ΑΔΕΛΦΟΜΑΧΙΑ, OR THE WARS OF PROTESTANCY. Being a Treatise, wherein are laid open the wonderful, and almost incredible DISSENSIONS of the Protestants among themselves, in most (if not all) Articles of Protestancy: And this proved from their own words & writings. Written by a Cath. Priest. WHEREUNTO IS ADJOINED A brief Appendix, in which is proved; First, That the Ancient Fathers, by the acknowledgements of the learned Protestants, taught our Cath. and Roman Faith. Secondly, That the said Fathers have diverse advantages above the Protestant Writers, for finding out the true sense of the Scripture.  I will set the Egyptians against the Egyptians, so every one shall fight against his Brother, Isa. 19 
M.DC.XXXVII.   

TO THE LEARNED PROTESTANT WRITERS the Author of this Treatise wisheth all true Faith.  
LEARNED MEN.  
It may be, you will think strange, that I have selected you from all others, to dedicate this small Treatise unto. I cannot expect your Patronage hereof, in regard of the disparity of our Religions. My main Allective of this my Dedication, is, Because You, being placed upon the stage of the World's Eye, and most different from me in Faith and Religion, may by reading these few leaves, perceive with what disease of Contrarieties in Faith, Protestancy (being your own Religion) doth labour: A most dangerous sickness, and such as in time, through its violent Convulsions, may threaten its own future dissolution.  
Hear you shall find, that the chiefest Protestants have with their Pens, made infinite blots and blurs of Contradictions in their Writings: So certain it is, that the high swelling River of Protestancy is fed with the different (or rather most opposite) opinions of each Professor of it. Therefore I probably assure myself (and the rather in regard of your presumed Integrity, Learning, and other good Parts) that after your perusal of this Treatise, you will even blush, in your own brethren's behalf.  
For, is it not strange, and deserving Admiration, to find men (otherwise reputed most learned) to be so flexuous, variable, and of such fluctuating judgements touching their doctrines, as that Andraeas Duditius (a literate Protestant) doth in these words following, evaporate forth his grief, conceived through his own brethren's dissensions? In 
(a) Beza in Epist. Theolog. epist. ad Dudit. pag. 5. relateth these words of Duditius.  what Religion (saith he) do they agree, who impugn the Roman Bishop? If you examine all from the head to the foot, you shall almost find nothing affirmed by one, which another will not affirm to be wicked etc. Their divines do daily differ from themselves &c. (menstruam fidem habent) coining a Monthly Faith. Thus we see, how Duditius strikes his own Religion, even in its mayster-Veyne; Who notwithstanding is called by Beza, 
(b) Beza ubi supra, pag. 1.  Clarissimus & ornatissimus Vir, and saluted by him, by the name of 
(c) ubi supra, pag. 2.  Frater.  
And the Learned Melancthon complaineth in like sort of this point, saying: Quos 
(d) The author of the Treatise entitled; A mirror for Martinists, printed, 1590. pag. 24. relateth these words, as spoken by Melancthon.  fugiamus, habemus, (meaning the Papists,) sed quos sequamur, non intelligimus. In so much as he further writeth in one of his Books: Nulla 
(e) Melancthon in Concil. Theolog. part. 1. pag. 149.  res aquè deterret homines ab Euangelio, ac nostra discordia. Thus (Learned Men) you see, that the Sphere of Protestancy (even in the judgement of its own Mathematicians) turneth upon the Poles of Dissension in doctrine.  
I presume, that you have made great progress, not only in the study of Divinity, but also in humane Learning, and Philosophy. Call then to remembrance, How God in his Creation of the World, and the parts thereof, may seem even zealously to affect Unity & Concordancy Non 
(f) 1. Cor. 14.  est dissentionis Deus, fed Facis For first, do we not see, how the several Spheres in Heaven, in their continual rotation and moving (both in respect of Primum Mobile, as also of their peculiar Motions) do, notwithstanding the diversity of them, still move without any hindrance, or crossing one of another's Motions, in that sweet temper, as that some of the Philosophers did ascribe a pleasing and Musical Harmony to such their Motions?  
In like sort, to contemplate upon the Elements. How hath that supreme Workman made them to conspire and agree together, through force of their symbolising qualities? In so much, as by this means there is a Transelementation among them, one turning itself into another. Again, how wonderfully (by the hand of the same Divine Providence) do the Inferior Causes in Nature humble (as it were) and subject themselves to the Higher Causes, without the least Reluctation or Contradiction? In the proportion of Man's body, and the Faculties thereof, what Miracles of Unity and Concordancy are found; one member thereof becoming serviceable to another; and all of them Uniting the forces (without any mutiny, as I may say) for the keeping of the whole Body in a grateful repose of Health?  
If than God, who hath created all things in Numero, Pondere, & Mensura; Who is ever working, yet ever quiet; more radiant & shining in his Works, than all Light; more high, than all sublimity; and yet more low, than any depth: Being above all, in governing of things; Underneath all, in supporting of things: Finally internal in all things, by his penetration; external to all things, by his comprehending them within his large Circumference: If then (I say) this most wise Intelligence, or Spirit (Spiritus 
(g) joan. 4.  est Deus) be so solicitous in the structure and manner of creating, & preserving of things created, and this with a most stupendious and conspiring Symmetry, Proportion, and Consonancy, not brooking in them the least jar of Division; how can it be thought, that he would institute a Religion for the saving of Man's Soul (for whom all other things are created) which consisteth of such Heterogeneous and different doctrines (as Protestancy is found to be,) exhaling and breathing nothing, but Enormity in Manners, Simulties, Oppositions, and manifest Contradictions in Faith; the Professors thereof tearing asunder each others reputation & honour, with their violent Philippics, and declamatory Satyrs? It is not probable; It is not credible; It is not possible. The true Church of Christ is charactered in sacred Writ, with the stamp of Unity; & therefore it is styled: 
(h) joan. 20.  One sheepfould, 
(i) Rom. 1●.  One Body, 
(k) Cant. 6.  One Spouse.  
These things then (Worthy Men) being thus explorate, and evident, let not the fruition of temporal Preferments and Opulency of state; neither the Applause of Men, (being but a poor windy purchase of Air) nor any other humane and transitory Respects (since all these are but glorious and guilded Miseries) seel up your judgement and Will, from acknowledging, and practising the truth of Religion. 
(l) Matth. 10.  Quid prodest homini, si universum mundum lacretur, Animae verò suae detrimentum patiatur?  
O remember, That every thing is short which is measured with the yard of Time, and Eternity only long. Strive therefore in a Christian contempt of Temporalities, to say, in zeal of spirit, with S. Austin: Fecisti 
(m) L. 1. Confess. c. 1.  nos Domine ad te; & inquietum est cor nostrum, donec requiescat in te: And assure yourselves, that what thing soever is (as I may say) out of God, soon breedeth a fastidious satiety: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Thus forbearing further surplusage of Words, I commit you to his Holy Protection, of whom (through the boundless sea of his Mercy) it is said: If any 
(n) Apocalyp. ●.  Man will hear his voice, and open the Gate, he will come into him, and sup with him. I beseech his Divine Majesty, that you may availably interest yourselves in this most comfortable Invitation.  
Yours in all Christian Love and Charity. B. C.   

Advertisement to the Reader.  
THIS Treatise is entitled, Adelphomachia; which Greeke Word signifieth, A fight among Brethren: because it showeth the DISSENSIONS among the Protestants themselves, touching matter of Faith and Religion. All which Protestants, whether they be Lutherans, Swinglians, or Caluinists (which are comprehended under the name of Swinglians) do hold one another for Brethren. For Doctor Whitaker, in respon ad rationes Campiani, rat. 8. thus confesseth of this Point: We willingly honour Luther, for our Father; and the Lutherans, and the Swinglians, as our most dear Brethren in Christ.   

A TABLE OF Such disagreements of the Protestants, in matter of Faith and Religion, as are handled, and set down in the ensuing Treatise.  

§. 1. THe Contentions, delivered in most contumetious Words, of one Protestant against another Protestant; And first of the Lutherans against the Sacramentaries, or Swinglians, and Caluinists. Secondly, of the Swinglians or Caluinists, against the Lutherans. Thirdly, of the Lutherans among themselves. Fourthly, the Caluinists among themselves. fifthly, The Puritans against the moderate Protestants. Sixtly, the Moderate Protestants against the Puritans: Within which Clause, are comprehended the English moderate Protestants, and the English Puritans.  
§. 2. The most splenefull Titles (full of malignity) of twenty Books, made by Protestants, against other Protestants, their Brethren.  
§. 3. Touching other external Comportment of the Protestants among themselves. And first the prohibiting of the Sale and Reading of each others Books. 2. The banishing of each other from their Territories. 3. The appointing of Articles of Visitation and enquiry, concerning the discovery and apprehending of each other. 4. Their committing of each other to Prison 5. The entering into open Arms of one Party, against another. 6. The inhuman deportment of some Protestants, against the dead Bodies of other Protestants. All which several kinds of Violent Proceed are only for matter of Religion, among the Protestants.  
§. 4 Disagreements touching the Scripture. First what Books be Scripture, what not. 2. Touching the Translation of acknowledged Scripture, either in Latin, or in English. 3. Touching the supposed easiness, or difficulty of the sense of the Scripture.  
§. 5. The English Protestant disagreements, touching their Communion Book of Prayer.  
§. 6. The Protestants disagreements, touching Christ. First, touching the Nature of Christ. 2. Whether Christ did merit any thing for himself, or not? 3. According to what Nature, Christ suffered? 4. Whether Christ died for all the World, or but for the Elect only? 5. Whether Heathens not believing in Christ, can be saved?  
§. 7. Disagreements, touching the Primacy of Peter, and his successors.  
§. 8. Whether the Pope be Antichrist or not? 2. Supposing him to be Antichrist, at what time Antichrist did come?  
§. 9 Disagreements, touching the Church. First, whether the Protestant Church hath ever been Visible? 2. Whether in the Protestant Church, there ever hath been a Perpetual Succession, and Vocation of Ministers? 3. Who be the Persons, that constitute the Protestant Church? 4. Whether Papists (dying Papists) and members of the present Roman Church, can be saved?  
§. 10. Disagreements, Whether the Ancient Fathers of the Primative Church, are to be admitted, or rejected?  
§. 11. Whether the Authority of General Counsels are to be admitted, or rejected?  
§. 12. Whether there be any Apostolical Traditions, or not?  
§. 13. Disagreements touching the Sacraments. First, of the number of the Sacraments. 2. Whether the known intention of the Church be necessary to the Administration of the Sacraments? 3. Whether any of the Sacraments do imprint any indelible Character, in the Receivers of them? 4. Whether the Sacraments do only signify, or withal confer, Grace?  
§. 14. Baptism in particular. First, Whether Baptism be absolutely Necessary, or not? 2. Whether any particular form of Words be necessary in Baptising, or not? 3. Whether Lay Persons, and Women in time of Necessity may administer Baptism?  
§. 15. Disagreemen●● whether Man hath Freewill, or not?  
§. 16. Disagreements, touching the doctrine of certainty of Reprobation, of Predestination, and of the certainty of justification.  
§. 17. Disagreements, touching the doctrine of good Works. First, Whether good Works do merit, or not; or at least be necessary to salvation? 2. Whether Perpetual Chastity, Fasting, and Poverty be grateful, and pleasing to God, or not? 3. Whether Vows be now lawful in these times of Christianity?  
§. 18. Disagreements, touching the doctrine of Sin First, What Sin is in its own Nature? 2. Touching the distinction of Venial and Mortal sin. 3. Whether all sins be equa●l or not? 4. Whether sin be hurtful to him that believeth? 5. Whether God be the Author of sin?  
§. 19 Disagreements, Whether Absolute Princes and Magistrates ought to be now in the time of the Gospel; and how their Authority may be resisted?  
§. 20. Disagreements touching Polygamy. First, whether a Man may have many Wyves at one time? 2. Touching divorce, and the Occasions thereof.  
§. 21. Other disagreements of Protestants, touching twenty Catholic Points (besides those above entreated of,) which points some Protestants believe as true; others reject them, as false: The point are these following 

1. Touching Christ's descending into Hell, presently after his Corporal death.  
2. Touching ●●bus Patrum.  
3. Touching 〈◊〉 ●cession of Saints.  
4. Touching intercession of Angels.  
5. Touching Invocation of Saintes.  
6. Touching Prayer for the dead.  
7. Touching the Possibility of the Ten Commandments.  
8. Touching the Patronage of certain Angels, over certain Countries.  
9 Touching Images to be in the Churches.  
10. Touching reverence and bowing down to the Name of JESUS.  
11. Whether the good Works of one may help another?  
12. Whether Christ, as Man, was from his Nativity freed from Ignorance?  
13. Touching Evangelicall Counsels, or Works of Supererogation.  
14. Whether it can be known to us, without the Church's Tradition, What Scriptures be Canonical, what not?  
15. Whether Jnfants have actual Faith, in the time of their Baptising?  
16. Whether the Sacraments of the Old Testament, be of equal force and virtue, with the Sacraments of the New Testament?  
17. Touching Auricular Confession.  
18. Whether temporal Punishment be reserved for sin, already remitted?  
19 Whether the Visible Church of God can wholly err, or not?  
20. Whether set times of fasting from certain meats, be appointed only for Polytick order; but with all for spiritual Considerations?    
§. 22. Besides the former disagreements, touching the twenty Catholic Articles above recited. There are certain Catholic Points, maintained by diverse Protestants, to be of that indifferency of Nature, as that the believing, or not believing of them, it not in any sort necessarily to be exacted, through any danger to the party believing them, or not believing them; The belief of which Points in particular other Protestants do hold, as most impious, superstitious, and not standing with the Salvation of the party believing them. The Articles are these following. 

1. Touching the Belief of Praying to Saintes.  
2. Touching the belief of the Real. Presence.  
3. Touching receiving under Both, or One kind only.  
4. Concerning Freewill.  
5. Concerning the Indifferency of honouring the Relics of Saintes.  
6. Touching our B. Lady being preserved from Original sin.  
7. Touching Satisfaction, and Merit of Works.  
8. Concerning the Pope's Primacy.  
9 Touching the Indifferency of Private Mass.  
10. Touching not only the Indifferency of Private Mass, but of several other Catholic Points, so jointly maintained in the Protestant Writings.    
§. 23. Now to all these former disagreements among the Protestants, are adjoined certain Porismata, or Resultancyes, inevitably rising from a true Consideration of diverse of the said dissensions and Disagreements.    

THE PREFACE Wherein, First, are discovered the several sleights used by Protestants, to charge the Church of Rome with Dissensions in doctrine. Secondly, it is proved, that the Necessity of Unity in Faith, aught to be in the Church of Christ.  
— HORRENTIA Martis Arma Virumque cano.— Undertaking to record the unnatural, and bloody Wars, which the Protestant wageth against the Protestant in matter of Faith; And intending in this Ensuing discourse, to dismantle, and lay open to the view of all, the naked state of Protestancy, so far forth, as it concerns its want of Unity, and the immortal Dissensions among the Professors thereof; and further well remembering, that our Adversaries (through their Serpentine calumny of some among them) are ever ready pressed (by way of Recrimination) to obtrude, though most wrongfully, the like dissensions upon us Catholics: Therefore I have thought good in the front hereof, to remove such Replies, and surprise all Objections, by prevention, as may seem to fix upon the Catholics that blemish or Scar, wherewith Protestancy lies here justly chargeable. I herein imitating the proceeding of a careful General in the Wars, who first labours to preclude and forestall the Enemy of all Passages and Ways, whereby the approach of his forces might endanger him; and then draws out his own Troops for the assaulting of his said Enemy. Well then, to the point.  
1. First we are to observe (which the yawning and heedless Reader perhaps will not espy) that in doctrines, there are to be considered two things (as Beza 
(a) Beza ●n Epist. Theolog. Epist. 18. saith: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 explicandum sempe●; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nunquam nisi sobriè & prudenter attingen●um.  well noteth,) to wit, The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifying a categorical or Positive assertion, that such a thing is true in doctrine, hath ever reference to the Conclusion: As for example, That Saints in Heaven do hear us. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hath respect only to the Manner, or some other Circumstance of the Conclusion; As whether the Saints do hear us, by beholding all things intuitively in God, in whom they see all things: Or that they hear our Prayers, through their celerity and incredible speediness of the Motion of their souls, who in the smallest time are able to descend, and ascend from Heaven to earth. This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Conclusion in Faith, is that, in which all Catholics (continuing catholics) do unanimously agree. But touching the, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or manner of such a point or Conclusion, they descent sometimes among themselves: Because the manner of a point in doctrine is (for the most part) of that Adiaphorous, and indifferent Nature, as that several learned Men may teach severally touching the said Manner, without any breach of Faith. And we are thus warned from being overcurious and searching into the Manner of the Conclusion by an ancient Father, who saith: 
(b) Nazianze●● Orat 1. 〈◊〉 Theologia.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And thus accordingly hereto, all Men are obliged to believe all decreed Articles of Faith; yet not ever to believe the particular Manner, or Reason thereof: Which manner being a Point but of Indifferency, is often reduced for trial, to some Scholastical subtlety or apprehension.  
2. I am to advertise the Reader, that whereas there is Questio Juris, and Questio Facti; we are here to observe, that matter of Fact (but not matter of Faith) may be controverted among Divines, without any want of Unity in doctrine; because the Sentences & determinations passed upon matter of Fact, may and aught to be altered, upon later and better Informations, touching the matter of Fact. And in this sense and upon this Occasion, were alterable the Decrees (objected against us by some Protestants) of Pope Formosas, by Pope Steven the 6. and Pope Sergius the 3. Which decrees were after confirmed again by Pope Romanus, Theodorus 2. and john 10. Now the reason of altering the said decrees originally proceeded from matter of Fact; to wit, whether Formosus was truly and Canonically elected Pope (and consequently had full power to make those decrees) or was but only a schismatical Pope. And thus these other Popes maintained several Opinions, touching his Election, being but matter of Fact, and according to their different judgements therein, did abrogate or confirm the decrees of the said Formosus.  
3. A Third Observation may here be taken from the authority of S. Austin, thus writing: Sometimes 
(c) S. Austin, l. de Baptismo Contra julian. Telag. l. 1. c. 2.  the most learned and best defenders of the Catholic Rule, do without breaking the Frame of Faith, not accord. And more: divers 
(d) August. de Baptism. contra Donat l. ●●. c. 18.  men be of diverse judgements without breach of Peace, until a General Council allow some one part for clear & pure. Thus according hereto we are instructed, that if any doubt of Points concerning Faith and Religion, do occur and rise (never before determined by the Authority of God's Church) Christians may maintain different Opinions, touching the same Points, until the Voice of God's Church hath definitively and sententionally decreed the said Points one only way. And according to this Caution, the Controversy holden between the Thomists and Scotists, concerning the Conception of our Blessed Lady (much insisted upon against us by our Adversaries) may be holden without any violence to Unity in Faith; seeing this Controversy is not yet determined and defined by the Church. Of which Controversy D. Field thus saith: Touching 
(e) D. Field. l. 2 ●f the Church. ●. 9 pag. 58.  Contradictory Opinions, some were named Thomists, other Scotists in Controversyes of Religion, not yet determined by consent of the Universal Church: So idly and impertinently do the Protestants diverberate the air, in upbraiding the Catholics with this Controversy, touching the Conception of our B. Lady.  
4. Another Observation, of which I think good to advertise the Reader, concerns certain forlorn and broken Men (yet competently learned) who once were catholics, but after did apostate from the Catholic Church, by entertaining some one or other Opinion of Novelism, condemned by the said Church; With every one of which we may well expostulate in the Dialect of Josue: Noster 
(f) Iosu● c. 5.  es an Aduersariorum? yet before their deaths, most of them abandoned, their said Innovations, and so by their final submission they died Members of our Catholic Church: Such were these few following, Erasmus, Berengarius Aeneas Siluius, Polidor Virgil, Laurentius Valla; Wicelius, Cassander, and one or two o●her Pseudo-Catholiks; out of all which Doctor Morton 
(g) In his prolog. Catho●.  is not ashamed to urge that they (being Papists) are divided in doctrine among themselves. Now to this I answer. This Objection is of no force, because the former Men did maintain but some one or other Point against the Church, comparting and interleaging in all the rest with the Catholics: But after, the most part of them relinquishing their former Errors, died catholics; and in regard of their submission before their deaths to the Church of Rome (and not otherwise) they are accounted catholics. Secondly, I say, that whiles these former Men did persist in their Novelismes, during all that time, they were condemned by the Church of Rome for Heretics; and therefore it cannot be urged, that these Men were Papists, at that time of their dissenting from the Universal Church; for by such their Schism, they were cut off from the Catholic Church, and wholly rejected for members thereof. And I freely grant, that a Catholic, or Papist (as we are opprobriously called) may become an Heretic, by entertaining some Innovations; But then (I say) he ceaseth to be a Catholic, or Papist.  
But the Case is far otherwise with the Protestants urged in this following Treatise. For first the Protestants here produced (being incomparably far greater in number, than the former named Sectaries) do not disagree in one, or two, or three Points only of Protestancy among themselves; but they are distracted almost in all points of Protestancy. Again, I say, the Protestants by me urged, though reciprocally crossing one another (contrary to the state of Berengarius Erasmus, and the rest above specified) yet during he same time of maintaining their contradictory Opinions, do still remain Protestants; & accordingly they are all promiscuously acknowledged, as good Members of the Protestant Church: So great is the disparity between the former urged Authors by D. Morton, and the Protestants hereafter by me alleged. That these Protestants, whether they be Lutherans or Swinglians (under whom are comprehended Caluinists) which I am to produce, notwithstanding their great discrepancy and dissensions in Faith, do remain still Members of the Protestant Church, appeareth from the judgement of D. Whitaker, who thus writeth to his Adversary Father Campian (happy Man, who pledged his blood for the faith of Christ:) Quod 
(h) In respon ad rationes Campiani rat. 8.  autem Lutheranos cum Swingliants coniungiss etc. In that thou dost conjoin, and unite the Lutherans and the Swinglians together, thou dost not offend us; For we willingly honour Luther as our Father, and all them (meaning, the Lutherans, Swinglians, and Caluinists) as our most dear brethren in Christ. And according to this tenor D. jewel affirmeth, saying: The 
(i) In his Apolog. of the Church of England. pag. 101.  Swinglians and Lutherans are good friends; they vary not among themselves, upon the Principles and foundation of our Religion, but upon only one Question, which is neither weighty nor great. And thus far of the transparency of the former Objection, touching Berengarius, Erasmus etc.  
Hitherto may be adjoined, that whereas the Protestants are hereafter charged with great dissensions & inconstancy, touching their often altering their Common Book of Prayer; D. Dove acknowledging so much, seeks to avoid this blemish, by saying: The 
(k) D. D●ne in his persuasion to English Recusants. pag. 11.  Papists have done the like etc. How many times have their Breviaryes been altered? But good Reader, see the great difference herein. The Protestants altering their Communion Book, do withal alter some points of Belief and doctrine; seeing the change of their Communion Book resteth only in change of doctrine; the later Communion Book ever rejecting certain Articles of Faith, which the former did allow off. Now the altering of the Breviaries consists only in inserting certain prayers in the later, which were not in the former, through occasion of Canonization of Saints, or some other urgent Cause: But there is not any alteration, or change or Articles of Faith in their different Breviaries, which is the point only here to be insisted upon.  
Now these Premonitions being afore acknowledged for true, whereby are prevented some weak Objections, of which diverse of our Adversaries have made use, to seek to prove the Catholics disagreements in matter of Faith; it is less strange that some of them have not forborn (such is the scarcity and want of them) to allege 
(l) This objection of different Orders in the Church of Rome, is urged by D. Fulke in his answer to a Counterfeit Catholic p. ●5. By D. jewel in his Apology of the Church of England. pag. ●●. and by others.  for matter of Controversyes, that among the Papists, some are called Franciscans, some Benedictines, others Augustine's etc. These do sometimes eat flesh, those other feed only upon fish, most idly and ignorantly insisted upon. For what do these differences concern matter of Faith and Religion? Do not all these several Orders of God's Church believe all the Articles of our Catholic and Roman Faith? They only differ among themselves in living in a more strict, or remiss course of life. And this Answer is given by D. Field in these Words: We must 
(m) Of the Church. l. 2. c. 9 pag. 58.  observe, that they, who profess the Faith of Christ have been sometimes in these later Ages of the Church, called after the special names of such Men, as were the Authors, Beginners, and Devisers of such courses of Monastical Profession as they made choice to follow; as Benedictins, & such like. Thus D. Field.  
Therefore I conclude, that in regard of want of true Arguments in proof of dissensions among Catholics, touching merely matters of Religion, I cannot but much approve the ingenuous and plain Confessions of some of our Adversaries here, in our be half. And fortably hereto we find D. Whitaker thus to confess of this Point: The dissensions 
(n) De Eccles. contra Bellarm. controver. 2. q 5. pag. 327.  among the Papists, are but futiles, concerning things of small importance. And D. Fulke agreeth with him, saying: As for the 
(o) Against Heskins, Sanders etc. pag. 295.  consent, and peace of the Popish Church, it proveth nothing, but that the Devil had all things at his Will, and therefore might sleep: thus truly acknowledging Unity in Faith in the Roman Church, but most maliciously transferring the Cause thereof to him, who is the chief Enemy to Unity. But Sir Edwin Sands (a most remarkable Protestant) doth not only acknowledge all war of dissension in our Catholic Church; but also giveth his reason thereof in these Words: The Papists 
(p) In his Relation. fol. 8.  have the Pope, as a common Father, Adviser, and conductor to reconcile their jars, to decide their differences, to draw their Religion, by consent of Counsels, to Unity etc. To whose judgement herein subscribeth Andraeas Duditius the Protestant above mentioned, in the Epistle Dedicatory) who thus writeth: The Roman 
(q) Beza reporteth these words of Duditius, in his Epist. Theolog. Epist. ad Duditium.  Church is not divided with so many Dissensions, but it hath the plausible appearance of Venerable Antiquity, Ordinary Succession, and Perpetual Consent. Thus Duditius. And thus fare by way of Prevention of all such Arguments, as the Protestant Writers may seem to urge, thereby to make their Ignorant followers believe, that the Catholics do labour with one and the same disease with themselves, touching disagreements in points of Faith, and Religion.  
Only before I pass further, I think good to relate that ordinary and common refuge, and tergiversation, which diverse Protestants of England being upbraided with disagreements in Faith among themselves, are accustomed to fly unto, who thus reason: I am an English Protestant, I little regard, how foreign Protestants disagree among themselves; I am content to range myself under our English learned Protestants; who I am assured, maintain the Truth of Faith without any contradiction, or dissension among themselves. Now because this point requireth a large and full Answer, therefore as willing to contract this Preface in as few words, as conveniently I may, I refer the Reader for his full satisfaction herein to the latter end of this ensuing Treatise, viz. at 22. Paragraph, where he shall see the Vanity of this silly evasion, fully laid open and answered. Before I come to any other Passages of this Preface, I hold it not amiss to relate (for the benefit of others) what happened touching these former Points to myself. In my being in Spain, a chaplain of the English Ambassadors there residing, (being my former familiar acquaintance in England) oftentimes came to the place where I there studied; and did much solicit and dissuade me, from entering into Holy Orders (for then I was not Priest.) His chiefest argument by him alleged, was taken out of D. Mortons' Apologia Catholica, (which book it seems, he had studied diligently) touching the dissensions in doctrine of some few broken Catholics above alleged, as, Erasmus▪ Nilus, Cassander etc. as also from the dissension of the Thomists and Scotists, touching the Conception of our B. Lady; the Chaplain much urging and inferring, that our Catholic Religion, as wanting Unity in doctrine in the Professors thereof, could not be true. This his Argument for a time (I grant) seemed very strong to me (I then being but young, and not conversant in the Protestants own books, thereby to discern their dissensions in doctrine) and did cause me to defer my taking of Priesthood, a year or more longer, than afore I was determined to have done.  
But after acquainting others of my daily familiars (much read in the Protestants Writings) with this my doubt; they fully resolved, and satisfied me touching those Pseudo. catholics; to wit, what kind of Men they were, & how, & upon what grounds they for the time, dissented from the then Common doctrine of the Catholic Church: As also I was then informed how the Question of the immaculate Conception of the B. Virgin, was not defined on either side by the Church; and that therefore it was lawful (without any breach of Unity) to maintain either part. Upon whose learned Resolution all my former doubt instantly vanished away. And indeed this Accident first be got a desire in me, to look into the Protestants Works more fully, to see, whether they had thy disagreements in Faith among them: So forcible (we see) the Argument drawn from want of Unity in Faith (though but indirectly, and with mistaking, urged) seems to prove that Religion, which wanteth Unity in Faith and doctrine, cannot be the true Religion, instituted by our Saviour, jesus Christ. But to recall myself, and to proceed further.  
In the next place of this my Preface, I will demonstrate the absolute necessity of Union, touching Matters of Faith in the Church of God; it being an acknowledged and inseparable Mark thereof:) and how incompatible, dissensions, and Errors in Faith, are with the said true Church: Adulterari 
(r) August. lib. de Vnitate Ecclesia.  non potest sponsa Christi; Incorrupta est, & pudica. This I will evict both from humane and divine Authorities: and will begin with humane proofs, and so ascend in weight of proofs, to the divine Scriptures.  
And first I will allege some testimonies of Protestants themselves: For do we not find Luther thus to teach? A Kingdom 
(s) Luther. tom. 3. Witten. berg. in Psalm. 5. fol. 166.  divided in itself shall not stand; Neither have any Heretics at any time been overcome by force or Subtlety, but by mutual dissension: Neither doth Christ fight with them otherwise, then with a spirit of giddiness and disagreement. And more, The Authors 
(t) Luth. tom. 5. Witten. berg. in Galat. c. 5. fol. 416.  of Schisms are disagreeing among themselves etc. They bite and devours one another etc. till at the last they perish etc. O see, how truly his own Words do recoil upon himself.  
The Like want of this Unity in doctrine, do the Divines of Manifold urge (as a Mark of a false Church) against the Sacramentaries, to impugn their doctrine; those divines thus writing: We have 
(u) Theologi Mansfeldenses in Confession. Mansfeldica Latina. fol. 110.  just reason to hold in suspicion the doctrine of the Sacramentaries, in that they are not concordant in one, and the same sentence, or judgement; but are among themselves divided: so as some of them are called Carolostadians, others Swinglians, Occolampadians, Caluinists etc. And the same kind of argument is used by the Divines of Heidelberge (all Protestants) against the Anabaptists, thus urging. Si 
(x) Pro●ocollo Frankaltalensi n● Praefatad Anabaptistas'.  vobis Ecclesiae titulum concedere vellemus etc. If we would grant to you the name of a Church, what Sect among you, should be reputed the Church of God, seeing you are divided into so many Sects?  
To come, in this next place, to the Authoriries of the ancient Fathers; Whose Pens were ever employed against every then new arising Doctrine, not bearing Unity to the Faith of God's Universal Church; we find S. Athanasius thus to Write: Jllud 
(y) Orat. 1. contra Arianos.  quoque prorsus admirabile etc. This also is very wonderful, that all heresies, in coining diverse things, do differ in themselves, and do jointly agree in defence of falsehood. S. chrysostom sharpeneth his pen in this sort, against the Enemies of Unity in Faith: Omnes Infideles 
(z) Opera imperfect. in Math. hom. 20.  qui sub diabolo sunt etc. All such Infidels, or Misbelievers, which are in the power of the Devil, are not united, but are divided through diversity of Opinions: And such is the want of Faith among Heretics, who never agree in one consent of Things; but maintain as several Opinions, as themselves are several in number. Thus S. chrysostom. S. Hilarius in this sort pensilleth out the face, and countenance of disagreeing Heretics: 
(a) L. 7. d● Trinitate.  Haeretici omnes contra Ecclesiam veniunt etc. All Heretics do assault the Church; But whiles Heretics do mutually overcome one another, they overcome nothing therein; since their Victory, when one Heresy doth even fight against another, is finally become the Triumph of the Church. Tertullian 
(b) L. de Praescription. adversus Haeres. 41.  writes of this point in this manner: Inspectae Haereses omnes etc. All heresies (being truly looked into) are deprehended to descent in many things, even with thi● own Authors.  
I will conclude with Irenaeus: Videmus 
(c) L. 1. c. 5. in initio.  nunc & corum inconstantem sententiam etc. We now see their inconstant judgement, who, if they be but two or three in number, how diversely they teach the same things. And further the said Father: Durum 
(d) Vbi supra. c. 1●.  est omnium describere sententias etc. It is a difficult thing, to set down the different Sentences of all Heretics. For greater brevity of this point, I refer the Reader to the testimonies of S. Jerome 
(e) In Math. ●4. , S. Austin 
(f) Contra Epist Parmenian. l. 3. c. 4. , S. Ambrose 
(g) L. de fide, ad Gratianum. c. ●. , and the Council of 
(h) In de cretis Synod. Ni●e nae contra Haeres●m Arianam.  Nyce. And thus far touching the Fathers herein.  
Now, in this last place, to ascend to the sacred Authorities of God's Word, which are the stamps, sealing up the Truth of all the former Humane Authorities; which testimonies I reserve hitherto, wherewith to close yp the judgement of the Reader herein. And first to show the Ugliness of Dissension, we read: 
(i) Luc. 11.  Every Kingdom divided in itself, shall perish. And upon this ground the Prophet thus prayeth. Destroy, 
(k) Psalm. ●5.  O Lord, and divide their Tongues; implying hereby, that their divided Tongues in judgement, shall occasion their destruction. And another Prophet in further proof of this point, thus hath left recorded: Their 
(l) Ose. ●0.  Hart is divided, they shall now perish. And the Wiseman instructeth us in these Words: God 
(m) Proverb. 6.  hateth him, that raiseth up Contentions among Brethren. All which scriptural Authorities as they show the malice & wickedness of Disunion and Dissension in general; so they implicitly, and potentially prove, that Want of Unity in Doctrine, cannot stand with true Faith. Therefore the more reason had the Apostle S. Paul to use this his fervorous admonition to the Christians of his time, saying: I beseech 
(n) 1. Cor. 1.  you Brethren, that there be no dissensions among you: Not forsaking 
(o) Hebr. 10.  the fellowship, which we have among ourselves. Neither is the Apostle less slow in recommending the Virtue of Unity in express words (though this be coincident with the former;) for thus he instructeth his followers: I beseech 
(p) 1. Cor. 1.  you, that you all speak one thing; be you knit together in one mind, and one judgement: 
(q) Ephes. 4.  Endevoring to keep the Unity of spirit in the band of peace. God is the God, 
(r) 1. Cor. 14.  not of division, but of Peace. And according hereto we read, that our Saviour prayed for the Members of his Church, that they may be One 
(s) joan. 17. . And to conclude according to this his prayer, it is recorded, that the Multitude of them, which believed, were 
(t) Act. 4.  of One Hart, and One Soul; so luxuriant & abounding we find the sacred Scriptures to be, ●or the extirpation of all Dissension and Division out of the society of Christians, and ●or the entertaining of Unity among them, in all Matters of Religion.  
Now then having thus demonstrated the Necessity of Union in matters of Faith, both from divine and humane Authorities; and withal having in the beginning above (as it were) beset all ways & passages, by which our Adversaries might in a vulgar judgement, seem to assault us, by their pretence of some weak and feeble Reasons, 
(u) Szegedin. (the Protestant) in loc. om. pag. 1●4. thus saith: Unity, one of the Notes of the Church.  for proof of Division in Faith to be in our Catholic Church: it remaineth, that we hasten to show, whether Unity in Faith (as being a Mark of the true Church, even by the judgement of Protestants themselves) can be found in Protestancy; Or in place thereof implacable and irreconcilable Disagreements and Wars: A most foul scar or mole, to remain upon the Faith of the supposed Chief Professors of the Gospel: So indisputably true it is, that Protestancy lies exposed, or rather becomes thrall to all Fluctuation & Inconstancy in doctrine. And with this (I say) I will hasten to present to the sight of the Reader, that face, which is engendered of so many Contradictions in Faith; and I will be content (for the time) to become the Protestants Herald, in blazing the Arms of their Contentions. So shall the Reader withal discern, that the Protestants Pens are ever pressed, and ready to discharge upon their own Brethren (for matter of Faith and Religion) even whole Volleys of shot, of most reproachful Words, and intemperate Language.   

