fruition whereof they apprehend. Bartholomew Medina, writing upon Thomas 
i Bart. Medin. 12. qu. 4. art. 5. p. 56. edit. Bergom. an. 1586.  says, that Almost all the ancient Fathers: james in his Liturgy, Ireneus, justine, Tertullian, Clemens, Origen, Lactantius, Victorine, Prudentius, Ambrose, Chrysostome, Augustine, Theodorit, Arethas, Oecumenius, Theophylactus, Euthymius, Bernard: at the first sight (but in the scanning of their words, both he and the rest of his fellows bewray it to be at the second sight too) deny that the souls of the Saints see God until the day of judgement. The like is testified by 
k Sixt. Senens. Bibl. lib. 6. ann. 345. Perer. in Gen. l. 3 n. 45. Bellarm. ●e eccl. triumph, cap. 1. Vieg. in Apoc. pag. 334. Riber. ibi pag. 198. lun. tom. 2. pag. 1587.  others, the trial whereof the curious reader may see in Sixtus Senensis, who hath collected together both the names and words of the Fathers to that effect: that it is the vainest conceit that can be, to imagine the ancient Church by praying for the dead intended a Purgatory, when they assumed it for certain, that the dead came not into the presence of God till the last day. 
l Luce clarius constat quia perfectorum animae, mox ut huius carnis exeunt, in celestibus sedibus recipiuntur. Flor. Magistr. exposit. Missae. pag. 65●  Which being an error, no marvel if they erred in what they built upon it, nothing being sound that is built on a false foundation.   

CHAP. LVIII.  
1. The Pope's Supremacy. 2. Single life of votaries. 3. The worship of images. 4. The Merit of works. 5. The sacrifice of the Mass. 6. And the Popish doctrine touching original sin: all of them innovations. 5. The disagreement of Papists in their religion. 7. And namely in their doctrine of original sin.  A. D. Secondly, he names the Pope's Supremacy, which he 
1 White pag. 376.  saith, 
Pag. 288.  began in Boniface the third. But how false his assertion is, appeareth by that which is showed by not only Catholic but also Protestant Authors. Thirdly, he nameth Priests marriages to have been first restrained by Siricius. This also to be false he may learn by 
2 Concil. Carth 2. can. 2 see Prot. apol. tr. 1, sec. 7 nu. 3.  the Council of Carthage, which signifieth that Priests were restrained from company of wives long before Siricius his days, even by the Apostles themselves. Siricius might upon occasion renew the prohibition, as also Gregory the seventh might, but the first Authors of that doctrine, or practise, they were not. Fourthly, he nameth worship of images to have been first brought in by the Nicen Council But this Council was so far from being 
3 See Prot. apol. tr. 1. sec. 3. n. 12.  the first author of this doctrine as it expressly saith, it followed in this point the doctrine of the holy Fathers and Tradition of the Catholic Church, in which the holy Ghost doth inhabit. Concerning that which M. White saith, 
4 White pag. 378. Conc. Nicen 2.  touching images, see Bellarmine de imag. C 8. Fiftly, he nameth the doctrine 
5 White p. 379. See Bellar. l. 5. de justif c 2. 3 4 Greg. de Val. tom 2. disp. 8. q. 6. p. 2. &. 4.  of Merit of works to have begun lately by the Schoolmen. But how 
6 See the Protest apol. tr. 1. sect. 3. n. 6.  false this is, the authorities of the Scriptures and ancient Fathers, alleged for this point by our Divines, do abundantly testify. Sixthly, he nameth the Mass, But he neither nameth nor can truly name the time when, the place where, or person which since Christ, was first Author of the substance of it, consisting only in consecration, oblation and consumption of the sacred host. As for other additions, which he mentioneth, they are impertinent, in regard they are not any substantial part of the Mass If he urge them not as substantial parts of the Mass, but as being in his opinion, substantial errors brought in contrary to the ancient faith, I must require him to set down, not only when, and by whom they were added as ceremonies to the Mass; but when, and by whom, they were at first invented and taught: and who did resist, and continue to resist them, as innovations in faith; the which he is never able to show. Seventhly, he nameth 
7 White p 284.  Original sin. But he doth not, nor cannot name the first Author, of any thing held about this matter, 
8 See jod. Coccius. Bellar. de Notis Eccl. c. 6.  universally by our Church as a point of faith, and therefore he wasteth words, anh speaketh nothing to the purpose when he rehearseth this or that Doctor's opinion in this, or any other point: Because here only my question is not about private Doctors opinions, but about doctrine of faith universally, and authoriratively, taught by the Church: of which kind my 
9 Worton p. 393. White p. 415.  adversaries cannot show any one point, held by unanime consent of the ancient Church contrary to that which is holden now by our Church as a point of faith, whereas we can, and do, show divers points held in that manner, by the ancient Church directly contrary to that which is holden by Protestants as points of their faith. 
1 THe Reply needs not so often distinguish between private opinions, and the doctrine of faith universally taught by the Church. For every one of the examples given, in the Digression, show that the Church of Rome now holds against the universal doctrine of the Church in former times. Touching the Pope's SUPREMACY, I said divers things, whereof that concerning Boniface was but one. I showed, out of good Authors, that in ancient time he had superiority neither over Kings, Counsels, nor Bishops, out of the Roman patriarchy: but was in all things like to other patriarchs concerning jurisdiction. To all which the Reply says not a word; but only answers touching Boniface, that it is false I say, the supremacy began in him. But if it be false, than his own authors, whom I alleged, should have been answered. For we Protestants make account, that when we prove that we say by the testimonies of the chiefest of our Adversaries themselves, there is reason we be discharged, and our assertion credited. But this matter, of Bonifaces getting the supremacy of Phocas, is so plain, and witnessed so generally, by all Histories, that it was the desperatest answer that could be made, to say it is false. I showed 
a Digr. 27. n. 31. . m.  in another place before, that this is the general report of all Historiographers. Anastasius, Luitprand, P. Diaconus, Martinus Polonus, Marianus Scotus, Otho Frisingensis, Rhegino, Albo Floriacensis, Platina, Vrspergensis, Sabellicus, Nauclerus, Duarenus: all whose testimonies to deny with one word, it is false; is a good ready and easy way, but it will not so easily remove the evidence: and whereas he adds that the falsehood of my assertion is showed not only by Catholic, but by Protestant authors; referring the Reader to Briarlies Apology: I must entreat him to mend that fault: for there is not one Protestant alleged that denies my assertion, or affirms the Pope had the Primacy before Boniface. And indeed but that tyrants are seen by experience to hold fast, a man conversant in antiquity would wonder how our Adversaries for shame, should avouch this Primacy. I showed in the 27 Digression, that the Church government was equally divided among all the patriarchs: and the B. of Rome was confined within his own limits. And restrained from taking appeals out of other countries. He had no authority over general counsels, either to call them, or be precedent, or to overrule them: himself acknowledged the name and state of a universal B. to be Antichristian. 
b Euseb. de vit. Constant. l. 2. c. 52. & inde l. 3. c. 6.16.62. l. 4. c. 18.36.41. & orat ad Sanct. caet. post sin. l. 4. Socrat. l. 5. Proaem. justin. edict. de fid. orthod. in iur. graeco. tom. 1. pag. 521. & Novel. 123. Novel. Heraclij. Basilij, Leonis, Nicephori & aliorum, in iur. graecor. tom. 1. Ausegis. statut. Ecclesiam. Caroli & Ludovici, Isid. cod. Leg. Wisigoth. l. 2. tit. 1. c. 11.29 30. l. 3. tit. 4. c vlt. l. 4. tit. 5. c. 6. l 5.  And the Emperors and Kings of the Catholic Church did so ordinarily command and prescribe the things belonging to religion, that it amasseth me to see it denied. And if there were any superiority, in those days, of one Patriarch over another, the Greeks' will as confidently speak for their Patriarch at Constantinople, as our Adversaries do for the Pope: and Anna Porphyrogenita in her history with others, 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. pag. 31. Graecorum plerique à Chalcedonensi Synodo principatum Ecclesiasticum Constantino. politaniss tributum esse putabant. Haesch. Not. p. 179. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Leo. & Constant. Tit. 3. n. 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. in inr. Graecorom. to. 2. p. 85.  say it expressly. My assertion therefore, that the beginning of the Pope's supremacy over other Bishops, was in Boniface, must stand till the authorities whereupon it stands be taken away, which the breath of a Seminary cannot do.  
