Of the NECESSITY OF Reformation, In, and before LVTHER'S Time; and what (visibly) hath most hindered the Progress of it.  
Occasioned by some late virulent Books written by Papists: but especially, by that Entitled, LABYRINTHUS CANTUARIENSIS. Here, besides some other Points, the grand business of these Times, Infallibility, is fully discussed.  
BY MERIC CASAUBON, D. D. and one of the Prebends of Canterbury.  
LONDON, Printed by A. Maxwel for Timothy Garthwait, at the King's Head in St. Paul's Churchyard. 1664.   

PErlegi hunc Librum cui Titulus (Of the Necessity of Reformation, etc.) in quo nihil Doctrinae Disciplinaeve Ecclesiae Anglicanae, aut bonis moribus contrarium reperio; plurima vero Doctissimo Authore non indigna, & huic seculo utilissima.  
JOH. HALL., Rev. in Christo Pat. Humfredo Dom. Episc. Lond. â Sac. Domest. Jul. 5. 1664.   

To the Reader.  
IF it lie upon every Christian, in general; but, upon them principally, whose profession is, to teach others, to be ready at all times, to give a reason of their hope, to them that ask: (1 Pet. 3.15.) that is, as I conceive, of every thing they believe, as matter of Faith: how much more doth it concern all men, to be well satisfied in themselves, that what they believe, and wherein they place their confidence; though they can give good reason for it, and justify the truth of it; will, or can do them any good? Certain it is, and it is a case fully argued and defined by St. Paul (1 Cor. 13.) that if one thing be wanting, the soundest, or most Orthodox Faith will do no good: and as certain it is, that whoever is guilty of Schism, doth want that one thing, without which no salvation can be had. For Schism doth exclude from the Catholic Church; to which Catholic Church only, as a jointure settled upon it, by the Gospel of Christ; the benefit of Christ's redemption, doth belong.  
A strong apprehension of this truth, ever since I begun to apply myself to the reading of ancient Fathers; as them, from whom, after the Scriptures, I expected a certain resolution of all doubts and differences: those words of St. Augustine, among others, especially, Separationis immanissimum scelus; by which he doth set out Schism, as the most horrid of crimes that can be committed by the wickedest of men; made me very inquisitive into the nature of Schism, and very sedulous to collect such things, as I met with in my reading, whereby I might throughly satisfy both myself, and others, if occasion should be, that no such thing as Schism, either as a Protestant, in general; or, as a member of the Church of England, (which may well be called the Paragon of all Reformed Churches:) could justly be laid to my charge. What I had collected to this purpose, I have kept by me (as many other things:) not with any certain intention, to make it public, but as I should see great cause▪ I must confess, that some books of this subject, set out by Roman Catholics, within these few years, which came to my hands, did somewhat provoke me by their confidence, which I could not but admire. But than, as those came to my hands, so some Answers also, and other books of the same subject; as particularly, what hath been written by a Reverend Bishop, than of Derry: and since him, by a worthy Knight, of this very County, where I live; in Vindication of the Church of England, particularly: which made me think my silence would be no prejudice to the cause.  
I might have thought so still; but for two Reasons. First, I did observe by some very late books, set out by some of that profession; even since our late happy Restoration; that as it was anciently said of the Sardi, proverbially, Alius alio nequior; so they did seem to me, to strive how to outgo one another in boldness, and impudence; (I am sorry I must speak so plain:) and still, the last, seemed worse, than the former. I speak of such as I have seen. For, others, there may be, besides them; which, perchance, may deserve a better testimony.  
However, I might have considered longer, but that about last Christmas, a book sent from London, came to my hands, of which I had heard somewhat before, but had not seen it, till than. The title is, Labyrinthus Cantuariensis— being an Answer (so the title doth promise') to the late Archbishop of Ganterburies' Relation of a Conference: Paris: 1658. We might expect somewhat extraordinary, from one that durst undertake such a work. What is performed, I am very willing the Reader should suspend his Judgement, till some trial. And my hope is, That among so many, yet alive, whom that great Prelate, and blessed Martyr, hath so greatly obliged; some will be found, who will make it their business, to vindicate him fully. In the mean time, finding that the Author, whether following the example of others; or himself, an example to others; hath endeavoured by much confidence, and vilifying language, (whereof he is very plentiful:) to abase the credit of that work, which by strength of reason, he saw was not feasable; my zeal for the truth, which in the wrong done to that excellent piece, must suffer much; and particular respects, to the memory of the Author, whom I also shall ever acknowledge a benefactor; made me very desirous of an opportunity, to make his adversary known unto the world, till a further discovery be made by others.  
This opportunity, (besides, that it was my chance, at that very time; for divers weeks together, by some bodily infirmities, to be confined to my house; so that thereby disabled for other duties, I had the more leisure at home:) that subject, which I had in my thoughts before, I did think would give me. Some things I saw, would offer themselves without seeking; others would be brought in, without much digressing from the main purpose; and the Reader, I thought, where so much affinity of matter is, might think my pains as well bestowed upon on the one, as upon the other. As my Title, so my chiefest subject is, The necessity of Reformation: tending to this, to prove that our separation from the Church of Rome, upon that score, cannot be charged with Schism: contrary to that the Author of the said Labyrinth, doth maintain, That Protestants are Schismatics, and no part of the Catholic Church; Chap. xi, xiii, xiv. of his Labyrinth. To prove that Necessity, we must either suppose, or prove that Church to have notoriously swerved from the truth of the Gospel and primitive times, in matters of Faith, of great consequence to salvation.  
Now the particulars being many, wherein they are liable to this charge; to go through which all would be a long work, and perchance not so needful; I thought, if I pitched upon some one particular point, and plainly evinced it, in that one, it would serve my purpose very sufficiently. That one, I have pitched upon, is the business of Infallibility, which in a manner, doth comprehend all the rest, and which is the point now, generally, most in agitation; as the Reader may be more fully satisfied, if he please to turn to the 11, 12, 86, 87, 91, 92. pages of the Book.  
That was the only point, by me intended at the first: and that makes a great part of the Answer, (more rightly, Labyrinth:) to the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury his Book, as may appear by the Contents. However, accidentally, two other points are handled, The mutilation of the Sacrament: (and that too, handled by the said Author:) and the marriage of Priests. So that the very Subject principally aimed at, hath given me opportunity enough. If any thing be brought in otherwise, yet I have reason to hope it will be acceptable, even for his sake, whose memory all true Sons of the Church of England, are so much bound to honour. One thing I must profess, that I have been very careful, to do his adversary no wrong, by mistaking or misreporting his Sense; and to that end, I have sometimes, where I thought it most convenient, exhibited his own words at large, to prevent all suspicion.  
Besides the necessity; I have some considerations of the hindrances of Reformation: and this brought us to a consideration of Ceremonies: not intended against Papists; but to satisfy (if possible) some men among us, whom ignorant people look upon, as most zealous Protestants; but wise Papists have reason, I am sure, (and I think it will appear by our discourse:) to accounted their best friends.  
So much of the accessary. Now concerning my chief subject, a justification of the Reformation, in general: some perchance, may say, or think; What need of this, which hath been done by so many already? I might answer; It is that which is done every day; in voluminous comments, especially: what is new, besides the dress, and some alteration of method? but that men are men still, and will prefer that which is new, (as the Poet of a new Song;) before that which is old, be it better or worse; which right palates only can distinguish. The same may be objected to the adversaries. What have they, that hath not been objected and answered, over and over, even ad nauseam? Yet if there be that read them, because they must have somewhat, that is new: than, new answers, if not absolutely necessary, may hope for the same favour.  
But I will not make use of that Plea. I am not of that opinion, that people should be humoured in their folly. I will judge no other: but it is contrary to my judgement, to busy myself in such an employment. Though therefore the subject be very ordinary; yet I am much deceived, if much be not here, that will not be found elsewhere, upon the same subject. Even there, where I insist upon common instances, as objections out of Scripture, and Fathers; the diligent Reader, may observe some difference. If it be otherwise (for I will not undertake to have read all, even later books, of this argument:) I desire the Reader to be so favourable, as to believe, (he may do it truly; though I shall acknowledge it a great favour:) that I had no intention to deceive him, but was deceived myself. Farewell.   

A Summary of the Contents.  
¶ NOT Salvation out of the Catholic Church; granted; but not, the Roman Church, the Catholic, but as the word Roman, anciently, taken for Catholic, or Universal; and why: pag. 1. etc.  
¶ One particular Church, in some cases, may separate (with due limitation) from another particular Church, in external communion, though both Members of the Catholic. But whether for corrupt manners, and discipline, publicly maintained and allowed; a case proposed out of Baronius; and Baronius his allowing of execreable murder and rebellion, in the case of Irene and her son Constantine, for religion (as pretended;) noted, and detested. p. 3. etc. to p. 10.  
¶ Infallibility, the main controversy of these times, between us and the Romanists. Their arguments for it, from reason and necessity, examined, and answered; and the danger of this kind of arguing, discovered by divers instances: from p. 10. to 24.  
¶ Arguments from Scripture examined and answered: Others against it, proposed: from p. 24, to 36.  
¶ Antiquity (for the said Infallibility) some forged, some suppressed; otherwise, for us. First, their silence, where the matter did oblige them, if they had believed it; observed. Than, their speeches, which seem to make against us, answered, and others objected. Bellarmine, his crafty false dealing, in the contest between St. Cyprian, and Pope Stephen. Unity of the Catholic Church, in what chief. Vincentius Lirin. his Rule, or Direction, how to discern Catholic truths, from haeretical falsehoods, (much commended by Papists:) altogether for us; proved at large. From p. 36. to 64.  
¶ Infallibility, full of irreconciliable intricacies, and contradictions, as proposed: uncertain, in the persons: slighted and opposed, by many Romanists. New devises, and inventions, to uphold it. The Author of Schism dispatched, noted; and the Author of Labyr. Cant. upon this occasion. What Infallibility we grant. From p. 64. to 92.  
¶ possibility of Salvation, granted to Protestants, by Papists, in their Church: and, The Roman Communion, not the safer way; against the Author of Lab. Cant. and others, From p. 92. to 109.  
¶ Necessity of Reformation, concluded from the premises: yet, further asserted, from the Testimony of Authors of greatest worth, and credit amongst Papists: yea, zealous Romanists, otherwise. The Pope acknowledged the greatest Cause of the breach, or separation. From page 120. to 136.  
¶ Hindrances of Reformation,: Puritanism in general: but more particularly, First, Luther himself, that begun it: his fierceness, arrogancy etc. John Hus, his Prophecy, concerning Luther. Another, out of St. Jerome, concerning Reformation, in general. The denying of the Church of Rome, to be a true Church, another great hindrance, and a dangerous assertion, (otherwise:) contrary to the judgement, and declaration of the Church of England. Again; furious inveighing against Ceremonies; as Popish, Idolatrous, etc. one of the greatest hindrances: and upon that occasion, somewhat of Ceremonies, in general: first, against Papists; than, against Puritans. Calvin, his rash and rigid censuring, not sparing (though, we believe, not intended by him:) St. Paul himself. An account of a business, which happened in K. JAMES (of blessed memory) his reign; (the subject of much talk, in those days:) by reason of a book, than set out, under the name of Is. Casaubon: and the temper of ordinary Puritans, evidenced by what than happened. From p. 136 to the end.  
This is the series, of the Contents, in reference to the Title, and principal argument. Occasionally, two controverted points, The marriage of Priests, and, Administration of the Sacrament under both kinds; The first, p. 5.6.7. & p. 110. etc. to 120. & p. 130. The second, p. 67 etc. to p. 73, And again p. 129. are handled.  
The Author of Labyrinthus Cantuariensis, (a great occasion of this undertaking, as the Preface doth intimate:) noted and confuted; and the Reverend Author of The Relation etc. vindicated, upon all occasisions; as p. 14. etc. 39 etc. 45. etc. 56. etc. to 61.71. etc. 74. etc. 79. etc. 85.88, etc.   

ERRATA.  
THe Reader is desired to take notice, That when the Author delivered his Copy (which was about the beginning of June last:) to the Stationer, his Friend; nothing being than concluded about the Printing, but time given and taken for further consideration: he did promise' himself the opportunity of another review, not to altar any thing in the Matter, or Substance; but to amend in the writing, what (probably) might escape his eyes, before. So he expected: but it fell out otherwise, a good part being printed, before he knew what was resolved. Which, as he is very well satisfied did not proceed from any wilful neglect; so it must be acknowledged to have been the cause, that all is not so correct here, as it might have been: as particularly, that some private References in the Margins, which the Author himself, doth scarce now understand, being found in the Copy, are here exhibited: as pag. 13. [V L Miscell. etc.] and p. 52. (falsely printed 44) Uni, etc. which the Reader is desired to blot out: as also, partly to correct, and partly to supply pag. 16. thus: line 26, 27. entitled, De Veritate, etc. upon the stir. l. 28. of salvation (ex consensu Universali, & communibus notitiis:) comm. l. 34. in England, or elsewhere; except they understood not the drift and scope, which is very possible, because, for the most part, obscurely set out, and artificially disguised.  
¶ Page 2. line 11. read, speak. ib. l. 16. Gospel· 4.25. not not. of it there. There w. 7.16. Beneu. 8.6. execr. since that the h. 10.7. could be w. ib. 30. either to r. 13.34. putetis. 14.3. earth, which. ib. 32. Hell (the u 15.2. torm.) did exin. ib. 22. shall think. 18.1. certain. ib. 6. intit. 20.27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ib. 29▪ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 22.27. ipso facto (so some) ib. 28. to be P. 23.18. ingenuous. 24.17. blasph. ib. 27. seek. 27.12. successors? S. ib. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 29.14. Infall. It h. ib. 21. in th'. w. 34.25. (à sec. qu.) th'. ib. 30. successors. 38.10. at Smirnium. 40.26, 27. (quinimò— heretic's▪) anim. 53.36. dent, that my e. ib. 39 looked him o. 56.28. end of his b. 59.5. Catholics. 63.8. of these t. 65.1. hold them inf. 66.17. the like; to be l. 67.16. sumptâ tant. ib. 31. Gelasium. 71.11. Constance. 75.21. (thereby a. ib. 27. Cenom. 84.15. injustum. ib. 23. prevailing, it was d. 85 24. penes. 86 28. Appr. are, (m. 93.13. grounded (for Scripture grounds) ch. 99.19. securus. 118.17. stuck at. 119.36. compertorum. 130.10. purpose after w. 137.22. they conc. ib. 36. one of the greatest app. 140.21. an effect. 141.20. many, if not most err.   

Of the necessity of Reformation, in, and before Luther's time; and what (visibly) hath most hindered the progress of it.  
THere is not anything that our Adversaries (so I must call them in this cause, though in Christ the common Saviour, whom we and they profess, fellow-members and brethrens) have more frequent in their mouths, or which they make more advantage of, when they have to do with ordinary people, than this common saying, That no salvation can be had out of the Church. It is a true saying, and well worthy their serious consideration, who accounted it their chief business whilst they live, to make their Salvation sure. We shall make good use of it: it shall appear in due place: willing therefore we are to lay it as a foundation, and to begin with it. The reason is given by St. Augustine, and is obvious enough upon Scripture grounds: Totus Christus, caput & corpus est: Christ and his Church; Christ is the Head; the Church his Body; no man can have any interest in Christ, but as he is a Member of his Body, which is the Church, the Scripture saith, Col. 1.24. St. Cyprian therefore pithily and briefly: Habere non potest Deum patrem, 
Cypr. De Vnit: Eccles.  qui Ecclesiam non habet matrem.  
No salvation than out of the Church ordinarily; I say ordinarily, leaving God to the privilege of his Omnipotency; as Christ in the like case answered, Mar. x. 27. So still we keep to this main foundation, That there is no other Name under heaven given among men, whereby they may be saved, but the Name of Christ: Act. iv. 12. But what other way or ways God may have to bring men to the knowledge of Christ available to salvation, doth not become us to inquire, much lesle to determine: For the secret things belong unto the Lord our God; but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children. Deut. xxix. 29. But this by the way only.  
That by the Church, in this assertion the Catholic Church is intended, that also is generally acknowledged, since no particular Church can pretend unto Christ, but as it is a member of the Catholic; which Catholic Church our Creed doth oblige us to believe, as a fundamental point of Christian Religion. But St. Augustine is very express, when he saith, Extra Ecclesiam Catholicam totum potest (quivis, scil. though he spoke there of one particular man; but it is the same reason of all:) habere, etc. that is, Out of the Catholic Church, all things besides may be had. A man may have honour; (honorem: that is, promotion Ecclesiastical; alluding to 1 Tim. v. 17. and Heb. v. 4.) a man may have the Sacraments; he may sing Allelujah; answer Amen; be perfect in the Gospect; (or perchance, perform the part of an Evangelist, or Gospel reader in the Church:) have Faith in the Name of the Father, the Son, and Holy Ghost; and preach it; but salvation he can found not where but in the Catholic Church.  
Now the question is, what title the Roman Church hath to the Catholic Church, more than any particular Church? They will not say, That the Roman Church, as it is a particular Church (which they acknowledge) is the Catholic Church. Not, they profess to the contrary, and it would be too gross an absurdity if they should say otherwise. But as the Roman Church is the root, or centre of Unity, as it doth infuse Universality into other particular Churches; (a strange speech, and opinion!) and again, (Privilegio Dignitatis & Dominationis, quia sub se continet universas Ecclesias:) as God, saith one of the Popes, maybe called Universalis Dominus, quoniam omnia sub ejus dominio continentur: Universal Lord, because all things are under his dominion, (Decr. 1. dist. 99 a strange speech that too!) So the Romish Church is styled the Universal, or Catholic Church. Truly, I think it may, without any contradiction in the terms, be so styled, if this be true, in all, or in part, that is alleged; but how truly or probably said or alleged, besides what by others, against it, fully, solidly, which can never be answered, hath been opposed, let the Reader judge, by what we shall have occasion to say of it, though not intended purposely, but as it comes in our way.  
But besides this allegation, which hath been mentioned, (of the truth whereof, the Reader, as I said before, may be able to judge by what we have to say;) I will acknowledge, and it may give some satisfaction to them that have not observed it, that the Roman Church may be called the Catholic Church, (it is so by some ancients:) in another sense, or respect, by a Catachresis or Homonymia of the word Roman. Anciently, Romanus Orbis, or Romanum Imperium, because of its great extent, and generality, was used by many in ordinary language as including an Absolute universality. Passages of ancient Heathen Authors, are obvious to this purpose, which by learned Philologists, though upon another occasion, have been observed. Nay the very word Romania, or Romanitas, hath been used for the whole World; that only, which they called Barbaria, or Barbaricum, excepted. Romana dominatio, id est, humani generis, saith the Epitomiser of the Roman story, Florus. Why not than Romana fides, or Ecclesia, in this sense, for Catholica. Now as it would be impertinent, to infer that all Gentiles, or Heathens, were Greeks properly, and none but they, because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Graeci, is so used in the New Testament, and elsewhere; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Hellenismus likewise: or that all Europeans are Frenchmen, or Franci properly, and none but they, because so called anciently by the Turks; as is well known, and hath been observed by divers: so if in this sense Romana fides, or Ecclesia, be used by some ancients for Catholica fides, or Ecclesia; to infer upon it, that therefore he that is a true Catholic, must of necessity be of the Roman Communion, how can it be lesle than a gross and absurd mistake?  
The next thing which we shall ground upon, and will be granted on all hands, is, That one particular Church may have just cause of separation, in external Communion from another particular Church, and not be guilty of any Schism. The chief cause generally acknowledged, is, false Doctrine, in matters of Faith, not absolutely fundamental; for that would make it no Church: but material in point of truth and soundness of doctrine, and not of an indifferent nature. But there may be other just causes too; as, unjust usurpation upon rights and liberties: As also corrupted discipline and a scandalous life publicly maintained, and allowed by authority.  
And here I desire to propose a Case to the Intelligent Reader. In the year of the Lord 795. Constantine the VII. Son of Leo the iv Emperor of Constantinople, having unhappily settled his affections upon one of the Ladies of the Court, was divorced from his lawful wife, and shut her up in a Monastery. He pretended, that his Wife had attempted to poison him, and otherwise too laid plots, to put him besides the government. This he pretended, but nothing of it was believed; Neither indeed was there any thing of probability in the pretence. However, he did what he could to get some of the Church on his side. He attempted the Patriarch, and others in dignity, but could not prevail. Yet, one Josephus a Priest, an Oeconomus of the great Cathedral in Constantinople was found, who performed all solemnities and countenanced the business with such credit as he had. All good men were much scandalised at the business. Tharasius the Patriarch (though a man that had been promoted to that dignity contrary to the Canons of the Church, per saltum) particularly. But among the rest, or indeed above the rest, Theodorus Studita (a man of great fame in those days, for his piety and learning; whom therefore the Emperor did endeavour to win to him, by all possible means;) appeared so zealous, that he made bold, being no more in dignity than Guardian of a Covent, barely, to excommunicate the Emperor, and all that should adhere to him in this cause. Baronius saith, it was not a direct excommunication, neither indeed was it at that time: but afterwards it came to a direct excommunication: it was upon the same occasion, though not of the same Emperor. But Baronius, who would have it the Pope's peculiar privilege, takes no notice of it; there were others that joined in that action; as particularly one Plato of great fame, and piety, he also Guardian of another Monastery. Theodorus his own brother also, Josephus Archbishop of Thessalonica, held with him; But by the progress of the story, from the beginning to the end, it doth clearly appear that Theodorus was the principal actor and author who gave life and countenance to all that was done. This act gave great offence to divers; who otherwise had sufficiently declared their dislike of the Emperor's unlawful marriage. So that even among those that were of one opinion in the main business, there became great division, and indeed apparent, if not Schism, yet separation. Great arguing there was (all which may be read in Baronius:) whether it were lawful to separate but for matters of Faith and Doctrine: how far number was considerable to the constitution of a true Church (the paucity of them that adhered to Theodorus in this act, being that which gave most offence) and other like matters. But Theodorus, though he suffered very much in his body for it, as imprisonment, and stripes, and the like: yet he stood with an invincible courage to what he had done; and did not suffer in his body more constantly, than he did pled for himself with his pen, stoutly and resolutely. I will not take upon me to justify, neither his proceeding, nor all his reasons, though much advantage may be made of some of his words: but that is not my aim, at this time. My observation is (and I shall make some use of it by and by:) that Baronius finds fault with nothing, neither proceed, nor proofs; nay commends all, but that he would not have it a right excommunication, by no means, as I said before; and that he is somewhat angry at those words of Theodorus in a place, 
Baron. a. d. 808. §. 219.  De papa autem quid ad nos, hoc agate an illud? But much more angry he would have been, had not the same Theodorus afterwards in his great distress, and deplorable condition, with great humility, applied himself to the Pope for secure.  
This was the Case: upon which I have this consideration: If the Pope and the Church of Rome, by their own undeniable records, are convicted to have maintained among the Clergy, who should be examples of holiness unto others, the practice of lewdness and fornication, such as no heathenish Commonwealth can parallel, and such as must in all probability tend to the confusion of Christianism, the advancing, and countenancing of Atheism and Heathenism, more effectually by far than any thing that can be done or devised to the contrary for the advancing of the one, and suppressing of the other: whether in that case all men or Churches, truly zealous of God's glory, and of his truth, were not bound in conscience to separate from the said Church, (and the head of it,) as the mother of Harlots and abominations of the Earth, etc. Apoc. xvii. 11.  
About the year of the Lord 1058. or 59 The cry of these fornications and abominations of the Church, which had filled all the world, was so loud in the ears of Pope Nicolas the II. (who certainly intended well, but took a very contrary course:) that he employed one Petrus Damianus, a man wholly devoted to the Pope, and his authority, but otherwise not unfit for such an employment, to inquire and to apply some remedy. The account that Damianus returned unto the Pope was, that he found the evil gone so far, and so predominant, that he could do no good. Tentavi (saith he:) genitalibus sacerdotum (Bishops, he doth call them so at the beginning:) fibulas continentiae adhibere, sed quia haec secta est (continentia scil.) cui ab omnibus contradicitur, etc. As for all other commands and injunctions that come from your Majesty (for so he writes) we may hope to give you a good account: But in this particular, all that we could extort, was but a bore promise made, (or uttered) with trembling lips. Si malum hoc esset occultum (saith he to the Pope:) fuerat fortasse utcunque ferendum: sed heu scelus! omni pudore postposito, pestis haec in tantam prorupit audaciam, ut per ora populi, volitent loca scortantium, nomina concubinarum, Socerum quoque vocabula, & socruum; fratrum denique & quorum libet propinquorum. Et ne quid his assertionibus deesse videatur, testimonio sunt discursio nuntiorum, effusio munerum, cachinnantium joca, secreta colloquia. Postremo vero omnis dubietas tollitur: uteri tumentes, & pueri vagientes. So he in that account, for the matter of fact, whereby it doth clearly appear that fornication among the Clergy in those days was as public and ordinary almost as eating and drinking. Now what was the reason? Two are there given by the said Author; One is, because they dispaired that they could attain to fastigium Castitatis: not perfection of Chastity (they were far enough from it:) but to live chastely; which they reckoned to be a fastigium, or great perfection, not to be expected; Another is, because they feared no punishment. Will you know the reason of that security? Damianus will inform you: Because, saith he, (Nostris quidem temporibus gemina quaedam Ecclesiae Romanae consuetudo servatur, ut de caeteris quidem, etc.) In those times, it was the use or custom of the Roman Church, in other parts or heads of discipline to require performance: but in those things that concern the incontinency of the Clergy, for fear of the insultation of the Laics and Seculars, dispensatiuè conticescere: he doth not say, absolutely to dispense; but (what is the difference?) by way of dispensation to take no notice at all. And how much lesle is this, than that they might do it by law? And can we think that where the Rulers gave such examples, greater licentiousness among the vulgar can be imagined, in a Commonwealth of miscreants? But it will be said, The Pope was sensible of it, and did endeavour to remedy it. But how to remedy it except he had taken the right course, 
1 Cor. 7.9. Hebr. 13.4.  which was (commended by the Apostle, Better to marry than than to burn: and, Marriage is honourable in all:) to suffer Clergy men to marry, as in former times. Which he was so far from, that at the very same time, whereas the Clergy of the Church of Milan, were allowed wives (ever since Ambrose his time, certainly and before:) he never left until by his agents he had brought an alteration; though all he could do, could not bring it to any perfection or settlement in his time.  
Now, if it were not better, in and before Luther's time, as there is occasion enough to suspect, because besides the complaint of many of those times, and of that side too: (not to speak of Petrus Aloisius, Paul the third, Pope of Rome his bastard; what things, not to be named, were laid to his charge; nor of Joannes Casa, Archbishop of Benovento in Italy, which things cannot be spoken without horror, though both continued, as is affirmed by good authors, in great favour; nor yet to speak of the state of Monasteries in England in King Henry the 8th's time; if we may believe public Records:) the cause still continued, as it doth yet: I think it will be granted, there was very just cause, had there been no other, for separation from such a Church, where such things to the great scandal and detriment of Christianity, are tolerated; and the remedy lawful marriage, (which to forbidden, the Apostle saith, is doctrine of Devils;) so severely interdicted. But be it so, that there is great amendment, (as I make no question, some Popes since that time, have endeavoured it very really:) if it were so than with Rome; and that separation from it, upon that account, was lawful; I have what I aim at, that in some cases, besides errors in doctrine, it may be lawful to separate even from the Church of Rome, without any peril of schism. But of this matter, forbidding of marriage, how lawfully done, and what mischief it hath occasioned; and what may be said of later times more, for the Readers further satisfaction, since we have had occasion to say so much of it here, will be said afterwards; Before I pass to other matter, because Constantine the Emperor his divorce from his wife, and what ensued upon it, hath given us the occasion of this consideration, it will be worth the while to take notice of some passages in Baronius in reference to the said Constantine. It so fell out, that after some seven or eight years this Emperor, by the barbarous cruelty and treacherous rebellion of his own mother Irene, was craftily surprised, his eyes put out, and he soon after made away. Scelus plane execrandum, saith Baronius; so he gins: 
Baron. a. d. 796.8.  he thought it necessary to make some show of dislike, or execration since, that the heavens themselves did so abhor the act, that immediately upon it, there ensued a long darkness (of many day's continuance) in the land, that men could not see their way, and all men interpreted it, that it was Heaven's resentment. But notwithstanding this judgement both of God and men; Baronius immediately after these words, Scelus plana execrandum, with a nisi, etc. turns it into an act of great piety, and worthy of all commendation: warranted by Moses and by Christ: for which in very deed, he deserves the detestation of all true Christians: Nisi, saith he, (quod multi excusant) justitiae zelus ad id faciendum excitasset: that is, An execrable act, had not (as many do excuse it) a zeal of justice moved her, to do what she did. And than again, Plurimum interest, quo quis animo agate, etc. So that let an act be never so horrid in itself, never so contrary to the revealed will of God, and rules of his holy word: yet if may be said it was done zelo justitiae, and out of a good mind (and certainly it is that that most assassinats of princes especially pretend unto:) by this rule it will become not only warrantable but laudable, and a worthy act. This Baronius had learned from Pope Urban the two. who upon the very same ground Decr. II. c. 2, 3, 4, 5. doth acquit assassinats. But see how Baronius his zeal (if it must be so called) made him forget and contradict himself in his account of this sad Tragedy! For whereas he saith here without any author, that Irene did not give any order for the putting out of her sons eyes, or death; but only that he should be made fast or secured: his own author whom he doth produce (who also was present, as he professeth) saith directly, Et circa horam nonam, crudeliter & insatiabiliter, oculos ejus evellunt, ita ut mors subsequens confestim extingueret, consilio matris suae, & consiliariorum ejus. Than followeth that memorable change of the skies, which no story can parallel: 
Bar. a. d. 797. Sect. 2  That the sun for the time of seventeen days, was darkened and did not give its light (or did not put forth his beams) so that ships for want of light wandered upon the sea, and all men said the sun did withdraw his rays, because of this execution upon the Emperor. And again the same author quoted by Baronius in the same place: Die Sabbathi, 
Ba. ibid.  orbatus est oculis à propria matre idem Constantinus. So far was Baronius transported with his blind zeal, that he knew not what he said. But now for a further confirmation of Baronius his perfidious false dealing in this business, and to the end the Reader may the better know him, I shall oppose to this disciple of Nereus, and a Cardinal, one of Loyolas disciples, a very Jesuit, even Petavius, whose account is very different, the more he to be commended for his love of truth and ingenuity. For first he tells us that Constantine was forced by his mother much against his will to marry that wife which afterwards he put away, whereas she had made him sure to another before; than concerning that abominable act, Effossis oculis Constantinus paulo post expirasse dicitur. Quod parricidium in Irenes laudem traxerunt Graeculi quidam. 
Dion. Pet. in Ratio tom. Paris. A D. 1632.  Sed quam invisum Deo fuerit, Septendecim dierum horrenda caligo testata est, quae mortem illius consequnta est: That is: His eyes being put out, Constantine is said to have died soon after. This parricide some Graeculi would draw to the praise of Irene. But how hateful it was unto God, seventeen days horrible darkness which ensued upon it, did witness. So Petavius. Graeculi quidam: a notable and true censure: wherein Baronius, though not a Graeculus himself personally, is equally involved: For the matter is: those Graeculi would persuade the world, that this had happened unto Constantine justly at the hands of God; and that his mother did the act of a pious and religious woman in it, because her son had cruelly entreated some Uncles of his and other kindred, which, some in power, had attempted to set in the throne, in his stead: put out the eyes of some, and cut of the tongues of others: which indeed was cruel, and abominable; but done, partly by the Counsel of his mother Irene, as Baronius his own Authors testify: which Irene had executed little lesle herself, upon others, who as loyal subjects did, or were ready to do their parts, to free her son from that bondage and subjection, against all law and equity; in favour of herself and her dear favourite (Stauratius by name) even after perfect maturity, She kept him in. Her son therefore what he had done cruelly, he did it partly by her advice, and partly by her example: but her unnatural disloyalty to him, even before this last act, (in favour of herself and her favourite, as I said before;) was without example. What than should make Baronius and those Graeculi to speak of her with such respect? The true reason is, because she had been before, and was after this horrid parricid, a fierce promoter (or promotrix) of Image worship. Such friends that goodly cause hath had: and for being such a friend to the cause (a Mystery or Maxim our late Rebels and Regicides learned of Popish zealots) Baronius is not willing to believe she could be so wicked or cruel, though she so cruelly killed her own natural Son; and which is more, her lawful King and Sovereign.  
Now to go on as we propose to ourselves: That one Church may separate from another for errors in doctrine, is not at all doubted: and upon this account it is, chief, that we justify our separation from the Church of Rome. The particulars are many, wherein we charge them to have swerved from the true doctrine, both of the scriptures and primitive fathers. There hath been so much written by men of excellent learning, since our first breach within the space of 150 years, to make this charge good, as that it is very hard now for any man, be he never so diligent, to add somewhat to what hath already been done; or indeed to hope, after so much done and performed with no better success, that any more writing can be to much purpose. They that are both wise and godly, may hope to do more by praying, than they can do (the confidence of men to maintain a bad cause, which doth discover itself every day, more and more considered:) by arguing or writing. But in very deed it can be to little purpose to dispute about particular points with men who are possessed or rather infatuated with a conceit of their Church's infallibility; which of all points being the most absurd and ridiculous, and most repugnant to antiquity, what hopes can any man have, that they that can swallow this, or have the confidence to press it upon others, as a main fundamental article of Religion without which nothing can be certain, or satisfactory, either to aeson or to conscience, as long as they continued in that mind, will regard any thing that can be alleged in any other point?  