ΑΔΕΛΦΟΜΑΧΙΑ, OR THE WARS OF PROTESTANCY.  

The I. Paragraph.  
BEFORE we enter into the distentions of the Protestants, touching particular Doctrines, severally maintained by several sides of them; I will first lay open with what kind, and brotherly language one Sect of them (and yet all good Protestants) doth entertain another. Now this Discors Concordia, this disagreeing Harmony of theirs consisteth of many parts: To wit, First, of the Lutherans against the Sacramentaries, I mean the Swinglians and Caluinists; then reciprocally of the Caluinists against the Lutherans. Secondly, The Lutherans among themselves. Thirdly, The Caluinists among them selves. Fourthly, The Moderate Protestant against the Puritan and the Puritan against the Moderate Protestant; within which Clause are comprehended the English Moderate Protestants, and the English Puritans.  
1 And to begin. Luther the first Parent of Protestancy, thus disgo●geth hi● venom against his own brood (for the Swinglians and Caluinists primitively descended from his loins. We 
(a) Thes. ●1. contra Lovaniens.  seriously judge the Swinglians and Sacramentari●s to be Heretics, and Aliens from the Church of God. And more: We will 
(b) Luth. tom. 7. in defence. Verbor. Coena Domini fol. 38●.  reprove and condemn them (meaning the Sacramentaries) for Idolaters, Corrupters of God's word, blasphemers, and deceivers; And of them, as of the Enemies of the Gospel, we will sustain persecution, and spoil of our goods &c. And yet more; The-Sacramentaries began their Opinion with Lies, and with Lies they defend it. And further: 
(c) Luth. Epist. ad joan. Heruag. Typograph. Argentin.  I do protest 
(d) Luth. tom. 7. Wittenb. fol. 383.  before God and the world, that I do not agree with them (meaning the Swinglians) nor ever will, whiles the world standeth, but will have my hand clear from the blood of those sheep, which these Heretics do drive from Christ deceive, and kill etc. And after in the same place: Cursed 
(e) Vbi suprà.  be the Charity and Concord of Sacramentaries, for ever, and ever, to all Eternity. And to conclude, Luther being (as he thought) near to his grave, leaveth (as his Legacy) these ensuing charitable words: I having 
(f) Luth. de Coena Domin. tom. 2.  now one of my feet in the grave, will carry this testimony and glory to the Tribunal of God; that I will with all my hart, condemn and eschew Carolostactius, Swinglius, Decolampadius, and their scholars; 
German. fol. 174. which words are also reported of Luther by the Tigur. Divines. tract. 3. fol. 108.  nor will have with any of them Familiarity neither by letters or writings, neither by word, or Deed, as the Lord hath Commanded.  
Thus much, to let pass much more of Luther's Charity towards Swinglius and his party. And this his Charity towards the Sacramentaries, the Lutherans, being of the next descent from him, seem to inherit; for Brentius (the Lutheran) thus writeth: All the 
(g) In recognit. Prophet.  Swinglian works are full of depravations, cunning deceits, and slanders: Westphalus (a Lutheran) thus averreth: All 
(h) Apolog. contra Caluinum. p 430. c. 1●.  the Caluinian Works are stuffed with taunts, curses, and lies, he further maintaining in the same place, That there are certain pages of Caluins' Works, of which every one containeth at least twenty lies and taunts. Hunnius (the eminent Lutheran) chargeth Caluin, that he 
(i) In his Epist. Dedicat. to the Confutation of Caluins depravat.  wresteth the Scriptures horribly from their true sense, to the overthrow of himself, and others. Conradus Schlusselburg the Lutheran: The Caluinists 
(k) In Prafati Theolog. Caluinist.  do nourish Arian and Turkish Impieties in their hearts, which doth not seldom, at fit times, openly disclose itself.  
To Conclude, Luke Osiander thus blazeth the Caluinists, concerning certain Assertions touching Christ: But here (Gentle 
(l) Enchirid. contra Calu. cap. 7.  Reader) beyond, and above the blasphemous things, which in the discourse afore we have heard, against the son of God, out of the Opinions of our Adversaries (the Caluinists) there openeth itself a gulf of Hell of Caluinian Doctrine, in which God it said to be the Author of sin etc. Stankarus 
(*) Stankarus contr● Caluinum. 14.  (a Lutheran) thus writeth to Caluin: What Devil (O Caluin) hath seduced thee, to speak with Arius, against the son of God? And again he thus saith: Beware (O Christian Reader) and especially all you Ministers, beware of the Books of Caluin, and principally in the Articles of the Trinity, Incarnation, Mediator, the Sacrament of Baptism. Thus far for some taste of Luther, and the Lutherans Deportments in words and writing against the Swinglians, Sacramentarians, and the Caluinists. Now let us see, with what Retaliation of kindness do the Sacramentaries, or Caluinists requite the Lutherans.  
2. First, than we find, that Swinglius thus inveighs against Luther: Thou 
(m) In Respons. ad Luther. l. de Sacrament. fol. 401.  Luther shalt be enforced either to deny the whole Scriptures of the New Testament, or to acknowledge Martions Heresy. And in the same place he thus further writes: En, ut totum istum hominem Satan occupare conetur: Behold, how the Devil laboureth wholly to possess this Man, meaning Luther. Again, Swinglius through contempt, calleth Luther, Martion 
(n) Swingl. tom. 2. in respon ad Luther. Confess. fol. 458. & 40●.  the old Heretic; and further concludeth in these words; to wit, that Luther is guilty of high blasphemy against the Nature and essence of God, in that he taught, that Christ died according to his Divinity. And Swinglius in the foresaid alleged place thus: This can be by no reason explained, or excused; for Luther clearly and manifestly confesseth, that he will not acknowledge Christ to be his Saviour, if only his Humanity had suffered. Finally, Swinglius thus concludeth of Luther's words: In verbis 
(*) Swinglius tom. 2. in respon Luther fol. 474.  Lutheri, etc. In the words of Luther, there lie most great Errors; when I read Luther's Book, it seemeth to me, that a beastly Hogg doth gruntle in a garden, beset with most fragrant flowers: So impurely, so unlike to a Divine Luther disputeth of God, and all holy things. Thus Swinglius.  
But to leave Swinglius, and to descend to other Sacramentaries; Campanus (a Sacramentary) thus fully and resolutely pronounceth of Luther: As 
(o) In Colloq. lat. Luth. come. 2. cap. de Adverse.  Certain as God is God so certain it is, that Luther was a devilish Lyar. Oecolampadius (the Sacramentary) thus fearfully speaketh of Luther himself: Let Luther 
(p) In Respons. ad Confess. Luther.  take heed, least being puffed with Pride, he be deceived by Satan. The said Oecolampadius thus censureth of the Lutherans in general: The 
(q) In Dialog. contra Melancth.  Lutherans bring forth only a colour or shadow of the Word of God (as all Heretics commonly are accustomed to do) they bring not the Word of God, and yet they will seem to build upon the Word of God.  
The Tigurine Divines (being Swinglians or Caluinists) thus recriminate Luther: Nos 
(r) Tigurin. tract. 3 contra supremant Lutheri Confess.  condemnatam & execrabilem vocat Sectam Lutherus. etc. Luther calleth us a damnable and execrable sect; But let him look, that he do not declare himself an Archheretic, seeing he will not, nor cannot have Society with those, that confess Christ. But how marvellously doth Luther bewray himself with his Devils? etc. For he saith, that the Devil dwelleth both now, and ever in the Swinglians, and that they have a blasphemous Breast, Insatanized, Supersatanized, and Persatanized etc. Did ever any man hear such speeches pass from a furious Devil himself? Thus far the Tigurine Divines.  
I will Conclude with Caluin, who thus exclaimeth against the Lutherans in General. By the Lutherans 
(s) Instit. l. 4. cap. 17. §. 16.  Martion is raised out of Hell: And in like sort Caluin thus more writeth: The 
(t) Admonit. 3. ad West●y balum.  Lutherans are forgets and Liars. These implacable and mutual dissensions between the Lutherans and the Caluinists are so great and irreconcilable, as that Conradus 
(u) Schlusselburg in Theolog. Caluinist. in his Catalogue praecipuorum Doctrinae Capitum. etc.  Schlusselburg (the great Lutheran) reciteth three and thirty several Articles of Doctrine in question, and controverted between the Lutherans, whom he defendeth, and the Caluinists, against whom he writeth. And Luke Osiander (the Protestant) did write a Treatise bearing this title: Enchiridion Controversiarum, quas Augustanae Confessionis Theologi habent cum Caluinianis. Printed Tubingae. 1603.  
And Hubberus, a learned Lutheran, wrote a book in Dutch, printed Regiomonti. 1592. having this title: The Opposition of the Lutheran and Caluinian Doctrine in certain chief Articles of Faith: So just reason had Nicolaus Gallus (the Protestant, and superintendent at Ratisbone) thus to complain of the Contentions between his own Brethren, all Protestants: Non 
(x) In Thesibus of Hypoi●esibus.  sunt leaves etc. The dissensions, that are among us, are not of light matters, but of the greatest articles of Christian Doctrine, of the Law and the Gospel, of justification and good Works etc. And finally Pappus (the Protestant) hath no less resentment and feeling touching this point, thus writing: Etsi 
(y) Papipus in Theolog. Caluinist. l 1. Art. 28.  initio de uno tantùm articulo etc. Although in the beginning, one only Article was called into doubt notwithstanding the Caluinists are now so far gone as they call in doubt neither few neither the least Articles of Christian Doctrine. etc. With whom conspites Bullinger the Protestant, in these words: Ipsi inter 
(*) Bullinger in his ●undamentum fi●mum. cap. 1. pag. 5.  se Euangelici acriter pungunt, & pugnant &c. Those alone, who are professors of the Gospel, do vehemently prick, and fight one against another; And from hence are hard among us those unfortunate names, or appellations of the Lutherans, and the Swinglians.  
3. In this next place, let us behold how the Lutherans do agree among themselves. Their contentions are so great, that Conradus Schlussenburg 
(z) Schluss●lb. in Catal. Haeret. nostri temporis. l. 2.  (the most eminent Lutheran) placeth six sorts of his own Lutherans in the Catalogue of Heretics; And from this several sort of Lutherans did first rise that distinction of Molles Lutherant, and Rigidi Lutherani. These several Kind's of Lutherans had several appellations or names, for some of them were called, Substantarij, for teaching sin to be of the essence and nature of Man; Others opposite to these, were termed, Accidentarij who impugned the former Opinion; Some called Vbiquitarij, for confounding. Christ's Humanity with his Divinity. Some called Osiandrians, in regard of their different Doctrine of justification. Some others were styled Maiorists, of Gregorius Maior, in respect of the necessity of Good Works; Others, Flaccians, of Flaccus Illyricus, who oppugned the Maiorists therein; Finally others were denominated, Adiaphorists, for maintaining the indifferency of Rites and Ceremonies, wherein they are greatly written against by the Flaccians. Now all these (as above is said) are Lutherans and do embrace and acknowledge the Confession of Augusta: which Confession of faith the Caluinists do wholly reject; And yet these Several sorts of Lutherans have written and published several Books one against another, in defence of their several maintained different Doctrines.  
4. To come to the Sacramentaries or Caluinists alone, we find, that Castalio (the Sacramentary or Caluinist) condemneth Caluin himself, for his presumed Doctrine, of God being the Author of sin, thus writing hereof: By this 
(a) Castal. l. ad Caluinum de Praedestinat.  means, not the Devil, but the God of Caluin, is the Father of Lies; But that God, which the holy Scripture teacheth, is altogether contrary to this God of Caluin. And then after: The true God came to destroy the works of the Caluinian God: And these two Gods, as they be contrary in Nature, one to another; so they beget, and bring forth Children of contrary disposition; to wit, that God of Caluin, Children without mercy, proud, etc. Thus the foresaid Castalio. In like sort Caluin 
(1) L. de Coena Dom. & l. 4 Instit. c. 15. sect. 1  wholly condemneth Swinglius for his teaching, that the Sacraments are bare external signs; and 
(2) Epist. ad quandam Germaniae Civitatem fol. 196.  Swinglius reciprocally condemneth Caluin for his teaching, that to the Sacraments more is attributed, then to external signs. According to these dissensions of the Protestants, or Sacramentaries among themselves. Doctor Willet a formal Protestant thus reprehendeth M. Hooker, D. Covell, and others in these words: From this Fountain 
(b) In his meditat. upon the 12●. Psalm.  have sprung forth those, and such other whirlpools and bubbles of new doctrine, etc. and then after: Thus have some been bold to teach and write, who as some Schismatics (meaning the Puritans) have disturbed the peace of the Church one way in external matters concerning Discipline; they have troubled the Church another way by opposing themselves by new quirks and devices, to the soundness of Doctrine among Protestants. Thus far D. Willet of the strifes among the moderate Protestants themselves.  
In this last passage we will descend more particularly to the doctrinal contentions of English moderate Protestants, and English Puritans. And to begin, the English Puritans writing against the English Protestants thus say: If 
(c) In a Treatise, entitled: A Christian and modest offer. p. 11.  we be in error and the Prelates on the contrary side have the truth, we protest to all the World, that the Pope and the Church of Rome (and in them God and Christ) have great wrong and indignity offered unto them, in that they are rejected etc. And more, the English Puritan thus complain hereof: Do we 
(d) In the mild defence of the silenced Ministers supplication to the high Court of Parliament.  vary from the sincere doctrine of the Scripture? Nay rather, many of them (meaning the Bishops and their Adherents) do much swerve from the same, touching general Grace and the death of Christ for every particular person etc. Touching the manner of Christ's presence in the Eucharist etc. Finally the English Puritans do more fully dismaske themselves, thus bursting out, and maintaining, that the 
(e) These Positions of the Puritans are verbally recited and condemned in the book entitled: Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical, printed anno 1604  Worship of the Church of England is corrupt superstitious, unlawful repugnant to the Scriptures. Again: The Articles of the Bishop's Religion are erroneous, their rites Antichristian. A●d yet more: The government of the Church of England under his Majesty by Archbishops, and Deans, is Antichristian, and repugnant to the word of God.  
6. Now, to turn over the leaf, and see how the more moderate English Protestant recompenseth the English Puritans Charity herein: And First we find, that M. Barks thus averreth confidently. The Puritans 
(f) In his Epist. Dedicat. p. 3.  are beadstrong and hardened in error; They strike at the main points of faith, Shaking the very foundation itself Heaven and Hell; The Dinivity and Humanity; Yea the very soul, and Salvation of our Saviour. And yet more plainly in the foresaid place: They have pestilent Heresies. And finally: They are heretical, and sacrilegious. And further the said M. Parks thus discourseth: The Creed 
(*) M. Parks ubi supra.  itself, which always hath been the badge, or cognisance, whereby to discern and know the faithful from unbelievers etc. is the main point in question between us and the Puritans. D. Covell speaking of certain fiery English Puritans, thus delivereth his words: The 
(g) In his Examen. pag. 1.  first English Minister's so far descended, that some books, and the greatest Part of Christendom was filled with unreverent, unholy, and unnatural Contentions etc. M. powel is very plain with them, for thus he writeth: The 
(h) powel in his considerations.  Puritans are notorious and manifest Schismatiks, cut from the Church of God.  
To forbear diverse others like Censure, passed upon our English Puritans, I will allege these few following; First of the foresaid D. Covell, who registering the positions of the English Puritans, among other of their positions, setteth down these following: The 
(i) In his defence of Hooker. p. 65. & 74.75.  statute Congregations of England are no true Church: And again, The Protestant Church of England hath no form of a Church. We also thus read in the Book of The Survey of the pretended Discipline: The 
(k) C. 5. etc. ●4. etc. 35.  Puritans pervert the true meaning of certain places both of Scripture & Fathers, to serve their own turns. And again: The word of God is troubled with such choppers and changers of it. Lastly (besides diverse other such reprehensions of them) we thus read: The Catebraulls, pitiful Distractions, and Confusions among the Puritans proceed from such intolerable presumption, as is used, by perverting & false interpretation of holy Scripture.  
Now, by all this touching the immortal dissensions between our English Protestant's and English Puritans, we may discern the Vanity of the Protestants answer to the Catholics, charging them in England with Controversies in faith; the Protestants replying, that their Dissensions rest only touching government, and other Indifferencyes, but touching the main Articles of Protestancy, they have no Differencye at all. O os impudens! So ingenuously & truly doth M. Parks confess hereof, saying: The Protestants deceive 
(l) M. Parks in his Epi●t. Dedic.  the world, and make men believe, That there is agreement in all substantial Points; They affirm, that there is no question among them of the Truth.  
Now the main Differences in doctrine between the Caluinists, especially between the foreign Protestants among themselves, and the English Protestans and the Puritans, be (among others) these following. 1. Whether the Ecclesiastical Minister doth truly forgive sin; or but only pronounce the remission thereof. 2. Touching the Church's Visibility and Inuisibility. 3. Whether in case of adultery the innocent party may marry again.  
4. Whether Christ's body be really and substantially present to the Mouth of Faith; (as D. Whitaker and M. Hooker do hold) or but Sacramentally only present, as the Puritans do teach.  
5. Touching Reprobation and universality of Grace. 6. Christ's suffering in soul the pains of Hell: His descending into Hell after his death. 7. Baptism by lay persons in time of Neressity. 8. Whether Ministers should be ordained by imposition of hands, or by the Election of the Presbytery. 9 Whether Usury be lawful.  
10. Whether the Sacraments do confer Grace, or but only signify it. 11. Whether there hath been since the Apostles time, any extraordinary Calling; Or whether such Calling may be. 12. Whether vows are now to be abrogated, as supposed to be but Ceremonial, and parcel of the old Law.  
13. Whether the Roman Church be a true Church, affording salvation. 14. Whether the Civil Magistrate may be head of the Church. 15. Whether the Communion ought ever to be delivered under both kinds. 16. Finally (to omit som● others) touching the use of the sign of the Cross, of the Surplice of Organs in the Church etc.   

The II. Paragraph.  
NOw, having displayed in part the great Differences between the Protestants of all kinds among themselves; and this but only from the particular sentences and words, found here and there scattered in their writings; In this next place I will demonstrate the same more fully even from the many scores (if not some hundreds) of Books, written all by Protestants against Protestants; of which, one Catalogue of them comprehends such books, as are written by the Caluinists against the Lutherans; Another Catalogue of books, written by the Lutherans against the Caluinists; A third by the Lutherans, against the Lutherans; All which three Catalogues of books may be found in jodocus Coccius his Thesaurus, Tom. 2. The fourth Catalogue contains the books written by the Protestants one against another, touching the Question only of the Sacrament. The Catalogue of which books is taken from the Protestant Writer Hospinianus, in his historiae Sacrament. part. 2. And all these were made between the year of our Lord 1574. and 1598. Since which time diverse other books of that subject have been written by other Protestants, against their own Brethren.  
Now in regard of the multiplicity of the said books of the several same Catalogues, and for greater brevity, I refer the Reader to the two foresaid Authors, Coccius and Hospinian, in the places above alleged. Yet for some delibation and taste of all the rest, I will set here down the particular titles only of twenty of the said Books; from the vitulency and bitterness of which Titles the Reader may conjecture of all the other books, in what spirit of Charity (or rather of Serpentyne hatred and malignity) they are written by Protestants against Protestants. Of which twenty Books here alleged, not any doth touch the question of the Real presence, maintained by the Lutherans, because I have purposely forborn that subject in relation of the Books here alleged, in that, the Lutherans agree with us Catholics therein.  
1. The First Book then, which I allege, is entitled: Alberti Gravari, bellum Ioannis Caluini, & jesu Christi. Printed Braptae. Anno Domini 1598. The war between john Caluin and jesus Christ, written by Albertus Graverus.  
2. Antiparaeus; hoc est, Refutatio venenati scriptià Davide Paraeo editi in defensionem stropharum, & corruptelarum, quibus Ioannes Caluinus illustrissima Scripturae testimonia, de Mysterio Trinitatis, nec non oracula Prophetarum de Christo, detestandum in modum corrupit. Printed Franeo-furti. Anno 1598. Antipaeraeus; that is, a Refutation of a venomous writing, published and made by David Paraeus, in defence of the deceits and falsifications, with which john Caluin in a detestable manner hath corrupted the most illustrious or clear testimonies of Scripture, touching the mystery of the Trinity, as also the Oracles of the Prophets concerning Christ.  
3. Demonstratio imposturarum & fraudum, quibus Aegid●us Hunnius Ecclesiae Othodoxae doctrinam petulanter corrumpere pergit. Brema. 1592. A demonstration of the impostures and deceits, with the which Egidius Hunnius proceedeth perulantly, to corrupt the doctrine of the Orthodoxal Church.  
4. Oratio de Incarnatione filij Dei, contra impios & blasphemos Errores Swinglianorum & Caluinisturum. Tubingae. 1586. An Oration, or Discourse of the Incarnation of the Son of God, against the wicked & blasphemous Errors of the Swinglians, and the Caluinists.  
5. Aegidij Hunnij Caluinus judaicans: Hoc est, judaicae Glossae & corruptelae, quibus Ioannes Caluinus illustrissima Scripturae sacra loca & testimonia, de gloriosa Trinitate, Deitate Christi, & spiritus Sancti; Cum primi● autem vaticinia Prophetarum de Aduentu Messiae, & nativitate eius, Passione, Resurrectione, Ascensione ad Caelos, & Sestiane ad Dexiram Dei, detestandum in modum corrumpere non abhorruit. Wittembergae. 1593. Caluinus' Iud●i●ans, written by Egidius Humnius; That is, a declaration of the judaical expositions and falsifications, with the which john Caluin was not afraid detust●●bly to corrupt the most clear places and testimonies of Holy Scripture, against the glorious Trinity, the Deity of Christ, and the Holy Ghost; As also the Prophecies, touching the Incarnation of the Messiah; his Nativity, Passion, Resurrection, Ascension to Heaven, and his sitting at the right hand of God.  
6. Pia defensio adversus Ioannis Caluini, Petri Boquini, Theodori Bezae, Willielmi Clebitij etc. & similium Calumnias: Item Refutatio Pelagiani seu Anabaptistici Caluinistarum Erroris, de Baptismo, & peccato Originali. Adduntur Collectanea plurimorun Caluins contra Deum, eius Prou●dentiam & Praedestinationem. Printed Errordiae. 1583. A godly Defence against the Calumnies, or deceits of john Caluin, Peter Boquinus, Theodorus Beza, Willielmus Clebitius, and such others &c. Also a Refutation of the Pelagian, or anabaptistical error of the Caluinists concerning Baptism and Original sin. Here are also adjoined certain Collections out of Caluin against God, and his Providence, and Predestination.  
7. Veritatis Victoria, & ruina Papatus Saxonici. Printed Losannae. 1563. The Victory of the Truth, and the ruin of the Papacy of Saxony.  
8. Conradi Schlusselburgi Theologiae Caluinisticae libri tres, in quibus, seu in tabula quadam, quasi ad oculum plusquam ex ducentis viginti tri●us Sacramentariorum publicis scriptis, pagellis, verbis proprijs, & Authorum Nominibus indicatis demonstratur, eos de nullo ferè Christianae Fidei articulo rectè sentire. Francoforti. 1594. Three books written by Conradus Schlusselburg, touching Caluinisticall Divinity, in which (as in a table to the very eye) is demonstrated from more than two hundred twenty three public writings of the Sacramentaries, with setting down the pages, their own words, and the Names of the Authors, that the Caluinists do scarcely believe truly any one Article of Christian Faith.  
9 Argumentorum & Obiectorum de praecipuis articulis doctrinae Christianae, cum Responsionibus, quae sunt collecta ex scriptis Philippi Melancthonis: additis scholijs illustrantibus usum singularum responsionum partes septem. Neap oily. 1578. Seven parts or Heads, touching the Arguments and Objections of the principal articles of Christian Religion, with their Answers; Which Answers are gathered out of the writings of Philipp Melancthon, with the illustration of the use of all the Answers.  
10. Responsio triplex ad Fratres Tubingenses. & triplex eorum scriptum de tribus grauissimi● Quaestionibus; de Coena Domini; de Maiestate hominis Christi; & de non damnandis Ecclesijs Dei, nec auditis, nec vocatis. Genevae. 1582. A threefould Answer to the brethren of Tubing, and their threefould writing touching three most weighty Questions; to wit of the supper of our Lord; of the Majesty of Christ's as man; and of not condemning the Churches of God, before they be heard, and called to answer for themselves.  
11. Gulielmi Zepperi Dillenbergensis Ecclesia Pastoris Institutio, de tribus Religionis summis Capitibus quae inter Euangelicos in Controversiam vocantur. Hanoniae. 1596. An Institution or Discourse, made by Gulielmus Zepperus, Pastor of the Church of Dillinberg, concerning three chief Heads or points of Religion, which are called into Controversy by the Professors of the Gospel.  
12. Apologia ad omnes Germaniae Ecclesias reformatas quae sub Swingliani & Caluiniani Nominis invidia vim & iniuriam patiuntur. Tiguri. 1578. An Apology to all the reformed Churches of Germany, the professors whereof suffer wrong and injury, under the title of being Swinglians or Caluinists.  
13. Ad Ioannis Brentij argumenta, & jacobi Andreae Theses quibus Carnis Christi omni-praesentiam nituntur confirmare; Id est, adversum renovatos Nestorij & Eutichetis Errores, responsum. Genevae. 1570. An Answer to the arguments of john Brentius, and to the Theses of jacobus Andreas, by the which they labour to confirm the omni-presence of Christ's Flesh; That is, against the revived Errors of Nestorius and Eutiches.  
14. Colloqui Montisbelgardensis, inter jacobum Andream & Theodorum Bezam, Acta. Tubingae. 1584. The Acts of the Conference at Mont-belgard, between jacobus Andreas, and Theodorus Beza.  
15. Christophori Pezelij Apologia verae doctrinae, de definitione Euangelij apposita Thrasonicit prastigijs Ioannis Wigandi. Wittembergae. 1572. An Apology of Christopher Pezelius, touching the true doctrine of the definition of the Gospel, opposed against the Thrasonical and boasting sleights and impostures of joannes Wigandus.  
16. Hamelmannia, siue Aries Theologizans, Dialogus, appositus duabus Narrationibus Historicis Hamelmanni. Neostadij 1582. Hamelmannia, Or a Theologizing Ram, being a Dialogue impugning two historical Narrations of Hermannus Hamelmannus.  
17. Hieremiaes Victoris vera & dilucida demonstratio; quod Swingliani & Caluinistae nunquam se subiecerunt Confessioni Augustanae, exhibita Carolo Quinto. Anno 1530. Germ. Francofurti. 1591. A true and evident Demonstration, proving that the Swinglians and the Caluinists, did never submit themselves to the Confession of Augusta, exhibited in time of Charles the Fifth.  
18. Christiani Kittelmanni, decem graves & perniciosi Errores Swinglianorum in doctrina, de peccatis & Baptismo ex proprijs eorum libris Collecti & refutati. Madelburgi 1592. Ten weighty and pernicious Errors of the Swinglians, concerning the doctrine of sin & Baptism, being taken out of their own Books, and refuted by Christianus Kittelmanus.  
19 Responsio ad scriptum quod Theologi Bremenses adversus Collectores Apologiae formula Concordiae publicarunt. Lipsiae. 1585. An answer to the writing, which the Divines of Brema published against the Collectors of the Apology of the form of Concord.  
20. joannis Mosellani Praeseruativa, contra venenum Swinglianorum. Tubingae. 1586. A Preseruative of joannes Mossellanus, against the poison of the Swinglians.  
Thus far of these twenty Titles of the Protestant venomous kind of writing, one against another. And here we may say with the Poet, ex uno discite omnes; that is, from Consideration of these twenty titles only, we may make the like conjecture of many scores of books by them written: Only this I may note, that if the Titles of the foresaid books be so fraught with Malice, what spleenful sentences full of Rancour may, in all probability, be thought to occur here and there in the said books?   

The III. Paragraph.  
But what? doth the Scene of the Protestants Disagreements rest only in words and writing one against another? No, for it passeth further, finally into extreme and barbarous outrages. For first, they are not content to call one another Heretics, (as by many afore alleged testimonies are evident) but with all they prohibit the sale & reading of each others books. For thus Hospinian (the Protestant) writeth, touching the restraint made in Sxony: Edictum promulgatum 
(m) In histor. Sacrament. part. altera. fol. 393.  est etc. An edict is promulgated & diwlged, by the which not only the reading, but also the selling of all books written by the Caluinists, is prohibited: And the Lutherans do charge the Caluinists in this sort: Biblia 
(n) Hospinian ubi suprà. fol. 3●4.  & Catechismum Lutheri etc. The Caluinists have prohibited the Bibles, and the Catechism, approved by Luther and his followers.  
Secondly, they banish each other from their Territories, not suffering them to enter therein, as Crispinus 
(o) In his book of the state of the Church. pag. 697. , Osiander 
(p) In Epitome. histor. Eccles. Cent. 16. part. altera. pag. 803. & 860. , Conradus 
(q) In Catalogo. Haret. l. 13. & ultimo, pag. 828. & 847.  Schlusselburg (all Protestants) and others do witness. Thirdly, they appoint Articles of Visitation and Enquiry, concerning the discovery and apprehending of each other. For thus the foresaid Hospinian writeth of this point, showing how the Saxons made a petition to their Duke,  famosoes 
(r) Hospinian. in histor. Sacrament. part altera fol. ●93.  Sacramentariorum libros prohiberet etc. That he would forbid all markable Books of the Sacramentaries; and that he would chastise the Authors of them with due Punishments; And that in the next visitation he would give directions, that All Caluinists should be cast out from the Schools, Churches, from all Magistracy, or public government. Fourthly, They commit them to imprisonment, of which point Hospinian thus recordeth: 
(s) Hospinian ubi supra.  Nicolaus Crellius Saxoniae Cancellarius, in vincula conijcitur. Nicolaus Crellius, being Chancellor of Saxony, is cast into bonds, or Prison. And again in the foresaid place: Theologi nonnulli etc. Many Divines being apprehended in several places, are cast into bonds. Fifthly, they will not afford each other Common entertainment, usual to all Strangers in every Country. This course of the Lutherans, against the Caluinists is reported by the foresaid Hospinian 
(t) In histor Sacramen. part. 2 fol. 399. , and by Osiander 
(u) In Epirom etc. Cent. 16. pag. 6. 8. ; And on the other side, by the Caluinists against the Lutherans the same is related by 
(x) In Catalogue. Haeret l. 13. & ultimo. p. 828.  Conradus Schlusselburge.  
Sixtly, they enter into Arms one side against another. For, that the Lutherans did hastily and tumultuously assault the Caluinists, is recorded by Hospinian 
(y) Vbi supra. p. 395. . And that the Caluinists did actually attempt the like against the Lutherans, is witnessed by Osiander 
(z) Epitome. Cent. 16. pag. 7●●. & p. 803. . This is further evident, by the Example of the Arminians and Gomorists not many years since in Holland, where one, called Barneville, being the head of one of the Factions, was beheaded. Lastly, the implacable Dissensions have been so violent, exceeding all humane Nature, as that the Lutherans have extended their malice towards the dead Corpse of the Caluinists; This is verified by Hospinian: Cum 
(a) In histor. Sacrament. part. 2. fol. 308.  impetu occurrentes Sandapilam etc. The Lutherans assaulting one, called Sandapila, by force, & in humanely using his body, did expose it to be eaten by Dogs. See here the Vatinian and irreconcilable hatred of the Protestants, against the Protestants.  
Now here the Reader is to be advertized, that the different Names of Lutherans, Swinglians, Sacramentaries, Caluinists, Puritan etc. are not invented for disgrace and contumely to the different Professors; but even of necessity, for the better distinguishment of their different Doctrines. And according hereto M. Parkes thus writeth, touching the name of Puritans: Neither 
(b) In his Apology under the title of Quaerulous Motions. pag. 30.  do I see any sufficient reason why those among us whom singularity in Affection, and Novelty in Faction have denominated Puritans, should not be distinguished by that Name. Bu. Conradus Schlusselburg passeth more fully into the subdivision of the word Protestant, thus writing: 
(c) In Catalogue. Haeret. l. 13. & ultim. de Interemistis p. 866.  Neque verò nostra partis Theologi etc. Neither do the Divines of our side, name their Adversaries, Swinglians, Caluinists, Sacramentaries, through detraction or bate; neither when we ourselves are called Lutherans. Finally Hospinian thus writeth; Schismatica 
(d) In histor. Sacrament. par. altera, throughout his whole-booke he useth these different Names.  ista etc. I hate these Schismatical Names of Lutherans, Swinglians, Caluinists; and yet I use them in this my history, for the better distinguishing of their doctrines, and instructing the Reader. So clearly appears the great disparity of the several Religions among them, even from the several appellations, imposed upon the several Professors.  
Having in the precedent passages discoursed of the (almost incredible) Dissensions in Religion between several sorts of Protestants; and this chief from the alleging of words full of contumely, disgrace, and rancour, one against another, only for matter of Religion, and from the tetrical, harsh, and opprobrious titles of twenty of their Books, written in great acerbity of style; and lastly, from their external comportment; and yet all of them promiscuously assuming to themselves in general the Name of Protestants: I hold it now convenient in this next place to descend more particularly to the different points of Religion, in which these several Sects mainly descent among themselves, one side not approving (but wholly rejecting) the judgement of the other side.   