2 Thirdly, touching Priests marriage, he says its false that Siritius first restrained it: but he that shall read histories and observe the course of things, shall find it to be most true. And I for my part can justify it no otherwise, and therefore I alleged five authors for that I said, all of them Papists; whose testimony if the Replies bare word be enough to infringe, I can say no more but think it good being a Mass Priest, when his bare word shall make that false which is justified by many witnesses. But he says, I may learn by the 2 Council of Carthage, can 2, that Priests were restrained from company of wives, long before Siritius days, even by the Apostles themselves. I answer, the name and canon of this Council is notably abused. First, it was not holden before Siritius time, but under him. Secondly, the canon alleged cannot be proved to be a canon of the Council, made by all the B B. but a motion or bill put up by Aurelius, wherein he moves that they which attended on the Sacraments, be continent in all things: that so what the Apostles taught, and antiquity held, we also may keep. Thirdly, this canon was moved 
b Sed & canon's illos, spectantes ad continentiam clericorum, quoniam ea esse statuta apparent ex admonitione Siritij Romani Pontificis, ea de re scribentis ante decennium ad episcopos Affricanos— dignum est existimare fuisse alicuius alterius Coneilij Carthaginensis, eo tempore, post acceptas eiusdem Siritij Papae litteras, celebrati. Baro. an. 397. n. 46.  by the suggestion of Siritius: and therefore most strongly justifies my assertion. For if the Council of Carthage restrained Priests marriage; and Siritius by his letters and suggestion drew the Council thereunto, than it is plain Siritius made the restraint. The Reply possible will say: But the Council says the Apostles taught it, and antiquity kept it: and so the restraint was long before Siritius, even from the Apostles. But I answer: that he which suggested the motion, suggested also the reason: and so consequently Siritius, moving the restraint, is the author of those words, wherein he innovated as well as he did in the canon itself. All this is plain against the Reply, and most sensibly demonstrates Siritius to be the author. Fourthly, I answer yet closer to the point, that so much as the Bishops consented to, was, that Clergy men should live honestly and chastened, whether in the state of marriage, or single life; and not come at their wives at certain seasons. This I prove. First by the answer of the B B. It was said (to Aurelius his motion) by all the BB. it seems good to us all, that Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, or such as handle the Sacraments, the maintainers of chastity, abstain also from their wives. It is said of all: it seems good that chastity be maintained in all, and of all that serve at the altar. Here is no canon that they shall have no wives, but that contrary, their wives are mentioned, and they commanded chastity; which I hope the Reply 
c Heb. 13.4.  dares not deny to be in cohabitation with a man's own lawful wife. Secondly, either the same, or another Council of Carthage, at the same time: (
d See Baro. ubi sup. & Balsam. Who puts this canon into the 6 Council of Carth. p. 310.  for many things are printed in one Council of Carthage that belong to another) 
e Placuit ut presbyteri, Episcopi, & Diaconi, proprijs terminis etiam à suis abstineant uxoribus. can. 74. Synodi Carth. apud Balsam.  ordained that Priests, Bishops, and Deacons should abstain from their wives AT SET TIMES: but other Clergy men should not be urged thereto, but keep the custom of their Churches. It was therefore no part of the Counsels mind that they should be restrained marriage, or the use thereof out of those SET TIMES. Thirdly Balsamon, expounding these canons hath these words: 
f In can. 4.  Out of this canon (which I last cited) it is showed, that Priests, Deacons, and Bishops lived with their wives; neither did the Synod forbidden their company with them, but in THEIR SET TIMES: that is, in THE SET DAYS OF EVERY MAN'S COURSE: when he was to attend on the altar: 
g In can. 74.  and note that in the time of this Council, Bishops had their wives without prejudice, with whom yet they did not converse in the time of their course: for the ministry of Priests was divided into weeks. If therefore the Reply had devised with long deliberation, he could not have given me a better weapon against himself, than this canon of the Council of Carthage made by the suggestion of Siritius himself, and yet obtaining nothing of the Council but only abstinence of Priests from their wives at certain times.  
3 Fourthly, touching images I showed two things. Both that images of the Trinity were not used: and that the beginning of image worship was in the second Nicen Council. Touching the images of the Trinity he bids me see Bellarmine, but there is nothing to be seen to the purpose; for he alleges neither example nor testimony that there were any in the Primitive Church: but only stands to prove them lawful. Now this is not the question, but whether the Primitive Church used or permitted them? I showed no, by the testimony of a Pope and a Council, and must be answered again by disproouing the authority: which if he cannot do, I will not give much for Bellarmine's proving of the lawfulness, when it appears the Pope and a Council 800 years ago misliked it: and himself confesses, That it is not so certain whether the images of God, or the Trinity, may be made, as it is that the images of Christ and his Saints may be made: and that 
a Abul. in Sent. 4. q. 5. Durand. 3. d. 9 q. 2 Peres. tradit. 3. tract.  most learned Doctors in the Church of Rome utterly condemn it. For if this be true, himself had a good steel conscience when he would take upon him to justify that which was not certain, but only an unsettled opinion, gainesaied by as learned as himself in his own Church. Touching the Nicen Council he says, it was so far from being the first author of image worship, that it says expressly it followed, in this point, the doctrine of the holy Fathers and tradition of the Church. Now sure this is a poor answer, and like the former of Siritius. For is it therefore the doctrine of the Fathers, and tradition of the Church, because they say it? could not they that decreed idolatry, learn of their images to tell a lie? Is there any more truth in their pretence of antiquity then in the image worship itself? This is like the former example of the Council of Cathage, where the restraint of marriage must be by the Apostles, because Siritius, that made the restraint, suggests so much to the Council. But let the Repliar hear me a word with patience; of this paltry Nicen Council 
b Ch. 48.  I have said enough already: and to give him some taste of that which it decreed, a great Bishop of his own Church 
c Claud Espencae. 2. Tim. pag. 151. a.  hath lately confessed, That they who (in that Council) defended the worship of images, did abuse thereto the apparitions of Devils and old wives dreams, as may be seen in the 4. and 5. actions of the Council. I suppose the doctrine of the Fathers, and traditions of the Catholic Church, uses not to be supported with such stuff. And what impudency was it for them to say it, and yet be able no better to show it?  
4 The fift point was the Merit of works. Which his own Waldensis calls Pelagianisme, and charges to be a late invention. To this he replies his accustomed argument: It is false, as our Divines abundantly testify. But was not Waldensis his own Divine? and is not his testimony enough to discharge me, who profess no more, but what I say to make good by the confession of my own adversaries? If he think his Divines have spoken so abundantly for it, let him say, ingeniously, how chances his Bellarmine 
d De iustif. l. 5. c. 7.  confesses, that by reason of the uncertenty of a man's own righteousness, and for fear of vain glory, the safest way is, to repose our who●● confidence in the sole mercy and goodness of God? how chance his Waldensis says, 
e Pag. 30. Sacram. The same merit of condignity condemned also by Grego. Ariminensis, Burgensis & Echius: says Vega qu. 5. de merit. p. 788.  He is to be reputed the sounder Divine, and the better Catholic, and more consonant with the Scripture, that simply denies such merit, confessing that simply no man merits the kingdom of heaven, but obtains it by the grace and free will of God that gives it? These are strange courses therefore, to affirm that an ancient doctrine which is neither so Catholic nor so safe as the contrary, nor so agreeable with the Scripture. But of this point I have entreated at large 
a the WAY Digr. 35.  elsewhere, and laid down enough to show the foulness of it: here I am only to uphold that I said; It was begun lately by the Schoolmen, which is the confession of Friar Waldensis, a man as learned as any of them all that say the contrary, and 
b Quod opus (Doctrinale antiquitatum sidei Thomae Waldensis) non immerito And. Vega fontem esse asseruit, ex qua postea plerique omnes, qui contra novos haeresiarchas scripserint, hauserunt. Posseu. Bibl. sell. p. 286. Thomandico Waldensem, uberrimum fontem, ex quo hauserunt bonam partem fete omnes, qui Luteranam sectam impugnarunt. Vega qu. 4. demerit pag. 782.  to whom the best of our adversaries are beholding.  
5 The sixth point was the Mass, wherein the Digress. by clear testimonies showed the use of an unknown tongue, the Transubstantiation, the Sacrifice, and the outward form, to be all brought in, and added to the Sacrament since the Apostles time, and the time of the Primitive Church. Whereto the Reply says no more, but that I cannot name the time when, nor place where, nor the persons, in whom the substance of the Mass, consisting only in the consecration, oblation, and consumption of the host began. I answer, first, these 4. the Latin language, the Transubstantiation, the Sacrifice and the form of Prayers, and other actions used, as their garments, ceremonies, elevation, adoration, circumgestation, etc. 