Laby p. 37.  The Church being infallible (saith the author of the Labrynth) 'ttwere merely vain to examine her Decrees (which the relator requires to be done) to see if she have not added Novitia Veteribus, New Doctrines to Old. For the holy Ghost (as hereafter shall be proved when we speak of this point) having promised so to direct her, as she cannot err, will never permit her to declare any thing as matter of Faith, which was not before either expressed or enfolded and employed in the word of God. And again: The Bishop of Rome being St. Peter's successor, 
p. 147.  in the government of the Church, and Infallible (at lest with a General Council) it is impossible that Protestants or other Sectaries, should ever found such errors or corruptions definitively taught by him, or received by the Church, as should either warrant them to preach against her doctrine, or (in case she refuses to conform to their preaching) lawfully to forsake her communion. Again, 
p. 171.  We have already proved the Roman Church (in the sense we understand Roman) infallible; and therefore she aught not to be accused, for teaching errors. Neither can she submit herself to any Third, to be judged in this point; both because there is no such competent Third, to be found; as also because it were in effect to give away her own right, yea, indeed to destroy herself, by suffering her authority to be questioned in that whereon all certainty of Faith depends: for such is the Catholic Churches infallibility. And not long after; The Church (Roman Scil. 
p. 172. ) may lawfully judge her accusers, because she is infallible in her decissions of Faith, and hath full authority finally and absolutely to determine all controversies of that nature.  
So he there, and elsewhere often, to the same purpose: So that in effect, all controversies are reduced unto this one of the Pope's Infallibility. Which to make the more plausible, being a point of itself so contrary to reason, and (upon examination of evidences) to manifest experience, that a rational man had need to shut his eyes very close, before he can entertain it with any stability of assent: it is proposed in many terms, and represented under several aspects: sometimes under the notion of infallibility of tradition: sometimes of Councils, sometimes of the Church: all which in their dialect, come to one, as the author of the Labyrinth doth tell us: 
Labyrinth. p. 177.  Wherhfore since the infallibility of the Church, Councils and Tradition depend so necessarily upon one another; whatever authorities prove the infallibility of any one, do in effect, and by good consequence, prove the same of all the rest. Now we also ascribe much to tradition, in a right sense: more to General Councils: but most of all to the Catholic Church, which we acknowledge infallible, in the main fundamentals of Christianity, according to Christ's promise, 
Math. 16.18.  That the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. Which promise of Christ is well applied by the Council of Trent to the Fundamentals of Christianity contained in the Roman Creed, (which little differeth from the Nicene) which Creed is generally received by all that profess Christianity, in all parts of the world. This would give us some hopes of some possible agreement in time. But upon a nearer view, or search into the bottom of the business, all this is resolved into the Pope's Infallibility; 
Labyr. p. 33.  whatever else is pretended, vanishes into mere nothing, as will be showed more at large in due place.  
My purpose therefore is, instead of other particular points, which I said before are many, wherein we charge the Church of Rome to have erred grossly and dangerously, to insist upon this of Infallibility; which, though I know it hath been canvased and refuted by many, and by none more solidly and rationably, than by the late Archbishop and Martyr, in that Book which the Author of the Labyrinth makes a show to answer: yet because some things did offer themselves to me upon this subject, which I have not met with elsewhere; I thought it would not be amiss to impart that also, since no diligence can be too great to descry a falsehood, where so much endeavour is used to cry it up to the credit of a Fundamental Truth.  
To uphold this Infallibility against all assailants, three forts have been raised: the one founded upon pretended Scripture; the other founded upon the authority of ancient Fathers; the third, upon the strength of natural Reason. What is fetched from the Scriptures, is so remote, that by their own confession, (you shall hear them afterwards) little can be made of it: as little from what the testimonies of Antiquity afford: but from Reason, there they triumph, and dare tell Christ, had not he so provided and ordered, as they would impose upon our belief, he had been (I have some horror to speak it) neither good, nor wise: laying a necessity upon us (as much as in them lieth,) either to yield to their inferences, whether we see reason or not; or to blaspheme him in our thoughts, whom our faith doth oblige us to adore as a Saviour. We will therefore begin with that, because they presume so much up●n it; and the rather too, because it hath been lest taken notice of by others, (so far as is come to our knowledge;) nor the consequence of that kind of arguing, which may extend much further, if good and warrantable, by any that I know, fully considered of. Let us hear than, if we can hear with patience, what these men, pretending to zeal and conscience, have made no scruple to utter.  
Hence it follows, (so one of them) that even our blessed Saviour, who is Wisdom itself, would have been esteemed by all the world, not a wise Lawgiver, but a mere Ignoramus, and Impostor. For had he not framed (think you) a strange and chimerical Commonwealth, were it alone destitute of a full and absolute power, (which all other well ordered Republics enjoy) to give an authentical and unquestionable Declaration, which is the genuine and true Law? 
Labyr. p. 77.  So the Author of the Labyrinth, whose plea for Infallibility generally is, because it is necessary, as he doth apprehended it. Deus non deficit in necessariis— This is necessary for the peace and unity of the Church: and therefore not to be denied, unless an impossibility can be showed therein, p. 263. And p. 276. from thence Infallibility is rightly and invincibly concluded, as we have shown by the grand inconveniences which otherwise would unavoidably follow, both to Religion, and the Church.  
So another, that wrote much about the same time: That since it is unworthy the wisdom and goodness of Almighty God, who sent his Son to save mankind, not first to lay, and than leave efficacious means for that end, etc. which is often repeated by the same Author, upon several occasions. Another of that side, having set down the opinions of Protestants, as he would have it believed, blasphemously concludes, Biblia illa non sacra, sed fanatica; spiritum illum, 
Valer. M. decred. reg. p 55.  non sanctum, sed mendacem: Christum tuum, non redemptorem, sed seductorem, constantissimè affirmavero, etc. and the same Author elsewhere, nec existimarem (except you will grant him Infallibility) Deum esse sollicitum de nobis, etc. and again, Si desit mundo illa lux— tyrannidem non suavem, 
Vid. l. Miscel. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p 9 & 〈◊〉, etc.  fortemque divinam, etc. But long before, Non videretur Dominus discretus fuisse, etc. was the speech of one that commented upon the Canon Law, as hath been noted by others: and Pius the Second goes upon the same grounds, but is more sparing in his expressions, in a particular Bull of his, of this subject, though he had been of another mind before; Ne putatis divinam providentiam inordinatam reliquisse militantem Ecclesiam etc.  
In answer to this, I shall here in the first place, profess, That were it so indeed, and did it appear unto us by clear Scripture, backed with the consent and practice of Primitive times, and by answerable event, that Christ did establish, besides his holy Word, a certain living and speaking Oracle upon Earth, to which all men, upon emergent occasions, in controversies of Faith (wherein the truth of God is much concerned) might have recourse unto; by whose infallible (grounded upon God's Word and Promise) resolution and determination, all weighty differences and doubts might be composed; and men, for the preventing of all schisms and divisions among them that profess the Name of Christ, fully satisfied: we should not only submit, as in all things we are bound, (whether more or lesle plausible to man's reason,) with all humility; but gladly, and joyfully, with all possible expressions of due thankfulness, embrace such an appointment. For what man is he, that hath any true sense of humanity, that would not rejoice in peace, and unity, and concord among men, (and by consequent in the true means of it;) as the chiefest of worldly goods, and the greatest of heaven's blessings? But if all that is plausible to human reason, and which right humanity may oblige a man to wish, must therefore be true, and pass among men for good and sound doctrine: what more plausible, (to instance in one particular;) than that all ancient Philosophers, and others, who before Christ, lived in the belief and profession of a Deity, and in their lives and conversations (so far as their knowledge extended, and human frailty afforded,) became examples of virtue, of justice, temperance, continency, contempt of the world, and the like, unto others; that such should not be excluded from the benefit of Christ's Redemption? How far some ancient Fathers have gone in this point, and with them some later writers, of no small account among the Roman Catholics, hath been observed by more than one. It seems in St. Augustins' time, some went further; who grounding upon some places of Scripture, as they understood them; as particularly, 
1 Pet. 3 19 Act. 2.24.  that he had preached to the spirits in prison, and loosed the pains of Hell: did conclude, that Christ by his descent into Hell, the very place of the damned; for so St. Augustine doth avouch it, and saith of it plainly: Quis nisi infidelis negaverit fuisse apud inferos Christum? and not only there, but in his 57 Epistle, as expressly; ubi Dives torquebatur, etc. Whereby by the way, 
〈◊〉. p. 336.  we may see how much the Author of the Labyrinth is to be trusted, when he saith, But how will it appear that the Primitive Church interpreted Christ's descent to be as low as that place where the reprobates are tormented? did exinanire infernum; deliver all that he found there: Of which opinion St. Augustine, as a man whose charity did extend to all mankind in general; (which indeed is truest charity; not as some, who inhumanely and barbarously have maintained, if Heaven were open unto all, it would not be worth having or seeking:) quis non gratuletur? who would not be glad? saith he. And again▪ vellemus vel praecipuè: we had much rather it were so: but it follows, Nisi aliter se haberet sensus humanus, 
Aug Epist. 99 to 2. p. 502.  aliter justitia Creatoris: That is, were it not that human reason and ratiocination, is one thing; and God's Justice or Decree, another. We say therefore, upon grounds of human ratiocination, whether true or supposed, (for all men will not agreed, what is reason;) peremptorily to determine what God hath done or determined, or according to the tenor of those passages for Infallibility, and Supremacy (for they go together commonly) which I have produced: was bound, if good and wise, to do, or determine; I verily conceive, nay, and peremptorily (upon reasons to be produced) affirm, to be the ready way to Heathenism, Atheism, Mahometism, and lastly, to all manner of Heresies, and the overthrowing or undermining of all true Religion and Piety. I do not desire to be believed any further than I show reason; and if my reason deceive me, I shall thing myself beholding to them that will inform me better.  
First than for Heathenism, or Paganism: this was the very way, whereby, chief, ancient Heathens, the most learned among them, did oppose Christianity in the mysteries of our Faith. Let a man, to pass by others, but peruse the writings of learned Origen against Celsus the Epicurean, (so commonly called and reputed, though by his tenets, a Platonist, rather than an Epicurean, as Origen doth often observe: who therefore doth doubt in a place, whether this title of Epicurean, was not rather a surname, than a profession of his sect:) he will found that Celsus his main design in that book, which Origen doth answer, was, to show and to prove, that not only the redemption of mankind in general, by the Incarnation of the Son; but every particular circumstance almost of that heavenly mystery, and all that is recorded of Christ, from his Birth to his Resurrection and Ascension, was inconsistent with Divine Wisdom, Power and Providence; and how every thing might have been contrived much better in reference to God; and much more plausibly to the satisfaction of human reason and prudence. How often doth that word occur in him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (and sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) It should have been, or it aught rather to have been thus, and thus; as he doth propose and argue? And indeed, if we must stand to the trial of human reason, (but that it is greatest impiety, even to consider, where divine wisdom hath certainly determined;) it cannot be denied, but many things may be spoken plausibly; especially in the judgement of ordinary men: Which makes Origen to say in more than one place, or to the same purpose, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: These things are able indeed to extort assent from illiterate ordinary men, to 'cause great applause, etc. And I think S. Paul intended little lesle, when he pronounced of the mysteries of our Faith, but of Christ his Incarnation particularly, that it was unto the Greeks, foolishness; and unto the Jews a stumbling-block: 
1 Cor. 1 23.  or, than was foretold by the Prophet in these words, (applied by S. 
Ibid. 11 19  Paul to that purpose) I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.  
This very thing, human reason and ratiocination; (so conceived and apprehended by men that are self-conceited, and think highly of their own wisdom: for certainly right reason and wisdom is in all such things, so far above the reach of man, wholly to rest upon divine revelation, as ancient Fathers so often inculcate; and I have proved elsewhere, even from the testimony of wisest Heathens:) but this very thing, made the Author of the Book, entitled De vero, verisimili, & falso, upon the strength of his own brain, to which he did very much ascribe, to device a way of salvation common to all men, and to all times: a way plausible enough, had it any other ground but fancy. The design was to show, that there is no need of a Christ: (though he durst not openly profess it;) and what opinion he had of the Gospel, is not unknown to them that knew him. I have heard the Book was burnt in Rome: if true, they deserve much more commendation, than they that licenced it in England.  
The same human reason and ratiocination, hath caused the reviving of that foolish, heathenish conceit of the souls praeexistence; which with, or notwithstanding all its plausibility, even than set out, and contrived, to the utmost of human wit and invention, (which the late revivers would make us believe is the light and happiness of these late days:) was by the care of the than rulers and governors of the Church exploded, and cast out, with shame and ignominy.  
Again, human reason and ratiocination (so conceited as I said before) is the thing, that made some of these late times (pious otherwise, as I have heard;) to fall upon a project of making all men wise, and religious, and of one mind; concerning which, (that we may not be thought to instance in things not worthy the mention:) some Books have been written, and many have been persuaded to entertain the project, and contributions of money made towards it; though, I dare say, since that fabulous attempt of scaling the Heavens, by heaping up of mountains one upon another; (I have said it elsewhere, and say it again:) never any thing entered into the heart of man, more ridiculous: that I say not (though it may be said as truly) more derogatory to the revealed wisdom of God. So much for Heathenism, and Heresies, or strange opinions.  
I said this way tended to Atheism: For if reason must be the judge; what advantage will an Atheist make of the prosperity of the wicked, in this world (so notorious, so generally observed, that even the godly have been troubled at it) against God and a Providence; especially where and when no certain knowledge of the rewards in another world, is yet, or was by revelation? Hath not that been the language of Atheists in all ages? that if there were a God, or a Providence, it would be thus and thus in the world: and not as it is? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (saith one) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: that is, in the words of another; 
Pl. Mil. glor. ed. 8 p. 422.16 p. 392.  ¶ Cùm vexent mala fata bonos (ignoscite fasso) Solicitor nullos esse putare Deos. ¶ Divos dispertivisse vitam humanam aequum fuit (reason and equity his plea, we see:) Qui Lepidè ingenuatus esset, vitam longinquam darent: Qui improbi essent & scelesti, iis adimerent animam citò. Si hoc paravissent, homines essent minus multi mali, etc.  
Men would be lesle in love perchance with this Infallibility, if they knew what Patrons it hath had. Not the Pope's Infallibility particularly, I do not mean; but such a kind of Infallibility as they did fancy; which because they saw never had been in the world, they thought they had ground enough to deny, that there is any truth, or any thing cetain; and that the pursuit of either truth, or virtue, this world affording no such thing really, was altogether vain and frivolous, the consequent whereof must be (though the inference, being odious and dangerous, they leave it to others to make it;) not God, no Religion. Lucian, that great scoffer of all Deity, and great Patron of Epicurism, hath written a pestilent book, instiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: (that is, Of choice of sects and opinions:) In which he doth set out the variety of sects and opinions of Philosophers, in the pursuit of truth and virtue; from which, with much sophistry, and rhetorical cavillation, he doth bring things to this conclusion, that it is no lesle than pure frenzy and madness, for any man to busy himself about such things; and that all Philosophers, that professed any help towards those ends, were mere jugglers and impostors. Witness those last bitter words of his Book: 
p. 127.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Our adversaries may found many of their arguments, and the very way of their proceeding in that Book. The main of all he doth express in these words: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (he doth also use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the said purpose:) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he would have so palpable, and discernible to all, that even blind men might be led by it. We might english him for a need by those words of a noble Champion of the Roman Cause; 
S●. K. D. his conser. with a Lady, p 84.  The true saving faith to bring men to beatitude, aught (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is the word) to be obvious to all mankind, and open, as well to the simple, as to the learned. In what esteem most ancient Fathers have had ancient Philosophers, and their labours in the search of truth, and true virtue: and what wondered operation their doctrine hath had upon men, whereof they allege many particular examples, no man can be ignorant that is any thing acquainted with them; though upon occasion, I know, (and there was occasion enough, I confess;) they speak freely enough. But without an absolute infallibility, that all is but foppery, and lost labour; that is it Lucian would have.  
As for Mahometism, that this way of proceeding and reasoning doth give great advantage to it, is very apparent, if we consider, that the Mehometans p●●… is, that Christ indeed, the virtue and wisdom of God, (for so they speak of him;) was sent by God to turn men from their vain ways, idolatry, and the like, by persuasion to the true God, and right manner of worship. But being that way did not take, that he sent Mahomet to bring that to pass by force of arms, which gentler means, reason and persuasion could not effect. And is it not very plausible (upon those very grounds before specified) that God should be obeyed, and have his will one way or other? Which might be further pressed, by that incredible success which their arms had; having conquered more people and nations in few years, than the Romans had done in some ages. ¶ And will it not follow, or at lest, very plausibly be inferred upon those grounds of human ratiocination, that Christ having purposed unto himself such an end, he must needs have left (so they speak) or appointed some means, how that end may infallibly be compassed; or else (as some to countenance their own inferences, have been bold to censure, or rather to blaspeme,) to be thought so, and so: will it not, I say, follow upon it, that the Pope should be in a manner omnipotent, (and we know them that have made no scruple to give him those titles;) as well as infallible? That at lest he should be backed with power sufficient, to compel them that will not be ruled or swayed (as many will be apt enough, if it be for their interest) by his Infallibility? May not Christ's reputation, upon this ground, suffer as much, or more, by such a contempt? And in very deed, upon this very consideration, some have grounded the necessity of the Pope's temporal Supremacy over all Princes and Kingdoms, giving him power to depose, and to kill, as he shall see cause; because without such a power over Kings and Princes, and Kingdoms, Christian Religion, they say, may in time come to nothing. So Suares, for one, a great Author, and of great authority among the Romanists; who doth confirm his opinion with the dictat of Pope Boniface, pronounced by him as an Article of faith to all Christians; 
Extrav. Com. l. 1. tit. 8 c. 1.  Porrò subesse Rom. Pontifici omnem humanam creaturam declaramus, dicimus, definimus, & pronunciamus esse omnino de necessitate salutis. Which to be spoken by him, of temporal subjection, as well as spititual, appears by the tenor of that Decree, or Declaration. Now it is well known, that many Roman Catholics, even of the learnedest of that side; yea, whole Nations, and Kingdoms of that profession, have not held it problematical, (as some would persuade) but disclaimed this doctrine as impious and diabolical; and Princes, with their Council and Clergy, have made strict Edicts against it, condemned, or censured the assertors, burned their books, and the like: Nay, more than that, when the Pope hath angered them, they have gone very far, some Princes and Kingdoms, yet in subjection, to cast of a great part of his spiritual power, and Supremacy, as we shall show more fully afterwards. If therefore this Infallibility stand upon such ticklish points, so defective in those things that should make it useful, and available; what will the conclusion be upon those former grounds of human ratiocination?  
Now, if a power to compel be not allowed; how likely it was, or is upon grounds of human ratiocination, that this Infallibility, though granted and acknowledged, would be available to that end which is pretended, I further propose to consideration. How natural it is to man, to be led by example, rather than by council, or reasoning; who knows not, that knows any thing of the world, and hath been acquainted with men by experience, or by reading? That a man that is of a bad life, may be Orthodox (as to the world at lest,) in his opinion, or doctrine, no man doth doubt: but whether such a man, where his actions are public and notorious, may probably do more hurt, or good by his Doctrine; is, I think, a great question. God's own words by his servant David are; 
Psal. 50.16.  But unto the wicked, God saith: What hast thou to do to declare my Statutes; or, that thou shouldst take my Covenant in thy mouth? Upon which words St. Chrysostom doth observe, that in Prince's Courts, (by the laws or customs of his time) it was not ordinary or usual for any man to be allowed to be an Interpreter of the King's Laws, that was convicted of a corrupt life. His words are; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The same St. chrysostom elsewhere calls that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the most uncontrollable, or irresistible (we may say infallible) proof and conviction, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: adding in the same place, that all the reasoning in the world, without a godly life, is to no purpose. Nay, the same chrysostom, in his sixth Homily, upon the same Epistle to the Corinthians, doth peremptorily deliver, that miracles, where a corrupt life is visible, will do no good; and that a godly life without miracles (since the first miracles of the Primitive times) is sufficient; among Christians, at lest.  
If therefore God designed the Pope's breast for the sanctuary of truth, (qui jura omnia in scrinio pectoris sui censetur habere: Sext. Decr. l. 1. tit. 2.) may not a man, upon ground of human ratiocination, plausibly infer, that certainly the same God, who intended him infallible, would also make him impeccable; or, if that be too much, or not so necessary; yet at lest so to provide, that he might not be extremely scandalous and exorbitant in his life and conversation; jest that instead of keeping men in the right faith, by his infallibility in doubtful points of doctrine, he should (as most probably) overthrew the faith of more in points fundamental: make more Atheists by the one, than preserve from Heresy by the other? That there have been many, besides the Primitive Popes, (who were all Martyrs, or most of them,) pious and exemplary Popes, worthy of that place, we will easily grant, and I think no body will deny; but is it not strange, that any zealous for the Pope and his greatness, should confess,, (forced by truth,) that no lesle than fifty Popes, one after another, (or thereabout) for the space of 150 years, 
Genebrard. in Chronol.  were not better than arrant Apostates? I think I need not name him that hath said it, because divers have taken notice of it; but if any desire it, they shall found his name in the margin. And Baronius saith directly of some of them, though they sat without opposition, (and there is the same reason for all;) that they were not right Popes, but mere usurpers. What was the Church all that while without a head; such a head, as they would make us believe, Christ was bound, or thus and thus to be censured, to provide it? Can it subsist so long, without this provision for Infallibility, and yet we to believe upon pain of eternal death, nothing so necessary, so fundamental, as infallibility? What contradictions are these? They that tell us upon grounds of human ratiocination, that God was bound by his Goodness and Wisdom, to make the Pope infallible, to prevent heresies; how will they reconcile this with Providence? Hath God taken such care to prevent Heresy, and made no provision against Atheism, in which all Heresies are included? What can be more inconsistent with human reason, more derogating to Providence, than that a man promoted, if not by the Devil immediately, (as by their own Authors it is written of some Popes;) yet by public Strumpets, and governed by Strumpets after his promotion, (which of Pope John the Tenth particularly, is acknowledged by Baronius;) should by the extraordinary assistance of God's Spirit, be made infallible, in mysteries of Faith?  
Lastly, Is it likely, in point of reason, or agreeable to Providence, that God should make a Pope miraculously infallible in his public decisions and decrees, ex cathedra, as they say; jest the Church should receive hurt, and yet suffer him to be an Heretic in his ordinary life, and profession, from which as much, or more hurt may justly be feared? But it will not be granted by all Roman Catholics, (though by many it is, men of great credit among them, who never were accounted Heretics for it) that any Popes have been Heretics: Baronius doth not grant it, nor Bellarmine, I know; but he that shall with judgement and unpartiality, read their answers to the objections and instances to the contrary, will found, I am confident, that they are put to such shifts to found evasions, that he will rather be confirmed by their answers that it is so as we say, than receive satisfaction that it is not. Let any man, to instance in one, see how Baronius is put to it, to acquit Honorius the First, who was excommunicated, after his death, by the sixth general Council, for a Monothelite, and the excommunication confirmed by Leo the Second; how miserably he doth come of; and after many wind and turn, is glad to betake himself to caligo temporum, (or, darkness of those times) for an excuse; I think he will say Baronius might have spared his pains; but that what shift soever he makes, he must hold to his conclusion, which was the chiefest design of all that great and voluminous work. We shall have another instance in Liberius before it be long, where Baronius is as much put to it. Now if it be said that the Pope cannot be an Heretic, because when he becomes an Heretic, he doth (ipso facto, so some) cease to be a Pope; if they mean by that, that at that very time, by a miraculous Providence, such a Pope is always deposed, or doth die: they say somewhat indeed, but that which is contrary to truth; neither indeed, is that their meaning. But to say, that he ceases to be a Pope de Jure, though he continued still Pope, and in full authority de facto; the answer is altogether impertinent as to Providence: For if he continued in his place without apparent opposition; how shall people judge him to be no Pope, for his false doctrine; and not rather believe his doctrine (upon their principles) good and true, because he is in the Pope's Chair? As well may they maintain that the Pope is impeccable, upon pretence, that as often as he doth sin, (scandalously at lest) he ceases to be Pope, although he return to his right afterwards. And the like may be said of any Priest in general, that he is impeccable upon that account, which showeth the impertinency of this evasion.  
I will instance in one particular more, though I think I have already gone over all the particulars I promised. Not to speak of the East Indies, of discoveries and opportunities in those parts; when the New World (which may truly be called a New World, either for the extent of Land, found to be greater and greater every day; or for the number of Inhabitants;) was by God's miraculous providence found out; a way opened for the conversion of innumerable multitudes of heathen people, to the saving knowledge of Christ, and of his Gospel: what readier way, in the judgement of human reason, for the accomplishment of so great a work, than signs and miracles; even as at the first plantation of Christianity in the world, the reason in appearance being the same, and the number of men to be converted not lesle considerable? This made one of the learnedest and most ingenious Papists, who by long experience was throughly acquainted with that business, to take it into serious consideration, as doth appear by what he writeth of it in his Books De procuranda Indorum salute: lib. 2. c. 9 where he doth propose a question in these words; Curio miracula in conversione gentium non fiant nunc, ut olim, à Christi praedicatoribus? He there tells us, that they were many that wondered at it, as well as he; for that it was (by approved experience) the readiest way; and that they were innumerable nations (whose salvation they were bound to believe was dear unto God,) that would speedily have been converted, if God had vouchsafed them the same means. He doth not absolutely deny (trusting upon the relation of others) but that some miracles, or miraculous operations have been performed by some, in some places: verum cur tanta signorum parcitas sit, cum videtur tam effusa esse necessitas: (necessity the great argument for infallibility:) meritó: cruciat animum. It pierced his very soul, as he professeth: It is well he was not of the temper of the defenders of Infallibility; God should have heard of it in another manner, as you have heard before. But Acosta it seems, had better learned Christ; and therefore, besides what Gods holy Word did afford him, which he makes excellent use of, having consulted with St. Augustine, and S. chrysostom, upon the matter, whose words he doth there produce, he doth resolve the question with much wisdom and piety. The best resolution is, (though indeed, he doth also, after that, very modestly attempt upon some other plausible reasons:) Quis novit sensum Domini, aut cum quo iniit consilium? 
Isa. 40.13.  Who hath directed the spirit of the Lord; or being his Counsellor, hath taught him? Which also in that great question, concerning the conversion of Nations, why God should leave some in their ignorance so long, and not afford them the means which he doth unto others, is St. Augustins, and all wise men's that have considered of it, their resolution.  
Hitherto it hath been our business to show the danger and impertinency withal of that kind of arguing (in general) which is used by many, and wherein they put great confidence, to prove a necessity of the Pope's Infallibility. But now what may be said for Providence, in this very particular, to show the unreasonableness of their allegations, (or blasphemies rather) as well as impiety; the reader, if he please, shall found at the end or conclusion (where I thought it more proper) of this discourse of Infallibility.  
Now if they shall quit that plea, and fly to Scripture, or true Primitive Antiquity to prove it, we cannot except against the way; and though we have no purpose to examine all places and allegations, which would require a large volume, and hath been done fully by more than one; yet I shall propose some things to be considered of, which perchance may save some men whose leisure doth not serve them for long discourses, the labour to see further; And though Infallibility be the thing that we propose to ourselves chief to insist upon, yet because it doth often coincidere with Supremacy, in proofs and allegations, and hath some connexion with it in the Pope's case, both, as is pretended, being grounded upon one thing, the welfare and unity of the Church; we shall not decline what offers itself in the way, concerning that also.  
¶ The first question than will be, whether it doth appear by Scripture, that such Supremacy joined with Infallibility, was promised to St. Peter? The second, whether to his Successors? As for the first, what was granted to St. Peter personally, as an Apostle, will not much concern us to inquire: Of his Successors is all the question. What is said of the first therefore, shall only be as it makes way for the resolution of the second question. Those places that are produced to show the Church's Infallibility, we meddle not with them; if any thing can be made of them, they concern not the Pope, but the Catholic Church; the Infallibility whereof, in Fundamentals, we maintain more truly than the Romanists do, as we shall see afterwards.  
But before we enter into the examination of particular places, I shall propose to the Readers consideration, what I think he will not think unreasonable: If it be so, as we are told by the abettors of it, that without Infallibility no man can tell what to believe; that there can be no certainty of Faith; and by consequent, no hope, no possibility of salvation to any: that therefore Christ, who in his goodness had founded a Church, was bound in his Wisdom, though by a continued miracle, to provide this infallibility for it, as that without which, his Church could not subsist; it will certainly follow, that the same God did also provide that this infallibility might infallibly come to the knowledge of men, that would not be willingly and obstinately blind and ignorant. Of all men, I mean, who by their birth, as born of Christian Parents; or, by their conversion afterwards, have, or should have any interest in the Church. If they sand us to the Scriptures, to found it there, we desire no better assurance. But than, since it is well known and granted on both sides, that the Scriptures are oftentimes obscure, and of doubtful interpretation; as once St. Augustine desired of the Donatists, so must we of our Adversaries, that they may not produce Scriptures which may admit of different interpretations: but clear, perspicuous, unquestionable Scripture; such as may be sufficient to convince any reasonable man that is but capable of common sense, 
August. De Vnit. Eccl.  and is not wilfully cross and refractory. Such Scripture St. Augustine required of the Donatists, and such did he produce against them himself very plentifully.  
The places alleged for the Pope's Infallibility (into which all Infallibility by their doctrine doth resolve) are three. First, Luke. 22.31, 32. Simon, Simon▪ behold Satan hath desired, etc. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, etc. What man, without a revelation, since Christ knew that Peter particularly, which no other Apostle did, would deny him, could imagine, that Christ intended any more by these words unto Peter, than this? Though I know, Peter, that thou wilt deny me through fear; yet, etc. And truly this denial of Peter, whose zeal had been so eminent above the rest of the disciples, after so glorious a confession, might have troubled all the disciples, had not Christ foretold it: by which foretelling also, the Disciples in this time of Christ's apparent outwardly dereliction, were seasonably confirmed, that Christ knew all things; and that nothing happened to him, or his, without a providence. But that any infallibility was promised to St. Peter, peculiarly to him, or more than to the rest of the Disciples; and not to him only, but to all his Successors in that See; by which infallibility the Church should continued sound in the faith, and orthodox: must not he have the spirit of Prophecy, that could fetch all this infallibly out of these words? Besides, divers ancient fathers have commented upon these words. I am not so well furnished at this time perchance, that I can have recourse unto all. But neither in Maldonat, who useth to be very exact upon such occasions; nor in the Rhemish Annotations, do I found any Commentators alleged, that have any thing of infallibility. Not nor in Bellarmin: who doth indeed (as the others also, some:) produce the words of divers ancients, which apply upon occasion, those words to the Popes, as Peter's Successors. But who are they? Some of them mere counterfeits, as Leo, the First: Felix, the Fi●st: out of the first Pope's Decretals: which Papists themselves, when occasion is, stick not to disclaim, as false and suppositious ware. And than others but those later Popes, in their own quarrel, no competent judges or witnesses. Bernard his authority after the Popes were come to that height, is not considerable. chrysostom saith little, neither doth he quote those words particularly, as Bellarmine doth acknowledge. To all these I will oppose Theophylact, whom Bellarmine and others not without reason, stile Chrysostom●s abbreviator, who is copious enough upon the place, and speaks of Peter's Primacy, as other Fathers do: but nothing of any infallibility peculiarly granted to Peter by these words; much lesle to his successors. Nay it is apparent, that he knew no such thing: and certainly had it been a thing known, or believed in his days, he had not been ignorant of it; and if not ignorant, he would have made some mention of it (who can think otherwise?) where he could not omit it without suspicion of wilful perfidiousness. That he knew no such thing, or at lest would not be known; (if any can be so absurd as to believe it:) doth manifestly appear; because in the exposition of those words, and when thou art converted strengthen thy Brethrens, he bringeth two interpretations; the first in reference to the present; the second extending to future times, and after-ages. In reference to the present time he saith, it became well Peter, as he that was, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the chiefest of the Apostles: yea 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: that is, the rock and fortress (or bulwark of the Church; (other Fathers have said as much, as this, of St. Peter, it is not denied: but how little this doth advance the Pope's cause, will abundantly appear, I hope, before we have done:) after his repentance to confirm the rest. The second interpretation, in reference to future times: What? Because this grant, or privilege (call it what you will:) was to pass to St. Peter's Successors so indeed, reason would enforce, had any such thing been believed; especially, as an article of Faith, and a main fundamental of Religion. Theophylact his words are: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. That is, 
Theophyl. in Evangel. Rom. Ed. p. 357.  This may be understood also, as spoken not of the Apostles only, that than lived, that they should be confirmed by Peter: but of all the faithful that shall be unto the end of the world. For thou Peter, being converted, thou wilt become a good example unto all men of (or for) repentance: and none that believe in me, will despair looking upon thee (or, whilst they look upon thee) who being an Apostle, didst deny me; and again (or, afterwards) through repentance didst receive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, primacy (or, superiority,) over all and (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: as much hath been said of other Apostles;) the care (or superintendency:) of the whole earth: (or, World) Let any man judge by this, whether Theophylact knew any thing, or had any inclin from others of St. Peter's Successors their infallibility from those words of Christ unto Peter. 
Bell. De. R. P. l 4. c. 3. p. 796.  If any man shall reply, as Bellarmine doth, both of him and others, upon the same occasion; that though they say nothing of it, yet they deny it not; they say nothing against it: let the impartial reader consider, whether the silence of a Commentator, upon a Text, upon which, such a necessary fundamental Article of Faith, (as they would have us to believe) is grounded, doth not amount to an absolute denial; or at lest imply the ignorance of the Commentator, concerning any such thing. But the reader may observe by the way, how manifestly Bellarmine doth contradict himself in this matter. For whereas he saith in one place, Caeterum isti Patres, (Augustine, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Prosper; by him named before;) licet, etc. that is, Though these Fathers make no mention of the other privilege, which is, or was, (as he a little before doth expound it;) That as Bishop, or Pope, he should never teach any thing contrary to true faith— which privilege did certainly descend to his posteri (or successors:) yet they deny it not, nor indeed could they, except they would contradict many other fathers. So here he confesseth, that those Fathers, Theophylact for one, made no mention of this second privilege in their expositions upon this place, Luk. xxii. etc. In the very next place he hath these words; Praeter hos Patres, non desunt etiam alii authores, qui eodem modo, (de secundo Privil.) exponunt. Theophylactus in caput 22. Lucae, apertè docet, dari Petro hoc privilegium, quia ipse futurus erat princeps & caput aliorum, & perinde dari omnibus aliis qui illi in principatu succederent. And than produceth Theophylact his words, (which we had before) Quia te habeo principem discipulorum, confirma caeteros. Hoc enim decet te, qui post me Ecclesiae Petra es, & fundamentum. The same Theophylact in the same place, silent, Bellarmine saith, a little before, and yet so express concerning it, as he makes him here; is not this a manifest contradiction? If it be said, Bellarmine by these last words, intended only that so much might be collected, or inferred from those words of Theophylact he citeth afterwards. I answer, were it so; yet none meminisse, and aperte docere, is a contradiction however, that cannot be denied. As for the inference, that that also is a false inference, doth appear by Theophylacts own words immediately following, when he doth expound what follows in the Text, And when thou art converted, etc. Some may wonder at this kind of dealing; but not they that are versed in Bellarmine, and have examined his quotations; they will not wonder at it.  
The second place of Scripture upon which they ground this Infallibility, is that saying of Christ to Peter (concerning which so much hath been written on both sides: 
Matth. xuj. 18. ) Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church: and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I must desire the reader to bear in mind that we are upon an Article of Faith, (as our adversaries would have us believe;) which is the Cardo Religionis; the main fundamental of Faith, upon which all depends, and without which, no certainty of any thing to be had; no hopes of salvation left to any: which therefore (upon their own grounds of reason, upon which they build the necessity of Infallibility) had need to be written in capital letters in the Scripture, that all men may read it there, plainly and legibly; or else the Wisdom and Providence of God, etc. The rest may be supplied from their own words; I make some conscience, even to repeat them. Now this is the chief passage of Scripture, upon which both Supremacy and Infallibility are built. That much hath been ascribed to St. Peter's Chair, by some ancients from those words, we may, and will easily grant: what may be made of this grant, we shall consider afterwards, in its proper place. All that we have to do here, is to consider, whether there be such a consent of ancient fathers in the interpretation of these words, as may induce us to believe that we have in them plain and direct Scripture, for either absolute Supremacy or Infallibility, it hath been the task of more than one, to examine all particular places: I think, if we can show that some fathers of principal authority, have pitched upon a sense of the words, very different from that which the Romanists contend for, and which gives no advantage at all to either Supremacy or Infallibility, we shall have done as much to the full, as in pursuance of what we have undertaken, can reasonably be expected. The main difference is those words, Et super hanc Petram, and upon this rock: whether Christ intended Peter his person by that rock; or himself; or as some, St. Peter's Faith; or the Church. I know much endeavour is used by the chiefest abettors of the Pope's cause, Maldonat, Baronius, Perron, to reconcile their interpretation that would have St. Peter's Faith, or the Church, understood with theirs that understand St. Peter himself. But he that well weighs the places, let him be a friend to the cause as much as he will, let him but judge impartially, will commend their will more than their success; however we may spare that labour. St. Augustine in his Retractations, which he wrote when his judgement was ripest, and his mind most disengaged, he doth there acknowledge, and in a manner retract, that in one place he had followed that interpretation which made St. Peter himself to be the rock; which, that he might not be thought to have done singularly, he doth allege St. Ambrose his hymn, where that sense is followed. But than, Sed scio me postea saepissime sic exposuisse, etc. Though I did so there, (saith he) yet I am sure I did in very many places, since that time, (upon better consideration belike:) so expound it— ut (super hanc) intelligeretur Christus, quem confessus est Petrus, dicens, Tu es Christus, filius Dei vivi: ac si Petrus ab hac Petra appellatus personam Ecclesiae figuraret, quae super hanc Petram aedificaretur, & accepit claves regni coelorum. It is true, he leaves it free to the Reader to follow either; he doth not condemn that former interpretation, expressed by St. Ambrose, in those known verses of his; but if we follow his judgement, it is clear, Christ himself, not St. Peter, is the rock. And what need we more? What can Baronius answer for himself, or any body for him, who layeth no lesle than madness to their charge (eo amentiae provecti sunt) who would not have Peter understood, and by consequent, nothing here intended to him by Christ, particularly? Baronius would make us believe, that which gave ground to this interpretation of St. Augustine, is, his ignorance of the Hebrew, or Syriac. True it is, that the difference observed by St. Augustine, between Petrus and Petra, will not hold in the Syriac, as to any difference of termination; but as to the difference of sense, it is the same thing in the Syriac, and in the Latin. For Cephas for a proper name, and Cephas for a rock, (Tu es Cephas, & super hanc Cepham;) are quite different in the sense: Besides, those that peruse those many places of St. Augustine, where he doth assert that interpretation of Petra, for Christ himself, will found that he hath other reasons for it, besides that observation of the difference of the words; and there be other ancients besides St. Augustine, who follow the same sense, and make no such observation. And besides ancients, I will name one of these later times, a man of great authority in Spain, whilst he lived, Michael Medina, who in his Apology for Ferus (hereafter to be mentioned) doth treat of these words, and hath more interpretations than one, but not any that doth concern St. Peter particularly; much lesle the Pope, and his pretended Infallibility. We shall have occasion again to speak of the words, and give the Reader fuller satisfaction: But by what we have said, the Reader may judge whether it be probable, that these words were ever intended by the Holy Ghost, as an evidence for Infallibility.  
The third and last place of Scripture, is, Pasce oves meas. Joh. xxi. 16. Feed my sheep. But they themselves that allege this, can make nothing of it, but by remote consequences; (and indeed, if there be any thing of Infallibility in these words, who doth not see, that every Shepherd must be Infallible?) which therefore we shall not need to insist upon. But if any man desire to be further satisfied, let him but read St. Augustine in his 49 Homily upon St. John; where, treating of those words, he makes the effect of them equally to concern all Bishops and Pastors; that is, to be tender of their Flock, and not to enter into that charge otherwise, than by the right door, etc. but that they were spoken to Peter particularly: First, because Christ (in Petro formabat Ecclesiam:) in the person of Peter, did lay the platform of his Church; and secondly, because Peter, having offended more than any other, would be obliged more than any other to the observation of this charge: but of any dominion, or peculiar privilege granted unto Peter by those words, not any word there, nor in the next Homily, where he treats of them again; where also he doth assert Christ the only Master, and head Shepherd: all others without any distinction, to have equal interest in Christ.  
Now if this be all that the Scripture doth afford for Infallibility (for the example of a chief Priest, among the Jews alleged by Baronius; or the Urim and Thummim, which he did wear, by Bellarmine, cannot be called arguments, much lesle evidences) let the reader judge, whether it have any ground in Scripture to be believed as an article of faith, by all men, as necessary to salvation.  
But now on the other side, it will not be amiss to consider, whether a man not pre-occupied or prepossessed with prejudice, reading the Scriptures will not be rather inclined, by what he finds there, to believe the contrary. I said before, that Supremacy and Infallibility▪ had some connexion. For in very deed, Supremacy, such absolute Supremacy as the Pope challengeth, without Infallibility (in fundamentals at lest) will be very dangerous, and inconsistent with the welfare of the Church: and Infallibility, as was said before, without Supremacy, even such as is contended for, to little purpose. We shall therefore take them here together into consideration: I will but point at the places briefly, and leave them to the Readers further consideration.  
First, we are often told that Christ is the head of the Church; so expressly called and styled in divers places. As we read, so we believe and maintain; and we see and admire the effects of this headship of Christ, in God's wondered providences and dispensations for the preservation of a Catholic Church, in all ages, hitherto, notwithstanding all the attempts of men, or devils, in all ages very visible, to the contrary. It will not serve to say, the Pope is head under Christ; For in a large sense the same may be said of any Bishop in his Diocese, or Pastor in his Parish: and of temporal rulers also, more eminently. But the Pope challenging to himself such power over the universal Church under that title; even as great, as would be due to Christ himself, if he ruled personally: is it not more than probable, that that title being given to Christ often, never to Peter, or any other; no other can pretend to it, and to the right of it, without manifest usurpation and Sacrilege? St. Peter himself charges all Ministers, pascere gregem (pasce oves meas, 
1 Pet. v. 2 4.  was Christ his charge to him; how much short is this of that, in ordinary construction?) to feed his flock: tells them of a chief Shepherd to whom they are accountable: saith nothing of himself: Lord, what other guess of language do we found in the Pope's Epistles, and Decretals?  
St. Paul Ephes. iv. 11. doth set down the Hierarchy of the Church (we may so call it) in his days: he doth particularise the several charges and offices appointed and instituted by God in his Church: some Apostles, saith he: some Prophets: some Evangelists: some Pastors and Teachers, for the perfecting of the Saints, etc. He doth it also 1 Cor. xii. 28. In both Chapters he doth treat of the unity of the Church, and wherein it consisteth: the unity of every particular Church: and the unity of the Catholic Church: Would not any man admire, if St. Paul knew any thing of the Pope's Supremacy, in order to his Infallibility, and the Church's infallibility (for that is the principal end:) as St. Peter's Successor; that he should make no mention, either of St. Peter particularly: nor of any such charge, to be continued in the Church, so necessary as we are told to the preservation of it?  
And again, the same Apostle speaking of the divisions among the Corinthians, relates their words, and makes them say, I am of Paul; and I of Apollo; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ; and than adds, Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? Which implies the same of the rest also: as if he had said: Was Apollo? Was Cephas? Would any man think St. Paul would have made so bold with Cephas, as to mention him among the rest, without any distinction, or acknowledgement of his superiority, nay supremacy; which is now so eagerly pressed and contended for, as if all religion lay in that one Article?  
But above all, let a man calmly and soberly, (I mean without passion or prejudice;) read St. Paul, Gal. 2. the whole chapter: wherein St. Paul gives an account of himself, and of his carriage in his charge; in reference (and partly opposition) to some others, who also were Ministers of Christ: how he speaks of them; first in general, who seemed to be somewhat, in the sixth verse; asserting there the Independency of his charge and proceed, in these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is a very significant word, and of great extent, In conference added nothing to me: so expressed in the English there; but others more generally, nihil addiderunt; auctoritatis, aut cognitionis, scil. that is, they added nothing to me, either of knowledge or authority. than v. 9. naming them whom he intended: James; Cephas; and John; who seemed pillars. And than v. 11. of his contest with Peter, particularly; that he withstood him to the face (and v. 14. before all the company:) because he was to be blamed. and v. 13. that he dissembled. v. 14. that he (with the rest) walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel: Would not a man think that St. Paul foresaw somewhat, or that he was moved by the spirit of God, to writ those things of purpose, to prevent, or at lest, to convince the strange attempts and extravagances (to use the title of one part of the Pope's Law, or Decrees; which might well be so styled) of after-ages? I cannot blame the Pope, if he would not have these things read publicly to the people, in a language they can understand.  
Again, Acts xv. Where we have the story of the Apostles meeting together, to consider of some doubtful points; we found indeed that St. Peter spoke first; (which Baronius and some others would draw to an argument of his supremacy and presidentship in this Council; quite contrary to St. chrysostom his opinion, who directly makes St, James his speaking last, or after Peter, an Argument of his authority, as Bishop of Jerusalem, who also doth observe, that St. Peter spoke more roughly; St. James not only more fully (to end the business) but also more mildly; as became him (saith he) to whom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉:) the power (or government) was committed: who was (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) in great power (or authority:) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) to leave those things, that would be most offensive unto others; and himself, to insist upon those things, the subject whereof would well agreed with more meekness and moderation.  
I shall not insist upon the weight of this observation, or the pertinency of it, in this place. All I observe upon it is, that if St. chrysostom had believed St. Peter's Supremacy, a great part whereof must be to preside in all Councils, he had never written so: But we are not yet come to that; (the opinion of the Fathers in general) but that this offered itself in the way. But to return to the Text: Doth not St. James seem to speak more distinctly, not only determining of some things, which Peter had not mentioned; (according to which determination, the letter was framed:) but also in those words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (is there not some Emphasis in the pronoun; which though the English cannot be without; in the Greek, it is ordinary) My sentence is? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; saith the same St. chrysostom: What meaneth this, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or, My sentence is? that is (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I speak, or declare with authority, that so it is. I pass over these things briefly, to which much more might be added, if we intended a full discourse, or discussion. Those things are direct and pat against St. Peter's Supremacy: such at lest, as is contended for: which is the only ground on which by way of Scripture authority his successors build.  
But when our adversaries have done all that they can, to bring together some places that may seem to ascribe to Peter somewhat above the rest of the Apostles; yet still a second question, they are to prove, wherein they confess the Scripture is silent: that, what was granted to Peter peculiarly, in this kind; was with equal right and infallibility, to descend to his successors, without which they do nothing. That nothing in the Scripture is to be found, that doth evidently concern the Popes as St. Peter's successor; is the acknowledgement, 
Laby. p. 280.  as of others, so of the author of the Labyrinth particularly in these words: To omit Scripture, wherein I confess there is no express mention of the Pope, but only of St. Peter, in whose right the Pope doth succeed. And will they say than; can they dispense with their own Consciences so far, or so presume upon our credulity, as to maintain that the Pope's infallibility, hath any grounds in Scripture, to make it an article of Faith, of necessary belief to all that will be saved▪  
I know it is not for men, peremptorily to judge of the heart; yet if we consider all things, and may judge at any time, by outward appearances, their judgement we may say, is not without great probability, who think (as divers have professed) that none are further from the belief of this strange Paradox of infallibility, than they that are most earnest, and apparently zealous, to make others believe it. The reason may be; because many, upon the authority of great names, and some plausible allegations; and especially by the confidence of the assertors; may probably be induced to believe it, truly and really: but that they that have taken the pains (as they must that defend it:) to look neatly into it, to see what can be said for it or against it; should not discern the falsehood of it, the manifold contradictions and absurdities; is indeed very hard to believe.  
And because they sand us to the Old Testament, sometimes; and would make some advantage of some things there; I shall only desire the Reader to consider: What difference soever we found of administrations and dispensations; of ordinances and commands, between the times before and since Christ; without further enquiring into the reasons, we think ourselves bound with all humility to submit to the wisdom of God, and verily to believe, that whatever God did appoint in Church or State, for the government, or well being of it present and future, was absolutely best, so as God had appointed. In those things, where Gods will and authority revealed unto us in his word, hath not interposed; there we leave some liberty to human ratiocination. Whereas the Church (visible) was formerly confined by Gods own order and decree (what reason of man can penetrate into the causes?) to one particular Nation; we believe since Christ, a Catholic Church: that is, Congregations of Christians in all places of the world, united in and by the main fundamentals of Christianity: and by their head CHRIST JESUS: against which Catholic Church (because it is so revealed unto us and promised by Christ himself:) we verily believe the Gates of hell shall not prevail. But of any particular Church; that it shall be infallible, itself, and the means of infallibility unto others, having no ground from scripture, we see nothing in the course of God's Providence in former times, that should induce us to believe. For certainly, God was than the same God, under the law in himself, and in his own nature, (if we may so speak) as he hath been since the Gospel. He had a Church than, which Church had an interest in Christ, as it hath had since Christ. The people of Israel, they were his chosen peculiar people, whom he did cherish, and protect miraculously, from t●me to time, more than he did ever any other Nation. What care he took also for their instruction, that they might continued in his Fear, and true Worship, is abundantly recorded in the Scripture. Yet for all this, and those miraculous operations, so frequent among them, God did not provide for their Infallibility. Both they, and their Priests, did frequently apostatise in matters of Faith; and embrace false Doctrines: and they had schisms, and divisions among themselves: and yet still, God had a Church; a company of faithful people, which though not without errors perchance, more or lesle, stuck still to the main foundations.  
So much of the Scripture; which I think I may conclude, doth not oblige us, neither Old nor New, to believe this Infallibility which our Adversaries lay upon us, as the grand fundamental point of Faith. And to say, That Christ was bound in his honour to order it so, as they m●ke bold; doth imply certainly, (we have already said it, and here repeat it purposely, because much depends of it) that he did also provide, how all men (pretending to Christianity) might come to the knowledge, and be assured of it; without which notification, or declaration, public and obvious unto all men, learned and unlearned, it would do but little good. How than a Fundamental, if not in the Scripture?  
But if all primitive Christians did agreed upon it, in the opinion and practice, it would be some argument, I confess, that it was at first grounded, if not upon direct Scripture, yet upon Apostolical Tradition, or Institution. In the next place therefore, we shall see, what can be alleged for it from the consent of Antiquity. For still we must stand upon that, that being such an Article of Faith, as without it all other belief is bootless, or insufficient to salvation: the evidences of this consent, and general practice, had need to be very clear, and irrefragable, else the matter will be jest very doubtful, and not to be received, or pressed, as an Article of Faith.  
First than, I ask: Might it not (upon grounds of reason and probability) have been expected, that an Article of that consequence (as is pretended) wherein every souls future happiness, and the present welfare, yea, very being of the Catholic Church, is so much concerned; should have been thought of, if not in the first (which we call the Apostles Creed; as the most ancient, so the most compendious of all the Creeds) yet in some one of the rest, that have been made and received since, upon emergent occasions: some of them professing to contain the whole (not precisely so, we grant; but the most Fundamental) Catholic Faith? Well: nothing of it in the Creeds. What in the Counsels? those that are generally received, as most ancient, and authentical: the first four General Councils? Have they any thing of it? Somewhat, I know, may be alleged out of the Acts of those Councils; for it, and against it. As much against it, I dare undertake, upon accurate examination, and more, than for it: But that requires long time; I hope there will be no need. Besides, we may take that liberty, Baronius doth, to question the integrity of such Acts of Councils, where they do not make for him. And indeed, it doth require good judgement and great diligence, to know what is sincere, and what is not, in the generality of those Acts; that cannot be denied. But Baronius, for the most part, goes by one Rule: as things make for the Pope, or against, so he doth own, or reject.  
For example: in Honorius his case (whom we spoke of before) the Acts, he saith, of the Sixth General Council are not to be trusted. In Liberius his case, whom St. Jerome, and so many others do witness, to have sided with the Arians, and to have subscribed to their Confessions; so many evasions, with great Art, and subtlety of wit, have been devised, as may perchance prevail with some to a belief, that he was innocent, as to matter of Heresy: but with more, I doubt, that shall compare the objections and evidences, with the answers and evasions, that there is no such thing, as truth, really: and that men trouble themselves in vain, in their inquiries after it. But yet at last, so God would have it, that certain Fragments of History, concerning what passed at the Council of Ariminum where the Arians did establish their Doctrine; written by that renowned ancient Father, Hilarius Bishop of Poitiers, in France; with other records of antiquity of the same subject; were found and set out in France, out of the Library of Pet. Pishaeus, one of the famousest Philologists of that Country; but set out by Nicolaus Faber, who, besides other learning in general, and exemplary Piety, for which he was made choice of, and trusted with Lewis the XIII th'. King of France his education, and learning; had the name and reputation generally, to be best seen in Eclesiastical Histories and Antiquities, of any in that Country (to go not further) without exception: Baronius was beholding to him, and doth acknowledge it, in more than one place. Faber did set them out with a large and learned Preface. Now by those Fragments, etc. it doth clearly appear, that Liberius did subscribe to (and thereby authorised, so far as his Papal Authority could go) that pestilent Regula, or Formula Fidei, (so called) set out by the Arians at S. Sirmium, so much detested and anathematised by the Orthodox party: for which act, Anathema's are pronounced against him by that Godly Bishop (Hilarius.) Anathema tibi à me dictum Liberi, & sociis tuis. Iterum, tibi anathema, & tertiò, praevaricator Liberi. And Faber takes notice of it, in his Preface, in these words; Hoc unum addere sufficiat, ex verbis Hilarii, etc. Besides that, the same Liberius, as soon as he was Pope, charged Athanasius, and condemned him, as by his own Letter, there set out, doth appear: which Letter, though Faber makes no question at all of the truth and genuiness of it; (falsam, aut subdititiam esse, stylus negat; & praeterea, cui bono?) yet he doth acknowledge, that some objections may be made against it: and therefore we will not build upon it. But for the rest, as Faber is very confident, so may any body else be, even upon the judgement of that learned man, if himself be not so able to judge. But what saith Baronius to this? There was no way to avoid, 
Baron. a. d. 357. § 50, etc.  but one: and because his wit and ability did not se●ve him, to reconcile those evidences, with his purpose; he doth make use of it, to prove them no evidences; and what by learning and diligence may be done in this kind, let the cause be what it will, you may expect it from him: we have too much experience of it in these his Annals. Yet in this particular, he had a hard task, when he must oppose the judgement of such a one, as Faber was. But what remedy, since it was so resolved in the Court of Rome; though so many Romanists, being forced by the light of so many evidences, have maintained the contrary; that a Pope can not be an Heretic?  
Let the Reader judge by this, how far Protestants, in reason, may think themselves bound to submit to those Acts (of Counsels, I mean) when objected to them by Romanists; which Romanists can so freely reject, when they make against them.  
But to leave them: The Canons of those Counsels is that which we may safely trust to; and the only thing indeed, (with their Creeds) which can be be called their doctrine or determination. What is there in any of these Counsels, concerning this main article of Religion? Even nothing; nothing at all for it: but somewhat against it there is in the Council of Nice, where the Bishop of Rome his pre-eminency is derived, not from Scriptures, but mere Custom; confirmed also since that by Justinian the Emperor.  
Now for the particular Fathers, and other Writers of those times, if we do not much rely upon the testimonies that are produced out of them in this particular; not as undervaluing their authority, but as having just cause to suspect the genuiness of all those testimonies that are obtruded in their names, I think no body can justly blame us. For first, who knows not how many things, even anciently, have been forged in the behalf of that cause? All the Decretals of the first Popes (most of whom were Martyrs, and should therefore be of greater authority;) are of that nature: all destinated to that end, to insinuate a Supremacy, and sometimes Infallibility; but all, though received into the body of the Canon Law for good, and to be of equal authority with Scripture itself, forged, adulterous, supposititious ware; and this, after much contest, acknowledged by Baronius, by Bellarmine, by all men that are not very ignorant, or much blinded with partiality. Besides the matter of many of them, ridiculous, or false; and the false dates, and the like: the language is such of most of them, as he that can believe it is the language of those primitive Popes, may as well believe, that the English which is now spoken, and was spoken three or four hundred years ago, is all one, and not to be distinguished the one from the other. We may see therefore of what judgement, or conscience, (shall I say) the author of the Labyrinth is; who, 
Labyr. p. 208. & 334.  notwithstanding so many of his own side, who have acknowledged the imposture, doth allege them, as unquestionable; and elsewhere doth take upon him to defend them, but comes of very sadly, and needs no other confutation than their own Authors, Baronius especially, 
Baron. v Blond. p 114. Ibid. p. 112.  whom I think the Reader will believe the abler of the two, to judge of such things. Bellarmine, though he had done what he could, to uphold their credit, (though even there, indubitatas esse, affirmare non audeo, is his confession;) yet afterwards, he gave it over, having left most of them quite out in his Catalogue, De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis: and if he mention any (as he doth those that are ascribed to Clemens;) he doth give reasons why they should be rejected rather than approved. If any desire further satisfaction about them, let them read learned Blondellus his Pseudo-Isidorus. He will admire: I will say not more.  
On the other side; whether it may not as justly be suspected, that many pregnant evidences of that truth, which we assert, have been suppressed, and purposely destroyed, let the reader judge by this one particular. Two Epistles there be above the rest; the one of St. Cyprians, the other of a contemporary Bishop, of great fame, in those days, who joined with Cyprian in the cause; both, in St. Cyprians works, which do not please the Zelots of the Roman Cause. The reason is manifest: For I dare say it, and maintain it; were there no other writings extant of antiquity to help us; those two Epistles (if the authors of them were not Schismatics, and Heretics, eo nomine, for that very consideration, for opposing Pope Stephanus as they did, which they never were accounted, but holy men; Cyprian especially, not inferior to any, the most renowned Fathers:) are very sufficient to justify us, and to confounded the assertors of either Supremacy or Infallibility. They charge him there (Pope Steven) of pride, impertinency, contradictions, breach of Ecclesiastical unity, boldness, perverseness, folly, hard obstinacy, presumption, contumacy; this is the language throughout the first Epistle: and in the second, besides repetition of the same, or great part of it; they compare him to Judas, (in some things) upbraid him with siding with Heretics: quinimo tu haereticis omnibus pejor es: make him worse than the worst Heretics; animosity and passion; for want of wit; schism and apostasy: (the words are, Peccatum verò quam magnum tibi exaggerasti, quando te à tot gregibus scidisti! Excidisti enim te ipsum; noli te fallere. Siquidem ille est verè schismaticus, qui se à communione Ecclesiasticae unitatis apostatam fecerit. Dum enim putas omnes à te abstinere posse; solum te ab omnibus abstinuisti:) Again, That he did contra sacramentum, & fidem, contumacis furore discordiae rebellare: and in conclusion, whereas Stephen had styled Cyprian (for this kind of language, it seems, begun from him) a false Christ, false Apostle, and deceitful workman: Firmilianus saith, it was done falsely, (per mendacium:) and that he (ex merito,) deservedly, might be so called. I know well enough, St. Augustine did not like these things should be revived, but forgotten, for the honour of both Steven and Cyprian: yet St. Augustine doth nowhere except (though he do against the opinion itself of rebaptisation, which was the cause of the quarrel;) against St. Cyprian, as though he had misbehaved himself in point of duty, or transgressed against canonical obedience for so writing to the Pope, which is the main business: And I am very confident, had St. Augustine been put to it, as we are; charged with schism and heresy; yea, impiety, in the highest degree, for not acknowledging the Supremacy and Infallibility which the Pope doth challenge unto himself as an article of Faith, he would have been the first man that would have made use of St. Cyprians authority, and example; (he had him in such veneration) as we do.  
Of these Epistles therefore, the latter being the sharper, and besides that, affording us some notable passages, (which we shall make good use of in due place:) in some editions (one at Rome) was quite left out, for this very reason, because so prejudicial to the Pope, as Pamelius doth guests; who also doth as good as profess (consultius foret nunquam fuisse hanc epistolam editam, etc.) that he would have suppressed it himself, had it been in his power. The Reader may consider what opportunity the friends and Patrons of the Roman cause had, to forge, and to suppress what they would themselves, when the world through the superstition and ignorance of those times (before Printing) was ready to receive any thing; and all Manuscripts almost, in the hands, and by the hands of Monks and Friars, who wholly depended on the Pope.  
But now for Antiquity, and consent of Fathers, before we come to particular testimonies; I would gladly know, if any such thing were known to Antiquity, (still I must add, as fundamental, and necessary, which doth much aggravate the case:) how comes it to pass, that neither Clemens in his Constitutions (what antiquity soever you allow them, ancient enough for this purpose;) who doth so largely writ of Ecclesiastical orders; Bishops, especially: Nor Dionysius Areopagita (whom our adversaries make such reckoning of, and will have him to be the right Dionysius mentioned in the New Testament, which we believe not; but ancient enough, he also, to serve our turn in this place:) in three books of his, of the Church Hierarchy, especially when he treats of the unity of the Church in many places; that neither of these takes notice of this great mystery of Religion (though mysterious enough, Dionysius especially:) Supremacy and Infallibility? I cannot imagine what the most zealous for the cause can say to this; or can do lesle, at lest, than wonder. If it be said, it needed not, because sufficiently known: if that were granted, yet in such a proper place, to take no notice of such a fundamental point, so necessary to peace and unity, how can it be lesle than wilful perfidiousness, or sacrilegious prevarication? It is true, that Dionysius makes honourable mention, in one place, of Peter, as chiefest of the Apostles: but that is of Peter only, and merely by the way; not by way of observation of any necessity or divine providence in it. Certainly than, they knew it not: no such article of Faith was than heard of.  
Again: Gennadius Mussiliensis, who lived before the sixth Century, first a Priest only, (as in the title:) but afterwards, as Platina and Bellarmine affirm, made Bishop; hath written a Book, De dogmatibus: Ecclesiae. He gins with the most fundamental points, the subject of the Creeds; and so goes on: and though dogmata fidei be his proper aim, and subject: yet he doth intermix many things that belong to discipline and government also: as particularly, he hath one Chapter, what men are incapable of holy orders: where this particularly (I wish all men took good notice:) Neque illum, qui usuras accepisse convincitur, 
Cap. 72.  (so I found it in the Ordinances of the Church of Geneva too:) aut in scenâ lusisse dignoscitur: among others is to be found. Yet I will not say, he doth comprehend all things precisely that may be reduced unto that head. However, it is hard to believe, if either Supremacy or Infallibility had been such an article of Faith, so necessary, (we must often repeat it:) so fundamental: no mention of it, would have been made. In the 26. Chapter, occasionally, Pope Zozimus (beaten a recordationis Papae Zozimi regularis authoritas:) is mentioned, and that is all.  
Yet I must acknowledge, that the Popes of Rome, begun betimes to arrogate unto themselves: there be Epistles of Innocentius and Zozimus, that go very far, (and they began the fifth Century:) in point of spiritual power and jurisdiction. But of all such, and to all, we have one general answer, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: it is their own cause that they pled for: no wonder if they be so zealous for it. St. Peter's prerogative (such as it was) was some ground; and it is the infirmity of many; they think they are bound in conscience, or at lest in point of reputation, to advance the credit of their place, as much as they can. So one, after another; and every predecessors example, is an engagement to the successor: Neither let the Reader wonder, if we speak of them, though pious otherwise, as men. What Ammianus Marcellinus, a Heathen Historian of those times, writeth of the pomp, pride, and luxury of the Bishops of that See, I will not insist upon; he was a Heathen: But what Sulpitius Severus, a holy man, whose memory is sacred, commended by divers ancient fathers, doth writ and testify, (he lived about the same time when those Popes lived) is observable. In one place, he noteth the wicked ambition; in another, the strange covetousness of the than Rulers and Governors (whom he calls Ministros Ecclesiae:) of the Church: but in general, temporum nostrorum piget, taedetque: which includeth much. Many such complaints of their times, we have in the writings of the Fathers; some more ancient; others that lived since: not to speak of the very Disciples of Christ, and their contentions, who should be greatest; for which they were rebuked by Christ. What therefore the Bishops of Rome did challenge as their due, is not much to our purpose to inquire: but what was acknowledged, and generally believed by others of those times.  
There is not any Writer, that the Patrons of that cause make more boast of, than St. Cyprian: he indeed, as considerable as any, both for antiquity and personal merits. The words that are produced with much ostentation out of him, are, that Super Petro fundata est Ecclesia: which words, or to that purpose, Cyprian useth in several places. Words indeed, which of themselves (especially were it as certain, that they extended to his successors:) might seem to import very much: whereas, if we look into the meaning, as he himself doth explain himself; it will clearly appear, that little or nothing can be made of them. The ground of this expression, doth appear by his Book or Treatise De unitate Ecclesiae: where endeavouring to prove the Unity of the Church by Scripture, he hath divers arguments; some whereof are more direct and concluding; others, more remote; from bore similitudes, and typical allusions. One argument is (often pressed by him and others:) Unum corpus, & unus Spiritus, una spes vocationis, una fides, unum baptisma, unus Deus. 
Ephes. lv. 4, 5, 6.  Another, is, from those words, I and the Father, are one: and those three are one. Another is, from Christ his seamless coat: Another from those words of Josuah unto Rahab, 
Joh. 10. 1 Joh. 5. Josh. 2.19.  And it shall be, that whosoever shall go out of the doors of his house, into the street, his blood shall be upon his head;— and whosoever shall be with thee within this house, his blood shall be upon our head, if any hurt be upon him. Others there be, which I omit. But the first argument, or proof of unity, 
Matth. xuj. 18  are those words of Christ to Peter, I say unto thee that thou art Petet, and upon this rock, I will build my Church, etc. Upon which words he doth descant thus: Super illum unum aedificat Ecclesiam suam, etc. that is, Upon him alone he doth build his Church, and gives him charge to feed his sheep. And though, saith he, after his resurrection, he gave the same power to all the Apostles;— nevertheless to declare this unity, he appointed, unam Cathedram, (one Chair) and by his authority established this original of unity, which should begin from one. So than, from those words of Christ, he fetches a mystery of unity; in that, though Christ gave the same power unto the rest, yet he first uttered it, of one. Super illum unum aedificat Ecclesiam suam: that is, in address of speech, to commend unity to us, in a mystery: but upon the rest, as well, in truth, or reality of deed. That he intended it so, and so barely; his words immediatiatly following are very express, when he saith: The rest of the Apostles were verily what Peter was, having obtained (or, endowed with:) equal share of honour, and of power: sed exordium ab unitate proficiscitur: that is, but the beginning of this honour and power, must be in, or from unity: (to wit, when it was at first given to one alone; when Christ spoke those words unto Peter;) Primacy was given unto Peter, that one Church, and one Chair might thereby be testified.  
This might be illustrated, by what others say of it, to the same purpose. S. Augustine had just such a conceit (be it understood with respect) upon those words of Christ: Ego sum Pastor bonus; Pastor ergo bonus Christus. That is: I am the good Shepherd; Christ than is the good Shepherd. It follows: Quid Petrus, etc. What was Peter? was not he also a good Shepherd? Did not he also lay down his life for the sheep? What was Paul? What the rest of the Apostles? What those Bishops and blessed Martyrs, who succeeded after those times? were they not all good Shepherds? etc. and than after a long Parenthesis, concerning false Martyrs and mercenaries, he returns to his former speech; of Peter, Paul, and the rest, that they were all good Pastors. He stands upon Peter, to prove it of him more particularly, that he was a Shepherd, and a good Shepherd. Both these, from those words that passed between Christ and him: John xxi. 15, 16, 17. and than concludes, Ergo Pastor (Petrus scil.) & bonus Pastor (nihil quidem ad potestatem & bonitatem Pastoris Pastorum:) sed tamen ipse & pastor bonus, & caeteri tales pastors boni. That is: Why than Peter he was a shepherd too, and a good shepherd (though not to be compared for power nor for goodness to the Shepherd of shepherds:) yet even he a good shepherd too, and all that were like him, they also good shepherds. Than he addresses himself to Christ: Quid est ergo, quod pastoribus bonis commendas unum pastorem (he doth mean Christ himself) etc. that is, What is it that to good Pastors, thou (Christ) dost commend one good Pastor? What, but in that one thou dost teach them unity? He hath more to the same purpose: so glad were they of any thing, that had but the show of an argument for Unity.  
St. Cyprian therefore, as St. Augustin of those we have spoken, makes a mystery of the words, not a grant of any power or jurisdiction. Can any thing be more plain than these words, Pari consortio praediti, & honoris & potestatis? And so S. Hierome, that Episcopus, sive Romae, sive, Eugubii, etc. ejusdem meriti, ejusdem est & Sacerdotii. Which words (as others before him) the Author of the Labyrinth, doth endeavour to elude, 
Labyr. p. 222.  by saying that it is spoken of the office and power Episcopal, in itself; which is alike in all Bishops: but not of the Pope's power, as he is Pope; an additional, and supereminent power, given him, by Christ. But how little to the purpose this is, may easily appear, by the context of St. Jerome's words, and by the occasion: and I desire the reader to take notice of it, that is not yet fully acquainted with their manner of dealing.  
Two things St. Jerome did propose to himself in that Epistle. First, to assert the right of Priests above Deacons (which gave occasion to the Epistle) by their institution: and secondly, to justify the customs of other Churches and Countries, against that pretended custom of the Church of Rome. After he hath done with the first, he falls upon the second. Now, the question was not, of the power of Bishops, by virtue of their ordination or consecration; which every man must in reason understand, to be the same in all, if it be the same order or degree: but in general, whether any Bishop by his See, or otherwise, had any more power or authority, than another: and particularly, whether the customs and orders of the Church of Rome, were to be preferred before other Church's customs, (for the Bishop's sake:) and obliged men to imitation and conformity. Nec altera Romanae urbis Ecclesia; (there he gins:) altera totius orbis existimanda est. Neither (saith he) must we make any other account of the Church of Rome, than we do of all other Churches of the World. What, no peculiar privilege, no prerogative of that Church, above the rest? How would that be taken now, think you? But why so? The Churches of France, of Brittany, of Africa, of Persia; the Churches of the East, of India; and all the barbarous Nations, (that is, never subject to the Roman Empire: so they were called:) they worship one Christ, (wherein, with that which follows of one rule, consists the unity of the Catholic Church:) they have one rule of truth, (or faith: to wit, the same Creeds: the same Scriptures:) If the question be about authority, the whole world is greater than one City. (Authority than, is now the business in question:) wherever a Bishop is, whether at Rome, or Eugubium; at Constantinople, or at Rhegium, or Alexandria, or Tunis; as the Priesthood is the same, so is the merit, (he intends Authority:) They are all Successors of the Apostles: (did not he intent to say, as well as the Bishop of Rome, is St. Peter's?) He goes on: But you will say, How comes it to pass, that in Rome, a Priest is not ordained without the testimony of a Deacon? What have I to do with the custom of one Town, (or City?) Replies he, Why do you take the part of (or justify) paucity, (or, a few) from whom (de qua ortum est supercilium in leges Ecclesiae: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the character of the Church of Rome, or Bishop of Rome, in ancient Fathers:) pride (or usurpation) upon the rights of the (Catholic) Church is proceeded?  
Can any man, that had studied it never so much, speak more plainly? Let the Reader, if he please, read the Author of the Labyrinth; where I refer him before; and see manifestly how far these men will venture with their sophistry, and brazen countenance, to persuade their Readers, that light is darkness, and black white. But if St. Hierome, saith he, should intent it so, he must contradict, and condemn himself. Why so? Let any man produce any passage of St. Hierome, where he doth so fully express himself for the Pope of Rome's Supremacy and Infallibility, as he doth here against both. If he doth in some places speak honourably of that Bishop, and ascribe somewhat to him, as St. Peter's Successor; we say (and it is most true) both he and others, were many times, put to it by adversaries (schismatics and heretics) and glad were they to strengthen themselves and their cause, with the authority of that See; which indeed, to do it right, did for a long time continued very orthodox in all things; (that one of usurpation, or supremacy, tenderly first attempted, than by degrees obtained and practised; excepted:) and a great support to them that were so in all parts of the World. Which was the greatest occasion, through other Church's compliance, upon this consideration, of her greatness and supereminent authority. They that are well versed in antiquity, and will judge rightly, will observe it, and acknowledge it. But why should not we interpret (as others) St. Hierome, by St. Hierome? those passages in him that are more doubtful and obscure, by those that are more full and express?  
But we return to St. Cyprian, our chiefest aim at this time. I take it to be a very considerable matter, as any in the whole controversy; in what sense St. Cyprian (and others after him) affirmed, that the Church was founded upon St Peter: whether by that speech, he did intent any Supremacy, or Infallibility: yea, or no. For that indeed, as I said before, is a speech that seemeth, of all alleged in this argument, to import most, though nothing that extends to his Successors. Besides what hath been said already, I further argue: If Cyprian and his Colleagues in this cause, even than, when they withstood Stephen, Pope of Rome, with that liberty, as we have seen; condemned his opinion, despised his authority; (as they begun, so they continued, resolute and constant, as long as they lived, in their opposition, of which more afterwards:) but, if even than, whilst they pleaded their cause against him; they did put him, or others, interessed in the same business, in mind of those words of Christ to Peter, thereby to aggravate his cause, or crime, as violator, or breaker of the unity of the Church: surely, it must be granted, (deny it who can, and reconcile them to reason, and common sense, in the act:) that they had no thought of Supremacy, or Infallibility (for else, had they not shamefully, ridiculously prevaricated, in their own cause?) granted to the Pope or Bishop of Rome, by those words of Christ unto Peter. But so they did: Cyprianus, in his Epistle to Quintus, concerning rebaptisation: Nam nec Petrus, saith he, quem primum Dominus elegit, etc. that is, For neither Peter, whom the Lord chose first, and upon whom he built his Church: when Paul did contend with him about the circumcision, did upon that, insolently vindicate, or arrogantly assume any thing unto himself, that Primacy did belong unto him; and that he aught to be obeyed by them, that were but newly chosen, (St. Paul, he meaneth;) and came after. If any should answer, that St. Cyprians intention by these words, is to commend St. Peter's humility, not to question his right: grant the words in themselves, will bear that sense; how can it be his sense, whilst his practice was openly, professedly contrary? That is it that I urge, and aim at, by these words.  
But for the sense of the words, (without this consideration) let us take another passage of the said Cyprian, and I think there will be little question. They are words (those I intent) that were spoken by Cyprian, at a meeting of the African Bishops, about this business of rebaptisation, which had caused the breach with the Bishop of Rome. Superest, ut de hac ipsa re, quid singuli sentiamus, etc. It remaineth, saith he, that we all speak what every man doth think: not judging any body, or putting him back from the right of communion (Ecclesiastical) in case he be of another opinion (which Cyprian told you before, the Bishop of Rome had done:) For none among us doth make himself the Bishop of Bishops, 
Labyr. p 334  (the author of the Labyrinth, will tell you the Bishop of Rome was so styled, by some:) or doth compel his Colleagues with a tyrannical terror, to the necessity of obedience; since every Bishop, according to the freedom of his liberty and power, hath his opinion free, as he that cannot be judged by another, neither hath any power to judge others himself: but let us all wait the judgement of our Lord Jesus Christ, who alone hath power to prefer us in the government of his Church; and to judge of our actions. It doth clearly appear, that St. Cyprian aimed at some body, by these words. And who should that be, think we; (for I know there be, who have attempted by their sophistry, to elude the sense, even of these words:) but the Bishop of Rome? with whom they were than at variance about it, and he with them: even to excommunication; threatened at lest, and in some part, if not altogether executed. Whereas, of them that he spoke unto, he had not the lest occasion to suspect, that any of them would, or could attempt any such thing. But we need not many words; 
Bar. to. 1. a.d. 258. §. 42.  since Baronius himself doth freely acknowledge as much as we desire; to wit, that by those words Pope Stephen was intended.  
Well, we have heard what St. Cyprian did writ to Quintus his friend. Now let us hear what Firmillianus, a man of great renown for parts and piety, Bishop of Caesarea, and Metropolitan, highly commended by Baronius, did writ unto him about the said business. Atque ego in hac parte, justè indignor ad hanc tam apertam, etc. And here (saith he) I can do not lesle than profess my just indignation, for the open and manifest folly of Stephen, (Pope Stephen, he would have said:) that he, who doth so boast of his See, and doth pretend to Peter's Succession, upon whom the Church is founded, doth bring in many rocks, and set up new structures of many Churches, whilst he doth avouch by his authority▪ right baptism to be there. They that so freely yielded to the Pope at that very time when they stood upon terms of defiance, as it were, with the Bishop of Rome; that the Church was founded upon Peter; certainly, they did not think they did yield any great matter unto him, when they yielded so much. And since Cyprian had so many who joined with him in that division: and that none of them were accounted schismatics or heretics for it: it must needs follow, that no such article of Faith was than known, as either Supremacy, or Infallibility. The like may be observed concerning the Asian Bishops, who were excommunicated by Victor, Pope of Rome: who for all that, neither living, nor dead, were ever accounted Schismatics, or the worse Christians; but Pope Victor, generally, much condemned (it is a known history:) for his rashness, and want of charity.  
But here again, I must desire the Reader to take notice of our adversaries way of dealing; let him give it the right name, as he shall see occasion. I said a little before, that Cyprian continued in his opposition, to his lives end: and a little before that, that though St. Augustine excepted against Cyprians opinion of rebaptisation, which was the occasion of the quarrel; yet I did not found any where, that he did except against him, that he durst (though otherwise of himself, as St. Augustine doth observe of him, a very meek, humble, and charitable man:) so freely reject Pope Stephen's judgement, with such language, as you have heard: this certainly, is a great argument, that not Cyprian only, but St. Augustine, were ignorant of any duty that other Bishops did own unto him, more than to any other. This Bellarmine, it seems, was very sensible of; and therefore to prevent the use that might be made of it, somewhat he thought must be done. In his fourth Book therefore De Rom. Pontifice, Ch. 7. he doth propose, An peccaverit Cyprianus mortaliter, non obediendo Pontifici: that is, Whether Cyprian did sin mortally, in not obeying the Pope. A very seasonable question, certainly: For else, what becomes of the Pope's Authority, if such as Cyprian might withstand him, and without sin, deal with him as he did? Now he doth resolve the question out of two places of St. Augustine, two ways. First, out of his Book De Bapt. c. Don. c. 18, and 19 That Cyprian sinned venially only; and that it was a blemish in a fair soul; which he did expiate by his martyrdom. But Bellarmine is not satisfied with that answer; but argues against it, that it is more likely, he did sin mortally: in that he did so little regard the Pope's judgement, (though not definition:) and not only so, but opposed him so contumeliously. And therefore for a second resolution, he doth produce another passage out of the same Augustine (Epist. 48.) where the Father saith, some doubted whether those Epistles, (of that argument) were right Cyprians: But secondly, that it is possible St. Cyprian might repent before his death, and be of another opinion, though no record of it be extant. Who would not say, that doth look not further than Bellarmine, that he hath acquitted himself very well, and done the Pope great right? But if you look the places by him quoted in St. Augustine, it is quite another thing. For there, in neither place, doth St. Augustine speak of the Pope, or of St. Cyprians manner of dealing with him, whether good, or bad, not one word, or syllable: but only of the opinion (rebaptisation) which St. Cyprian maintained, which he saith was a naevus in him, sufficiently expiated (by his other excellent parts, humility, charity, etc. he had said before:) by his martyrdom. So that in very truth, Bellarmine, instead of answering, hath made the objection much stronger. For if the opinion was a fault in Cyprian; (though truly, before the definition of a general Council, not very great fault, or error: as may appear by what St. Basil writes of it in his Canons:) yet an error, or fault, (because so pertinacious in the defence of it:) acknowledged by St. Augustine (a great admirer of that Saint:) much more would he have thought himself bound, to take notice of his so manifest disobedience to the commands, and contempt of the authority (that grand article as we are now told, of our Faith;) of Pope Stephen: had he apprehended him guilty of any such thing. And though St. Augustine had said, that St. Cyprian was more bitter and right down, in some expressions, than he needed to have been: that had not helped the Pope's cause: he might have said so perchance, though Cyprian had written to his inferior. But even so much he doth not: not in those places (neither is there any errors in the citations) to which Bellarmine doth refer us. What kind of dealing this is, I leave to the reader to consider. It was worth the while, even so: but it makes for us too, and that we are now upon, not a little.  
I have done with St. Cyprian; but before I leave him, I must not omit to let the Reader know (or put him in mind at lest) that in those words we have considered of, and began with, there is notable variety in the Editions of Cyprian. For those words, super illum unum aedificat Ecclesiam suam: & illi pascendas man●●● oves suas; (which Pamelius in his Annot. upon the 55 Epistle, doth make such reckoning of:) nor those (unam Cathedram constituit:) nor those [Primatus Petro datur:— & Cathedra una] nor lastly, those as material as any (qui Cathedram Petri, super quem fundata est Ecclesia, deserit:) are to be found in all Editions. I have one at present printed at Paris, A. D. 1512. sumptibus Magistri Bartholdi Rembolt; dedicated by Robertus Fortunatus, to L. Ruricio Blesensi: in which none of those things are to be found: And they that have seen Erasmus his Editions, say as much of those: and which is most observable, Gratianus also doth so exhibit them in the body of the Canon Law. Since therefore this variety doth proceed from ancient Manuscripts; nor cannot be conceived casual (as often it happens) but intended and wilful: we have great reason to believe, that some to favour the Pope, did add those words of purpose; but that any should leave them out, of purpose, since those Manuscripts were neither written, by, nor in the hands of Protestants, we have no reason at all. However, for my part, as to Cyprians opinion in this particular of St. Peter's primacy; or, of the Church being founded upon him; I confess ingenuously, I can make no great advantage of this diversity: because, primatus is acknowledged by others; and granted by Protestants: and, that the Church is founded upon Peter, in that sense we have showed, is St. Cyprians assertion in other places that are not questioned. But this use at lest, we may make of it, that since it doth plainly appear that such tampering and adulterating hath been used; we may suspect it hath been done, where it is not suspected; or at lest, not discoverable by such evidences.  
This book of St. Cyprian, de unitate: (that is the right title: for it hath another too in some Editions:) which hath given us so much occasion: happily puts me in mind of a book of St. Augustine bearing the same title, 
To. 7. p. 621.  de unitate Ecclesiae. Now that which our adversaries chief ground the necessity of supremacy upon (on which infallibility doth depend:) is unity: no Catholic Church without unity; no unity without a Pope, so instated and empowered, as they maintain. And this is their continual Plea. I ask therefore; if without the Pope, so and so qualified, absolute, universal etc. there can be no unity; how comes it to pass; nay, how possible, that St. Augustine should writ a book of Unity (Unity of the Catholic Church) of purpose with much accuracy (as indeed it is) and in all that book not so much as mention the Pope, or Bishop of Rome; not one word of Universality, or supremacy, or infallibility in all that book? 
Uni. V Card. Perron. p 50. etc.  True it is, unity, at large, is a large subject. For there is unity of communion, internal, and external: unity of doctrine, of discipline and government: unity of rites, and ceremonies; and the like: and besides all these (though it comprehendeth all these in some degree:) there is that, which we may call Catholic Unity; properly opposed to schism and separation. I call Catholic unity, the acknowledgement of a Catholic Church, with actual communion with it, and all the members of it, under one and the same head, Christ; which doth include unity of Faith, or soundness of Doctrine, in the main fundamentals, necessary to salvation, according to St. Augustin his declaration in that book ch. 4. which I wish the Reader, if he be at leisure, to peruse. This is the unity, of the breach whereof, the Donatists were guilty, who did not acknowledge a Catholic Church, or which in effect doth amount to it, did acknowledge no other true Catholic Church, but their own. So that St. Augustine writing against them in that book, his business was to prove, that there was a Catholic Church, diffused throughout the whole world (or the greatest part) according to the promises of God by his Prophets in all ages: which he doth fully and copiously, by clear and manifest places, and testimonies of Scripture. His occasion therefore I confess, did not oblige him to treat of all kind of Unity in that book: Not: but if all true Catholic Unity depend of subjection to the Pope, and communion with the Church of Rome, as we are told, and that this was the Faith of the ancient Church: Why should not St. Augustine have gone that way rather, to prove them schismatics, which of the two (if it were indeed the Faith of the ancient Church, and that Faith grounded upon clear Scripture:) would have been the most compendious and ready way? But is it not strange, and indeed if that had been St. Augustine's Faith, and the Faith of those times, as we said before, incredible; that in all the book, not any mention is made of Pope, or Roman Church? I might say, and that would be sufficient, of either Pope, as universal Bishop; or Roman Church, as the Catholic Church. But indeed which doth add to the wonder, of either Pope in general; or Roman Church, in general: as if he had avoided it purposely; for some cause best known to himself; but probably if for any cause, because he saw how ready both Pope and Church of Rome were, even than, to take to themselves: to usurp and to arrogate in leges Ecclesiae (as St. Jerome before:) against the rights of the Catholic Church. In the tenth Chapter of that book, St. Augustine doth very particularly enumerate all the Christian Churches, mentioned in the Scripture; he doth begin with the Church of Antioch: at Jerusalem; item at Athens, Iconium and Listra; the Churches of Corinth, Ephesus, Philippi, Thessalonica, Colossus, Pontus, Galatia, Capadocia, Asia, Bythinia; Smyrna, Bergamus, Sardis, Thyatira, Philadelphia, Laodicea: besides the Churches of Achaia; of Galatia, and between Jerusalem and Illyricum, and the like not particularly expressed (as he doth observe) but included in those general words. Had he added the Roman to these, it would not have taken away any thing of the weight of our observation we chief aim at, but that he should not mention it, I think may justly be wondered at; though I will not be very confident, but that my eyes, or memory, (though I have read the book more than once, and since that looked over him again of purpose:) or my Edition (which is that in 8 vo. Lugduni apud Sebast. Honorat. 1562. as most commodious for use:) do not deceive me. For that St. Augustine doth quote some words out of St. Peter's Epistle, or some out of the Epistle to the Romans; that I hope will not be taken as an express mention of the Pope or Roman Church. In the 15th Chapter, he doth mention Ecclesias fundatas per Apostolorum labores; and again, Apostolice labour fundatas, in the same Chapter: in general: and Chapter 16, he doth make particular mention of Optatus Milevitanus, and Ambrose Mediolanensis: as men whose credit and authority was very eminent in the Catholic Church, besides innumerabiles nostrae communionis Episcopos, including doubtless in that generality the Bishop of Rome among the rest: but not any special mention of him. Moreover, it is observable, that in this very book, Chap. 18, and 19 Augustin doth upon occasion, insist upon those words of Christ to Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church: and doth expound that rock, by that mentioned Matth. 7 24. I will liken him unto a wise man which built his house upon a rock; that rock saith he, are they which hear the word of God, and do it. So little did he think of St Peter's prerogative, at that time; as granted unto him by those or any other words of Christ.  
That the unity of the Catholic Church doth consist (as was before intimated) in the Public profession of the main fundamentals, (whereof one is, that Christ is the head of the Church) is excellently attested by St. Irenaeus one of the ancientest, now extant; 
Iren. lib. 1. c. two 3. the qᵒ.  who after a short account of a Creed, not much different from the Apostles Creed, in substance: This faith saith he, the Catholic Church having received, she keepeth all the world over, even as if she dwelled but in one house; she believeth it, as having but one soul, one heart: and she doth agreeably teach, preach, and deliver it, as having but one mouth.— So the Churches in Germany, in Spain, in France, in the East, etc.  
I have mentioned divers books (besides this last of St. Augustin. De Unitate Ecclesiae:) which because when there was occasion, and the subject was proper, they make no mention of the Pope's Supremacy, or infallibility; I conceive it may be inferred from their silence, that they knew it not; (it was a thing unknown in their time:) or at lest, believed it not, I have one more, and he shall be the last of my authors, to this effect; of whom I shall say before hand (because I would have the reader to judge, as well as I:) that if my judgement fail me not extremely, he alone might have been sufficient, to have done the deed abundantly.  
The author I intent, is, Vincentius Lirinensis: who lived about the beginning, or before the middle of the fift Centurie. To whom Bellarmine doth give this testimony. Scripsit opusculum, parvum mole, sed virtute maximum; de profanis vocum novitatibus. 
De script. Eccl. p. 149.  Libellus extat, & utilissimè legitur. The subject of the book is, as himself doth propose it, and set it down at the beginning; how a man certa quadam, & quasi generall ac regulari via Catholicae fidei veritatem, ab haereticae pravitatis falsitate, discernere:) by a certain, and as it were general, and regular way (or method) may discern the truth (or verity) of the Catholic faith, from the falsehood of heretical depravation (or adulteration.) Is not this the great controversy, between us and the Romanists? And which I am now upon? Is not this the chief subject of the late Archbishop (of blessed memory) his book; and of the answer to it entitled Labyrinthus Cantuariensis? Let us hear than, what this so much approved and commended author, not only by Bellarmine, but by many others, of that side besides, doth deliver; and, what is observable, not as his own sense only, but as the sense of the ancientest and worthiest of those times, whom he professeth that he sought unto for their advice, as many as he could have access unto. Nay in his third and last summary or recapitulation, he doth affirm; (fuisse semper, & esse hodieque Catholicorum consuetudinem) that it had ever been, and was than, the Custom of the Catholics, so to do; or to go the same way, which he doth here propose, and commend.  
First, than, Vincentius layeth down these two grounds; Dovinae legis authoritatem: tum deinde Ecclesiae Catholicae traditionem: that is, the authority of the Divine Law (or God's Word) and than, the tradition of the Catholic Church. Not but that the Scripture is of itself perfect and sufficient: (as he doth acknowledge:) but because men are very apt to vary in the exposition of it. Well: Tradition of the Catholic Church; What is that? That is, saith he, the intelligentia, or sensus, (his own words) the sense, or exposition of the Catholic Church. But what Catholic Church? The present Church, or Roman Church? No such matter. In ipsa Catholica Ecclesia, etc. In this Catholic Church, saith he; we must follow, Universality, Antiquity, and Consent. First, it must be the sense of the whole Catholic Church, all the world over. Secondly, it must be the sense of the ancient Fathers of the Church: and Thirdly, there must be a consent of those ancient Fathers. Vincentius goes on: What shall a Catholic Christian do, if some one particular Church do forsake the communion of the general, (or universal) Faith? What, but prefer the soundness of the whole, before the contagion of a part. But what if the contagion attempt the whole? (he saith of the heresy of the Arrians afterwards: pene totum orbem contaminaverat, etc.) Than he must have recourse to Antiquity. What if Antiquity itself hath been tainted? (It seems he did suppose it possible:) not only two, or three particular men; but a whole Town or Province? Than he must stick to the definitions of general Counsels: (Si qua sunt universaliter antiquitùs, universalis Concilii decreta:) and in his third recapitulation: Si quid esset antiquitùs ab omnibus Ecclesiae Catholicae Sacerdotibus, universalis Concilii auctoritate decretum: a hard matter this: and therefore he speaks of it doubtfully, Si quid, & Si qua: But what if the matter is such, as hath not been defined by any such Council? Why than, the consent of ancient Fathers, (recurrendum ad sanctorum Patrum sententias, in his third recapitulation:) of several ages, and places, who have always been reputed orthodox; that must be our refuge and remedy in such a case. And here Vincentius his Rule, or direction, doth end: which, because he would not be mistaken, in a business of such weight; he doth set down the summary of it three several times, with some variety of words, but not any at all of the matter: In the beginning, about the middle, and at the end of this book: which Bellarmine told us before, is of no great bulk; neither indeed is it. His diligence therefore, is the more observable. All the rest of the Book, is but an explication, or exposition of all the particulars contained in this Rule. In all those three recapitulations, or summaries, his last resolution after Scripture, is, the sense, and consent of the Fathers.  
Let us hear, I pray, before we proceed, how this doth agreed with the doctrine of the late Archbishop of Canterbury. And for the Rule, 
Relat. p 336.  which governs me (saith he) if I cannot be confident for my soul upon the Scripture, and the Primitive Church expounding and declaring it, I will be confident upon no other. I have all the reason in the world, to be confident upon this rule, for it can never deceive me.  
But now to Vincentius again: I ask in the first place, Did Vincentius, or those he had consulted with, know any thing of the Infallibility of the Pope, or any particular Church: (or of the greater part of the present Church, I might add: but we are not upon that now:) was any such thing known or believed generally, or by many, in those days? Certainly, he that will say so, must also believe, though Vincentius for some reasons, spared the name of the Pope, or to set down the opinion in express terms; yet his intention was to confute it, by this book; his Rule here delivered, being so diametrically, repugnant, and contrary. If any should reply, that all he had written of this subject, is not extant: true it is indeed, that the greatest part of the second Book (the whole consisted of two) is not extant, nor hath been these many ages. But what is wanting (as doth clearly appear by his own account) was but a further prosecution, or confirmation of some particulars by him delivered, by some examples; as particularly of the Ephesian general Council against Nestorius, which Council was held in his time. The particulars of that Council, was the whole subject of the second Book: and he gives us a particular account of those particulars, (what they were, and how prosecuted:) in that which remaineth of it. So that this evasion is sufficiently prevented. Those three reiterated recapitulations, or summaries we spoke of before, the like whereof I do not remember in so small a book; may not one say, there was a providence in it?  
Now let us go on with Vincentius his method, or some particulars of it rather, not before spoken of; for his Rule, I said before, was ended. But these definitions, (saith he) of general Counsels (if such have been, or can be had:) or this consent of ancient fathers (our last refuge) must it be expected, or sought, for every thing that we believe in all doubtful points?  
So the Romanists tell us, and it is an article of Faith with them, that whatsoever is proposed unto us by the present Church, or Pope; fundamental, or not fundamental; must be believed with equal certainty of Faith: else, that all that we believe (a horrible, 
Laby. p. 15.  damnable doctrine) will do us no good. All points defined by the Church (the present Church) as matters of Faith, (saith the Author of the Labyrinth:) are fundamental; that is, necessary to salvation to be believed by all those to whom they are sufficiently propounded to be so defined. And again, It is manifest, that all points defined by the Church, 
Ib. p. 16.  are fundamental, by reason of that formal object, or infallible authority propounding them, though not always by the matter, which they contain. And again: It is manifest, that if the Church be disbelieved in any one point, there can be no infallible faith of any thing.  
But what saith Vincentius Lirinensis? Quae tamen antiqua sanctorum Patrum consentio, non in omnibus divinae Legis quaestionibus, sed solum certè praecipuè in fidei regula: (what the ancient Fathers call fidei regulam: and even the Council of Trent, principium illud, in quo omnes qui fidem Christi profitentur, necessariò conveniunt: The Reader, I hope need not to be told, that is not a stranger to antiquity:) magno nobis studio investiganda est, & sequenda. And again: Ut ad unam Ecclesiastici sensus regulam scripturae caelestis intelligentia dirigatur; in ijs duntaxat praecipuè quaestionibus, quibus totius catholici dogmatis fundamenta nituntur.  
This is plain and express; This consent must be expected in fundamentals only. And so the Reverend Archbishop; That the whole Church cannot universally err in the doctrine of Faith (fidei regula, in Vincentius:) is most true, and is granted by most Protestant's: so you will but understand it's not erring in absolute fundamental doctrines. 
p. 139.  And elsewhere: Now therein there can be no necessity of an infallible certainty in the whole Catholic Church, 
p. 3●7.  and much lesle in a general Council, of things not absolutely necessary in themselves. For Christ did not intent to leave an infallible certainty in his Church, to satisfy either contentious, or curious, or presumptuous spirits. Let the Reader judge who come nearest to the faith of the ancients, in this main fundamental. Take all Vincentius Lirinensis together; consider every part, compare it with what is maintained and delivered, by the said judicious Reverend Author, and lay aside the age, and other circumstances of time and persons; you would think Vincentius had intended a vindication of that excellent piece, against the false doctrine, calumnies, sundry shuffl●ngs and impertinencies of this confident anonymus antagonist, the author of Labyrinthus Cantuariensis.  
But I have not yet done with Vincentius: I insist the longer upon him, because he is so generally commended, by those, whose malice, and uncharitableness, would make us, if they could tell how, worse than Infidels, though in very deed, upon a right and unpartial trial, we may justify our title of Catholic, (and that indeed is it we must trust to, for salvation: which I wish they would better consider, that call the Romanists, Catholics absolutely, in opposition to Protestants: it is a dangerous kind of civility; for if they be, the Catholics; we must be Heretics, or Schismatics:) much better than they can.  
Vincentius doth suppose (a supposition though somewhat strange, yet not without all ground, as may appear by what hath been said before of the corruption of ancient books; and others, forged and supposititious) that an heresy may spread and prevail; and by prevailing, attain to prescription of age and antiquity: in a word so far prevail, that it may have the opportunity, to corrupt and adulterate ancient books; to suppress some and forge others: What now? Surely now (in such a straight: such a pinch as this:) or never, we shall hear of an infallible Pope or Church: now, or never; who will not say as much? Alas poor man! neither he, nor any of his time, that he advised with; nor any before them, were so happy; they knew of no such thing. What a ready satisfactory answer had he had, had he known of it, or any body that he knew? For want of this knowledge (the happiness, or happy discovery of latter ages) he is forced for a Remedy, to sand us to Scriptures; or to the decrees, (if any be to be had) of general Counsels, and there to leave us. But that he doth advice, to prevent this straight, not to give errors or heresies this advantage of time or growth; but as soon as they begin to appear, presently fly to the Scriptures and the consent of Fathers, in their expositions. But the Reader probably may desire (in a matter of such moment) Vincentius his own words, which therefore I have set down whole; out of a very good edition, as I conceive; set out in Paris (I guests Petrus Pithaeus might have a hand in it:) in Quarto, apud Sebustianum Pinellum: A.D. 
Vincent Lirinen. Commonit. Lib. 1 p. 63.  1586. with divers other several tractates of others. Of that edition page 63. I found it thus: sed neque semper, neque omnes haereses hoc modo impugnandae sunt, sed novitiae recentesque tantummodo, cum primum scilicet exoriuntur, antequam infalsare vetustae fidei regulas, ipsius temporis vetantur angustijs, ac prius quam, manante latius veneno, majorum volumina vitiare conentur. Caeterum, dilatatae, & inveteratae haereses, nequaquam hac via adgrediendae sunt, eò quod prolixo temporum tractu, longa his furandae veritatis patuerit occasio. Atque ideo quascunque illas antiquiores, vel schismatum, vel haereseωn profanitates, nullo modo nos oportet, nisi aut solâ, si opus est (that is, if no definitions of general Counsels can help us:) Scripturarum authoritate convincere; aut certè jam antiquitus, universalibus sacerdotum Catholicorum concilijs convictas, damnatasque vitare. Itaque cum primum, etc.  