The iv Paragraph.  
I Will begin touching the Question of the Word of God, or Scripture; And first, touching such Books of Scripture, as are rejected by some Protestants, but approved and allowed for Scripture by other Protestants. Secondly, the Protestants disagreements in the Translation of confessed Scripture. Thirdly, touching their dissensions in the interpretation of such places, or texts, which are on all sides confessed to be Canonical Scripture, and truly translated.  
And to begin with the New Testament & so to ascend to the Old: we find touching Luther's Condemnation of the Apocalypse Bullinger thus to complain: Doctor Martin 
(e) Upon the Apocalypses Englished. cap. 1. serm. 1. fol. 2.  Luther hath (as it were) sticked this book by a sharp Preface, set before his first Edition of the New Testament in Dutch; for which his judgement, good and learned Men were offended with him. With Luther herein, agree Kempnitius and Brentius in the places next hereafter noted in the Margin; and yet Caluin and the Protestants in England admit it for Canonical. In like sort, the Epistle of james is termed by Luther, Epistola 
(f) In pro legom. b●ius Epist.  straminea: An Epistle swelling, Contentions, Strawy, and unworthy altogether an Apostolical spirit. In the same manner, the Magdeburgenses 
(g) Cent. l. 2. c. 4. col. 55. , Kempnitius 
(h) Exam. 4. Sess. Concil. Trident. , and Brentius 
(i) Confess. Witiemberg. l. de sacra Scriptura.  do condemn the same Epistle with Luther, as Apocryphal; notwithstanding Caluin & the Church of England acknowledge it for Canonical Scripture.  
In like sort Luther, 
(k) Luther in Annotat. in hanc Epistol.  the Centurists, Kempnitius, and Brentius, in the places above noted in the Margin, condemn, as Apocryphal, the Epistle of jude, the second Epistle of Peter, & they rest uncertain and doubtful of the Authority of the second and third Epistle of john: But Erasmus more fully speaketh thereof; his words are these: The 
(l) In Prolegem. ad hanc Epist.  Second and Third Epistle of john, are not to be taken as his Epistles, but as written by some other man: And yet all these are acknowledged for Scripture by Caluin, the Caluinists, and the Church of England. Beza rejecteth the History of the adulterous Woman, recorded in the Gospel of S. john c. 8. And Bullinger 
(m) He is so charged by Laurentius Valla.  (a Sacramentary) rejecteth that addition to our Lord's Prayer: For thine is the Kingdom, the power, and glory etc. And yet these parcels are taken for Scripture, by other Sacramentaries. Luther in like manner discanoneth the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
(n) Prolegom. Epist. ad Haebreos.  maintaining, that it was not written either by S. Paul, or by any other Apostle: for it containeth (saith Luther) certain things, contrary to the Apostolical Doctrine. With him conspire in judgement Brentius, Kempnitius, & the Magdeburgians, in the places above quoted.  
Touching the Four gospels, Luther, to 
(o) Luth. Praefat. in Nowm Testam. & lib. de Scripturae, & Ecclesiae authoritate. c. 3.  extenuate & depress the Authority of three of them, censureth, that the Gospel of john is the only fair and true Gospel, and to be preferred before the other three, by many degrees; he further maintaining, that the general Opinion of four Gospels ought to be abandoned and relinquished; he protesting, that he ascribeth more Reverence to the Epistles of Paul, and Peter, then to the other three Evangelists.  
To come to the Old Testament: The Book of Baruch is accounted as Apocryphal, by 
(p) L. 3. Instit. c. 10. §. 8.  Caluin, and 
(q) In Exam. 4. Sess. Concil. Trid.  Kempnitius; and yet is taken as Canonical, by most other Protestants, since we do not find it in their writings to be rejected by them. The Canticles, is wholly rejected by 
(r) In Translat. Latin. suorum. Bibliorum.  Castalio, who maintains, that it contains matter of wanton love; for which his Censure, he is grievously and sharply reprehended even by Beza. 
(s) Beza in Praefat. in joshua.  The Book entitled Ecclesiastes, is thus scurrilously traduced by Luther: The Author 
(t) Luther in Conuivialibus, titulo de Patriarchis. & Prophetis.  of Ecclesiastes seems to ride without spurs or boots, only with bare stockings: Yet is it taken for Scripture generally by the Caluinists. The Book of job is reverenced for Canonical Scripture by the Protestants of England, and by Caluin, and the Caluinists; and yet Luther so contemneth it, as that he thus plainly condemneth the said Book: The Argument 
(u) In Conuivialibus ser. titulo de Patriar● is & Prophetis.  of job is a mere fiction, invented only for the setting down of a true and lively example of Patience.  
Thus far of such parts only of the New and Old Testament, which some Protestants repute as Apocryphal, and therefore reject them; other Protestants acknowledge them, as Canonical, and therefore take them for the true and undoubted word of God. Here before I leave speaking of the rejecting or approving of the Scripture, I will adjoin thereto, that whereas the most learned and moderate Protestants do so reverence Moses, and the Apostles, teaching and believing, that their Pens were so directed by the Holy Ghost, as that they did not, nor could err in their writings; yet hear what is said to the contrary by other Protestants. And first, Luther thus convitiateth Moses: Moses 
(x) Luth●● tom. 3. Wittenberg. in Psalm. 41. fol. 423. & tom. 3. German. fol. 40. & in Colloq. mensal. German. fol. 152. & 153.  had his lips, unpleasant, stopped, angry, etc. Do you collect all the Wisdom of Moses, and of the Heathen Philosophers, and you shall find them to be before God, either Idolatry or Hypocritical Wisdom; or if it be politic, the wisdom of wrath etc. Moses' had his Lips full of gall and anger etc. Away therefore with Moses.  
Luther, and other Protestants further rail in great acerbity of language, and intemperate words, at the Apostles, for thus he writeth expressly against S. Peter: Peter 
(y) Luther in Epist. ad Galat. c. 1. after the English Translation, fol. 33. & 34. & tom. 5. Wittenbeg. anno 1554. fol. 290.  the chief of the Apostles, did live and teach, extra verbum Dei, besides the Word of God. The Centuristi thus tax S. Paul: Paul doth turn 
(z) Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 10. col. 580.  to james the Apostle and a Synod of Presbyters being called together, he is persuaded by james and the rest, that for the offended jews he should purify himself in the Temple, whereunto Paul yields; which certainly is no small sliding of so great a Doctor. D. Bancroft allegeth out of Zanchius his Epistles, that a Caluinist thus said: If 
(a) In his Survey of the pretended Discipline. pag. 37●.  Paul should come to Geneva, and preach the same hour that Caluin did, I would leave Paul, and hear Caluin.  
Caluin thus boldly affirmeth of S. Peter: Peter 
(b) In Comment. in omnes Pauli Episto●as. p. 510.  erred to the schism of the Church, to the endangering of Christian liberty, and the o●erthrow of the grace of God Conradus Schluffeth 〈◊〉 chargeth Caluin to maintain and say; that, The Apostles 
(c) In Theolog. Caluinist. l. 2. fol 40.  alleged the Prophets in another sense, than was meant. Brentius plainly writeth thus: S. Peter 
(d) In Apol. Confess. de Con●t●ijs p. 900.  (chief of the Apostles) and Barnabas, after the Holy Ghost received, together with the Church of jerusalem, erred. And D. Fulke speaking of the same matter is no less sparing, thus saying: Peter 
(e) Against the Rhemish Testament. in Galat. 2.  erred in Ignorance, against the Gospel.  
I will conclude these their wonderful Inuectives against the Apostles, with D. Whitakers accusation of them, thus writing: It is 
(f) D. Whitaker de Eccles. contra Bellarm Controu. 2. quaest. 4. p. 213.  manifest, that even after Christ his Ascension, and the Holy Ghost descending upon the Apostles, not only the Common sort, but even the Apostles themselves erred in the vocation of the gentils etc. Yea, Peter also erred concerning the abrogation of the Ceremonial Law; and this was a matter of Faith. Thus D. Whitaker. Would any Christian ever think, that such horrid words as these any Protestant (contrary to the judgement of other their brethren) should disgorge against the Apostles themselves?  
2. I now hasten to the several Translations of the sacred Scriptures, about which there is no less contention among the Protestants, then is touching which is true Scripture, and which is forged, and (so to speak) abastarded. And First, touching that translation, which is commonly called, the Vulgar Translation, made by S. Hierome, though it be much disliked by most Protestants, and accordingly hereto D. Whitaker calleth it. An old 
(g) In his Answer to M. Reynolds Preface. pag. 2. & 26.  rotten translation etc. full of faults, errors, and corruptions of all sorts; Yet Carolus Molinaeus (a learned Protestant) thus approveth it: I can 
(h) In Novo Testam. pag. 30.  very hardly departed from the vulgar and accustomed reading, which also I am accustomed earnestly to defend. His words in Latin are these: Agerrimè à vulgari consuetaque lectione recedo, quam etiam enixè defendere soleo. Yea this Molinaeus further saith: I prefer 
(i) Molinas in Luc. 17.  the Vulgar Edition before Erasmus, Bucer, Bullinger, Brentius, the Tigurine Translations; also before john Caluin his translation, and all others. D. Covell plainly affirmeth, that he preferreth 
(k) In his answer to M. john Burges. pag. 94.  the vulgar Translation, before all others. To conclude, even Beza himself (contrary to most other Caluinists) doth in these words advance the vulgar Translation: The vulgar 
(l) In praefat. Novi Testament. anno 155●.  Edition I do for the most part embrace, and prefer before all others.  
But now leaving the vulgar Translation, the which some Protestants (as we see) do allow, far more do reject, (so great disparity there is in their judgements;) Let us come to such Translations of Scripture, as have been made by the Protestants themselves; and let us observe, what mutual and interchangeable entertainment the said Translations have received from the Pens of others their brethren, And to begin, Luther made a Translation of the Holy Scripture; yet this his Translation is condemned by Swinglius in this sort: Thou, Luther 
(m) To. 2. ad Luth. lib. de Sacr. p. 412. & 413.  dost corrupt the Word of God; Thou art seen to be a manifest corrupter, and perverter of the Holy Scriptures: How much are we ashamed of thee? etc. And Kekermannus (the Protestant) thus censureth this Translation of Luther: 
(n) In System. 55. Theolog. l. 1. p. 188.  Lutheri versio Germanica etc. The Translation of Luther of the Scripture in Dutch etc. especially in job, and the Prophets, hath no small blemishes. And the said Translation is in like manner condemned by Osiander 
(o) Osiander his condemnation is mentioned by Luther, in Colloq. Mensal. Germ. fol. 245. . The Divines of Basill, and Oecolampadius did compile a Translation, yet it is censured in these words by Beza: The 
(p) Beza in respon ad defence. & resp. Castal.  Translation of Basill is in many places wicked, and altogether differing from the mind of the Holy Ghost.  
The Swinglians undertook to translate the Scriptures; against the authors of which Translation, Luther thus belcheth: They 
(q) Vbi supra. 388.  are Fools, Asses, antichrists, Deceavers, and of Asslyke understandings. In so much, as when a Copy of that Translation was sent to Luther, he would not receive it, but rejected it, as Hospinian 
(r) In Hist. Sacram. part. altera fol. 1●3.  witnesseth. Castalio his Translation is censured by Beza, to be 
(s) Beza, in Test. ●●e●i 1558. in praefat.  Sacrilegious, wicked and ethnical. Caluins' Translation is also rejected; for Carolus Molinaeus (the foresaid markable Protestant) saith thus thereof: Caluin in 
(t) In sua Translat. Test. Novi. part. ●1. fol. 110.  his Harmony, maketh the Text of the Gospel to leap up and down; He useth violence to the letter of the Gospel, and beside, he addeth to the Text.  
Beza also (for the up shot of all) made a Translation; of which translation the foresaid Molinaeus thus speaketh: Beza 
(u) In Translat. Testam. Novi. pag. 64. 65. 66.  de facto textum mutat; Beza even actually changeth the text of the Scripture. And Castalio the foresaid Protestant, by way of retaliation, thus writeth thereof: To note 
(x) In defence. Translat. pag. 170.  the errors of Beza his Translation, would require a great volume. And Castalio particularly insisteth in that false Translation of Beza against Freewill, in the first Chapter of john; where it is in the Greek, As many at received him, he gave them Power to be made the sons of God; Beza translating: Dignity to be the sons of God; Castalio thus saying: Beza 
(*) Castalio, ubi supra.  pulcherrimum maximique momenti locum depravat etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, est Potestas, nunquam Dignitas etc.  
Now touching our English Translations of the Bible, The Disagreements of our English Protestant's are no less violent & implacable. For First, we find one English Author thus to condemn them: The English Translations 
(y) Carleyle, lib. That Christ descended not into Hell. pag. 116. 117. 118.  have depraved the sense, obscured the Truth, and deceived the ignorant; and in many places, they detort the Scripture from its true sense. Another Protestant thus censureth them: How 
(z) M. Burges in his Apology. Sect. 6.  can I approve under my hand a Translation which hath many Omissions, many Additions, which sometimes obscureth, sometimes perverteth the sense; being sometimes senseless, sometimes contrary?  
The Ministers of Lincoln Diocese thus write: The English 
(a) In the Abridgement of a book delivered to King, james by the said Ministers. pag. 11. & 12.  Translation taketh away from the Text, addeth to the Text, and this sometimes to the changing, or obscuring of the meaning of the Holy Ghost. They further enlarging themselves in these words: A Translation, 
(b) Vbi supra.  which is absurd and senseless, perverting in many places the meaning of the Holy Ghost. Other Puritans are no less sparing in their Censures; for diverse Puritans with one consent thus write only of the Translation of the Psalms: Our Translation 
(c) In a Treatise entitled: A Treatise directed to her Excellent Majesty.  of the Psalms compared in our Book of Common Prayer, doth in Addition, Substraction and Alteration differ from the truth of the Hebrew, in two hundred places at least. M. Parkes, censureth the English Bibles with the Notes of Geneva in these words: As for 
(d) In his Apology, concerning Christ's descending into Hell.  those Bible's it is to be wished, that either they may be purged from those manifold Errors, which are both in the Text and Margin, or else utterly prohibited.  
To conclude with M. Broughtons' Condemnation of the English Bibles. This great Hebritian thus expressly writeth: The public 
(e) In his Advertisement to the Bishops.  Translation of the Scripture in English, is such, as that it perverteth the Text of the Old Testament in eight hundred forty and eight places; and it causeth Millions of Millions to reject the New Testament, and to run into eternull Flames. And hence it is, that D Reynolds in the Conference at Hampton-Court (being the speaker for the Puritans) openly denied before the King to subscribe to the Communion Book; because said he, It warranted a corrupt and false Translation of the Bible. Thus far of the immortal Disagreements of the Protestants, both touching the Authority of the many Books of Scripture, and of the Translations of the Scriptures, made by the Protestants.  
3. I will here in this next place rest in the easiness, and difficulty of the Scripture, severally maintained by several Protestants. We find 
(f) In Prolegom● contra Patrum à Soto.  Brentins to write that it belongeth, through the easiness of Scripture, to every man, to judge from the Scripture of the Doctrine of Religion, and to discern truth from falsehood. In like sort. D Whitaker thus writeth, touching each unlearned Man's reading the Scripture: The 
(g) de sacra script, p. 529.  unlearned in the exposition of Scripture, is to demand the Opinion of the learned, and to read the Commentaries of Interpreters; but they must take heed, ne nimis illis tribuant, that they do not ascribe too much to them, but so as that in the mean time they retain their own liberty; that is, that every illiterate fellow must finally judge of the sense of the Scripture.  
This point needeth no further allegations, for we see, that every Mechanical Fellow (if so he can but read, and thinks himself to be of the number of the Faithful) vaunteth of his easy understanding of the Scripture. And this deportment is the Character of each ignorant Puritan; Yea each silly ignorant Puritan-Woman will assume so much to herself, in the interpretation of Scripture: And yet to cross, this their Vanity, we find Luther thus to write: Scio 
(h) In praefat, in Psalm.  esse impudentissimae temeritatis etc. I know it to be a sign of most shameless temerity and rashness for any Man to profess, that he truly understandeth in all places, but any one book of the Scriptures. And D. Field maintaineth the same, and sheweth Reasons in defence thereof, thus writing: There is no 
(i) L. 4. of the Church. cap. 15.  Question, but that therebe many difficulties of the Holy Scriptures, proceeding partly from the high and excellent things therein contained, which are without the compass of Natural Understanding & so are hidden from natural Men &c partly out of the ignorance of tongues etc. And the truth of this point is warranted from the practice of the learned Protestants, many of whom have written Commentaries and Expositions of most books of Scripture; which Commentaries and Expositions had been needlessly undertaken, if the Scripture were of that facility and easiness, as the Puritans seem to suggest.  
Here now in this last place concerning the Protestants disagreements about Scripture, I will descend to show how they disagree in severally expounding several texts of Scripture. To go through all such texts of their disagreements, would be most laboursome and needles; therefore I will insist in some few. And First, to begin with those words of the Institution of the blessed Eucharist, Hoc est corpus meum: Touching which text, after all the Protestants have wholly disclaimed from the Catholics exposition thereof; they presently descent among themselves.  
1. For First, 
(k) In lib. suo ca●●o Basiliae, anno 1526.  Carolostadius the Protestant, will have the Adverb, Hîc, to be understood by the pronoun, Hoc; he thus meaning: Hîc sedet corpus meum.  
2. Bucer 
(l) In R●tract●●. suis.  affirmeth, that the pronoun, Hoc; signifieth the whole action of the supper; So as the sense must be: This action signifieth my body.  
3. Swinglius 
(m) L. d● vera & falsa Religi●. cap. de Eucharistia.  teacheth, that the words of the Institution are to be taken Figuratively; And the Figure to consist not in the pronoun, Hoc, but in the Verb, Est: Which ought (saith he) to be taken for the word, Significat; he thus meaning: This signifieth my body.  
4. Petrus 
(n) In examen. libri Hothusi● prop●i●●tium.  Boquinus affirmeth, that the bread is truly called the Body of Christ, propter communicationem Idiomatum; as by the same form of speech, we truly say of Christ: This Man is God.  
5. Oecolampadius 
(o) In lib. de genuine exposit. horum verborum,  doth not rely either in the pronoun, Hoc; nor in the verb, Est, but in the Substantive, Body. For he maintaineth, that the bread is called the Body, by the Figure Metonymia, by which Figure the name of the thing signified, is attributed to the sign: So as the sense (saith he) is this: Hoc est corpus meum, that is, this bread is a Figure of my body.  
6. Caluin 
(p) Lib. 〈◊〉 Instit. c. 17. ●. 11.  teacheth in part with Oecolampadius, that the Figure Metonymia lieth in the word, Corpus; But withal he addeth, that the bread of the Eucharist is not a naked Figure of Christ's body, but it is a Figure, which doth exhibit and present the thing it self; And therefore Christ did not say: This bread is a Figure of my Body, but is, the body itself. And Peter 
(q) L. de ver aque natura Christi.  Martyr conspireth with Caluin herein.  
7. Certain other Caluinists mentioned (though their names not expressed) by Cornelius 
(r) In Comment. cap. 59 Concord. in illa ve●ba. Nisi manducaveritis.  jansenius, do teach, that the word Corpus, aught to be taken for the Mystical body of Christ; that is, for the Church: So as the sense of the words of the Institution should be this: This is my body, that is, you Disciples are my body.  
8. johannes 
(s) Vti testatur. Lutherus insua bre●i Confess. edita anno 46.  Campanus (a Sacramentary) thus expoundeth the words of the Institution; This is my body, that is: This body is created, and made by me. See here (Good Reader) the wonderful disagreements of the Protestants in the exposition of these few words, who all conspire together in rejecting the Catholic Interpretation; but then presently they descent in each ones particular construction given thereof; They resembling many lines, which meet together in one Centre, but then presently they break of, and run several ways.  
The Protestants do no less disagree, touching the manner of receiving the body of Christ; for First, all the Lutherans maintain with the Catholics, that the body of Christ is received with the Corporal mouth. But Caluin teacheth, it is truly present, and received with the mouth of Faith; in regard whereof, as placing a great Mystery therein, Caluin thus breaketh forth in words: Nihil 
(1) Caluin. l. 4. Instit. c 17. §. 7.  restat etc. Nothing remaineth but that I break forth into admiration of this mystery, the which neither the understanding is able to conceive, nor the tongue to deliver in words. With Caluin agree herein D. 
(2) D. Whitak. contra Duraeum, pag 109.  Whitaker, The Confession 
(3) The Confession of Belgia in the English Harmony, pag. 4●1.  of Belgia, M. 
(4) Hooker. Eccles. pol. l. 5. sect. 67. pag. 174.  Hooker, 
(5) Bucer, inscript. Anglic. p. 548. & 549.  Bucer, and many others. Yet this doctrine is impugned by Peter 
(6) Peter Martyr, in his Epistles, annexed to his Common places in English. p. 107. epist. 25.  Martyr, 
(7) Aretius' serm. 1. de Coena.  Aretius & Ludovicus 
(8) Alamannus in positionib. apud Lugdunens', editis anno 1566.  Alamannus, reprooving it in these words: Neque etiam per fidem etc. Neither is the body taken by the mouth of Faith, after an incomprehensible manner, as they say; for this is clearly imaginary, and is evidently repugnant to the word of God. Finally the former doctrine is denied by all our English 
(9) In their Christian letter to M. Hooker. pag. 35.  Puritans.  
Touching those words, Thou art 
(t) Math. 16.  Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church, etc. Now here the Protestants to avoid this pressing Authority, for the proof of Peter's Primacy, do answer severally, and most distractedly. For Caluin 
(u) Lib. 4. Instit. c. 6. §. 6.  saith, that here by the word, Rock, is understood Christ figuratively. 
(x) Eras. in hunc locum.  Erasmus maintaineth, that every one of the faithful, is understood thereby. But 
(y) Lib. de Potestate Papae.  Luther, that the Word, Rock, there signifieth The Confession of our Faith: So disparate the Protestants are in themselves in the construction of this Text.  
In like sort they are not much less various, in expounding that Article of the Creed, Descendit ad inferos, He descended into Hell. For 
(*) Bucer in Math. ●●.  Bucer by the word Hell, understandeth the Grave, by the Figure Epexegesis, or rather by an idle Tautology: Yet Caluin and most (though not all) of the Caluinists, do interpret by the word, Hell, that Christ suffered really and truly the pains of Hell. For thus Caluin discourseth of this text, and the sense thereof: Since 
(z) Calu. l. 1. Instit. c. 16. ●um ●0. & 11.  Christ only by corporal Death, could profit us nothing, his soul therefore aught to fight with everlasting Death, that by this means be might expiate our wickedness and punishment. To whose construction herein 
(a) In Ca●●ches. an●● 155●.  Brentius subscribeth. Yea Caluin is so precipitious and resolute in his exposition of the former words, as that he termeth all others, Perditos 
(b) L. ●. justit. c. 26. num. ●1.  nebulenes, qui doctrinam istam solatij plenam exagitant: Lost and damned fellows, who should call in question this most Comfortable Doctrine. So just reason had that Blessed Martyr Father Campian, to burst out in a Christian and Zealous fervour, saying: 
(c) In ratio, red. Academic. rat. 8.  O Tempora, Tempora, cuiusmodi monstrum aluistis!  
Touching that place of Scripture, I, and my Father are one; 
(*) Caluin in joan, ●●.  Caluin differently from all others, affirmeth thus: This text showeth not, that Christ is Consubstantial with his Father. Which exposition of Caluin is also defended by D. Whitaker, contra Campian. rat. 8. pag. 123. In like sort, that Sentence in Psalm. 2. Thou art my son, this day I have begotten thee; Which text proveth the Divinity of Christ, even in the judgement of most Protestant's: Yet Caluin differently expoundeth it from them, thus w●●●ing in Hebr. c. 1. Frivola Augustini argutia est etc. The subtlety of Austin is here frivolous who by the word, H●di●, interpreteth, Eternal and Continual.  
Again where we read 1. joan. 5. There be three, which give testimony in Heaven. The Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and those three b● one; alleged not only by the Fathers and catholics, but also even by most Protestants, to prove the Divinity of Christ; yet Caluin upon this place thus differently from them all expoundeth these words, saying: Quod dicit tres esse v●um, ad essentiam non refertur, sed ad consensum. Whereas it is here said these three are one; this is to be referred not to the essence, but rather to consent.  
Lastly, to avoid prolixity, concerning the word Eloim in Genes c. 1. M. Willet upon Genes. in c. 1. thus urgeth 11: Against the jews, who deny the Trinity, we have evident proof in this Chapter, where the word Eloim etc. Which Interpretation Peter Martyr, and Zanchius in Hunnius his Anti-paraus pag. 16. & 19 and many other Protestants of note do approve; yet Caluin diss nteth in the Construction thereof from them all, thus writing in Genes. c. 1. Ex verbo Eloim colligero solent etc. They are accustomed to infer from the Word Eloim, that there are three persons in God but because the proof of so great a matter seemeth to me but weak, I will not insist in that word; but rather will admonish my Readers, that they take heed of such violent Glosses, and interpretations. Thus far of Caluins' constructions of the former Texts, against the judgement almost of all other Protestants, to impugn with the Arians, the Divinity of Christ.  
And thus far for a taste of some few texts of Holy Scripture, receiving from our Adversary's Pens most contrary constructions; So as admitting one of the said Constructions to be true, it followeth necessarily, that all the rest are false; for they are in sense, and in the inferences thereof, most incompatible one with another. This point shall be made more evident hereafter, by setting down many points of Catholic Religion, maintained by learned Protestants from the Scriptures; and therefore the said Protestants descent wholly in interpreting the Scriptures touching those Doctrines, from other Protestants, not believing the said Doctrines.   

The V Paragraph.  
I Will in this next place, insist in our Adversary's disagreements touching their Liturgy, or book of Common Prayer, chief peculiar to England; showing how often the Protestants, through diversity of judgements at several times, have altered the same; the later Edition thereof ever condemning the former. And to begin. The Reformed Communion Book of Prayer begun by Luther and the Lutheran Churches (the oblation of the Sacrifice excepted) was so agreeable and consenting with the Roman Church, that the Confession of Augusta thus speaketh thereof: Our 
(d) Cap. de missa. s● also Osiander Cent: 16. pag. 163.  Churches are wrongfully accused for abolishing the Mass; for the Mass is still retained among us, and celebrated with great Reverence etc. But this Liturgy or Common Book of Prayer, being rejected in England; another was made (in King Edward the sixth his reign) by the advice of Bucer, Peter Martyr, and Cramner, and presumed (as the 
(e) In the Statutes 2.3. of K. Edw. 6.6.1.  Statutes affirm) to be done by the aid of the Holy Ghost, and ratifyed by the Authority of the high Court of Parliament.  
This Book of Common prayer, printed by Edward Whitchurch, Cum privilegio ad imprimendum solùm. anno 1549 maketh special defence of 
(f) Fol. 116.  Prayer for the Dead, and Intercession 
(g) Fol. 117.  and offering of our prayers by Angels, of 
(h) Fol. 129.  Baptism by Lay persons in time of necessity and of the 
(i) Ibidem.  Grace of that Sacrament, of the 
(k) Fol. 137. 139.  Priest's absolution of the Sick Penitent, and the Priest's blessing of the bride & bridegroom, Of the 
(l) Fol. 144.  Anointing of the Sick, Of Confirmation 
(m) Fol. 132.  of Children; Of 
(n) Fol. 116.  consecrating the Eucharist with the sign of the Cross; Finally (to omit some other Catholic points, confirmed and practised in that Communion Book) Of the 
(o) Fol. 1●8.  Chrism, and the Child's anointing, and of 
(p) Fol. 126.  Exorcism.  
Now, no sooner Queen Elizabeth came to the Crown, but that the former Liturgy of King Edward being wholly abolished, another was made; Yet not so perfect in all points, but that M. Parker thus speaketh hereof: The Day 
(q) Against Symboli●ing part. 1. ca 5. sect 1. pag. 4.  star was not risen so high in their days, when yet Queen Elizabeth reform the defects of King Edward's Communion Book. And further he saith: It is 
(r) Ibidem Sect. 17. pag. 39  not the same Book with tha● of King Edward's; but it is altered in very many & sundry Places: Yea so altered, as when it was proposed to be Confirmed by the Parliament, it was refused. This point of altering the Communion Book of Prayer, is so evident, that M. Cartwright acknowledgeth it in these words: The 
(s) 2. Reply. part 1. pag. 41.  Church of England changed the Book of Common Prayer, twice or thrice, after it had received the knowledge of the Gospel.  
Now, all what is above set down touching the Communion Book, I think good briefly to recapitulate in the words of Doctor Dove an eminent Protestant) thus fully discoursing of this point: 
(t) Persuasion to English Recu●ants. pa. ●●.  Concerning the Book of Common Prayer, when the Mass was fi st put down King Henry had his English Liturgy, and that was judged absolute, and without exception: But when King Edward came to the Crown●, that was condemned, and another set forth in the place which Peter Martyr and Bucer did approve, as very consonant to the word of God. When Queen Elizabeth began her reign, the foresaid Book was judged to be full of imperfections, and a new devised and allowed by the Consent of the Clergy. But about the middle of her reign, we grew weary of that Book and great means have been wrought, to abandon that and establish another; which although it was not obtained, yet we do at the least at every change of Prince, change our Book of Common Prayers; We be so wanton, that we know not what we would have. Thus far D Dove touching our English Protestant's disagreements for the approving or rejecting of their Liturgy, or Common Book of Prayer.  
Now, how yet the Puritans rest affected towards the last Edition of the Communion Book in queen Elizabeth her Days, may appear from their censuring it in these words: The 
(u) These words are related by D. Whitguift, as spoken by the Puritans, in his Defence pag. 474.  form of the Communion Book is taken from the Church of Antichrist; as the reading of the Epistles, the Gospels etc. The most of the Prayers, the manner of ministering the Sacraments etc. Again, our more late Puritans do thus Syndicate, and condemn the Communion Book: Many 
(x) In the book entitled: The Petition of twenty two Preachers in London.  things in the Communion Book are repugnant to the word of God; And more: In the Communion Book, there are things, of which there is no sense; there is Contradiction in it, even of necessary and essential points of Religion. Other Puritans thus write against it: The 
(y) These words are alleged in the Survey. pag. ●0. & 14.  Communion Book is not agreeable to the Word of God in many things. And yet more: The 
(z) Certain Considerations printed, anno 1605. f. 10 11. 17.  Protestants Communion Book and service, is naught: it hath gross and palpable repugnancy in it. This point is further made evident, by the Authority of Doctor Covell, who being an Adversary to the Puritans, delivereth their Sentence, touching their extreme dislike of the Communion Book in these words: The 
(a) D. Covell, in his Exam pa. 1●8.  Communion Book is boldly despised, Gross errors and manifest impietyes (meaning in the judgement of the Puritans) are in the Communion Book.  
Thus far of the Protestants irreconciliable Disagreements touching the several Forms of Liturgyes, or Communion Books of Prayer, since the Catholic Religion was first abolished in England. From whence it inevitably followeth, that during all these several years of alterations of their Communion Books, they never enjoyed (if their own Censures and judgements be perfect,) a true form, how to pray to Almighty God.   

The VI Paragraph.  
I Will next come to their Disagreements, touching Christ our Redeemer. And, 1. touching Christ's Nature, 
(b) Beza l. de Vnitate Eccles.  Beza differently from most other Protestants, teacheth, that two Hypostatical Unions are constituted in Christ; the one of the Soul with the Body the other of the Divinity with the Humanity. 
(c) Beza in Hesbusium.  Beza further teacheth, that Christ is not begotten of the Substance of the Father. That Christ is not Consubstantial with his Father, Luther thus writeth: Anima 
(d) Luth. contra Latimer.  mea odit hoc verbum Homoousion: My very Soul hateth this word Homousios', or Consubstantialis.  
2. That Christ by his Works did merit nothing to himself, contrary to the judgements almost of all Christians, is maintained by Caluin, who termeth this Doctrine, A Foolish 
(e) Instit. l. 2. c. 17. §. 10.  Curiosity, and rash Opinion. The same blasphemy is maintained by 
(f) In his book entitled: the wicked Mammon.  tindal, and by john 
(g) Act. Mon. pag. 487.  Teuxbury.  
3. That Christ suffered not only according to his Humane Nature, but also according to his Divinity, is defended by 
(h) Luth. in Confess. maiore in cana Domini.  Luther, contrary to all Christians, both Protestants and Catholics, Luther thus speaking of this point: When I believe, that the only Humane Nature suffered for me, than is Christ a Saviour but of a base and small worth, and himself needeth a Saviour.  
4. That Christ did not dye for all the world, but only for the Elect, being most contrary not only to the sacred Scripture, which saith: Christ 
(i) 1. joan. 2. & 1. Tim. 2.  died for the sins of the whole World, but also almost to all learned Protestants, is maintained by 
(k) Calu. de arcana Dei Provident. p. 155.  Caluin, & 
(l) Beza in respon ad Act. Colloq. Montisbelgar. part. alt●ra. p. 215. & 221.  Beza.  
5. That men not believing in Christ may be saved (a most horrid blasphemy) is maintained by Swinglius, who thus writeth thereof: 
(m) Swingl. in l. Ep. Swinglij & Oecol. l. 1. p. 39  Ethnicus, si piam mentem domi foverit, Christianus est, etiamsi Christum ignoret. A Heathen, if he bear within him a pious mind, is a Christian, though he be ignorant of Christ. And hereupon Swinglius concludeth: That 
(n) Swing. tom. 2. fol. 18. & 559.  Hercules, Theseus, Socrates, Arist. des etc. are now in Heaven: A point so evident, that Echarius (a learned Protestant) thus writeth thereof: Quod 
(o) In his Fasciculut Controu. printed Lipsiae. anno 1●●9.  Socrates, Aristides, Numa, Camillus, Hercules, Scipiones, Catones, & alij Gentiles etc. That Socrates, Aristides, Numa, Camillus, Hercules, the Scipio'es, the Cato'es, and other gentils are partakers of Heaven or eternal life, Swinglius writeth to the King of France, whom the Tigurin Divines, Bullinger, Gualterus, and Hardenburgius etc. do defend, for this his Doctrine. Thus far this Protestant. That 
(p) In his Apol. fol. 27. prafix. ●. tom. Swingl.  Gualterus, 
(q) In Confess. Eccles.  Bullinger, 
(r) In vita Bulling.  Simlerus, the 
(s) Bullinger in his preface of allowance to Swinglius his Exposition.  Tigurin Divines, maintained this former Heresy with Swinglius, appeareth from the references here set down in the Margin.  
From Christ. I come to Christ's Successor, to wit S. Peter. Now the Primacy of S. Peter is maintained by Caluin, thus confessing: The 
(t) Caluin is alleged thus to say, in D. Whitguifts Defence. p. 173.  twelve Apostles had one among them, to govern the rest. Musculus, thus teacheth: The 
(u) Musculus so alleged by Whit. gift, ubi sup. à pag. 66.  Celestial spirits are not equal; The Apostles themselves were not equal; Peter is found in many places to have been chief among the rest. And D. Whitguift himself, thus averreth: Among 
(x) D. Whitguift ubi suerd. pag. 1ST.  the Apostles themselves, there was one Chief etc. that had chief authority over the rest etc. that Schisms might be compounded. Yet is this doctrine wholly denied by most other Protestant writers.   