* Essentia sacrificij Eucharistiae in duobus consistit, nempe in ritu externo, & in significatione Suar tom. 3. p. 958. c.  belong to the substance of the Mass, and the Digress. showed they were not used by Christ, nor his Apostles, nor yet in the time of the Primitive Church. Now that which was not thus used, is an innovation; forsomuch as Christ left both the substance, and manner of ministering the sacrament certain and determinate, and indispensible: and it is not necessary in every innovation to show one determinate time, person, or place where it began: because if it began after Christ and his Apostles, it is an innovation, when, or where, or by whom soever it was brought in. Secondly, touching the Sacrifice, which is th● main substance, and very heart of the Mass, I showed the full confession of some Papists denying, that Christ offered any sacrifice of himself, under the forms of bread and wine, at his last supper. This is close to the matter: for 
c Catholici scriptores— omnes in eo potissimum laborant, ut ostendant, in Missa, offerri Deo vere ae propriè corpus ac sanguinem Domini. Bell. de Miss. l. 1 c. 5. §. è contrario.  if the sacrifice be the sustance, and Christ offered no sacrifice when he instituted it; 
d Nam tota haec essentia ex institutione pendet. Suar. p. 961. e.  its plain the substance of the Mass is not from Christ. Therefore an innovation, an addition, an alteration: therefore not Catholic. Thirdly, afore the Repliar be so resolute about his sacrifice, and substance; it were expedient for the question in hand, to be at some certainty, touching the thing wherein his sacrifice consists: for there is much reasoning about a sacrifice, and yet no agreement what, or which it is. 
e Bell. de Miss. l. 1. c. 27.  Some say there is but only one sacrifice. 
f Tapper art. 16. Cassal. de sacrif p. 63. c. 20. Roffensis Alphons. Gab. Hos. Ca●et. Alexand. Eck. Mag. Turrecren quos refert. Cassal. ibid. p. 64  Some two. They that say two, hold the bread and wine to be one, and the body and blood of Christ another. They that hold only one, are not agreed what it is: 
g Refert Suar. p. 959. B.  whether the body and blood of Christ only, or 
h Bell. ubi sup.  the forms of bread and wine withal. Again, whether 
i Suar. d. 75. s. 2.  the actions exercised in the Mass are six: First, the oblation of bread and wine by elevation, prayer, and other ceremonies, before consecration: Secondly, the consecration, Thirdly, the distribution. Fourthly, another oblation after consecration. Fifthly, the breaking of the host and putting part of it to the wine. Sixthly, and the eating of it, which the Reply calls consumption: it is not agreed in which of these the essence of the sacrifice consists: but 
k See them in Suar. s. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6  there are as many opinions as there be men: and their assertions and reasons are so ridiculous that nothing can be more. When therefore the Reply hath no certainty touching the substance of his sacrifice, but all things are still in question, it is but folly for him to brag that the first author of this substance cannot be named. But let him name the substance, and show me an agreement among his fellows and masters, that what he names is the substance, and he shall have an author. Else when I have named the author of this, he may say neither this, nor that belongs to the substance; but the other. For there are not so few as 6. opinions, every one whereof is guarded with special authors; that we may entertain them in their opinions as Hermias did the Philosophers. 
l Herm. gentle. philosoph. Irrisio.  Let them show me what is true, and I will obey them. But they pluck my mind in pieces: and I confess I cannot endure this frequent conversion of every thing. Now they tell me I am immortal, and I rejoice: presently they say I am mortal, and then I weep: by and by they turn me into water, air, fire: a little after, I am none of these, but a beast or a fish: now I swim among the Dolphines; anon I am a dog or a bird. When I look upon myself I know not how to call me; whether a man, or a wolf, or a serpent, or a chimera. These wise men turn me into all manner of things: I swim, I fly, I creep, I run, I sit: Empedocles turns me into a tree. When I hear Anaxagoras I believe him: then comes Melissus and Parmenides, and I know not how, I change my mind. 
* Quonsque tandem talia edoceor, verum tamen nihil addisco.  How long shall I thus be taught, and yet never taught to learn the truth? 〈…〉 Thus he flouted the Philosophers, that would say as much to our adversaries, and justly might for any certainty they have to rest upon, in any thing they hold against us. Let them take the Council that Vigilius gave such as they are. 
m Contr. Eutych. l. 2. p. 555.  Seeing both of you are contrary to yourselves, it's not amiss if both of you yield to confess the truth with us. You are divided far asunder; the way, you have left, is in the midst. Come hither unto us, one of you this way, the other that way, and meet together. Let the one go into the others opinion, so, that he leave not his own: let that which you hold privately be common among you. The contempt of which advise is it that, in all ages, hath made heretics so notorious for their disagreements with themselves, that this hath been observed for the mark of their heresy. They are divided, 
n Paschas. comment. in Lament. l. 4. c. 4. pag. 74.  saith Paschasius, one from another through the singularity of their wicked inventions, and are able to agree neither with themselves nor with the Catholic believers of the Church.  
6 In the last place I named their doctrine of original sin; affirming that it was not universal in former ages: nor is not, to this day, agreed upon. This proves directly that it is not the same which the Apostles and Primitive Church taught. Because what they taught must be certainly known and agreed upon, which this their doctrine is not, there being yet no certainty what the point is that the Church of Rome holds touching this matter. The Reply answers, that I cannot name the first author of any thing, which the Church of Rome universally holds, touching this matter, as a point of faith. Meaning belike, that the opinion of this, or that Doctor, may be a late devise, but not that which the Church holds. I answer, the Church of Rome cannot deny but our first Parents left the effect of their sin in all mankind, their posterity: 
a Eph. 2.3.  whereby they are borne the children of wrath: which effect is called original sin: but what it holds universally as a point of faith touching the nature and form of this sin, the Repliar cannot assign, that when he had assigned it I might try whether I could name the first author thereof or no. But let him give me any definition of original sin holden in his Church, whether universally or privately, against that which the Church of England teaches; and though possible it may fall out that I cannot name the first author thereof, yet I will show it not to have been the Catholic doctrine of the Primitive Church: whereupon it will follow consequently that it is an alteration, wherein the now church of Rome believes not as did the Primitive Church. In this variety of opinions therefore I made choice of Bellarmine, as most likely to be that which should be the point of faith, and universal; and showed it not to be so; but to be a late device, without antiquity or universality. But my adversary craftily forbearing to name what he holds to be the universal doctrine of his Church; and making show as if Bellarmine's opinion were not it; bids me name the point of faith holden by his Church universally, and then show the first author: Because the question is not about private Doctors opinions, but about the doctrine of faith, universally and authoritatively taught by the Church. Wherein he deals neither plainly nor directly: for if neither the opinion of Bellarmine nor of Catharinus (which were all I named holden against us) be that which universally & authoritatively is taught by his Church; he should have named what it is, that I might have showed it not to be catholic.  
7 The truth is, 
* Tantae est doctorum hominum varietas & inconstantia, ut vix ulla alia in re maior. Peltan. de orig. pecc. p. 80.  there is such variety and inconstancy, and shuffling of opinions, touching this point of original sin, that for his life he cannot tell what his Church holds, and which is safest to follow: which is an unanswerable argument, that the true faith they have forsaken, and minced into lend and absurd opinions. The Council of Trent 
b Sess. 5.  speaks warily and reservedly, defining nothing, but leaving all sorts to their own opinion. Andradius 
c Orthod. expl. l. 3. p. 216.  says: The Council of Trent, when it had defined original sin to be sin truly proper to every one; yet, of set purpose, forbore to speak of the proper reason thereof: the which thing was also done by other Counsels long before: which delivering no certain and express reason of original sin, left it free for every one to follow his opinion. Hereupon it is, that there are so many opinions: 
1 Dur. 2. d ●0. q. 1. Tap. art. 2. p. 69. Catarrh. tract. de orig. pec. disp. 6. p. 150.  some hold that it is not sin properly, nor can be imputed, by reason it came by the will of another: 
2 Pigh. contro. 1. p. 29. & Apol. p. 34. & inde.  that it is sin, but not our sin, but that which Adam did, whereby he made himself and his posterity sinners. 
3 Roff●ns. art. 2 p. 29. Altisiod. sum. p. 97 col. 4.  Some, that it is only the guilt which lies upon mankind for Adam's sin; being thereby excluded from eternal life, without the mercy of God. 
4 Biel. 2. d. 30. q. 2. conc. 6. Gre Arim. 2. p. 114. Aureol. 2. d. 30. art 2. p. 284.  Some, that it is a corrupt or diseased quality in the soul, derived thereinto by the corruption of the flesh. 
5 Mag. 2. d. 30. Alexand. quem resert Dionys. 2. p. 4●8. col. 2.  Some, that it is the concupiscence that is in us to evil: not every inclination, but that which is in the mind or will. 
6 Occh. 2. q. vlt. lit. v. Scot 2. d. 3. §. Circa istam.  Some, that it is only the privation or destitution of the original justice that was in Adam, and should be in all men. 
7 Tho. 12 q. 82. art. 3. Bonau. quem refert Dionys. 2. p. 489 Capreol. 2. pag. 495. ad 4.  That it is formally the privation of original justice, but materially it is concupiscence. 
8 Sot. de nat. & great. c 9 Azor. sum. part. 1. p. 287.  That it stands wholly in the want or deprivation, not of the habit of original justice, as the sixth opinion affirms, but of that subjection unto God, and union of mind with him, which all men should have had if Adam had not transgressed. Which of all these is that which the Replier calls the universal doctrine of the Church, authoritatively taught, I cannot define, nor himself determine; when all these have been, and yet are holden in his Church, and have their patrons, who will all of them maintain that his own opinion is the doctrine of the Church. This therefore is it I said; that had their doctrine touching original sin, been the truth anciently taught in the Apostles Church, it could not have been thus often changed and removed, from opinion to opinion, till the opinions be multiplied to as many as there be Doctors.  