Relation. p. 228.  But again it is the opinion of that Reverend Prelate (of blessed memory) that infallibility in fundamentals necessary to salvation, is the privilege of the whole Catholic Church: derived from her (though not with like certainty) to the representative in General Councils. He disputes it at large p. 228, etc. This the Author of the Labyrinth calls an erroneous supposition: and doth endeavour (he had reason, 
Labar. p. 244.  since nothing can be more contrary to their doctrine of the Pope's infallibility) to confute it both there and elsewhere. Let us hear what the commended Vincentius Lirinensis saith to this. He takes his occasion from the words of the Apostle; O Timothee, depositum custodi, devitans profanas vocum novitates. Quis est hodie Timotheus (saith he) nisi vel generaliter universa Ecclesia; vel specialiter, totum corpus praepositorum (the Catholic universal body of the Church, 
Relat. p. 229.  and Clergy in the Church: are the very words of the Archbishops, though he makes no mention of Vincentius, who I believe was not in his thoughts, in all this business, though mentioned by him, upon other occasions:) qui integram divini cultus scientiam vel habere ipsi debent, vel alijs, infundere. This vel twice repeated, may trouble some Reader perchance. For how can they alijs infundere, which they have not themselves? But so they spoke in those days; vel for &; ordinarily. For example: De vita, vel obitu sanctorum, qui Deo placuerunt: the title of a book in Isidorus Hispalensis. Lex Alamannorum, quae temporibus Chlotarij Regis, una cum principibus suis, Episcopis, & ducibus, & comitibus, vel caetero populo constituta est: The title of another, in the Codex Legum antiquarum, set out by Frider Lindebrogius. To return to Vincentius: Christi verò Ecclesia sedula & cauta, depositorum apud se dogmatum custos, nihil in his unquam permutat, nihil minuit, nihil addit:) can this be said of the Roman Church? Yes, by them who by their Sophistry, will make a man believe, that twice two, is not four; or that the whole is not bigger than part of it, and the like)— denique quid unquam aliud Conciliorum decretis enisa est, and a little after, haereticorum novitatibus excitata, Conciliorum suorum decretis Catholica perfecit Ecclesia, etc. It is a very material point, and therefore I thought this notice would not be unseasonable,  
What I aimed at, out of Vincentius, is at an end: with what success the Reader must judge. But should I leave Vincentius here, I may perchance hear of it, as though I had been partial in the business, concealing some things that made for the Pope. Truly I know nothing that doth so, really. But because men that are passionately addicted to a cause, are very apt to catch at any thing that hath but a little show: let us see, whether any thing can be found of that nature.  
In a place, having magnified those Confessors, who did manfully oppose themselves to the Arrian faction, when it raged everywhere, and carried all before it: Neque hoc sane novum (saith he:) si quidem mos iste, semper in Eclesia viguit, ut quo quisquis foret religiosior, eo promptius novellis adinventionibus contrairet. This will scarce be granted now, that any Priest, or Prelate, may oppose errors and heresies, till they have been declared such by the Pope. Well, that any might, he saith: and he will give you an instance. Exemplis talibus plena sunt omnia. Examples saith he, are obvious everywhere, but one shall serve our turn, which shall be taken from the Apostolic See, that all men may clearly see, with what eagerness, study, and contention, that blessed Succession of the blessed Apostles (that is, that part of the Apostles Succession, except he should intent Peter and Paul, who both; as many ancients are of opinion, were Bishops of Rome: however here is nothing of Peter particularly:) did defend the integrity of the Faith (or religion) once received. I think so much hath been acknowledged before, that the Bishops of Rome did very good service in those days, to uphold the true faith. But than a little after, it followeth; Tunc b. m. Papa Stephanus, Apostolicae sedis antistes cum caeteris quidem collegis, sed tamen prae caeteris restitit, etc. that is, Than Pope Stephen (of bl. m.) Bishop (or ruler) of one of the Apostolic Sees; (or be it, of the Apostolic See, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉:) with the rest of his colleagues, indeed; but more than the rest, did oppose; thinking it (as I conceive) fit and reasonable that he should outgo all others as much in his zeal for the Faith, as he did in the authority of his place: or, of the place: for the credit of Rome, domina gentium, the Mistress of nations and head of the world, as anciently called; added much to the credit of the Bishops.  
I think we may conclude (which is all can be made of it, for aught I know) that he that so spoke of the Bishop of Rome (as many others did in those days with all civil respect:) had no quarrel to him, no intention to do him wrong, to deny him his cue: not his Supremacy than, or infallibility; had he known or believed any such thing: which doth not a little confirm what we concluded before upon those pregnant evidences, that he knew no such thing belonging unto him.  
In his second book, after an account given of the general Council at Ephesus (where no mention is made of the Pope:) and divers named (quorum in illo Concilio, vel tanquam judicum, vel tanquam testium, scripta recitata sunt:) whose writings, as either judges or witnesses, were there read: he doth add: Sed ne sola Graecia, aut Oriens tantum, etc. that is, And to the end, that not Greece only, or the East alone, but the Western and Latin world also, might be certainly known always to have been of the same opinion, the letters of St. Felix Martyr, and St. julius' Bishops of Rome, written to certain persons, were there read. And to the end, that not the head of the world only, but also the sides, etc. And two or three pages after, Quae omnia licet cumulatè abundéque sufficerent— ne quid deesse beatae plenitudini videretur, ad extremum adjecimus geminam Apostolicae sedis auctoritatem; unam scilicet sancti Papae Systí, qui nunc Rom. Ecclesiam venerandus inlustrat: alteram decessoris sui, b. m. Papae Celeslini, etc. and than a little after; Quibus Apostolicis, Catholicisque decretis, etc. that is To these Apostolic and Catholic decrees, which might abundantly suffice, we have in the last place, that nothing might be wanting to such a plenitude (as an overplus to a full measure) added a double authority of the Apostolic See; the one of holy Pope Systus, who worthily, and virtuously doth now govern the Roman Church; the other of his predecessor of bls. m. Pope Celestin. And than: These Apostolic and Catholic decrees whosoever shall oppose, first, it must needs follow, that in so doing, he doth insult over the memory of St. Celestin: (he doth insult? Why not, he is a Schismatic, an Apostate, an infidel; ipso facto: according to the language of those times?) and secondly, that he doth deride the definitions of holy Systus. Truly by the tenor of these expressions, I think a man may justly suspect that Vincentius did not use so much cautelousness, without some cause; and that he had somewhat in his thoughts, which made him writ so warily. Especially, if it be considered withal, that before any mention of those testimonies, (of Felix, or Julius, or Systus, or Celestin.) he doth argue from 1 Cor. 12 28. And God hath set some in the Church, first Apostles, Secondly Prophets, thirdly teachers, etc. The necessity of submitting to the universal consent of Fathers (present, and ancient, when they agreed; but of ancient Fathers, if they do not:) wherein he makes the Unity of the Church to consist. Hos ergo in Ecclesia. Dei, divinitùs per tempora & loca dispensatos, etc. Quod si quis ab eorum sententiae communione desciverit, etc. and that in all this, no mention of Church or Bishop of Rome is made. Except those words that follow, though applied there to another, might have some reflection that way: (which is not impossible:) Et ne quis forsitan, praetermissis caeteris, se solum audiri, sibi soli credi, arrogaret, etc. that is, And jest perchance any body passing by the rest, should arrogate unto himself, that he only must be heard: he only must be believed.  
This comes very near to St. Cyprians censure of Stephanus Pope of Rome before spoken of. So that for conclusion, I shall repeat what I said before, (and I speak it from my heart, according to that measure of judgement wherewith God hath endued me:) that if the Author had intended purposely, to writ against the opinions of these times, (some beginnings whereof he might have seen in his days, and fear the progress▪) I do not know (but that he did forbear openly to profess it:) how he might have written more pertinently, more pregnantly.  
After this consideration of the reasons, grounded upon human ratiocination; and than, authority, whether of Scripture, or consent of Fathers, upon which, as clear and convincing, (which if they be not, they must be acknowledged impertinent:) Supremacy and Infallibility, are obtruded, as Articles of Faith, necessary to Salvation; by our adversaries: we now proceed to the consideration of some reasons, and arguments of our own, why we should not believe it: First, from the nature of it, or doctrine itself, as it is set out unto us, by them that maintain it; full of intricacies, of repugnancies, and contradictions. Secondly, from the uncertainty of the persons. And lastly, from the different opinion of other Roman Catholics (generally, so acknowledged, notwithstanding their dissent:) about it.  
First than we say; this Infallibility, so earnestly contended for, which if certain and evident, would prevent, or soon alloy all distractions, and disturbances of thoughts; is a thing so perplex, and intricate in itself; so full of confusion, and uncertainty; that he had need to be a right Oedipus; (if he look into the nature of it, and do not take it upon mere trust:) that can tell what to make of it, to receive any comfort, or satisfaction from it. First, we observe the variety of terms, wherewith, the better to comply with variety of opinions, and to conceal their own differences; yea divisions; they set out this assertion, (or article of Faith, as they make it) unto the world. Sometimes it is called the Infallibility of the Church: sometimes of Counsels, and sometimes of Tradition: though under that variety, one thing by most, be intended; and that is the Pope's Infallibility. The Infallibility of the Church Catholic (with due restriction) even Protestants do maintain: of Counsels, many Romanists, that cannot endure to hear of the Popes: and Tradition is a very ambiguous word, in the writings of ancient Fathers; being taken sometimes for the doctrine of the Gospel, and most fundamental points of our Christian Faith. Specious words therefore; but that we may say of them— atrum Desinit in piscem (Annulus Piscatoris; I need say not more:) mulier formosa superne. The Church first, (the Catholic Church:) mulier formosa superne, we may say of it: 
Labyr. p. 33  but than, there is no need of any special mention of the Pope, in speaking of the authority of the Church: because this authority is always chief supposed, as being Head of the whole Church; saith the author of the Labyrinth. Counsels (general Counsels) venerable names, even with them that do not hold him infallible: but apparet totam firmitatem conciliorum esse a pontifice, saith Bellarmine: and take tradition (as sometimes) for Scripture; what more sacred? But, Id solum pro Dei verbo veneramur, ac suscipimus, quod nobis Pontifex ex Cathedra Petri— definiendo proponit: that is, We receive and reverence that only for the word of God, which the Pope out of Peter's Chair, doth propose unto us by his definitions; here is the after piscis; or venom in the tail, that spoileth all. The Author of the Labyrinth, doth many times profess, that no more is required of any Protestant, but that he should believe the Pope's infallibility when he hath the assistance or concurrence of a General Council: whereby he seems to grant somewhat towards peace, and accommodation of diferences: but in effect, as he doth explain himself, he grants nothing at all. For besides what he writes in some places, where he seems more directly to contradict himself, as where he hath these words: Hence also it follows in proportion (upon allegation of Christ's promise as in the former times:) that the Bishop of Rome, 
Labyr. p. 103.  being Pastor of the whole Church, and intending to oblige the whole Church by his definition, cannot (in the common opinion) err for the same reason: besides this, I say, which is more direct; the opinion which he with others, maintain of infallibility, in the conclusion, though not in the means or premises, (which neither he, nor any body else doth pretend to reconcile to sense, but are glad to fly to God's omnipotency for it: doth altogether voided the use, or expedience of any Counsels, or indeed of any counsel at all: so that they may be thought to deal far more ingenuously, who plainly writ and maintain, that whether the Pope use any endeavour or not (to found out the truth) it is not at all material, let him but define, he will be infallible, as some of them have openly professed. So that a pretence of general Counsels, is but a mere mockery; but no small argument to us, or to any that will judge indifferently, that they that are put to such shifts, are not unsensible of the badness of their cause.  
Now if that be the common opinion, both of them who openly profess it, and of many others who cunningly rather insinuate, than absolutely declare, that the Pope in his definitions (laying aside the concurrence of Counsels) is infallible: it will be some work to found out, what it is, that he doth define as Pastor of the whole Church, by his definition: (as the Author of the Labyrinth doth express it:) and what he doth define and avouch as a private person, 
p. 242.  if the subject be matters of Faith. A Pope may be an heretic; (it is granted by divers, who nevertheless maintain his infallibility.) Liberius in persecution might yield: Marcellinus for fear, might commit adultery; Honorius might fall into heresy, and more than all this, etc. So the Rhemish Annot. upon Luke 22. v. 31. and yet continued in actual possession of his chair. May not he probably, writ, and writ peremptorily like a Pope, to maintain his errors? And though he do not writ, will not his private judgement and opinion, he being a public Person, and the Oracle of the world by his place, be looked upon by most men, who do not understand the niceness, and punctilios of Pope as a private Doctor; and, Pope as Pastor of the Church: or, Pope in the Chair, and out of the Chair, as others express it; and intending to oblige the whole Church: and the like to be looked upon I say as public definitions.  
And what are the Decrees of Popes, and Decretals? The chiefest part of the Canon-Law: are they not to be looked upon as public definitions? Yes, certainly: Consistories, Courts, Counsels, Decrees: So we are told, and in reason it aught to be so. Now it will be proved by and by, that those Decrees, and Decretals, contain abominable false doctrine, rejected and condemned for such; by a great part, if not greater part of Roman Catholics: which the Author of the Labyrinth, and other late English writers of that side, do profess to disclaim and abhor. But first of repugnancies and contradictions.  
Those Decrees, (we say) have many irreconciliable contradictions, where what one Pope had decreed, is repealed by another, as false and erroneous: 
p. 472.  So that of necessity one of the Popes must be acknowledged to have erred. Learned Erasmus in his Annotations upon 1 Cor. 7. v. 39 (liberata est à lege: cui autem vult, vubat:) hath many pregnant instances, to which not a few more might be added if there were any need of it here. But we have enough besides, if I be not much mistaken. I will instance in one particular, where those Decrees are contrary to the doctrine of these times, maintained and asserted by other Popes. The administration of the Communion or holy Eucharist, under two kinds, as instituted by our Saviour; our adversaries hold it, to be a matter of indifferency in itself; and he that shall hold otherwise, will be accounted an heretic; and if he will not conform to the practice of these days, established by the Pope's order and authority, he will be condemned for a schismatic. Nor do we grant possibility of Salvation to any (horrible words:) that out of private heretical persuasions, hold it aught to be received by all: or out of contempt of the Church's order to the contrary, 
Labyr. p. 317.  do receive it in both kinds. So the Author of the Labyrinth. Now we say, former Popes have been of the same opinion as we are: and have publicly defined the contrary for wicked and sacrilegious, and as a manifest breach of Christ's institution. I will set down Pope Gelasius his words.  
Comperimus autem, quod quidam, supra tantummodi corporis Christi portione, a chalice sacri cruoris abstineant. Qui procul dubio (quoniam nescio qua superstitione docentur obstringi:) aut integra Sacramenta percipiant, aut ab integris arceantur: 
Decret. 3. the cons●cr. Dist. 2. c. 12.  quia divisio unius ejusdemque mysterij, sine grandi sacrilegio non potest provenire.  
Here, first it is apparent, that Gelasius pronounces the receiving under one kind, to be receiving of a portion only: and secondly that the Sacrament is not entire, or perfect, if either kind, (Bread or Wine) be omitted. Thirdly, and lastly, that the division of this mystery (by receiving in one kind only:) is grande sacrilogium: great (or intolerable) sacrilege. Is this plain, or no? Or if it be not, what words can be devised by the wit of man, that can be thought plain to a prepossessed mind, or resolute obstinacy? But let us hear. Bellarmine's first evasion, which he sticks too, in his books De Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 10. is, (Gelasius in eo canone, logui solum de sacerdote sacrificante:) that Gelasius speaks there only of the Priest that doth officiate; (or, sacrifice, as he will have it:) and not of the people that receive. But let any man soberly consider with himself, whether it be probable, if Gelasius wrote this of Priests particularly, whether he would have used such an indefinite, unlimited word (quidam, and no more) as would in all probability, be understood otherwise, than he intended; especially when this mistaking of his sense, must of necessity give great offence. But whether Priest, or people be intended; if that be yielded; what than? Doth not he say plainly, that they that receive in one kind, receive but a portion? That the Sacrament (not Sacrifice:) is not whole and entire; except it be received in both kinds? And lastly, that this division of it, is grande sacrilegium? Are not his words absolute and general, without any restriction, or limitation; as any can be devised or imagined? But Bellarmine hath another answer besides, in his books De Eucharistia: and that is Baronius his answer, 
Lib. 4. c. 26. p. 693.  who slights the former, as impertinent, and a mere device (frigidam solutionem, etc. he might well say it:) But what is it than, that he saith? Truly, that, which upon consideration, will appear as impertinent every whit, as the former▪ Baronius therefore, he will have this (quidam) to be intended of some Manichaeans of those days; to which purpose, to prove that there were Manichaeans in those days, who did refuse the cup; he doth produce a passage of Leo, the Pope, which indeed doth evince so much, and that is all that can be made of it. Well; suppose it was intended of Manichaeans: what than? Why than, saith Baronius, if they did forbear, or refuse the Calix, or Wine out of superstition: (because they condemned all use of wine, as unlawful) why than he might well say, that this Divisio unius ejusdemque sacramenti, non potest sine grandi sacrilegio provenire: this dividing of one and the same Sacrament: (to wit, embracing one part of it, and rejecting the other; whereas both parts Bread and Wine, make one entire Sacrament:) could not be practised without great Sacrilege. He might say it of them it is true; but it is the same reason of any other, that should do the same, that these did, though they do it not for the same reason: though it be not superstition, in them (they do it not, because they think the use of wine unlawful:) yet it is Sacrilege; because they divide that, which of its own nature, and by Christ's institution cannot be divided. Wherever that division is, there are not integra sacramenta; Gelasius saith: it is but portio corporis sacri, not integrum corpus. What than is the difference whether the Manichaeans be understood, or any others? And whereas Baronius and Bellarmine, and out of them the Author of the Labyrinth, doth argue, because Leo doth say, such Manichaeans there were in those days, that did refuse the Wine; and by consequent did receive in one kind: that therefore receiving in one kind was than, ordinary: no such thing doth follow from the words of Leo; but this only, that the Manichaeans did attempt such a thing, to bring it in use; and were it seems connived at, by some Priests of those times: which therefore, is by Gelasius taken notice of, condemned; and for reasons which he doth there allege, inhibited for the time to come. Leo's words are, that, ad tegendam infidelitatem suam, nostris audent interesse mysterijs: because they would not be accounted Manichaeans, (that is, to avoid the Laws, and censures of the Church:) they would come to the Communion, but with this temperament (between true Christians and right Manichaeans:) that they would receive the bread, but refuse the cup: (which was one of Manichaeus his Tenets, that Wine aught not to be drunk: dicentes fel esse Principum tenebrarum, cum vescuntur uvis: saith St. Augustin:) by which signs they may be known from others saith Leo (ut nobis hujusmodi homines, ex his manifestentur indicijs:) What are those indicia, I pray, by him mentioned, but their forbearing the Cup? If therefore they might be known what they were, by those indicia: must it not follow, that they were only Manichaeans, who received but in one kind, in those days? I know not what is sense, if this be not. Which is quite contrary to what Baronius, and Bellarmine would gather from the words.  
And whereas Bellarmine in the same place doth further argue, because neither Epiphanius, nor Augustine, 
Bell. De Euch. l. 4 c. 24 § Quarta ratie. etc.  who writ of the Manichaeans, lay it to their charge, that they received but in one kind; that therefore it was than ordinary so to receive: it is an argument very unworthy such a man, as he is generally believed; though they that know him (his parts otherwise, and abilities, we deny not) will think it is very like him. For the Manichaeans, by the account those Fathers give us of them, were rather Infidels, or Heathens, than Christians. In lieu of a Communion, or Eucharist, coguntur electi eorum velut Eucharistiam conspersam cum semine humano sumere, saith St. Augustine: which afterwards he calls rightly scelestum mysterium. Would any body (but in a fit of frenzy, or dementation) draw an argument from thence (from what those miscreants did:) that therefore the Communion was than administered in one kind, among true Christians? Truly I should scarce believe my eyes, were they not pretty well used to such sights.  
But to return to Gelasius, and his words: should any now forbear the cup, out of any such superstitious conceit; because all use of wine, upon any occasion, is vicious: what would his punishment be, to force him to take it under both kinds (the high privilege of Priests and some Kings, if I be not mistaken:) or to deny him the communion altogether, until he had renounced his superstition?  
Besides all this, to make this matter more clear and evident: (though I think greater evidence than what hath already been produced, no man can reasonably require: In the same Distinction, (as called) c. 7. there is a Decretum, or Epistle of Pope Julius, as the title doth bear. In that Epistle, the Pope takes notice of divers abuses, in the administration of the Eucharist. One is, that some had a custom to dip the Bread in Wine, and so to give both kinds thus contrived in one, for the whole Eucharist, which they called Intinctam Eucharistiam. Julius tells them, (Probatum in Evangelio testimonium non recipit:) It was contrary, or not agreeable to Christ's Institution: (seorsum enim panis, & seorsum calicis commendatio memoratur: 
Decr. 3. Dist. 2. De censor. c. 7. ) because by that Institution, the Bread aught to be given asunder, and the Wine asunder. He concludes therefore, after divers other abuses mentioned; De caetero, aliter quam praescriptum est faciens tamdiu à sacrificando (there is no hurt in the word, in that sense they used it:) cessabit, quamdiu legitima poenitentiae satisfactione correctus, ad gradus sui officium redeat, quod amisit: a direct suspension, (if not deprivation, because of the word amisit:) till reformation and amendment.  
May not we now, with all the confidence that clearest evidences and unquestionable records can breed in any man, conclude that Popes have contradicted one another in this point? I hope it will be granted; or we must never hope to carry any thing (though never so visible and palpable:) as long as some have the face to affirm; and others the facility, to believe, what best suits with their occasions, and main design, (to uphold the cause) quo jure, qua injuria: be it right, or wrong. Of which kind of dealing (though I intended Decretals only) I will give the Reader, before I pass to other matter, a further trial upon this very subject.  
The Reverend Archbishop, and now blessed Martyr, had objected that by Christ's Institution, the Sacrament was administered in both kinds, and that his institution and example had the force of a precept. To which purpose he doth produce words of a certain Catechism, printed at Paris, The Institution of a Sacrament, is of itself a command: and again, Institution is a Precept. Now, 
Relat. p. 259.  That both kinds, in the Sacrament, were instituted by Christ; he proved by the very confession and acknowledgement of the Council of Constans, in those words: Non obstante Christi institutione. Two things than we have; that the Cup is Christ's institution: and that Christ's institution (though there be a precept too, besides the institution, as the Bishop doth observe:) hath the force of a precept. To this the Author of the Labyrinth doth reply: 
Laby. p. 27●.  To show that the practices of the Church were contrary to Christ's institution, the Bishop should have made it appear, that Christ did so institute this sacrament of his last supper, that he would not have one part to be sacrament, without the other: or, that he would not have one part to be taken without the other. What; though both kinds be acknowledged Christ's institution; and that institution hath the force of a command, or precept; yet is all this nothing, except Christ have said expressly, that he would not have one part to be sacrament without the other; or, that he would not have one part to be taken without the other? Why than, if I say to a thief, making profession of Christianity, it is written, Thou shalt not steal: may not he answer as well: yea, but show me where it is written, Thou shalt not steal for thy need; or, when opportunity doth offer itself: and so the adulterer, where it is written, Thou shalt not commit adultery, though thou hast no wife of thine own; or, though the woman make some advantage of her adultery, which she and her Children stand in need of; and the like. This it is, to be resolved, not to yield to any thing, whatever comes of it.  
But hear him again: Our Saviour (saith he) gave it in one kind only to the two disciples at Emmaus (Luke 24) as both S. Augustine, S. chrysostom, S. Hierome, Theophylact, and others, of the ancient switness: 
Ibid. p. 318.  whose example the Church following, etc. Who doth read this, but would expect in those Fathers here quoted, to found somewhat expressly, concerning communion in one kind? But if you look, not one word in any of them will you found, concerning one kind, or two: but this only, that those Fathers are of opinion, that by those words, breaking of bread, the Communion is intended. Now breaking of bread in common speech among the Hebrews, implying drink also, as no man ever denied, or doubted, (as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek doth imply meat also, and the like in other languages:) to bring them for witnesses, and to make them say peremptorily, that the Eucharist was administered in one kind by Christ; because by breaking of bread, the Eucharist is intended: what kind of dealing is this? let the Reader judge. I shall add only, that Maldonat, who doth earnestly contend for this sense, that by breaking of bread, the Eucharist is intended in this place, urging many reasons, and alleging the very same Fathers their authority for it; yet of the Sacrament administered in one kind (which, had he seen any ground for it, he had not omitted, certainly:) he hath not one word. Nay, those words of his, fractionem panis, non ipsam actionem frangendi, sed totum illum actum conficiendi, administrandique Eucharistiam appellari: may be thought not improbably, to imply the contrary, and to aim at some confutation.  
But why do I say, not improbably? For certain it is, that he could intent it not otherwise; and as certain, that the Author of the Labyrinth, did not well understand what did belong unto himself as a Priest; if, as probably, he be a Priest. For though the Romanists do administer unto the people under one kind: yet they do not hold that right consecration of the Elements, that is not made under both. And therefore (as is well observed by a learned Romanist, whom we shall name afterwards, who hath written a learned discourse of this very subject;) Neither the Council of Constance, nor that of Basil, nor of Trent, by which Counsels, administration under one kind was established (or confirmed;) would make use of this place of Scripture to confirm their doctrine, or decree; as, wisely foreseeing what would be objected. And is this the man, that durst undertake such a work, as the confutation of the Archbishop of Canterbury? That learned, and judicious piece.  
Now to sum up what hath been said hitherto upon this subject of infallibility, considered in itself; and briefly to supply what hath not yet been said of the intricacy of it: First in the very title or terms, there is obscurity, or craft, which every body doth not understand; whilst some call it, or the same man perchance, sometimes infallibility, of the Church; sometimes of Counsels; and again, of tradition: one thing being intended, to wit, the Popes. Well; the Pope's infallibility; yes; but not as he is a private person or Doctor (how can he be so whilst he is Pope? but as he is the chief Pastor of the Church; not in his ordinary doctrine, or in the Schools; but as he doth teach the whole Church in his Pastoral chair: not in the premises, but in the conclusion: not in matters of fact, but in matters of Faith: and in matters of Faith, (as I conceive this is, whether the Pope be above a general Council; or a general Council above the Pope:) whether as matters of Faith: or, by way of Canonical, or Ecclesiastical Constitution: 
Laby. 262 3.  for which last I refer the Reader to the Author of the Labyrinth. And again, the voice of the Church (that is the Popes:) in determining controversies of Faith, not simply divine, though by immediate miraculous inspiration: and their Decrees, rightly styled the Oracles of the Holy Ghost; (Labyr. p. 253.) but, in a manner divine. Well: an intricate business we say; and they that maintain it, are much put to it: and yet, such an article of Faith, as without it, no salvation; here is ground enough for any man to doubt the truth of it; so much I hope will be granted. But upon their own grounds of human reason, or ratiocination, that Christ as wise, or good, was bound: &c. (before spoken of:) what will follow, I leave to the Reader to judge.  
But, an intricat thing in its own nature, full of repugnancies and contradictions, that is some prejudice to the cause certainly: but that is not all. Though it were granted true, that every true, lawful Pope, is (with such limitations and restrictions:) infallible; yet we are as much to seek, and more too, in the person; whereof according to their own doctrine and definition, there can be no assurance, that such, or such, is a true Pope, and by consequence infallible.  
First, he that came in, or got possession of the place, by bribery and Simony, he is declared by the sentence of many Popes not lawful Pope▪ Si quis pecunia, vel gratia humana, vel populari, seu militari tumultu, sine concordia & canonica electione ac benedictione Cardinalium, Episcoporum— fuerit Apostolicae sedi inthronizatus, non Apostolicus sed apostaticus habeatur: liceat Cardinalibus— invasorem etiam cum anathemate— à sede Apostolica repellere: etc. So Nicholas Papa TWO in Concilio Romano statuit: Dist. 79. c. 9 Si quis. And Pope Paschalis Caussa 11. q. 1. declares all Simoniacal persons to be heretics: veluti primos & praecipuos haereticos, ab omnibus fidelibus respuendos, etc. Omnia enim crimina, ad comparationem Simoniacae haeresis, quasi pro nihilo reputantur. Other Decrees, and Canons, of Popes there be to the same purpose which I omit. I shall only content myself with Platina (a man bred in the Court of Rome and throughly well acquainted with their ways. 
Plaet. in Silu. 3o. ) his words in one of the Pope's lives; (which book he delivered himself to the Pope: Eò enim tum Pontificatus devenerat etc. That was the case (or condition) of the Popedom (or, Popeship) in those days; that no holy life, or learning; but largition (or bribery) and ambition, all good men being oppressed, and put down, were the only means, to obtain that high dignity: which custom, would to God, our times had not retained: (utinam aliquando non retin. nostra temp. I wish they would once leave, or give over: or perchance he means, They did not always so: the expression is somewhat ambiguous, but that which follows, makes the other more probable:) But this is but little: if God prevent it not, we shall see worse hereafter. Of what consequence, this may be, I leave to the Reader to consider.  
The next thing is, their doctrine and definitions, concerning the intention of the Priest, in consecrating: by which it doth infallibly follow that no man can be so sure, that he that now sits, shall sit, or ever sat, as Pope; is in holy orders; and by consequent, 
Relat. p. 271.2 3.  whether true Pope; and if not Pope, certainly; than what certainty of his infallibility? This is very strongly pressed, and very particularly proved from their tenets, and definitions by the most Reverend Archbishop: to which the Author of the Labyrinth doth endeavour to say somewhat: but whether, what he saith, may be called an answer, let any man judge, whom prejudice, and partiality, hath not altogether bereft of his judgement.  
His first answer is, by way of retortion: No man, saith he, can infallibly be sure of any man, that he is truly baptised: 
Labyr. p. 282.  therefore it is possible, for aught he knows, that none are. How than can he believe a Catholic Church, which must consist of persons rightly baptised? This indeed, were an argument of some force against them that hold that the validity of a Sacrament depends of the intention of the Priest, which is their doctrine: but of no validity at all against us, who believe no such thing; and protest, as the Archbishop doth, against the manifest, intolerable uncharitableness, and absurdity of the opinion. What did he mean than, to bewray so much absurdity, and impertinency in his retortion? Though in very truth there is besides a vast difference in the business, or comparison. For that all Priests, all the world over, or greater part, should be such Devils, and in this one particular too, is altogether incredible; and than it will not concern the Catholic Church, if some here and there be not truly baptised: but in this case, of the Pope's being baptised, yea, or no; whose Infallibility is said to be the Church's Rule, and Oracle; and therefore should be very well known, and certain: if some Priests sometimes, may be supposed to be so wicked; that is enough to make every Pope questionable. And that the Reader may not think we suppose strange things, not easily to be believed: (therefore also it will the better appear, what horrible doctrine, this doctrine of intention is:) I will impart to the Reader, what I found recorded by my F. (of bl. m.) in his Adversaria, in these words: Presbyteri novum exemplum furoris.  
Audivi saepe a senatoribus, & Praesidibus hujus amplissimi ordinis, anno 1598. aut 1599 Presbyterum fuisse vocatum in jus in Provincia Conomanorum, & mox huc Lutetiam adductum, qui fassus est se per annos jam septem vel octo, in consecratione panis mystici, semper pro nomine benedicto Domini Jesus, nomen (horresco referens) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pronuntiasse. Erat enim sortilegus, & ex voto se ad id daemoni malo obstrinxerat. Aiebat Praeses Thuanus, censuisse ordinem, gravissimas quasque poenas ab eo exigere: sed ordinem Ecclesiasticum hominem repetiisse, & quid de eo statuerit, nesciri.  
The sum is; A Priest was questioned in Paris for a Sorcerer, who confessed that instaed of the name of Christ, at the consecration of the mystical Bread; having bound himself to him so to do, he had used some seven or eight years that of the Devils. Intention is not here mentioned; for it seems he had the boldness, and opportunity both to perform by direct utterance; what some others, more probably, commit intentionally only. God be thanked, such a thing cannot hap in our Churches, where we are bound to speak audibly, in a tongue which is understood. So much of his first answer.  