The VII. Paragraph.  
TOuching more particularly the Bishop or Pope of Rome, being S. Peter's successor; that the Pope's Primacy is above other Bishops, is maintained by Melancthon thus writing: Quemadmodum 
(y) Melanct in the Book entitled: C●nturia Epistolar. Theologie. Epist. 74.  sunt aliqui Episcopi qui prasunt pluribus Ecclesijs etc. As certain Bishops are precedent over many Churches, so the Bishop of Rome is Precedent over all Bishops. And this Canonical policy no wise man (I think) doth, or aught to disallow. The same Doctrine is also defended by john hus, as Luther writeth, thus saying. joannes Husse 
(z) In. 〈◊〉 sert. Act. ●0.  ●on repugnare videtur etc. john Husse seemeth not to contradict, why the Monarchy of the Pope should not be: So much different are these former Authorities to the judgements of all other Protestants, who wholly reject the Pope's Primacy.  
Now touching the Pope being Antichrist, the Protestants do thus differ from among themselves. First some of them teach, Antichrist is not yet come; to wit, 
(a) In Ep. ●auli Cole los & Thessaly. pag. ●40.  Zanchius, Franciscus 
(b) In his Prognosticon f●nis noudi. p. 74.  Lambertus, and some others; And hereupon it is, that M Dove 
(c) In his Sermon of his second coming of Christ, versus fin●m.  chargeth some Protestants, in this sort: Some Protestants make a doubt, whether Antichrist be yet revealed, or no. Now some others do think, that Antichrist is come, but that the Turk is this Antichrist. Of this opinion is Melancthon; for so he is alleged to think by M. 
(d) In his Theolog. Discourses p 1●8  Harvey. Of the same judgement also i● Bucer, who termeth the Turk, Ipsissimus 
(e) In his lib. psalm. 5. psalm. 22. f●. 146.  Antichristus, as also M. Fox 
(f) In Act. Mon. of anno 1●76. pag. ●●●. .   

The VIII. Paragraph.  
TOuching those Protestants who believe, that the Pope is Antichrist, observe here their great Dissensions, concerning the time of Antichrists coming. And first D. Willet 
(g) In Syn. p. 100L.  placeth Antichrists first coming, in the year, 607. making Boniface the third, to be the first Antichrist. With whom agrees D. Whitaker, saying: 
(h) De Eccl. contr● Bellar. Contro. 8● Quaest 4. pag. 141.  Gregory the Great, was the last true and holy Bishop of that Church &c Therefore because our Adversary's demand of us the time of Antichrists first coming, we design and set down to them the very time of his coming. With whom conspires 
(i) In his Answer to a counterfeit Catholic. p. 36.  D. Fulke. julius' 
(k) Upon the Reuel. 5.10.  the great Protestant, maketh Hildebrand, who was Pope anno 1074. to be the first Antichrist: with whom D. Downam seem to conspire in these words 
(l) In his Treatise concerning Antichrist. pag. 100L. : Gregory the seaventh (alias Hildebrand) was the first of the Popes, who was openly acknowledged to be Antichrist. Beza teacheth, that Leo who was Pope anno Domini 440. did clearly 
(m) Beza. Confess. gener. 7. Sect. 21.  breathe forth the arrogancy of the Antichristian Sea. But M. Napper 
(n) Upon the Revel. p. 66.  ascendeth to higher times, affirming that Antichrist came in, anno Domini 313. and maintaining, that Silvester the Pope, was the first Antichrist.  
But the Reformed Churches of 
(o) So relateth M. Hooker in his Ecclesiestic. Policy.  Transiluania ascribe a greater antiquity to the coming of Antichrist, who confidently aver, that his first coming was in the year 200. Yet Sebastianus Francus (no vulgar Protestant) riseth higher, placing Antichrists first coming in the days immediately after the Apostles, for thus he writeth: For certain, 
(p) In Epist. de abrogundis in universum statutis Ecclesiast.  through the work of Antichrist, the external Church, together with the Faith and Sacraments vanished away, presently after the Apostles departure.  Spectatum admissi risum teneatis? 
So incredible and indeed ridiculous are the Dissensions of the Protestants, touching who is Antichrist, and at what time (dreaming him already to have been come) he first appeared. But I hasten to other Points.   

The IX. Paragraph.  
I Will next entreat of the Church; and First of the Visibility of the Protestant Church, severally maintained by several of our Adversaries. Secondly, whether in the Protestant Church, there hath been Personal succession and Vocation of Ministers; Thirdly, who be the Persons of Members that Constitute the Protestants Church. Fourthly, whether the present Roman Church be the true Church of God, and the same Church with the Protestants. Lastly, whether Papists (as the Protestants call the Catholics) dying Papists, may be saved; In all which several points, the Reader shall find strange Dissensions in the Protestants writings touching them.  
1. And to begin with the Visibility of the Protestant Church; we find most Protestants confidently to justify the Visibility of it in all Ages. And according hereto D. Field with a most frontless impudence thus writeth; We 
(q) D. Field in his book of the Church l. 3. c. 8. pag. 76.  firmly believe, all the Churches of the World, wherein our Fathers lived and died, to have been true (Protestant) Churches of God; etc. And that they, who taught, embraced, and believed those damnable Errors, which the Romanists defend against us, were only a Faction; Which words necessarily imply, that the Protestant Church was in his judgement ever visible.  
In like sort, a little Book written in the year 1624. and entitled: A Treatise of the Perpetual visibility and succession of the true Church in all ages; written (as is thought) by the last pretended Archbishop of Canterbury, D. Abbots, or else by D. white, or D. Featly, in proof of the uninterrupted visibility of the Protestant Church, iustifyeth their like judgement herein. Finally D. White and D. Featly in their private Conference in London some years since, with M. Fisher and M. Sweet, of the Society of jesus, with great venditation in words averred the continual Visibility of the Protestant Church in all ages; and the greater Part of Protestants do maintain the same.  
Now let us see, how these men are crossed and impugned in this their Tenet by other learned Protestants. First D. jewel (merely crossing D. Fields former most bold & shameless assertion) thus saith: The 
(r) In his Apology of the Church. part. 4. l. 4.  truth (meaning the Protestant Faith and Religion) was unknown at that time, and unheard of, when Martin Luther and Hulderick Swinglius first came unto the knowledge and preaching of the Gospel: And upon this it proceedeth, that Bucer styleth Luther: The 
(s) In Epist. Anno 36. ad Episcopum Hereford.  first Apostle to us, of the reformed Doctrine. With these former agree Benedictus Morgensterne the Protestant, thus saying: It is ridiculous 
(t) Tract. de Ecclesia pag. 145.  to say, that any before the time of Luther, had the purity of the Gospel. And Conradus Schlusselburg (the Lutheran) is no less fervent in this point, thus averring: It is 
(u) In Theolog. Caluinist. l. 2. fol. 130.  impudence to affirm, that any learned men before Luther did hold the Doctrine of the Gospel. From all which authorities it appeareth, that before Luther's first breaking out, the Protestant Church was invisible throughout the whole world.  
But let us see, what more the Protestants confess (contrary to the assertions of infinite other their Brethren) touching the invisibility of the Protestant Church, during the several ages before Luther. First then Caelius secundus Curio (a learned Protestant) thus teacheth: Factum 
(x) De amplitudine regni Dei p. 212.  est, ut per multos iam annos Ecclesia latuerit etc. It is brought to pass, that the Church for many years hath been latent, and that the Citizens of this Kingdom, could scarcely (ac ne vix quidem, and indeed not at all) be known of others. In the same Dialect writeth M. Perkins, saying: We 
(y) In his exposition of the Creed pag. 44●.  say, that before the days of Luther, for the space of many hundred years, an universal Apostasy endeavoured the whole face of the earth, and that our Church was not then visible to the World.  
Doctor Fulke speaketh here of more particularly touching the time of the Protestants Churches Inuisibility, saying: The 
(z) In his answer to a Counterfeit Catholic. p. 16.  Church in time of Boniface the third, it being anno 607. was invisible, and fled into wilderness, thereto remain a long season. The foresaid D. Perkins in another of his Books, writes more expressly of this point; his words are these; During 
(a) In his exposition of the Creed.  the space of nine hundred years, the popish Heresy hath spread itself over the whole earth.  
M. Napper riseth higher, acknowledging thus: 
(b) In his Treatise upon the Revelation. pag. ●8.  Between the years of Christ 300. and 316. the Antichristian and Papistical reign began, reigning universally without any debatible Contradiction, one thousand two hundred and sixty years: Yea the said M. Napper in another place ascendeth to higher times, thus writing: During 
(c) Upon the Revel. in c. 11. & 12.  even the second and third age, (to wit after Christ) the true Church of God and light of the Gospel, was obscured by the Roman Antichrist himself: with whom conspireth M. Brocard, saying: During 
(d) Upon the Reuelat. pag. 100  the second and third age after Christ, the true Temple of God and light of the Gospel, was obscured by the Roman Antichrist. Sebastianus Francus (a great Protestant) more liberally acknowledgeth of this point, writing in this manner: For 
(e) In Epistol. de ●brogandis in universum omnibus statutis Ecclesiast.  certain, through the work of Antichrist, the external Church, together with the Faith and Sacraments, vanished away presently after the Apostles departure; And that for these Fourteen hundred years, the Church hath not been external, and Visible. With whom D. Fulke, as forgetting what before he had written, touching anno 607. fully agreeth, averring thus: The true 
(f) In his answer to a Counterfeit Catholic. p. ●3.  Church decayed immediately after the Apostles tyme.  
Thus much concerning the Protestant Church, where we see, that whereas most Protestants do teach, that it hath in all ages continued Visible; diverse others most remarkable Protestants do not only descent from these former, in teaching the contrary Doctrine, to wit, that the Protestant Church hath been wholly invisible for many ages; But also these later disagree among themselves, touching the time of the Latency of their Church; Some of them designing a shorter time, others a longer time of its Inuisibility; Yea one and the same Author, at several times writeth severally of the time of their Church's Inuisibility, as appeareth by the above alleged different judgements of Doctor Fulke, and M. Napper: So wonderful are their contentions herein.  
2. In this Passage, I come to the Doctrine of Personal succession, and vocation of Ministers in the Protestant Church, differently maintained by different Protestants. For first Caluin challengeth to himself, extraordinary calling, as being sent from no Man, but only from God in these words: Quia 
(g) Lascitius the Protestant, reciteth this saying of Caluin, l. de Russorum & Muscovit. Religione. c. 13.  Papa tyrannide etc. Because through the tyranny of the Pope, true succession of Ordination was broken of; Therefore we stand in need of a new Course herein; and this Function, or calling was altogether extraordinary. In this Opinion conspire most other Protestants, especially of the more earnest sort: According hereto M. Perkins 
(h) In his works printed anno 605. fol. 916.  writeth, that the calling of Wicliffe, Hus, Luther, Oecolampadius, Peter Martyr etc. was extraordinary. And Doctor Fulke jumpeth with the former, saying: The 
(i) Against stapleton, Marshal. pag. 2.  Protestants that first preached in these days, had extraordinary calling: Thus far in Defence of extraordinary calling in these days.  
Now the Reader shall see, how others more sober Protestants do wholly reject this extraordinary calling immediately from God, except it be confirmed with miracles, as it was in the Apostles. First, M. Cartwright thus writeth: To 
(k) In his second Reply. part. 2. pa. 14●.  minister the Sacraments is an ho●our in the Church, which none can take to him. ●ut he which is called unto it, as Aaron was. Musculus, the great Protestant, writeth thus: Vecatio 
(l) In loc. Comm. pag. 394.  quae immediatè est à Christo, iam in usu non est, ut erat olim etc. The calling immediately from Christ, is not now in use, as it was in former times. The Bishop of Winchester thus teacheth: They 
(m) In his perpetual government of the Church. l. ●. p. 111.  can have no part of Apostolical commission, that have no show of Apostolical succession. D. Saravia agrees with the former, saying: Speciem 
(n) In defence. tract. contra respon Beza. p. 306. & 307  illam extraordinariae vocationis ad Ecclesiae ministerium non admitto etc. I do not approve that show of extraordinary calling, seeing it is not warranted with any authority of Scripture, or certain example.  
Now whereas diverse other Protestants do teach, that all extraordinary calling to the ministry is accompanied with working of Miracles, or else is a mere illusion; In this manner and restriction writeth Luther; saying: Vnde 
(o) Tom. 3. len. Germ. fol. 491.  venis? quis te misit? ubi sigilla quod ab hominibus missus sis? Vbi miracula? etc. And Amandus 
(p) In partitionib. Theol. l. 1. p. 308.  Polanus, 
(q) In his sovereign Remedy against Schism. p. ●5.  Henoch Clapham, 
(r) In loc. Comm. p. 304.  Musculus, and many others too long to write, do maintain the same. Yet this wholly makes against the calling of Luther himself, Caluin and all other Sectaries of this age, touching their vocation;  it is granted by Doctor Fulke in these words: It is 
(s) Against the Rhemish Testam, in Apoc. 13.  known, that Caluin and the rest (whom Papists call Archheretiks) do work no miracles; with whom D. Sutcliffe conspireth, saying: We 
(t) In his Exam. of D. kellison's Survey, printed 1606. pag. 8.  do not practise miracles, nor do we teach, that the Doctrine of Truth is to be confirmed with miracles. Thus much touching the contrary, and Crossing-Iudgments of the Protestants, concerning the necessity of Personal Succession in the Church of Christ.  
3. I next come to discover their disagreements touching such persons, as they acknowledge to be members of the Protestant Church, in which point we shall find wonderful opposition among the Protestants. First I will show all such sorts of persons, which many Protestants exclude from being members of their Protestant Church. And First, we find all Heretics to be excluded; and herein I will begin with the judgement of the Lutherans, then of the Caluinists. Touching the Lutherans, the Centurists thus write: 
(u) Cent. 6. in the Preface.  Neither Heretics, nor devisers of fanatical Opinions, are of Christ, but they are of Antichrist, and the Devil. And Luther is of the same judgement, saying: 
(x) In his Explicat. of the Creed.  Neither Gentille, jew, Heretic, or any sinner can be saved, unless he make atonement with the Church, and in all things do, & teach the same; he meaning his own Protestant Church.  
To come to the Sacramentaries, Caluin thus teacheth: 
(y) Instit. l. 2. c. 15. Num. 1.  Rightly Austin denyeth Heretics to have the same Foundation with the Godly, albeit they Preach the name of Christ. D. White: All 
(z) In his way to the Church. p. 10.  Heretics teach the truth in some things; Yet we deny them to be of the Church of God. The Confession of Basil: 
(a) Art. 24.  We drive away all, whosoever dissenting from the Society of the holy Church, do bring in or follow strange & wicked Doctrines. To conclude, D. Sutcliffe: 
(b) In his book of the Church. c. 1.  Heretics are not of the Church. Now here I am to advertise the Reader, that seeing most of these Testimonies (as also diverse other following) do speak literally of the true Church of God, that therefore the Protestants mean thereby their own Protestant Church; seeing they teach, it alone to be the true Church of God.  
To come to schismatics; they are in like sort rejected from being members of the Protestant Church: For first Luther thus writeth: I believe, 
(c) Luther in his great Catech. tom. 5. pag. 628.  there is on earth a little Congregation of Saintes, agreeing in all things, without Sects or schisms. Melancthon: Neither 
(d) In his book against Swenkfeld. tom. 2. pa. ●01.  is there more, than one Church of Christ: Neither doth this Company consist of diverse sects. D. Fulke, thus accordingly teacheth: What 
(e) Of the Succession of the Church.  skilleth it, whether one (being drawn by Heresy, or schism from the body of Christ) be subject to eternal damnation? D. Whitaker: It is 
(f) Controvers 2. q. 9 c. 9  false, that Heretical and Schismatical Churches are true Churches. To conclude with D. Field: The name 
(g) Of the Church l. 1. cap. 7.  of the Catholic Church (he thereby understanding his own Protestant Church) is applied to distinguish men, holding the Faith in the Unity, from Schismatics.  
The Anabaptists are in like manner by diverse Protestants, disclaimed from being members of their Protestant Church. For thus doth the Confession of Switzerland teach: We 
(h) Cap. 20.  condemn Anabaptists, who maintain, that Infants are not to he baptised, The Confession of Ausburg teacheth the same, saying: We 
(i) Cap. 9  condemn the Anabaptists, who disallow the Baptism of Infants, and think them to be saved without Baptism. Which Confession of Ausburg doth in like sort eliminate and exclude the Arians from their Church, in these words: We 
(k) Act. 1.  condemn all Heresies, rising against this Article (meaning the Article of the Trinity) as the Manichees, Arians, Eunomians. etc. That the Papists (as the Catholics are contumeliously called) are excluded from the members of the Protestant Church, is so generally taught (and but truly taught) as that I need not to insist therein, only D. Whitakers words shall serve at this time, thus scurrilously railing: I 
(l) Contro Duraeum. 2. sect. 2.  will not allow the very name of a lawful Church unto the Roman Church, because it hath nothing which a true Church ought to have. Thus far to show what men are not acknowledged by most Protestant's (and in part, most truly) to be members of the Protestant Church: But now we will see, how they are contradicted by other Protestants, and sometimes by their own pens.  
And first we find the Anabaptists to be accounted members of the Protestants Church for D. Whitaker thus writeth: We 
(m) Controvers. 4. 9 c. 2. p. 716.  may abstain from Baptism, so there be no contempt thereof. Oecolampadius: Baptism 
(n) L. 2. Epist. pag. 363.  is an external thing, which by the Law of charity may be dispensed with: and D. Morton seems to incline to the same judgement, thus saying: We 
(o) In his answer to the Protestants Apology l. 4. c. 1. sect. 10.  Protestants judge the state of the Anabaptists, not to be utterly desperate.  
Touching the Arians, M. Morton iustifyeth, that the Arians are of the Protestant Church, because, (to use his own words) the Arians 
(p) In his book of of the kingdom of Israel & the Church. p. 94.  hold the foundation of the Gospel. M. hooker's words are these: The Arians 
(q) Eccles polic. l. 4. pag. 181.  in the reformed Churches of Poland etc. Now these Reformed Churches in Poland are Protestanticall Churches; therefore the Arians are included as members of the said Protestanticall Churches.  
Touching Idolaters, whether they be of the Protestant Church or no, hear what the said M Hooker writeth: 
(r) Eccles. pol. l. 3. p. 216.  Christians by ezternall Profession they are all, whose mark of recognizance hath in it those things, which we have mentioned, yea although they he impious Idolaters, wicked Heretics etc. Thus he.  
Touching Infidels, M. Fox relateth, how a Protestant of Eminency for learning, did thus teach: A Turk, 
(s) Act. Mon. pag. 493.  Saracene, or any Mahometan whatsoever may be saved, if he trust in one God, and keep the Law. But if such a man may be saved, then followeth, that he is of the Protestant Church; seeing most Protestants teach, that the Protestant Church only affordeth Salvation. And 
(t) Cent. 6. pag. 404.  Bale admonisheth us, to be wary in condemning over rashly any Turk. Finally this their most wicked opinion is already made evident, by the above alleged testimonies of Swinglius and others, who teach, that Heathens (dying Heathens, and not believing in Christ) may be saved.  
That the Papists and the Protestants are members of one and the same Protestant Church, is taught (though most falsely) by these Protestants following: The Confession of Ausburge, speaking of the Catholics and the Protestants, thus believe & say: We 
(u) In Praefat.  are all soldiers under one Christ. And Luther thus: In 
(x) Luther in Epist. contra Anabapt.  Popery there is true Christianity, yea the kernel of Christianity, etc. M. Hooker: we 
(y) L. Eccl. pol. 3. c. 118.  gladly acknowledge them of Rome to be of the Family of jesus Christ. M. Bunny: We 
(z) In his Treatise of Pacificat.  are no several Church from them (meaning the Papists) nor they from us. D. Whitguift: The 
(a) In his answer to the Admonition. pag. 40.  Papists do believe the same Articles of Faith, which we do. Finally D. white: In the 
(b) In defence of the way. c. 38.  substantial Articles of our Faith, we agree with the Papists. From all which testimonies it followeth, that these said Protestants thus teaching, do hold the Catholics to be members of their Protestant Church.  
I will conclude, showing, that whom diverse Protestants hold to be Antichrist, other Protestants acknowledge the same man to be in state of Salvation; and consequently a member of the supposed true Protestant Church. This I prove thus: Most Protestant's teach, that the Pope is Antichrist (as is well known) yet other Protestants confess, that some Popes even since they began to be Antichrist, are saved. But none are saved, but such as are members of the true Church. And according hereto, I find M. powel thus to write; I will in 
(c) L. de Antichr. c. 33. pag. 338.  no wise say, that all the Popes from the time, wherein Papistry was revealed to be Antichristianity, are damned. With whom D. Whitaker even in the same words thus affirms. I 
(d) In his answer to the first Demonstration of D. Sanders.  will not say, that from the time, that Papistry began to be Antichristianity, the Popes themselves have been all damned. And yet we see, even by these two last testimonies, that both D. Whitaker and M. powel teach, that the Pope is Antichrist, by the reason of the Word Antichristianity, by them both used in their said testimonies. I will shut up their Disagreements, touching the members of the Protestant Church, with the malicious Asseveration of Musculus, thus writing: I embrace 
(e) In loc. comm. de Coena pag. 552.  all for brethren in the Lord, howsoever they disagree from me, or among themselves, as long as they maintain not the Popish Impiety. Thus far of Protestants contrary judgements, touching who are members of the Protestant Church, and who are not.  
I will conclude their dissensions touching the Church, whether the Papists (as we are styled) dying Papists (though in part it hath been all ready displayed) & out of the Protestant Church, may be saved. Every man knoweth, that all the Puritans as holding Papists Religion to be idolatrous, and superstitious, and the Pope to be Antichrist, deny to them all Hope of salvation. Yet D. Some thus censureth of this point: If 
(m) In his Defence against Penry. p. 176.  you think, that all the Popish sort, which died in the Popish Church, are damned, you think absurdly, and do descent from the judgement of all learned Protestants. D. Barrow: I dare 
(n) In his 4. Sermons, and two Questions disputed, ad Clorum. p. 448.  not deny the name of Christians to the Romanists, sith the learneder Writers do acknowledge the Church of Rome, to be the Church of God. M. Cartwright: I doubt 
(o) In his Reply to D. Whitguifts Defence, p. 82.  not, but diverse Fathers of the Greek Church, and who were Patroness of Freewill, are saved. And the same sentence is delivered by D. Whitaker 
(p) Contra rat. Camp. pa. 74.  touching the Salvation of the Ancient Fathers, notwithstanding their doctrine of justification and merit of works. D. Field: We doubt 
(q) Of the Church. l. 3. c. 46.  not, but that the Church, in which the Bishop of Rome with more than a Luciferian pride, exalted himself, was notwithstanding the true Church of God, and that is held a saving Profession of the truth of Christ. To contract this point, D. Covell thus expressly teacheth: We 
(r) In his Defence of M. Hooker. pag. 77.  affirm them of the Church of Rome, to be parts of the Church of God; and that those, who live and dye in that Church, may notwithstanding be saved; charging other Protestants teaching the contrary (to use his own words) with ignorant Zeal.  
Thus much touching the dissensions of the Puritans, and the moderate Protestants, concerning the salvation of Papists, dying Papists, concluding this point with the judgement of the Deviues of Geneva (contrary to other their brethren), who teach, that the Baptism of Catholic Children either by Protestant Ministers, or Catholic Priests; is avaleable, because (say they) the 
(s) So teach the Divines of Geneva in the Propositions and Principles disputed 〈◊〉 Geneva. p. 128.  Children are comprehended within the Covenant of eternal life, by means of the Faith of their Parents. Which very point is in like manner taught (to the great dislike of many Puritans) by D. Whitguift 
(t) In his Defence pag. 62●. , and M. Hooker 
(u) Eccles. pol. l. 5. pag. 1ST . For most (if not all the Puritans) teach; that Papists dying Papists, cannot be saved; seeing (say they) their Faith is Idolatry, and superstition.   

The X. Paragraph.  
I Next come to the Ancient Fathers, because they were the most learned and eminent members of the Ancient Church: where we shall see the strange diversity of the Protestants judgements of them; Some of the Protestants reverencing and embracing their Authorities; others wholly betrampling their testimonies, and entertaining them with all contempt and scorn. And First, we will allege the judgements of diverse Protestants, admitting their Authorities and worth; according hereto we find, that D. jewel in his Sermon at Paul's Cross, thus cried out: O Gregory, O Austin, O Jerome etc. if we be deceived, you have deceived us, And after in the said Sermon: As I said before, so I say again; I am content to yield and subscribe, if any of our learned Adversaries, or if all the learned men that be alive, be able to bring any one sufficient sentence, out of any old Catholic Doctor, or Father, or out of any old General Council, for the space of six hundred years after Christ. Which challenge D. Whitaker after justified in these words, writing to Father Campian: Audi 
(x) Whitak. in respon ad ration. Camp. rat: 5.  Campiane etc. Hear O Campian, that most true and constant Challenge, which jewel that day made, when he appealed to the antiquity of the first six hundred years etc. That is the proffer and Challenge of us all, we do promise the same with jewel, and we will make it good.  
D. Sutcliffe thus averreth: The 
(y) In his Exam. of D. Kellisons survey.  Fathers in all points are for us, and not for the Pope. D. Willet is no less confident herein, thus protesting: I take 
(z) In his Antilog. p. 263.  God to witness, before whom I must render an account etc. that the same Faith and Religion, which I defend, is taught and confirmed in the more substantial points by those Histories, Counsels, and Fathers, that lived within five or six hundred years after Christ. Kempnitius: We 
(a) In Exam. Concil. Trident. part. 1. pag. 74.  doubt not, but that the Primitive Church received from the Apostles and Apostolical men, not only the text of Scripture, but also the right and native sense thereof. And again: We are greatly confirmed in the true and sound sense of the Scripture, by the testimony of the ancient Church. The Confession of Bohemia: The 
(b) In the Harmony of Confessions, pag. 400.  ancient Church is the true and best Mistress of posterity, and going before, leadeth us the way. D. Bancroft speaking of Caluin and Beza, thus saith: For 
(c) In his Survey of the pretended holy Discipline.  M. Caluin, and M. Beza, I do think of them, as their Writings do deserve; But yet I think better of the ancient Fathers, I must confess. I will conclude this their acknowledgement of the Primitive Church and Fathers, with D. jewel (with whom I first did begin) he thus writing: The Primitive 
(d) In his Defence of the Apology.  Church, which was under the Apostles and Martyrs, hath ever been accounted the Purest of all others, without exception.  
But now let us see, how Diametrically and repugnantly other Protestants stand to these former Protestants, touching the Authority and dignity of the ancient Fathers: And to forbear the former Confessions of Protestants, touching the Inuisibility of their Church, during the first five or six hundred years after Christ, above related, which evidently demonstrateth, that such Protestants, who teach so long an Inuisibility, do consequently teach and grant, that the Fathers of those times, were in judgement Papists, and not Protestant's; for if they had been Protestants, than the Protestanticall Church had most remarkably been visible and conspicuous in the said Fathers: To forbear the iteration (I say) thereof, I will descend to the particular Reprovalls, given by the Protestants against them. And first, do we not find the same D. Whitaker, (observe the inconstancy of this man) who above so much maintained D jewels appeal thus to write? (Ex 
(e) Whitak. contra Duraeum. l. 6. p. 423.  Patrum erroribus vester ille religionis Cento consutus est: Your Popish Religion, is but a patched Coverlet of the Father's errors, sowed together.  
Pomeran (the Protestants) thus writeth: Nostri Patres, sive sancti, five non sancti etc. Our 
(g) Pomeran in Io●au.  ancient Fathers, whether they were holy, or not holy I not much rest upon, were blinded with the spirit of Montanus; and through humane Traditions & Doctrines of the Devils etc. they did not teach purely of justification etc. Neither were they solicitous to preach jesus Christ in his Gospel. jacobus Acontius (the Protestant) thus condemneth the Fathers: Quidem 
(h) In stratagem. Satanae. l. c. p. 196.  eò redierunt etc. Certain men (meaning Protestant's) are gone so far, as that they would have all points to be tried by the authorities of the Fathers etc. But this custom I hold to be most pernicious, and altogether to be avoided. D. Humphrey so smally pryaeth the Fathers, as that he rebuked D. Whitaker, for renewing D. jewels challenge, in appealing to the ancient Fathers above related, in this manner: D. Whitaker 
(i) Lib. de vita jewel li. printed at London. pag. 212.  gave the Papists too large a scope was injurious to himself and after a manner spoilt himself and the Church. Melancthon: 
(k) In 1. Cor. cap. 3.  Presently 
(k) In 1. Cor. cap. 3.  from the beginning of the Church the ancient Fathers obscured the Doctrine concerning justification by Faith, increased Ceremonies, and devised peculiar worships. Beza thus ballanceth the Fathers, with the Protestants of this age, saving: If we 
(l) In Epist. Theolog Ep. 1.  compare our times, next to the times of the Apostles, my judgement is, that those times had plus conscientiae, scientiae minus; and we scientia plus, conscientiae minus. The Archbishop of Canterbury thus vaunteth against those ancient times: The 
(m) In his Defence of the answer, to the Admonition. pag. 472. 473.  Doctrine taught & professed by our Bishops at this day, is more perfect and sounder, than it was in any age after the Apostles.  
I will close up the Aristarchian and censuring judgements of the Protestants against the ancient Fathers (merely contrary to the former alleged Protestants) with the scurrilous and depressing words of Luther passed upon them; who thus in one place writeth: The 
(n) Tom. 2. Wittenb. anno 1551. lib. de seruo arbitrio.  Fathers of so many ages, have been plainly blind, and most ignorant in the Scriptures; they have erred all their life time; and unless they were amended before their deaths, they were neither Saints, nor appertaining to the Church. And further: The 
(o) In Colloq. mensal. & lib. de seruo arbitrio.  Apology of Philip Melancthon doth far excel all the Doctors of the Church, and exceeds even Austin himself. And of his own judgement, with reference to their judgements he thus Thrasonically boasteth: I 
(p) Contra Henricum regem Angliae.  ear not, if a thousand Augustine's, a thousand Cyprians, a thousand Churches stood against me.  
But to come to particular Fathers, mark how Luther showers down words of reproach against them; In the 
(q) In Colloq mensa lib cap de Patribus Ecclesia.  writings of Jerome, there is not a word of true Faith in Christ & sound Religion: Tertullian is very superstitious; I have holden Origen long since accursed: Of chrysostom I make no account: Basill is of no worth, he is wholly a Monk, I weigh him not of a hair. Thus Luther, and with this I end this Paragraph; advertising the Reader, that besides the dissensions which these last alleged Protestants have with the former Protestants, acknowledging the Father's authorities and worth; these sharp censures delivered, in so full a manner against the Fathers, make greatly in proof of our ancient, Catholic, and Romay Faith; Seeing they irreplyably prove, that those most blessed and learned Fathers (so near to the days of our Saviour Christ, and his Apostles) were Papists in Faith and Religion, and not Protestant's.   

The XI. Paragraph.  
CEasing to discourse further of particular Fathers, how they are admitted by some Protestants, and rejected by others, I will ascend to speak of General Counsels, which consist of the Assembly and confluence of many hundred of Fathers; touching which point we shall find great contrariety of opinions, among the Protestants. And first, for the rejecting of the authority of General Counsels▪ we find D. Whitaker thus expressly to say: 
(r) L. d● Concil. contra Bellarm. q. 6.  General Counsels may err. But Peter Martyr is more full and plain herein, showing the reason, why Counsels are not to be admitted; thus writing: As long 
(s) L. de rotis. pag. 476.  as we insist in General Counsels, so long we shall continue in the Papists Errors. In like manner, D. Fulke thus depresseth the authority of General Counsels; The 
(t) In his answer to a Counterfeit. Catholic. p. ●0 & 90. and p. 86.  whole Church militant may err altogether, as every part thereof. Beza actually chargeth the Primitive General Counsels, with error saying: 
(u) In his Preface upon the New Testament. Dedicated to the Prince of Condy. anno 1587.  Even in the best times (meaning the Primitive times) the ambition, ignorance, and lewdness of Bishops was such, that the very blind may easily perceive, how that Satan was Precedent in their Assemblies.  
But now observe, how other learned Protestants contradict their former brethren's sentences herein: And first Doctor Bilson discoursing of the means to decide Controversies in Faith, thus writeth: To have 
(x) In his perpetual Government etc. pag. 37●.  no judge for the ending of Ecclesiastical contentions, were the utter subversion of all peace; & thereupon the said Doctor concludes thus: Synods 
(y) Vbi suprà p. 370.  are an external judicial means, to discern errors, and the surest means to decide doubts. And he further thus writeth: If 
(z) Vbi suprà pag. 374.  Synods were not, the Church neither at any time was, nor indeed safely can be without tempests. D. Sutcliffe, as not allowing trial of Controversies only by Scripture, thus writeth: 
(a) In his review of his Examination of D. kellison's Survey. printed. 1●06. p. 41.  It is false, that we will admit no judge but Scripture; for m● appeal still to a lawful General Council. M. Hooker 
(b) In his Preface to his book of Ecclesiast. Policy.  relateth, now Beza as being tired with disputs only from Scripture, submitteth himself finally to a lawful Assembly, or Council.  
And the said M. Hooker in the place above alleged, thus further writeth: We are sure of this that Nature, Scripture and Experience have taught the world, for the ending of Controversies, to submit itself unto some judies all and definitive sentence; meaning to the judgement or a General Council. D. Field conspireth with M. Hooker herein, thus writing: 
(c) In his Treatise of the Church in his Epist. Dedicat.  Seeing the controversies in Religion in our time are grown so many in number, and in nature so intricate, that few have time, leisure, and strength to examine them; what remaineth for man, desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence, but diligently to search out, which, among all the Societies of the men in the World, is that blessed Company of Holy ones, that househould of Faith, that spouse of Christ, that Church of the living God etc. He meaning the judgement of the Church delivered in a General Council. To conclude, an Externall judgement or Definitive Sentence (besides the Scripture) which is chief the sentence of a General Council, is further taught by D. Baneroft 
(d) In his Sermon, preached 1. February. 1588., pag. 4●.  D. Covell 
(e) In his modest Examination. pag. 108. and 109. , and finally (to omit others) even by the Puritans; of whose judgement herein s●e D. Baneroft● 
(f) Pag. 1●4,  Survey.   