8 And this example shows how frivolous the common answer is, that their differences are not in points of faith, but in by-matters, not determined, wherein it is lawful to hold any part. For this difference is in a point defined, though not by any Popish council, yet by the word of God: or whether it be defined or no, it is in a matter wherein they hold against us, bearing men in hand that they can show catalogues and whole companies in all ages that held therein with them. FOR WE DO NOT SO MUCH CARE TO SHOW THEIR DIVISIONS TO BE IN THE SUBSTANCE OF THEIR FAITH, (albeit they have infinite such) AS TO MAKE CLEAR DEMONSTRATION THAT THEY AGREE IN NOTHING WHICH THEY HOLD AGAINST THE PROTESTANTS. The which kind of disagreement is sufficient to show the things we have refused in their Church, to be matters broached and brought in, which never had the general approbation of the Church. That wherewith he concludes, we can show divers points of the Protestants faith directly contrary to the ancient Church, is a stolen untruth, already sufficiently confuted in every passage. He can refer us to his Coccius and Bellarmine, but himself I think can show little of his own knowledge; being one of them whom not knowledge but rumour and popularity have carried to the Pope's side.   

CHAP. LIX.  
Objections against the outward succession of the Pope. 1. Touching Peter being at Rome. 2. His pastoral office, what it was. 3. Whether there be any divine authority for the Pope's succession. 4. Not certain what Popes have succeeded one another. 5. Vacancies divers in the Sea of Rome. 6. The story of the woman Pope, of what credit. 7. 8. The Pope hath been an heretic, and erred è Cathedra. 10. The Pope succeeds by Simony and violence. Such succession is a nullity by his own law. 11. The Pharisees in Moses chair, how? A. D. defends the succession of an ASS. 12. Many Popes at once. 13. Vrbanus his cruelty toward the Cardinals. 13. What the Protestants say touching the succession of the Church of Rome.  

A.D. The fifth objection.— Lastly, 
Pag. 289.  my adversaries may object against the Roman succession, which in this Catalogue I mention: FIRST that it is not certain that ever S. Peter was at Rome. SECONDLY that we have no divine but only human proof, that the Bishop of Rome, 
White, pag. 416 Pag. 418. pag 419. pag. 421.  rather than he of Antioch, is S. Peter's successor. THIRDLY, admitting that S. Peter had one to succeed him in Rome, it is not certain who this was which succeeded him, and who afterward succeeded one another. FOURTHLY the Sea hath been void a good while together. FIFTLY a woman was once Pope. SIXTLY divers Popes have been heretics. SEVENTHLY, some have entered into the Popedom by simony and violence, etc. EIGHTLY, there have been 30 schisms, and therefore it is uncertain who was the right Pope.  
To the FIRST I answer: that so many ancient 
* See the Fathers cited for this point, in the Rhem. Test annot. Rom. 16  Fathers do witness, and so many monuments yet remaining do testify that S. Peter was at Rome, and died there, that it is great ignorance and impudency to deny it.  
1 THe objections here mentioned, the first excepted, I proposed Digress. 53. and they clearly show, that the outward succession of Bishops in the Roman Church, is neither so entire nor perfect, as is pretended. Our adversaries never have done with urging the lineal succession of their Popes, from S. Peter, to this day, making it a sign of the Church, and concluding from it, that they alone are the Bishops and Pastors of the world, which have preserved the truth from all corruption and innovation. Which outward succession, in some degree, the Protestants deny not; only they affirm two things against it: that the same is to be found in other Churches as well as in the Church of Rome; and that it hath been so tainted and interrupted with defects of all sorts, that it can prove nothing against us, but rather shows manifestly, that the ancient faith and government, commended by Christ to his Church, hath been changed; as will appear by viewing the several things that are objected.  
2 To the first he answers, that so many ancient Fathers, and monuments yet remaining, testify S. Peter to have been at Rome, and died there; that it is ignorance and impudency to deny it. He affirms three things. First that we deny Peter to have been at Rome. This is untrue. Let the writings of our 
a D. Fulk. answ. to the Rhem. Rom. 16. nu. 4. D. Rainol. conser. c. 6. divis. 3. D. Whitak. controu. 4. ●. 3. c. ●. jun. contr. 3. l. 2. c. 5.  Divines be viewed, and they deny it not; but the uttermost they say, is, that the reasons and testimonies brought out of antiquity, whereupon his being there is grounded, are uncertain, and may sensibly be dissolved. If 
b Whose demonstrations that Peter was never at Rome, are printed by Illyricus with his book called Refut. invectiu. Bruni. printed at Basil an. 1566. by Oporin.  Velenus, or some special men with him, have brought the matter in question, it was free for them so to do, and almost necessary for the bolting out of the truth: all things in antiquity touching the same being perplexed with such difficulties, that it were able to make any man misdoubt it. Yet the Protestants are not curious, and the Church of Rome gains not a straw by it. Secondly, that the ancient Fathers testify he was at Rome. This I grant: but yet all the Papists living cannot reconcile their testimonies, nor maintain either that he came thither in such a time, or stayed there so long as is reported. The which consideration hath moved as learned Papists themselves as ever were any to doubt of his being there at all, if my adversary think them so impudent that do it. Marsilius Patavinus 
* Marsil. defence. Pacis part. 2. c. 16. printed at Basil in fol.  says, that by the Scripture it cannot be convinced either that he was Bishop of Rome, or ever was at Rome at all. And then considering the Ecclesiastical histories that affirm it, he so doth it, that it plainly appears he believed them not. Whence it follows that his being there was a common opinion, but not certain, forsomuch as it was grounded on no surer testimony than these circumstances of Time were. The first that says he sat 25 years there (wherein sundry of the ancient, and all our Adversaries to this day, follow him) is 
c Printed at Basil by Henrico Petri, and elsewhere in Latin. Olympiad. 205.  Eusebius chronicle translated by S. jerom: and yet in the Greek, 
d Printed an. 1606. Lugduni Batavorum.  set forth by Scaliger, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This is all he says.  there is no mention of any time of his abode, but only that he went to Rome: whereby it may be gathered that this matter of Peter's being Bishop of Rome, was much less at the first then afterward it came to be. And whether the Fathers had any certainty of that they said, or only followed a common rumour, begun by such a one as Papias was, without examining it; God knows: but our Adversaries themselves feel the difficulty, and cannot remove it. Thirdly, that so many monuments yet remaining do testify he was at Rome. But those monuments are not so many. There is 
e Baro. an. 45. n. 11.  an old chair, belike, that on certain days is showed the people: and a sepulchre, and certain parts pretended to be relics of his body; but how shall these things be proved to be such indeed, when the juggling and imposture with relics is so well known, that the world hath, long since, abrogated all credit given to such monuments? It hath not been the least part of the Church of Rome's policy, for many ages together, with feigned miracles, and counterfeit relics, to breed and nourish in the vulgar people an opinion of the Roman holiness. But let them, that will be led by such monuments, first make sure they be not counterfeits. I would take some pains to discover these monuments, but that the thing he intends to prove by them is not so great that I will contend about it.   

Pag. 290.  A. D. To the SECOND I answer, that we have divine authority to assure us, that there must be always one in the Church, who is S. Peter's successor, having the same absolute Pastoral authority, that S. Peter had. For first the name Pastor (being peculiarly appropriate to S. Peter, 
joh. 20.21.  by these words Pasce oves meas) signifieth an ordinary office, which dieth not with the person, but is to be continued in a successor. Secondly, the end of this office, being common to all ages, argueth that our Saviour meant so to institute it, as it might serve for all ages: and consequently that it should be continued in a succession of such Pastors. Thirdly, the love and care which moved our Saviour to institute this office, for the good of the Church, was common to the Church of all ages: and the necessity, which the Church had of such a Pastor, was not only for that first age, but for all succeeding ages: and therefore it is not to be thought that Christ our Saviour meant to institute that office, only for to continue in S. Peter's person, and to die with him, but that he ordained it to continue in others, who from time, to time, should succeed in his place. Now that the Bishop of Rome, rather than of Antioch should succeed in S. Peter's office, is not indeed expressly written in the Gospel; but is partly, gathered from that which is there written, and is known unto us by tradition of the Church, to be Christ's institution; as is learnedly declared, proved, 
See Bellarm. l. 1. de Rom. pontiff. c. 12. Stapleron relect. controu. 3 q. 2. art. 2  and defended by Gregory de Valent. tom. 3. disp. 1. q. 1. de object. fid. p. 7. § 36. 37. and 38. The which to be so, is confirmed, in that, by Christ's appointment, one or other is always to succeed S. Peter in the office of chief Pastor: but my Adversary cannot assign any other, besides the Bishop of Rome, that did or could, upon so sufficient ground, pretend to be S. Peter's successor. 