Ibid.  Than: Secondly, I answer, saith he: That both a general Council, and the Pope, when they define any matter of Faith, do also implicitly define that themselves are infallible; and by consequent, that the Pope in such a case, and also the Bishops that sit in Council, are persons baptised, and in holy orders. Well: If I be out of my wits, God restore me: but I am certainly, and I must acknowledge it, if any man can make good sense of this. The question is, (it matters not what the Bishops are:) whether he that sits, as Pope; be true Pope; that is, truly baptised, in holy orders, etc. which by the doctrine of intention (as is abundantly proved by the Archbishop:) established by Popes, as matter of Faith; cannot be known. How than can it be known, that he that sits as Pope, and Decrees, and Defines, is Infallible? Yes, saith our Labyrinth-maker: it may be known; because when he doth define any matter of Faith; he doth also define (implicitly) that he is Infallible; therefore baptised, and in holy Orders. But (I can hardly keep myself from exclaiming: Dei hominumque fidem!) what is the definition of such a one (whether implicit, or explicit:) to the purpose; until we know that he is right Pope, and by consequent (as you would have it:) Infallible? He that sits as Pope, (many have done, it is well known, and granted; yea, for a long time, that were no true Popes:) takes upon him to define matters of Faith, (who should, but he that sits in the Chair for the time, whether true Pope, or no?) therefore, he is Infallible, etc. Is not this Petitio principii; as manifest, and palpable, as any can be?  