The XII. Paragraph.  
TO come to Traditions. That they are rejected by most Protestants, it will be needless much to labour therein; Seeing they are so luxuriant (especially the Puritan and the most forward Protestants) and abundant in the condemnation of all Traditions, yet observe, 
(k) L. ●. pistol. Swinglij & Oecolamp. pag. 301.  how diverse points of Christian Faith, not taught in the Scriptures, are acknowledged by other learned Protestants, to be Apostolical Traditions. And to begin: 
(g) Tom. ● l. de Baptism. fol. 9●.  Swinglius, and (h) Oecolampadius confess, that Baptism of Infants is not taught in the Scripture; to whose judgement D. Field subscribeth in these words: 
(i) Of the Church pag. ●1●.  Baptism of Infants is a Tradition, because it is not expressly delivered in Scripture, that the Apostles did Baptise Infants; nor any express precept there found, that they should so do. M Hooker 
(k) Eccles. pol. l. 2 sect. 7. p. 1●8.  is so full in acknowledging the Doctrine of Traditions, as that he maketh special answer to the Fathers objected against Traditions, by diverse Protestants. D. 
(l) In his Defence. pag. 539.  Whitguift proveth most fully the Tradition of Easter day, from the Apostles. D Covell affirmeth (to use his own words) that the 
(m) In his Answer to john Burges. pag. 130.  moderate use of the Cross is an Apostolical Constitution. The said D. Covell doth also refer the word of Archbishop, unto 
(n) In his Ex●minat. against th● Plea of the Innocent. c 9 pag. 104.  Apostolical ordination.  
The alteration of the Sabaoth from Saturday to Sunday, is acknowledged by the Destinies of Geneva (to set down their own words) for 
(o) In their Propositions, and Principles, pag. 80. sect. 13.  an Apostolical Tradition, to be perpetually observed. Of the same judgement touching the change of the Sabaoth day (to omit others) is Vrsinus (the great Protestant) saying: Hanc 
(p) In Doctrinae Christian, Compend in Prolegom. pag 36.  esse Apostolicam Traditionem credimus. For greater brevity I will conclude with M. Hooker, and D. Whitaker, touching Canonical Scripture; of which point M. Hooker thus discourseth: Of 
(q) Eccles. pol. l. 1. sect. 14. pag. 86.  things necessary, the very chief is to know, what books we are bound to esteem holy, which point is confessed impossible for the Scripture itself to teach. So he, referring it to Tradition. D. Whitaker speaking of the same subject thus writeth: Canonical Scripture, is not 
(r) Adverse. Stapleton. l 2. cap. 6. pag. 170. & l. 2. c. 4. pag. 1●0.  tried by testimony of spirit, but by the Ecclesiastical Tradition etc. Thus far touching different judgements of Protestants, concerning the Doctrine of Traditions.   

The XIII. Paragraph.  
TOuching the Sacraments, no less are their Disagreements. And first, touching the number of them, whereas most Protestants acknowledge but two Sacraments, to wit Baptism and the Eucharist, yet the Protestant Divines assembled at Ratisbone anno 1541. do teach in that their Conference, that there are seven Sacraments; of which point Bucer complaineth, saying: 
(s) B●cer 〈◊〉 Art. Colloq. R●●isb●n.  Protestants non gravatim admiserunt septem sacramenta: The Protestants (meaning at their meeting at Ratisbone) have not unwillingly admitted, or approved seven Sacraments. In like sort, the number of seven Sacraments is taught by the Protestant Divines in their Conference at Lypsia, where they were assembled. This is averred by 
(t) Illyric in adh●rtatione ad Constantiam, in aguita Christi religion. printed in 8. Magdeburgae. 1550 paul● post initium; & paulo post medium.  Illiricus.  
2. That the known Intention of the Church is necessary to the administration of the Sacraments, is denied by certain English 
(u) In their Christ. Let. to M. Hooker. pag. 29. & 30.  Protestants, condemning M. Hooker for maintaining the contrary Opinion, as appeareth out of M. hooker's own 
(x) Eccles. pol. l. 3●. ●. sect. ●3●. p●. 120.  writings. As also the same Doctrine is maintained by D. Covell 
(y) In his Defence of M. Hooker p. 100L. , and almost by all moderate English Protestants. And yet it is so condemned by Luther, as that D. Covell 
(*) D. Covel. in his Defence of M Hooker. Art. 5. p. 101. The same is averred of Luther, by Hospinian. in his Histor. Sacrament. part. altera. fol. 14. ) chargeth Luther with teaching: That the Sacraments are effectual, though administered by Satan himself.  
3. That certain Sacraments do imprint an indelible character in the Receivers of them, is denied by M. Willet 
(z) In Synop. p. 419. , and by most Puritan Protestants, yet affirmed by D. Covell 
(a) In his Defence of M. Hooker. pag. 87 & ●1. , and by M. Hooker, who is reprehended therein by M. Willet 
(b) In his Meditation upon 122 Psalm. printed 16●3. p. ●1. . In like sort it is affirmed by most moderate Protestants.  
4. That Sacraments do not only signify, but also confer grace, is affirmed by Melancthon, who thus writeth thereof: 
(c) In c. 4. Epist. ad Roman, after the first Edition.  Repudianda est Swinglij opinio, qua tantùm civili mode indicat de signis etc. That Opinion of Swinglius is to be rejected, which teacheth, that Sacraments are only Netes, and signs of our Profession. The same is also maintained affirmatively by Osiander 
(d) In Eucheirid, coher 〈◊〉 fire, quas Augustanae Confessionis Theologi habene cum Caluinianis. p. 27●. , D. Whitaker 
(e) Contra Duraeum. l. 8. p. ●61. & 664 , M Hooker 
(f) Eccles. polic. l. 5. sect 57 p. 226. & 527. , D. Bilson 
(g) In his true Difference, part. 4. pag. 539. & 5●●. & 368. , and many others; yet it is denied & rejected for Popish, by D. Fulke 
(h) Against Purgatory, pag. 35. , M. Willet 
(i) In his Synops. p. 415.  (who 
(k) In his meditation upon the 122. Psalm. pag. 92.  reprehendeth some P●o ●stants for their maintaining the contrary Doctrine) by the Survey 
(l) Pag. 103. & 104.  of the book of Common Prayer, and by most English Puritan.   

The XIV. Paragraph.  
1. TO speak particularly of the Sacrament of Baptism. Luther holdeth Baptism to be of no force, thus writing: Si habes 
(m) Luther. l. de Captivit. Babylon.  benè etc. If thou be Baptised, it is well, if thou wantest it, no loss: Believe and tho●●ri saved before thou be baptised And Caluin 
(n) Lib 4. justin cap. 15. 〈◊〉. 7.  prizeth Baptism at no higher worth, than the Ceremony thereof performed by S. john Baptist. And of the same judgement are the 
(o) Cent. 2. c. 4.  Centurists, thus writing: before we will ascribe any Operation to the Sacrament of Baptism, we will maintain, that Infants have Faith by which they are saved. And according here to Luther thus concludeth: It is 
(p) Luth. adverse. Coe●●●um.  better to omit the baptising of an Infant, since his oblation if he do not believe, is unprofitable. The same opinion of the inefficacy of Baptism, (to omit Caluin, Beza etc. teaching the same) is maintained by most Puritans. And conspiringly hereto D, Whitaker (as is above alleged) thus teacheth: We 
(q) Cont●● 4.9. ●2. pag. 716.  may abstain from Baptism, if there be no contempt or scandal following. Now that there are other Protestants, who ascribe an Efficacy to Baptism, is evident: for we find, that to the Children of the Faithful, dying unbaptized, salvation is not promised, to be taught by the Confession of Ausburg 
(r) In the Harmony. pag. 403. , by D. Bilson 
(s) In his true Difference. part. 4. pag. 36●. , by Vrbanus 
(t) ●n 1. part. operum Catech. minor. fol. 105.  Regius (the learned Protestant) by 
(u) In loc. Common 238. 239. etc.  Sarcerius (the Protestant,) by the 
(x) Pag. 16  Conference before King james; and finally, by the most of the more temperate Protestants.  
2. Again, whereas all Protestants (for the most part) do use in Baptising of Children, these precise and particular words: I baptise thee in the name of the Father, the son, & the Holy Ghost; there are diverse other Protestants, who teach, that no particular form of words is necessary thereto: For first Luther maintaineth, that Baptism is availably ministered, in what words soever, so that (as saith he) the 
(y) Tom. 2. Wittenberg. in 〈◊〉 de Captivit Babylon. c. 〈◊〉 Baptism. fol. 75.  same be not in the name of Man, but of God. The same thing of not using any peculiar and set form of words, is taught by 
(z) In Catechis. cap. de Baptismo.  Brentius, & by Swinglius who thus writeth. 
(a) Swing. tom. 2 l. de Baptism. fol. 〈◊〉.  Christus Baptismi formulam, quâ uteremur, his verbis non iustituit etc. Christ did not ordain that form of Baptism in words, which we 〈◊〉 use, as the Divines hither to have falsely delivered. Finally the same is justified by many other Protestants over long here to be set down.  
3. To conclude: Baptism in time of Necessity, ministered by lay Persons, and Women, it justified & warranted by Schlusselburge 
(b) In Theolog. Caluinist. l. ●. fol 68 & 61. , by M. Hooker 
(c) L. 5. sect. ●1. pag. 137. , by D. Covel 
(d) In his Defence of M. Hooker. p. 518. , by jacobus 
(e) In Epitome. Colloq. Montisbelgar. pa. 64.  Andraas, and by diverse others; Yet it it impugned by D. Willet 
(f) In his Synops. p. 4●2. , by Caluin 
(g) So is Caluin alleged by Schlusselburg. in Theolog. Caluinist. l. 1. fol. 60. & 61. , and infinite others. Thus far touching the great Dissensions of the Protestants concerning the Doctrine of the Sacraments, both in general, and in particular.   

The XV. Paragraph.  
IN this next place I will examine the like disagreements of our Adversaries touching the Doctrine of Freewill, Predestination, and Reprobation. And to begin with Freewill: That most Protestant's (as Caluin, Beza, & infinite others) deny Freewill in Man, is over evident; & therefore needless it were to insist in their Authorities & words therein: Therefore I will allege some other eminent Protestants (contrary to their former brethren's judgements) teaching and maintaining the Doctrine of Freewill.  
And first, I allege Castalio (the learned Caluinist) as justifying Freewill in Man, most vehemently to charge Beza, for falsely translating and corrupting the first Chapter of S. john's Gospel (a place above by me alleged) in denial of Freewill, touching the Greek word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth Liberty, or Freedom, and yet translated by Beza, Dignity, thereby to weaken this place for the proof of Freewill; of which his translating Castalio thus complaineth: The 
(h) In Defence Translat. pag. 183.  word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, here used, signifieth Power, but never Dignity: Now seeing Beza would not have, that Christians should have this power from Christ what other thing is this, then to envy at the benefits of Christ, bestowed upon Christians? Molinaus (the remarkable Protestant) is so great a defendor of Freewill, as that Peter Martyr thus rebuketh him: Molinaeus 
(i) In his Epistles annexed, to his Common places, Englished In his Epistle to Caluin.  adjudgeth certain things amiss, touching .  
M. Perkins (though at other times may seem to impugn Freewill) yet in the close, he thus expressly writeth: 
(k) In his reformed Catholic. pag. 26.  Because God gives men Commandment to repent and believe; therefore they have power to repent and believe; God with his 
(l) Vbi supra pa. 5●.  commandment giving grace, that the thing prescribed may be done. D. Willet, adverse to the Doctrine of Freewill, doth charge Hemingius and Snecanus (Protestants of note) for their defending of the Doctrine of Freewill, in these words: They 
(m) In his Synops. pag. 808. & 810.  meaning the two former Protestants) are more erroneous, concerning Freewill, then are the Papists. M. Hooker thus writeth of Freewill: 
(n) Eccles. polic. l. 5. p. 101.  Distributively at the least, all grievous actual offences may be avoided; so that in this sense to be preserved from all sin, it is not impossible; which words necessarily imply freedom of will. With M. Hooker accords D. Covell 
(o) In defence of M. Hooker etc. art. 5.  herein. To be brief the Doctrine of Freewill is in like sort taught by 
(p) Ceut. 16. p. 814.  Osiander the Protestant, and by some Protestants, recorded by M. Fox 
(q) Act. Mon. pag. 1533. & 1605. .   

The XVI. Paragraph.  
TO come to the Doctrine of Reprobation, and Predestination; Beza thus writeth of this point: 
(r) In his treatise englished and entitled: A display of Popish practices. p. 17. & 38.  God doth create some men to perdition, appointeth and decreeth them to his hatred and destruction. And thereupon he teacheth, that God 
(s) In respon ad act Colloq. Montisbel. p. 285. 2●1.  did not suffer death for such men. With whom agreeth Caluin, thus teaching, or rather blaspheming: God 
(t) Instit. l. 3. c 13. sect. 6.  doth ordain by his Counsel and decree that among men some be borne destined to certain Damnation from their Mother's Womb, who by their destruction may glorify God: with these former conspireth M. Willet thus saying: God 
(u) In Synops. pag. 554.  hath ordained some to be vessels of wrath, without any respect had to their Works, either Good or Bad. And hereupon Peter Martyr concludeth thus: Sins 
(x) In his Common Places. part 3. pag. 12.  foreseen are not the cause of Reprobation.  
Now see how these are crossed and impugned by a whole army of other learned Protestants, both Lutherans & Caluinists, their brethren. For first to begin with the Lutherans: 
(y) In respon Beza ad Colloq. Montisbelg. part. altera. pag. 251.  jacobus Andreas, Conradus Schlusselburg 
(z) In Theolog. Cald. l. 1. art. 12. , Kempnitius 
(a) In Eucheirid. pag. 158. , The 
(b) In the harmony of Confessions in English. pag. 268. 269.  Confession of Ausburg, The Century 
(c) In loc. Comm. pag. 140.  writers; and finally (to omit diverse other Lutherans) even Melancthon himself, though for a time in the beginning, he maintained the contrary Doctrine, do jointly reject this former doctrine of Reprobation.  
To come to Caluinists. M. Hooker thus writeth: 
(d) Eccles. polic. pag. 104.  Gods general inclination is, that all men might be saved. D Covel: God hath 
(e) In his Defence of M. Hooker. p. 62. & 63.  a general inclination to save all men etc. And that with a conditional Will, he willeth all men to be saved; Who therefore that they are not saved, is not his decree, but their own fault. M. Fox is also full herein, thus teaching: 
(f) In Apocalyps'. pag. 473.  Seeing the benefit of Redemption, which taketh away the sins of the world, is an universal thing: It is demanded, whether the Grace of this Redemption do appertain equally to all the posterity of Adam, or be restrained to a certain number? I answer, that the incredulity of men, not the default of the Lamb, maketh this restraint. D. Willet much complaineth, that this Doctrine is so general among Protestants, thus writing: 
(g) In Synops. p. 784.  Universality of grace (which potentially includes, that God for his part reprobates no man to damnation) seemeth much to be approved by our own Countrymen, and hath already gotten some Patroness in our Church. Bullinger thus confidently writeth of this point: The 
(h) Upon the Revelations Englished. c. 5. fol. 79.  Lord died for all, but that all men are not made partakers of this Redemption, is through their own Fault, for the Lord excludeth no man. Amandus Polanus (the great Caluinist:) God 
(i) In partitionib. Theolog. p. 11. ●●.  by his Conditional will would have all men saved.  
I will conclude with Hemingius (a learned Caluinist) who thus fully discourses of this point: Pugnat cum verbo Dei v●cant● etc. This opinion (to wit, which teacheth that God doth Reprobat man from his mother's womb) feighteth with the word of God, calling and inviting all men to repentance; It 
(k) In lib de universali Gratia. pag. 111.  maketh men partly sluggish partly secure, and partly desperate: for many are driven to despair whites by this Opinion is overthrown the Doctrine of Universal Grace, in which all men are commanded by Faith to include themselves. Thus far Hemingius. And thus much touching the contrary opinions of the Protestants, concerning Reprobation.  
Now, concerning the Doctrine of the Certainty of Man's justification, and of Predestination; the Protestants are little less concordant among themselves, than we see, they are in the Doctrines of Freewill and Reprobation. And as touching those, who maintain, that justifying Faith once had cannot be lost, and consequently, that a man once having this justifying Faith, is certainly and infallibly predestinated, and assured of his salvation; We first will allege D. Willet, who thus reprehendeth such Protestants, as teach the contrary: These 
(l) In Synops. p. 811.  Patroness of universal Grace and conditional Election, do consequently hold, that men may lose their Election and Faith: Hemingius p. 30. the same is also maintained by Snecanus. Thus D. Willet.  
But to proceed to others, D. Whitaker thus teacheth: Si quis 
(m) L de Eccles. pag. 31.  actum fidei haebet etc. He who maketh an act of faith, his sins cannot hurt him. Beza thus conspiringly instructeth his followers: He 
(n) Andraaes (the Protestant) reporteth these words of Beza in Epist. Colloq. Montisbelg. pa. 48. & 44.  who once believeth, cannot afterwards fall from the grace of God, or lose his Faith by Adultery, or any other like sins. From whence it followeth, that a man once having true Faith, is infallibly assured of his salvation. Luther thus Catechiseth his Scholars: A Christian, 
(o) Lib. di Captivit. Babylon. This saying of Luther is also mentioned by the Protestant Author, in his treatise against Defence of the Censure. p. 198.  or baptised Person is so rich, as although he would, he cannot lose his Salvation by any sins how greatsoever, unless he will not believe. In like sort, the said Luther hath further thus left written in defence of the certainty of Predestination: As 
(p) Luth. in Loc. Comm. printed Magdeburg. 1594. Class. 5. c. 27 p. 68  nothing iustifyeth but Faith; so nothing sinneth but unbelief. Yea some Protestants thus strangely write for certainty of Predestination: We 
(*) See the Acts and Monuments. pag. 1563. pag. 488.  cannot be damned, except Christ be damned with us. M. Perkins earnestly 
(q) M. Perkins in his reformed Catholic. p. 3●. & 55.  maintaineth the said Doctrine; as also it is taught by Caluin, and finally by most Puritan, and the most forward Protestants in these days.  
Now let us see, how cross & Antipodes-like do other Protestants (as maintaining the contrary,) tread to their former Brethren. I will begin with the Lutherans, and first with Kempnitius who thus writeth: True 
(r) In Exam Concil. Trident. printed 1578. part 2. p. 1●3.  lively justifying Faith may be lost, and the party made guilty of eternal Damnation. The Confession of 
(s) In the Harmony of Confessions in English. pag. 214  Ausburg condemneth the contrary Doctrine, for Anabaptism. The Protestant Divines of Saxony do also thus teach: It is 
(t) Ibid. p. 80. and see, p. 223.  manifest, that some, who are regenerate etc. are again rejected of God, and made subject to eternal Punishment; And more: justification 
(u) In the Harmony etc. pag. ●95.  and regeneration may be shaken of and we lose eternal life. This doctrine of the uncertainty of Salvation is in like manner taught by diverse other Lutherans (whose sayings were over long here to set down) as by 
(x) In his Disputat. Theolog. p. 117. & 318.  Lobechius, (Doctor and Professor in the University of Rostock) by Conradus 
(y) In Theolog. Caluinist. l. 2. art. 14. fol. 45.  Schlusselburg, by jacobus 
(z) In Epitome. Colloq. Moutisberg. Editio tertia. p. 73. 74. etc.  Andreas, by 
(a) In his Disput 17 pro ●a●ctiss. Lib. Concord. Disput. 16. pag. 650.  Gesnerus (Doctor and Professor at Wittenberg) and finally (to omit many other Lutherans, for greater expedition) by Philip Melancthon, who thus writeth: 
(b) In Concil. Theolog. pag 3●●.  Excidunt homines à gratia, aciustificantem fidem amittunt: Men do fall from grace, and lose their justifying Faith.  
To come to the Caluinists teaching the same Doctrine. And first M. Perkins thus confesseth hereof: This 
(c) In his four Treatises, necessarily to be considered of all Christians, Treatise fourth. Sect. 14.  testimony of being persuaded, that we are Adopted and Chosen in Christ, is weak in most men, and scarcely can be perceived. Musculus (the great and famous Protestant) thus teacheth: If 
(d) In loc. Com. loc. de peccato, sect. 5.  he, who hath been made partaker of heavenly Grace, do fall from that Grace, and of a just and faithful man become unjust and unfaithful etc. this man's conscience (the purity of Faith being lost) is made guilty unto Damnation. M. Robert Rollocke (rector of the University of Edinburgh) and greatly praised by Beza, thus teacheth: I tell thee 
(e) In his book of Lectures upon the Epist. of Paul to the Coloss. l. 3. p. 64.  that notwithstanding thou art redeemed, and by the blood of Christ freed from sin and death; yet if thou take delight in sin, the greater shallbe thy Damnation. The same Doctrine is maintained by several English learned Protestants, as by D. Oueral 
(f) In the Conference before his Majesty. p. 4●. , by D. Harsenet 
(g) D. Harsenet did preach of this very subject at Paul's Cross. , and by all those who are at this present called among us, by the name of Arminians.  
Thus far touching the mutual Disagreements of the Protestants in the Doctrines of Freewill, Reprobation, and Predestination: advertising the Reader, that such Protestants, who maintain the Doctrine of Freewill, do consequently and potentially teach the uncertainty both of Reprobation and Predestination; The reason hereof being, in that the foundation of the contrary Doctrines, to wit of the certainty of Reprobation, and Predestination is chief grounded, upon the denial of the Doctrine of Freewill.   

The XVII. Paragraph.  
IN this next place, I will descend to the Doctrine of good works. And First I will set down the opinions of diverse learned & moderate Protestants, some approving even the merit of works; others at least the necessity of them to justification and Salvation. And to begin with this later point. The necessity of good works (at least to accompany Faith, though not as cause of our justification) is taught by D. Fulke 
(h) Against the Rhemish Testament. in 2. Petr. 2. , by D. Whitaker 
(i) Against M. Reynolds. , by D. Willet 
(k) In his Tetra●lylon Papisint, pag. ●0. . And of this point special mention is made of the great Dissensions had between the Deui●●● 
(l) This is related in Colloq. Altenberg. fol. 168. and i● Artit Colloq. Al●●burg. p. 101. & 48●.  of England, and the Lutherans in Germa●●; the one side maintaining the necessity of good works, the other denying the same. No● that other learned Protestants do not only teach the necessity and presence of good works; but also that our good works are meritorious in regard of Christ's Passion, and promise to them, is affirmed by M. Hooker 
(m) Eccles Fol. l. 5. sect. 72. pa. 208. , by Melancthon 
(n) Loc. Comm. de bonis Operibus circa medium. , by Spandeburg 
(o) In Margarit. Theol. pag. 48. & ●0.  (●he Protestant) and by the 
(p) Pag. 495. & 273.  Confessions in the Harmony.  
2. To descend more particularly to good works; And first we find that Vowed Chastity is defended by Augustin Marloret (the Protestant) saying: The 
(q) In ●. Timoth. c. 5.  Widows (he meaning those mentioned by S. Paul.) did give their ●ayth to Christ their spouse, willingly barring themselves from Marriage; by the Protestant Author of the book entitled: Antichristus 
(r) Pag. 148. 149. , sive Prognosticon finis mundi; by M. Alison 
(s) In his Confutat. of Brownism. p. 71.  (the Protestant:) all which Protestants do maintain and affirm the votary resolution of the said widows; Yea M. Alison expressly thus writeth: This place (meaning of S. Paul touching the said widows) is thus expounded by Bullinger, Claudius, and others. In like sort, Vowed Chastity is taught by M. Hooker as lawful, who further thus writeth of the vow of Poverty: Anavias' 
(t) Eccles. pol. l. 2. p. 103.  his solemn row to God did strictly bind him, to the giving of his Possession to the Church's use. Yea Christian Vows in general are maintained by Musculus 
(u) In loc. Comm. de votis. p. 524. , by M. Willet 
(x) In Synops. pag. 241. , by Amandus 
(y) In partitionib. Theol. l. 2. p. 3●4.  Polanus, and (to omit other●) by M. Perkins, thus writing: Now 
(z) In his reformed Catholic p. 157.  in the new Testament we have like manner to vow etc. Of this kind are the vows to keep set fastings etc.  
But now let us cast our eye, another way, and see, how other Protestants do impugn and cross these their brethren, and how fiery and violent they are, in depressing and betrampling of all good works in general, as also of Vows. And first, we find Luther thus to write: It 
(a) Upon the Galat. English. c. 2.  is impiety to affirm, that Faith, except it be adorned with Charity, iustifyeth not. Yea Luther further proceedeth, thus teaching: Fides, 
(b) Tom. 1. Propos. 3.  nisi sit sine etc. faith except it be without the least good works, doth not justify; nay it is not Faith. And according hereto Amsdorphius (a Protestant) writeth a book, entituling it: Quod bona opera sint perniciosa ad salutem. Agreably hereto Schlusselburg (the Lutheran) teacheth in this manner: Good 
(c) In Catalogue. Haeret. l 23. in Epist. Dedicat. pag. 22.  works are not necessary, necessitate praesentiae; so much as with a necessity of Presence.  
In like manner Illyricus affirmeth, Good works 
(d) In Praefat. ad Rom.  are not so much, as Causa sine qua non, of Salvation. The said Illyricus further proceedeth, saying: The 
(e) I●ly ricus ubi suprà.  Controversy with the Papists is not (only) whether works do justify; but whether they be in any respect necessary to salvation; which later point to maintain (saith he) is a Papistical Error. And yet more in these words: The Doctrine of the New Papists, is as pernicious as the Old; to say, that the Apostle meant to exclude good works from justification, not simply and as due, but only as meritorious and causes efficient. Yea some Protestants are so far from granting merit of works, as that Caluin himself affirmeth: To 
(f) Instit. l. 2. c. 17. sect. ●.  maintain that Christ did merit any thing to himself, non minus stulta est curiositas, quàm temeraria definitio; is no less a foolish curiosity, than a rash sentence; And according hereto Tyndall (the Protestant Martyr) writeth thus: Christ 
(g) Fox Act. Mon. pag. 486.  with all his works did not deserve Heaven: which said Tyndall is so far gone against good works, as thus M Fox hath registered him to say: As for 
(h) Act. Mon. pag. 1136.  pleasing God, there is no work better than another; As touching to please God, to make water, to wash dishes, to be a sour, or an Apostle, all is one.  
Now to come more particularly to the good works of perpetual Chastity, voluntary Poverty, and Fasting; The Protestants contrary to their former Brethren thus teach: Luther thus maintaineth in express words, touching Chastity, or perpetual Virginity: If we 
(i) Luth. Tom. 1. Wittenberg. ad cap. 7.1. Cor. fol. 107.  respect the nature of Matrimony, and single life in themselves, matrimony is as gold, and the spiritual state of single life as dung. To whom D. Whitaker subscribes in these words: 
(k) Contra Camp. rat. 8.  Virginity is not simply good, but after a certain manner. Touching Fasting, M. Perkins saith: 
(l) In his reformed Catholic. pag. 220.  Fasting in itself is a thing indifferent, as is eating and drinking. And M. Willet affirmeth that: Neither 
(m) Synop. p. 241.  is God better worshipped by eating, or not eating, Lastly, concerning voluntary Poverty, the same M. Willet thus teacheth: He is an 
(n) In his Syneps. p. 145.  Enemy to the glory of God, that changeth his rich estate (wherein he may serve God) for a poor; thus he, not making difference between a Stoical dulness, and a Christian contempt of transitory things, himself belike being so greedy to have for a time the government and rule of a little piece of the entralls of the earth.  
To conclude with denial of the Doctrine of rows (contrary to the judgements of the former above alleged Protestants:) First then, Peter Martyr writeth a book against single life, and vows, styling it: the Calibatu & vo●is. In like sort Swinglius saith: 
(o) Part. 1. in explanat. art. 30. fol. 6●.  Concerning vows, I say, that all vows are abolished by Christ's coming. To whose judgement herein subscribes Bullinger 
(p) In his Decades in English. pag 380.  saying: Vows belong to the jewish Ceremonies; of the same mind is D. Fulke 
(q) In his Retentive to bristol Motives. pag. 153. , and diverse others. Thus much concerning the great discrepancy and diversity of the Protestants among themselves, touching the Doctrine of Good Works, and of Vows.   

The XVIII. Paragraph.  
IN this place I will display the Protestants like difference touching Sin, and the Nature thereof: And first, concerning what Sin is; Not only all Catholics, but also many learned Protestants teach, that Sin in its own Nature, is a mere Non Ens, or only Privation of what should be, and therefore God never made Sin, who made only Entia. And hereupon the said both Catholics and Protestants conclude, that sin (as being a Non Ens, or privation) hath no Efficient, but only a Deficient cause. I will allege Peter Martyr thus discoursing of this point: An 
(r) Peter Martyr in loc. Comm. places in English part. 1. cap. 17. sect. 12. pag. 1●4.  Evil thing (and such is sin) hath no efficient, but a deficient cause; If any will search out this efficient cause, it is even like, as if he would see the darkness with his eyes, or comprehend silence with his ears, which being Privations, it is no need that they should have efficient causes. Thus Peter Martyr, with whom conspire herein Szegedinus 
(s) Szegedinus Loc. Com. pag. 230.  and Keckermannus 
(t) In his Systema sacrae Theologiae. l. 2 p. 248. 249. etc.  (both remarkable Protestants) besides diverse others.  
Now other Protestants, merely crossing these former, do severally teach hereof: for D. Whitaker 
(u) Whit. contra Campian. rat. 8.  teacheth Sin to be an Accident, or Quality; But Illyricus 
(x) Illyricus varijs libris de peccato Originali. , (the chief of the Magdeburgenses) affirms sin to be a Substance; See also Heshusius hereof in Epist. ad Illyricum, An peccatum sit substantia. See also Piscator hereof in volume. 1. Thesaur. Theologic. l. 7. p. 169. sect. 104. And according hereto the foresaid Illyricus in the place next above alleged, defineth Original sin, to be (after the fall of Adam) the internal substance, which the Devil doth work or cause, and which he transformeth into himself.  
2. Concerning the distinction of Sin, into Venial, and Mortal sin: All the Protestants do admit this distinction in words; but in the explication of this Distinction, they mainly differ. For most of the more forward Protestants teach, that this Difference of sin lieth not in the diversity of the sins themselves, but in the diversity of the parties committing them. According hereto, Musculus (the prime Protestant) thus writeth: 
(y) Musculus in loc. Com. de peccato. sect. 5. de discrimine peccati venia is & mortalis. pag. 28.  Sciendum est, magis in hac causa, personas peccantium: quam ipsa peccata esse considerandas. We are to know, that in this point, rather the persons of such as sinne then the sins themselves, are to be considered. And hence it riseth, that many Protestants teach, to wit; (to omit others) Caluin, and Doctor Fulke, that All sins (how great soever) to the Faithful Professors, are 
(z) So teach Caluin Instit. l 2. c. 4. sect. 28. & D. Fulke against the Rhemish Testam. in Epist. joan fol. 447.  Venial; and to others M. Willet 
(a) M. Willet in his Synops. p. 560. , and Musculus 
(b) Musculus in loc. cem. pag. 28.  affirm all sins (how small soever) are mortal. And upon this ground are builded Luther's words: No 
(c) Luth. in his Sermons Englished, & printed anno 1578. pag. 167.  work it disallowed of God, except the Author thereof be disallowed before.  
But now contrary to this explication of the former distinction, most of the more sober Protestants teach, that this distinction of Sin is in one and the same Person; and therefore they place this diversity of Sin, to consist in the disparity of the sins themselves, and not in the diversity of the Persons committing the said sins. This is taught by jacobus Andraeas, so alleged and reprehended by Beza 
(d) In respon ad 〈◊〉 Colloq. Montisbesgar. p. 64. . The same doctrine is further justified by 
(e) In Ce●cil. Theol. pag. 546.  Melancthon, by Adamus 
(f) In his Margarit. Theol. pag. 469.  Francisci, by Hemingius 
(g) In Encheirid. pag. 103. printed Londini, anno 1577. ; and to pretermit many others, by the 
(h) Pag. 80 & 70.  Harmony of Confessions. That all sins are equal, is maintained by Caluin 
(i) Caluin in Antidote. Concil. Trident. , by Wicliff 
(k) Wiclef, apud walden's. l. de Sacrament. c. 1●4. , and some ohers; yet contradicted herein by Doctor Whitaker 
(l) D. Whitaker contra Campian. in rat. ●. , and almost all the more temperate Protestants.  
I will next descend to that Doctrine maintained by some Protestants, (though wholly rejected by others) who teach, that no sin is hurtful to that man, who believeth: And first we find Luther thus to write: A Christian 
(m) Luth in tom. 2. Wittenberg. de Captivit, Babylon, fol. 74.  or Baptised person, is so rich, that although he would, he cannot los● his salvation by any sin, how great soever, unless he will not believe. And further, Luther thus reacheth: As 
(n) Luth. in loc. Co●naelass. 25. c. 27.  nothing iustifyeth but Faith, so nothing sinneth, but unbelief. Others according here to teach, that sins are not hurtful to him that believeth; for thus D. Whitaker writes, as is above noted: Nos dicimus si quis actum fidei habeat etc. We 
(x) D. Whitak. de Eccles. contra Bellarm. Controu. 2. q. 3. pag. ●01.  maimayne, that if a man doth exercise an act of faith, to that man sin is not hurtful. D. Fulke teacheth thus: When David 
(y) D. Fulke, in the Tower disputat. with Edm. Camp. the second day's conference  committed adultery, he was and remained the child of God. Yea they further teach, thus saying: He that 
(z) See this in Epitome. Colloq. Montisbilgar. pa. 44. & 48.  once truly believes, cannot after fall from the grace of God, or lose his Faith by his Adultery, or any other like sins. Others again say, thus: Sin is 
(a) So saith M. Wotton in his answer to the late Popish Articles. pag. 9●.  pardoned, as soon, as it is committed.  
Finally (to omit many other such like sentences and authorities of them) they thus conclude: When 
(b) See this in Act. Mon. pag. 1338.  we sin, we diminish not the glory of God; all the danger in our sin being, the evil Example to our neighbour. How doth this Doctrine open the sluse to all Impurity, Wickedness, and Libertinism? the maintainers of which Doctrine are in the number of those, who (as S. jude saith) transfer 
(c) jude Epist. vers. 14.  the grace of God into wantonness. Now this Doctrine of extenuating and lessing sin is so mainly contradicted and gainsaid, by all moral and Civil Protestants, as that it were needles to set down the names of them: In like sort it is implicitly impugned by all those particular Protestants above alleged, who require goodworkes, at least to accompany Faith; For it sin cannot be prejudicial to Faith, to what end then should the former Protestants teach, that good works of necessity must accompany Faith?  
In this last place concerning Sin, I will set down the disagreements of Protestants, of which some do teach that God is the Author of sin: Other Protestants condemning this Doctrine, as most blasphemous, and injurious to God. And to begin with such, as really teach God to be the Author of sin, I produce Luther thus saying: How 
(d) Luth. in assert. damnat. per Leonem, art. 36.  can man prepare himself to good, seeing it is not in his power to make his ways evil; Nam mala opera in impijs Deus operatur; for God worketh the wicked work● in the wicked? Beza thus writeth: God 
(e) In his Display of Popish practices. p. 202.  exciteth the wicked will of one Thief to kill another, guideth his hand and weapon, justly enforcing the Will of the thief. M. Willet thus 
(f) In Synops. pag. 563. ; God not only permitteth, but leadeth into temptation, even with an active power, and not permissively only. D. Barrow thus 
(g) In his Treatise of God's Providence, in English c. 4. : God doth truly and by his determinate purpose, harden, make blind, lead into temptation, and incline the hart to evil. Swinglius thus: God 
(h) Swi●gl. tom. 1. de Providentia Dei. fol. 366.  moveth the Thief to kill, and the Thief killeth God procuring him. And again: The 
(i) Swinglius ubi saprà. Where he saith, A● inquus, coactus est a● peccandum, pe●e mitto.  thief is enforced to sin. And more: Deo impulsore 
(k) Swinglius. ubi suprà.  occidit; The thief killeth, God moving and enforcing him thereto. Melancthon thus: The Adultery 
(l) Melancth. in Rom. 8.  of David was the proper work of God, as was the Conversion of Paul. Finally that Caluin teacheth the said Doctrine, appeareth not only from Castali● charging him therewith, in these words, by this means not the Devil but the God of Caluin is Author of Lies: but also from the places of Caluins 
(n) Instit. l. 2 c. 4. sect. 3. 4. & 5. et. l. 1. c. 18. sect. 1.  own books, here noted in the Margin.  
Now this Doctrine is mainly contradicted (and this most deservedly) by other Protestants. And first D. Whitaker, as maintaining the contrary Doctrine, and in defence, that not any Protestant teacheth this foresaid doctrine, thus provoketh his Adversary in most confident words 
(o) Whitaker contra Camp. rat. 8. pag. ●15. : If Caluin, Peter Martyr, Melancthon, or Luther, or any of ours affirm God to be the Author of sin, I will not deny, but that we are all guilty of horrible blasphemy, and wickedness: So much doth this Doctor dislike the foresaid Doctrine; and so gladly would he vindicate and free his Protestant Brethren (if he could) from maintaining the said wicked Position. In like sort, Hemingius 
(p) Hemingius, l. de Universal. Great pag. 109. , as maintaining this contrary Doctrine, chargeth and reprehendeth the Caluinists for their teaching, that God is the Author of sin.  
The Caluinists are also condemned for this their impious Doctrine, by Sitzlinus 
(q) In his Disputat. Theolog. de providentia Dei. sect. 141.  (the Protestant) by jacobus Andraeas' (the remarkable Protestant) who in express words thus writeth: Deus 
(x) Andraeas', in Epitome. Colloq. Montisblegar. pa. 47. 49. 53.  est authour peccati, secundum Bezam. This point is so evident, as that the Magistrates of 
(s) Vide literas Senatus Bernensis ad ministros etc. 1555.  Berna, decreed it to be punishable by their Laws, for any to preach Caluins' Doctrine hereof, within their own Territories & jurisdiction; or for the people to read any of Caluins' Books of that subject. The foresaid Doctrine of God being the Author of sin, is further contradicted & condemned by 
(t) Lib. ad Caluinum de Praedestinat.  Castalio, by Amandus 
(u) Polanus, in partition. Theolog. l. 1. pag. 46.  Polanus, by M. 
(x) Gibbens in his Questions upon Genesis, pag. 108.  Gibbens, by the Book entitled Corpus doctrina etc. printed 1561. in folio, pag. 618. It is further condemned, not only almost by all the Lutherans, but even by all moderate and temperate Protestants: So disagreeing are the Protestants touching this Tenet.   