2 This answer affirms three things. First, that S. Peter had absolute Pastoral authority, appropriate to him by those words, Pasce oves meas. Secondly, that this authority was not to die with him, but to continue for ever in the Church, in some, or other that should succeed him. Thirdly, that the Bishop of Rome, rather than he of Antioch, was to succeed him in authority. Touching the first, and second, let it be distinguished. The Pastoral authority of Peter contained two things, being taken in the whole latitude. First, his duty to preach the Gospel, and teach the people by ministering the word and sacraments to them. Secondly, his extraordinary and eminent power thereunto, wherein he exceeded all ordinary Pastors, being called to be an Apostle, and enabled to plant Churches, convert nations, reveal Christ, work miracles, etc. Our Adversaries add a third; his supreme jurisdiction over all the Apostles also, and all the powers on earth, spiritual and temporal, whereby he was the ordinary Pastor and judge over all the world directly, as some say, or indirectly, as othersome will have it. The first of these is called his Pastoral office: the second his Apostleship: the third his Primacy, or supremacy. The which distinction being laid; we grant that S. Peter had absolute Pastoral authority, in the first and second senses, to preach the Gospel, as all other Pastors do, and beyond them all to be an Apostle. We grant secondly, that authority, to be an Apostle, and Pastor of the Church, that he might feed the flock of Christ, was either given or ratified to him by those words, feed my sheep. We grant thirdly, that the Pastoral authority, taken only in the first degree thereof, was not to die with him, but to remain for ever in his successors, the ordinary Bishops and Pastors of the Church. But all this will do the Pope no good; for it neither prefers him of Antioch, nor him of Rome, but makes them both equal. Fourthly, we deny any to have succeeded him in his Apostleship, or God to have ordained any succession in that second, and eminent degree of his Pastoral charge: neither dare our Adversaries themselves simply and absolutely affirm it. The jesuite therefore in this his answer means the authority of Peter in the last sense, as it imports the PRIMACY and jurisdiction over the other Apostles, and the Kings and nations of the earth to rule and overgoverne them. This is denied, and the Text alleged, Feed my sheep, proves it not, as I have fully showed in 
* Digress. 26. nu. 15. & 22. The learned Reader may see Is. Casaub. exercitat. 16. nu. 132. p. 705.  THE WAY, where it was first offered me. Whence it follows that he could have none to succeed him in any supremacy, because he had none such himself. For no man succeeds another in more than he hath himself. And the Repliars three arguments proceeding only for the first degree of his Pastoral authority, prove nothing for the second or third. By reason the Apostleship was not needful for all ages, and the supremacy intended was never given him at all, nor meant by the words of Christ.  
3 Neither do the Repliars reasons prove that the Bishop of Rome rather than of Antioch succeeds S. Peter in that wherein succession holds: as I have also showed in the 29 Digression, whereto he says nothing. The first: it is gathered from that which is written, is false. For what one word is there written in all the new Testament, either that the Bishop of Rome should be Peter's successor, or that Peter should be Bishop there himself? Occam 
a Occam. dial. patr. 1. lib. 2. c. 3.  says, These are in the number of things that neither are contained in Scripture, nor can be manifestly proved by it alone: that Peter was Bishop of Rome: that he removed his Sea from Antioch to Rome: that the Bishops of Rome succeed S. Peter. That the Church of Rome hath the primacy, whereof there is no mention in the Scripture; as likewise there is not that he governed the Church of Rome, nor any thing touching the Papacy thereof. The second, that it is known by tradition to have been Christ's institution, is false likewise, when the tide of Valences his learning is at the highest. For neither doth he show any such tradition, nor can such traditions be of infallible verity. The common opinion is that the succession of the Sea of Rome depends upon Peter's fact. Cornelius Must 
b Cornel. Mus. concio de Cathed. Petri. p. ●39.  says, that if Peter had died at Antioch, that had been the chief Church and the first Sea. Suarez: 
c Defence. fid. Cathol. lib. 3. c. 13. nu. 12.  In that Peter placed his seat at Rome, and united the Pontifical dignity to that Bishopric (whether this union was of divine institution by a special commandment and revelation, as some will have it; or only of Peter's own human will, though inspired of God) upon this very point, that it was never altered any more by Peter, while he lived, it remained ratified; and therefore he that succeeded Peter in his Bishopric, necessarily succeeded him also in both dignities. If the succession therefore depend only on Peter's dying at Rome, what divine institution is this, unless it can be showed that God would the succession should be in the place where he died? For the supposed primacy and the episcopal power may be separated, that it is not necessary this always draw that after it. Doctor Stapleton gives no other reason of the Pope's succession then this: 
d Stapl. relect. controu. 3. q. 2. art. 2. ad 3.  that our Lord Christ commanded Peter to go to Rome, who thereupon removed his seat thither, and died there: as Marcellus in his Decretal Epistle, and Innocent in an Epistle to Alexander the Bishop of Antioch, writ. And he saith, that more than this shall not be given Caluin: seeing all antiquity, and the monument yet to be seen at Rome, shows it: namely that Peter, by the persuasion of the brethren, going from Rome, and shunning the persecution, met Christ, and saying to him, Lord, whither goest thou? Christ answered, I go to Rome again to be crucified: whereupon Peter, by the commandment of Christ, returned to Rome. See Egesippus his third book and second chap. This is the same I said 
e THE WAY, Digr. 29. nu. 38.  in THE WAY, that now the Pope's succeeding Peter, depends on this consequence: Peter died at Rome by Christ's appointment: Therefore it was Christ's will, the Pope should succeed him. This consequence the Doctor proves not, nor can it be proved by any industry or wit of man. For what such connexion is there between Peter's dying at Rome and the Pope's succeeding him, that Peter's death being allowed to have been by Christ's will, the Pope's succession must necessarily be by the same will? Away with these absurdities, and let Christian cares no longer be molested with them. Again, the antecedent is false. The only authors thereof being arrant counterfeits and forged books. 
f Margarin. Dignae. Bibl. SS. Patrum, tom. 1. ad Lect. Possevin. apparat. verb. Linus. Baron. an. 69. n. 6. & an. 44. n. 45.  Linus, 
g See Cens. Patrum, by M. Ed. C. Possevin. v. Hegesipp.  Egesippus and this 
h Anto. Contius, annot. in dist. 16 Septuaginta.  Marcellus: whose 
i Ep. 2. Marcel. apud Binn.  Decretal also says no more but that by our Lord's appointment he removed the sea to Rome. As for Innocent, he says 
k Innocent. 1. epist. 18. apud Binn.  nothing at all to that purpose. And such as have reported it afterward, followed what they had heard, without examining the credit. Let our adversaries therefore sit down and reckon how many points they have to clear in this difficulty. First, that Peter was Bishop of Rome. Next, that he died at Rome by the special commandment of Christ. Then, that he died invested with such a Primacy. And finally, that his so dying there, is sufficient (without a new revelation from God) to make the succession of the Bishop of Rome of divine authority. When these things are sufficiently demonstrated, the succession shall be acknowledged, but not before. To his confirmation, I answer: that, by Christ's appointment, Peter was to have his successors: not one or other, in any special place, but the Bishops and Pastors of the Church, all of them, in every place: and not in the office of chief Pastor, expounded by the Primacy and Apostleship (for his Apostleship died with him, and Primacy, such as is intended, he never had any) but in his Pastoral cure of preaching & ministering the word & sacraments, and governing the Church in community with other Bishops and Pastors, as himself did these things in community with the Apostles. Therefore the Bishop of Antioch succeeds him in place as well as the Bishop of Rome; but in office, all the Christian Bishops of the world succeed him; and in preaching and ministration of the sacraments, all the inferior Pastors of the world. But in that which is called his supremacy and monarchy over all other Bishops and Kings of the earth, he hath no successor, because no such thing was given him by Christ, but first was devised by the Pope himself for his own advancement.   
A.D. To the THIRD I answer, that the disagreement of authors, in assigning which particular men did, 
Pag. 291.  in order, succeed one another, is no argument that there was not at all an orderly succession: as neither the like disagreement of authors, about the year in which our Saviour suffered, is no sufficient argument to prove that he suffered not at all in one or other year. 
4 This answer affirms it to be an orderly succession, which he confesses cannot be put into order. Yet he excuses the matter by the like disagreement of authors about the year of Christ's passion. But this is idle. For the disagreement that is about the time of Christ's passion, makes the same time uncertain to such as rely on those authors: and so the contrariety of opinions, makes the order of succession uncertain in the Papacy. Which is as much as we require. For hereby we make plain demonstration that our adversaries cannot assign what persons succeeded one another, but are constrained to set them down out of order, and some also that never were Bishops of Rome at all. Whence it follows that the succession is not precisely in those persons, nor in that order that the jesuite hath set down in his Catalogue, and our adversaries pretend. They which blaze their catalogues of Popes from Peter, and boast so fast that God's ordinance hath upholden a visible succession in the Church of Rome, are bound to place every person in his own order, or else content themselves with that succession which is in faith and doctrine.   
A.D. To the FOURTH I answer: that vacancy of the Sea, 
Pag. 291.  is no moral interruption of succession, although the vacancy continue for a good space: neither is it any main inconvenience; so that in the mean time, no special matter of importance happen, which cannot be ended without one in that office, to interpose his authority. 