Ibid.  His third answer is; That it is not necessary to believe the Infallibility of the Proposer, (or Pope:) prioritate temporis: but it sufficeth to believe it, prioritate naturae. He that doth understand this, to apply it to the purpose; let him speak, and brag; I will not envy him, but admire him. For my part, I think, if instead of this, he had put in two, or three words of Welch, or some other unknown language, it might have done as well; or better. But I will expect what men of better capacities, will say to it. This shall serve, (though much might be added from the uncertainty of the true Pope, in times of schism, when divers Popes set together, though not in one place; which hath often happened:) to show how fallible and uncertain, this doctrine of Infallibility is, in the persons, or subject of it.  
Our next business (as we proposed it before) will be to show, that this Infallibility of the Pope, in his Decrees and Constitutions, which we are told is the common opinion; is rejected by others (of the same profession, otherwise: to wit, Roman Catholics:) as impious and diabolical: not very likely than, that there is such great certainty of it, that it should be obtruded as an Article of Faith, and necessary to Salvation. Bonifacius the VIII. Pope of Rome, did set out a Decree, or Declaration, entered into the body of the Canonical Law, whereby he doth establish himself absolute Lord and Monarch of the World, challenging temporal, as well as spiritual power, over Kings and Kingdoms; in these words, among others: Nam veritate testante, Spiritualis potestas, terrenam potestatem instituere habet, & judicare, si bona non fuerit. Sic de Ecclesia, & Ecclesiastica potestate, verificatur vaticinium Hieremiae: Ecce constitui te hodie, super gentes & regna; & caetera quae sequuntur. (ut evellas & destruas, & disperdas, & dissipes, & aedifices, & plants:) Ergo si deviat terrena potestas, etc. He concludes: Porrò subesse Rom. Pontifici omni humanae creaturae (al. omnem humanam creaturam:) dicimus, definimus, & pronunciamus omninò esse de necessitate Salutis. Some will reply perchance, that these be general words, by which he intended not to challenge to himself absolute temporal Dominion; but only to magnify the spiritual power, (to which purpose, I must acknowledge, that some ancient Fathers, have some high expressions of Episcopacy, in general:) and prefer it, b●fore the temporal: Though the words will scarce bear this sense, 〈◊〉 that we had Suarez before, a great Author among them, his acknowledgement to the contrary; yet I would not much contend ab●●●… were it not for the testimonies of their own Historians, concerning 〈◊〉 Boniface: whereof one of them, doth so writ of him: This 〈◊〉 was very expert in all things that belong to Courts: and because he had not his fellow for this kind of knowledge, 
●  he did so unmeasurably arrogate unto himself, that he reported himself to be Lord of the whole world, as well in things temporal, as spiritual. This I think makes it out of doubt, what he intended by those words.  

Bill. de R. P. l. 5. c. 5.  Besides, we could tell you of Nicolas the II. of that name, Pope of Rome, two, or three hundred years before this Boniface, but not many years before Hildebrand, the grand assertor, or rather founder of Popish Omnipotency; who decreed, and defined, 
D●cret. 1. di●t. 22  the very same in effect, in that Decree of his, registered in their Law; where, having pronounced all Sees, and Dignities Ecclesiastical to be founded by the Church of Rome; he further addeth: Illam vero solus ille fundavit, etc. that is: But her, (or it) (the Church of Rome) he only (God, or Christ) hath founded and erected upon the rock of Faith, than beginning; who hath committed unto his blessed Claviger (or Key-keeper:) the right (or disposition) of the earthly both, and heavenly Kingdom. This is objected by some, as though he had intended the same as Boniface. But Bellarmine doth answer not improbably, that by those words he did not intent, any temporal or terrestrial dominion properly; but merely alluded to the words of Christ: Matth. xuj. 19. And I will give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in Heaven: whatsoever thou shalt lose on earth, shall be loosed in Heaven. Well, be it so: yet, Bellarmine must grant, that either Pope Nicholas speaks nothing to the purpose; or so much at lest, he doth here assert to Peter and his Successors, as their proper privilege, that unto them only, the Keys of Heaven; that is, the power of binding and losing, was given by Christ, Which he doth not here only affirm; but afterwards, in this very Decree, doth define it Heresy to deny it: Qui autem Rom. Ecclesiae privilegium— hic proculdubio in haeresin labitur:— hic est proculdubio dicendus haereticus. Now it is certain, that it is the Doctrine of the ancient Fathers (generally:) that nothing was given to St. Peter by these words, (but only that it was given to him first, for unities sake: in which sense some say, soli Petro:) but was given to the rest of the Apostles. And certain it is, that many Roman Catholics, (the greatest part, I believe) are of the same opinion, as the ancient Fathers were in this particular. How than the Pope's infallible in their Decrees; and their Infallibility, how much regarded among them generally, by whom to us Protestants, it is proposed as an Article of Faith; this may well go for one instance.  
But in the next place; What shall we say to Hildebrand, or Gregory the VII. who doth decree and declare, that if a Prince, or King be excommunicated, all his Subjects are discharged of their Oath; and not only, so, but doth strictly forbidden, that any fidelity (or obedience) shall be performed unto them? His words are; Nos sanctorum Praedecessorum nostrorum statuta tenentes, eos qui excommunicatis, fidelitate aut sacramento constricti sunt; Apostolicâ auctoritate, a Sacramento absolvimus; & ne iis fidelitatem observent, omnibus modis prohibemus; quousque ipsi ad satisfactionem veniant. This is so punctual, that it will admit, (I think:) of no evasion: And that this Doctrine is impious, heretical, destructive to all Kings, and Princes, hath been declared by divers Edicts of Kings and Princes, with the joint concurrence of their Clergy, Bishops, Archbishops, etc.  
But that which is most horrible, beyond which professed Atheism, and Infidelity cannot go; is that of Urban the Second, whereby he doth declare them to be no homicides, who through zeal for the Church, shall murder any man, (King, or Prince, you may be sure; who are most subject to those Excommunications:) that stands excommunicated. Yet nevertheless, he doth order, 
Decr. II. a. 23. q 5. p. 823. c. 47.  that some kind of penance, for Disciplines sake, in case they have not done it out of mere zeal, should be enjoined them. And this, he saith, is the Ordo; course, order, or appointment of the Church of Rome. But it will not be amiss, to set down his own words. Urbanus II. Godfredo Lucano Episcopo. Excommunicatorum interfectoribus (prout in ordine Eccles. Rom. didicistis:) secundum intentionem, modum congruae satifactionis injunge. Non enim eos homicidas arbitramur, quos adversus excommunicatos, Zelo Catholicae matris ardentes, aliquos eorum trucidasse contigerit. Ne tamen ejusdem Matris Ecclesiae disciplina deseratur, etc.  
The word arbitramur, might seem to qualify the matter somewhat, as though it were but a declaration of his opinion, not an absolute determination. But here the Author of the Labyrinth, doth offer himself very seasonably: I am very willing to make some use of his authority; but the rather, to do the Reverend Archbishop some right, which I did propose to myself, to do upon all occasions, that should offer themselves, as I told the Reader, at the beginning. Though therefore it be some digression from the present matter; yet it is not besides my first intention, and purpose. The question is, about a place of St. Jerome, where he doth use the word arbitramur; in what sense there to be taken. Before we resolve the question, and produce Jeroms words; let us hear, what the said Author of the Labyrinth, doth make of it, which may stand us in some stead upon this particular occasion of Pope Urbanus his words. 
Labyr. p. 364.  [As for the word arbitramur (saith he) which the Relator catches at, as if S. Jerom thereby delivered only his own private, and but conjectural opinion, and not any matter of Christian belief; we answer, Arbitramur doth not always signify opinion, or doubts, but simply a man's sense, and judgement, in whatsoever matter or question propounded, as every common Lexicon might have informed him. Doth the word signify not more than mere opinion, in that Text of St. Paul, Phil. 2. Non rapinam arbitratus est, esse se aequalem Deo? etc. And would not the Bishop (think you,) have been shrewdly put to it, to found a proof for justification by Faith only, should that of Rom. 3.28. have been wrested from him in that manner: St. Paul is here only at his arbitramur, we think that a man is justified by Faith, without the works of the Law? He delivers not a point of Faith, but only his private opinion, etc.]  
Thus he; and that this interpretation of the word arbitramur, doth very well agreed to Urbanus, as Pope, that is, as supreme Judge, (so they would have it) in all such causes; no man can doubt. But however, what construction soever we make of this arbitramur, is not much material, since his order and appointment how they shall be used, that have, or shall commit such a thing; not as execrable murderers, or parricides; but as men, who perchance in this act of Zeal, might have some other consideration (as happily some private revenge, or expectation of reward, and the like,) besides Zeal; and therefore some arbitrary petty penance, to be enjoined them; and no more: this doth absolutely pronounce them no murderers, no parricides. And this is the Doctrine, all, or most that of late have attempted upon the persons of Kings, and Princes, have gone upon, and acted by. And this, one great mystery of Jesuitism, (though I hope, 
〈…〉 129.  all that go under that name, are not conscious of it:) which they call the directing of the intention: by the help whereof, they provide themselves assassins', against all occasions. Never was Doctrine devised, more pernicious to Kings and Princes: and for this one point (were there no other) all the Canon Law, whilst this remaineth in the body of it, deserves to be banished from all Christian commonweals, where the Pope's authority is established by Law. For how can they punish them legally, who have such a plea provided for them, (which they commonly make use of) justifiable by the Pope's Law?  
Now I have done with Pope Urban, whose arbitramur made us think of the Labyrinther; the Reader will give us leave to do the most Reverend Archbishop some right, by a further account, (upon this opportunity) of his adversaries way of dealing. First, it is most clear by a manifest antithesis. in St. Jerom's words between credimus, & arbitramur; that St. Jerome by arbitramur, intended conjectural opinion only, and not matter of Christian belief, as the said Labyrinther would have it. As we believe (saith St. Jerome) the external torments of some; Devils and Infidels:) So (arbitramur) we think (probably) that the sentence of the Judge against the wicked, yet Christians, whose works are to be tried and purged by fire, may be moderated with some mercy. His words are: Et sicut Diaboli & omnium negatorum atque impiorum, qui dixerunt in cord suo, Non est Deus, credimus aeterna tormenta: sic peccatorum, atque impiorum, & tamen Christianorum, quorum opera in igne probanda sunt, atque purganda; moderatam arbitramur & mistam clementiae sententiam judicis. Now for those instances he useth, to prove, that arbitramur is so taken sometimes as he would have it; could the man be so ignorant, or impertinent, as to believe, that if the Archbishop would prove any point of Religion out of the New Testament, he would go by the Vulgar translation, (because authorised by the Council of Trent:) and not rather by the original Greek, which only with us, is authentic? There, no arbitramur is to be found (Rom. III. 28. but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? which they that read Theophylact (not to mention any other) will say, is very well and truly translated, we conclude: which is our translation. Whilst the Labyrinther therefore thought to make himself some sport with the Archbishop's words, S. Paul is here only at his arbitramur, etc. (See Relat. p. 349.) he hath made himself very ridiculous to any man, that is not a mere stranger to these things.  
But we return to the Pope; Not his temporal, but very spiritual power and supremacy, hath been and is opposed and impeached by many professed Roman Catholics, men of great credit, and authority among them; who have written against it, maintained the government of the Church instituted by Christ, to be Aristocratical; and that Councils, (General Councils,) are above the Pope; may question, condemn, and depose him (contrary to Pope Boniface his definition before spoken of) as they see cause. The Council of Constance and Basil, have determined it, one way: The Council of Lateran another way: great banding there hath been, among the learned of that side, about the authority and validity of those Councils, and their actions: some asserting the one: others as much opposing it.  
Cardinal Cusanus, a man, besides his authority, of great learning and reputation in the world; hath written accurately against the Pope's Supremacy, both Spiritual, and Temporal, applying all the promises of Christ, made to Peter, to the Catholic Church; in his books entitled, De Concordia Catholica. Bellarmine doth speak of him with great respect: vir doctissimus & diligentissimus: and, ob ejus viri eruditionem, in the same place: and elsewhere doctus & pius. And though the same Bellarmine saith of him, and produceth somewhat of his, to prove, that he did change his opinion in some things, before he died: yet, as to the main of his book, that he ever was of another opinion, nothing is alleged by Bellarmine. Th. Campegius Bononiensis, Episcopus Feltrensis; De auctoritate & Potestate Rom. Pont. Printed by Paulus Manutius, A. D. 1555. doth justify the Decree of the Council of Constance, and makes no question of it, but a Pope may be an heretic, and eo nomine, worthy to be deposed.  
In the year 1612. a book was set out in Paris (much noised, and as much commended in most places:) under this title, De Ecclesiastica & Politica potestate liber unus. Ecclesia (in the title Page) est Politia Monarchica, ad finem supernaturalem instituta, regimine Aristocratico, etc. consisting of 18 Chapters, or Paragraphes; the first whereof is, Infallibilis potestas decernendi, aut constituendi canones toti Ecclesiae, quae est columna & firmamentum veritatis, non uni & Soli Petro competit; 
S●●bone  idque praxi Ecclesiae comprobatur. And though the book was questioned, and condemned afterwards, by some part of the Clergy: yet the Author (one of the Doctors of the Sorbone) instead of being terrified, grew so confident, that upon it, (some friends it seems he had, that wished well unto that cause:) whereas before he had concealed his name, he now durst openly make himself known, which troubled the Clergy not a little.  
How many more could we name, if need were? Apparent therefore it is, that this infallibility, so earnestly contended for, hath not yet taken effect, even among them, that are acknowledged by the abettors of it, good Catholics; how than, an article of faith, and necessary to salvation? And again, how suitable to God's providence (upon their own grounds:) that a thing so intricat in itself; subject to so much opposition and contradiction among them, who agreed in other things; should be made by God the main Article of Religion, without the belief whereof, no salvation can be had!  
But though this absolute power and supremacy of the Popes, be obtruded by the abettors of it as the Article of Articles, without which nothing can be right in matters of Faith; nothing, available to salvation; and many are content, for some politic ends, the opinion should pass current among them, that will entertain it, upon those terms: yet how easily, many that apparently submit unto it, can dispense with themselves, when occasion is; hath appeared by sundry public actions, and proceed of whole Nations, and Kingdoms, at several times.  
In the year of our Lord 1524. or thereabouts, Caesar, saith Thuanus, (Charles the V Emperor of Germany, and King of Spain:) ut injuriam sibi a Clement illatam, ulcisceretur; nominis Pontificii auctoritatem, per omnem Hispaniam abolet (Henry the VIII. did not much more in England) exemplo ab Hispanis, posteritati relicto, posse disciplinam Ecclesiasticam, citra nominis Pontificii auctoritatem, ad tempus conservari. The same was agitated (quod Senatus urgebat, saith Thuanus) and very near effected in France, had it not been for the opposition of one, that was very great and powerful; when the Pope stood of, and would not acknowledge Henry the iv lawful King of France.  
What the matter was in France, about the year 1640. others may know better than I, that were than in the Country, eye-witnesses of what passed. Sure I am, that by Books than printed, it doth appear, that there was much talk of a Patriarch, than to be constituted: and that it was verily believed, by many, that it would be so. Which gave occasion to a Book, entitled, Apotrepticus, adversus inanem Optati Galli ad Illustriss. & Reverendiss. Ecclesiae Gallicanae Primates, Archiep. Episcopos, Paraeneticam. A. D. 1640. written of purpose, and as I conceive, by authority; to alloy the jealousies of men; and to prevent disorders, that might probably ensue upon it. In that Book, among other things, you shall found notable instances, quantum distet a piâ Francorum erga R. Sedem observantiâ, fastus & contemptus Ibericus.  
Long before that, in the year 1626. was printed a Book or Writing, in Paris, under this title; Cardinalium, Archiepiscoporum, Episporum, caeterorumque, qui ex universis Regni Provinciis, Ecclesiasticis Comitiis interfuerunt, de anonymis quibusdam, & famosis libellis, sententia. Lut. Paris. apud Anton. Steph. A. D. 1626. Cum privilegio Regis. In which, among other things, I found this clause, so contrary to the Popes, and Jesuits doctrine, rhat nothing can be more: At injustam est, quod ad restituendam haereticum Principem (add etiam infidelem: the Prince Palatine, that than was, is intended:) bellum susceptum sit. Infidelis sit, sed a Deo constitutus, a quo potestas omnis data est: etc. This whole Book, or judgement, was inserted (it had such approbation:) in the Mercurius of those times, and in a Book consisting of four Tomes, than printed, and entitled, Des affairs du Clergé de France: 1626. nay, it was enrolled in the public Records, or Registers of the Kingdom. But the Jesuitical party prevailing, this Book or Sentence was disavowed, and disclaimed by a great part of the Clergy; and a large Book set out against it, Par Francois, Cardinal de la Rochefoucaut, Grand Ausmonier de France. However, it may easily appear by these Writings, upon what doubtful terms, the Pope's authority stands in that Country; and how many enemies it hath. So that in very truth, this business of Infallibility ascribed unto the Pope, is looked upon by the generality, rather as a device to amuse the simple and credulous; than as a thing seriously to be entertained, by any that know how the world goes, and can discern between the inside and outside of things.  
If all this we have said hitherto, be not enough to satisfy the Reader, that it is so indeed, I will propose one instance more to his consideration; and, if that will not do it, I shall leave him, peaceably, to the liberty of his own judgement.  
As we Protestants (as many as go under that name) by the Sentence of the Church of Rome, partly for false doctrine, which they charge us with, in matters of Faith; but especially, for not acknowledging the Pope our head, nor yielding obedience unto his commands; are proclaimed Heretics, and solemnly anathematised, at certain times, in Rome, (as I take it:) So are the modern Grecians, though not for the same points of Doctrine, yet for others, and particularly, for not acknowledging the Supremacy of the Pope. And whereas the Reverend Archbishop doth endeavour to free them from such errors, so fundamental, as should make them no Church; 
Labyr. 6.7.  the Author of the Labyrinth, will not hear of it: he will prove them, whatsoever any body thinks to the contrary, Heretics, and disputes it at large. And elsewhere, that they are Schismatics; in more than one place. He is peremptory in it: 
p 233.8.  We have proved (saith he long after:) that the Greeks Error in that point, is fundamental, and sufficient to unchurch them. I make not any great wonder at it; for ordinarily they dare speak of them no otherwise, because of the Pope's sentence. I said ordinarily: but they dare when they please. Witness he (no obscure man, Jacobus Goar, ordinis Fr. praedicat. S. Th. Lector; & in orient Missus Apostolicus:) who hath set out in Paris the Euchologium, in Greek and Latin, with Annotations. In his Epistle to the Reader, he speaks of the Greek Church, in these words: Una est Orientalis Ecclesia; una est Occidentalis: unum Deum authorem omnium suspicit, ac veneratur: pones externos venerationis ritus, haec ab illa discrepat, quia unus ac idem operatur in ea Spiritus: Deus ergò Opt. Max. cum sit omnium, quem utraque Ecclesia profitetur, objectum, etc. I think this is plain language; it needs no Comment: a free and clear vindication of the Greek Church. Yet I must acknowledge, that the Author, in the beginning of his Epistle, was so wary, as to provide himself (if occasion should be:) a refuge, or evasion; by a cautious Parenthesis; de primaeva illius aetate; vel de sana, quae tempore hoc restat, heu modicâ licet, loquor: but it is apparent, that notwithstanding this Parenthesis, he speaks afterwards of the Greek Church in general; visible, and conspicuous, and commonly known, under that name. No other construction (to make sense of them:) can be made of his words. Yet for further evidence of the matter, and the better to prevent the subterfuges of brazen confidence; I refer the Reader to the Approbations, (the two last of the three:) there following, where the same thing is averred, without any limitation or exception: Ut in Ecclesia Catholica (Ecclesia Orientalis, & Occidentalis, the two Churches before mentioned:) cum rituum diversitate, Sacramentorum societatem, vel potius unitatem esse, omnes intelligant. But the other, more clearly, and fully; Ut omnes sciant, Ecclesiam Orientalem & Graecam, suos adhuc primaevos ritus, fideliter asservasse, nec ad ejus splendorem aliud deesse, quam Romanae fidei unitatem, & cum Romano capite, adeò peroptatam unionem; quod annuente jesu Christo, Capite Romanae, seu Graecae; praestabit istud opus, etc. Here the Greek Church is acknowledged a Church, wanting nothing to full perfection or splendour, but unity with the Roman Church, in the same Faith, and under the same Head; but acknowledged a Church nevertheless, under one, and the same Head, Christ Jesus.  
Is not this strange Doctrine? Can any thing be more contrary to the definitions of Popes, and Church of Rome; than that any Church should be acknowledged a Catholic Church, which hath no dependence from the Pope? Is not this the very Doctrine of Protestants, so rigorously condemned in them, and for which, more than any other point, they are branded as Heretics, and Schismatics? Now let the Reader speak, what reckoning those men make of the Pope's Infallibility, and his Definitions, that do so point-blank oppose them, and reject them, when they please. What the Author of the Labyrinth will reply to this, were worth the knowing; if he be not one of them himself, who would have us to believe that; and that too, (to terrify us, silly people, into a belief,) under pain of eternal damnation; which himself thinks himself too wise to do, truly and really. The Book to which those Approbations (made both by Readers, and Professors in Divinity:) was printed in Paris, A. D. 1647.  
I have been the longer upon this point of Infallibility, and made choice of that (as was partly said already, in the Epistle to the Reader,) to insist upon it before any other: or indeed, in this, instead of all the rest: because it is the point (of late years, especially) most pressed, as the Point of Points, and Article of Articles, by the Patrons of the Roman Cause. As therefore the Reverend and blessed Archbishop said well, speaking of them of that party, If this be true; (that the Pope is infallible:) why do you not lay all your strength together, all of your whole Society, and make this one Proposition evident? 
Relat. p 266.  For all controversies about matters of Faith are ended, and without any great trouble to the Christian world; if you can but make this one Proposition good, That the Pope is an infallible Judge: So, the same reason will hold with us Protestants also, why as many as deal in Controversies, we should make it our chief business, to make it good and evident, that he is not.  
Now truly, I think they have done what they can, they have so applied themselves to it, of late: and because (it seems) upon accurate perusal of former grounds and arguments, they begin, (as we may guests probably:) to mistrust, or to despair: some of them have devised new ways, new props and fences to uphold this tottering building, which were not thought of before: or at lest, disused and laid aside. Witness a Book entitled, Schism Dispatched: or a rejoinder to the Replies of Dr. Hammon, and the Lord of Derry, 1657. This man hath a way by himself, of his own devising; or reviving, at lest: though he sand us to the Dialogues of one Rusworth, 
p. 45.  which he styles The rich Storehouse, of this kind of dealing. This I do not understand: I never heard of such an author: and it is possible, the better to cry himself up, (which is the artifice of some:) he might borrow another name. But be they two, or one: if they go one way, we may speak of them, as one, without wronging them. This author than; Popes, and Prelates, their testimonies he makes nothing of; nay, disclaims them; as insufficient proofs and evidences; (the bore words of a few particular men, so he speaks of them:) Scriptures, 
p. 98.  Fathers, and Counsels (in this business) he slights, as much: 
p. 42.  calls them in scorn, wordish testimonies; and gives you his reasons, why he doth not accounted them good evidences: But I stand not upon this (saith he, such kind of evidences:) having a far better game to play, etc. Oral Tradition, and the testimonies of Fathers of Families; is the only thing wherein he placeth Infallibility: which to make good, he hath so many chimerical suppositions, and doth so please himself in his impertinencies, as must needs beget wonder, in case the man (as probably) be of any account, and reputation in the world. For my part, by this extravagant kind of dealing, I cannot but suspect of him, that he is one of the fraternity of the new (pretended) lights: no friend to ancient Books, or Learning. Woe to Colleges, and Libraries, if they should prevail: Atheism, and Mahometism will get well by it. Others, of approved worth and abilities, have met with this man; who I think have done him more credit, than he deserved. I do not judge his parts: but I accounted his way so ridiculous, that I should hardly have thought it worthy of an answer, or so much as notice.  
But since I have taken notice of this man, who doth lesle concern us; I must not omit to acquaint the Reader, what is done by the Author of the Labyrinth, upon the same occasion: who, though not in the same way, yet he also (upon the same occasion) doth bewray not lesle diffidence and difficulty. For, being put to it by the Reverend Archbishop, he hath no remedy, but he must quit all those pleas of Scripture and the rest; (as necessary;) and wholly betakes himself to Motives of Credibility. 
Labyr. p. 55.  He saith plainly, other Arguments are but ad hominem ex principiis concessis, against Sectaries: and that the Church, without the help of the same, is sufficiently proved to be infallible. Where the Reader may observe, how he confounds the Church, referring us to Bellarmine, de notis Ecclesiae; with the Church's Infallibility: it being one thing, to believe the being of a Church, upon some Motives of Credibility (in part:) and to believe, that the Church is absolutely infallible. And again, one thing, to believe the Infallibility of the Catholic Church, in fundamentals necessary to salvation, and to the constitution of a Church: (which Protestants do generally grant and believe:) and to believe the Infallibility of the Pope, as Head of the Church; the only thing, (as we have observed before) all these goodly words and pretensions drive at. A marvellous Infallibility, and well worthy the first place among the Articles of Faith; which to maintain, the assertors of it are put to so much shuffling and confusion.  
Now should a man go about to examine his motives of probability, as he doth marshal them; sanctity of life, and miracles in the front; efficacy, etc. I do admire, with what face, he durst mention sanctity of life, when so many of their own Authors have made known unto the world, the Epicurean, Atheistical lives of so many Popes, scarce to be paralleled by any heathenish History: whose examples (as Supreme Pastors, and Governors of the Church upon Earth, according to their opinion:) must needs be more considerable, and of more influence, to do good, or evil; generally: than the lives and sanctities of thousands, yea millions, which may not so easily be judged of: and if believed, of little consideration, in comparison. Besides I refer the Reader to what hath already been said, and shall be yet afterwards, of the atheistical life of their Clergy, by their own confessions.  
And for miracles: what will he answer to so many Fathers, who so often disclaim them: and particularly, to St. Augustine: as when he saith: Romoveantur ista etc. that is: Let these, either fictions of lying men, or prodigies of deceiving Spirits, be removed. 
August. De ●●●t. Ecc. c. 16.  For all those things that are reported of that nature (by the Donatists and others who endeavoured to justify their cause, by such proofs) either they are not true; or if in very deed, some wonders have been done by some heretics, we aught to take heed of them the more; since our Saviour, after he had warned us etc. And a little after, What signs soever of that nature, are done in the Catholic Church, therefore they are (approbanda:) to be approved: (to be liked, and well thought of:) because they are done in the Catholic Church: but the Church is not thereby proved, (or manifested) to be Catholic (or, a true Church) because such things are done in her. This must be understood of miracles, since miracles generally ceased. For of the miracles of the Old Testament, or done by Christ and his Apostles, it is quite another case. And truly by what I have read; (who have been somewhat curious to satisfy myself in this point: whereof I may perchance, give a further account to the world, at another time:) and by what I have learned by the relation of others, I am clear of opinion, that the pretended miracles of the Church of Rome, where they make one good Christian (and it must be some of the meanest sort; or such at lest, who naturally, are very credulous:) they make many more atheists. I will not say, of the better sort of men; but, of the more rational, and intelligent, among them. I justify them not; for their be other motives and considerations, to keep them in the Faith of Christ, if they made that their business. But we consider men, as men. For when they see so much imposture (though not comparable now, to what it was, before the reformation; men are somewhat more wary, now:) so much fraud and juggling; (witness many of their own books and Authors:) on the one side: so much credulity, simplicity of others, who are ready to embrace any thing in that kind; who also build some kind of faith, and devotion upon such things, without further examination: it must needs make them who look not further into the true grounds of Religion, and hear miracles (even of these times:) cried up, as a great Argument, or motive (as our Author would have it) of credibility; to think of Religion accordingly.  
Yet, for all this, I do not deny; nay, I verily believe, that in all places, at all times, (more, or lesle) some strange things do hap from strange causes; which may be called miraculous, or supernatural events, or operations; for which no reason from the ordinary course of nature, can be given: which supernatural operations having been acknowledged, not only by the wisest, and most religious of former times; but by the best, and most learned naturalists of this learned age (even since the restoration of learning:) whose profession hath given them greatest advantage and opportunity, to understand the truth of these things: I must look upon it, as an argument of great ignorance, or sensuality (Plato, the Philosopher, will give the reason, why sensuality:) in any man to make a question. So much for miracles.  
I might proceed to his third motive: efficacy, purity, and excellency of Doctrine; (as he expresseth it:) and so to the rest; were it not too much besides my purpose. I shall only, in discharge of my conscience, such an opportunity offering itself, declare the apprehensions (not without much grief) of my mind, and most retired thoughts: that this one point of Doctrine, the worshipping Images, as it is taught and practised (though practised much worse, than taught: yet, even taught:) in most places, where Popery is established; I verily believe, not in its self only, damnable; but the great and abominable scandal of Christianity: for which, they that pretend to antiquity, may with as much colour, or reason pretend, that the Alcoran was the work of some one of the ancient fathers; or, an abstract of their Doctrine. By antiquity, I understand the first six hundred years. And my opinion is (by what I have found, at lest) that they, Protestant's I mean, that read Bellarmine and others, (if men of any judgement:) upon this point, will rather be confirmed in their opinion, if they doubted before; than otherwise. Nay it is able to make a man a Protestant, that is not; to see what ways they go, what shifts they are put to, to maintain so wretched a cause.  
I have said to his Motives, as much as I mean: that which I aim at, is to make the Reader sensible, what a sad thing this Infallibility is, which by their Doctrine should be the chiefest Pillar of the Church; the ground, and foundation whereof, is so full of uncertainty and contradiction. But yet I must not pass by a manifest blasphemy (as I apprehended it) of this subtle Architect of the Labyrinth; (a right Title to his Book, had he but left out Cantuariensis:) where he saith: As therefore Moses, our blessed Saviour, and his Apostles, 
Labyr. p. 57  were proved infallible by their works, signs, and miracles, without Scripture: so is the Church (the present Church; for of the ancient and primitive, there is no question made) without help of the same, sufficiently proved infallible, by the motives of credibility: doth not he thereby ascribe as much to the miracles and holiness of the present Church (the Roman, as he names it:) as to the miracles and holiness of Christ and his Apostles? If this can be excused, I am well content: I would not make him worse, than he is; I profess, I do not see, how it can.  
But to return to Infallibility, such as is avouched by the more sober: Of all points of Popery, which we believe erroneous; this we have reason to accounted the most odious, and intolerable; because by it, we are put of from all hopes of peace and reconciliation, in Religion: which they that do not wish hearty, and daily, privately, publicly; according to their places and professions, pray for fervently; they know as yet but little of true Christianity. For what grief of heart must it be to a true Christian, to see the Church of Christ, the body of Christ, so divided, and set against itself; Church, against Church; member, against member; with all fierceness, and animosity: whereby so much advantage is given to Turks and Mahometans abroad; to Atheism and profaneness, even where Christ is professed?  
Truly, my judgement is: He that looks into many of our controversies, not as they are stated, and aggravated by too many, on both sides: but into the true nature of the differences, as stated by the more sober and moderate: he will not apprehended such an impossibility of reconciliation, as the prejudice of some, and the interest of others, would make us believe: but confess, that in some points of greatest consequence, the difference is more in words, and speeches; than in reality of matter: for which I appeal to the Acta Ratisbon. A. D. 1541. and what Phil. Melanchton, Bucer, and other Germane Divines, have written of the same subject. However, if not a perfect reconciliation; yet a charitable, and brotherly toleration, (so far as may stand with the peace and safety of every place:) though in a different external communion, would be comfortable. But as long as this Doctrine of Infallibility, under the pretence whereof, grossest untruths and abuses are, and must be countenanced; what hopes? what possibility? Great reason therefore, that we should apply ourselves most to that, and bend all our strength and forces against it, to make all men sensible, (if possible) how little there is of truth, or probability, in the opinion, at large: but to make it an Article of Faith, a Fundamental of Christian Religion, necessary to salvation, without which, all other Faith, or belief, is but Infidelity; how much of horror, and impiety!  
But what than? if no Infallibility in the Church; (I would not leave any thing unanswered, that I think fit to be taken notice of:) what becomes of Christ's promise, that he would build his Church upon the Rock, against which the gates of Hell should not prevail:) Is there nothing of Infallibility in this? Yes, surely, as long as there is a Church, a Catholic Church, there must be some infallibility: For if the Church fail, in the main fundamentals, it ceaseth to be a Church. The Rock upon which Christ promised to build his Church, according to the interpretation of most Ancients, is Christ himself; or which is equivalent, 
Matth. xuj. 16.  Peter's Confession of Christ, that he was Christ (the Messiah:) the Son of the living God. This we say, is the Rock especially, and precisely, against which Christ hath promised, the gates of Hell shall not prevail: which hath been proved before, by many testimonies. And do not we see the accomplishment of it, in all parts of the world, where Christ is professed, with admiration? Is it not strange, and (but through the mighty power of God,) incredible, that the Catholic Church, being so divided into so many factions, and professions; so many different opinions, maintained with so much eagerness and animosity, as greater between greatest Enemies can hardly be conceived; yet all agreed (some very few excepted, if any:) in this main Fundamental; as here delivered by St. Peter, and all the necessary consequences of it. The same Gospel every where; the same Creeds; and the same Canons of the four first General Counsels; which Counsels, (the first, third, and fourth at lest) were chief called upon this very occasion, to settle the right belief (though sufficiently declared in the Scripture, in the substance of it, necessary to salvation:) of this Article of Christ's person, against Heretics; so that it is not possible to device any thing against the true Faith in that point, but may easily be found and convicted by what hath been determined by those Counsels, and their Creeds. And I cannot look upon it otherwise, than as a Providence, that notwithstanding the Church of Rome and their adherents, are so vehemently set for the maintenance of their opinions; whereof the chiefest, is the Pope's Supremacy, and Infallibility, as grounded chief upon those words of Christ (before cited) Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it: they should nevertheless (as already intimated) with many ancient Fathers and Protestants, apply them to the Creed and the contents of it. Quare Symbolum fidei, quo sancta Rom. Ecclesia utitur, tanquam principium illud, in quo omnes, qui fidem Christi profitentur, necessariò conveniunt; ac fundamentum firmum & unicum, contra quod portae inferi nunquam praevalebunt, totidem verbis, etc.  
So St. Hilary: Unum igitur hoc est immobile fundamentum una haec est foelix fidei petra, Petri ore confessa, 
Hilar. de Trin. lib. j & lib. vj.  Tu es Filius Dei vivi; tanta in se sustinens argumenta veritatis, quantae perversitatum quaestiones, & infidelitatis calumniae movebuntur. And in the sixth Book, Super hanc confessionis petram, Ecclesiae aedificatio est.— Haec fides Ecclesiae est fundamentum, per hanc fidem infirmae adversus eam sunt portae inferorum. So the Apostle himself, after he had told us, that the Church is the (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) the pillar and ground of truth: he doth presently after confine this truth, to that fundamental Article concerning Christ: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit: seen of Angels; preached unto the Gentiles; believed in the world; received up into glory: which doth briefly comprehend, what is more fully and plainly expressed in the Creeds.  
We are to believe, that there will be a Catholic Church in the world, to the world's end, whatsoever becomes of the Pope or Church of Rome, wherein this fundamental Doctrine, will be preserved, sound and entire: and in the profession of this Doctrine, and acknowledgement of a Catholic Church, under one Head Christ Jesus, the true unity of the Church chief consisteth. That of Campegius, whom we have mentioned once or twice already; (he was one of their own Bishops:) Tria sunt, quibus non praeest, sed subest Papa: credenda; scilicet, articuli fidei: agenda, praecepta moralia; medicamenta, Sacramenta: His stantibus, quae tollere non potest Papa, non labitur fides, nec Ecclesia, licet ipse labatur. This is the summary (made by himself) of what is more largely delivered by him, Chap. 23. §. 18. of his Treatise, De potestate Romani Pontificis: wherein he shows himself very zealous for the Pope and his authority. But if it be so, as he saith, (as indeed it is:) what need is there of this Infallibility, so much contended for? But we have said enough of that before. All we intent here, is this only, what Infallibility it is, that we maintain, well worthy the notice, and observation, (and of God's providence therein, towards his Church:) of all men; grounding it with antiquity upon the texts of Scripture, upon which they would ground the Pope's Infallibility.  
But without it, cry the Patrons of Infallibility, there will be Schisms and Heresies: no time, no place will be free: men will not know what to fasten upon. This hath some appearance of plausibility, or probability, at first hearing; but upon further search and inquiry, it hath nothing in it, but bore appearance. For first, Heresies there will be, there must be: He that hath assured us by his promise, that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against his Church; hath also foretold and wa●ned by his Apostles, Oportet esse haereses: There must be Heresies. Might we be as bold with God Almighty, as our Adversaries, (whose words have been produced at the beginning:) we might perchance reason with him, whether it were so suitable to his Wisdom, or Divine Power, and Providence, to permit it. But God forbidden we should take that liberty. We acknowledge his Goodness, yea and Providence, that he would warn us so long before, that we might not wonder, or be dismayed at it: We think ourselves bound to do what lieth in us, according to our places, and callings, to hinder it, to prevent it: but withal, as much our duty, to submit with humility, when it doth so hap. Do not we see, how it fared in the beginning with Christ's Church; in those infant-days of it, when, if ever, a man would have thought it should have been most secure? Neither indeed, was infallibility, than, wanting; certain infallibility, as long as any of the Apostles lived; which was for a long time: yet for all that, when were there more divisions, more heresies; either for the fervency of the abettors, or for the quality of the Doctrine more scandalous and offensive? And at the same time, the persecutions of Infidels, as hot, and destructive: those, in the bowels of the Church; these, round about; raging, and spoiling; and every day threatening utmost ruin and destruction. And this, not for a short time, but for some hundred of years after Christ. Where was than Providence? if we should go upon the same grounds our adversaries do; we might say. But providence we acknowledge; great providence; those very heresies, did conduce to the settlement of the Doctrine of faith; and the Church Catholic was enlarged by those persecutions and devastations: The blood of Martyrs was the seed of the Church: (as of old well observed:) and was not this a marvellous providence, and an effect of God's mighty power, and omnipotency? Why than may not we trust the same power, and providence? Why must infallibility be granted; or all yielded to be lost? But sure enough it is; peace and unity (goodly pretences to work upon them, that wish well; but had rather believe, than take the pains to search:) may be alleged; but they that have eyes and will make use of them, see well enough what it is, that is aimed at. Let supremacy be but granted (such as is required, and challenged:) I dare say, the Plea of infallibility, will soon be quitted; if the quitting of the one will conduce, to the obtaining of the other.  
This of the Council of Trent, I, a little before, took notice of; puts me in mind, of somewhat I observed long ago; and because I have the books by me; (which I wish I could say, of all I have had) at present, I will acquaint the Reader with it. It is not improbable, but some may be affected with it, as I was. I have a French Bible, in two volumes in 8 vo. printed at Roven, in France, par Jean Crevel, au Portail des Labraires:) A. D. 1611. It is a translation, as the title page doth bear, of the Latin Bible set out by the Theologues, or Divines of Louvain, in Flanders. In this edition of the said French translation, after the licence, or approbation; and a Latin Epistle of one Jacobus de Bayliff; who in the first lines doth mention, Sacri Concilij Tridentini Patres; and doth also give the Reader an account, that this translation out of the Latin was made, or at lest, revised by some Theologues of Louvain: and after St. Jerome his Epistle to Paulinus, concerning the books of the Bible, which is usally set out before all Bibles of the Vulgar edition: there followeth a small parcel, not consisting of above three or four pages (but in a small Print) entitled, A Summary of all, contained in the Old and New Testament. The contents of the Old, as there comprised, are not many: but of the New, they are long enough, and contain many particulars, besides those that concern Christ's person and his office. It concludes in these words: Other foundation than this, no man can lay in the Church of Jesus Christ, upon whom (or, upon which:) it is founded: so that St. Paul, doth wish him lost, sunk, and cast away by God (or, from God,) yea, though it were an Angel of Heaven, who shall preach any other Faith, or salvation, than by Jesus Christ, in the Catholic Church. There is not one word there, but a Protestant may subscribe unto, with a good conscience: Nay, had any Protestant Doctor been to make such a Summary, (as I doubt not, but some have had occasions) I do not know how he could do it more pertinently, more substantially, to satisfy the most judicious and intelligent of that profession. A strange thing, that for all this, we must be thought not better, than miscreants and infidels. But than comes in this new divised article, which certainly was hatched in hell, and fostered by the suries of hell; by men, who care not how many they sand to hell (according to that horrid speech of one of the Pope's Vassals, entered into the body of the Canon Law, That though the Pope should be never so wicked and by his wicked example, 
Gra●. Dec. Dist 40 si Papa.  should draw after him innumerable people and Nations into hell, there to be tormented eternally; yet must not he be rebuked, or judged by man:) for their own ends, and the interest of that cause which they have undertaken: even, that new article we have spoken of before, in the words of the Author of the Labyrinth; That whatsoever is proposed by the Church as matters of Faith, is fundamental, etc. and that, If the Church, (that is the present Roman Church:) be disbelieved in any one point, there can be no infallible faith of any thing. So that if we cannot believe, that the Communion aught to be administered in one kind only; or that images are to be worshipped; indulgencies purchased with money, to deliver souls out of purgatory; or otherwise advantage the dead: and other like points proposed unto us by the Church of Rome, to be believed as matters of Faith; with like assurance, as we believe that Christ came into the world to save sinners; though otherwise never so orthodox, and in our lives, never so upright and innocent (as men:) yet all this will do no good: to hell we must: the Pope who is infallible, hath so decreed it. But do all Romanists think themselves bound to believe it really?  
What Sancta Clara did aim at, or who set him at work, or whether he himself (as most likely:) more than can be gathered by any man, from his own profession and manner of dealing, I know not. However this advantage we may make of his book, entitled Deus, Natura, Gratia: as the third edition Lugduni, A. D, 1631. which hath the approbation of so many Doctors of that side, doth represent it: We may learn by it, if we knew it not before, that it is not the opinion of all the Roman Catholics, that there is no salvation to be had in the faith and communion of Protestants: which is so confidently affirmed by the Author of the Labyrinth. Yet to do him, and others of that confederacy no wrong, though sometimes they are very peremptory, and make great use of their confidence among women especially, and other illiterate people, when they maintain without exception, that there is no salvation for Protestants, 
Labyr. p. 301.302.  that live and die in that belief: yet they can mince them atter when they please, and change it into few, or none; as our Author speaks; and again, except in case of invincible ignorance: which doth much altar the case, and giveth hopes to every Protestant, that is verily persuaded, nor ever made any question (though ever willing to be better informed, and in case of error, to embrace the truth;) of his being in the right way; that he may be one of those few.  
But, since we are upon a considerable point, whereof, as I said before, the Romanists use to make great advantage; I desire to pause upon it a while, and take a view of those reasons given by the Author of the Labyrinth, 
Lab. p. 301 etc.  why the Roman Church and Religion, must upon our own grounds, be the safer way to heaven. I am very confident the Reader will acknowledge, it was well worth the while, if not give me thanks, when I have done. First than, for the salvation of many, in their communion, upon our grounds, he doth thus argue: In the Catholic Church, 'tis evident, that many being to departed out of this life, do receive the Sacrament of Penance. These, according to i Doctrine of the Roman Church, are saved; because by virtue of this Sacrament they receive the grace of justification, whereby of Sinners, they are made the Sons of God, and Heirs of Eternal life: nor can they be denied to be saved according to the Doctrine of Protestants, seeing they believe in Christ their Redeemer, they confided in God's goodness and mercy, for the pardon of their sins; they truly repent of them, and truly purpose for the future, to amend their lives: which is all that Protestant Doctrine requires, to make men partakers of Christ's sanctifying grace: and is also necessarily required by Catholics, to make them fit subjects for the Sacrament of Penance. Who can therefore doubt, but all such persons are saved, both according to the Doctrine of Catholics and Protestants too? I say who can rationally, and with charity doubt, but that Catholics (generally speaking) being taught, that Faith, Hope, true Repentance for sins past, and a Purpose of amendment, are necessary to the due receiving of the Sacrament of Penance; do not omit to exercise those acts, with all necessary diligence and sincerity, especially, when they are to prepare themselves, against the dreadful passage of eternity?  
I have set down the passage at large, that the Reader might be the better satisfied. Now, if I be not mistaken, here is not dangerous only, but horrible Doctrine delivered; giving such virtue to the opus operatum of the Sacrament of Penance (as they call it) that whoever are made partakers of it, at the point of death, though they spend all their life, in all manner of debauchery, and villainy: in open defiance of almighty God, and all laws of men, as long as they live; and by their example, and allurements, undo never so many: Yet, if they receive but the Sacrament of Penance, before they die; they are sure of justification, and life eternal: what encouragement, may this be to the wickedest of men, to continued in wickedness? that I say not, to the best of men, to become wicked. I do not make any question, but God's mercies may extend even to such; (God forbidden, I should:) even at the last, if they repent them truly: but to promise' them, to warrant them before hand, that by the bore (if all the rest doth infallibly follow) performance of the outward act, they may be sure, and secure, that God will give them grace, truly, and effectually to repent: (for he doth not propose it conditionally, in case they truly reptnt, etc. but absolutely, these; without any exception:) I would not willingly believe that the Church of Rome, would countenance such wretched Doctrine: Sure I am, it is very contrary to the Doctrine of Protestants. We do not think that, to believe; or, to repent; truly, and really; is a mere voluntary thing; which a man, by any outward performance, hath at his command, when he william. We have not so learned the Scriptures. And I am sure it is contrary, (this of Penance particularly, as always accompanied with true repentance, and justification; and consequently, salvation:) to the Doctrine of the ancients. Witness for one St. Augustine: (or whoever is the Author:) Si quis autem positus in ultima necessitate aegritudinis suae, voluerit accipere poenitentiam, & accipit, & mox reconciliabitur, & hinc vadit; fateor vobis, non illi negamus quod petit; sed non praesumimus, quia bene hinc exit. Non praesumo, non vos fallo; non praesumo. Agens paenitentiam, & reconciliatus cum sanus est▪ & postea, bene vivens; securus hinc exit. Agens poenitentiam ad ultimum, & reconciliatus; si securus hinc exit, ego non sum socurus— poenitentiam dare possum, securitatem dare non possum.— Numquid dico, damnabitur? Non dico. Sed dico etiam liberabitur? Non. Et quid dices mihi? Non praesumo: non promitto: nescio. What can be more contrary than this is, to the Doctrine of the Labyrinth? He saith plainly, and repeats it again, and again (to make men the more sensible) that a man at his death, if he desire it, may obtain penance; and may be reconciled, by the outward act: but whether really, effectually; he knows not, he doubts it; Yea, though the party be secure, he cannot be secure. So in the Church of England, if any before death, upon confession, and profession of true sorrow, and repentance, receive absolution; we hope well, in the judgement of charity: nay, we make no question, if their repentance before God was true, and sincere: their trust and confidence in God, through Christ, and in Christ; by right application of his merits, and satisfaction; sound and perfect: no question, but all is well. But to pass an absolute judgement; we leave that to the judge and searcher of hearts: and have too much occasion to believe, that many; very many, (through God's just judgement, for their long contempt of the means, and his grace:) are deluded at that time, persuading themselves that they repent, (it is likely, most do, after a sort, when they see they must die) and that they have made their peace with God; when God knows there is no such thing. The Author therefore of the Labyrinth, doth much wrong the Reverend Archbishop, when he would put it upon him, that he was of the same mind, for saying that a Donatist (an honest plain Donatist; those are the Bishop's words; by which he means certainly, one that hath lived in the fear of God:) if he repent truly of his sins, etc. might be saved. This he might say; but the inference very false, that therefore he believed, a man might repent truly, when he listed. If this be the Romanists, their readiest way to salvation, because they trust to their penance, at the point of death; when they can sin not longer; there is no occasion we should envy them: but rather wish hearty, God would make them more sensible of their errors and danger.  
But now let us see (which indeed I did chief intent:) how he doth prove, very few; or no Protestants, living and dying in that faith, can be saved. And first of all (for which we must commend his moderation) he doth wave that part of our charge, or indictment, 
Labyr. p. 302.303.  upon which most others go; that we are heretics: Not that this is a point of our belief (saith he) that many Protestants shall be damned precisely, upon the account of being heretics; because heresy is an obstinate, and wilful error against faith, which we cannot easily, much lesle infallibly determine, whose errors are wilful: but, because there are none, or surely very few among them, but are guilty of mortal sin, against God's commandments; and because the ordinary means they use and prescribe, is not according to our Principles, sufficient to expiate, and blot out such sin. 'Tis well known, that though Protestants to obtain salvation, believe in Christ▪ trust in his merits, and repent of their sin; (God be thanked so much is acknowledged:) yet they do it not purely out of a perfect love to God, so as to hate sin above all evils, merely as it is an offence against the Divine Majesty, and to prefer God and his holy commandments, before ourselves, and all other creatures (for this is a very hard and rare act, even among the best of Christians) but at best, upon inferior and lower motives (as the manner of most men is to do) viz. in consideration of the Beatitude of Heaven, as it is their own particular good; or, for the avoiding of the pains of Hell, as it is their particular, and chiefest harm. Now according to our Doctrine, such kind of repentance as this, is no sufficient remedy, to blot out sin, unless it be joined with the Sacrament of Penance, viz. Confession, and Priestly Absolution, etc. which Protestants reject. I say, without the Sacrament of Penance, actually and duly received, all Catholics hold, that neither Faith, nor Hope, nor any Repentance, or sorrow for sin, can save us, but that only, which is joined with a perfect love of God, whereby we are disposed to loose all, and suffer all that can be imagined, rather than to offend God; yea, though there were indeed, neither Heaven to reward us, nor Hell to punish us; which being a thing so hard to be found; especially amongst such as believe a man is justified by Faith only; it follows evidently, that in our Doctrine, very few, or no Protestants are saved. The conclusion therefore is undeniable, that our Church is a safer way to salvation, than that of Protestants.  
I could not tell how to express him better, than in his own words; and my desire is, that he may be perfectly understood; that so the Reader may judge the better of what I have to answer. The matter we are upon, is of great weight; and the reason here used, not ordinary. The substance of all he saith, as I take it, is this: That which must bring us to Heaven, must be, either a perfect Love of God: etc. or the Sacrament of Penance: viz. Confession, and Priestly Absolution, etc. but neither of these, (or very rarely:) is found amongst Protestants.  
Here again, in the first place, I must say, If it be the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, that the opus operatum of the Sacrament of Penance, (so called) which they that have lived in perpetual contempt of God, and all Religion, may have before they die, if they desire it; is equivalent to that perfect kind of Love of God, by him described, which few in this world (he saith himself) attain unto; and equally available to salvation: it is a horrible Doctrine, tending to the overthrow of all piety and godliness among men. I will not further dispute it now: let the sober Reader consider.  
Secondly, It is false, that the Church of England (and I believe it may be said of most other Protestant Churches:) hath not the Sacrament (take the word in a large sense, we should not contend about it:) of Penance: viz. Confession, and Absolution. Witness that excellent Rubric of the Common-Prayer Book, in the Visit. of the Sick: Here shall the sick person be moved to make a special confession of his sins, if he feel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter▪ After which confession, the Priest shall absolve him (if he humbly and hearty desire it) after this sort. So, now; and so, before, in the former Books; with very little alteration of words.  
Thirdly, Whereas he layeth it to the charge of all Protestants in general, that what they do, they do it not out of a perfect love of God, etc. had he said no more than perfect Love of God; we should not much oppose it; for who is it, that dares affirm of himself, or of any other, that he loveth God perfectly? There is indeed a new kind of Divinity, lately much cried up by some, commonly known by the name of Theologia Mystica: which doth pretend to great perfection. But of that Divinity; the original, and qualities of it, (as having more of delusion in it, than perfection:) we have had occasion to consider elsewhere: whither I shall refer the Reader, if he please. 
Treatise of Enthusiasm, ch. 3.  But for such perfection of love, as he doth here describe, and doth appropriate to his own party; is it not a speech both presumptuous, and uncharitable in a high degree, so peremptory to make Protestants incapable of it? Doth he not thereby arrogate unto himself, what is proper to God only, to judge of the hearts of men?  
But is it not strange, that he that could see the very thoughts and hearts of Protestants, whom he was lesle acquainted with: should be a stranger to the published speeches and declarations of his own friends, and fellows, in this business? For first, Cor. Jansenius, a man (were it but by the hatred, and opposition of the Jesuits:) well known: he layeth it to the charge of Protestants, this very thing, (the want whereof, is here objected unto them:) that by their Doctrine, they do not allow of any acts of justice, or piety, to be acceptable to God; which are grounded upon the consideration of a reward: (that is in effect, which do not proceed from pure love:) to which he doth oppose the exhortations of Christ, as Matth. 5.12. for great is your reward: and elsewhere. And the words of S. Paul, concerning Moses, Hebr. xj. 26. for he had a respect unto the recompense of the reward. And of David, I have inclined my heart to perform thy statutes always: It is in the Original, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto the end: so our English translation; and du Muis, the late learned Professor of the Tongues in Paris, likes it better so: propter retributionem; so the Vulgar; which is not amiss; (Psal. nineteen. 12. for in keeping of them, there is great reward: the same word in both places:) but that is not our business. As Jansenius, so Ludovicus Tena, a very famous man, upon Hebr. xij. 2. Looking upon Jesus— who for the joy that was set before him, etc. he also chargeth the Lutherans with the same, as contrary to sound Doctrine.  
But again, Bellarmin, de Poenit. lib. 2. c. 17. Contritionem imperfectam, sive attritionem ex timore poenae ortam, bonam atque utilem esse: (that is the argument of the Chapter:) he layeth it to the charge of Luther, and other Lutherans; that they did once teach that contrition, which ariseth from a servile fear, made men but hypocrites; and rather added to their guilt, than took away. Himself, both by Scripture, and sundry testimonies of the Fathers; doth prove the contrary.  
By this that hath been said, let the Reader judge, whether this man had any reason to deny Protestants, a possibility of Salvation, because they serve God only with a servile fear: for that is the effect of his words. As for that he doth add, That without the Sacrament of Penance, actually and duly received, all Catholics hold, that neither Faith, nor Hope, etc. yea, though there were indeed neither Heaven to reward us, nor Hell to punish us: etc. how this doth agreed with Bellarmine; Contritionem charitate formatam, reconciliare hominem, etiam antequam actu Sacramentum suscipiatur: and again, Extra Sacramentum facile fieri posse, at sine confession & satisfactione, per internam cordis poenitentiam quis justificetur: but especially with that De Poenit. l. 2. c. 17. where speaking of divers kinds of fears, he hath these words: Tertius est timor poenae, quem Deus ipse peccatoribus comminatur, sed cum timore offensionis divinae, ita conjunctus, ut licet homo vehementer poenam timeat; magis tamen offensionem Dei, quam poenam illam timeat. Atque hic timor servilis dici solet, secundum substantiam, sed absque servitute, etc. and this he proves to have been the fear of holy men, and Saints.  
And it is the same reason of that, which they call amor servilis, or mercedis intuitu; which many call scornfully, but foolishly, mercenary love. What our Author thinks of it, he hath told us. But how will he reconcile himself to the Council of Trent (could he be ignorant of it?) which peremptorily doth define this Doctrine, to be contrary to true Religion; and doth anathematise them, that make it sinful for a justified man to have a respect, in what he doth well, unto the reward? Hear their own words: Unde constat eos orthodoxae religionis doctrinae adversari— qui statuunt in omnibus operibus justos peccare, si in illis suam ipsorum socordiam excitando— cum hoc, ut imprimis glo●ificetur Deus, mercedem quoque intuentur aeternam. So Session 6. c. 11. but ch. 16. of the same Session, with allegation of other Scriptures, more fully: and than in the 31. Canon of the said Session (what will the Labyrinth-maker say to this?) Si quis dixerit justificatum peccare, dum intuitu aeternae mercedis bene operatur, anathema sit.  
Truly, my opinion is, and this opportunity being given me, I profess it; they that will not allow us to have a respect unto the reward, (whether Pap●sts, or Protestants: for I cannot but acknowledge, that I have heard such things delivered out of Pulpits, more than once:) besides, that they must forbidden us the reading of the Scriptures, where it is so often recommended: they would do well to take it into consideration, that this one speech of one of the ancient Masters of the Jews, as it is recorded in their Talmud, Be not ye as hired servants, that serve their Masters for a reward, etc. was that which first gave ground, to the Sect of the Sadduces, who made that construction of their Master's words, that if no reward must be looked for, or aimed at; than none to be believed, to either good, or bad; and consequently, no resurrection, no immortality. Such Doctrine, I doubt, is more likely to produce such fruits, than to advance true piety, and godliness. As for some say of ancient Fathers, that may seem to countenance it, they may easily be answered; and it will appear a great mistake, if the matter be throughly examined, and the homonymy, or ambiguity of words cleared. I have done it elsewhere: but that is not our business here.  
I did think it well worth the Readers notice, and consideration, upon what account (chief) the Author of the Labyrinth, whom we must suppose to be no mean man by his undertaking (if he were not set on, and made choice of by others; as is very probable) against such a work; doth maintain the Roman Faith, to be the safest way; the plea of heresy against Protestants, being laid aside, and in his judgement, not pleadable, or justifiable: in which account, if our Author (as I think he is:) be grossly, and foully mistaken; than I hope they will be more wary hereafter, how they deny Protestants heaven, and engross it to themselves, and their party.  
As for his second Argument, whereby he doth undertake to prove, that Protestants standing to their own Principles, neither have, nor can have any thing necessary for salvation; and this upon this ground, because their faith is not firm, sure, and without doubt, or hesitation; or in a word infallibly sure: because it hath been the chiefest subject of all our debate hitherto, to prove their infallibility, a mere fiction; and that we stand upon the same ground, as antiquity hath done: it will be needless further to insist upon it. When they have answered what is opposed against them, and alleged for us, out of Vincentius Lirinensis, (which one Author having had that approbation from their side, generally, as it hath had; they cannot in reason refuse, to be tried by him:) and others; we shall think ourselves bound to give them a further answer.  
These two arguments, in case it be not yielded, (as he saith many Protestants will not) that salvation may be had in the Roman Communion, our Author thinks sufficient, to prove the Roman faith, the safer of the two. But in case it be yielded by Protestants, that salvation (which they will not yield to us in ours:) may be had in their Church, than without any more ado, he thinks that, a very clear, and undeniable proof, that theirs is the safest way. Now because I am one of them, who verily believe, and think it very necessary, (as afterwards we shall have more occasion to argue:) to be believed by all men, who build their faith upon certain grounds: that the Roman Church, is yet, a true Church, 
Rel. p. 281. etc. I●. 301 etc.  as to the essence of a Church; and consequently, that it is possible for them, who err ignorantly, with other limitations fully declared by the Reverend Archbishop; to attain salvation in the said Church: I think fit to say somewhat to that too, before I leave this argument, which to them that content themselves with a mere superficial view (whether for want of parts, or care:) appeareth most plausible; and which our adversaries, make most use of, as their best weapon.  