The XIX. Paragraph.  
TOuching the Doctrine, which denies we ought to have any absolute Princes or Magistrates, now in the time of the Gospel; Luther thus teacheth: Among 
(y) Luth. de secular. potestat. in tom. 9 German.  Christi●●●en, none is Superior, save one, and only Christ. And yet more fully: Among 
(z) Luth. ubi supra.  Christians no man can, or aught to be a Magistrate; but each one is to other equally subject. And further 
(a) Luth. Sermons Englished and printed 1579. pag 97. : As Christ cannot suffer himself to be tied or bound by Laws etc. So ought not the Conscience of a Christian to suffer them. Other Protestants, though they do not write so absolutely against Princes and all Magistracy; yet they wonderfully seek to depress and lessen their Authority, for thus Swinglius indoctrinateth his followers: Quando 
(b) Swing. tom. 1. in explanat. Art. 41.  perfidè, & extra regulam Christi egerint Principes etc. When Princes do evil, and contrary to the Law of Christ, they may be deposed. Again, Swinglius thus further teacheth: Romanum 
(c) S●ing in l. Epist. Oecolamp. & Suing. l. 4. Epist. ●●nhardo ●omio.  Imperium, imò quodui● aliud imperium etc. If the Roman Emperor, or any other Prince or Sovereign shall begin to oppress the sincere Religion; & nas illud negligenter patimur &c, And we negligently suffer the same, we shall stand charged with the contempt thereof, as much as even the oppressors themselves.  
Now this sentence is so much displeasing to moderate and loyal Protestants, as that Doctor Bilson in place of further answer to them, thus saith: As I 
(d) In his true difference. part. 3. pag. 273.  muse at Swinglius his words so I like not his judgement. 
(e) Caluin in Daniel. c. ●  Caluin conspireth with Swinglius thus affirming: Earthly Princes de deprive themselves of authority, when they erect themselves against God; Yea they are unworthy to be accounted among the number of men; and we are rather to spit upon their faces, then to obey them. With these words of Caluin, Doctor Wilkes doth upbraid the Puritans, saying: They were 
(f) Wilks in his obedience of Ecclesiast. Union. pa. 60.  your teachers, who account those Princes (who are not refined by your spirit) unworthy to be accounted among the number of men, and therefore rather to be spitted upon then obeyed.  
Beza, according to his former brethren, much betrampleth upon Christian Princes; for he did write a book, bearing this title: De iure Magistratuum in subdites; A book much disliked and condemned by D. Bancroft 
(g) In his Survey of the Pretended Discipline. p. 48.  and D. Succliffe; of which book D. Succliffe thus censureth: Beza 
(h) In his Answer to a certain libel supplicatory. pag. 75.  in his book of the Power of Magistrates doth arm the subjects against their Princes in these cases etc. And the same Doctor thus further enlargeth himself in his dislike of that book, saying 
(i) D. Sutcliffe ubi supra. pag. 98. : A book●, which overthroweth in effect all authority of Christian Magistrates.  
The writings of Caluin and Beza touching the Magistracy and authority of Princes, is so violent and indeed traitorous, as that the foresaid D. Bancroft thus passeth his judgement of them: He that 
(k) In his Survey of the pretended Discipline. pag. 41.  shall read M. Caluins and M. Bezaes' two books of Epistles etc. Would certainly marvel to understand, into what actions & dealings they put themselves, of War, of Peace, of subjection, of reformation, without staying for the Magistrate Knox of Scotland, thus answerably teacheth: If Princes 
(l) Kno● to England and Scotland. fol. 76.  be Tyrants against God and his Truth their subjects are freed from the Oath of Obedience, Bucanan (his familiar friend) thus unanimously writeth: The 
(m) L. de iure Regni. pag. 13.  People have right to bestow the Crown at their pleasure. And yet more; If 
(n) Su●●●am ubi suprà. pag. 40.  were good, that rewards were appointed by the People for such, as should kill Tyrants, as commonly there are for those, which have killed Wolves. These two Scottish writers were so strong and headlong in this their Doctrine; as that the Bishop of Rochester in his Sermon at Paul's Cross, calleth these two men: The two 
(o) Preached the tenth of November, and printe● 16●●.  fiery spirits of the Church and Nation of Scotland. Thus much for a taste of the Doctrine of some turbulent Protestants, against the soveraingty of Princes; and contradicted by the former more moderate Protestants, as also by all other grave and loyal Protestant writers.   

The XX. Paragraph.  
TOuching Polygamy, or having many wives at one time, Luther thus writeth hereof: Polygamy 
(p) Luth. in Propos. de Bigamiaes Episcop. Edit. anno 1528. Propos 62. 65 66.  is no more abrogated, then is the rest of Moses' Law; and it is free, as being neither cammanded, nor forbidden. Whose doctrine herein, Bucer did so much embrace, as that he thus writeth: Whosoever 
(q) Bucer in his scripta Anglicana de regno Christi. cap. 28. pa. 101.  will not induce his mind to love his wife, and to treat her with conjugal Charity, that man is commanded by God, to put her away, and marry another. And this 
(r) Bucer ubi suprà. pag. 100  being commanded in the old Law, pertaineth also to Christians.  
The Doctrine of Polygamy was defended by Bernardine Ochine, of which subject he did write certain Dialogues. And 
(s) Musculus in Ep. Pauli ad Philip. Colos. etc. in ●. Tim. 5. pag. ●96.  Musculus thinketh Polygamy was tolerated in the Apostles tyme. And from hence it riseth, that Bucer alloweth liberty of divorce, and to take another wife, in case of the ones departure 
(t) Bucor in hic scripta Anglic. de regno Dei. l. 2. c. 26. pag. 104.  from the other; Of 
(u) Bucer ubi supra, l. 2. cap. 37. etc. 40.  Homicide, or theft; Of but repairing to the Company 
(x) Vbi supra, c. 37. p. 115.  or banquets of immodest People; Or in case of incurable infirmity of the woman by Childbirth; or of the Man's Lunacy, or otherways, whereby either is made unable to render Nuptial right; And then Bucer concludeth the lawfulness 
(z) Vbi supra, p. 124.  of Divorce, and marriage again, and saith: It is, verbo Dei 
(a) Vbi supra. p. 124. and see pag. 120.  consentienter, agreeable to the Word of God. Furthermore, 
(y) Vbi supra. c. 42. p. 123. & 124.  It was decreed in Geneva, that if the Husband were 
(b) Vide Canon's Gener. l●● Genevenses, anno 1560.  absent, the wife might cause a prefixed time of his return to be proclaimed; and if he returned not within that time, the Minister might give the wife licence, to take another Husband. Which kind of Divorce, and second Marrying again, is also defended by Beza 
(c) L. de repudi● 5. pag. ●85. , by Amandus 
(d) In partitionib. Theolog. pag. 730.  Polanus, by M. Willet 
(e) In his Synops. of Anno 1600. ; Yea this kind of divorce is so defended by Bucer, as that he teacheth the wife may so proceed, in case only of one years voluntary absence of the Husband.  
Now this former Doctrine of Polygamy, and of Divorce through the causes alleged, is as we see, impugned by almost all other modest writers, as that it needeth not to set down their particular Names; since the contrary Practice is observed even in all Protestant Countries among men of any integrity and honesty in manners and Conversation. Yea that even in case of Divorce upon Adultery, the innocent Party could not marry again, was preached at Paul's Church by D. Dove, and was after defended in the University of Oxford by D. Howson 
(f) In tertia These printed anno 16●● , and it is the professed doctrine of most others. And thus much touching the Protestants Disagreement, concerning the Doctrine of Polygamy, and Divorce.   

The XXI. Paragraph.  
NOw after I have discovered the great and irreconcilable dissensions of the points above set down, I will descend to certain Catholic Articles (different from some Catholic points above touched,) in which diverse Protestants do compart with us Catholics therein, and many more do dissent from their other Brethren teaching with us. And because I will make choice to set down twenty Catholic Articles (besides those above entreated of, some one or two only excepted, of which it is discoursed above) wherein the Protestants do mainly differ from the Protestants; in regard therefore of the multiplicity of the Articles, and because I fear, I have already dulled the cares of the Reader with a fastidious tediousness, in discovering the particular sentences and words of the Protestants, either affirming or condemning the foresaid points above treated of; I will content myself in these Catholic points following, only to refer the Reader to such places of the Protestants Writings and books, wherein these ensuing Catholic Points are either defended or impugned; forbearing (for greater brevity) to produce their particular Words and Authorities.  
1. And I will begin with Christ his descending into Hell, presently after his Corporal Death: This is taught by D. Hill 
(l) In his special of that ●ila. , and by Melancthon, M. newel, and Aretius (all Protestants,) all which Authors are alleged by the said Doctor 
(m) D. Hill ubi supra. fol. 33. & 44.  Hill; yet is this Doctrine impugned for popish, by Beza 
(n) In Act. 2. , Bucer 
(o) In Math. 26. , and infinite others.  
2. Limbus Patrum is in like sort taught, by Oecolampadius 
(p) In l. Epist. Swinglij & Oecolampad. l. 1. p. 19 , by 
(q) Swinglius in his Epist. Swinglij & Oecolampadij. l. 3. p. 560. & 561.  Swinglius, by Peter 
(r) In his Common places Englished. part. 2 cap. 18 pag. 161.  Martyr, by Lascitius 
(s) In his book entitled de Russorum & Muscovit. relig. pag. 122. & 123.  the Protestant, and by Bullinger 
(t) In his Decades. fol. 66. ; But contradicted by most other Protestants.  
3. Intercession of Saints, defended by Oecolampadius 
(u) Oecolampad. ad Orat. 1. Chrysostomy de Iwentio & Maximo Martyr. , by M. Latimer 
(x) Act. Hon. pag. 1322. , and others; yet impugned by D. Whitaker 
(y) Contra Duraum. pag. 793. , and most other Protestants.  
4. Intercession of Angels, maintained by Caluin 
(z) Instit. l. 1. c. 14. sect. 6. & 7. , Melancthon 
(a) In Apolog. Confess. August. fol. 179. , M. Hooker 
(b) L. 5. sect. 23. pag. 52. & 53 , D. Covell 
(c) In his answer to M. john Burges, pag. 90. , Peter Martyr, and by the Communion 
(e) Printed 1549. fol. 117.  book in King Edward's time: Impugned by most Protestant's.  
5. Invocation of Saints, allowed by Luther, who saith: De invocatione 
(f) In purgatione quorundam Articulorum.  Sanctorum cum tota Ecclesia Christiana sentio & iudico, Sanctos esse invocandos; By Oecolampadius 
(g) In Orat. 1. Chrysostom. de Iwentio & Maximo. , by certain Protestants in Polonia (whereof see 
(h) In Loc. Theolog. l. 3. stat 4. loc. 5. pag. 463.  Hafferenferus) by Latimer 
(i) Act. Mon. pag. 1312. , by Thomas Bilney 
(k) Act. Mon pag. 462. : contradicted by most other Protestants.  
6. Payer for the Dead, taught by Luther and Vrbanus Regius, 
(d) alleged by D. Covell in the place above cited.  as Vrbanus 
(l) In prima parte Operum, in Formula cautè loquenoi. cap. de Sanctorum cultu.  Regius doth witness; by the 
(m) Printed 1549. fol. 116.  Communion Book in king Edward's time; by 
(n) Act. mon. pag. 149.  William Thorpe, and by Martin Bucer 
(o) In his Script. Anglican. p. 450. . Hereto may be annexed the Doctrine of Purgatory, taught by Luther 
(p) Luther. tom. 1. Wittenberg. in resolute. de Indulgentijs conclus. 15. fol. 112. , and taught in Disputatione Lipsica cum Ickio, and by Latiner 
(q) Act. Mon. pag. 1313 & 1315. .  
7. That the ten Commandments are not Impossible, taught by M. Perkins 
(r) In his reformed Catholic. p. 26. & 51. , by M. Hooker 
(s) Ecclesiast. policy. l. 2. pag. 101. ; who is reprehended therefore by certain English Protestants in their Christian Letter to that Reverend man M. R. Hooker; Taught also by M. 
(t) In his meditation upon the 122. psal. printed 160●.  Willet, by Castalio 
(u) de Perfecta Obedient. legis Dei.  the eminent Protestant, who is therefore impugned by Doctor 
(x) In his second Conclusion annexed to his Conference. pa. 697.  Reynolds.  
8. Patronage of certain Angels over certain Countries and Kingdoms, maintained by Caluin 
(z) Caluin. Instit. l. 1. cap. 14. sect 7. , by Peter 
(a) In his Common places in English. part. 1. pag. 1●0.  Martyr, by Hyperius 
(b) In Method. Theolog. pag. 297.  the Protestant & others; yet impugned by M. Willet 
(c) In Synops. pa. 264. , D. Fulke 
(d) Against the Rhemish Testament. in Reuel. 1. , and many others.  
9 Images to be in Churches, maintained by Luther, and Brentius (as 
(e) Beza so saith in respon. ad act. Colloq. Montis belgar. part. altera, in Praefat. pag. 12.  Beza witnesseth) by jacobus 
(f) in Epitome. Colloq. Montis. belg. pag. 39  Andraeas, by 
(g) In his Examen part. 4. pag. 14 & p. 33.  Kempnitius, by 
(h) In Cent. Exercitas. Theolog. pag. 270.  Bachmannus etc. yet contradicted by D. 
(i) Against the Rhemish Testament in 1. Epist. joan. cap. 1. fol. 456.  Fulke, and almost all the Puritans.  
10. Touching Reverence and bowing down at the name of jesus (which is the same to the ear, which Images are to the eye:) This Reverence is defended by Doctor Whitguift 
(k) In his Defence, pag. 742. , by Musculus 
(l) In loc. Comm. pag. 59  the Great Protestant) by the learned 
(m) In Epist. Pauli ad Philip. Coloss. c. 2. fol. 123.  Zanchius, by Leonard 
(n) In his Summon for sleepers.  Wright (the Protestant;) Finally by Queen Elizabeth's 
(o) Art. 52.  Injunctions: Contradicted for Popish by all the most forward Protestants.  
11. That the Good works of one may help another, is maintained by 
(p) In loc. come. de Eucharistico sacrificio in his Edition of anno 1561. pag. 425.  Melancthon, and by the Harmony of Confessions p. 298. yet impugned by the greater number of Protestants.  
12. That Christ (as man) was from his Nativity, freed from Ignorance, is defended by jacobus Andraeas 
(*) In Epitome. Colloq. Montisbelg. p 33. , by Osiander 
(r) In Euchirid. controvers. printed Tubingae. 1603. p. 146, 147. , and generally affirmed by most of the Lutheran Protestant's, over many to recite; And yet impugned by Beza 
(s) In resp. ad Acta. Colloq. Montisbelg. part. 1. pag. 147. & 148. , D. Willet, 
(t) D. Willet in his Synops. p. 199. & p. 600  and M. Sutcliffe 
(u) M. Sutcliffe in his review and Examination of D. kellison's Survey, printed 1606. p. 55. , who will not ascribe to the Humane Nature of Christ, fullness of knowledge, in respect of its Personal Union with the Godhead, but thus saith to the contrary: If Christ, as Man, by the Union, be Omniscient, why is he not Omnipresent, and in all places?  
13. Evangelicall Counsels (to wit, that a Man may do and perform more, than he is commanded) taught by 
(x) Luther, in Assort. ar. 36.  Luther, by D. Covell 
(y) In his Defence of M. Hooker. Art. ●. p. 49. 50. 51. 52 , by M. (z) Hooker: Impugned by M. Willet 
(z) Ecclesiast policy, l. 3. sect 8. p. 140.  (who particularly 
(a) In his Meditation upon the 122. Psal. p. 91.  chargeth M. Hooker with his Defence of this and other Catholic Opinions; In like sort impugned by M. Perkins 
(b) In his reformed Catholic. p. 241. , and many others.  
14. That it cannot be known to us, which Scriptures be sacred, which not, otherwise then by the Church's Tradition; affirmed by Peter Martyr 
(c) In his come. places pa. 1. c. ●. sect. 8. , by Lubbertus 
(d) De Princip. Chrstian Dogm. l. 1. c. 4. p. 18.  (the Protestant) by D. Whitaker 
(e) Aduersus Stapletonum. l. 2. cap. 6. p. 370. & p. 357. & l. 2. c. 4. p. 300. & p. 298. , by M. Hooker 
(f) Eccl. Pol. l. 1. sect. 14. p. 86. & l. 2. sect. 4. p. 102. & l. 3. sect. 8. p. 147. , and some others: Yet impugned by 
(g) Inst. l. 1. c. 7. Sect. 4.  Caluin, Vrsinus 
(h) Vrsinus in his doctrinae Christianae compend. in Proleg. p. 13.  the Protestant, as also by certain English 
(i) In their Christian Letter to M. Hooker, p. 9 & 10.  Protestants.  
15. That Infants have not actual Faith in the time of their Baptising, is affirmed by D. Whitaker 
(k) D. Whita. contra Duraeum. l. 8. p. 6●1. , by Beza 
(l) In resp. ad Act. Montisbelg. part. 2. p. 124. , by M. Cartwright 
(m) In D. Whitguifts Defence, p. 611. , by jacob Kimzdocus 
(n) In his Redemption of mankind, l. 〈◊〉, 15. p. 654.  (the Protestant) and by most other Protestant's: Yet impugned by Luther 
(o) Luther in loc. come. Class. 2. p. 122. , by Andraeas 
(p) See Andraeas his words, in Beza his resp. ad Act. Colloq. Montisb. part. ● p. 124. , and generally by the Lutherans.  
16. That the Sacraments of the Old Testament were not equal in working and effect, with the Sacraments of the New Testament, affirmed for the most part by the Lutherans, whereof see Schlusselburg 
(q) In Theol. Caluin. l. 1 fol. 95. , Luther 
(r) Loc. Com. Class. 1. p. 88 , and Osiander 
(s) In Epit. Cent. 11. p. 411. ; yet the contrary maintained by the Caluinists, of which point see 
(t) In his Synops. p. 418.  M. Willet.  
17. Auricular Confession of sins, taught by 
(u) In loc. Com. de Confession, fol. 289.  Sarcerius the Protestant, thus writing: Falsum est etc. It is false to affirm, that Confession, which is made to God, should take away all Private Confession. The same is taught, by Lobechius 
(x) In Disput. Theol. pa. 295. sect. 4. , by Schlusselburg 
(y) In Theolog. Caluinist. l. 2. fol. 147. , by Melancthon 
(z) Lib. Epist pag. 234. , by the Confessions 
(a) In the Harmony of confessions, pag. 231. & p. 357. & 358.  of Saxony and Bohemia, and diverse others; yet impugned for Popish, by most of the Puritans.  
18. That Temporal punishment is reserved for sin remitted, by God's justice, is affirmed by john Knox 
(b) In his answer against the Adversaries of God's Predestination. pag. 215. 216, 217. , by Gasper Olevianus 
(c) In Symbolum. pag. 8.  the Protestant) and by the Public Confessions of the Protestants; yet contradicted for Popish, as implying the Doctrine of Purgatory, by M. Willet 
(e) In Synops. pag. 514. , by Caluin, Beza etc. and most other earnest Protestants.  
19 That the true Visible Church cannot wholly err, affirmed by D. Bancroft 
(f) In a Sermon, preached by D. Bancroft. , by the Divines of Geneva 
(g) In their Propositions and Principles disputed, pag. 141 sect. 12. & 13. , by M. Fox 
(h) Act. Mon. pag. 999. , and others: Impugned by D. Fulke 
(i) In his answer to a Counterfeit Catholic. pag. 8●. , who thus writeth: The whole Church Militant consisting of men, which all are liars, may err altogether, as every part thereof; And impugned in like sort by the Puritans, who in their brief Discovery of untruths 
(k) Pag. 34. , do reprove D. Bancroft for his teaching the contrary Doctrine, in a Sermon preached by the said Doctor, 1588. pag. 34.  
20. That set times of Fasting, and from 
(d) In the Harmony of Confess. pag. 229.  certain meats appointed, not only for polytick Order, but for spiritual considerations, is affirmed by the Protestant Author of the book, entitled: Quaerimonia 
(l) Pag. 31. & 94. and 103.  Ecclesiae, printed Londini 1592. who reproveth Arius for his denying of all religious Fasting; who also answereth the Objection of Montanus. It is also affirmed by M. Hooker 
(m) Eccles. polic. l. 5. sect. 72. p. 204. & 205. , in so much, as he 
(n) M. Hooker ubi suprà, 209.  answereth the vulgar objection of Montanus, and the Common objection from S. Paul 1. Timoth. 4. and thus concludeth: Arius was worthily condemned for his opposition against Fasting. Yet is this Doctrine gainsaid for Popish, by D. Whitaker 
(o) Contra Duraeum. l. 9 pag. 830. , who objecteth 1. Timoth. 4. to prove this Fasting to be the Doctrine of the Devils. In like sort the foresaid Doctrine is condemned, as Popish, by D. Fulke, who to the contrary, objecteth 
(p) D. Fulke against the Rhemish Testament. in Math. 15. sect. 5. fol. 28.  Montanus, and defendeth Arius 
(q) D. Fulke, in his Answer to a Counterfeit Catholic. pag. 45. .  
Thus far touching these former twenty Points of Catholic Religion, maintained by diverse learned Protestants, and contradicted in great Dissension of spirit, by other Protestants.   

The XXII. Paragraph.  
IN this last place of Displaying the Protestants Disagreements, I will insist in certain Catholic Points, the which, though the Protestants which are to be alleged, do not wholly embrace and entertain them, as absolutely true (as the former Protestants above cited have done, touching the twenty Articles already discoursed of;) yet they hold them to be of that Adiaphorous Nature, and indifferency, as that either by denying or affirming them, the said Protestants hereafter to be produced, do hold them to stand compatible with man's Salvation; though other more severe Protestants do altogether condemn the said Articles as Popish, and do exclude the Believers of them from all hope of Salvation: So irresolute and contradicting the Protestants are among themselves, in their different and irreconcilable judgements, and Censures herein.  
1. To begin. First, touching prayer to Saints, D. Goad, 
(r) D. Goad & D Fulke, in the Disputation had in the Tower, with Fat. Campian. 2. days conference, argum. 8. rat. 111.  and D Fulke thus write: It doth not exclude from being members of the Church etc.  
2. Touching the Real Presence, D. Reynolds thus saith: the Real 
(s) In his 5. Conclusion, annexed to his Conference pag. 722.  Presence is but (as it were) the grudging of a former Ague, if the Party otherwise hold the Christian Faith. jacobus Acontius (a learned Protestant) thus accordeth with D. Reynolds, saying: It is 
(t) In l. 3. Stratagem. Satanae. p. 135.  evident, as well concerning those who hold the Real Presence of Christ's Body in the bread, as those others which deny it, that although of necessity the one part do err, yet both are in the way of Salvation, if in other things they be obedient. And Frith (one of M. Fox his Martyrs) saith: The 
(u) Act. Mon. pag. 503.  matter touching the substance of the Sacrament, bindeth no man of necessity to Salvation, or Damnation, whether he believe it, or not. Luther's judgement is the like herein touching Transubstantiation, as he is cited by Amandus 
(x) In his Syllog. Thesium Theolog. pag. 464.  Polanus.  
3. Touching Receiving under one, or both kinds, Luther thus writeth: Quamuis 
(y) Luth. in Epist. ad Bobemos.  pulcrum quidem esset etc. Although it were very seemly to use both the kinds in the Eucharist; and though Christ in this matter did not command any thing, as necessary; yet it were better to affect Peace, then to contend about the species, or Forms of this Sacrament. And Luther further thus writeth: Si 
(z) Luth. de utraque specie Sacramenti.  veneris ad locum, ubi tantum una species ministratur, cum alijs una tantum specie utere etc. If thou come to such a place where one only species or Form is ministered, then with such men use only one Form or species. And the same Indifferency of receiving under one or both kinds, is further taught by 
(a) Melancthon, in ●ent. E●ist. Theolog. p. 252.  Melancthon, and other 
(b) See these other Protestants holding the indifferency of this point, alleged and by M. jewel not denied in his Reply. pag. 110. 106.  Protestants. And yet every man knoweth, that almost all Puritan-Protestants do seek to charge the Catholics with breach (as they pretend) of our Saviour's Precept, in receiving the Sacrament only under one kind.  
4. Concerning Freewill, M. Perkins thus teacheth: A weaking Error is that, the holding whereof doth not overturn any point in the Foundation of Salvation, as the Error of Freewill, and other such like. Of the same judgement is M. Cartwright 
(d) In his Reply. 14 sect. 1.2. and in M. Whitguifts Defence, p. ●2. , touching Freewill, Prayer for the Dead, and a number of others, as necessary Doctrines, wherein (saith he) Men, being nuzzled, have notwithstanding been saved. And M. Cartwright a little before in the place alleged, thus writeth. 
(c) In his Exposition of the Creed. pag. 402.  If you mean by matters of Faith, and necessary to Salvation, those, without which a man cannot be saved; then the Doctrine, which teacheth there is no Freewill, or Prayer for the Dead, is not within your Compass. For I doubt not, but divers Fathers of the Greek Church, who were great Patroness of Freewill, are saved. The same indifferency of Prayer for the Dead, is maintained by D. Fulke 
(e) Confutation of Purgatory. pa. 336. , by Penry 
(f) Penry in his book entitled: M. Some laid open p. ●●. , by john 
(g) Frith. Act. men. pag. 501.  Frith, and others.  
5. Concerning the Indifferency of honouring Saints Relics, and prayer for the Dead, M. Sparks thus writeth: We 
(h) Answer to M. Albins. p. 382.  are not so hasty, to pronounce sentence of Damnation for any such Errors: For you know well enough, that we make not these matters such, as that either we think all must he saved that hold the one way; or all condemned, that hold the other.  
6. Touching our B. Ladies being preserved from Original sins, and the worshipping of Images, M. Bunny holdeth these Points as mere Indifferences, thus writing: In 
(i) In his Pacification, sect. 12. p. 104. & 105.  these (points) and such like, whosoever will condemn all those to be none of the Church, that are not fully persuaded herein, as we are etc. committeth an uncharitable Act to those his brethren.  
7. Concerning Satisfaction, and Merit of works, D, Whitaker thus writeth: The Father's 
(k) Contra Camp. p. 7●. And M. Willam Reynolds. c. ●. p. 135. & 136.  thought by their external Discipline of life, to pay the pains due for sin; wherein they derogated not a little from Christ his Death etc. which though it be an Error, yet were they notwithstanding good Men, and holy Fathers.  
8. Concerning the Pope's Primacy. M. Wotton 
(l) Answer to a Popish 〈◊〉.  denieth, That to hold the King's Supremacy, is an essential Point of Faith? But Luther thus extenuateth this point, saying: The Pope's 
(m) Luth. in Assert. art. 36.  Primacy is among those unnecessary trifles, wherein the Pope's levity and foolishness is to be borne withal. And Melancthon is no less indifferent in this Article, thus writing: The 
(n) Melancth. in his Epistle, extant, in the book, entitled: Centuria Epistolar. Theologicarum. Epist. 74. pag. 245.  Monarchy of the Bishop of Rome is profitable to this end, that consent may be retained; wherefore an agreement might easily be established, in this article of the Pope's Primacy, if other Articles could be agreed upon.  
9 Touching Mass, Luther thus speaketh of the Indifferency thereof: Private 
(o) Luth. in Colloq. Germanic. cap. de Missa.  Mass hath deceived many Saints, and carried them away into Error, from the time of Gregory, for eight hundred years. And tindal thus speaks hereof: I doubt 
(p) Act. Mon. pag. 1338.  not, but that S. Bernard, Francis, and many other holy Men erred, as concerning Mass. So well in his judgement did Mass stand with holiness.  
10. In this last place, touching the Indifferency of Mass, and diverse other points of Faith, Benedict Morgensterne thus writeth: Condonanda 
(q) In tract. de Eccles. pa. 41. there writing of former times.  erant pijs etc. These things were pardonable in the godly, who held the Pope to be the Vicar of Christ and head of the Church, Saints for Mediators, and the Mass for the Supper of our Lord. In like sort M. Francis johnson (the Protestant) thus writeth: Did not john 
(r) In M. jacobs' Defence of the Church, and Ministry of England. pag. 13.  hus, that worthy Champion of Christ, & others also of the Martyrs of foretimes, say & hear Mass even to their dying Day? etc. Did not diverse of them acknowledge, some the Pope's calling and Supremacy, some seven Sacraments, some auricular Confession? etc.  
Thus far these Protestants touching the Indifferency of these former Catholic Points, teaching most differently from the judgments of other Protestants, maintaining that the belief of the said Points stand not with Salvation. And thus far touching the incredible Dissensions and Diametrical oppositions of the Protestants among themselves, concerning so many Articles of Christian Faith, displayed & laid open throughout this whole Treatise. And here now I refer to the Censure of the judicious (as I did in the Front of this Discourse) whether that a man (solicitous and careful of his Salvation) can with any show of Reason, Communicate with that Church, which is thus divided with the maintenance of such cross, and contradictory Opinions, as we find the Protestants in these few leaves to be. And where perhaps it may be here replied (for Error is glad of a weak Sanctuary) by some one or other in this sort (as is intimated in the Preface): I Profess myself to be a Protestant, according to the Form of English Protestancy: what for ayne Protestants do write, or how they do differ among themselves, I am not to regard; This refuge, and tergiversation is most poor.  
First, in that there is no more reason, why a man should be rather an English Protestant, than any other kind of Protestant: Since all kinds of Protestancy (as rejecting the authority of God's universal Church) proceed Originally from the private Spirit, to the which, Protestancy even commits Idolatry; And yet there is no more reason, why an English Protestant should assume to himself an infallibility of his private Spirit, than any other foreign Protestant of other Country. Secondly, because the English Protestants have no reason to disclaim from the Protestants of other Countries, if so we will believe the English Protestants themselves; for D. jewel (though most falsely) thus teacheth: The Lutherans, and the Swinglians 
(s) D. jewel in his Apology of the Church of England. p. 101.  (within which number the English Protestants are comprehended) are good friends, they vary not between themselves, upon the principles and Foundations of their Religion, but only upon one Question, which is neither weighty, nor great. With whom agreeth D. Whitaker speaking to his Adversary Father Campian, for his conjoining together the Lutherans and Swinglians in Faith and Religion; for this Doctor thus writeth: Quòd 
(t) In respon ad rationes Camp. rat. 8. versus ●●em.  autem Lutheran●s cum Swinglianis coniungere voluisti, in eo nos quidem nequaquam offendisti etc. In that thou dost conjoin and unite the Lutherans & the Swinglians together, thou dost not offend us; for we willingly honour Luther as our Father, and all them (meaning the Lutherans and the Swinglians) as our most Dear Brethren in Christ. Thirdly, the inveterate Dissensions even among the English moderate Protestants themselves, as also between the English moderate Protestants against the English Puritans, both touching the Translation of the English Bible, the Common book of prayer, and diverse other points of Controversies above displayed, manifesteth the shallowness of this former Reply.  
Thus much concerning the avoiding of this silly Refuge; & I have thought good to insist in the discovering the vanity of it in this place (though it be above touched in the Preface, only by mentioning of it) because it is the ordinary Asyle, or Sanctuary, whitherunto many Protestants do fly, when they hear the Catholics to upbraid them with mutual Dissensions, in the Articles of Protestancy.   