5 Though every kind of vacancy take not away succession, yet the vacancies of the Roman sea, disable the succession thereof for being of that nature which our adversaries pretend: who hold the Pope to be such a Head, that without him, there can neither be unity in faith, nor stability in the truth, nor life in the Church: in as much as these things 
a See Can. loc. l. 6. cap. 8. ad 1. Greg. de Valen de object. fid. punct 7. qu. 7.  are holden to have their influx into the Church by no other means then through him. So long time therefore as the Sea wants a Pope, the Church wants a head, and means to convey the truth to it, if the Pope be the only Head and Means. And although every distance and period of time, require not authority to interpose itself in things of question, yet if it be God's ordinance thus to direct his Church by the Pope, and by no other means, he is bound to prevent such long vacancies, and perplexities, wherein no man living, for many years together, can tell who is true Pope. Let the words of Canus, touching the time of the Pope's death, be noted, and applied to our vacancies. 
b Loc. l. 4. c. vlt. ad 12.  When the Pope is dead, the Church no doubt is still one, and the Spirit of truth abideth in it: yet is it left LAME and DIMINISHED, being WITHOUT CHRIST'S VICAR, THAT ONE PASTOR OF THE CHURCH. Therefore albeit the truth still be in the Church, yet if any controversies arise, the Church's judgement without the Head is not so certain.   

Pag. 291. See Onuphr. annot. super Platin.  A.D. To the FIFTH: it is a mere fable, without all probability, or moral possibility, that ever there was any such woman Pope. And if there had been so, it proves nothing but a vacancy of the Sea for that time. 
6 For the vacancy I have said; and by pretence thereof the succession of the foulest heretics that have ever been, may be salved, the time of their sitting being expounded to be but a vacation. But to say, the succession of the woman Pope is a fable, without all probability, is a desperate answer, when so innumerable authors writ it, and, being as moral as A. D. is, believed it also. In the Church of Sienna in Italy, 
c Papir. Masson de episc. Vrb. l. 6. in Pio 3.  where the pictures of the Popes that have been, have used of long time to be set up, the image of this Pope joane, till 
d Florimund. fab. joan. c. 22. n. 2. pag. 19 1.  within these twenty years, that the Pope and the Duke of Florence, at the intercession of Baronius, cast it down, was to be seen standing in it place among the other Popes that had been of ancient time. It is no contending with obstinacy, but when the first and sole authors of the story, and the confidentest reporters of it, were the wisest and learnedst Papists that lived in their time, and Onuphrius and the jesuits were the first that ever denied it; it is folly for the Replier to think to discredit the story. M. Cook hath so well quit it, both from Onuphrius and the rest that have followed, that I will only refer the reader to his 
e Called Pope Joan printed ann. 1610 for Edm. Blount & William Barret  Book, which handles the point thoroughly and exactly.   
A. D. To the sixth: 
Pag. 291. Bellarm. lib. 4. de Rom. pontiff.  the learned Cardinal Bellarmine doth show that there was never any Pope heretic, even as a private man: and all the best learned Catholic Divines agree, that never any did, or shall, or can ex Cathedra, define any error or heresy, to be true faith; or authoritatively teach the Church any thing contrary to the true faith Which being, although some of them, in their private opinion, had held any error in faith or heresy, it could not prejudice the Church. 
7 Here are three things affirmed touching the Pope. First, that there was never any Pope Heretic, even as a private man: as Bellarmine shows. This I disproved in THE WAY 
a Digress. 28. & 47. nu. 15.53. nu 8.  three times over, and it is a desperate untruth against the experience of many Popes, and against the mind of diverse most learned Papists. True it is, that Bellarmine says it is probable, and piously may be believed, and doth his best to quit such Popes as are commonly charged; but his answers are unsufficient and against the universal consent of all history. And to insist upon a particular example or two: Honorius, the first of that name, fell into the heresy of the Monothelites, holding that Christ had but one will, and so consequently but one nature: and for the same was judged, and condemned in 
b Concil. 3. Constantinop. Synod. 6. act. 13. sub. Agatho. Phot. Biblioth. in Synod. 6. graec. p. 6. Concil. Nicen. 2. act. 7. epist. 1. Synodal. ad Augg. & epist. 2. ad omnes Fidel. concil. 8. act. 7. colloqu. 3.  three general Counsels. Whereto Bellarmine, with all his magnified learning, 
c De Pontif. Rom. l. 4 c. 11. § ad secundum dico.  can answer no more but that the Counsels are corrupted: the which thing Albertus Pighius 
d Alb. Pigh hierarch. ecclesiast. l. 4. c. 8. §. Sedquoniam ex. pag. 251.  having said before, 
e Diatrib. de Acts 6. & 7. Synod. praef. ad lecto.  was admonished thereof, and wished to recant it: and Dominicus Bannes 
f Dom. ban. 22 qu. 1, art. 10. dub. 2. p. 116.  says, Certainly it is ridiculous, that, now after 900 years, Pighius should find those witnesses false and forgers. And Canon, 
g Can. Loc. l. 6. c. 8. ad 11.  that this conceit was never heard in the Church before. Holding himself resolutely that Honorius erred, and alleged divers proofs for the same. Liberius fell into Arianisme. Athanasius and Hierom 
h Athan. epist. de solit. vit. agent. p. 647. graec. Hieron. catalogue. script. in Fortunat.  say, that for fear of death he subscribed to the Arians. Damasus 
i Damas'. vit. Liberij.  says that Vrsacius and Valence, two Arian Bishops being sent to him by the Emperor, he consented to him. divers other examples are well known and commonly objected. Dominicus Bannes 
k ban. ubi sup. pag. 115.  says, the Pope, as he is a Doctor, and a private person may err in matters of faith, even with pertinacy, that he becomes an Heretic. And this conclusion he affirms to be generally holden by all the ancient Bishops of Rome themselves, and by all the school Doctors before Albertus Pighius, and by the graver sort of Doctors also since him. And to what purpose should universally all the Divines of the Church of Rome, till of late years, so curiously debate the questions touching the Church's power over the Pope, 
l Turre ●rem. sum. de eccl. l. 2 c. 112. & l. 4. part. 2. c. 20. Caietan. de author. Pap. & council. cap. 18. Anton. de rosel. Monarch. tract. de council. p. 67. Occam. dialog. l. 6. partis 1 c. 12. & inde.  in case he should chance to be an Heretic, if they had thought, with the Repliar, that he could not be an Heretic at all? Alphonsus a Castro 
m Adu. haeres. l. 1. c. 4.  says, every man may err in the faith, although it be the Pope himself. For touching Pope Liberius, it is manifest he was an Arian, and he that hath read histories doubts not but Anastasius favoured the Nestorians— I CANNOT BELIEVE THERE IS ANY MAN SO IMPUDENT A FLATTERER OF THE POPE, AS TO SAY HE CANNOT ERR, or be deceived in expounding the Scripture. For when, IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT DIVERS OF THEM ARE SO VNLERANED, THAT THEY ARE ALTOGETHER IGNORANT OF GRAMMAR, how can they expound the sacred Scripture? My Adversary therefore, and his learned Cardinal, are egregious flatterers and parasites to the Pope, by Alphonsus' verdict, & such as he presumed the world should never have seen; but he was deceived: we now see them and hear them, and my Adversary, it seems, believes them. 
n Aen. Sylu. comment. in Panorm. de dict. & fact. Alph. l. 1. n. 3.  Pope john the 23 was wont to say, when flatterers praised him, though he knew they lied, yet he felt himself something tickled with that they said. Which humour of the Pope being now better known, you must give his servants leave to gratify it.  
8 Secondly he says, All the best learned Catholic Divines agree that never any Pope did, shall, or can, ex Cathedra define any error, or heresy, to be true faith, or authoratatively teach the Church any thing contrary to the true faith. Indeed this is the opinion of the most Papists now adays; devised of late to put off the inconveniences that pressed them; that whatsoever heresies and abominations of the Pope were objected, they might be salved by this distinction, that he taught them not out of the chair, but from his own stool. But it is false that all the best learned Catholics agree in it. For very many of the ancienter sort held it not, but the contrary, whose learning will abide any comparison that can be made with the jesuits, that now so presumptuously assume from their predecessors, all the learning to themselves. Hadrian, who himself was Pope, 
o In 4. de sacra. confirm. sub finem.  affirms it to be certain that the Pope may err, even in things touching the faith, and avouch that which is heresy by his determination, or decretal. Turrecremata, a Cardinal of that reputation for his learning 
p Catharin. tract. de certa sanct. glor. l. 1.  that the Pope honoured him with the title of Protector of the faith, assigning certain cases wherein pertinacy, or wilfulness in heresy, lies, 
q Turre crem. sum. de eccl. l 4. part. 2. c. 16.  gives this for one: The seventeenth manner whereby, the Pope specially, may be convinced of pertinacy in heresy is: if he SOLEMNLY DEFINE THE ERROR, and affirm it to be holden, by Christians, as Catholic. It was therefore 
r Azor. tom. 2. moral. l. 5. c. 4.  his judgement that the Pope might err, even judiciously è Cathedra. Waldensis 
s Waldens'. doctrinal. fid. l. 2. c. 19 tom. 1.  affirms, that no Church or Council, no not the particular Church of Rome, is free from error, but only the Catholic Church dispersed all over the world from the times of Christ and his Apostles to this day. If only the Catholic Church, thus considered, be free from error, than he thought the Pope, every way howsoever, might err; and his particular Church and college being allowed to help him, yet they not being the Church mentioned in the creed, in Waldens' the innocent, promoting the faithless, defaming Catholics, exalting schismatics, hating good men, oppressing the truth; with all their power, and by all means possible, without fear, advancing forward heretical pravity. The time, alas, is come, whereof the blessed Apostle prophesied 2. Tim. 4. The time shall be when men will not abide wholesome doctrine, but, with itching ears shall heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts: and turning their ears from the truth, shall give heed to fables. Which prophecy indeed is fulfilled in our days, which I speak with grief.— And that I may conclude in few words, with a whore's forehead and execrable boldness, they hasten to subvert both King, and law, divine and human, etc.  