Relat. p. 285. & 296.  Now first of all, to take away much of the plausibleness of it, the Reverend Archbishop, as divers had done before, doth well represent by a clear testimony out of St. Augustine, that this very way, those notorious schismatics, the Donatists of old, did go. Come to us, come (said the Donatists:) all ye that will not perish for ever, with your false teachers. Would you be sure, that we are in the right, and they in the wrong? Behold, they acknowledge our Baptism, to be a true Baptism: we deny theirs to be so. How sacred and holy must that be, the holiness whereof is acknowledged, even by sacrilegious enemies? Is not this the very argument, and the same ground of plausibleness? The Donatists denied the Baptism of Catholics to be a true baptism; and did actully rebaptize them, that came to them from the Catholics: the Catholics did acknowledge the Baptism of the Donatists to be true baptism; and did not rebaptize them that came from them: upon this, the Donatists' ground their advantage, that their communion must be the safest way to heaven. Let any body tell me, where the difference is; or acknowledge, the advantage they make of our grant, is of no more force than was the grant of the Catholics, which those Schismatics made such boast of. If any shall except, that it is not the same case, because, what is granted by us to the Romanists (a possibility of salvation in their Church:) and that which was than granted to the Donatists (the truth, or validity of their baptism, which they denied to the Catholics) is not the same thing: I must answer, that it is a very frivolous exception. For though it be not altogether the same thing in express terms: yet in substance of matter, they are reducible to one thing; in this question especially: and there is as much ground of advantage, or plausibleness in the one, as there is in the other. The ground is the same; and the way of arguing the same. The question between the Donatists, and Catholics of that time, was, whether it were a sufficient proof, that the Baptism of the Donatists was the truest of the two, and the safest way to heaven, because theirs was acknowledged true by the Catholics; not, the Catholics true, by them. Now the answer to this, was; that the argument did not hold, because there were other things in question between the Catholics and Donatists, of great consequence to salvation, besides Baptism: wherein if the Donatists were convicted, or sufficiently proved to be out of the way, their Baptism (except upon plea of ignorance:) could do them no good. The question between the Romanists, and us, is about possibility of salvation, in either Church. We grant a possibility in theirs; they not in ours. Therefore theirs the safer way, by our grant? Not: For as we grant a possibility in general; so we limit it, to such and such; and in such a case only: so that we make it a matter of great hazard, and peril, at the lest, not therefore the safest way, (certainly;) by our grant, and according to our suppositions, as the Author of the Labyrinth would infer: nor, at all the safest way, (let them make the most of it:) except they can prove, that our limitations, and restrictions, are groundless; which is the main original business; to wit, which Church is orthodox; and which guilty of schism and heresy.  
Now to this parallel of the Donatists, and Romanists in this business of salvation; which takes away much of the plausibleness of the argument, in their hands; and turns the advantage on our side rather; (though they that are wise men, will not much rely upon such arguing:) because we may say, they imitate the Donatists (those archschismaticks:) therein: to this parallel, I say, 
Labyr. p. 306.  the Author of the Labyrinth, taking occasion of some other use the Archbishop makes of the Donatists' words, and arguments, doth answer somewhat, and will needs prove, that the orthodox Catholics, for all that, (notwithstanding that plea of the Donatists:) might not embrace the baptism of the Donatists, and their communion with it; (that is, in effect, forsake the Catholic Church:) without sinning. This I think he might very well have omitted; there was no need at all of it. Yet to make somewhat of it, We suppose (saith he) Protestants grant, a man may live and die in the Roman Church; and that none of his errors shall hinder his salvation, whatsoever motives he may know to the contrary. Now upon strange suppositions, strange things may be built: but as the suppositions are but imaginary, so the building. What ground, I pray, could he have for such a supposition, so contrary to all that is delivered by the Archbishop, in this business of salvation? himself doth afterwards acknowledge the impertinency of his proceed, (You will say perhaps etc.) and hath no other way to help himself, but by referring us to his first argument, (the impertinency, and invalidity whereof, I hope we have sufficiently proved) as not to be answered or doubted of. But afterwards, when the Reverend Archbishop doth again insist upon it, and quote their very words, our Author, or Labyrinth architect, doth endeavour a more direct answer, but cannot tell how, not here neither, except he may take it for granted, that the Protestants; at lest, the most learned, 
Ibid. p. 315  most wise, and most considerable among them, do grant them possibility of salvation, notwithstanding any thing that we believe, or do: which, as he doth here deliver it, is most notoriously false. For this doth amount to an absolute general grant: whereas, that which is granted, is but to some, and with danger, and peril. So that the parallel, stands firm, and in full force, to what it was intended.  
And now we have done with their arguments, whereby they would prove their communion the safer way; because many have been much taken with this kind of arguing; I will see how we can requited them, with somewhat of that nature. But I will be but short; rather hint, than argue.  
That which is least doubted of, may (plausibly) be thought the safest. All that Protestants do positively believe as necessary to salvation, is granted and believed by the Romanists. But the Romanists do believe many things as necessary to salvation, which the Protestants do believe to be false, and inconsistent (of themselves without divers suppositions) with salvation: Therefore etc.  
Again: Without baptism, (ordinarily) there is no salvation. Want of the Sacrament also of the body and blood of Christ (in them that are capable:) is a great want, to say not more. But by the doctrine of the Church of Rome, concerning the intention of the Priest, not Romanist can be sure, that he is baptised; or ever received the communion. Therefore etc.  
Again: Protestants do wholly rely for salvation, upon the merits of Christ, and mercy of God: The Romanists (Council of Trent etc.) ascribe much to the merits of good works: But Bellarmine their great Champion, doth confess, that it is safest to trust wholly to God's mercy: if therefore Bellarmine be in the right, the Protestants, (at lest in this one point of highest consequenee:) is the safest way.  
Again; charity is the chiefest of Christian virtues, without which no man can be saved. But there is more charity, apparently, to believe that they that worship Christ as a Saviour; believe of him and other mysteries of faith, what is written in the Gospels, or in the ancient Creeds; and apply themselves in sincerity of heart, according to their powers, to keep his holy commandments, etc. may through his merits, be saved: than to deny (no article of Faith obliging:) a possibility of salvation to such; which, probably, may proceed from want of charity. Therefore etc.  
Again: By the Roman faith, when a man hath done all that he can, yet still he is left uncertain, whether he shall be saved, or no: but by the Doctrine of most Protestant's (though I will not justify all that hath been written by some Protestants, in this point:) a man that liveth in the true faith, and serveth God, with an upright heart, to his power; may be sure of his salvation. Therefore etc.  
Divers other things of the same nature may be found, which may plausibly be alleged, and with as much truth; as, that ordinary plea, so much insisted upon, that the Roman communion must be the safer way, because a possibility of salvation is granted in it, by Protestants: which possibility, rightly understood, with all its limitations, and restrictions; doth in very deed evince the contrary; that it is not the safer way. I have been in a Labyrinth; yet I hope, not erred much from the main purpose. But I am now got out.  
What I had to say concerning infallibility, is now at an end. If it doth appear clearly, by what hath been said, that it is not, neither directly, nor indirectly, by any necessary consequence, grounded either in reason, or Scripture, or consent of antiquity: but rather the contrary: which nevertheless is proposed unto us by our adversaries (and that too, sufficiently cleared:) as a main fundamental article of religion: than, upon this, we may ground certainly, that they that have erred in this main point, of all other, most inconsistent with reformation of Doctrine; might err as well in divers other points, of Doctrine and discipline, wherein reformation hath been required, and thought necessary. What those points are, there will be no need, neither is it my intention, to give a particular account of at this time: the point of Supremacy, and Infallibility (as already said) if so grossly mistaken, and rigidly obtruded, as we pretend to have clearly proved, is enough (that done) to show the necessity of a reformation, as our title doth promise'. Neither did we intent any more, at the first. Yet since it is so fallen out that two particulars; the forbidding of marriage to men in orders; and mutilation of the sacrament; though I had no design to insist upon those particularly, more than any others; yet since it is so fallen out, occasion offering itself, that so much hath already been said of them; for the better satisfaction of the Reader; I shall be willing to make up here, before I proceed to other matter, what may be wanting to either; and that is, to the first, the forbidding of Marriage; of which somewhat was said at the beginning. Of this later, the mutilation of the Sacrament, though there will be occasion again, before we have done, and much more might be added to that; yet I am clear of opinion, that they that will not acknowledge by what hath been said, that the forbidding of the Cup, in the judgement of Pope Gelasius, is à sacrilegious mangling and abusing of that Sacrament; if an Angel from heaven; or the present Pope now sitting, should aver it to their faces, and upbraid them for their obstinacy; they would study some evasion.  
As for the first, the marriage of Priests, and Clergy men; because I did not think fit, to stay the Reader so long, upon a subject that came in by the by, only, and as it were, accidentally, in that place: I shall here add somewhat, though but very little, in comparison of what the subject will bear; Yet more I am confident, than the Author of the Labyrinth, or any other, that will deal plainly (let them try it, when they will) shall ever answer. I will not fetch the business so high, as from the Scriptures, what was the Doctrine, or practice of the Apostles, so far as may be gathered by their writings: I shall content myself, with what is granted by Cardinal Perron, and others, 
Resp. an R.P. 711.712.  that in the time of the Apostles, Bishops might be married, or married men might be Bishops (so they did not marry after they were Bishops:) and use their wives freely. Whether this continued in the Primitive times and divers ages after; or no; shall be my inquiry. Secondly; whether the forbidding of marriage to Clergy men, hath not been the occasion of far greater evils, (so judged of by antiquity) which have been wickedly and irreligiously countenanced; or at lest, tolerated, by the Court of Rome.  
To our purpose than: there is no body, but hath heard of the Council of Nice, the first General Council, and that of most authority with all men: what was done there, or rather forborn to be done (for it was than proposed, and followed by some, that it might be made a law, that no married men should be admitted to holy orders:) upon the advice, and grave remonstrance of Paphnutius; (a man of great fame, for his holiness of life, and sufferings for the faith; who himself was never married:) ancient Historians are very particular, in the relation of it, and all agreed in their relation: and the relation is entered into the body of the Canon law, with many other particular records, and attestations of the same nature: so little doubt was than made of the truth of the story. But this was such a dead blow to the cause, which must be maintained, what shift soever is made: that Turrianus, first, as I take it; than after him, Baronius, and Bellarmine; and others since, have made bold to question it, and to deny it to be a true story. Let no man wonder at it. There were a sort of men anciently, whose profession was, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (in their own words:) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and on the contrary: that is, in the Poet's expression, Qui facere assuevit, Patriae non degener artis, Candida de nigris, & de candentibus atra:) to make white to appear black; and black, to appear white. It was objected to Socrates the Philosopher, by his enemies; but most wrongfully: It is most true of those men, than, and since that, called Sophists, who made it their study (and it is almost incredible, to what perfection many attained) to discourse of any subject, suddenly; to maintain any cause; good, or bad; true, or false; it was indifferent to them: they would undertake, if you would have them, to commend Thersites for the most accomplished man, even for those things, that Homer made him infamous, that ever was: that snow, was black; and fire, cold: and such things have been attempted by latter wits too; but, I doubt, meanly performed, in comparison. Julian his commendation of baldness, though full of excellent learning otherwise, hath much of that strain. Let us not therefore make a wonder of it, if Baronius and Bellarmine, who were sworn to the cause, and made it their study a long time; have ventured upon things of the same nature. But truth, is truth for all that: and Sophistry (to say not more) is sophistry. And they that will take pains (with some help, if they want it;) may be satisfied, and plainly discern the false play and juggling, that is used in the business, by those great Champions of the Pope. He that will be fully satisfied (in this particular we are upon:) let him read Geor Calixti, De conjugio sacerdotum, tractatum. He shall found there all their arguments (if they deserve the name) with candour, and ingenuity, as well as diligence, particularly sifted, and solidly answered. He was (he will found him, if I be not much mistaken) a learned, judicious, moderate man, as any that of late, hath meddled with controversies: That is my judgement of him. I shall not therefore need to say much of this business: that which I chief intent, I do not found in him. But yet somewhat (though it may be found elsewhere) for their sakes, that have not all books, at command; or perchance not the leisure, to make use of them they have.  
That the relation than, we have spoken of, may be blasted and exploded, if possible; Socrates the Historian (who they say, is the original avoucher of it:) his credit is called in question. Divers things are laid to his charge, wherein it is pretended, he is wilfully false, or ignorantly mistaken. This indeed, is the way to persuade men, there is no truth in the World. For if this be enough, because some things may be objected, to question all; whom shall we believe? And suppose he were the first; they were not babies, nor fools (so many after him:) that trusted him: but men whom we trust (Protestant's, and Papists) in very great matters. But see the blindness of prejudice, and partiality. In other things, that are not controverted, but especially, where some advantage (plausibly) may be made of his words; I know no Author more frequently alleged: and than his authority is good, and current. I know there be other objections too, against the relation in Socrates: but they are all answered: I shall not here take notice of them: What need we, though they were not? Gelasius Cyzicenus of whom Perron in a place, where he doth make some use of his authority, for the Pope, doth observe, that he lived (when the Cardinal wrote) above eleven hundred years ago, and the very next age after the Council of Nice: this man hath written an abstract of the acts of the said Council: I know not of any exception, against his fidelity: we are beholding to the Vatican Library, for the Copy; printed at Rome, and at Paris: this man hath the very same relation; with little alteration of words: which is a clear argument, that Socrates and Sozomen (who wrote at the same time almost) had it, whence he had it: and he professeth, he had collected his abstract, from the very Acts, than extant: and what can be more certain? Or must we prove, that the sun is up in our hemisphere, at noon day?  
I said, they deliver it, Socrates and Sozomen, who lived together: and Gelasius Cyzicenus; the next age after: (not to mention Cassiodore, who lived about the same time, or a little after: nor Suidas whose age is not certainly known: nor Niceph. Callistus, who lived not much above 300 years ago:) with little, or no alteration of words. Yet the diligent Reader may observe: that some things are expressed more fully, and clearly, by Gelasius and others, than by Socrates: as that particularly, he should say, he feared, that by that law, chastity would be violated, (for that he accounted, the lawful company of man and wife, Chastity:) so Socrates and Sozomen; but Gelasius adeth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. good and commendable chastity: not only by men only, but by women also, if they should be bereft of their husbands. Which (if nothing else) doth make it improbable, that they had it from Socrates. But we have Gabriel Vazquez, for learning and judgement, not inferior to the best of that side; who doth not only acknowledge the truth and sincerity of the relation, questioned by Baronius, and Bellarmine: yea, and Perron, three Cardinals; but doth very freely and ingenuously assert it, and vindicate it, answering the objections (or rather cavils:) made against it, by others: for which he is deservedly commended, by him, whom I commended but a little before, Georgius Calixtus.  
Now the business in agitation at the Council, was plainly this, Not whether married men, in general, should be allowed to be Priests or Bishops: (for than we had been told, that such were allowed, upon condition they would forbear their wives, from that time; and so indeed it was in the Latin Church afterwards:) but, Whether they that had wives, should be allowed to live with them, to lie with them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉:) and the Council of Gangres (a Council of great antiquity, and authority:) doth pronounce Anathema, to them, that refused to receive the Communion at the hands of such: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: conjugati: is their words. But here again our Sophisters play their parts. They tell us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is a praeterit, not a present: which therefore must be translated, qui uxores habuit; not, habet: he that had wives; not; he that now hath. Can we presume that all, that may read this, have some knowledge of the Greek; it would be very needless, if not ridiculous, to make any answer. But because the contrary is more probable; it is well, that this very word is in the New Testament, and there translated (as of necessity it must:) by the present, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. iis autem qui matrimonio juncti sunt, praecipio: So the vulgar: which is sacred with them: yet I doubt, whether that would serve the turn; did not that which follows of necessity require a present: And unto the married (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) I command; 
1. Cor. seven. 10.  yet not I, but the Lord: Let not the wife departed from her husband. But besides, if there were any ambiguity in the word; yet the matter of the Canon doth require a present tense, or signification. For the Canon was made against men of that age, who generally would not allow husband and wife to live together; and avoided the company of such; but not of those who had been married and continued widowers. Besides, Socrates doth express the matter by the present 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and Balsamon upon the place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. As for the Latin translations, some follow the present tense; and so it is entered into the body of the Canon Law, by Gratian: some tender them by the praeterit, through ignorance, or of purpose, to fit it to the Roman climate: though even in the Latin some praeterits include the present also: as they that translate uxorem duxit: which is as proper of them whose wives are alive, as of them whose wives are dead.  
After these, (to pass-by many things between) let us see, Whether they come of better with the Canons of the Council of Constantinople in Trullo: which was an Apendix or second part, of the sixth Ecumenical Council. The Grecians called it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Balsamon gives the reason. It hath always been of as great authority with them, as any other (for so they maintain it) General Council: and many Canons of it, are received into the body of the Canon Law, by Gratian. And certain it is, though generally it was not received by the Roman Church; that Pope Hadrianus, the first of that name, did highly approve of it; or egregiously dissemble with Therasius, Patriarch of Constantinople, (and indeed Baronius saith little lesle, if you will believe him) in a letter to him, where he speaks very honourably of some Canons of it. Besides that, the seventh Ecumenical Council, (in so great esteem, with all worshippers of images) did allow it. However, both Baronius and Bellarmine, do what they can to undermine the authority of it. Now by those Canons, Bishops indeed were sequestered from their wives, if they had any; Priests, Deacons, Subdeacons, were allowed to marry? if they pleased, before ordination; and after ordination, if than married, they are so far from being sequestered from their wives, that if upon pretence of piety, they did refuse to live with them, or would put them away, they were suspended from their charge for a time; and if they persisted, to be deposed. So were those (Bishops or Patriarches) who should attempt (conjunctione cum legitima uxore, & consuetudine privare, as the words are translated in the Paris edition of Balsamon) to bereave them (Priests, or Deacons) of the society, or company of their lawful wives; they also to be deposed. By the same Canon the Roman Church is noted, as having a contrary order, not agreeable to Apostolical constitutions. And this very Canon, is in the body of the Canon Law: Dist. 31. Cap. 13. But, however the Council had so ordered it, as we have said: yet it was not constantly observed. For in the days of Leo, the Philosopher, (so surnamed:) Emperor of Constantinople, who reigned some two hundred years after; Priests, and Deacons usually, as doth appear by a Constitution of the said Emperor against it, had two years' liberty after ordination, to consider, whether they would marry or no.  
That which I have more to say of this business in general, is: Calixtus doth cite divers Authors, who wrote before the Reformation, but of no small credit to this day among the Romanists; and among others, Thom. Aquinas; who all agreed, that this Prohibition of marriage, to men in holy Orders, is merely juris positivi, and Ecclesiastici, which therefore may be abolished, or repealed, by the same power by which it was enacted. But even since the Reformation he doth name some, who have made bold to maintain the same. To those I add, Tho. Compegius Bononiensis Episcopus Feltrensis, who hath written a book De caelibatu sacerdotum non abrogando: and very earnest he is for it, that it aught not. Yet even he, doth confess, that for the first four hundred years, there was no such law, that obliged any in sacred orders: that Syricius, Pope of Rome (which hath been the constant and common opinion, before this late breach:) was the first Author of it, and that it may be repealed. Besides, he quotes Abbas Siculus (insignem Canonum interpretem, as he styles him: Panormitanus, he means;) whose judgement is: That it were very expedient for the saving of souls, that they that would contain and merit (by works of supererogation, he means:) might be left to their liberty: but they that would not, might marry: since that experience hath made it apparent, that the contrary of what was intended by the law of Continence, hath ensued; for that they do not live spiritually, or purely; but, to the great prejudice of their souls, are contaminated (or, defiled) with unlawful copulations; whereas they might live chastely with a wife, Besides, he doth put a case in law, how it may fall out, according to the rules and Maxims of the Canon Law, and definitions of Popes upon it; that a Priest may be married, and compelled to live with his wife.  
Now I ask; if the marriage of Priests and others of the Clergy be not unlawful, in itself; which is generally granted: and the prohibition of it be the occasion of so much scandal and wickedness, as even among heathens would be abominable: and this too, certain and acknowledged; witness the account we had before, from Petrus Damianus; the complaints of so many others; Zealous Papists, otherwise; in all ages: for this seven or eight hundred years, at lest; besides daily experience: is not this prohibition, a sin, a wickedness not to be excused, but by them that care not what becomes of the world, and all religion; so they have their wills and ends? But what if Pope's, even by their laws and definitions, make that, which in its own nature, and by the law of God, is horrid and abominable; less criminous, and more tolerable, than that which by the law of God is acknowledged lawful? Yea, we might say, honourable? Is not fornication in its own nature, and in any man, a great and scandalous sin; and if notorious, and without bounds, able, and likely to draw the curse of God, and his severest judgements, upon any nation? How much than more horrid and intolerable, and of more dangerous consequence in Clergymen, whose function is holy; whose persons are in some degree sacred; and their lives to be a rule and example unto others? What is horrible, and abominable, if this be not?  
By the Canon of the Concilium Neocasariense, a Priest, if he marry (after Ordination) he is to be deposed. Well, be it so. It is enough for us to know, that in the time of the Apostles, there was no such Law: and that Popes have dispensed, even with Bishops, that were married, and had children: whereof we have a notable example: Dist. 28. c. 13. De Syracusana: by the tenor of which Dispensation, it doth not appear, 
Decr. p. 93.  but that they might still live together; as they did in Africa and Libya, when the Canons of the Sixth Council were made: However, it doth clearly appear, that they did live together (as Gratian there observeth) when the party before his election, was but Priest, or Deacon. Sive ergo presbyter, sive diaconus, sive subdiaconus fuerit; apparet quod in praefatis ordinibus constituti, licitè matrimonio uti possunt, saith Gratian. But this by the way only. By the said Canon, a Priest (as I said before) that married after Ordination, was to be deposed: but if the same were convicted of fornication, or adultery; by the same Canon, it was not deposition, that would serve his turn: he was utterly to be cast out of the Church (as an Infidel:) or to do solemn penance, before he could be reconciled to the Church: which made him incapable, even of the lowest charge in the Church, for ever. The words in Gratian are translated: Quod si fornicatus fuerit, vel adulterium commiserit, extra Eccelsiam abjici, & ad poenitentiam inter Laicos redigi oportet. It is in the Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Some are of opinion it should be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, would understand, mysteria: 
Cal. (obj.) p. 236.  Sacramenta: as though the Communion only were forbidden to such by those words. But besides that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is not very usual; and that it doth not agreed with that which followeth, to do public penance, which in those days, such was the condition of that penance, was the highest punishment the Church could inflict for greatest crimes: Balsamon, 
Balls. p. 766.  who was best acquainted with the language, doth explain it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 · That, 
Basil. tom. 2. p. 771.  he shall be ejected from the company of the faithful. It doth also appear, by St. Basil, in his Canons; where the sentence is reversed, or mitigated, in these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, But in the 32▪ Canon; as also in the Canon of the African Church, cited by the same Balsamon, there may be some question of the sense. But we may not digress so far.  
That was the Religion of those days: how is it now? How the Church of Rome dispensed, or connived in most scandalous times; (and where such dispensation or connivance is, how can it be expected otherwise, at any time?) we heard before from Petrus Damianus, the Pope's Agent. A further account we might have had of the state of those times from the said Damianus, had it not been suppressed by the Pope, as we read at large in Baronius: and yet by that account which is in Baronius, I do not know it could be much worse in Sodom and Gomorrha. Now let us hear another case from authentic Records; and than tell me in good earnest, what accounted the Pope makes of Fornication, and by consequent of the Scriptures; and what we may think of them, that maintain such Doctrine.  
The Archbishop of Lions, Legat to the Pope in those places; asks counsel of Innocentius the Third, what course he should take with those Priests, that had more concubines than one. A question of hard resolution in those times it seems; we may guests what times they were. But that the Archbishop struck at, was this: Who they were, that were anciently called digami, or bigami; is not certain, or generally yet agreed upon, among the Learned. There be three Interpretations of the word, (nay, not lesle than seven, reckoned by the Civil Lawyers:) but two opinions only that are much questioned: whether they, that had married two, or more Wives successively; or, they, that had divorced from one, and married another. Both opinions have very learned abettors; and it is not easy, absolutely to determine, which is the truest. Hard indeed it is to believe, that they should be made incapable of holy Orders by the ancient Church, who had married two Wives lawfully, one after another: or to believe, that that was S. Paul's meaning, 1 Tim. 3.2. But it will not much concern us to know, as to our present occasion. Whoever they were, that were intended; it is certain they were declared irregular, and incapable of ordination. Now, the Archbishop, it seems, had some thoughts, that Priests (or Bishops perchance: but they must not be named: yet Pet. Damianus, in his Letter to the Pope, upon the like occasion, made no scruple to name them: neither is the unworthiness of men, any just exception against the holiness of any place, or the reverence that is due unto it; whereof we have many examples in the Scriptures:) who kept divers Concubines at one time, might be brought within the compass of irregularity, under the notion and title of the Bigami. This he proposeth to the Pope; without whose authority, it was in vain to think he could bring any such thing to pass: witness Petrus Damianus, and what opposition he found, when he attempted, though authorised by the Pope, to apply some remedy to the exorbitancy of those times. But the Pope was not of that mind. His resolution of the case, therefore, is, that he shall proceed with such, as guilty only of simple Fornication. Now they that know, what a petty business, this matter of simple Fornication, is made by divers Canonists; will easily believe, that no great punishment was intended to those notorious whoremasters, or fornicators. But you shall have his own words, jest mine may be suspected. 
Decretal. 1. tit. 2. De Bigamis.  Sane postulasti per Sedem Apostolicam edoceri, si Presbyteri, plures concubinas habentes, bigami censeantur. Ad quod duximus respondendum, quod cum irregularitatem non incurrerint digamiae, cum eyes, tanquam simplici fornicatione notatis quo ad executionem Sacerdotalis officii, poteris dispensare. What is this (can any sober man think of it otherwise?) than to abolish the Law of God; and to establish (in St. Paul's language) the doctrine of Devils? Is it possible, 
1 Tim. 4.3.  that any man that is called a Christian, and makes profession of it, can be of another opinion? Truly, I should not believe it: but that the same Apostle doth tell us in another place, of strong delusions to befall some men from God, who give more credit to (pretended) signs, and lying wonders, (the miracles of these times, as I take it:) than to the truth: by which, 
2 Thes. 2. 11.  I think the Word of God (the public reading whereof, is strictly forbidden, it is well known, where public Stews are permitted:) may probably be meant. But how these pretenders to Antiquity will reconcile this definition or determination of Pope Innocentius, with that Canon of the Council we have spoken of, by which a Priest, if he marry after Ordination, is to be deposed; but a Concubinarius or fornicating Priest, is to be cast out of the Church, as an arrant Infidel; I leave it to them to consider it.  
There is an account, or report somewhere extant, of the state of Monasteries in England, in the year of the Lord 1538. delivered by the Visitors, under this title: Breviarium compertorium in Monasteriis, etc. a short abstract whereof hath been set out in Latin, which I have. I have looked upon it often, with great indignation (such a Prior, by name; or, such a Friar; one, or two Concubines: some, eight, nine, ten, twelve▪ or thirteen; and besides, a Sodomite, etc.) as suspecting that matters might be made worse than they were found, to please the King; or out of spite to the profession: and I would much rather think so still. But I must needs say, since I read Petrus Damiani (so irrefragable a witness) and compared him with the report of others, who themselves were of the same profession: but especially, what a light account was made of such abominations, by those that should have withstood them by their authority: and lastly, how averse they were (those in power, and most accountable) from the only true effectual remedy; my charity is much put to it; I cannot tell what to think. And these are the fruits of Pope Syricius (according to the common opinion) his Definition: recorded Decr. didst 83. which, whosoever reads, if he be not a stranger to the Scriptures, may justly suspect, it was made in opposition to the Scriptures, and S. Paul's Doctrine, particularly: as speaking of marriage, with all manner of scorn, and contempt; whereas the Authors of those Canons, of the Sixth General Council, by which they forbidden a Bishop to live with his Wife, they use much tenderness, to prevent all suspicion, as though they did it in contempt of Apostolic Authority (whether holy Scriptures, or those Constitutions that were than called Apostolicae Constitutiones; as Balsamon doth interpret them:) whereas it was done by them (so they profess) upon a supposition, that men of that eminency might do more good in the reputation of a continent life; disengaged from the lusts and cares of the world; and lesle subject to slanders and reproaches, which Wife and Children do often occasion; than yoked and charged with Wife and Children.  
Now after all this, whether we may not conclude, that since the Pope and Church of Rome would not; it was lawful for others to reform themselves in this one point (had there been but this one:) concerning the marriage of Clergymen; let the Reader judge: for that is it, which we did propose to ourselves.  
Having now gone over three particulars; that, of Infallibility, as the chiefest, and which alone might have done the business, and therefore, chief intended, and prosecuted; but besides that, two others, which casually did offer themselves; (that of the mutilation of the Sacrament, and forbidding of marriage) to prove the necessity of reformation, in and before Luther's time; our chiefest part: I might immediately pass to what remaineth: rather, as an accessary, than a part; to wit, what hath most visibly hindered the progress. But though I might; I shall yet nevertheless, before I come to it, (wherein we shall not belong:) for the Reader (not acquainted) his further satisfaction, and the better to stop the mouths of shameless impudent men, who tell their ignorant Disciples and Proselytes, and dare tell it to us, and before us too (brazen foreheads!) that all was well, in perfect peace and unity, when Luther began to stir: I shall, I say, before I leave this subject, propose somewhat to consideration, which if my judgement fail me not very much, may be sufficient to convince the most obstinate, and make all men sensible, that have any freedom of judgement left: that such men there be in the world, that will adventure upon any thing, though never so false; rather than yield to the evidence of truth: and if sensible, than I hope, more wary how they trust them hereafter.  
I might tell the Reader, of Catalogus testium veritatis: or, Fasciculus rerum expetundarum: but especially, of Goldastus, his three Tomes in folio, containing for the most part the grievances, and complaints of Kingdoms, and Commonwealths: the remonstrances, of Kings and Princes; of Courts and Assemblies, Secular & Ecclesiastical: of men, for worth and reputation, (Bishops and Cardinals, among the rest;) the most eminent of their times: some with threats; others, with tears, calling for Reformation, against damnable oppression; and abuses long continued, and daily increasing in all places: out of which tomes, it were no difficult business (notwithstanding some slips, or mistakes, if any such be, incidental to so great a work) to collect so much, as would swell this small Treatise, into a large volumn: I might, I say, but I rather choose to go another way; which as it will be, I am sure, more compendious; so may prove perchance, not lesle effectual. I know it hath been thought upon, and some use made of it, by divers: I have no ambition at all, to be thought the first: but whether it hath been pressed, or proposed so effectually, as it might have been, to that end and purpose, that we aim at, let the Reader judge, when we have done.  
Ferdinand Emperor of Germany, whose piety, prudence, magnanimity (to which some add zeal and constancy for the Catholic religion: meaning that, which he was born, and brought up in:) is acknowledged by Historians of both sides: after the Council of Trent was ended, and he saw that little, or nothing was done by it to satisfy the expectation of so many in all Countries in point of reformation, and to reconcile differences; but rather to the contrary; sensible also, how he had been from time to time dallied with, by vain promises; being much troubled at it; and at the sad consequences of it: he begun, not without the advice of his most faithful, and wisest counsellors; to cast about, and finally did resolve, upon another way, how he might come to the knowledge of the truth, in all those controversed points. The way was to found out a man, (if the Christian world afforded such a one) one of their own communion, a professed and acknowledged Roman Catholic, but of approved integrity and piety, and for his parts and abilities, in this kind of learning, especially (the knowledge of antiquity, and all controversies of Religion:) not inferior, if possible unto any, in any part of the world. Upon inquiry, a man was found. What shall I say? Let any man in his private thoughts, form to himself the idea of a man, such a one as he could have wished, or his fancy can represent unto him; I dare almost say, that this man went beyond it▪ So many particulars did concur, to complete him for such a work; that if I say lesle than a miracle, I think I say too little (all things well considered:) and he that doth not acknowledge a providence in it, I know not how to say lesle, but that he is, or hath much of an Infidel in him. For his integrity, and the exemplariness of his conversation, all the country, where he lived, would have born him witness; it was so publicly, and notoriously known unto all; but most admired of them, that knew him best. His learning and knowledge of antiquity, insight in controversies, had made him famous: but affection and reverence, to ancient rites and ceremonies that did savour of true Primitive Piety, he had given such proofs, and testimonies of, both by his practice, and by his writings, his Liturgica, his Hymni Ecclesiastici, preces Ecclesiasticae; (all extant) as greater could not be expected from any man. Yet in those things, I will suppose that some (not many, truly:) might equal him: which is as much as I can say. But than, let us consider the rest, and let any man tell me, whether he thinks, I have exceeded in my expressions. First, he was at that time, when the Emperor did address himself to him by his Letters, and to some Princes of Germany about it, (the Emperor's Letters, and the Answers, are extant, and to be seen:) a bedrid man, brought so low with the Gout, and what other infirmities; that affidavit was made unto the Emperor, should he attempt to go to him, as was desired, he would in all probability die by the way, and not hold out. Indeed, he did not live many years after, though he did outlive Ferdinand; and gave his account to Maximilian, who succeeded, and prosecuted the business with as much eagerness, as Ferdinand had done. Here first we may (who can do lesle?) observe the Providence of God; that whereas Cassander (for that was his name:) was first appointed to come, and give an account unto the Emperor, by word of mouth: he was afterwards appointed to do it in writing, that so all posterity might reap the benefit of it. Than secondly; whereas it might be said, (there was no great probability, if he were such a pious honest man; but what will not men say, when they are put to it?) that he might have some worldly ends, to gratify others, or to advance himself; as we know, that such and such were made Cardinals, for asserting the Pope's cause, with all their might, and power: How can that be suspected of one in Cassander's condition, which daily put him in mind of another world and made him utterly incapable of enjoying any thing, that this world could afford, as a temptation? But that which, as I take it, considering how much he had to say for the Protestants, and their cause, and against his own party; is most observable; is; that this very man, had been very unkindly used, by some chiefest Protestants, who suspecting him, by some writings of his, (they knew nothing of his person:) to have been a certain scandalous Protestant, inclining to Popery, and ready to leave them; fell upon him foully, with all bitterness and virulency; to their own shame, and the no lesle grief and scandal of many others. Was not this somewhat to try a man, whether he would be provoked, or no; and suffer his judgement (as most men) to be corrupted by his Interest? But Cassander shown himself passion proof. He did answer them, who so bitterly had provoked him, with all meekness and moderation: and as for the Protestants, and their cause in general, it did appear to all the world in general, that what he had written before of them, he had written, not to gratify any, great, or small; but to satisfy his own Conscience.  
But yet for all this: some will be ready to say (I know:) they value not what Cassander saith, because they accounted him not a sound Catholic. 
Labyr. p. 144.296.  So indeed the Author of the Labyrinth doth except against him, as many others have done before him. But why not a sound Catholic? Can they charge him with any particular opinion which anciently hath been accounted Heretical; they would say somewhat. Or could they say, though never so pious, or learned; yet he was a Protestant, he did favour his own party, (as most men are too apt:) that were somewhat too. But a man, against whose learning and integrity there can be no exception: who lived, and died in the Communion of Roman Catholics; round about in the Country where he lived, in high credit, and esteem: buried honourably by Roman Catholics, in one of their Churches; with an Inscription, or monument, now extant, and to be seen by all that go to those parts; which monument doth contain an ample testimony of his integrity, piety, learning; his fame and reputation, whilst he lived, with all men, far, and near; and yet he not a sound Catholic, because he hath freely reproved or charged the Roman Church, with many gross errors, and abuses, in matters of Faith, and otherwise: is not this wise arguing? For apparently, either it signifies nothing: or it doth ground upon this, that the Roman Church cannot err: he is therefore an Heretic, who doth charge it with errors, or maintain opinions, contrary to what it teacheth. But is not this a mere petitio principii: a most senseless and ridiculous kind of arguing? If therefore it doth not follow, that he must be an Heretic, because he excepted against the errors of the Church of Rome: how much more probable, because he was a judicious able man, as any those times afforded; a pious, conscientious man, so acknowledged by all men: a man bred and born in the Roman Church: (and certainly, accustomance and education hath some influence upon the wisest of men:) who lived and died in the communion of it: in all likelihood, therefore, well-affected, and more likely to extenuate, than to aggravate: upon these grounds, I say, how much more likely, that he had good reason for what he doth except against; and that his judgement and authority, should be of great weight with all sober judicious Roman Catholics? For as for the Protestants, though truly his great learning, approved piety, and integrity must make his judgement in all things very considerable, even to them; yet the same obligation doth not lie upon them: they may say, as was intimated before; long accustomance, education, affection, might make him, as a man, unsensibly partial; or at lest, lesle sensible, (in some things) than otherwise he might have been. For the further satisfaction of the Reader, but of all Roman Catholics, especially; I shall add, that his Works were not only printed by Roman Catholics, when he first set them out singly; but long after his death, all reprinted in Paris, in one Volume, by Roman Catholics: in a fair Character (more than is usual, for the largeness of it:) Parisiis, apud Hieronymum Dro●art: A. D. 1616.  
Well: it is time we should hear, what this man will tell us. Two Books there be of his, of this argument chief: De officio pii, publicae tranquillitatis verè amantis viri, in hoc religionis dissidio. In that Book (to begin with that, because first written:) after some reasons given, why the Church of Rome, is still a true Church: (Ecclesiae Catholicae non contemnendum membram: in his own expression: that is: a member of the Catholic Church, not to be contemned: or if you will positively, because the words will bear it: a considerable member of the Catholic Church:) and that there is no necessity of separating, though corruption be acknowledged; he doth add: Interim tamen, eos damnare non possum, etc. that is: But nevertheless I cannot condemn them, who persisting in the fundamentals of the Apostolic Doctrine, out of love of a pure (or sincere) Religion, upon good information from them that are both pious and learned, that somethings aught to be corrected; Supreme Authority leading, and the common consent of the Church concurring, in some part of the Church (Catholic) have purged some things in the Doctrine, and abolished some Ceremonies, though ancient, great utility, and even necessity compelling them for the good of the people: and in lieu of them, have established others, better agreeing with piety and discipline: provided that this be done, with as little scandal, and disturbance, as is possible: and that communion of spirit, and the bonds of peace, be still preserved with the rest of the Body. For who can blame that member, which when the rest of the body is sick, and will not be cured; doth take care of itself, that it may be cured? Not to insult upon the rest, but to give it an example, and to invite it to do the like. (All this, how appliable to the English Reformation; let the Reader judge.) These— though by some, who through an immoderate zeal, or particular disease of their mind, abhor all restoration, or reformation of the Church; they are traduced and condemned as heretics, and schismatics, and enemies of the Church: yet I know not how to separate, or remove them either from Christ the Head (of the Church:) or from the body, (of Christ:) which is the Church.  