The XXIII. Paragraph.  
NOw before I close up this Treatise, I will draw certain Inferences, or Resultancies out of the former Premises.  
1. The First whereof may concern the belief of the former Catholic Points by Protestants; which belief is indeed no supernatural belief (I mean, it is not any of the three supernatural virtues) but only it is in them a mere private opinion or inducement, to give a natural consent to that, which is true. For the better and more clear illustration of which point, the Reader is to conceive, that two things do necessarily concur to the producing of the Virtue of supernatural Faith. The one is, Prima 
(u) S. Thomas part. 2. q. 8.  veritas revelans, which is God: The other is called the authority of the Church. This prima veritas revelans, being God, is otherwise called by the Divines, Obiectum formale Fidei. This prima veritas, doth reveal all true points of Faith. The second; to wit, The Authority of the Church, is called Amussit, Regula, or the Propounder, because it propoundeth to the members of the Church, all such points to be believed, which God revealed to the Church to be believed. Now to apply this to our purpose: This Prima veritas revelant, as also this Propounder do indifferently propound to the Members of the Church, all points of Faith to be believed, as well as any one only point; and the Persons to whom such points of Faith are revealed, and propounded to be believed, do through the same authority of the Church believe all points of Faith, to be revealed alike. Therefore seeing the former Protestants believing the former particular Catholic Articles, do believe them, not through the Authority of the Church, propounding them to be believed; for if they did believe them, by force thereof, they would in like sort believe all other Catholic points; seeing all of them are alike revealed by God to the Church, and alike propounded by the Church to Christians to be believed: Therefore from hence it followeth, that the former Protestants do believe the foresaid Catholic Points, only through the force of their own private spirit, which entertaineth them as points probable and true. And thus the Close of all is, that the said Protestants do believe, or rather give assent unto Truths, falsely, (so man's Ghostly Enemy, when he speaketh the truth, he lies,) that is, they believe truths upon false Grounds and Principles; For they believe certain Catholic Doctrines; but they believe not the Church teaching those Doctrines. Thus much touching the first Porisma.  
2. The second shallbe the scandal and stumbing block, which these great Dissensions among the Protestants do beget, in the minds of other Protestant's; to wit, a forsaking of the Protestant Religion, and embracing the Catholic Religion. To begin: We find Duditius (the markable Protestant) thus to confess of this point: The 
(x) Beza in his Epistol. Theolog. Epist. ad Andraeam Duditium. p. 13. rela●teth Duditius thus to say.  Protestants are carried about with every wind of Doctrine, now to this part, now to that; whose religion what it is to day, you may perhaps know; but what it willbe to morrow, neither you, nor they can certainly tell. Thus Duditius. And Sir Edwin Sands in like manner thus writeth: Protestants 
(a) In his relation, etc. fol. 8.  are as severed, or rather scattered troops, each drawing adverseway etc. In like sort, Georgint Maior (a great Lutheran) thus disconsolately writeth: Obijciunt 
(b) In Orat. de Confusionibus Dogmatum veteribus, & recentibus. &  nobis Papistae etc. The Papists do object to us Scandals and Dissensions; I do freely acknowledge such to be as cannot be sufficiently lamented. And Melancthon thus complaineth hereof, as is above noted; Nulla 
(c) Melanch. in Concil. Theolog. part. 1. pag. 245.  res aequè deterret homines ab Euangelio ac nostra Discordia; no one thing deterreth and withdraweth men more from the Gospel, than the Discord among our selves. And upon this ground it is, that Dresserus the Protestant, thus speaketh of Staphylus who was once a Protestant; Oh Theologorum dissidia 
(d) Dresserus in Millenar. ●. pa. 214.  ad Catholicos defecit Staphylus. Staphylus revolted to the Catholics, by reason of the Disagreements among the (Protestant) Divines. And dare our Adversaries notwithstanding, suggest the Protestant Church to be the true Church, it being thus deprived of Unity, the inseparable mark of the true Church?  
3. A third may be, that whereas many Protestants above alleged, do approve and allow many Articles of our Catholic Faith, that such Confessions even of the Adversaries themselves, do much advantage our said Religion; For why should their judgements agree with the Catholic Church therein, but that the force of the Truth constraineth them thereto? and therefore it is truly said of D. Whitaker: The 
(e) Whitak. contra Bellarm. l. de Eccles. Controvers. 2. q. 5. c. 14.  argument must be strong and efficacious, which is taken from the Confessions of the Adversaries: And I do freely acknowledge, that Truth is able to extort testimonies even from its Enemies. Whose Sentence herein is agreeable to the judgement of Irenaeus thus writing: It is 
(f) Lib. 4. c. 14,  an unanswerable proof, that bringeth attestation from the Adversaries themselves. And further it may be inferred, that seeing most Protestants do reject the Doctrine of Traditions, that therefore those Protestants who are related above to give an assent to our Catholic Positions, do consequently believe, that the said Articles are most agreeable to the Holy Scriptures; seeing these Protestants will believe nothing as matter of Faith, but what hath its proof from Scripture.  
4. A Fourth is, their rejecting of parts of true Scripture, and their contentions, touching the several translations of confessed Scripture. Now it bring once granted, that it is not certainly known, what books be Scripture, and that all translations of Scripture yet extant are false; how prejudicial must this be to the Protestants, who erect the Scripture alone for the sole judge of all Controversies in Faith? Seeing admitting, that the Scripture should be this judge, yet this is to be understood of those writings, which are infallibly Divine Scripture, and are truly and faithfully translated; Since otherwise such books of the Bibles, which are Spurious and not the true Word of God, and such Translations of true Scripture, which are adulterated, and made contrary to the Sense of the Holy Ghost therein, should become this judge; And thus it followeth, that the Protestants till this day (even by their own implicit Censure) never enjoyed a true judge, for the deciding of Controversies in saith.  
5. Touching the imaginary facility in finding out the true sense of the Scripture, justified not only by some learned Protestants; but also by every silly Puritanical Woman, and Mechanical fellow that can out read, vaunting themselves to be (as it were) possessed with the Holy Ghost; how dangerously doth this assertion lie open to the defence of any Heresy? I will here set down some few Texts, whereof the literal words may seem to justify strange Errors and Heresies: so certain Drugs taken in their gross substance, are hurtful to a man's health, which being extracted, become most medicinable. The texts shallbe these: 1. The King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, who only hath Immortality. 1. Timoth. c. 6. Now from this place one might seem to argue, that since God alone is immortal, the soul of Man is not immortal, but dyeth with the body: an Atheistical blasphemy. 2. He that striketh thee on the Cheek, offer also the other; and him, that taketh away thy Cloak, forbidden not to take thy Coat also. Luke 6. Which words of our Saviour seem to imply that we must offer upon such an occasion, the other cheek to be strocken, and suffer our Coat to be taken away with our Cloak; And if we do not this we sin, since it is a sin, not to observe the precept of Christ. 3. Call no man your Father upon earth. Math. 23. etc. Which words seem to sound, that the son ought not to call that man, which begot him, Father. 4. If any man come to me, and hateth not his Father and mother, and Wife and brethren, and sisters etc. he cannot be my Disciple. Luc. 14. Here the naked words sound, that whereas in the ten Commandments we are taught to honour our Father and mother, as also obliged to love our wives and friends; yet here the next way to serve Christ truly, is to hate our Parents, our Wyves, & other our nearest Friends. 5. Vanum est vobis ante lucem surgere; Psalm. 126. It is but vain for you, to rise before it he light; thus it seems a man ought not to rise before Sunrising: A good pretence for sluggards. 6. Melchisedech King of Salem etc. Without Father, without mother without Genealogy, having neither beginning of Days, or end of Life. Hebr. 7. A text, from whence (if one rest only in the naked Words) an illiterate man may seem to evict, that this Melchisedech, being a man, is nevertheless as it were another God, as neither having beginning nor ending, as being sempiternal; And also that he is another Adam, as not begotten by any Carnal Copulation. 7. I do accomplish those things (quae desunt passionum Christi) that want of the Passions of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the Church. Colos. 1. From whence the poor Puritan-Reader might be induced to think, that the Apostle did here speak no less than blasphemy, as intimating, that something were wanting, or defective in the Passion of Christ, which himself was to fulfil and make perfect. 8. Lastly, to turn my Pen more particularly to our She-ignorant Puritans, who by carrying the Bible, they think they can understand any part thereof: Now how would these ignorant Fools understand this text against themselves, Melior est iniquitas viri, quam mulier benefaciens; The Iniquity or wickedness of a man, is better than a Woman doing good? Ecclesiast. 42. by which words the Puritan-Woman must be forced to confess (understanding the words, as they simply lie) that a man fraught with all wickedness, is to be preferred before herself, who seems to be full of the spirit, and the written word. Thus far these few examples (for instance sake) to the which many hundred more may be adjoined. All which are most true in the sacred and intended sense of the Holy Ghost; yet they convince, that the Scriptures are not of that facility and easiness for the perfect understanding of them, as diverse Protestants alleged towards the beginning of this Treatise (merely contrary to the more grave judgements of other Protestants their brethren) do make show to teach.  
6. In this next place, we may call to mind, what Indignity and dishonour, that most blasphemous and miscreant Opinion and Sentence of Swinglius, and his Companions (as so many Charon's, serving to waste souls over to Hell) do offer to the Christian Faith, by teaching (as is above shown) most differently from all their own Christian Protestant Brethren, That a man though not believing in Christ so that he lead not a wicked life, may be saved. For who holdeth this for true, little pryseth the Passion of Christ; they being in the number of those, of whom it is said: They deny 
(g) 1. Petr. 2.  him, that bought them; the Lord bringing upon themselves speedy Damnation: So forgetfulll they are of that other sacred Sentence: There is no 
(h) john. 1.  other Name under Heaven, given unto men, then that of jesus, wherein we must be saved. And thus these men make him to become to themselves, Petra Scandali, who to all good Christians is, Lapis angulularis.  
7. Touching the Diversity of Persons, which are included within the members of the Protestant Church, above defended by some Protestants, and denied by others; Their disagreements are so uncertain, as that some admit Papists, Anabaptists, Arians, Heret●kes, Infidels, yea (by supposal) Antichrist himself; So making their Church to consist of certain mongrel Persons; whereas other Protestants do exclude all these kinds from being members of the Protestant Church; Now I say, their irresolution and uncertainty of judgement is so wonderful herein; as that no Protestant) can assure himself; with what kind of men he may communicate in practice of Faith & Religion, and from what men he ought to abstain, in all such spiritual intercourse and association.  
8. Touching the denial of Freewill, the certainty of Reprobation, and of Predestination, and both without any reference to our good or bad works: Contrary to other learned Protestants judgements. How do all these Doctrines most forcibly impel men to the perpetrating of the most flagitious crimes whatsoever? Seeing upon these their grounds (granting them by supposal for true) they may justly Apologise for themselves. First, that they are to be pardoned in all such their Enormous actions, seeing they had not  to forbear the committing of them; & punishment even in force of Reason, belongeth to such only, in whose power it is to do, or not to do such or such a wicked thing. Secondly, they may Reply, that seeing by their former Doctrines of Predestination and Reprobation, a vicious life is no way prejudicial to a man's predestination, not a virtuous life for the preventing of Reprobation, why may they not then live, yea become thrall to all pleasure, voluptuousness, & sensuality without any remorse or sting of Conscience? Again, by their said Doctrines of Predestination and Reprobation, we yearly see many most lamentable Tragedies of diverse, shortening their own days by violent deaths, wrought by their own Hands; some even butchering themselves, through a vain hope and expectation of arriving the sooner to Heaven; And others again perpetrating the like, through a most wicked and desperate conceit of their Reprobation, & that it is not in their power (concurring with God's grace) to prevent it: so forgetful these men are of those most comfortable words of holy Scripture: 
(i) Ezech. 18.31.32.  Cast away all your transgressions etc. for I desire not the death of him, that dyeth. This speaketh he, who hath placed his 
(1) Psalm. 18.  Tabernacle in the Sun; and who himself, being Sol increatus, is not inexorable; but will lend a willing ear to him who hath true penitency of his sins, saying to such: Delevi 
(2) Isa. 44.  ut nubem, iniquitates tuas, & quasi nebulam peccata tua.  
9 In like sort touching their Doctrines, that good works are not available towards justification, nor are respected by God; nor sins or bad works any way exitial or hurtful to Salvation; as also that Tenet of diverse Protestants, that God is the Author of all our Sins; what a sluice and fludgate do these Doctrines open to all turpitude in manners and Conversation? For seeing it is nauseous and ungrateful to man's nature, to weary himself out in the exercise of a virtuous life, if such a life (as wanting all pleasing motives thereto) be no ways beneficial to his Soul; as on the contrary, most sweet to man, to live in all voluptuousness, pleasure, and jovialisme, if so this course cannot be in any sort dangerous to him; and this the more, seeing he is indoctrinated by diverse Protestants, that what sins are committed by him, God is the Author of them, & himself but God's bare instrument therein; they by such their belief running upon the Dint of those words, spoken by the Psalmist in the Person of God: 
(l) Psalm. 128.  supra dorsum meum fabricaverunt peccatores: As if I would say, they have transferred the committing of their sins even upon me. Thus they making God, who died for sin, to be the Patron of sin.  
10. The Doctrine of Polygamy and Divorce, according to Swinglius and others (most different from the judgement of other Protestants) how doth it sow the seeds of dissension between husband and wife to repudiate one the other, and to part a sunder upon the least dislike, or discontent on either side, & bo●h of them to marry again? they being warranted by this Doctrine to take upon occasion of such discontents, as many wives and husbands as they will; so both the parties living after their first Divorce, in a continual state of Adultery, and begetting and bringing forth several broods of bastards.  
11. The Positions of some Protestants above alleged, that no Princes or Magistrates are now to be in the times of the new Testament, engendereth nothing, but a tumultuous Anarchy, intestine simulties, wars and Traitorous insurrections of the Subjects against their Prince; threating (vipar-lyke) an utter evisceration of their own Country: And woe be to that Nation or Realm, which nourisheth such Monsters of sedition and disloyalty, and which placeth all Soveraingty and Principality in the common people, the many- Headed-Tyrant of Mankind; since the certain event thereof will be, that a man's own Country shall finally become a Golgathae, or field of blood. And with this my Pen gives it last pause to this short discourse.    