9 The third thing the Reply says, is, that the Pope's private errors cannot prejudice the Church. But this is folly. For who sees not, that if his decrees be admitted to be infallible truths, the Church shall be constrained by the consequence of this principle to receive, for such, many of his errors? the reason is, because he cannot possibly decree otherwise then he privately thinks; and in decreeing, he is not bound either to follow or use the counsel of other Bishops; in which case, what hath he to lead him but his own erroneous private spirit? They will say possible, God's promise and providence is to preserve him when he teaches the Church è Cathedra; else the Church should be tied to an inconvenience, and be bound to follow his errors. I answer in a word, that privilege shall be granted him when our adversaries can show us where God hath made any such promise. Those promises that are, belong not to the Pope, but to the universal Church and the lawful Counsels thereof: as the most ancient and learned Papists do, for the most part, expound. Thus the Fathers of the Counsels of Pisa, Basil, Constance. Thus all the Divines that hold a Council to be above the Pope. And this was the cause why in the ancient Church, not the Bishop of Rome, but a Council was the highest judge of all controversies that fell out: for which cause the Church in all ages hath used to call such Counsels; which needed not if the privilege of not erring, had been given to the Pope alone.   
A. D. To the SEVENTH: whereas M. White saith, 
Pag. 291. White. p. 419.  it is the Popes own law, that if any man be installed Pope through money, or favour of men, or by popular or military tumult, without the Canonical election of Cardinals and Clergy, let him not be accounted Pope, or Apostolical, but Apostaticaell: I acknowledge with M. White that this was a very good law: but how will M White make good his inference, to wit, that by virtue of this law, the succession of the Roman Church is wholly overthrown? how this inference will be made good, I confess I cannot see. For first among so great a multitude that have succeeded one another in the Popedom, M. White cannot show many examples of Popes who entered into the Popedom, in such manner as the law forbids: or if they entered first unlawfully, who were not after confirmed, and so made lawful Popes, by the consent of the Clergy: or if any rare example could be found of one that did enter and continue in the Papacy unlawfully, the most that is proved thereby, is that the Sea was vacant for that time; God's providence in the mean time procuring, either that no cause necessary to be determined by the Pope, should happen; or else exciting some other means extraordinarily to relieve the necessity of the Church, in such a rare and extraordinary case. As for other abuses, which M. White saith continued long; 
White, p. 420.  so long as they hindered not that the Pope might be a lawful Pope, they are impertinent to our purpose. For the send life of the Scribes and Pharises, 
Matth. 23.2.  was no just cause to hinder people from being bound to do as they, sitting in Moses chair, did say. Neither was young years any hindrance, since that out of the mouth of INFANTS, our Lord can work his own praise. 
Psal. 8.3.  Neither is ignorance or want of learning and discretion, any impediment, when by the mouth of an ASS, God can instruct a prophet. 
2. Pet. 2.6.  
10 Here my adversary says, he cannot see how simoniacal and violent intrusions into the Papacy, overthrow the succession: let others therefore help him with their eyes. The Pope's law is, that such unlawful entrance makes the election a nullity. Let not him, 
a D. 79. Si quis.  saith the law, that thus enters be counted Pope, but apostatical. And julio the second (
b See his election in Guice. hist. lib. 6.  as simoniacal a Pope himself as ever lived) in his Council of Lateran: 
c Sept. decretal de elect. & elect potest. tit. 3. c. 1.  Let such election or assumption to the Popedom, give no faculty to the elected, but be void. Albanus 
d Alban. de potest. Papae, part. 1. nu. 15.  says, he hath no Pontifical dignity, that is not lawfully elected. This being the law, it follows consequently the succession hath been interrupted, if my adversary will yield an interruption to be where there is a nullity, or a void succession; and that for a long time together. For what is interrupting or overthrowing any thing, but the staying and ceasing thereof, that it proceeds not, nor is continued? Thus therefore I reason: To be void, or fail, is to be overthrown: But the succession hath failed, and been void by simony and violence: Therefore it hath been overthrown. He answers three things. First, that I cannot show many examples of Popes that have entered contrary to the law. This makes me think it true indeed that he says, he cannot see: for my words, to this point, it seems, have dashed out his eyes. 
e Pag. 419. of the secon● edit.  I alleged the words of 
f Platin. in silvest 3.  Platina: It came to pass that he which most prevailed, not in learning and holy life, but in bribery and ambition, even he alone obtained the Papacy, good men being oppressed and rejected: which custom, he says, is retained in our times also. The which words, with the rest that I alleged touching this matter, show plainly that scarce any enter otherwise, as it were easy to discover particularly in the most of them, as Guicciardine doth in Alexander the sixth, and julio: of whom 
g Papit. Masso. in Alexand. 6.  Alexander would often say to his familiar friends: The Popedom was more worth than unskilful persons used either to buy or sell it for, which might be the cause why some few have got it at a lower rate. But to insist in one example: 
h Chronogra. lib 4. an. ch. 901  Genebrard says, that almost for the space of 150 years, all the Popes, in number fifty, were apotactical and apostatical rather than Apostolical, by reason of their unlawful election, or violent intrusion; and entered not in by the door, but by a back door: of all which, only five are scarcely, and that very slenderly commended. The examples therefore are not so rare, as my adversary would bear the world in hand, but enough, at one time, to show an interruption of the succession for at the least 150 years together. And the manner of succession now in our days, appears to be no better, that it made the Pasquil in Rome, not long ago, sing Re, Me, Sol, Fa: and his Nows homo supplicate for a general Council, by reason there hath been a nullity in the succession ever since Sixtus Quintus. Secondly he says, they which entered thus unlawfully, were afterward confirmed by the consent of the Clergy, and made lawful Popes, and so all is well again. But he is deceived, for he cannot show that ever any simoniacal or violent entrance was thus confirmed: or if the Cardinals afterward allowed such a one for lawful Pope, than this makes the matter worse, in as much as so unlawful entrance into S. Peter's chair should be ratified, and succession, which ought to be by free and lawful election, should, in the chiefest Sea, be continued by violence and villainy. But the truth is, that a Pope thus entering cannot be confirmed. 
i Septim. decree. tall. ubi supra.  The words of the law are these: Such election, or assumption to the Papacy 
* Eo ipso nulla existat.  shall be a nullity, and give no faculty to the elected to administer any thing, either in spiritual or temporal matters:— So that he shall, of no man, be received as Bishop of Rome, but himself shall fall from all his honour that he had before, and stand deprived of his Cardinalship, and all other dignities whatsoever— and be accounted not Apostolical, but Apostalicall, a Simoniacke, an Archhereticke, and perpetually uncapable of all and singular the foresaid dignities and promotions. Here the law you see disables both the Clergy from confirming him, and himself from being capable of confirmation. If the Reply will imagine that as the Pope made this law himself, so he may repeal it again; I answer, first if he do, it is nothing; because it is the natural and moral law of God, indispensible, that violence and corruption shall bring none to the altar. Secondly, de facto it hath not hitherto been repealed, nor 
k See Cresper. sum. v. Papa. & electio.  the many laws to the same effect made from the beginning; and therefore it and they hold in all the unlawful successions that are past, nullifying and disabling them. Thirdly, the Pope thus entering cannot repeal them, because by them he is no Pope, and none can abrogate a former decree but he that is a lawful Pope. If therefore the Popes own law, or the original constitution of the universal Church, forbidding simoniacal, heretical, and violent entrances, be of any force to give being, or not being, succession, or not succession, thereunto; it is more than manifest that by Simony and violent intrusions the outward succession of the Bishops of Rome hath notoriously been interrupted and overthrown. To that he supplies touching the vacancy I have said before.  