1. p 789  This, he repeats again, not long after: Quare ut ante quoque dixi, qui recta sententia de Christo, etc. where indeed, he doth acknowledge that he knows not how to acquit them of schism who rejoice in this separation; will not acknowledge them from whom they have separated a true Church; have no love, no charity, for them: but abhor all manner of Communion with them, as very limbs of Satan, or Antichrist. Of which kind of men, we shall have occasion to consider afterwards; and how right his judgement may be in this. What will our Zelots of the Roman party say to this? The furious abettors of those mad Tenets, That he that doth not in all things, believe as the Roman Church doth believe; is an Infidel and (ordinarily) damned? What will they say? Why than this good man, whose memory is so precious with many Roman Catholics, he must be damned too. For though he lived and died in the Roman Communion; yet you see, what he maintained; so contrary to that, which is maintained by the Church of Rome: at lest, if it must be so, that Jesuits and Jesuited Zealots, must be accounted the best, and truest members of that Church; which I doubt many will not grant. But what show soever, such men make before others; yet I believe there be but few of the number, who (if really they believe a heaven and hell:) in their private thoughts, will not rather, (when dead) wish their souls, where this man's is; than where they can hope, that such furious courses, and Tenets, will bring them.  

L●byr. 297.  Well: but it may be some will be so charitable, (it is the charity of the Author of the Labyrinth:) as to hope, (and that will be the answer:) that he did effectively repent before his death. A pretty piece of charity, rather to make men smile than much to persuade: but still they hold to their principle, that somewhat must be said, when they have nothing to say. In the mean time glad am I, that as yet, they can allege nothing but hopes for it: it may be, at some other time, when they have better considered of it, how much it doth concern them; we shall be told of somewhat else: some reasons perchance, why one should believe it: or some pretended evidences, to prove it. For we know, they are good at it; we have had some experience; when they think the cause doth need it. But this I hope we shall sufficiently prevent; there will be occasion by and by: till than, the Reader may think of it, as he pleaseth. In the mean time, God be thanked, that he hath provided scrupulous Protestants, (as some may be) that comfort, that they may be out of all fear of schism in the judgement of this pious learned Roman Catholic, so that they want no charity for them, who do not yet think themselves bound to follow their example. And I hope that they that wished so well to his works, as to 'cause them to be so fairly reprinted in Paris; may probably be thought to have been of the same opinion.  
Now after this general judgement of Cassander, concerning Protestants: we shall in the next place, produce his opinion concerning some particular points, which his Consultatio must afford us. Yet himself doth acknowledge, that he did but in part, acquit himself of that charge; his infirmities giving him but little respite for such thoughts; as he doth excuse himself to the Emperor, in the conclusion. But that he did pass by many things, doth appear by these words, in the 26 th' Article, De potestate Ecclesiastica: Ad haec concedimus, etc. that is, We do grant moreover, that they that have the government of the Church, must earnestly be entreated, that by their care, those known and manifest abuses (some of which have been spoken of before) which have been the occasion of these troubles, and commotions, wherewith the Church at this day is very dangerously tossed, and afflicted, (those that concern the Mass, and other parts of Divine Service, especially:) may be taken away and abolished. Now this being written since the Council of Trent, it doth plainly appear what he thought of that Council, and their performances. And to this purpose, though where he treats De Pontifice Romano, he doth yield unto him some kind of Supremacy, by the grant, or consent of the ancient Church: yet doth he immediately before, roundly charge him; to have been the chiefest cause of those sad calamities, and distractions in the Church; which did so grievously affect him; for that puffed up with a vain conceit of his Ecclesiastical power, he did proudly and fastidiously despise, and reject them, who rightfully and modestly, made their addresses, or remonstrances: His words are: Non negarim tamen— praecipuam caussam hujus calamitatis & distractionis Ecclesiae, illis assignandam, qui inani quodam fastu Ecclesiasticae potestatis inflati, rectè & modestè admonentes superbè & fastidiosè contempserunt, & repulerunt.  

Ed. 8ᵒ. p. 180.  In his Chapter of the merits and intercession of Saints: he doth insist upon several gross errors, and abuses; quos imprimis (saith he) & quidem summâ diligentia correctos oportuit: that is: for the correction whereof, there was great need, that all possible diligence should have been used. These errors he saith did beget contrary errors. It is true he would not have had invocation of Saints, as it was used in the ancient Church; quite taken away: but the abuses only, reform; indeed very gross and intolerable, as he doth set them out: but the Council of Trent, it seems, had somewhat else to do; than to reform such abuses.  

Ed. Ed. p. 978 Ed. 8ᵒ p. 206  In his Chapter de imaginibus, & simulachris: having argued at large, what a late thing this worshipping of images is, etc. he hath these words: Manifestius enim est, etc. that is: it is so manifest a thing, that we need not many words to prove it; that the worshipping of Images and Statues hath too much prevailed; and that too much hath been indulged to the affection, (humour:) or rather superstition of people: so that either in point of highest adoration, which was ever yielded by Heathens, (or Pagans') to their Statues: or in point of utmost vanity, which the same heathen, in making and adorning their Statues, and Images, were guilty of; our people may be thought not inferior to them.  

Ed. Ed p. 974. Ed. 8ᵒ. 191.2.  Of relics, he concludeth thus: Since than it is so, that true and certain relics, in these parts, especially; are very few; and many of them that are shown, may very well be suspected; and that the often visiting and worshipping of such, doth very little conduce to true piety; but to superstition, and base lucre, very much: it seems much more expedient, that henceforth no showing of relics be allowed; and that the people may be provoked, to a right estimation of the true relics of Saints, by imitation of their examples of piety and virtue, left unto us in their writings; or, in writings concerning them.  
Of the Sacrament under one kind, he saith: Quare non temerè est, quod optimi quique etc. that is: That all good men, even Catholics (so he calls them) as well as others, that have been conversant in the reading of the Scriptures, and Ecclesiastical writers: moved also by the consideration of those reasons (by him there:) alleged; did even burn with a longing desire to enjoy the Cup; and used all means to them possible, to effect it, that this saving (salutare: or, so much conducing to salvation) Sacrament of the blood of Christ, with that of the body: according to the old and continued, for so many ages, custom, of the Universal Church, be restored again. Yet for all that, in that very chapter, he doth not seem to hold it so necessary (administration in both kinds:) as that the contrary can be called mutilation, or sacrilege: or, that the peace and unity of the Church (if it cannot be obtained otherwise) should be broken, or forsaken for it. And as for the words of Pope Gelasius, we have spoken of before, and vindicated from false foolish evasions, and interpretations: he also seems to make the same construction of them, as Baronius did; as though the objected sacrilege, concerned the Manichees only: So Cassander, there. But in a treatise of that very subject, De Sacra communione sub utraque specie: set out by itself, since this Consultation; where he doth with much accuratness, handle that business, historically, and scholastically; he is of another mind: where his conclusion is, hanc integram in utraque panis & vini specie, communicationem, etsi simpliciter non necessaria habeatur; that this communion under both kinds, though perchance not absolutely necessary: (or by many, not so deemed: that is, in some cases only, as that of necessity; and the like: for the whole discourse tends to prove the greater safety, and manifold advantages of a perfect Communion, under both kinds:) yet, multis nominibus anteponendam, etc. for many reasons aught to be preferred. And for that Decree of Pope Gelasius, he doth expound it in this treatise, as we have done before, and gives his reasons, why it cannot be otherwise understood; and that those consequences of Bellarmine (though he doth not name him, that in those days the Eucharist, was administered in one kind, are manifestly false, and quite contrary to the intention of the words: whereby we may gather, that Cassander, (as one of that communion) did in his Consultation, comply, as much as ever he could, and his conscience would suffer: and was more likely to have recalled some of his concessions; if occasion had offered itself: than to have repent (as the Author of the Labyrinth doth charitably hope:) before he died, that he had spoken so freely of the Church of Rome, and of the errors, and corruptions of that Church.  
Of Priests being forbidden to marry, he saith among other things; Videmus hoc decreto, etc. We see, that by that decree, (or, ordinance) Christian chastity and continence, is so far from being confirmed; that by it, a door to all manner of lust and flagitiousness, is rather opened: and again, to the same purpose; afterwards he quotes Panormitanus (that oracle of the Canon law, as once accounted:) whose words we had before out of Campegius: and such an apprehension he had of the horror of it, and how much Christianity did suffer by it; that it made him venture upon a strange speech, as it may seem to some; That though this caelibatus, or ordinance of Priest's forbearance, were granted to be of Apostolic institution (which he knew it is not:) there was reason enough why it should be dispensed with. Neither would he have only married Priests allowed, as anciently: but that it might be lawful for Priests, to marry after ordination also; which was not want to be: and yet, good man, when he wrote those things, such was his condition, as to the world; that austerity might have been feared, rather than too much indulgence, had not he seen a great necessity,  
In his Chapter, De missis solitarijs, he doth avouch Hofmeisterus' saying, that it was manifest, that the fashion both of the Greek, and Roman Church was, that not only the Priest, who did officiat (he saith sacrifice:) but other Priests and Deacons also than present, and the rest of the people, or part of it, at lest, did communicate: and that it is a wonder how it came to be left of; and that men should endeavour to recall that good custom into practice.  
But it is time to make an end: though I hope the Reader that doth apprehended the case rightly, will not think this labour ill bestowed. Sure it is, that the Emperor who set him on work, upon good assurance of his abilities, in every respect, for such a performance; had such an expectation of it, that he intended it for a rule to all Parishes within his Dominion: as doth appear by his letter to Cassander himself, in the end of the Second Letter: Ita ut tale summarium, sit quasi methodus quaedam, etc. They are very remarkable words: let the Reader well peruse them, and he will say, had so much been written to the Pope, he would have had a very pregnant testimony for his Infallibility: but what reckoning in the mean time the Emperor made of the Pope's Infallibility, or absolute Supremacy over the Church, the Reader may guests, by those words.  
I hope by this, those Roman Catholics, that shall hap to read this, if not sworn to the cause in despite of all truth; will have a better opinion of Reformation, than they had before, and somewhat a worse opinion of those men, who bear them in hand, that all was well, when Luther began to stir. And though I cannot expect, that they, who (adhering to that blind Maxim, that whosoever speaks against the Church of Rome, though never so good a Catholic otherwise, and generally so accounted; cannot be Orthodox, eo nomine, because he speaketh against the Church of Rome; which is a ridiculous Petitio principii, as before showed:) are not convicted by the judgement of such a one as Cassander; will be much moved by any other Authority, of the same nature: Yet because we have better hopes of the ingenuity of many of that side; and that he may not be thought the only man that hath so thought, or written: I will join another with him; who for the opinion men had generally of his worth and piety; in Spain, especially, where his works have been among all Preachers, in marvellous esteem, beyond any other man's; comes very near to Cassander; even Joh. Ferus, by name. Yet for all that, there wanted not a Zealot of that side, that durst charge him publicly, with no lesle than seventy seven Lutheran errors, and opinions; whereof, one is, as I take it, that we are justified by faith only. But Ferus wanted not stout and able champions; more, it may be; but one, I am sure; Michael Medina, Bellarensis, Franciscanus: who with great applause of the learned of that side, vindicated him, and laid it home to his adversary, as a malicious and ignorant Sycophant, or slanderer. The Book was first published at Complutum, in Spain; (that part of Spain which is called Hispania Tarraconensis:) famous for an University. There, first; and soon after, Moguntiae, in Germany, A. D. 1572. Let any man read that Apology (so it is styled:) and he most of necessity, either acquit Ferus, nay, acknowledge him Virum Catholicissimum, as there styled; or charge all Spain as Lutherans; or favourers of Lutherans, at lest. Now all I intent by this naming of him, is but to tell my Reader, that this Johannes Ferus, vir catholicissimus; this eminent Roman Catholic; hath written of the depravation of Religion, amongst Papists; and of the necessity of a Reformation (our Subject:) as roundly, and freely, as almost any Protestant. For which I appeal to his Preface, to his Comments upon the Acts. And Ferus also, wrote since the Council of Trent, which is to be observed.  
I think the ingenuous Reader, is sufficiently convicted by the testimony of two such witnesses, and that he will acknowledge it. Yet to stop the mouth of impudence itself (if it be a thing possible:) or at lest, that all men that are not passed all sense, and have been made to believe, that there was no such need, as we pretend; may by the light of so many evidences, be forced to acknowledge they have been grossly abused; and if in this particular, apparently; than probably, in divers others; I will yet produce the testimony of one more, a man of very different temper from Cassander, or Ferus; yet truly, a learned man; but a rigid Romanist, as doth appear by a speech he made in the name of Philip the II. King of Spain, uttered at the Council of Trent; whereby he doth bitterly inveigh against the Protestants, as unworthy of all compliance or condescension: from which he doth earnestly dissuade the Council. That speech of his, is extant, with three Orations, uttered before Pius V and some Sermons of his before the said Council of Trent: printed by Christopher Plantin, A. D. 1574. with an attestation of Arias Montanus, at the end, concerning the worth of the Author, and high esteem he was in, in all places of the same Profession. These, with an Apology of his for the Council of Trent, were dedicated by him to Stanislaus Hosius, one of the Pope's Legates; and Precedent, in the Council, at times. In that Dedication, he doth inveigh against Luther's proceed, sufficiently: yet so, that he doth acknowledge bona ex malis orta; & ex ipsis morbis, medicàmenta; as he speaketh. He doth make a great miracle of it; and doth highly magnify the goodness and providence of God, towards his Church in it. For before those times; those stirs and commotions, first occasioned by Luther; Liquidi illi purique fontes coelestis doctrinae, saith he, negligebantur omnino, & turbidam è luculentis quibusdam rivulis haustant aquam homines bibebant. Jacebant in tenebris, (he goes on) illa Ecclesiae antiqua lumina; & auctores quidam obscuri, horridi, spinosi, & inculti dominabantur in Scholis; quos omnes, sordida quaedam barbaries occupaverat; & ipsa literarum gymnasia— otiosis quibusdam, & inanissimis concertationibus occupata tenebantur. Luther, I think, would not have said much more. The sum is; That the pure fountains of heavenly Doctrine, being forsaken, men drunk puddle-water: that is, as he doth explain himself, That the Word of God (before those stirs by Luther) was quite laid aside, as also the writings of ancient Fathers: and instead of them, crabbed, obscure, fruitless Authors (Schoolmen, I think, he doth mean: but Legends of Saints also, probably: the only Books than in request:) were entertained in the Schools; and Colleges: that is, Universities. If this be not plain enough; hear him again, the same Author, in his Apology. Sed dices (saith he) nullo unquam tempore, tot ac tantiabusus. Nunquam depravata vetus sic disciplina: nunquam sic omnes Ecclesiae ordines corrupti, & dehonestati fuerunt. Nolo tecum hac de re pugnare, Fabrici: (that is the man, he wrote against, or rather did endeavour to answer, in the behalf of the Council of Trent:) nolo praeterita tempora cum nostris confer: 
Pet. ●●ntid. Apol. p. 104.5.  nolo nunc recensere veteres Ecclesiae plagas; nolo saecula illa commemorare, in quibus vix ullus reperiebatur totius Christiani Orbis angulus, in quo, non modo morum integritas, sed neque doctrinae puritas conspiceretur. Lateant haec, etc. I think here is plain acknowledgement, that there was not any corner of the world left, where both manners, and doctrine (among Christians) had not suffered great corruption, and detriment: and I think, the restoring of God's Word to its credit, and authority, with the Writings of the ancient Fathers; (the acknowledged effects or consequences of the than Reformation of Religion:) deserve to be looked upon as a singular blessing, and happiness of the times. True it is, he saith afterwards, that the evils which came along, were greater. But what he, as an Adversary, doth lay to our charge; we are not bound to acknowledge true, because he saith it: but what he doth grant to us, not out of any good will, but being forced by the evidence of things; I think we may safely build upon, as unquestionable truth: and they that will not yield to such evidence; what reason have they to expect, that they should ever be believed in any thing? We do not deny, but many evils ensued upon those alterations, (all alterations are dangerous:) to which Luther gave occasion. But we know that the same thing was objected by heathens to the Gospel of Christ: and what was answered by the godly Fathers of those times, we know. We deny not also, but that division, and separation, is in itself the greatest of evils, that can hap in the Church: but whether Luther or the Pope, was the occasion of the separation that happened in Luther's time, is a great question: Or rather, no question at all, with us Protestants, but that it happened through the Pope and Church of Rome, their wicked obstinacy, who would not harken to good counsel, nor yield to any real reformation which from all parts was so much desired.  
We have heard Cassander say as much, that the Pope was the cause. Though Cassander, with all truly judicious and wise, may be instead of a thousand, for a witness, in this particular: 
Letters d' E●●. Pasq. 40 11. p. 596.  yet since we are upon it now, it may be worthy the Readers notice, that doth not know it; what another Roman Catholic, not obscure man, Stephen Pasquier the author of les Recherches, doth writ to his friend Mr. de Raimond (he, I think, that hath written of Heresies:) about it. He doth maintain it, and dispute it at large, that, not Luther; or not Luther so much as Leo, the than Pope, was the cause of the first breach. But the grounds he goes upon, are not the same Cassander doth: I make no great reckoning of his arguments; neither do I aim at any great advantage to the cause by this accidental indication.  
The same Fontindonius (a man more considerable to us, by far) in that very Oration to the Council of Trent, wherein, 
Orat. p. 215.  as we said before, he doth inveigh against the Protestants with so much bitterness; hath these words among others: Sauciam Ecclesiam in vestris manibus habetis, etc. that is, Ye have the wounded Church in your hands: the wounds whereof, there is no need that they should be opened unto you, which yourselves do know, and the Legates from all Provinces have not only insisted upon, but have set the whole body of it before your eyes, full of wounds and bruises. Thus he. And for that he faith of the Legati of several Countries; they that have read a Book entitled Instructions & Missives des Roys Tres-Christiens de Fr. etc. printed 1608. containing the several speeches, and Orations made by the King of France, his several Ambassadors, and others authorised by him; in the Council of Trent: their account given to their King, and his Letters and replies and other things of that nature; will say, that he had good reason for what he said,  
For besides many such places, where they mention the wounds and sores of the Church; they say in one place, after the perusal of some papers of that subject; that their reformation was not like to prove like to Esays healing plasters (Es. 38.) made of figs; such as the Church wanted, and desired: but to Ezekiels (ch. 10.) his untempered mortar, etc. And in the end of the Oration, they protest openly against Pius the IV th'. Pij autem V ti imperium, etc. As for the power or authority of Pius the fourth, all his Statutes and Sentences (or Decrees) we reject, we disdain, and despise. Him for Christ's Vicar, and Peter's lawful Successor, we renounce and reject.  
In another place they tell the Council, that they came to the Pope, craving of him that Spiritual bread, which should be the food of their souls: whereof all the Christian world over, there was such scarcity, as was scarce known in any age since Christ: but that instead of that bread they desired; he had given them a Scorpion, at one time, to sting both King and Church of France: that it was not than with the world as some years before (that is before Luther appeared:) for that now men believed in Christ, not for the women's Testimony, (Joh. iv. 42.) but because they believed the Scriptures, which now they were, but before had not been acquainted with. And that is in effect, what Fontindonius had told us before. If therefore such, even such, as Fontindonius, so zealous a Romanist, such an enemy to Protestants; (not to speak here of that famous Consilium Delectorum Cardinalium, etc. de emendandâ Ecclesia: A. D. 1538. Printed in divers places; even in some editions of Counsels to be sound; though prohibited afterwards, and concealed with all possible care) have acknowledged the miserable condition of the Church before Luther began to stir: was there not great need of Reformation? What may we think of them, that will not acknowledge it themselves▪ and do what they can, to keep others from the knowledge of it?  
I Have now done with the first part of this my present undertaking, That, before, and at that time, when Luther first appeared, the Church stood in great need of Reformation; not in matter of Discipline and manners only, which is not denied, though little hath been done to redress it: but of Doctrine, and matters of faith, as much as in any thing. This brought us to the business of infallibility, the prime controversy of these times; upon which we have been the longer, the variety of matter offering itself, partly because of the consequence; and partly, because of the obstinate opposition of adversaries who are very sensible of the consequence. What remaineth, a consideration of the hindrances, will be no hard or long work; nor subject, as I conceive, to much opposition; but of great use, if my judgement fail me not, and at this time, not unseasonable.  
How it comes to pass, that after so many endeavours, in so many years, the heretics of these times, (they mean Protestants:) are not yet converted, or persuaded, to return to the unity of the Church; that (to use some of their own words) nihil adhuc profectum est, & de inanibus Catholicorum conatibus haereses triumphant: that is, they that have laboured hitherto, have reaped no benefit of their labours, but heresies triumph of the vain attempts of the Catholics; Some Romanists have been curious to inquire into the reasons. One of them I am sure, an eminent writer among them; whose those words are, I have quoted. Whether it be so or no; and whether they have any reason to make a wonder of it; I will not now stand to dispute. Certain I am that we who certainly believe this Reformation, which after so many wishes and attempts in former ages, begun to take effect not full 150 years ago; was the work of God, and for which all truly sensible of piety, and well acquainted with primitive times, are bound to praise God hearty; have much more reason to wonder, that in few years, having had so miraculous a success, it hath made no greater progress since: and since that, of late years, hath rather lost, than gained, though there have not wanted at no time, from the first beginning, multitudes of able champions to justify the cause (though not to justify the proceed, in all places) by their writings. A thing it is, I confess, which may 'cause some wonder: especially where the motives, or engagements, are apprehenhended as clear and visible; as they are, certainly, in themselves ponderous, and of highest consequence.  
But if any be scandalised at it, let him consider the several ebbings and flow of Christianity in general, in several places of the world since the first beginning of it; in those especially, where it was once most flourishing, and is now either quite extinct (as in one fourth part of the world:) or brought very low, and under cruel bondage; as in many places of great extent: and if he be forced, (as I think he will) to say, that these be secrets of God's providence, or just judgements, which the reason of man cannot penetrate into; I think there is in this particular also of reformation, as much reason, why he should submit, if not without some wondering, or just indignation which can hardly be avoided; yet without such scandal, as should make him think worse of the cause.  
Laying therefore that aside, the consideration of hidden causes, which doth not belong unto us; nor of such Politic causes, as may be given perchance, by men well acquainted with the State, and interest of the several Kingdoms, and Commonwealths of Europe: we shall only take notice of such, which no question can be made of, but that than concurred more or lesle; the knowledge & consideration of which, may be useful, and of some consequence, towards the peace of this Church, which it is our happiness to be members of. To this purpose, that which I shall chief insist upon, is, to show, that rash, rigid speeches, opinions, and judgements, pretending to zeal and purity, but for the most part, the effects of gross ignorance, or damnable hypocrisy, or natural fierceness (such is the temper of some) and precipitancy; have been the most visible hindrances. By this, some may think, that I intent Puritanisme; which certainly doth always proceed, from some one, if not more of those causes. If therefore we distinguish, between the accidentals of Puritanism, particular objects, and opinions, which may differ according to difference of times, and places; (for even in England, the particulars of Puritanisme, have not been always the same:) and the essentials, or formalis ratio of it from which those accidentals usually flow and proceed; so we may call it Puritanism, that was the greatest, or one of the apparent obstacles, in this blessed work.  
But it will not be amiss, I think, first of all to take some notice of him, who was the most visible instrument of this great alteration; even Martin Luther; who did much please himself, that he was particularly prophesied of by John Hus, who had begun the work, and made a good progress in it, in Bohemia, about a hundred years, before Luther appeared in Saxony. Some words indeed of John Hus, are mentioned by many, very express to that purpose: who also aver, that a coin, or medal was stamped by the Bohemians about that time, containing part of those prophetical words; which medal, I suppose, hath been seen by many. Ulembergius, a learned Romanist, who hath written Luther's life very particularly; and for the most part out of Luther's own works; where he doth set down Luther's words, he doth not contradict it, nay doth seem rather to acknowledge it, by his marginal note: Vaticinium Hus, de Luthero. Certainly, such a prophecy well attested, and strongly apprehended, as it seems it was by Luther; must needs add much to his confidence, which indeed was extraordinary, and little lesle, without the help of that prophecy, than miraculous. But of this prophecy, and how far Luther might rely upon it, as belonging to him, let every man judge, as he thinks fit.  
However, the mention of it, hath given me the opportunity to tell the Reader, if he knew it not, of a very clear prophecy of St. Jerom's, concerning the Reformation of religion, than begun in Germany, and the principal (though mute) instrument of it, the Scriptures. St. Jerom, (whom also I found in part, cited by learned Jewel, in his Apologia Eccl. Anglic.) in his Comments upon the 3d. chap. of the Prophet Nahum, doth tell us first, how perversa dogmata, and perversae doctrinae, through the baits and allurements of the Devil, shall prevail in the world; so that both Teachers and people shall be cast into a deep sleep: non habente sermone Dei, ubi caput reclinet, cum perversa dogmata cuncta possideant:) and the word of God shall be turned out of doors, nor found any resting place. But, that at the end of the world, before Christ's coming, the people of God, (qui sub magistris antea fuerat consopitus) who before was kept asleep by its masters, or teachers; shall than fly to the Scriptures, (for safety:) and apply themselves to the reading of them.  
St. Jerom wrote this above a thousand years, before Luther; he might very well think the world would be towards an end, by that time; and besides, we may hope yet for a further accomplishment. But whether we have not seen the fulfilling of it, in part, ever since the Reformation began, if any be so ignorant or wilfully blind, as not to acknowledge it, I desire them to consider once again of Fontindonius, the Trent Orator, his words before set down; and with them, of those of the French Orators, the than King of France his Agent; uttered before the said Council. I will say no more of it; this is more than I intended, but that John Hus his prophecy, concerning Luther, gave us the occasion.  
What Luther's good parts were, natural and acquired, by which the Reformation by him begun, was happily promoted; is not our business here to inquire: It is certain, he had some that did not a little hinder it. He had a great courage: that did well: but he was very passionate, and in his passion, and anger, what he said, he had no regard at all. He could not endure to be contradicted by any who pretended to reformation: or that any (in Germany, at lest) should share with him, in the credit of that great work. He was naturally very free to speak any thing that was in his thoughts, without any disguise, or dissimulation: and such an opinion he had of his calling (being much animated by the success:) that instead of striving against, he used this liberty with all security, as a privilege of his authority. As reason, or passion led him, so he spoke, and wrote, with all manner of indifferency; which made such notable contradictions, in his writings, (which have been observed by more than one) not to be reconciled, but by the knowledge, and acknowledgement of his infirmities as well as excellencies.  
In his first Augustan Confession, which only the rigid Lutherans to this day, acknowledge, and embrace, as genuine; how indifferently, and moderately, (and yet not with lesle truth, for the most part, than moderation: being in substance the same with the second, which Calvin did approve and subscribe) did he state all manner of differences? But how differently, since that, he wrote when he did indulge to his passion, or was set upon aggravation; there be that have made it their business, to take notice, and to make known: among the rest, Bellarmine; who both in some Orations; and elsewhere in his Controversies, doth make great use of it, to advantage his cause thereby, (which I believe he did; as much, as by any thing:) and to make Reformation odious, and detestable unto all men, that did not wisely consider of it.  
For I ask, Would it not confirm a Protestant in his Religion, who is not a stranger to the Articles, and Confessions of Faith, set out by Protestants, concerning the necessity of good works: heareth the same preached, and pressed every day, in Sermons: the same, in ordinary books of Devotion in best credit; besides the known practice, of all accounted pious and religious, among them: to hear a Papist, pretending to the knowledge of Differences, and Controversies, object unto Protestants generally; that they maintain the sufficiency of faith unto salvation; (to justification indeed, we do: and so divers Roman Catholics:) without works? Or that, to follow Calvin, we deny the reality of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, which so many Protestant Confessions profess to believe; and Calvin, of all Protestants, doth in so many places, so vigorously assert? Witness among others, those words of his: Substantiam veri corporis & sanguinis Jesu Christi, uti ex utero virginis illam semel accepit, praesentem esse in Coena, tam fidelibus, quam infidelibus; who also doth acknowledge a great miracle (though no transubstantiation:) in the business, and effect of God's omnipotency, not comprehensible to man. His whole book against Westphalus, is of that subject, to vindicate himself and his Doctrine, of that slander. Yet these be objections made by a late Romanist, a great pretender to peace and charity. But when the same author, speaking of the English Reformation, doth tell us, seriously, that instead of the Crucifix upon the rood, a naked Unicorn, to content Luther and Catherine Bore, was placed; and that marriage was allowed to Priests to satisfy Calvin, who without scruple of irregularity, married a Tailor's widow: what can a sober Protestant think of such men, who pretending to sobriety and moderation, 
Fiat lux. p. 250.251.  are not ashamed, to our faces, so basely, so unworthily, to traduce, and calumniate: how can he believe them in any thing?  
When therefore Papists have been told by some Protestants (to instance in one particular:) that before the Reformation, begun by Luther, they had no knowledge of Christ nor of the benefit of his Cross; the free remission of sins, and justification, through faith: so contrary to their ordinary Rituals (as by divers Papists and Protestants, hath been asserted and objected:) and so contrary to so many books of Devotion, in use and credit among them: must they not in all probability, suspect every thing to be of the same nature, and have a worse opininion of Reformation, and all Protestants, in general?  
But of all things in this kind, wherein the inconsiderate zeal, or ignorant, uncharitable rashness of some Protestants, hath been to blame, my opinion is, that nothing hath done more hurt to the cause, to hinder the progress of Reformation, and to advantage the adversaries of it, than the denying of the Church of Rome, to be a true Church. Quin & eò ventum est, etc. that is, Nay it is come to that, (saith learned judicious Cassander) that some (which is the propriety of schism) have made bold to bereave this Church (the Roman) of the title and possession of a true Catholic Church; and to arrogate it unto themselves, as their own peculiar.  
This indeed, is a matter of highest moment, on which as I conceive, the standing or falling of Christianity, in general, doth not a little depend. For since it is well known, that most errors of Popery, began to prevail over all Christianity, or the greatest part; (in Europe, at lest:) a thousand years before Luther; (though every age did afford some, that did vigorously oppose them:) and that Christianity, in other parts of the world, hath suffered, though not so much perchance, nor in the same kind; yet suffered not a little: if all this while, Christ hath had no visible Church in the world, but here, and there in some corners; I know not what to make of all the prophecies of the Old Testament: and if so many prophecies, so plain, so full, so direct (as by St. Augustine in his books, De veritate Ecclesiae, is disputed, and proved, at large:) come to nothing; truly I know not, what we may trust to. To me, it doth appear no lesle, than, if not a direct, yet an implicit (if the consequence be rightly weighed;) abjuration of Christianity. And were it so indeed, that Protestants generally, did require any such profession, or subscription; I think that were ground enough for any conscientious man, to avoid their communion: as on the other side, were there nothing else to be objected to Papists, but this one thing; their uncharitable proscribing, and excommunicating of all Christians, in all parts of the world, who are not of their communion; and obliging all that adhere unto them, to profess the same; I should think that one thing, a just ground of Separation, or forsaking of their communion. And I must acknowledge when I consider with grief of the calamities, and diminution, Christianity in general, hath received, by the increase of Mahometism: though I am sorry, that so much superstition is gone along; yet it is no small comfort, to think of the conversion of the Americans. And though my comfort would be greater, if, as I said, lesle superstition had gone along; yet even in that, I receive no small satisfaction, when I read the speeches made to some Indians, concerning Christianity, wherein I found nothing, that can give just offence; but true and pure Christianity delivered: as particularly in a book entitled, The History of the Mission of three Capuchins to the Isle of Maragnan, etc. by the R. F. Claude d'Abbeville Praedic. Capuchin: at Paris, 1614 not to mention others.  
This therefore I conceive, was a great hindrance, to the progress of Reformation; when many (through misinformation) apprehended, that instead of Reformation, a new Religion was intended, not known, or heard of, (but here and there in some corners:) for the space of a thousand years: whereupon must follow (which many were ready to infer, and to exaggerate:) that as many (Fathers, and Forefathers) as were dead in the mean time, though otherwise never so pious in sight; were dead in their sins, as Heathens, and Infidels. Now, though this never was the Doctrine of Protestants, in general; as will appear by and by: yet it cannot be denied, but some Protestants in very deed (if I may call them Protestants, whom I know not how to accounted Christians; except ignorance, and not want of charity be their plea:) have been of that opinion; and even before our late confusions, by which true Christianity did suffer such an Eclipse in this Land; a learned and pious Bishop was much put to it, by the Puritanical party, for this very thing, because he had said, The Roman Church was, or is, a true Church. Though his credit, and deservingly, was great; yet, not lesle than an express Apology; and after that another, (which are extant:) would serve the turn, to acquit him from suspicion of Popery; and glad was he, to get compurgators, men of eminency in those days▪ and of some credit, with the faction; and all, little enough. And even since that, in this late dismal interruption of government, one of that worshipful company, that were appointed Examiner's of them that were to be ordained, or beneficed; whereof Hugh Peter, (a very fit man for such a purpose: for by the questions they were want to ask, a man cannot tell what they aimed at, except it was to advance Quakisme, or make way for Mahometism:) was the head: but one of that worshipful company, did publicly, perstringe, though absent, that Reverend worthy Prelate for it, as guilty of a foul business. It became one of that company well enough, both for their learning and their Principles. Some may wonder, that Reverend Bishop could found in his heart (but that it was his humility, and charity:) as though the judgement of such, had been a thing considerable; to apologise a third time. The more we may wonder, because at that very time, or a little before, 
Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici. Published by the Pro●●n. Assem. of Lond. 1654. Part 11. p. 39  a book was set out by the Provincial Assembly of London, (so they call themselves) wherein I found it thus: The Religion of the Church of Rome; etc. They hold many truths; but than they poison them by their heretical Additions. They hold most that we hold, etc. Thus their Religion, is bread and poison, mingled together; and whosoever living among them, can separate the bread from the poison, shall found bread enough to nourish him unto eternal life. Again: When the Protestant Churches did separate, they did not erect a new Church; but reform a corrupt Church. And therefore ours is called, The Protestant Reform religion: not, 
Ibid. p. 45.  A new Religion. Again: There are indeed some learned Orthodox Divines, that say, That the Church of Rome is verè Ecclesia: is Truly a Church: though far from being, a true Orthodox Church. There are others that say, etc.  
But whatever may be the Faith, or apprehensions of particular men, in this business; God be thanked, the Church of England hath sufficiently declared herself, to take away all scruple from them, that adhere unto it, in outward communion, as to a particular Church; (of all particular Churches, that we know, both for Doctrine and Discipline, as we verily believe, and hearty joy in the happiness of being members of it▪ most right, and Orthodox:) but think themselves, as Christians in general, bound to believe a holy Catholic Church, dispersed throughout the whole world: the Church of England, I say, hath sufficiently declared itself; as to satisfy her Sons and adherents, and to take away all scruples, in this point: so to stop the mouths of the enemies. Witness those gold●n words, in her Canons and Constitutions, set out A. D. 1604. §. 30. So far was it (so they profess) from the purpose of the Church of England, to forsake and reject the Churches of Italy, France, Spain, Germany, or any such like Church, in all things, which they held and practised; that (as the Apology of the Church of England professeth) it doth with reverence, retain those Ceremonies, which do neither endamage the Church of God, nor offend the minds of sober men: and only departed from them, in those particular points, wherein they were fallen, both from themselves, in their ancient integrity; and from the Apostolic Churches, which were their first founders.  