AN APPENDIX. In which is proved; First, that the ancient Fathers by the acknowledgements of the learned Protestants, taught our Catholic and Roman Faith. Secondly, that the said Fathers have diverse advantages, above the Protestant Writers, for finding out the true sense of the Scripture.  
WHEREAS in this former Treatise (I mean in the tenth Paragraph) we have showed, how most Protestants do contemn the ancient Fathers; exercising their foamy language in the eiuculation of most gaulfull words against them (though the said Fathers be by other more moderate Protestants respected & reverenced:) Now here in this short Appendix I think it to be much convenient; First to show the reason more particularly, why the Protestants do rest disaffected against the Fathers: It being (though above in part intimated) in that it is ackowledged by the Protestant's themselves that all the Articles of Catholic Religion, were with an Uniformity of judgement, believed, taught, and practised by the said Fathers in those most pure times. Secondly, I will make it evident, even with several choaching Reasons, why every Christian Man (solicitous of entertaining a true faith) should prefer the ancient Fathers in the Exposition of the Scriptures (from whence they draw of theirs, and our Catholic faith and Religion) before the different or contrary expositions of them, given by the Protestant Doctors. The discovery of which later Point shall rest in setting down diverse conducing and available Circumstances in behalf of the Fathers, but altogether prejudicial and incompetent to the Protestants. Which two former Points shall be the Subject of this short Appendix.  
Now to begin with the first; I mean, in laying open the acknowledgement of the learned Protestants, that our Catholic Articles are generally taught by the Primitive Fathers of Christ's Church. 1. And first touching the Real presence, we find the Centurists thus to write: 
(a) Cent. 4. cap. 10. col. 985.  Eusebius Emissenus did speak unprofitably of Transubstantiation. And the said Centurists thus confess of chrysostom: 
(b) Cent. 5. Col. 577.  Chrysostomus Transubstantiationem videtur confirmare; nam ita scribit etc. Chrysostom may be thought to confirm Transubstantiation; for thus he writeth etc. Peter Martyr thus chargeth Cyril: 
(c) In his Epistles annexed to his common places, in his Epistle to Beza. pag. 106.  I will not easily subscribe to Cyril, who affirmeth such a Communion, as thereby even the substance of the flesh and blood of Christ, is joined to the Blessings (for so he calleth the holy bread,) Cyprian is no less charged by the Protestants herein; for one of them thus writeth: In 
(d) In the Treatise attributed to Vrsinus.  Cyprian are many sayings, which seem to affirm Transubstantiation. D. Humphrey chargeth S. Gregory (who first by the labour of S. Austin, converted England to Christianity) in this sort: In Ecclesiam 
(e) jesuitism rat. 5.  quid in●exerunt Gregorius & Augustinus? Intulerunt onus Caremoniarum, Oblationem salutaris Hostiae etc. Transubstantiationem. The 
(f) Cent. 4. c. 4. col. 295.  Centurists reprehend Ambrose for not writing well of Transubstantiation. To proceed a little further: whereas the Christians in the days of Tertullian, Cyprian, and Origen, were accused, that they killed Infants, and did eat man's flesh; This calumny 
(g) Osiander Cent. 3. lib. 2. c. ●● pag. 6.  (saith Osiander the Protestant) undoubtedly first arrised, in that Christians believed and confessed, that in the sacred supper of our Lord, the body of Christ was eaten, and his blood drunk. To conclude this point, as most evident, we find Adamus Francisci (a Protestant) thus to write: 
(h) In Margarit. Theolog. pag. 250.  The Papists Invention touching Transubstantiation, crept early into the Church. And Antonius de Adamo (another Protestant) thus acknowledgeth of the Antiquity of Transubstantiation; I have 
(i) In his Anatomy of the Mass.  not been able to know, when the Opinion of the Real and bodily being of Christ in the Eucharist, did first begin.  
2. To descend to the Doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass (which riseth from the former doctrine of Transubstantiation) we first find the Centurists thus to charge 
(k) Cent. 4. c. 4. col. 295.  S. Ambrose: Ambrose locutionibus utitur etc. ut Missam facere, offer sacrificium etc. Ambrose useth those kind of speeches etc. as to say Ma●●●, to offer v● Sacrifice etc. Cyrill of jerusalem is thus reprehended by Hospinian 
(l) Lib. Sacram. pag. ●67. : Quod ad Cyrillum Hieresolymitanum attinet etc. As concerning Cyrill of jerusalem, be indeed affirmed (according to the custom of his times) that the Sacrifice of the Altar was a great help of the souls. Crastovius the Protestant: An ignoramus 
(m) De Opifi●i. Missae. sect. 164.  opinionem Nysseni etc. Are we ignorant, that the Opinion of Nyssene is of itself absurd; who said, that when Christ gave his body to his Disciples to eat, that then his Body was latently, ineffably, and invisibly sacrificed up? D. 
(n) Contra Duraeum. l. 4. pag. 310.  Whitaker chargeth him with the same doctrine. Cyprian is also insimulated within the supposed error of Sacrifice, by the Centurists in this manner; Sacerdotem 
(o) Cent. 3. c. 4. col. 83.  inquit Cyprianus etc. Cyprian affirmeth, that the Priest doth enjoy the place of Christ, and offereth Sacrifice to God the Father. Ignatius (the Apostles Scholar) is thus controlled: Certain 
(p) The Centurists so write of him, in Cent. 2. cap. 4. col. ●3.  things occur in this Father's writings, which are ambiguous, and incommodiously spoken; as in the Epistle of Ignatius ad Smirnenses: Where Ignatius saith that it is not lawful without a Bishop, neither to offer, or to immolate the Sacrifice. I will conclude this point with the large Confession of Caluin, who comprehends the ancient Fathers in general, with teaching the doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass; His words are these: Veteres 
(q) Instit. 4. c. 18.  quoque illos video etc. And, I see, that those ancient Fathers did wrest otherwise the memory hereof (he meaning of the Lords supper) then was agreeing to the Institution of the Lord: for their supper maketh show of an iterated (or at least) renewed Sacrifice etc. For they have imitated more nearly the jewish manner of sacrificing, then either Christ ordained, or the Gospel could well suffer. Thus Caluin. And thus far of the Protestants Confession, touching the Fathers in this point of Sacrifice.  
3. As concerning Invocation of Saintes: D. 
(r) jesuitism. part. 2. rat. 5.  Humphrey confesseth, that Gregory the great, at his first Conversion of England (among other points of the Roman Faith) taught Invocation of Saints. Kempnitius allegeth S. Austin praying to S. Cyprian, of which Act Kempnitius thus censureth: These things 
(s) In Exam. part. 3. pag. 211.  Austin did without Scripture, yielding to the times, and custom. D. Fulke thus writeth: I 
(t) In his Rejoinder to Bristol etc.  confess that Ambrose, Austin and Jerome held invocation of Saints to be lawful. The said Doctor confesseth also more in these words: In 
(u) Against the Rh●mish Testam. in 1. Petr. c. 1.  Nazianzen, Basil, and Chrysostom is mention of Invocation of Saints. The 
(x) Cent. 5. c. 6. col. 635.  Centurists charge S. Chrysostom's Lyturgy with invocation of our B. Lady by name. But the Centurists 
(z) Cent. 3. col. 84.  do not rest here; for they allege sundry examples of Prayer to Saints, in Athanasius, Basill, Nazianzene, Ambrose, Prudentius, Epiphanius, and Ephrem. S. Cyprian is acknowledged by the Centurists to teach: 
(a) Cent. 3. Col. 83.  
(y) Cent. 4. col. 295. 296. 297.  That Martyrs and dead Saints do pray for the living; yea they confess, that Origen prayed to holy job. Thus far (to omit many other like Confessions of the Protestants) touching both the doctrine and practice of Invocation of Saints, in the Writings of the ancient Fathers.  
4. The Doctrine of Purgatory is confessedly taught by the ancient Fathers. D. Fulke thus saith: Acrius 
(b) In his answer to a counterfeit Catholic pag. 44.  taught, that prayer for the dead was unprofitable, as witness both Epiphanius and S. Austin, which they count for an Error. The said Doctor thus further confesseth: 
(c) In his Confutation of Purgatory, pa. 320. 149. & 326. & 349.  Ambrose, chrysostom, and S. Austin allowed prayer for the dead. And yet more: 
(d) Fulke ubi supra pag. 362.  Tertullian, Austin, Cyprian, Jerome, and a great many more do witness, that sacrifice for the dead is the Tradition of the Apostles: A point so evident, that Caluin thus writeth: Ante 
(e) Instit. lib. 3. cap, 5. sect. 10.  mille, & trecentos annos etc. More than thirteen hundred years since, it was received, that prayers were made for the dead etc. But I will grant those times were in error. I will conclude this point with the Confession of M. Gifford, thus writing: 
(f) In his plain demonstration, that our Brownists are Donatists. pag. 38.  Public worship to pray for the souls of the dead, and to offer Oblations for the dead, was generally in the Church before the days of Austin, as appeareth in Cyprian & Tertullian, which were before him, and nearer to the times of the Apostles.  
5. Touching Unwritten Traditions: Whereas S. chrysostom saith; The 
(g) In 2. Thessaly. hom. 4.  Apostles did not deliver all things by writing, but many things without, D. Whitaker in answer heerto faith: I 
(h) De sacra Scriptura pag. 478  answer, that this is an inconsiderate speech, and unworthy so great a Father. Of which saying of chrysostom, as also of S. Basil speaking the like, D. Reynolds thus censureth: I take 
(i) In his conclusions annexed to his Conference. Conclus. pag. 689.  not upon me to control them (meaning the two former Fathers) but let the Church judge, if they considered with advice enough. Whereas S. Austin maintaineth the Doctrine of unwritten Traditions, M. Cartwright thus censureth him therefore: If 
(k) In M Whitguifts defence. pag. 103.  S. Augustine's judgement be a good judgement, than there be some things commanded of God, which are not in the Scriptures; and thereupon no sufficient doctrine contained in the Scriptares. And further: To allow 
(l) Cartwright, ubi suprà,  S. Augustine's saying, is to bring in Popery again. D. Whitaker 
(m) De sacra Scriptura. pag 678. 681. 683. 689. 690. 695. 696.  chargeth chrysostom, Epiphanius, Tertullian, Cyprian, Austin, Innocentius, Leo, Basill, Eusebius, Damascene etc. with maintaining the Doctrine of Traditions. To conclude 
(*) Exem. Concil. Trid. part. 1. pag. 87. 89. 90.  Kemnitius reprehendeth Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Epiphanius, Ambrose, Jerome etc. for their teaching the same Doctrine.  
6. As concerning Images. We find, that 
(n) L. justit. 2 c. ●1. num. 5.  Caluin affirmeth that Gregory the great was not taught in the holy Ghost, because he called Images, Laymens' Books. In like sort the foresaid Father S. Gregory, is reprehended by 
(o) In his Common Places, part. 2, p. 343.  Peter Martyr, 
(p) In his Exam. part. 4 p. 3●.  Kempnitius, and 
(q) Cent. 6. p. 288.  Ostander, for his lawful use of Images. 
(r) In his Pageant of Popes. fol. 33.  Bale maintained, that Leo allowed worshipping of Images. chrysostom is charged for giving reverence to Christ his Image, by D. 
(s) Against Heskins etc.  Fulke. Lactantius is condemned by the 
(t) Cent. 4. col. 408, 409.  Centurists, for that (say they) he affirmeth many superstitious things, concerning the efficacy of Christ's Image. D. Morton thus writeth of the antiquity of Images in Churches: About 
(u) In Protest. Appeal. p. 586.  the foureteenth hundred year, Images crept out of private men's Houses and went into public Churches, there standing etc. To conclude, touching the use of Images, the Centurists 
(x) Cent. 4. col. 409. , Kempnitius 
(y) In Examen. part. 4. p. ●6. 2●. 30. , and Peter 
(z) Parker against Symbolising, part. 2. pag. 32.  Martyr do confess the same from diverse testimonies of Zozomen, Athanasius, Prudentius, & diverse others.  
7. Touching Relics of Martyrs: And first touching Reverence exhibited to them by the ancient Fathers: first we find by the Confession of 
(*) In jesuitism. rat. 5.  D. Humphrey, that Gregory and Austin at their first planting of Christianity in England, did (among other points of Catholic Doctrine) bring in the doctrine of Relics: The which point 
(*) Doct. Fulke against the Rhemish Testam. in Apocal. 6.  D. Fulke acknowledging as true, thus avoideth: Gregory (i) being so near to the Revelation of Antichrist, it is no marvel though he be superstitious to Relics. To ascend to higher times. S. Hierome 
(*) Jerome contra Vigilant.  affirmeth, that the Emperor Constantine did translate the holy Relics of Andrew, Luke, and Timothy to Constanninople; at which, saith he, the devils did roar. Now Bullinger not approving his judgement, thus writeth: 
(a) De Origins Erroris, fol. 67. & 58.  Jerome is over full, in that he saith the devils do roar at the holy Relics of Andrew. S. Ambrose having made a pious discourse touching the reverencing of Martyr's Tombs, the Centurists thus judge thereof: Let 
(b) Cent. 4. p. 301.  the godly reader consider, how horrible these things are, uttered by Ambrose. The Centurists thus reprehend Constantine the first Christian Emperor: With 
(c) Cent. 4. col. 50. 29.  like superstition Constantine is said to have translated to Constantinople certain Relics of the Cross found by Helen, that the Cross might preserve that City. Kempnitius 
(d) In Exam. part. 4. pag. 10.  acknowledgeth the ancient use of carrying of Relics in time of Procession in these words: from Translation of Relics, forthwith was used the carrying of them as is to be seen in Jerome and Austin.  
Touching Pilgrimages to Relics and Holy Places, we thus find confessed by the Centurists: Concerning Pilgrimages 
(e) Cent. 4. col. 457.  to holy places, that in this age under Constantine first began the places of the Holy Land etc. to be had in esteem; Helen Mother of Constantine (a superstitious Woman) going thither to worship. In like sort Kempnitius saith: Pilgrimages 
(f) Exam. Trid. part. 4. p. 10.  were made (he meaning in those Primitive times) where men heard were Relics, famous 
(g) In his Retractive from Romish Religion. pa. 197. 198.  & renowned for Miracles. D. Beard thus confesseth: In former times they placed the Relics of Saints under the Altar, as Ambrose witnesseth of the Relics of Geruasius, and Protasius.  
Touching Miracles, exhibited at the Monuments and Relics of Saints; Kempnitius thus writeth: Mention is 
(h) Exam. part. 4. pag. 10.  made in Austin, that a blind Woman received sight at the Translation of the Relics of Steven; 
(i) Contra Duraeum, l. 10. pag. 860.  & that sometimes certain Miracles were wrought at Relics etc. D. Whitaker saith: I do not think those Miracles vain, which are reported to be done at the Monuments of Martyrs. Finally M. Fox 
(k) Act. Mon. pag. 61. and se● Crispinus of the Estate of the Church. pag. 13●.  reporteth out of chrysostom contra gentiles, and Theodoret mentioneth the same, how after the bringing of the dead body of Babilas (Martyr) into the Temple (of an Idol) the Idol ceased to give any more Oracles; saying, that for the body of Babilas he could give no more Answers.  
In this last place, touching the sign of the Cross; That it was worshipped by the ancient Fathers, and by others of those Primi●ue times, as also that great efficacy, power, and virtue was ascribed thereto, we find thus confessed. First then M. Perkins acknowledgeth 
(l) In his Problem. pag. 83.  thus: About four hundred years after Christ, the Cross began by little and little to be adored; And in proof hereof M. Perkins allegeth Prudentius, Jerome, & Euagrius. Peter 
(m) In his Common places. part. 2. c. 5.  Martyr affirmeth, that Constantine made the sign of the Cross in gold. Osiander 
(n) Cent. 4. l 2. c. 30.  relateth out of 
(o) In Vita Constant. l. 1. c. 2.  Eusebius, that Constantine affirmed, that the sign of the Cross appeared to him in the after noon, in great light above the Sun, and a Writing therein, with these Words: In hoc vinces. Danaeus (the Protestant) averreth thus: 
(p) In 1. part, altara part. ad Bellarm. pag. 14. 15.  Cyrill▪ and sundry other Fathers were plainly superstitious and blinded, with this enchantment of the Crosses adoration. The Centurists 
(q) Cent. 4. col. 302.  rebuke Ephrem, they thus saying: He attributeth too much to the sign of the Cross. Touching the Miracles wrought by the sign of the Cross, we find Peter 
(r) In his Common places, part. 2. c. 5.  Martyr thus to write: I deny not, but certain Miracles have sometimes been wrought by the sign of the Cross; as S. Austin reporteth. l. 2. de Civitate Dei, c. 28. D. Parker 
(s) Against Symbolising part. 1. c. 3. pag 154.  reporteth certain Miracles done by the sign of the Cross. To conclude this passage, D. Covell thus acknowledgeth: No 
(t) In his Answer to M. Burges, p. 138.  man can deny but that God after the death of his son manifested his power to the amazement of the World, in this contemptible sign, as being the Instrument of many Miracles.  
8. I will in this next place touch the doctrine of good Works, concerning justification, and Merit. And first, that Works do justify by the judgement of the ancient Fathers, is evident: For we read, that the 
(u) Cent. 6. c. 10. col. 748.  Centurists do charge S. Gregory, with this doctrine of Good Works, & justification. Brentius thus reprehendeth S. Austin: Austin 
(x) In Confess. Wittenberg.  taught affiance in Man's Works, touching Remission of sins. chrysostom is thus controlled by the Centurists. chrysostom 
(y) Cent. 5. col. 1178.  handleth impurely the doctrine of justification, and attributeth merit to Works Luther (in contempt) styleth Jerome, Ambrose, Austin, and other Fathers, justice-workers 
(z) In Galat. c. 4. after the English Translation.  of the Old Papacy. Melancthons' words are these: 
(a) In Rom. ●. 591.  Origen and many following him, imagined, that men were just, by reason of their Works. And the 
(b) Cent. 3. col. 240.  Centurists 
(b) Cent. 3. col. 240.  confess the same of Tertullian, D. Humphrey thus freely writeth; It 
(c) jesuitism. part. 2. pag. 530.  may not be denied but that Jerome, Clemens and others (called Apostolical men) have in their Writings the Opinion of Merit of Works. Bullinger ascendeth thus high in time, saying: The doctrine 
(d) In Apocalyp. Serm. 87. fol. 270.  of merit, satisfaction, and justification of works, did incontinently after the Apostles time lay their first foundation. I Will conclude with D. Covell; His Confession in general is this: divers 
(e) In his Examen. c. 9 p. 120.  both of the Greek and Latin Church were spotted with Errors, about Freewill, Merit etc. Hereto I will adjoin the doctrine of Works of Supererogation, or Evangelicall Counsels. That vowed Chastity was taught and practised in those Primitive times, the Centurists 
(f) Cent. 4. col. 488.  do witness. They also acknowledge the doctrine and practice in those Primitive times of voluntary 
(g) Cent. 4. col. 30.  Poverty, of Abstinence from Wine 
(h) Cent. 4. col 471. , flesh, and certain other Meats; Of their going barefoot 
(i) Cent. 4. col. 474. , lying on the ground, wearing sackcloth etc. and diverse other such Austerities.  
9 Concerning Auricular Confession of sins to a Priest; It is evident, that the Centurists 
(k) Cent. 6. c. 10. p. 748.  do reprehend Gregory the Great, for teaching Confession of Sins, Penance, and Satisfaction. S. Leo is charged by M. Simonds 
(l) Upon the Reuelat. pag, 57  with the doctrine of auricular Confession. The Centurists acknowledge 
(m) Cent. 3. c. 6. col. 27.  that in the times of Cyprian and Tertullian, was used private Confession of thoughts and lesser sins; and that the same was thought necessary. Yea the Centurists do further confess, that Penance 
(n) Cent. 3. col. 127.  and satisfaction was enjoined, according to the offence. And fortably hereto D. Whitaker 
(o) Contra Camp. rat. 5.  thus acknowledgeth: Cyprian and Tertullian thought by their external discipline of life, to pay the pains due for sin, and to satisfy God's justice; And not only Cyprian, but almost all the Fathers of that time, were in that Error. Thus this Doctor. To conclude this point, Kempnitius 
(p) Exam. part. 4. pag. ●8.  chargeth the ancient Fathers in general, saying: I am not ignorant, that the old Fathers do sometimes over largely, and with words overvaunting, command that Canonical Discipline; As that, Tertullian saith: By these satisfactions sins are purged. Cyprian saith: By these, sins are redeemed, washed, and cured. Ambrose: By them the pains of Hell are recompensed. Austin: God by them is pacified for sins past. Thus far Kempnitius; Who never calleth to mind, that the Father's meaning only is, that Satisfactions, not as they are considered in their own Nature, but only as they receive their force and virtue from Christ his Passion, and his promise to them (and not otherwise) do purge and redeem sins.  
10. Touching the Sacraments: And first that there are seven Sacraments in the judgement of the ancient Fathers; D. Humphrey thus writeth of Dionysius: At dices, 
(q) In jesuitism. part. 2. pa. 51●.  quid ad Dionysium dices etc. But thou wilt say: What sayest thou to Dionysius, who numbereth six Sacraments? I answer, that among the Ancients, this only one Father teacheth that there are seven Sacraments; although he (omitting Matrimony) do only speak of six Sacraments. That Grace is given and confirmed by the Sacraments; Whereas S. Austin thus writeth: The 
(r) In psal. 79. & contra Paustum lib. 1● cap. 13.  Sacrament of the new Testament gave Salvation; The Sacrament of the old Testament did but promise the Saviour: Musculus answereth heerto, saying: This 
(s) In loc. comm. pag. 299.  was spoken by Austin without consideration: Yea the said Musculus chargeth all the Fathers in general with the said doctrine in these words: The Father's attribute greater efficacy to our Sacraments, then to the Sacraments of the old Testament; 
(t) Musc. ubi supra.  affirming ours to be effectual signs of grace; not ●nly by signifying the same, as the others did, but also by conferring and giving grace and salvation.  
Now touching the necessity of Baptism, M. Cartwright thus confesseth: Austin 
(u) In D. whitgift's defence. pa. 1227.  was of mind, that Children could not be saved without Baptism. Scultetus (the Protestant) writeth thus: 
(x) In medulla Theolog. pag. 30.  The blemish noted in Cyprian etc. is, that he thinketh Baptism to be absolutely and simply necessary. Vrbanus Rhegius confidently averreth, that 
(y) in part. 1. operum Cathe●his. minor. fol. 105.  the Scripture and the Authority of the ancient Church, constrained him to believe, that Children unbaptized, are damned. And hence it is, that Caluin thus confesseth: Almost 
(z) L. Instit. 4. c. ●5. sect. 20.  from the beginning of the Church, Baptism by Lay Persons was used in danger of death. Thus much of the Sacraments.  
11. That the doctrine of Limbus Paetrum was taught by the Primitive Church and Fathers; First I will produce the words of D. Whitaker, against whom when Duraeus (his Adversary) had alleged testimonies from the Fathers for the proof of Limbus Patrum, the said Doctor thus answereth him: Quod 
(a) Contra Duraeum. l. 8. pag. 557.  Scriptures evincere minùs potuisti etc. That, which thou could less prove by Scriptures, that thou doubtlessly wilt evince from the testimonies of the Fathers: But touching this, I answer thee briefly what I conceive; That is; that one Word of Scripture carrieth more force with me, than the Sentences, and judgements of a thousand Fathers without Scripture; therefore do not expect, that I will make particular Answers to the several erroneous testimonies of the Fathers, alleged by thee. Thus D. Whitaker, confessing, that the Fathers unanimously taught the doctrine of Limbus Patrum. D. Barlow thus writeth: This 
(b) In his Defence of the Articles of the Protestant Religion. pag. 173.  passeth most rife among the Fathers, Who taking, Inferi, for Abraham's bosom, expound it, that Christ went thither, ad liberandum liberandos, to convey the Fathers deceased (before the Resurrection) into that place, where now they are. In like manner M. jacob (the Protestant) thus most fully acknowledgeth: All the 
(c) See this in D. bilson's book of the full Redemption of Mankind. pag. 188.  Fathers with one consent affirm, that Christ delivered the souls of the Patriarches & Prophets out of Hell, at his coming thither; and so spoilt Satan of those, who were in his present Possession. To close up this point, whereas Cardinal Bellarmine 
(d) Bellarm. tom. 1. l. 4. de Ch●isti Animae. c. 14.  allegeth in proof of Limbus Patrum, the testimonies of the Greek Fathers; to wit, of justinus, Irenaeus, Clemens, Origen Eusebius, Basill, Nazianzene, Nicene, Epiphanius; chrysostom etc. As also of the Latin 
(e) Bellarm. ubi suprà.  Fathers; namely, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian, Hillary, Gaudentius, Prudentius, Ambrose, Jerome, Ruffinus, Austin, Leo, Fulgentius etc. Danaeus (the Protestant) acknowledging all this for true, answereth only thus: As concerning 
(f) Danaeus ad Roberti Bellar. disput. part. pag 176.  these Fathers, they were not instructed out of God's word; Neither do they confirm their Opinion from it, but only from their own Conjectures etc. Thus Danaeus.  
12. That the Primitive Fathers did conspiringly teach the doctrine of Freewill, is most perspicuous. For the Centurists reciting the sayings of Lactantius, Athanasius, Basill, Nazianzene, Epiphanius, Jerome etc. in defence of Freewill, thus contemn all their Testimonies: Patres omnes 
(g) Cent. 4 col. 29●.  ferè huius aetatis etc. Almost all the Fathers of this Age, do speak confusedly of Freewill. In like sort, 
(h) In medulla Theo●og. Patrum. pag. 379. & 304 & 466. etc.  Scultetus (the former Protestant) reprehendeth Cyprian, Theophilas, Tertullian, Origen, Clemens Alexandrinus, justine, Irenaeus, Athanagoras, Tatianus etc. for their teaching of freewill. In like manner certain English Puritan thus largely confess hereof, saying: Freewill 
(i) This saying of the Puritans is related in their brief discovery of Untruths etc. contained in D bancroft's. Sermon. pag. 203.  ever since the Apostles times in a manner flourished every where, till Martin Luther took the sword in hand against it: So true is that Confession of D. Humphrey, (a testimony upon other occasion above alleged): It may not be denied, but 
(k) In jesuitism. part. 2. pag. 530.  that Ireneus, Clemens, and others (called Apostolical men) have in their Writings the Opinions of freewill. etc. According hereto the Centurists, speaking of the times next to the Apostles, thus freely say: Nullus 
(l) Cent. 4. cap. 4. col. ●8.  ferè doctrinae locus etc. Almost no one Point of doctrine, so quickly began to be obscured, as the doctrine, Whether man had Freewill, or no? And thus much briefly of the Protestants Confessions touching Freewill; of which point (as also of all the former doctrines, above discoursed of in this Appendix) I have not set down the half of what the Protestants do acknowledge therein, touching the ancient Father's belief, and doctrines in the said Points.  
13. Touching Peter Primacy, above the rest of the Apostles; The antiquity of this doctrine is so great, that, The Centurists do reprehend Jerome 
(m) Cent. 4 col 11 15. , 
(n) Cent. 4. col. 555.  Hilary, 
(o) Cent. 4. col▪ 558.  Nazianzen, 
(p) Cent. 3. col. 84.  Tertullian, 
(q) Cent. 3. p. 84.  Cyprian, 
(r) Cent. 3. col. 85.  Origen, and in general many other Fathers, for teaching, that the Church was built upon Peter. Their words touching Cyprian are these in the place above alleged: Passim dicit Cypriaenus super Petrum Ecclesiam fundatam esse. Caluin thus writeth: In Petro 
(s) lib. 4. instit. cap. ●. sect. 6.  fundatam esse Ecclesiam etc. diverse Fathers did expound, that the Church was founded upon Peter, because it is said: Super hanc Petram etc. But the whole Scripture maketh against this their exposition. Thus Caluin. The Centurists 
(t) Cent. 4. col. 5●●.  do further charge Optatus for saying: Petrus Apostolorum caput, unde Cephas appellatur. D. Reynolds 
(u) In his Conference pag. 485.  rebuketh Dionysius for styling Peter, the chief and most ancient top (or head) of the Apostles. To conclude D. Fulke speaking of S. Leo, and S. Gregory (Bishops of Rome) saith: The mystery 
(x) In his retentive against Bristol motives pag. 248.  of iniquity did work in that seat near five or six hundred years before them (which must be in the Aposties' days, or presently after:) and then greatly increased, they were so deceived with long continuance of Error, that they thought the dignity of Peter was much more over the rest of his fellow Apostles, than the Holy Scriptures of God do allow.  
14. Now that the Bishop of Rome is Peter's Successor, in the judgement of the Fathers, is no less certain; for D. Bilson confesseth it plainly in these words: The 
(y) In his difference part. 1. pag, 1●7.  ancient and learned Fathers call the Roman Bishop, Peter's Successor. The Centurists charge Leo in this manner: Leo 
(z) Cent. 5. col. 1262.  painfully goeth about to prove, that singular preeminence was given to Peter, above the other Apostles; and that thence did rise the Primacy of the Roman Church. D. Cowper 
(a) In his Chronicles.  calleth Linus, first Bishop of Rome, after Peter. To conclude, Bucer thus freely saith: We 
(b) In prae paratorijs ad Concil.  plainly confess that among the ancient fathers, the Roman Church obtained Primacy above others; as that, which hath the Chair of S. Peter, and whose Bishops have almost always been accounted the successors of Peter. Thus Bucer.  
15. Touching the Catholic Ceremonies of Funerals, and other Ecclesiastical custom●●, we thus find confessed. The Centurists acknowledge, that 
(c) Cent. ●. col. 454.  Solebant Cerei proferri funeri etc. Wax candles were accustomed to be brought in the time of the funerals: And the Centurists do also grant, that it was 
(d) Cent. 4 col. 455.  the custostome to cover the grave with flowers. The said Centurists further make mention of minning days in these words: Celebris 
(e) Cent. 4. col. 455.  ob defuncti memoriam fuit dies quadragesimus post obitum; the fortieth day after the death of the party, was kept with solemnity. Lastly, they record those words of Tertullian: We 
(f) Cent 3. col. 138.  offer up sacrifices & oblations every anniversary day for the dead.  
16. That prayer was made towards the East, in those ancient times, is confessed by the 
(g) Gent. 4. col. 432  Centurists. That Canonical 
(h) Cent. 4. col. 433.  hours of Prayers were then used, the Centurists confess. They also record, that there was in those primitive times 
(i) Cent. 4 col. 459.  rising in the night to prayer: Also that the 
(k) Cent. col. 433.  Lyturgy was then accustomed to be recited: That 
(l) Cent. 4. col. 1326  prayers were then made by numbering them upon little stones; which is the same as in these days, by numbering prayers with beads.  
17. D. Fulke 
(m) Against Heskin● etc. pag. ●57.  confesseth, that the Cross (by report of Paulinus) was by the Bishop of jerusalem his appointment, at Easter (yearly) to be worshipped by the people. But here we are to note, that Paulinus did not mean any idolatrous worship to be given to the Cross (as the Protestants do most wrongly charge us Catholics to exhibit to it), but only a Christian reverence and respect, as being an Instrument, upon which the Saviour of the world suffered for Man's Redemption.  
18. That set times of fasting were used in those ancient times, is clear: for first touching the fast of Lent, Kempnitius 
(n) In Examen. part. 1. pa. 8●.  confesseth, that Ambrose, Maximus, Taurinensis, Theophil●●, Jerome, and others, do affirm the fast of Lent to be an Apostolical Tradition: Yea Scultetus thus saith: The 
(o) In medulla Theolog. p. 440.  superstitious fast of Lent was allowed and commanded by Ignatius. Now Ignatius was in the Apostle days. M. Cartwright is alleged by M. Whitguift 
(*) In D. Whitguifts defence. pag. 100  to reprove S. Ambrose, for saying: It is a sin not to fast in Lent. Touching the fast of Quatuor Tempora, 
(*) Whitak. contra Duraeum. l. 7. p. 80.  D. Whitaker confessetht it to be as ancient as Calixtus the Pope, who was immediate Successor to Pope Victor, who lived in the third Century.  
19 I will conclude the Protestants Confessions, touching the ancient Fathers, in the doctrine of Religious Persons. And first, touching Monks; the Centurists 
(p) Cent. 4. col. 46●. under the title, de Consecratione M●nachi.  acknowledge Monks, to have been in those Primitive Time's. D. Humphrey thus writeth of Gregory the Great: These 
(q) In jesuitis. par. 2. rat. 5.  things Austin the Monk (taught by Gregory the great Monk) brought in: Thus the Doctor acknowledging M●nachisme in those days. M. Cartwright thus confesseth: 
(r) In D. Whitguifts defence. pag. 344.  Ruffinus, Theodoret, Sozomene, Socrates etc. do mention Monks almost in every Page. In like manner the Centurists speaking of the age wherein Constantine lived, 
(s) Cent. 4. c. 10. col. 1294.  do confess, that there were Monks throughout Syria, Palestine, Bithynia, and other places of Asia. The Centurists further acknowledging a place of S. Basil in praise of Monastical life, thus censure him: All which 
(t) Cent. 4. p. 300. & 3●●.  words (meaning of Basil) are both besides, and contrary to the Holy Scripture.  
20. The Centurists 
(u) Cent. 4. c. 6. col. 404. 466.  also make mention of Monasteries, wherein the Monks did dwell. The Centurists finally record the Monasteries 
(x) Cent. 4. col. 467. 479. ●335. etc.  of Virgins. The like mention the Monasteries of Virgins is made by 
(y) Osiander cent. 4. pa. 507. 503. etc.  Osiander. Thus far of all the former Points of Catholic Faith and Religion, that they were taught, and practised by the ancient Fathers, even in our Adversary's judgement. I could prove the like by the Confessions of the learned Protestants, in all other Articles, controverted between us and the Protestants; But I trust, that these former Articles (being of greatest Moment) may serve in lieu of all the rest, which are of lesser Consequence.  
Only I think good to adjoin here this ensuing Animadversion. To wit, That whereas in the producing of the former Authorities of the Fathers, in behalf of the Catholic Religion, all Fathers are not brought in, by the Confession of the Protestants, to teach the said Catholic Articles; Now the reason of this is, in that every ancient Father did not write of every particular Article of Catholic Religion; and consequently such could not be alleged by the Protestants confessions, in proof of the Articles omitted by them. Nevertheless it avoidable followeth, by all true inference of Reason, that all other Fathers in such particular points of Catholic Religion, as are omitted by the Protestants, do agree and conspire with the former Fathers, above confessed. The reason i● this. If the other Fathers (above omitted, and not spoken of) had maintained contrary doctrines to the former produced Father's; they then would have been written against, by some other more Orthodoxal Writers and Fathers, touching the said points: As we see that certain Errors in Origen, Tertullian, & Cyprian (to omit the like Examples in Donatus, jovinian, Pelagius, and sundry such other Novelists) were instantly impugned by Austin, Jerome, Epiphanius, Theodoret etc. But no such writing was against the former confessed Fathers in this Treatise, for their holding the foresaid Catholic Points; Therefore it is certain, that all other Fathers of the Primitive Church did jointly teach, and believe the said Catholic doctrines, with the above confessed Fathers.  
Again, the alleged Fathers in this Appendix, were the chief Pastors in God Church in those days; in whom the Church of Christ was peculiarly and more markably personated. Therefore all other Inferior Members of the Church, did agree with them in the belief of the said Catholic Doctrines; or otherwise by their denial of them they did cease to be members of the said Church of God: Cum 
(z) Cyprian. l. Vnitate Ecclesiae.  Deo manner non possunt, qui in Ecclesia Dei unanimes esse noluerunt.  
Now to descend to the second Part of this Appendix; which is touching the Comparison made between the ancient Fathers, and the Protestant Doctors and Writers, for the finding out of the intended sense of the Holy Ghost, in the exposition of the sacred Scripture: In the consideration of which point, I grant, I am finally moved to a just and warrantable Anger; since the want thereof upon so urgent an occasion, might well be reputed but stupidity, and an insensibleness of the indignities and wrongs, offered to those blessed and happy Saints. Therefore let the Reader pardon me, if I here sharpen my Pen (which can hardly spend its ink, upon a more worthy and noble subject,) and if I become somewhat more luxuriant in defence of these Champions of Christ his Church; upon whom diverse Protestants (as in the former Treatise is showed) do even shower down infinite words of reproach & contumely, and do throw upon their honourable Memories, the dirt, and filth of their own most intemperate and gaulefull Language.  
But first, I think it convenient, to take away the vulgar stumbling-Block, which most of our Adversaries have laid between the Truth, and the eyes of the ignorant and credulous Protestant. Which is, as the Protestants most wrongfully (and to themselves consciously) suggest; That seeing the Scripture (as being the undoubted Word of God) is to be advanced before the Authority of the Fathers, they being but men: and seeing the Protestants (say they) rely only upon Scripture, the Fathers upon their own and o●her humane Authorities; Why then should not the Scripture be pryzed above the Authorities of the said Fathers? Now to dispel and dissipate this weak smoke from the Eyes of the Ignorant; I do aver this their answer to be a mere Elench of Fallacy, called by the Logicians, Petitio Principij; since here it is falsely presumed, that the Protestants do rely only upon the true sense of the Scripture, and the Fathers do reject the Scripture. Whereas indeed the Fathers with all Reverence and honour do affect the Scripture, and most humbly submit themselves to it. And therefore the life and touch of the doubt in this point only consisteth: To wit, whether the Fathers (who build the Articles of their Faith upon the Scriptures) are to be preferred before the Protestants, interpreting the said Scriptures in a contrary Sense. And thus the Antithesis, or opposition is here to be made, not between the Fathers and the Scripture (as our Adversaries do calumniously pretend) but between the Constructions, given by the Fathers of certain Texts of holy Scripture, and the different, or contrary constructions of the said Text, given by the Protestants  
The like subtlety our adversaries (to wit, the Centurists, D. Whitaker, Illyricus, and others) do use, when the call Catholic doctrines, as they are maintained by us, Idolatry, Heresies, Blasphemies etc. thereby to intimate, that the Papists are no members of Christ's Church: which very doctrines, as they are taught by the ancient Fathers, the Protestants style, but navos, naenia, errores etc. with intention to show, that the Protestants do not divide themselves from the Church, of which the Fathers were members: O incredible, and serpentine Craft, and Imposture.  
But to lance further in discoursing of the Comparison, between the Fathers and the Protestants: For I hold it my honour to be their poor Advocate upon earth; and I hope, that in their Seraphical, and burning Charity, they willbe my Adocate in Heaven: and will vouchsafe to intercede to his Divine Majesty for the remission of my infinite sins and transgressions. Hear I say, that any true and zealous Christian ought to have a sensible grief and religious Resent, to see, that Sapphires should be preferred before Diamonds, the lowest Shrubs to dare to contend in height with the Cedars of Lybanus, upstart Innovation to take the wall (as I may say) of reverend and gray-hayrd Antiquity: I mean, that Luther, Swinglius, Melancthon, Caluin, Beza, and such refuse of men, should shoulder out of the due Seat● of Honour and Authority, Austin, Jerome, Epiphanius, the Gregory's, the Cyrils, Basil, Ambrose, Hylary, Optatus, Athanasius, Cyprian, Ephrem, Irenaeus, Ignatius, Polycarpus, and diverse other Fathers of those Primitive and purest times. But to descend more particularly to the dissecting of this point; I hold it most conducing, to present to the Readers Eye, certain forcible Circumstances, advantaging the ancient Fathers much above the Protestants, for the searching and picking out the true and intended sense of the Holy Ghost in the Texts of sacred Writ, produced either by the Catholics or the Protestants. Thus I mean to Parallel the Fathers with the Protestant's (not as Plutarch did, by comparing Worthy Men with Worthy Men, but) by balancing the ancient, grave, and most literate Doctors, with certain Novellizing, and but competently learned Sectaries.  
1. And to begin. Our first Circumstance may be taken from the different times, wherein the Fathers and the former Protestants did live. The Fathers (as is known) flourished in those pure times, near to Christ and his Apostles; when his Spouse (I mean his Church) remained intemerate and incontaminate, as than not brooking any defiled touch, but of one Heretic. We may adjoin hereto, that in regard of their proximity in time to Christ (for some of them lived in the 
(a) Ignatius, Dionysius Areopagita lived in the days of the Apostles.  Apostles days, others in the next 
(b) justinus Martyr, Pope Pius, Ireneus lived in the second age. Origen. Tertullian, Cyprian etc. in the third age. Athanasius, Hilarius Cyrill of jerusalem, Ambrose, Basil, Optatus, Gregorius, Nyssenus, Gregorius Nazianzenus, Ephrem, Epiphanius etc. in the fourth Age, in which age was celebrated the Council of Nyce. Gaudentius, chrysostom, Jerome, Austin, Cyrill of Alexandria, Proclus Constantinopolitanus, Theodoret, Gelasius, Leo Pope Hilarius, Eusebius Emyssenus in the fifth age. Gregory the Great and Austin (our Apostle) in the sixth age.  ensuing ages) the true Faith and Doctrine (and consequently the true meaning of the Scripture) might well be Paraphrazed by force of Tradition, during that short descent of the Church; each man receiving from his Predecessor, even from hand to hand, the practice of the true Religion: so as such Men as then would not acknowledge the splendour of the Catholic Religion in those firster Time's, may well resemble the stars, when they are darkened through over much light. This far of this Circumstance in behalf of the Fathers; from whence we may gather, that diverse of them lived a thousand years since, others more than fifteen hundred.  
But now let us cast our eye upon the other End of the Balance. Have our Protestant Writers been in Rerum Natura fifteen hundred years since? Have they been a thousand years? Have they been one hundred? This is the most, if so much: so as if you will have recorded the several Stations of their Church, you must divide them by Centuries of Months, instead of Centuries of years: So fully it is confessed by one of their prime Men: It 
(c) Benedictus Morgensternensis (a Lutheran) so writeth, tract. de Ecclesia pag. 145.  is impudence to say, that any before the time of Luther, had the purity of the Gospel. Is there any Man of so stopped a Nose, as not throughly to sent the disparity of these two different times, wherein the Fathers and the Protestants Writers lived; and consequently the great advantage, of which the Fathers for the true interpreting of the Scripture, and practice of Christian Religion, are made capable; the Protestants resting wholly there, on precluded?  
2. But to proceed further. The Fathers (I speak of the Orthodoxal Fathers) though writing their Voluminous Tomes, upon different emergent Occasions, in different ●ymes, in different tongues, in different & ●ost discoasted Nations, ever in defence of ●●e Catholic and Roman Faith, did so unanimously conspire 
(*) The Catholics grant, that the Fathers did expound some Texts in different senses, but not ever in behalf of the Protestants Errors: for example, Luke 13. When you have done all these, things, which are commanded Isay, We are unprofitable Servants. chrysostom (in Illud, Illatum est cor Osiae) saith: We should only think ourselves though humility to be unprofitable servants. Austin in Sermon de Verbis Domini, interpreteth. We are called unprofitable servants, because we have done nothing, but what we ought to have done. But neither of these expositions do prejudice the doctrine of good works, or works of Supererogation, against which this text it urged by the Protestants.  in their Writings; 〈◊〉 if one and the same Genius had a general influency over all their Pens; Whose very ●ens were ever pressed to rescue the Church in ●ny sort endangered, with the arising Heresies of those times.  
Now touching the Protestants, the Reader may fully glass their infinite and immortal dissensions in their Write, by perusing these former Leaves: Their Agreement here●n, being like to the agreement of 
(d) Esay 9  Ephraim and Manasses, who did eat up one another: The Protestants even spinning out at length several years, in writing reciprocal venomous Satyrs and Inuectives.  
3. The Fathers lived in a most strict & severe course of Discipline, and Manners, through their thirsty expectation of Heaven, and hope to find their former sins drowned in the blood of Christ. And hereupon they observed perpetual Chastity, practised much Prayer and Fasting, betrampled with a spiritual Contempt upon all fading Honours, and Temporalities; ever checking the malice of each Temptation with an internal Elevation of their souls to God. Thus did their Religious comportment (by which they wholly exposed their labours to the service of God) dispel & drive away all mists and clouds, gathered before the Eye of their Understanding, for their myning out of the sense of the Scripture, and did even depose the inexpugnable Certainty of their Faith.  
But now, as the Sun casteth its Influence upon several Countries, indifferently, and after the same manner, yet with most different and contrary effects: So God's Inspirations, though sent to the ancient Fathers, and to the learned Protestants, through their wilful rejecting of them, do produce most opposite operations. For if we call to mind the carriage of most of our Protestants first writers, we shall find that Virtue with them was reputed, but as an airy and intentional School-name, they lying (for the most part) in the mud of sensuality and temporal pleasures; such a Confluence of several Vices was in diverse of them. He that resteth doubtful hereof, let him peruse (besides the Book of daily Experience) the Book entitled, The life of Luther, printed anno 1624. wherein he shall find penciled, and delineated at large, the most facinorous and enormous lives of Luther, Andreas, Melancthon, Bucer, Ochinus, Carolostadius, Swinglius, Caluin and Beza: All of them chief Promoters of the Protestants Religion with their Pens. And what in that Book is delivered in painting forth their wicked and irreligious courses, is delivered from the Writings only of other Protestants, their Brethren: so truly are verified of these Protestant Writers, Animalis 
(e) 1. Cor. 2.  homo non percipit ea, quae sunt Spiritus Dei.  
Furthermore, diverse learned Protestants of these days are so far from abandoning the temporal Benefis of the World, as that they commonly make their Religion, a Shoeing-horn to draw on some opulent, and great Ecclesiastical Living, or Parsonage; so they finally making a Steeple, yea two or three steeples sometimes (of so great a swallow diverse of them are) and a Sister in the Lord (thus coupling Pluto, and Venus together) their very But, or Mark of all their Scholastical endeavours, or their supreme felicity in this World: So thrall and mancipated they are become to all transitory and fading Allectives, and so breathlesly do they run in cry in the pursuit of them; Howsoever many of them, through their sophistical Comportment, and dooble-faced Actions, seem externally to be wholly spiritualised, and even to feed only upon the Gospel.  
4. Another Privilege granted from God to those blessed Men of ancient times, and others of the faithful of those days, is, that diverse of them had the honour of working most stupendious Miracles, and this often in defence and proof of their catholic Religion; in the patration of which Miracles, it was in their power to dissolve and untie the knot of Nature. For example. Touching Miracles done in proof of the virtue of the sign of the Cross, read 
(f) In vita Antoniuses.  Athanasius, 
(g) Haeres. 30  Epiphanius 
(h) In vita Hilarionis.  Jerome, and 
(i) Histor. l. 5. c 21.  Theodoret. Touching the Image of Christ, read 
(k) Histor. l. 7. c. 14.  Eusebius. Touching Miracles at the presence of Relics of Saints, read 
(l) L. 9 Confess. c. 7. & 8.  S. Austin; touching some done at the Monuments or Tombs of Martyrs, see the foresaid 
(m) L. de Civitate Dei 22. c. 8.  S. Austin. Touching Prayer to Saints, see also 
(n) Aug. ubi suprà.  S. Austin. In confirmation of the Real presence, see 
(o) L. 6. de Sacerdotio, c. 4.  chrysostom. To be short, the gift of working Miracles was so ordinary in those times, as that one Father (to wit Gregorius Thaumaturgus) took his denomination and Name, from working of Miracles; for so much doth the greek Word, Thaumaturgus, import: so just reason had S. Austin to have recorded; 
(q) In his Survey of, D kellison's etc. D. Morton in his Apol. Cathol. part. 1. l. 2 25. and diverse others.  Culmen authoritatis obtinuit Ecclesia Catholica, Haerecicis miraculorum maiestate damnatis.  
But let us see, if any Protestant was ever graced with the working of such supernatural Wonders. 
(p) L. de Vtilitate credendi cap 27.  But it is so fully acknowledged, that the Protestant Ministers never effected any of them (no not so much, as supernaturally curing a pricked fingar, or raising to life a dead flea) as that diverse of them, beholding with the eye of sullivation and envy, the miracles wrought by the former Fathers and other devout persons, do peremptorily 
(q) In his Survey of, D kellison's etc. D. Morton in his Apol. Cathol. part. 1. l. 2 25. and diverse others.  teach, that all Miracles have ceased ever since the Apostles days: so willing they are to shackle and tie the hands of God, from exhibiting all such stupendious Actions. And hence it is, that their own chief Doctors do wholly confess the want of all Miracles, in confirmation of their first plantation of Protestancy; For thus doth D. Fulke acknowledge, saying: It is 
(r) Against the Rhemish Testament in Apocalyp. cap. 13.  known, that Caluin and the rest (whom the Papists call Arch-heretics) do no Miracles. And no less is confessed by D. Sutcliffe in these words: We do 
(s) In his examen of D. kellison's Survey, printed 1606. p. 8.  not practice Miracles; nor do we teach, that the doctrine of Truth is to be confirmed with Miracles.  
5. Another overbalancing Circumstance resulteth, from the different Conditions of the Fathers, and of the Protestants, touching the preaching of their several doctrines in Faith. The Fathers interpreted the Holy Scriptures in confirmation of our Catholic Faith, when as no other Faith was known, and many ages before Protestancy was ever dreamt of: And therefore what they did write, or teach out of the Scriptures, they did it in an Azisme and purity of Conscience; not being forestalled with any Prejudice of judgement, or invited thereto by any humane or temporary Motives; the most dangerous Sands, upon which many Scholars do suffer shipwreck. Now the Protestants (I mean chief many Protestant Ministers throughout Christendom) even from the first time that Protestancy began to get on wing, do prosecute their Faith with a most strong bent of Endeavour, because their temporal states (as above is intimated) are so embarked therein, as that an utter extinguishment of Protestancy would instantly threaten all mendicity, and ruin to the Doctors thereof: So fully are their temporal states engaged in their own Religion.  
Therefore no wonder it is, if most Protestant Doctors (as in likelihood they do) do thus syllogise and dispute in the secret of their own Soul: I am married, I am attended on with a great train and charge of Children: My temporal Means lie only in my possessing of Parsonages, and other Ecclesiastical Live, which are allotted to me for my Ministerial and Protestanticall functien: If Protestancy should suffer an utter disparition, and vanishing out of the World, What then would become of me? How should I, my Wife, and my poor Children maintain ourselves? We cannot live only upon breathing the Air: Therefore I must (nay I will) in all estuation and heat of dispute and writing maintain my own Religion of Protestancy; shaping (though I grant, in a retrograde manner) the pretended sense of the Scripture, to the fortifying of my lately appearing Faith not my Faith, to the true sense of the Scripture. God is merciful, and I hope (seeing my state otherwise lies mortally a bleeding) he will pardon this my Offence, proceeding from such a forced and urging Necessity. O most dangerous, and desperate Resolution!  
6. To proceed to another Circumstance. divers of those ancient Fathers (as Ignatius, Dionysius, Polycarpe, Cyprian etc.) spent their lyves in defence of the Christian & Catholic Religion (to speak nothing of many thousands of others less eminent Christians dying for the same) they suffering most glorious Martyrdoms for their faith, in justifying in themselues that sentence, Paradisi 
(u) Tertul in l. de Anima.  clavis, sanguis Martyrum; Of which, every one might well say in his own person, Occidi possum, superari non possum; so becoming Balls to the then boisterous times. Happy Men, who by losing of life, did find life, and by sheeding their blood, did 
(x) Apoc. 7.  wash their Robes in the Blood of the Lamb; And who did pass the Red Sea of of persecution, & Martyrdom with such humility, alacrity, eavennes, and constancy of mind, as that their Honourable Memories might well deserve to be recorded in more several pages, than here are lines; I might well say, in more lines than here are letters. And can it then be thought possible (their admirable fortitude for Christ his sake considered) that God would conceal from them, the true Sense of Scripture, without which their Souls could not enjoy Salvation? It is repugnant, even to God's justice; What is it then to his Mercy?  
Among the Adversaries; who ever suffered death in defence of Protestancy? john Husse, say they. It is false. For hus (being otherwise a turbulent fellow, and raising combustions in his own Country) died for only defending the necessity of Communion under both kinds, comparting with the Roman Church in other points; Of whom Luther thus writeth: The Papists 
(y) Luth. in Colloq. Mensal. German. de Antichristo.  burned hus, when he departed not a finger's breadth from the Papacy. Who else? Jerome of prague. This man also maintained but one or two heresies; being wholly Catholic in all other Articles, who after a second recidivation and Relapse, was burned. Who more? A company of Mechanical, ignorant, despicable, and poor Snakes, in Queen Mary's reign (M. Fox his Martyrs) who, as being possessed with a jewish Obstinacy, in defence of some few points only of Protestancy (believing withal many Catholic Articles) became proud (forsooth) of their future-dying honour; and so through their own froward Wilfulness, did even importune the Faggot; thus losing their breath, for the gaining of a little breath or Wind of praise: Miserable Wretches, their Bodies no sooner ceasing to be afflicted with temporal flames, than their souls (as is to be feared) began to be tormented with eternal flames.  
7. The last Collateral respect, between the Primitive Fathers and the Protestant Doctors and Writers (in which I will here insist) much preponderating in this business, is; that most of the new Testament (if not all) was originally written in the Greek tongue; and that diverse of the ancient Fathers were 
(z) Ignatius, Epiphanus, Athanasius, Basil, Nazianzene, Chrysostom, Cyrill, Theodoret (besides others) were Greek Fathers.  Grecians borne; & so that tongue became their Mother tongue. Now whereas the Tongues are deservedly styled, the Porters of learning, or the mines wherein the golden Oar of knowledge is found; and also whereas what skill the Protestants can have in that language, is only Artificial, and gotten by their own pains and labour, therefore it inevitably followeth, that the Fathers (as better knowing the true Emphasis and Energy of every Greek Word, than the Protestant can) are much advantaged above the Protestants, for the digging (as it were) & myning out of the true sense of the Holy Ghost, in those sacred writings. And this no wonder, since we find, that Art (which is but a print or stamp, impressed by the seal of Nature) ever subscribes to Nature.  
Thus far touching the Trutination of the Fathers with our Protestant Teachers, and of this— Impar congressus Achille. Concerning which Fathers, I hold it my great Honour (as above I professed) to employ my pen in their Panegyrics, and due commendation; Howsoever many of our Adversaries (as is already made evident) do take great complacency in eiurgating out of their impure stomaches, words of contumely and reproach, against the said Sentinels of God's Church: Upon 
(a) Esay. ●2.  thy Walls, O jerusalem, I have set watches for ever.  
And here before I end, I demand (to recapitulate the former points) how can any Christian justly apologise for himself at that most dreadful day, (the day 
(b) Esay. 13.  of our Lord, a cruel day, full of indignation, wrath, and fury) when it shallbe urged against him, that in the election and choice of his faith drawn from the Scriptures (upon the truth or falsehood whereof depended his everlasting happiness or misery) he did prefer Novelty, before Antiquity; few, before many; Men but ignorant in the scriptural tongues, before others, who sucked with their milk those tongues, from their Mother's Breasts; Prejudice of judgement; before all impartiality; dissension in doctrine; before unity in doctrine; such, as traffic nothing but transitory benefits and pleasure, before Men of most mortified and stupendious lives and conversation; Men being most 
(c) According herto, we find Luther to have had familiar conference with the Devil; as himself witnesseth, in tom. 7. Wittenberg, lib. de M●ssa privata. fol. 2●8. Oecolampadius was slain by the Devil, as Lavather (the Protestant) witnesseth, in histor. Sacrament. printed Tiguri. 1563. fol. 24. Carolostadius is termed by D Fulke, an Epicurean gospeler, in his Rejoinder to Bristows Reply, printed 1582. pag. 240. And Melancthon calleth Carolostadius, A barbarous f●llow in whom there is no sign of the Holy Ghost, in Epist. ad Fredericum Miconium. Swinglius thus writeth of his own lust, in his Treatise to the Helvetian State, We so burned (O for shame) as that we have committed many things unseemly, Caluin is charged with Sodomy, as the City of Noyon in France, in its Register, doth testify, & was burned upon the shoulder for that crime. Beza in like sort, charged with Sodomy with a young boy, called Andebertus, and this is testified by Conradus Schlusselburg (the Protestant) in Theolog. Caluin. l. 1. fol. 93. To pass over others for brevity, Ochinus became a jew, as Zanchius (the Protestant) witnesseth, in his book, de tribus Elohim. l. 5. c 9 Finally Andraeas (the great Protestant) is charged by Hospinian the Protestant, in histor. Sacrament. to have no other God, but Mammon and Bacchus. fol. 389.  impious and profane livers, before works of miracles; Briefly certain ignorant, ignoble fellows, desperately casting away their lives for the purchasing of a little popular air, before many holy and learned Martyrs?  
And with this I close up these leaves▪ And I trust, he closeth well, who closeth his speech in defence of such Men, who were defenders of the Ancient, Christian, and Catholic Religion.  
God save the King.   

THE Faults which have escaped in printing, I hope be not many, nor yet such as may not easily be corrected by the judicious Reader.