11 But I objected yet three other things. First, the wicked and monstrous life of many Popes. Secondly, the infancy of one, and the youth of some other. For Bennet was but 10 year old when he was chosen. Thirdly, the unlearnedness of many who understood not any part of the word of God: by all which I showed the succession to have been overthrown, as well as by the former. To the first he says, that as the lewd life of the Pharisees was no just cause to hinder the people from hearing them, sitting, as they did, in Moses chair: no more doth the evil life of the Pope disable him from being the universal Pastor of the Church. Yet who sees not that if the Pope were Christ's vicar, the rule of faith, and judge of religion, whom all men must obey in whatsoever he teaches touching faith and manners; God were bound to guide him from falling into such horrible wickedness? They have been heretics, murderers, Sodomites, Incestuous, Adulterers, Traitors, Conjurers, Nigromancers, Drunkards, Atheists, Devils incarnate, the only monsters that the Church hath bred; and when they are at the best, they are commonly worse than the ordinary sort of men (all this I have showed and proved) and is it probable God hath put such persons into such authority, and committed the whole administration of his Church to them? True it is, the Pharisees must be obeyed 
* The text affirms no more. See the WAY §. 14. nu. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theophylact in Matth. 23. p. 97. Maldonate, the jesuite, having cast off the exposition that said. The chair constrained them to teach the truth: expounds it thus. Ergo cum jubet ser●are ac facere, quae Scribae & Phar●saei, dumb in Cathedra Mosis sede●t, dicunt, non de ipsorum, sed de legis, ac M●sis, doctrina loquitur; perinde enim est, ac si dicat, omnia quae lex, & Moses vobis dixerint, Scribis & Pharisaeis recitantibus, servare ac facite.  in that they taught truly, notwithstanding their wicked lives: and this privilege we deny neither the Pope nor any Bishop; be he never such a monster; if he have a calling to the place he holds, and teaches according to the chair of truth, let not his unholy life discharge the flock from hearing him. But neither hath the Pope any lawful calling to the office he claims and exercises, nor doth he teach according to the chair of truth; and therefore his wicked life argues God's curse upon both his place and his person, to occupy such a place as God hath not ordained. To the second and third he grants a young child, or a wild youth, or an ignorant unlearned man, may well be Pope, because our Lord, out of the mouth of infants, can work his praise, and by the mouth of an Ass instruct a Prophet. Harken than you that are the Pope's subjects. I will but keep quarters with his answer: you have often heard of Asinus ad lyram, now you may hear Asinum in Cathedra: my Adversary says, if a golden Ass take holy orders, or, which God forbidden, 
De Asinitate Romani Pontificis. Schiopp. Ecclesiast.  should chance to be made Pope of Rome, &, stabled in the Vatican; when heresies, or controversies in Religion arise, the Cardinals and Bishops adoring him, might safely inquire at his mouth what is to be done, and what to be holden for the truth. In old time 
a jud. 10.4. & 12.14.  Princes children had wont to ride upon Asses, now the news is, that Asses may ride upon Princes and Cardinals, and Friars may be his footmen. This is the consequence of my adversaries Reply: for it deserves no better answer, that maintains the sufficiency of a child ten years of age, and of an ignorant unlearned man, or for need, of an Ass, for the supporting of the faith and frame of the Catholic Church of Christ. Sidonius 
b Sidon. lib. 1. epist. 8.  says merrily of the lake of Ravenna, that there, as if the world were turned upside down, the walls flow, and the waters stand; towers sail, and ships stand still; sick men walk, and their Physicians lie, the living suffer thirst, and the dead swim; thieves wake, and powers sleep; Clerks exercise usury, and jews sing. This perverse order of things is allowed in the Church of Rome by my adversaries conceit of infants and Asses.   
A.D. To the EIGHT I answer: 
Pag. 292.  that the Schisms which have been in the Papacy, do not overthrow true succession. For in those Schisms, (unless for a time there were vacancy of the Sea) there was always either one who truly was, and who was, to some, certainly known to be Pope (as for example Vrbanus and his successors were, in the time of the great schism, known to be true Popes:) or else if for any short time, there was none certainly known to be true Pope, there wanted not means, in God's Church, in such a case, to clear the doubt, by making a new undoubtable lawful election, either in an ordinary manner, prescribed by some precedent true Pope, or in an extraordinary manner, prescribed by the Church, in a general Council, or otherwise, grave and urgent circumstances requiring, that such extraordinary manner of election should be then used. As for example, when in time of schism great doubt is who is true Pope, in which extraordinary manner Martinus Quintus was lawful elected true Pope. Thus I hope I have answered the chief arguments that my Adversaries do or can object against my Catalogue, etc. 
12 What man would imagine a succession, wherein have been more schisms than ever was in any one Sea, should be offered us with that confidence that this of Rome is? There are assigned not so few as 30 several times wherein there have been either four, or three, or two Popes at once: of which schisms some have continued a long space together, with the greatest violence and outrage of one Pope against another that can be said: no man living being able to discern which was the true successor; whereby unanswerably it follows, that there was no visible head of the Church, infallibly known, all that time: but, according to our Adversaries own principles, the Church wanted means to instruct and confirm her people in the faith: yea the living rule of faith ceased and was overthrown in these schisms. The jesuite replies, that in all these schisms either the true Pope was known; or if he were not, yet there was means to clear the doubt, by electing a new. The first of these is false: that in all the schisms the true Pope was known. For in some of them there were so many learned men, and Princes of the earth, following each part, divided one against another, that it was impossible there should be any certainty. And my Adversary could not have instanced with me in a worse than in Vrbanus, whose reputation was so small, by reason of 
a Whereof read Theodor. à Niem de schism. l. 1. c. 2.  the manner of his entrance, and government, that he was generally nicknamed Turbanus: and so odious to his Cardinals, that in revenge, 
b Ibi. cap. 51. & Pandulf. Collenut. hist. Neapolit. l. 5. p. 233.  some he tormented upon the rack in base and miserable fashion, and afterward tied up in sacks and so drowned them, and others he baked in an oven, and carried them when he had done upon mules before him, when he traveled, with their Cardinal hats upon them. Now it is a rule among our 
c Petr. Cresper. sum. Cathol. fid. verb. Disciplinae pag. 180.  Adversaries themselves, that a doubtful Pope is to be accounted for no Pope. The succession therefore failed all the time of these schisms. And albeit, as the Reply speaketh, there was means, by a Council to elect a new Pope: yet what success these means had, he may perceive by the stories of the Counsels of Pisa. Constance and Basil: whereof this last 
d Aen. Sylu. comment. de Gest. Basil. Concil. lib. 2.  deposed Eugenius, and elected the Duke of Savoy, calling him Faelix the fift; and yet our adversaries still hold the succession in Eugenius: yea the Replier hath put him in his Catalogue, and left Faelix out; which by this his rule he should not have done. And beside, though a Council may depose the schismatics, and elect a new Pope, yet who shall he that is thus elected succeed? or how can a Council, or any other means that shall be used, piece together the interruption past, that it may truly be said, the succession was never broken? Martin was elected by the Council of Constance, but let the jesuite, and Gregory of Valence his master, of whom he hath borrowed all that he says, answer whom he succeeded? whether Vrban and his successors, or Clement and his: which side soever he takes, he cannot rid himself. For Clement, and they that followed him in his time, are thrust out of the catalogue, and Vrbane, with those that followed him, put in: yet the said urban, in his time, was thought no right Pope; and Eugenius that immediately followed this Martin, was deposed by the Council of Basil.  
13 The jesuits hope therefore, that he hath answered the objections, will fail him: things may wittily and cunningly be pretended, but let every man that will 'stablish his conscience in the truth, inquire whether the reason of true succession can hold where such things as these fall out: and whether it be possible, or can stand with God's providence, that a succession, planted for such purposes as our adversaries pretend this of Rome to be, shall be furnished and peeced out with boys, women, heretics, ignorant and unlettered dotards, simoniacal intruders, and so many times divers of them at once? Two things therefore touching this matter of succession are the truth. First that the outward and personal succession of Bishops, in the Church of Rome, is not so entire as is pretended: but hath been defiled and poisoned with so many disorders, that it is as lame a succession as any is wheresoever in the world. Their catalogues assigned, and drawn to exhibit to the vulgar people, look smooth on the outside, and nothing but well is discerned in them; but examine the particulars, and inquire into the histories of their succession, and there was never any thing so patched and peeced together as they. Secondly, the succession of doctrine is the true succession, and is not tied to that which is in place and persons: and therefore let not the jesuits blaze out their catalogues of names, until they can prove the corruptions which they have added to religion (wherein only we forsake the Church of Rome) were holden and believed by the persons named. For what foolery is it to make a catalogue of jesus Christ, Saint Peter, all the Apostles and Evangelists, the virgin Marie, and the whole Church of the first six hundred years, as if these had professed what the Pope and his rabble now teach: did these adore images? use the Communion in one kind? believe Purgatory? did these teach it lawful for the Pope to excommunicate, depose, murder the Kings of the earth? Are not all these things against their express doctrine? Let our adversaries retire back to modesty and truth, and give over their courses. There are two parts of their religion. One wherein they and we agree, as that there is one God, three persons, one redeemer jesus Christ: that the Scripture Canonical is God's word: that the dead shall rise: and all the rest wherein we consent. Another part of their religion is it which we and all the reformed Churches have cast off: as Images, Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Traditions, and a hundred such like points. The Catalogue assigned, sufficiently shows the former part, both for them and us, against all jews and Gentiles that deny it. The latter part they cannot show to have been holden by the persons named, until many ages after Christ, as they came in by degrees: in all which time the truth maintained by the Protestants against them was holden still; and the Papacy was but a faction in the Church, opposing the sounder part thereof. And so the visible Church of Rome itself is it wherein the Protestants faith, in all ages, hath been professed, for the substance thereof.  
Vincat veritas. I. Wh.