〈◊〉 against Featly, p 52 53.  Now whereas some Papists would make some advantage of this against us, as though the first Reformers of Religion, had denied a constant visible Church upon Earth, for many Ages, before the Reformation; which they say later Protestant's have been forced to acknowledge: it is, either a great mistake, or a gross calumny. For I do not know any one of the first Reformers, or Protestant Divines, that were than, or are now, of any reputation, that ever denied, that Christ had a Church in the Papacy, not only invisible, consisting of the Elect properly: but also visible, 
C●lv. Epist. 104. p 222.  as Calvin doth explain himself. Their testimonies have been produced by others; to which more (if need were) might be added. Luther indeed, expressed himself very variously, in this point, as in many others; as was before acknowledged. Sometimes, he grants more to the Church of Rome than most moderate Protestants can well allow unto it; sometimes, he leaves them nothing at all; which not sober man can justify▪ Some other Protestants may speak ambiguously, sometimes; but if well understood, they will be found to agreed well enough, in this point.  
That which hath made many wary and scrupulous how they speak, in this particular; is, the advantage the Papists make of our concessions, with ordinary simple people; when they infer upon it, that therefore their communion must be the safest way, because we acknowledge them a Church; and by consequent, a possibility of salvation in it: they, (that is, the hotheaded or ignorant Zealots, of their side:) not ours so: whereas in very truth, (and they will acknowledge it, who are well acquainted with the Doctrine of Antiquity:) it is one main advantage of our cause, that though we differ from them in many things; nay, charge them with many gross, pestilent errors, and abuses: yet because they still keep to the main fundamentals, we do not exclude them from the Catholic Church; though by their hard and rigid censures, and excommunications of us, and all others that do not hold with them; they do very much hazard their right and title, to the said Catholic Church; as much, as by any thing.  
But this hath been considered of before, and their Arguments for this pretended advantage fully discussed: whether, (if he have not been there already) I refer the Reader, who doth desire further satisfaction in this point. Our occasion here, is only to observe, that this one thing; the denying the Church of Rome, the being of a Church, in the communion of which, they that have lived and erred; or do yet; wanting the means, ignorantly; by the advantage of the main fundamentals, and a godly life, may possibly be saved: which some Protestants rashly, and ignorantly; or rigidly, and uncharitably, too much yielding to their own tempers, and humours, have done: hath been a great hindrance of Reformation. And I verily believe, the opinion most Papists are kept in, that the Religion of Protestants, is a new Religion; is not of little force, to make them averse from it▪ to this day.  
It is well known, how bitterly rigid Lutherans judge generally, of the Protestants, that are not of their opinion. Papists (ordinary Papists) may be thought charitable, in comparison. Yet no provocation could make other Protestants, far more in number, and every way much more considerable, to requited them, or to imitate their uncharitableness, and virulency: though they make great boast of it, and make no small advantage of it among themselves, to maintain their own party; by their insultation. Yet for all that, they are accounted Brethrens, whether they will, or no: the French Churches, even lately, in a Synod of theirs at Charanton; have declared them so. I wish we had no greater differences with the Papists: however, if moderation and charity towards the one, be commendable; (as who would not commend it?) notwithstanding their uncharitable provocations: why should not we be as charitable (so far as the cause will bear:) towards the Papists, in our judgements, and deserve commendation for it; though they judge of us not better (for worse they can not:) than the Lutherans?  
Another great hindrance, noted and acknowledged by all men, and concerning which divers Books have been written, which give an Historical account of all actions and proceed, private, and public, in that business; is the difference that did arise among Protestants concerning the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ. So much hath been written of it, and of the sad effects and consequences, that I shall only name it here, and no more.  
Other particulars there be, of the same nature; which I could insist upon; if I intended a perfect search, and disquisition. But because my chiefest intent, is, to insist upon those things, the knowledge and consideration whereof, may be of some concernment to us, of the Church of England; I shall confine myself to the consideration of one particular, of Ceremonies: which as it was at first, a great hindrance to the progress of Reformation, in Germany, and elsewhere: So hath it been the occasion of great troubles and disturbances, to the Church of England; and sometimes hazarded the beauty and glory of its Reformation, (by all Protestants, that have any knowledge of former times, and do not unchristianly contract the Catholic Church, to present and particular Congregations, acknowledged:) by base, unworthy compliances with the defects, (that I say not, deformity:) of some other Churches.  
Whilst the chief Reformers were busy about material points, wherein true Christian-Faith had suffered great detriment; which every day appeared more and more, and begun so far to be acknowledged every where, that all States and places, did even thirst for a sound and substantial Reformation: the Devil, who had tried many ways, to hinder and oppose what he could, and yet saw himself in great danger: (God for other secret causes, but apparent infirmities of some chief actors, and unworthiness of others, who should have reaped the benefit; permitting, or not hindering:) this great Enemy of incorrupted Truth and Religion, stirred up a Sect of men, whereof Flaccius Illyricus, and one Joach. Westphalus, were chief leaders, and abettors; who under colour of Zeal and Purity, despised, affronted all Authority; preached rebellion, and sedition, as lawful, for that which they called Religion; charged the most eminent Reformers, with Idolatry, Apostasy, Infidelity, and the like, for allowing some ancient Rites and Ceremonies: some, for themselves, as ancient, and useful: others, for peace and unities sake, as things indifferent. Like so many Furies of Hell, or Bedlams, that had broken their bonds, by Press and Pulpit, and all manner of ways, they filled the world, with their out-cries, and reproaches; by which many were not a little terrified; but many more, who before had showed great inclination to it, scandalised, even to a hatred and abhorrence of all Reformation. In the mean time, the Zelots for the Pope's power, and great Patrons of all inveterated Superstitions; made great advantage of it, to countenance their rigour and obstinacy, on the other side; and wholly bend themselves (which was vigorously prosecuted by the Council of Trent) to make the breach as irreconcilable, as they could possibly make it, even unto all extremity: placing henceforth the greatest strength of their own safety and security, in the proscribing, and anathematising of all dissenters, as damned Apostates, and Infidels. This is the grand mystery of Jesuitism, and politic Popery, at this day: to look upon all moderate counsels, as pernicious and destructive; to fear nothing more, and to hinder as much as they can, jest any man with calmness and indifferency (that is, not preoccupied and prepossessed with opinion and prejudice) should inquire into the occasion of this unhappy breach, and the true state of Reformation. It is their advantage, and that which they earnestly labour for, that every difference may be made a Heresy; yea, flat Idolatry, or Apostasy: whether they impeach us, or we impeach them, in that kind, it matters not; the advantage they make of it is the same. So that in very truth, Jesuits and Puritans, by two contrary extremities, are the great props, and interest of Popery: and though particular Papists, may suffer in some places, by the fierceness of Puritans; and Puritan, in other, by the fierceness of such Papists: yet that is not considerable, in comparison of what the cause doth get in general, by those extremities, on both sides.  
What were the particular Rites, or Ceremonies, that were so fiercely impugned, and the occasion of such division; I shall not now make any inquiry: of rites and ceremonies in general, the question was, that is certain, whether in their own nature indifferent, (whence the name, or crimination of adiaphoristae, so frequent in that History, sprung:) and whether any might be retained, that had been abused, the abuse being taken away: the one (the sober and moderate) maintaining the affirmative: the pretended zealots, as peremptorily charging them with Popery, Idolatry, Apostasy, and I know not what, for the opinion. The Surplice, I remember, was one great particular, concerning which strange things were delivered by that Fanatic crew; as though whole Christianity had been hazarded, nay lost, by the using of it. But I will refer my Reader, if he desire a further account, to the Ecclesiastical History of those times: especially to them that have written the life of Luther and Melanchthon: which incomparable man, as he excelled in piety and learning; so he was the principal object of their revile, and threaten.  
This is all I intended of the visible hindrances of Reformation; the observation whereof, I thought, would be of some use, to those that have any interest in this particular (of all reformed, the most eminent) Church of England. I shall yet before I end, commend some things to the Readers consideration; which upon the same subject of ceremonies, as I was writing what hath been written before; did offer themselves; and I have done.  
First, to the Papists: Great brags they make of their Ceremonies, and their antiquity. We cannot deny, but many of them are ancient: now laid aside for good reasons, by the Church of England. But first; Can they make it appear that the substance of Faith which doth Constitute a Catholic Church, was ever thought by the ancients, to consist in part, or in whole, in ceremonies? Who doth not know, what ancient fathers have said and determined, concerning this matter of Ceremonies? What notable variety, and in some things, contrariety hath been observed by ancient Ecclesiastical writers, in divers parts of the world; where one faith was acknowledged and professed.  
But secondly: they have retained many; ancient, we acknowledge; which we have not: but withal, they have many articles of faith; never heard of in the primitive times; which we have not, we praise God for it. They will not acknowledge it, I confess; except some here, or there, that are more ingenuous than the rest: but it hath been proved, and will be proved yet, if need be, and made as manifest and visible, as the light of the Sun at noon day may be to them that have eyes, and will not shut them of purpose, jest they should see.  
But again, (a third answer, or observation:) They have many that are ancient; which we have not: we grant it. But have they all, or near all; of that nature? I will undertake, let all their rites, and customs, that are truly ancient, be put together: we will give an account, when it shall be required, of so many more, at lest, ancient also, which are now, and have been, these many years, antiquated, and out of use. The reader may be better satisfied that the thing is very feasable, who shall but peruse those that have written de antiquis Baptismi, & Missae ritibus; Josephus Vicecomes, particularly; who hath taken greatest pains: in two tomes, in 4 to; Printed at Milan, 1620.  
Bellarmine, I remember, in a place, where he disputes for transubstantiation: hath these words: 
Bell. de Sacr. Ecc. l 4 c. 13.632.  Add ultimò morem esse Graecorum etc. that is: [Lastly, Cardinal Bessarion, in his books of the words of the consecration; doth relate that it is the custom of the Greek Church, that those words of the Lord, This is my body: and, This is my blood: are uttered with a loud voice, and that the people answer to either, Amen.] A man would not have thought, that such a one as Bellarmine should be beholding to Bessarion for this observation, which he might have found in divers ancients, who spoke of it, as a thing generally practised: St. Ambrose, in two several places, and Justin Martyr, long before him; not to mention others. But than it seems, it was so anciently; is it so now? 
Bell. De Missa. two. 12. p. 831.  But Bellarmine, again, doth in another book, out of St. Augustine, tell us of another ancient custom; that the people not only after consecration; but than also after the Priest had dispensed to them the blood; or uttered the words of distribution; The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ etc. did answer, Amen. Truly I have no ambition to found fault with Bellarmine: but the ingenuous Reader will not be offended, if I desire to do the truth right, upon any occasion that offers itself. Bellarmine excepts, the book out of which this is cited, is not Augustine's. Be it so: Yet Ballarmine might have observed, that those words are taken out of a book of St. 
August. to. vi p. 323.  Augustine, that was never questioned; count. Faustum Manich. lib. xii. c. 10. Secondly, Bellarmine doth refer us to St. Ambrose De Sacr. iv. c. 5. for the same. But the diligent Reader will found, that St. Ambrose in that place speaks of the Amen of the people, after the consecration; not, after the words of distribution, or dispensation. But for that custom, that the people were want (and that it aught to be so) anciently to answer, 
Euseb. Ecclesi. Hist. l. 6. c. 35. p. 180.  Amen, after the words uttered by the Priest, The body (or, The blood) of our Lord Jesus Christ, etc. We have (not to mention others) the clear testimony of Pope Cornelius, in Eusebius; and as clear testimony of St. Augustine, many years after, that it was so practised, or observed ab omnibus gentibus, in his time. So anciently, than, and universally so; is it so now at Rome; or where Rome is followed, as a rule? I found it not in the Missals, or Rituals, that I have. Well, if it be not; all I shall say of it, they were to blame; were it but for antiquity sake, that first left it out. But what shall we say, to the very words, or form of consecration: (of greater moment I believe, than any bore ceremony; yet, that too, in some respects a ceremony:) do not we know, that the practice of this day, generally, is contrary to the order, and resolution of some ancient Popes about it: and that the learned among the Papists, are divided among themselves, in their opinions, what is, or aught to be the true form?  
Here be some instances of some variety: but the Ordo Romanus, or ancient Western Liturgy, set out by learned Cassander, with his observations; will furnish, who is desirous, with more of the same nature; and of higher consequence, some; as the administration under both kinds, and the like.  
Thirdly, and lastly, we say: The Church of England, though for the abuse and other good considerations, it hath laid aside divers Ceremonies, that are acknowledged ancient: yet it doth not condemn any, that have been anciently and universally used, (as than used:) as impious, or idolatrous: nor doth think that, a just cause of Separation, from any other Church, that useth them, as than used: whereby it doth fully acquit itself of all imputation of schism, or breach of Communion with the ancient Church; upon that score: which they that do, that rashly and furiously censure all they do not like (the right Puritanical humour:) for Popish, impious, idolatrous and the like; are guilty of: and by that means, though they do not all proceed perchance to that degree of madness, as to deny the ancient Church, to have been a true Church, therefore: yet truly, they do it great wrong; and give the Papists great advantage (which they make great use of) by making Popery to be so ancient: more ancient, by some hundred of years, than sound Protestants can, or will acknowledge it. For it is not the using, or not using of such, or such a Ceremony; (where the duty of obedience to superiors, doth not oblige the conscience) that is so considerable in itself: but rash, uncharitable censuring, and condemning of others, or separating from them for such things, which of their own nature are indifferent: which must needs proceed from great ignorance, (as we would charitably hope, of most:) or a worse cause. The Papist the refore have no reason at all to be offended; nor can take any advantage at all, of the doctrine or practice of the Church of England, in this point; which hath used such moderation, such wonderful caution, to prevent all just offence: but what they can say for themselves, for retaining so many idle, superstitious (to say no more as now used:) ceremonies, by which the consciences of men are intolerably burdened; and Religion itself the substance of it, clouded, oppressed, and very much endangered: as by many moderate Papists (by Kings and Princes among others; witness the Letters of Charles the II. 
Exemplar. litter etc. Paris 1557 & p. 204. & 212.  King of France, to the Princes of Germany:) hath been in part, if not altogether acknowledged, and complained; I know not, nor they neither, I believe, if they would deal truly, and ingenuously.  
As for those among us, who have been, or are yet guilty of such rash, and uncharitable censures, in this matter of Ceremonies; whereby they have caused, (besides the advantage given to Papists) great troubles in this Church, and are yet ready, many of them, to set all on fire again, upon this very score of Popish, Idolatrous Ceremonies: which they have ever found their readiest Incentivum to work upon ignorant or disaffected people; and therefore, as a necessary reserve to themselves, against any good occasion, are so loath to part with: I have but little to add, to what hath been said by others, and whether possible to light upon any thing, that hath not been forestalled, I make a question. But I shall adventure upon somewhat, I do not remember to have met with elsewhere: which I will commend to their consideration, whose senses, proper ends and Interest, or resolved and obstinate partiality, hath not obstructed.  
In civil worldly things, that outward visible Signs and Ceremonies have great power and influence upon men, ordinarily, to beget affection, or reverence; is acknowledged by wisest men and Politicians. Plutarch doth observe (and some have made use, I know, of the observation, but upon another occasion) that Cato, though he was a man of great integrity, in his ordinary conversation, and very incorrupt in his judgements, as a Magistrate: yet did more hurt to the Commonweal of Rome, by the contempt he brought upon the Senate, and highest Courts, by his contempt of outward apparel, and carriage, in his place: than he did good by his exemplary innocency of life, and approved uprightness, in administration of justice. I will not deny, but true Religion may suffer by too much, and affected formality: but the contempt of all Ceremonies, must be acknowledged, to be the highway to Atheism; or no Religion at all: which is the worse of the two.  
I remember I have read in Calvin, of a certain Staff, which was the Insigne or proper badge of Supreme Authority, in that Town where he lived. He calleth it sacrum baculum; a sacred staff; and saith plainly, that the people generally gave so much respect to it, that the very sight of it (when the authority of the persons did not, or could not: so I understand him:) did appease tumults, and prevent slaughters: so that the breaking of that staff, in a tumult, which at other times did use to appease tumults, was looked upon, as highest contempt, and rebellion. How should that Staff, I wonder, become so sacred, and of such authority in the eyes of the people; but as it was an outward sign (confirmed by long use and time) of power and authority? The persons, to whom the reverence was properly due, often changed; but the Staff still continuing the same, long time, and accustomance, was of that force, that it added reverence to the persons, and contributed not a little to the maintenance of that Authority, which was due unto them. If this be the nature of men, in point of Signs, and Ceremonies, civil: why should not Religious Signs and Ceremonies (used with moderation, and discretion) be a help to devotion, and a preservation to reverence, as well? We have had sad experience in our late confusions, when the very Prayers of men, first brought into contempt, by their unmannerly sitting, and other misbehaviour in the Church; were heard by many, as ordinary Ballads, in the streets; and indeed, were not better (many times;) by their affected nonsense, (though I believe, many could not help it:) and familiarity with Almighty God. Was this Reformation according to the best, or worst Reformed Churches? But we may easily guests, what was intended by the contrivers of that horrid Oath; and the contempt of God, and all holy Rites, and Ceremonies, was a visible effect of it.  
It is true, when a Rite or Ceremony, though never so good and warrantable, hath been disused in a place, or never used; it may seem strange at first; as apparel, that a man hath not been used unto, though never so comely of itself; by children, and fools, especially: (such I mean, that know little of the world, besides the place of their birth, and usual abode) is looked upon with admiration, if not derision. But wiser men, who judge of what they see, by the nature of things, and not by vulgar apprehensions; they will soon be satisfied, if their reason be satisfied. Yet some men, though wise and prudent enough, otherwise, (too much austerity, perchance, may be some cause:) have naturally such an antipathy to Ceremonies, that Nature (if they look not to it carefully) will sooner overcome their Reason; than Reason, their Nature. But there is danger in it: not only because rash censures, in this kind, may give just offence, and cause divisions amongst Brethrens: but because, by yielding too much to nature, we may condemn them sometimes unwarily, to whom we acknowledge all submission and reverence to be due; and so condemn ourselves, at the same time, though against our wills, that we condemn them. But I shall be better understood, by giving an example.  
St. Paul, 1 Cor. xv. among other arguments, by which he doth prove the Resurrection of the Dead; or rather doth reprove their inconstancy in the Faith, that denied it: one is, in these words, v. 29. What shall they do, that are baptised for the dead, if the dead rise not, why are they than baptised for the dead?  
How many ways, these words by several Expositors, and other learned men, are interpreted, and what I myself think most probable, I will not take upon me to give the Reader an account, not for the difficulty, but because it would not be much to our purpose. The most obvious, and literal Interpretation, certainly; much confirmed by the observation of a very learned Philologist, of the difference between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is, that St. Paul by these words, doth allude to the custom of some of that time, and Church; which was, if any converted to the Christian Faith, died unbaptised, to substitute another to be baptised for him, though dead. That this was done really, by divers in the Primitive times, we have the clear testimony of some ancient Fathers, and others: as Tertullian, chrysostom, Epiphanius; whom learned Justellus, in his Notes upon the Codicem Can. Eccles. Univers. doth cite. But those they speak of, the Cerinthians and Marcionists, besides that they were Heretics, were not than in being, when S. Paul wrote. And whether they were the first institutors of it, (which is possible; grounding upon those very words of St. Paul, as they understood them; as Theophylact doth intimate:) or whether they received it from some that lived when St. Paul wrote; doth not appear by those testimonies. However, as I said before; the most obvious and literal sense, that can be made of the words, is, to understand them as spoken of such a custom or practice, by some of that Church, to whom St. Paul did writ. And it doth appear▪ both by the 18th. Canon of Codex Ecclesiae Afric. and by the 83. Canon of the Council in Trullo, that it continued a custom a long time, in divers Churches, among them that were no Heretics. Those first Christians, certainly, did by it, innocently testify their Faith, and certain▪ belief▪ concerning the Resurrection of the Dead; their charity also prompting them, to use all means imaginable, though not commanded, or at all necessary, to secure them that were dead▪ St. Paul (it must be gtanted, if it were his meaning, as there is great probability:) saw no hurt in it; and therefore doth mention it, without reproof. But Calvin, a rigid man naturally, against Ceremonies, and ever suspicious of the worst, he calls it, a profanation of Baptism: a wicked heathenish superstition; a sacrilegious, and Magical abuse of Baptism: and will by no means allow, though he grant it the most rceceived interpretation, that S. Paul should be so understood. It is well, he would not have St. Paul to be a Patron of Magic. But what if Calvin's interpretation of St. Paul's words, be thought by others, forced, violent, not at all probable: and that other, which he doth so reject, as countenancing those abominations, (as he would have it:) be thought the only true, or that hath any probability and this, by Protestants of good credit, who lived in Geneva, since Calvin? Was not Diodat a man of some credit, in Geneva; and his Annotations upon the Scripture, in great esteem? Well; what saith he upon these words of St. Paul, in his third and last Editions of his Annotations; as he is expressed, (for I have not the Original Italian, at this time:) by the English Translator? Which are baptised for the dead: so St. Paul: From this manner of speech (saith he,) it appears, that the Apostle means not an ordinary Rite of the Church, but a particular custom of some Christians; of whom Antiquity makes mention: and it should seem, that the beginning thereof, was, if not altogether good, and laudable; yet, at lest, tolerable. Which was, that when any one died in the confession of Christ's Faith, before he could receive Baptism; some of his kindred or friends, etc. And again: The end of this particular Ceremony was, the profession of the expectation of the blessed Resurrection of Believers. In following Ages, this thing came to be an abuse, and superstition.  
The same Interpretation is followed by learned Hugo Grotius. And the Jews have a custom to this day, (when it began, I know not:) if a child die before he be circumcised; that is, before the eighth day; he is circumcised nevertheless, and a name given him over his grave: as Buxtorfius, and others testify. Certainly, besides profession of their Faith; there was somewhat in this custom very considerable, to keep people in the opinion of the use, and necessity (ordinarily) of Baptism: which was much better, than that horrible contempt of it (and of Christ himself, in it:) which among Precisians and Puritans; as in our late confusions, to the great damage (as to the ordinary means:) of innocent souls, and as great scandal of true Orthodox Christians, did appear unto all men; is usual and ordinary: and not of Baptism only, but of the Eucharist also: which Calvin (this contempt of it, I mean) did so much detest. Now if this were St. Paul's meaning, for which there is so much probability; and is so positively and peremptorily maintained, where Calvins name is yet in greatest credit: what shall we say, that St. Paul was much to blame, for his apparent countenancing of so heathenish, magical, an abuse and superstition; as Calvin doth censure this custom? or that Calvin was much to blame, to judge so rashly and rigidly of a custom, which if not altogether good and laudable; (to use Diodate's words) yet was tolerable: and, as a bore profession of Faith, (as than used:) and due respect unto the Sacrament of Baptism, we might say, very commendable; but it will serve, (if St. Paul were in the right:) to say, not to be excepted against.  
But for Calvin, though he was a rigid man, naturally; and especially in point of Ceremonies; and might over-shoot himself sometimes, in his censures and opinions; yet he was a godly pious man, otherwise; a man of great worth, and parts; and by what he writes of some particular Ceremonies; in some places, very moderately; but especially, of the necessity, or expediency, at lest, of a standing Liturgy; we may probably guests, had he lived in England, and been better acquainted with the true state of businesses, he would have been of another mind, in many things. But what shall we say of them, who (to pass by what they have done, when the confusions of the times gave them the opportunity; which, I wish hearty, their present carriage would suffer us altogether to forget:) are yet ready to cry out against whatsoever they allow not, (a Surplice, perchance, or the sign of the Cross in Baptism; and the like:) as Popish, Antichristian, Idolatrous; and would have the world believe, that Conscience is the cause of these out-cries: what shall we say of them? That these be the Saints; the beloved of the Lord, 
The Life of Faith; a Sermon preached by R. B. Jul 22 1660.  (as one doth style them) the apple of his eye: the people that are sure to prevail, and reign with him for ever? Doth he not mean, the only true Christians of the world? I know not what other sense to make of the words. O horror! O infatuation! O deluded people!  
Deluded? They that are so against their wills, they may be pitied. But with the Readers leave, I will for conclusion, give the world an account (I know not any now living, that can do it better) of a business which once in the days of King James of blessed memory occasioned much talk; whereby it will appear clearly, that these men, these precise anticeremonial, antiprelatical men, generally; (or many of them, at lest:) are willing to be deluded, and wilfully delude others: being persuaded, it seems (which we noted of Popish zealots, before) that no means are unlawful, whereby the cause may be advanced.  
In the year of the Lord 1624.▪ a book was set out, entitled: The original of idolatries; or, The birth of Heresies. First faithfully gathered out of sundry Greek and Latin Authors; as also out of divers learned Fathers: By that famous and learned Isaac Casaubon, and by him published in French, for the good of God's Church: And was translated in English for the benefit of this Monarchy: By ABRAHAM DARCIE. I was than a young Student in Oxford. I heard of the book, and great commendations of it, before I saw it. When I had seen it, and read some part; I know not whether more sensible of the ignorance, that possesseth ordinary men; or of the wrong that was done to my Father particularly; but troubled I was, I am sure, very much: and that which most troubled me, was the report of the acceptation the book had found at the hands, as of many others; generally; so of that blessed and learned King, particularly, whom I knew very able, as most men in the Realm, to judge of such ware. The chief end, and subject of the book, I found, was to prove, that the Mass, (a word of great extent and antiquity; which made the Authors of the Augustane Confession, subscribed by Calvin, say, Falsò accusantur Ecclesiae nostrae, quod missam aboleant: retinetur enim missa apud nos, & summâ reverentiâ celebratur.) or rather indeed the whole Liturgy; ancient and late; and every part of it; was derived from ancient Heathens, Numa Pompilius, and I know not whom: some part also taken out of the Alcoran: which to prove, his Authors, for the most part, are some late collectors of Roman Antiquities, as Blondus, Alexander ab Alexandro, and the like; who say no such thing: but from what they say of the Romans, he makes his inferences and applications, as he list himself; more like the dreams of a distempered man, than the words of a man endowed with ordinary sense and reason. Truly, I could as soon have been persuaded, that all the ballads that were sung in London, those four years my Father lived there, were of his making, as to believe he had any hand in that book: and I further believe, that himself, had he been alive, had as easily digested, to have been thought the Author of the one, as of the other. But a fierce book it is, against Ceremonies: against Superstition, and Popery: that is enough to satisfy those, who are such friends to zeal, that they stand not at all, upon truth, or knowledge; the proper character of a Puritan or a Jesuit.  
Well: though Nathaniel Butter, the Bookseller, that vented them; had told me beforehand, when he saw I did not like the business, he was sure, I should have no thanks, if I did question the book; and bid me earnestly, to consider of it: yet I was resolved, whatever came of it to do my utmost, to do the truth, and my Father right. I first addressed myself to some, to whom by their place, as I conceived, the cognisance of such things, did most properly belong, but there indeed, though otherwise, and upon other occasions, looked upon with favour enough, I had little thanks, it was far from it. After that, I had no hopes, but in the King; to whom I was well known; as my Father had been before, much more. The King was than at Theobalds', as I remember: I addressed myself to one of those Reverend Bishops, who usually waited upon the King. By whose means a letter of mine being showed unto the King; (who indeed had received the book, because it bore my Father's name, with much gracious acceptation; but had not yet had the leisure to look into it:) after he had paused a while, and as I was told, examined some places; grew into a great passion, that such a cheat was put upon him, and others. Certain it is, that some were put to it, to make their peace, whom the King apprehended accessories by their neglect, or the neglect of those, whom they trusted: and suddenly after, Nathaniel Butter, the Bookseller; and Abraham Darcy, the Translater, were committed. This Darcy was a man of a very bad life, generally; and lived, or made use, at lest (as I was told by one of the Ministers of the French Congregation, in London, who said he had been charged by their Consistory about it:) towards his living, of an employment so base, and scandalous, that the very name is base, and offensive to modest ears. Upon this, the noise was all London over, (and I suppose it went further:) that the Popish Bishops, at the Court, by their calumnies and misinformation, had set on the King against a godly book, and some godly men, by whose means it had been published. I am very sure, that liberal supplies of money were sent from some, that were very near the King, to the Translator; whilst he was in prison: who (some others having, at last, with much importunity, mitigated the King to his enlargement:) thereby instead of punishment, made a benefit of his imprisonment. Yet before this, (which is the thing I would have the Reader take good notice of) a French book, the original of the English translation; being produced; it had been found out, that an old title page, had been, by art, and cunning, transformed; the years altered, and the name of Isaac Casaubon inserted; and thus the world for mere gain and lucre, (for I do not believe, that there was any further mystery in it, at the first:) shamefully abused. Other editions, or copies of the same book, were found, and shown to the King; yea translations of it, that had been made, when my father was yet scarce born. Besides somewhat had been written and published by me, in the Latin tongue, in Vindication of my Father; which by the King's command, had been translated into French, and English: all this, whilst the business was yet fresh, and in frequent debate; or soon after.  
A man would think, there had been enough done (besides the quality of the book itself, before spoken of:) to satisfy the world; if apparent truth and visible evidences, would have done it. Yet for all this, some years after, the same book, or English translation, was again (we may guests by whose procurement) reprinted; where, I cannot tell certainly; but at Amsterdam, I guests: with this title: The Original of Popish Idolatry: or, The birth of heresies. Published under the name of Casaubon; and called in the same year, upon misinformation. But now upon better consideration, reprinted with allowance, Being a true and exact description etc. Printed— 1630. A preface also was added, in justification of the book, and first editors of it: where among others of the same stuff, these words are: that they that did suppress it, were either Papists in their hearts; or such as hold with Papists, that ignorance is the mother of devotion: that the Gospel of our Lord Jesus christ, was departing from the land, etc. and the like. And since that, a base Pamphlet came out, I know not where Printed, much to the same purpose; in the very front whereof, these goodly words are; by way of approbation: D. Causabonus, ille eruditissimus, Caeremoniarum Ethnicarum & Diabolicarum in Pontificias & Episcopales mutationem, terris demonstrare promittebat. Quod ego Casauboni promissum judico dignissimum, quod typographiae beneficio, ad manus plurium perveniat. It is but short, but all of the same strain, and spirit, as the former book, to which it doth refer.  
Evidences I know are obvious enough; and we needed not have looked back so far; (later times have afforded store;) how much those men (I speak it of the generality:) regard truth, or sincerity, when lying and juggling will advantage the cause. But because I was particularly interested, in this account, I hope the Reader will accept of it, and make good use, (my chiefest aim:) as occasion shall offer itself.  
FINIS.